POLL: IRAQI'S prefer dictatorship! Re--enslave them now!

[emprworm]

UN establishes the international law. If it doesn't, what else will? Do you really want another World War? Cause I'm pretty sure without UN as the organization that prevents conflicts and establishes guidelines we would have had one by now.

US is NOT a substitute for UN. US does NOT have the authority to decide what other countries have to do and the military action they need to take. Decisions made outside of UN that lead to military actions are in fact aggressive actions against a country and a war crime. I'd say in the extreme view of things, you could say that Bush is a war criminal.

if 2 countries consent to actions between them...WHAT BUSINESS DOES THE UN HAVE to try and stop them?  If US and IRAQ both AGREE to the actions taking place between them, then how can you say the UN has authority to say "NO?"  WHO GAVE the UN that authority?  You are imposing dogma preacher style on people.  Why do you shove down people's throats?  Why do you impose relentlessly?  Cant you just stay out of people's  business?  IRAQ doesn't WANT the UN to stop the US.  IRAQ CHOOSES for the US to be there.  SO KEEP YOUR IMPOSING NOSE OUT OF IT.  ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS>

read this nice and slow.  take it all in.

IRAQ CHOOSES THE COALITION TO BE THERE.  THEY WANT US THERE.  THIS IS BETWEEN CONSENTING NATIONS

what part of "CONSENTING NATIONS" do you not understand?

[Wolf]

Dragoon Knight, I pretty much agree with you on all counts. I feel that the fact no WMDs were found does not necessitate Bush was a liar. He may have lied, but he also may have been fooled. (I am sure all Bush critics can acknowledge that possibility). I also feel that, for Iraq, the postwar world is somewhat better than the prewar one. As evidenced by this poll; http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html . I would further like to assert that ABC news is among the more liberal mainstream media stations in the United States, and Peter Jennings (I beleive) strongly dislikes President Bush. So, that information is, more or less, legitimate in my eyes.

I agree, completely, that George W. Bush should not have invaded without a UN mandate. However, I find it wrong that it was France that demanded Bush have a UN mandate, when France, along with the rest of the Western Alliance, invaded Kosovo in 1999 without a UN mandate. I feel that France's, Germany's, and Russia's actions in this entire debacle were, while legally legitimate, done for amoral reasons. As evidenced by the discounts France received on Iraqi oil after becoming antiwar, and the Infared goggles Russia sold to Iraq on the eve of the US invasion. I have citations for both of those, if requested. Both sides, then, in this conflict, did things that were wrong. The United States defied the UN (as Saddam did many times), and France, Germany, and Russia were willing to allow Saddam Hussein to continue his misrule of the Iraqi people in exchange for their own profits. Therefore, the only way we can judge this conflict in Iraq is not from outside Iraq. It is the Iraqi people who must ultimately decide whether or not this conflict is legitimate. As France, Germany, the US, the UK, and others proved in Kosovo 1999, you do not need a UN mandate to invade a country. Therefore, US actions may have been "legitimate" if France agreed with them. This amorphous concept of legitimacy cannot be trusted to safeguard the lives of Iraqis, therefore, it is Iraqis who must decide the ultimate legitimacy of US actions.

[EWS]

I don't really have much to say on this topic that hasn't already been said, but I would like to point out that I fully supported Bush and Blair in the action taken against Iraq no matter what reason it was for.  Hussain needed to be removed from power for the benefit of the human race.

[emprworm]

I agree with Wolfwiz.

[Dragoon Knight]

The U.S. listened to the UN before, but as soon as their views didn't match the Coalition's, they chose NOT to listen anymore.  They can't just pick and choose when and when not to subscribe to the views of the democratic majority of the countries of the world.

And you have to consider the fact that it wasn't just the U.S. that was in the coalition.  The UK was as well, even though polls before and after showed that most disagreed with the war.

I thank you for at least recognising the fact that the Coaltion broke one set of laws, Emprworm.  And yes, Gunwounds - if evidence that not going to war showed that more lives would be lost than the current toll, and if that evidence could possibly exist, I would seriously consider retracting my argument... though I see no conclusive evidence of this as of yet.

[emprworm]

of course they can.

[EWS]

Rough estimates from specialists state that in 1 week of Saddams rule, about 150-500 people were killed, murdered, raped, disappeared.  Since he has been removed from power, that figure has somewaht dropped (not taking into account the losses incurred from warfare)

See this is the big problem with have "laws" of war!!  ITS BLOOMING WAR!

[Dante]

you cant reason with Dustscout, because he has no ability to reason.

[emprworm]

1- If I wasn't reasoning I wouldn't be arguing.

2- That's your opinion.

3- How do you know it was genuine belief?

4- Lying requires a knowledge of the truth and I think they DID know the truth, hense lied.

you THINK they lied.  Emotionalism.  Belief.  This is not logical, as you have provided no evidence for such.

Look at the evidence, Dust:

we KNEW he had weapons:  A) He used them.  B) We sold him some.

you talk about empirical facts?  this is empirical fact.

Therefore it seems LOGICAL to conclude that we thought he still had them.

What LOGICAL basis do you have for saying we KNEW 100% he didn't have any?  (i.e. lying)?

[Dragoon Knight]

Emprworm, you are a fanatic.  You are so narrow minded, you go beyond being humourous and right into the region of pitiable.  The sun doth not shine out of Bush's ass.  There were mistakes made by the Coalition before, during and after the war - no-one can deny that.

