Hello people, I'm getting pretty tired of watching Tyranno-Vision (aka CNN) and never getting the chance to meet some thought-out opposition to the war with Iraq. Here is my chance to debate and meet other anti-war believers. First off, I am a Canadian against the war... if this fact alone already makes you angry and uncapable to hold an objective view of things, then leave know, you are not yet mature enough to talk about politics on this thread. I would like to start this debate by invoking the Collin Powel arguments. At the UN security council, M. Powel was trying to establish himself as a serious statesmen when presenting us circumstantial evidence concerning Iraq's government. I say circumstancial for they were all immediately shot down by the Iraqi representative: -Phone calls can come from anywhere and cannot be verified -Pictures are highly interpretable and show no cause and effect links that Iraq is actually hidding WMD's. -All chemicals in Iraq are useless and corrupted -Rocket silos are abandonned -Potential nuclear rocket componants use is not unilateral In addition, a distinguished professor at Cambridge publicaly anounced that the entirety of Powel's presentation was an integral copy of a thesis that one of his students had submitted to him 12 years ago! It even had the same punctuation and grammar mistakes from the original research. Even the american magazine Newsweek faced the music last week by giving a summary of all of Powel's arguments and concluded that none definately proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq was purposefully : 1- Hiding WMD and 2- Not cooperating with the U.N. inspectors. Conclusion: Powel's demonstrations were inconclusive at best and only managed to temporarily fuelled the war machine to go into overdrive. Now discussions concerning M. Powel arguments have suddenly vanished from public debate arena.. any sane person knows it isn't worth much anymore. ------- I ain't done yet. In law school, lawyers are thought that: "When you can't make your case with compelleing evidence(smoking gun), you have to make it with circumstantial evidence.(probabilities)" Having already lost all of their circumstancial evidence within two weeks of the 1st security counsel meeting, the Republican governement has resorted to another form of debate... one that isn't even usable in courts of law: stereotyping the opposition and indulging in ethnic trashing. That's right folks, when the government can't prove their initial arguments that Iraq possess's dangerous armaments the clean way, they resort to bashing the opposition purely on a cultural basis. If you haven't watched the news lately, I'm referring to the fact that pro-war organisers are purposefully creating a diversion when trying to attack the reputation of France. All you need to ask yourself to make this diversion clear to yourself is: ''How is putting a boycott on French products and calling them bad names will eventually prove that Iraq is a potential threat to the U.S.?'... That's right: none. This just proves my point: No proof of weapons and can't justify the war? = Attack those that oppose the war whoever they are on any grounds Sorry to let it out this way, but the U.S. government is suffering from: post-soreloserism. m.v. Latin (sore-loser-ism) It particularly affects people that have : -No cultural knowledge of the outside world -Have a tendency towards narcissism -Insist that they are right even when they are wrong -Consider themselves the only ones qualified to denounce who is part of the 'axis of evil' and who is not. "If you are not with us, you are against us" Aww... Dear King George, declaring war to all that oppose his will, how monarch-full of him. ------------------------------------------------- Some education for you influencial types: It really gets me p.o'ed when I hear the following statements that I am sure some hill-billies and wall-street creeps share: 1-"Some ally, we saved France during WW2" 2-"Chirac's a freak for going against eastern europe" 3-"We are the true democracy and must save Iraw from its dictator" Let's educate... open wide, this may hurt. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! First of all, the U.S didn't 'save' France. It just so happenned that France was between Hitler and the U.S. Today people talk like if the U.S. personnaly gave a crap about other european countries. Sorry to blow your bubble, but they didn't. It took almost 3 years before the U.S. joined in the conflict. Why? 1-Pearl Harbor. Until the problem hit home, it was not a concern. 2-The U.S. was too busy selling weapons and materials to both sides. 3- The British were begging for the last couple of years for help and made it financially viable to interveen. Why did the U.S. join? 1-Russia would soon create a second front and weaken the germans. 