Read This!! Why Iraq War Is Wrong.

[A_Wanderer]

Israel negotiating with Arafat is suicidal. The ME is going ahead properly and once the IAF wipes out Irans nuclear ambitions all will be well.

 

[The Disciple]

Your telling us (in hindsight) why Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We all know it was based on bad intelligence. The same intelligence which was shared by the rest of the free world. Your not telling me why I should vote for Kerry/Edwards. Because one person was wrong doesn't mean another person is right. This is especially true when that other person is on the record saying they would have done the same thing given the intelligence of the day.

Amen. I'm also tired of this mentality that if you vote for Bush U're an idiot, what are we in, Kindergarten? Can't we respectfully agree to disagree anymore?

 

[BVS]

I don't and it was one of my arguments that for the United States this was posisitve because it created a front in a frontless war.

I agree, Dread you and I may disagree on certain things, but one thing that we do agree on is that this war was a frontless war. From what you are saying it sounds like you think it's good that we created a front(if I'm wrong I apologise) but I can't disagree more. This just makes the movement stronger. We gave them a common goal, a common ground. Now we have different terrorist groups that never got along before that are working together.

NONE OF THIS WAS THOUGHT OUT!!! I'M NOT A MILITARY STRATEGIST BUT HELL THIS IS SOMETHING AN ELEMENTARY STUDENT CAN FIGURE OUT.

 

[U2girl]

Are you suggesting that Hamas represents "acceptable" terror? Is there any justification for Saddam's support of Hamas?

If sadam's support of Hamas was done in the open, do you even ponder what was being done by Saddam in the shadows???

I never said I support human bombs, whoever uses them.
Is there any justification for the civilian casualties among Palestinians? (surely average Palestinians just like averge Israelis just want to live in peace? Radicals on both sides excluded, of course)
It's the one-sided view that doesn't get anyone anywere...

However I can ackowledge the legitimate goal/wish of Palestine/Chechnia/N.Ireland for an independent state (as opposed to Al Qaeda and the likes who feed off simply on hate for the West). Some of the means they use, of course, aren't helping.

We may never know what was done in the shadows, we do know the argument for war was flawed.

Dreadsox: I don't hate the US. Most people on this board are Americans and for most of the time, everyone gets along. I do, however, have a problem with current administration. Let's not equate "I don't approve of US administration policy" with "I hate America".
(re-read my post - I never talked about when US started mentioning Iraq supporting Palestine suicide bombers, but again, this was not US's case for war)
Most of the world didn't self-appoint themselves as the beacon of democracy. (doesn't the US president even use the title "leader of the free world"?)

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is very simple, violence against Israelis isn't terrorism because they deserve it - that is the view presented to the world by the Europeans and UN and that is widely accepted. They repeat the myth of the cycle of violence to justify their hypocracy and will point out to the lone nut Israeli who wants to exterminate Palestinians to justify the widespread sentiment of driving the Jews into the sea among Palestinians or the Palestinian child killed in an urban combat situation to justify Suicide Homocide Bombings.

The cause for war was that Saddam Hussein had not verifiably disarmed his banned weapons, verifiably disarmed - that is the key term here. He may well have disarmed his weapons but he maintained the fascade of retaining them to protect Iraq from Iran, he just happened to to it so well that the world believed he had WMD. If the inspectors had completed their inspections and found nothing then the sanctions would have been lifted and the regime would then have reactivated the WMD program, this was the intention of the regime and it would certainly be driven by Irans accelerating nuclear ambitions. Millitary intervention was the right choice, it guaranteed that Saddam would never pose a threat to anybody again and eliminated the nightmare scenario of Iraq giving WMD to terrorist groups.

 

[U2girl]

It is very simple, violence against Israelis isn't terrorism because they deserve it - that is the view presented to the world by the Europeans and UN and that is widely accepted. They repeat the myth of the cycle of violence to justify their hypocracy and will point out to the lone nut Israeli who wants to exterminate Palestinians to justify the widespread sentiment of driving the Jews into the sea among Palestinians or the Palestinian child killed in an urban combat situation to justify Suicide Homocide Bombings.

The cause for war was that Saddam Hussein had not verifiably disarmed his banned weapons, verifiably disarmed - that is the key term here. He may well have disarmed his weapons but he maintained the fascade of retaining them to protect Iraq from Iran, he just happened to to it so well that the world believed he had WMD. If the inspectors had completed their inspections and found nothing then the sanctions would have been lifted and the regime would then have reactivated the WMD program, this was the intention of the regime and it would certainly be driven by Irans accelerating nuclear ambitions. Millitary intervention was the right choice, it guaranteed that Saddam would never pose a threat to anybody again and eliminated the nightmare scenario of Iraq giving WMD to terrorist groups.

I've never heard or read any EU or UN authority say Israel deserves terrorism. No resolutions are even passed because of US veto.

The cycle is very much repeated by radical Israelis (that the Arabs want to push the Jews in the sea) and the radical Palestinians (that Israel wants to destroy Palestine) themselves.

I have a hard time believing Saddam would bluff he had WMD's - simply because he had nothing to gain by doing so.

