War!

[Dante]

Why are you people dragging up long-dead people to support yourselves? They can't speak for themselves anymore and none of you have the right to do it for them so let Churchill, Lenin, Hitler and all the others lie.

[Dude_Doc]

That's right, though the Iraqi militia isn't well armed it's still protecting

its homeland.

(remember Greeks against Persia)

Because the Iraqi army is nothing compared to the US army. There will be a great fight, yes, but in the end, the US will win. The Greeks and Persians had almost the same weapons, sticks and stones and arrows. It is different now. The US has surely secret weapons, amongst EMP-bombs...

[Davidu]

The Greeks and Persians used bronze and iron swrods, lances, javelins, spears, armour, shields, arrows, powerfull navy, military tactics, ballistas, catapults, etc. not sticks and stones.

[lowzeewee]

That's right, though the Iraqi militia isn't well armed it's still protecting

its homeland.

(remember Greeks against Persia)

Because the Iraqi army is nothing compared to the US army. There will be a great fight, yes, but in the end, the US will win. The Greeks and Persians had almost the same weapons, sticks and stones and arrows. It is different now. The US has surely secret weapons, amongst EMP-bombs...

I say that they will draw as Iraq still can use their cute SCUDs[looks like me] missiles when attacked and possibly Saddam has escaped and is using his coverups to be him.

And the totally-commited Iraqi militia will try to be vulnerable as possible to USA gunfire/bombardment so that they can blame USA for civillian deaths

[Edric O]

Dude_Doc: Actually, I don't support the Soviet Union. Except in World War 2, because they were the far lesser of the two evils. It was their blood that saved Europe from Hitler, and we should be thankful for it. Not to the bastards like Stalin, but to the Russian people.

of course, you have no reason NOT to take him down do you?

Here's one: You have no right to interfere in another nation's internal affairs.

And another: Many innocent Iraqis will lose their lives because of you.

...and you know, Dust Scout is right. It was stupid of us to bring up dead people, as if we could know what they would have said or done.

[VigilVirus]

By the way, I have to agree with Edric about Vladimir Lenin. I really think he, unlike Stalin, really wanted to make things better for the people. He even is known as "The man who wanted to make things better, but didn't have enough time".

[Caid Ivik]

Maybe he just had no time to spread the terror as Stalin had.

And about EdricO's winged words...

"You have no right to interfere in another nation's internal affairs."

That is why UN was created for. To set some rules of governing. Saddam broke them and now he had to be punished. I, myself, have no right for such interference, ok, but UN has not only a right, but they HAVE TO do so. Just national will of France and Russia sinks the solving process, so USA have to use other way.

"Many innocent Iraqis will lose their lives because of you."

First, you again put the responsibility on wrong people. But your pointed persons do support it, so we should understand ourselves. But I would still tell it in other way.

Many innocent Iraqis have losed their lives because we were passive when Saddam was slaughtering them.

[Edric O]

*shakes head*

Caid, you obviously don't know a single damn thing about Lenin's Russia. Lenin was a true communist, and the people genuinely loved him. He gave land to the peasants, worked to improve the economy and rose living standards for all.

Lenin made only one mistake, which proved to be fatal: He kept the USSR as a dictatorship. He was a hard-working and benevolent ruler himself, true, but he never thought about what would happen once he was gone.

Now back on topic:

1. Indeed, the UNITED NATIONS was created for this sort of thing. But it is NOT the United Nations who want to invade Iraq! The United States have NO right whatsoever to be the "policeman of the world".

Tell me, Caid, what if one day the US decided to invade Slovakia simply because they felt like it? The UN would try to stop them, but by your logic they should ignore the UN and go ahead anyway.

2. And many more innocent Iraqis will continue to be slaughtered by the US-appointed dictator AFTER the war. There will be no difference to Saddam's rule, except that a few additional thousands will die in the war itself.

[sneezer3]

This is one of those threads were no one can convince on one of anything and it isn't even worth the effort to try.

1. Indeed, the UNITED NATIONS was created for this sort of thing. But it is NOT the United Nations who want to invade Iraq! The United States have NO right whatsoever to be the "policeman of the world".

A lot of nations sighned Resolutions agreeing that they would uphold them. The US is takeing them and runing. France don't have the guts to.

Tell me, Caid, what if one day the US decided to invade Slovakia simply because they felt like it? The UN would try to stop them, but by your logic they should ignore the UN and go ahead anyway.