2-Europe's tired war machine would be a push-over 3-Pretending to save the world looks good and will generate billions in revenues. How would war generate billions? Well, if you read your high-school history books from right to left, you will have noticed that the two most prosperous years of the 20th century were non-coincidentaly after the two world wars. Why is this? Weren't we all brainwashed that war cost a lot of money?! The fact of the matter is that war creates money in the following domains: weapons, Research and Development for almost all technologies (health, vehicles, energy, housing, nutrition...). But there is one domain that really guarantee's a lot of money. It is the selling of materials and leasing of machinery that will allow to reconstruct all of the war torn countries. The U.S lended *billions* to all of the western part of europe. The interests they made off those countries explains how they managed to be so prosperous after both world wars. (If you can't use slaves.. use banks! is the moral of this story) So knowing that politics is, has been and always will be lead by money and vested interests, could we please let go of the 'we saved europe' discourse? Why do you want to look like someone that didn't pass his 5th high-school year? Must we insist on looking stupid? Secondly, why would France be suddenly for the rest of its existence in debt towards a country that theoretically saved it? Why should it keep its mouth shut when Bush is acting like a dyslexic-alcoholic tyrant? Americans that pretend to think by saying that France is ungreatful, need to think more about the fact that an event that happened 60 years ago won't give you reason today. Such absurdities just shows that people are being distracted to hate on a cultural basis, rather than on a politically founded one. Let go of the past and join the contemporary age. 2- Why did Chirac go against the smaller east european countries? Chirac got p.o.'ed (just like me) when he heard about Bush trying to rally as much support for his cause with some ex-soviet, almost ruined and with no military eastern-europe countries that were all but forgotten by the western world. The dialog between Bush and those no-name countries is very simple: -Do you agree with my cause? (war) -Yes... but I will need substancial monies to grow a military force and back my economy to absorb the costs. -Consider it done. So nowadays we have the priviledge to see on CNN the following dichotomy: Those for us: England Australia + 5 more names of eastern europe that I haven't bothered to memorize due to their insignificance on the political world. Those against: France Germany Belgium It seems that Bush can't get the big contries in with him... so he's now buying off nowhere eastern-european countries that don't have any weight in the U.N. or that will manage to muster up any real military support in the war. Again, I ask: where is he going with this? Just like I asked when diverting our attention towards bashing France. I praise Chirac for pointing out this travesty of politics to the world. But we can all thank the lord Bush isn't even good at cheating. 3- We are a true democracy and need to free Iraq. M. Bush said the following concerning the peace marches: "What a great country we live in to allow public opinion to be known (yeah, half the world walked out last week-end not just americans) I however, respectfully disagree" What is he really saying? He is explaining that no march will deter him from war and that he will still 'respectfully' bomb Iraq. When a president isn't moved nor interested in the voice of his people, there is no democracy. Before going to war, England and the U.S. should vote on it. Polls already show that both counrtries do not have the support of the majority if they chose to go against U.N. legislation and rules. They won't do any vote because they know they will lose, the best they can hope for is a blitzkrieg (fastwar) and that before the people gets a chance to really show their voice, it will already be over. The only problem with such a clostrophobic point of view is that this republican theory assumes that once Saddam is removed, no opposition will be sent. They are assuming that the entirety of the middle-east won't strike back and that the terrorist cells will magically bite the bullet and stay quite. War with Iraq is not the end, it's a beginning folks. The beginning of the 'pre-emptive strikes' era, where monopolic countries will wage wars without international scrutiny. In such a world terrorism will counter terrorism. If you are a true democrat, you should not shun the French, German and Belgium 'interference'. You should see it as democracy at work... 3 words that are unfortunately foreign to most republicans. Finally, It is pure B.S. for any american to hide behind the pretext that military intervention... (sounds too nice)... war (there you go) is justified because the free world needs to free Iraq from its dictator. I don't know where to start with this travesty of an