I am not imposing anything.  The U.S. willingly subscribed to the regulations of the UN, and as such, they were expected to adhere to them... not to just decide that the rules didn't apply to them if they weren't in their favour.  I am not saying that the UN has not made mistakes of their own... God knows that the UN is flawed, too.  But both the UN (the democratic majority) and most of the countries of the world (the public majority) thought that the war was wrong.  The Coalition also broke the law, as we have agreed - not your blessed, almighty U.S. law, but laws that the U.S. subscribed to willingly.

Make no mistakes, I am glad that Saddam is out of power, and that Iraq is free.  I have no doubt that Iraq is happy that the war took place... now that it is over.  But what would have happened if, somehow, the Coalition lost?  Would the war still have been right in your eyes, Emprworm?  No, I won't ask you to justify your answer... as Dust said, "There's just no arguing with some people."

Emprworm; your views are biased, extremist and flawed.  You have the right to your own opinion, and I would have respected it if only you hadn't started flaming people on a personal level.  I apologise for calling either you or Gunwounds an "imbecile" or "stupid", but your way of arguing brought it on yourselves.  Statements such as "Checkmate" or suchlike do nothing but provoke resentment and impose an false elitist attitude about the thread.  Gunwounds; you, too, are far too biased.  You are obviously a very patriotic American, and you would make your country proud.  But you can't argue objectively when your views are unfairly swayed one way or another.

As for myself, I have stated before: I don't care about the war.  I never even considered posting in any of the other Iraq threads before this one (check the others if you don't believe me).  It was just the sense of "elitist Americans at it again" that got me riled up.  It is for these reasons that I step out (not down) from this argument, as there is no way that you will budge even an inch.  Emprworm; it is you that is blinded.  I pity you because you cannot see that.

The replies that I'm expecting consist of "Oh Dragoon has wimped out", "He can't argue", "His Bush-hatred clouds / blinds him", "I win, so obviously", and "I don't need your pity".  Along with lots of swearing and flaming.  Well, I have not wimped out, I don't hate Bush, you DON'T win, you need SOME pity... and I can argue... it's just that you can't.

[leo]

The discussion of this topic is basically about was it right or wrong for the coalition to go into Iraq, nothing more and nothing less. In this current issue I believe it was right. Dragoon, you are going for personal flamings. Emprworm gave some evidences why was the operation necessary. I can

[Dante]

Bleh. See the coming and going thread. I don't have the time or patience for stooping so low any more...

[emprworm]

I am not imposing anything.

[Wolf]

You guys have been seriously busy in the few hours I spent elsewhere.

Dragoon; so, I've got some questions for you because I would like to continue this debate. Supposing the UN gave the US a mandate to go in and do their thing, would the war have been legitimate? Or, phrased differently, up until the issue with the UN, do you feel the war was legitimate? Lastly, why was Western Alliance action in Kosovo in 1999 legitimate without a UN mandate? *This last question is critical.*

EWS; you mentioned that you felt the US was right in going into Iraq, now, I don't know much about you, but the brevity of your post implied sarcasm. Correct me if I am wrong.

Lastly, does anyone have any problem with my assertion that the Iraqi people are the only ones who have the "juristiction" to declare US action legitimate or not?

[VigilVirus]

I personally agree with self determinism. Just let other countries solve their own problems, don't try to do anything for them - it's not your responsibility. Sort of like National Objectivism.

[Wolf]

Isn't Objectivism kind of... well... evil? Well, wait, are we talking about the same Objectivism, you know, Ayn Rand-style?

And still, I want to know why Kosovo was legitimate without a UN mandate.

[emprworm]

I personally agree with self determinism. Just let other countries solve their own problems, don't try to do anything for them - it's not your responsibility. Sort of like National Objectivism.

then why do you insist on intervening in the actions of Iraq?  Why cant you butt out?  Iraq approves.  Coalition approves.  Yet you wont leave it alone.  You still condemn against the self-determination of consenting nations.  Making your statements hypocrisy

[nemafakei]

"Quit imposing on us.  its not your business.  its not the UN's business."

World peace? The business of an international peacekeeping body? Perish the thought! That job rightly belongs to whoever has the biggest guns!

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ok... fair enuf... seems your only concerned with the ratio of lives saved.

Sooooo .... if someone could statistically show you that removing saddam from power actually has saved more lives than if we had allowed him to stay in power... would you then concede your arguement?

For example....

If someone could set an equation

with variables

[emprworm]

"Quit imposing on us.

[Wolf]

Whoa. That's actually a good point. Can world peace exist with totalitarian dictatorships?

[nemafakei]

"nice try."

Ah, the refreshing feeling of those bitter and condescending tones, that characteristic misinterpretation... perhaps I was beginning to miss them? Oh, and I'm sure we'll be told *just* how much effort has been put into requesting that the UN be more efficient and dynamic, or how much patience with which the advice of world experts such as Mr "We need more time" Blix has been adhered, since obviously the world's experts pale and shrink in comparison to the omniscience of His Majesty George W II.

(Feel free to ignore this, I'm just taking the mick. I know you will anyway, of course.)

[GUNWOUNDS]

world's experts pale and shrink in comparison to the omniscience of His Majesty George W II.

Bush has his own  "expert" weapon inspectors.... they relay information to him.... what was your point again?

[nemafakei]

Ah. Are they the ones who make sure Bush knows things Blix doesn't? (If it doesn't make sense initially, think about it)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ah. Are they the ones who make sure Bush knows things Blix doesn't? (If it doesn't make sense initially, think about it)

i get your point... but