If Slovakia had used gas weapons agienst there own people. Decived weapons inspecters for 12 years+ And had a history of aggresion and other countries ignored Resolutions i wouldn't blame the US.

And many more innocent Iraqis will continue to be slaughtered by the US-appointed dictator AFTER the war. There will be no difference to Saddam's rule, except that a few additional thousands will die in the war itself

Better yet leave Saddam with weapons and let him kill hundreds of Americans. ::)

[Caid Ivik]

*shakes head*

Caid, you obviously don't know a single damn thing about Lenin's Russia. Lenin was a true communist, and the people genuinely loved him. He gave land to the peasants, worked to improve the economy and rose living standards for all.

Lenin made only one mistake, which proved to be fatal: He kept the USSR as a dictatorship. He was a hard-working and benevolent ruler himself, true, but he never thought about what would happen once he was gone.

Now back on topic:

1. Indeed, the UNITED NATIONS was created for this sort of thing. But it is NOT the United Nations who want to invade Iraq! The United States have NO right whatsoever to be the "policeman of the world".

Tell me, Caid, what if one day the US decided to invade Slovakia simply because they felt like it? The UN would try to stop them, but by your logic they should ignore the UN and go ahead anyway.

2. And many more innocent Iraqis will continue to be slaughtered by the US-appointed dictator AFTER the war. There will be no difference to Saddam's rule, except that a few additional thousands will die in the war itself.

If Slovakia would be invaded because we have a bad ruler, than I would welcome it (if it wouldn't be myself ;D ). But first I will try to prevent any dictator to take the power here if I'll can. UN, however, is the police of the world. Maintaining instoppable stabile living is their primary cause and cleaning the world from dictatorships is such way.

If Karzai or Kostunica will build about twenty concentration camps for their political opponents, then I will comment your second point.

And about Lenin. Has he started the war which led to big famine in 1920? Has. So why should I call him a utopical communist when he couldn't do anything about it? Every Russian who lived then would tell you he didn't brought anything good. Also, how if he didn't even know what was in Russia then? He lived in Germany and Switzerland last years before to bOCP, so he had no idea what is in Russia going on. He saw Petersburg, but has he ever leaved it after 1918?

[Dude_Doc]

Tell me, Caid, what if one day the US decided to invade Slovakia simply because they felt like it? The UN would try to stop them, but by your logic they should ignore the UN and go ahead anyway.

The US would never invade any country without reason. If we had a dictator, I would welcome their help. Then, what if Romania was ruled by a dictator, maybe even killing your friends, neighbours, maybe even your family. All your communist dreams would be crushed, because you must sympathize with the government, else: you die. Then imagine that no one is willing to help your country, because all this does not concern them. Then the US steps in and decides to remove your dictator, giving you and the people of Romania freedom. But France, Russia and Germany is investing money in your, say, gold, so they do not want war. Of course, the US or any of its allies haven't been attacked by Romania. Now, the UN wants a reason, like weapons of MDs to be found, NOT the reason that you have a dictator that kills thousands of his own people each week. You know that an invasion can and will have innocent deaths, but isn't it worth it? Think, if your country got rid of the dictator, you still have a chance of making future generations happy, giving them the chance to rebuild and prosper, rather than letting that generation live under the dictator or his son? Wouldn't this "removal" bring your dreams of socialism closer?

[Tenzul]

The US would never invade any country without reason.

Really? :O

And what are they doing now? ;D

[emprworm]

http://msnbc.com/news/885991.asp?0sl=-43

SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq, March 16

[Anathema]

According to article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN charter, none of the member staes are allowed to use force or threaten another sovereign nation. And guess what: The US is a member state of the UN. Nothing written in resolution 1441 gives permission for militairy intervention.

If a SC nation starts doing whatever they want, isn't China allowed to attack Taiwan? (Taiwan isn't even recognised by China anyway)

[nampigai]

this could cause some problems in the future with other countries wanting to start pre-emptive wars on their own initiative.

[Edric O]

And about Lenin. Has he started the war which led to big famine in 1920? Has. So why should I call him a utopical communist when he couldn't do anything about it?

That famine was caused by the devastating effects of World War 1, Caid... and Lenin was the one who pulled Russia OUT of the war. By the time he came to power (just a little over 2 years before), it was too late to avoid the famine, but at least his measures made it less worse than it would have been otherwise.