argument, but here goes: -If it ever was a question of freedom, it would have been delt with the first time around. -Why Iraq? Why not hunt for the head of any closer south-american or african dictator? Oh, that's right, there isn't any oil over there. How silly of me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -If the U.S. is suddenly concerned with human rights, it could just arrest the presidents of the following companies: Wal-Mart, Nike, Addidas, Coke etc... the world would be forever changed and no one would have to die by machine gun fire or missiles. How sweet is that? Conclusion: To say that the objective is to free the irakian people is as academically retarded as saying that the U.S. saved Europe from Nazi Germany to win a popularity contest or saying that the Civil war was fought to free the slaves. It is best to think and know before talking.. not the other way around. If you don't have the opportunity or time to learn just remember that in politics, all you have to do is ------- FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!! $$$$CHA-CHING$$$$ Well, if your are still reading this, you're either a democrat or a republican ressurection of Gandhi. So please share your intelligent thoughts with me. Endnote: War defeats the very values it proclaims to defend. There is no good or evil in war. There are only those that are dead and those that are left. Let the U.N. do its job, give them a little muscle and all will be fine. Prisme P.S. To all the idiots that think that a valid argument would be in the lines of: "We should have invaded you guys long ago", "We saved their butts in WW2" and the likes... please to do not bother to boast of your stupidity here, leave it where it grows so well, that is, in your heads.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ahh. Nice post. But this little statement makes it all seem so easy. What should be done and how should we do it? What should the long term goal for Iraq be? The UN runs the risk of becoming irrelavant. Action must be taken to ensure either a. iraq complies with the UN charter or b. iraq is punished for non-compliancy. If war is not a viable alternative, another workable option with a detailed plan of action is necessary. I do not think war is a good option at this time....but how long do we give inspections? What else do we do? Would there ever be a point where war is necessary? These are some questions I have...
I'm a pro-war New Yorker, and all of this terrorism stuff has come very close to me. I saw the smoke from the WTC and all I can say is I would give anything to get to those terrorists and beat the crap out of them and all those who give them refuge. War is the only choice now. We've tried negotiating and searching and they still haven't fessed up. So screw them, let's go to war!
New York, WTC, terrorism... What the hell has this got to do with Iraq? Iraq was not involved in any of that. Moderator Edit – no need to insult
Solution Captain, Did the Bush administration give you a clear plan to invading Irak and then pulling out? No. It just sounds so simple. He lives in a world where invaded countries don't hold grudges and don't strap bombs to there bodies to kill the invaders. War is the last resort for it will most likely trigger a domino effect of antagonism between the west and middle-east... already it stinks and it will only make it worse. In addition, there is no reason yet to believe that Iraq has WMD. So waiting shouldn't be a great concern as of now. I heard that on Oprah CNN correspondants reported that military generals were worried about starting the war after the month of march because of the increadible desert heat. She said: -They are worried about the wheather??? They should be worried about going to war! Goes to show that some people are activily wanting a war, not a resolution of conflict. On the other hand, the U.N. is persuing its activities and uncovering more of the same evidence: no threat. I fail to see how more complicated investigating is to compared to waging war with more than half of the world's adult population. Note: Included all that oppose the war: Russia, China, France, Belgium, Germany... and Canada truly neutral/against which is by default politically coerced to follow the U.S. for economic reasons.
Agreed. Yep. This is precisely why attacking iraq is such a bad idea right now. Not really the point. Iraq must comply with the UN resolution or the UN is effectively pointless. To comply, iraq must provide proof they destroyed weapons they owned in the past. I am not sure if you understood what I was asking. I agree with you about the war. But if you are going to criticize something you must provide a detailed alternative. I am hoping you have one in mind. Is it further time for investigations? If so, when do investigations complete? What does iraq need to do to have complied with the resolution? Do you think the resolution itself is faulty?
Reply I like you captain. you are even further down the chain of events that most people are. All I was previously trying to say was to the war bent individuals was that war is a last resort for the x and y reasons. You didn't need convincing, you already thought about those facts and made your own conclusions. Unfortunately I am not the man that can objectively give conclusive answers concerning the modalities that a proprer U.N. investigation should rely on. All I know is that moral convictions will give us the answers. As of today there seems to be two moral approaches: 1- We are the good, we must overpower evil 2- We are human beings and as such we must go towards a common goal that can be agreed upon and enforced. My main goal is to attack the first attitude since my moral approach lies in the second. When you see the world in the second view, details about formalities such a due dates and D-Day dates are not the priority. Priority rather becomes the search for a peacefull coalition of men that can support each other towards a common goal. As of now, Bush with his "your with us or against us" policy has made sure that such a priority will never come to life. He has even furthermore rejected past alliances for the sake of his political goals and gurantee's that the state of the world is uneasier for us all. Prisme
"United"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Nations" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Security"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Council"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! HA! Oxymorons like "Military Intelligence"
Prisme: Are your refering to the British Intelligence-authored report that plagiarized "Iraqs Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis," by Ibrahim al-Marashi? If so, you have your, ahem, "facts" confused. Powell had nothing to do with that report presented by Britain, and his own presention was not a verbatum rip-off of al-Marashi's work.
Could this be why the Germans are against the war? Germany sold eight mobile laboratories to Iraq in the 1980s, reports the German-language New Zurich Newspaper. According to a story in the Swiss paper yesterday, Iraq received the facilities for the purpose of producing biological and chemical weapons. Development expert Hans Branscheidt claims he personally saw the vehicles in action on several occasions in 1988, reports the paper. more here. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31103
Mr G. I think Prisme was exagerrating only slightly when referring to this dossier, the scandal here, and the plagiarized original here. Powell had no other "facts".
all this is great but.. i can sum up the whole issue in just a few words: Iraq has not posed a threat to our country. whether they possess WMD or not, they aren't doing anything that any other country isn't doing already. going to war is just an excuse to invade Iraq for political and economic reasons. maybe even religious reasons that the U.S. isn't ready to accept, but it's evident that with the bulk of U.N., U.S., and U.K. politicians being part of the same 3 or 4 religious fraternaties, there is passion behind this war.
What? But I just finished wrapping my house in Duct Tape! I paid over $12k in taxes for cruise missiles!
I paid over $12k in taxes for cruise missiles! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep watching the TV,You will see a big firework displayPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Man what are you complaining about $12000 in tax how much did you keep?? Perhaps you could donate .002% to Dave for the Sciforums. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nonsense! Maybe it is because they have more then two brian cells. They respect human more then usa. They use common sense over emotions and they don't buy cheap propagandaPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! usa has sold more weapons and chemical and bio agents to iraq then any other country in the world. you should know it better.
If true, than he must not have finished paying for the stuff 'cause here comes the repo-man. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You make some valid points, but I do question a few of your thoughts. <i>First of all, the U.S didn't 'save' France. It just so happenned that France was between Hitler and the U.S. Today people talk like if the U.S. personnaly gave a crap about other european countries. Sorry to blow your bubble, but they didn't.</i> Doesn't really matter whether they had the French people's interests at heart. The US, with British, and some French, allies, pushed the Germans out of France, liberating the French as a result. I'm not sure how you can refute that, but if you can offer evidence to the contrary then I'd be interested. <i>It took almost 3 years before the U.S. joined in the conflict. Why?</i> Because the US had a policy of isolation after WWI. They wanted to avoid becoming involved in another European war. It goes back to George Washington's "avoid entangling alliances" farewell address. And Roosevelt had campaigned that he would not lead the US into that war. <i>1-Pearl Harbor. Until the problem hit home, it was not a concern.</i> Not really true. FDR wanted very badly to enter the war after the Battle of Britain in 1940 and he had supporters. He did everything he could to provoke Hitler. But the isolationist movement was strong in the US in the late 30s. <i>The U.S. was too busy selling weapons and materials to both sides.