To put things into perspective: Bill Clinton was in power 3 years longer than Lenin.

Now, as for the civil war you're talking about - tell me, when was the last time a government started a civil war? ::) Any civil war, the Russian one included (although it was more like a succession of small skirmishes, and had very little importance) is started by one or more groups who want to overthrow the government. Lenin only defended himself. What would you have wanted him to do?

Every Russian who lived then would tell you he didn't brought anything good.

So I suppose you actually asked them...? ::)

Dude_Doc:

Then, what if Romania was ruled by a dictator, maybe even killing your friends, neighbours, maybe even your family. All your communist dreams would be crushed, because you must sympathize with the government, else: you die. Then imagine that no one is willing to help your country, because all this does not concern them. Then the US steps in and decides to remove your dictator, giving you and the people of Romania freedom. But France, Russia and Germany is investing money in your, say, gold, so they do not want war. Of course, the US or any of its allies haven't been attacked by Romania. Now, the UN wants a reason, like weapons of MDs to be found, NOT the reason that you have a dictator that kills thousands of his own people each week. You know that an invasion can and will have innocent deaths, but isn't it worth it?

No, I would NOT support a unilateral US intervention even then. I would, of course, support and take part in any kind of revolution or coup d'etat that could bring down the dictator, but not a foreign invasion.

[Caid Ivik]

Lenin wasn't government when he revolted. Russia was under reign of pseudo-democratical government led by Aleksander Kerenskij, which ruled from Petersburg. Here Germans smuggled Lenin and with his fellow Trockij they overthrewn Kerenskij. Of course not whole state was in that moment loyal to Lenin. That started the war. I am amazed how he could DESTROY AS MUCH IN SUCH SHORT TIME!

[Edric O]

Learn your history, Caid.

1. Lenin overthrew Kerenskij's "democratic" (no elections had actually taken place, *cough* *cough*) government in the famous October Revolution and formed a new government, with a much more clear and practical agenda. The Revolution was almost bloodless, and the soldiers guarding Kerenskij actually opened the doors to Lenin, which shows how much they loved their *democratic* ruler...

2. AFTERWARDS, the Mensheviks revolted against Lenin's new government.

Lenin gave the people Peace, Land, and Bread. (that was his slogan, and he kept to it) Why do you hate communism so much as to twist history to make them look bad?

[DukeLeto]

2. And many more innocent Iraqis will continue to be slaughtered by the US-appointed dictator AFTER the war. There will be no difference to Saddam's rule, except that a few additional thousands will die in the war itself.

I have to disagree with you there; the slaughter of innocents in Afghanistan stopped after the Taliban was overthrown. Iraq should be no different. The US government wouldn't appoint another brutal murderer; that's defeating the point.

[Edric O]

Perhaps... I'll wait and see.

[Dante]

So will I. If I'm alive by the end of this.

By the way, I have to agree with Edric about Vladimir Lenin. I really think he, unlike Stalin, really wanted to make things better for the people. He even is known as "The man who wanted to make things better, but didn't have enough time".

Agreed.

[Dude_Doc]

No, I would NOT support a unilateral US intervention even then. I would, of course, support and take part in any kind of revolution or coup d'etat that could bring down the dictator, but not a foreign invasion.

And what if there is no revolution, no coup d'tat? What if every person is scared to death of even thinking about it? Isn't that what the Iraqi people has been doing for years now?

Really?

And what are they doing now?

Isn't "dictating, killing and torturing people" reason enough?

[Dante]

How about we mind our own buisness? It's Saddam's country after all.

[ead]

the slaughter of innocents in Afghanistan stopped after the Taliban was overthrown. Iraq should be no different.

ok, i think so too.. but afterall this means, that this war is done only because of this reason:

there is a dictator, ignoring human rights (killing opposition and so on)

and where is my problem than?

its just, why does bush want to attack iraq only, and not china for example?

in china there is a "dictatorship" as well (i.e. people are killed because of their political view) ..

so why not attack china?

btw - they have weapons of mass destruction as well ::)

[Edric O]

And what if there is no revolution, no coup d'tat? What if every person is scared to death of even thinking about it?

Then sooner or later, the dictator would die of natural causes, and the opportunity for a more or less violent change of regime would arise.

Unless he's the God-Emperor Leto II, in which case I would approve US intervention. ;D