</i> A link here to back that claim is definitely necessary because there is nothing in historical records to suggest the US was selling 'weapons and materials' to the Axis powers. The first of three neutrality acts had been passed in 1935 banning the sell of arms to any belligerent nation, although after the war in Europe broke out he got a revised act passed to sell arms to the Allies. <i>The British were begging for the last couple of years for help and made it financially viable to interveen.</i> The US had already pulled itself out of the serious Depression after it enacted Lend/Lease and then Cash and Carry had cranked up US factories. It is true that the longer the war continued the longer trade would be disrupted, but again, the US didn't enter the war for that specific reason. <i>Russia would soon create a second front and weaken the germans.</i> Up until June 1941 the Soviets and the Germans had a non-aggression pact after August 1939. France didn't fall until the summer of 1940 and the Battle of Britain followed after that. At that time the US had no idea that the Soviet-German pact would be broken. And even then, the US couldn't know that the Soviets would be a viable force until the fall of Stalingrad in the winter of 1942. <i>Europe's tired war machine would be a push-over</i> I'm assuming that you mean the German war machine. For the response to this refer to the paragraph above. Again, the US couldn't have even considered that Germany would have been worn out, even at the time the US finally entered the war. On 7 December 1941 the Germans were 30 miles from Moscow and laying seige to Leningrad and Stalingrad. And the US didn't declare war on Germany. Hitler foolishly declared war on the US after pearl Harbor. <i>Pretending to save the world looks good and will generate billions in revenues. How would war generate billions? Well, if you read your high-school history books from, you will have noticed that the two most prosperous years of the 20th century were non-coincidentaly after the two world wars.</i> Are you saying the US conned the Japanese into conducting a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor with the intent of 'pretending to save the world' so it could line its pockets with 'billions in revenue'? <i>It is the selling of materials and leasing of machinery that will allow to reconstruct all of the war torn countries. The U.S lended *billions* to all of the western part of europe. The interests they made off those countries explains how they managed to be so prosperous after both world wars. (If you can't use slaves.. use banks! is the moral of this story)</i> The US did lend the European nations $9 billion, but by 1947 it was obvious that people were still starving and the industries were not being refitted. The Marshall Plan contributed over $13 billion to Europe, almost $12 billion of which was in grants, with about $1.5 billion being loans. Sure, it benefitted the US economy because the Europeans bought much of its materials from the US, and the US prospered after Europe did recover, but the bottom line was that the Marshall Plan did mean the recovery of Europe. And another point, the US had canceled the huge loan debts that France and England had occured during WWI after they said they couldn't pay. http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#expenditures <i>Chirac got p.o.'ed (just like me) when he heard about Bush trying to rally as much support for his cause with some ex-soviet, almost ruined and with no military eastern-europe countries that were all but forgotten by the western world.</i> Chirac threatened not to ratify those eastern European nations EU memberships. Which do you think they prefer? Having their upcoming membership threatened or receiving money for their support? Besides, do you think maybe they support Bush because they have memories of being under the thumb of a totalitarian state? It is possible. <i>There is no good or evil in war. There are only those that are dead and those that are left.</i> Explain please?
To Odin Well I doubt that this cute theory is nothing more right now than hype. When it will backed by more momentum, maybe I'll consider it. In order to be true, the Germans would have had to invent a mobile labotory in the 1980's that is deemed today by many scientists as impossible to use without being extremely visible by satelite radars: -Waste management -Increadible risks of having bio-chemical materials on the move -The size of such trucks would be enormous. -Their constant movements in and out of factories would without a doubt trigger suspiscion However, with all of CIA's manpower, the U.S. hasn't managed to photograph, capture or even show that such trucks exists. Hey man, one scientist can only suggest, it takes a lot more than one sold-out scientist to prove something. I know the Germans make great cars, but to the point of being decades before their time in the 80's? I doubt it more than I support it. I'm not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. I don't understand how selling labotories in the 80's and not wanting war in 2003 have a direct link. Especially since the U.S. fought Saddam with U.S. made weapons that were sold by their own governement. Prisme
Prisme: Now I think you have me confused with odin. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, you did there for a little while. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