 

[A_Wanderer]

His power was what he had to cling to, without the potential threat of WMD he could have been attacked by Iran. That is what the final report on the WMD concludes and it makes the most sense, I suggest that everybody here goes out and read the report, if you want to understand it it is much better to read it yourself than listen to some news brief.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Oh and the Driving the Jews into the sea is the stated goal of Hamas and has been mentioned numerous times by the PA. The international community approves of Palestinian terrorism by the disproportionate ammount of aid and reciognition that the Palestinians recieve when compared to groups that dont inflict terror on an innocent civilian populus. In fact the groups that U2Girl mentions (IRA, Palestinians and Chechens) are all groups that resort to terrorism, this is proof of why terrorism is so effective - it attracts attention and sympathy to a cause because logically only the most desperate of people would resort to killing civilians. You do not think of Tibet or Kurdistan because they have not had anywhere near as much success with terrorism. The EU and UN are terror enabling organizations in the "even handedness" they use when following a terror attack by blaming the victim - usually with the cycle of violence mantra (a point of view that is often innapropriate, usually used by nations with no experience fighting terrorism). Until Israel has the right to exist in the eyes of the PA and the Arab world and the propaganda is stopped (the PA routinely uses the blood libel and killer of prophet label against the Jews while Israeli education system upholds even handedness and educates to create coexistence) there will be no end to violence, if a Palestinian state was established tomorrow Hamas would continue and they would still recieve support, that is the byproduct of 30 years of excusing and appeasing terrorists by the international community. Terrorism is a scourge on this planet and the only way it will be reduced is if it is condemned by all parties and not encouraged by silence or reward.

 

[U2girl]

Iraq authorities from the start said they do not posess WMD's, even before the UN inspectors came in and even after that.
The fact that no WMD's were found suggests the western intelligence agencies either had false information and didn't know it or had false information but chose to ignore it/did not present the evidence against the existence of WMD's. It's a huge loss in credibility.

Hamas's suicide bombers is one side of that organisation; I don't know if you heard they also provide various kind of aid to Palestine civilians which is why they're fairly popular. Perhaps the groups that resort to extreme acts are tired of years and decades of negotiations that didn't bring them anywhere. Tibet and Kurdistan are different because there people don't use those tactics. (and like Israel, China is virtually untouchable on the matter of Tibet) The bigger/stronger party always has advantage; think how much media coverage a bomb by Palestine/Chechen/IRA gets, and how little any retaliation of the other party gets - or even how little coverage of years and decades of what caused the violence get.

I'm not sure there's even a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem as too much bloodshed happened. Maybe with different leaders and less "you could only feel your own pain" attitude both sides seem to have.

 

[Dreadsox]

I agree, Dread you and I may disagree on certain things, but one thing that we do agree on is that this war was a frontless war. From what you are saying it sounds like you think it's good that we created a front(if I'm wrong I apologise) but I can't disagree more. This just makes the movement stronger. We gave them a common goal, a common ground. Now we have different terrorist groups that never got along before that are working together.

NONE OF THIS WAS THOUGHT OUT!!! I'M NOT A MILITARY STRATEGIST BUT HELL THIS IS SOMETHING AN ELEMENTARY STUDENT CAN FIGURE OUT.

No you heard me correct. One of the reasons I was in favor of the war was it created a front. Instead of attacking American Civilians here, they are attacking there.

AS for making them stronger, I believed it was worth it based on the fact that I believed with all my heart there were WMD. I believed it was worth the risk. We all know where that belief has left me.

 

[speedracer]

Classical utilitarianism actually has nothing to do with emotion. Utilitarianism came out of Britain during the Enlightenment, formed largely by the political thinkers and philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Both Bentham and Mill, despite some differences between them, both believed that the calculus behind ethical decisions should be based on seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both Mill and Bentham, if you ever take the time to actually read their work, were incredibly rigorous and logical philosophers whose work is still studied and argued today. I don't think that Democrats or Republicans have franchise on logical or illogical decisions, on utilitarianism or contractarianism (Rousseau, "social contract," if this means anything to anyone). While utilitarianism is sometimes associated with liberalism, classical liberalism has little do with the Democratic Party as we know it today (just as classical conservatism has little do with today's Republicans). Utilitarianism can be just as well used to justify decisions made by conservatives as liberals.

I was a philosophy major in college, so you can't b.s. philosophy in this forum.

Meh. The devil is in the details. (I.e., how much weight do you give to individual rights vs. improving the general welfare of the people.)

 

[deep]

No you heard me correct. One of the reasons I was in favor of the war was it created a front. Instead of attacking American Civilians here, they are attacking there.

I wonder how this sounds to people who homes have beem blown up?

I wonder how this sounds to parents burying their loved ones because WE created a FRONT in thier front yard, back yard, churches and other public places where it did not exist before?

 

[deep]

Israel negotiating with Arafat is suicidal.

ok,

and Sharron is homicidal.

 

[Dreadsox]

I wonder how this sounds to people who homes have beem blown up?

I wonder how this sounds to parents burying their loved ones because WE created a FRONT in thier front yard, back yard, churches and other public places where it did not exist before?

War is hell......

And yes, I think it is better than having terrorists attacking us here and lest you forget war has been declared upon us long before 9/11.

Please, feel free to paint in me in a horrible light if you like by focusing in on ONE of many reasons I have presented over the past few years.

If you read my entire post, instead of one part, then maybe you would see I had other reasons. But, you must have had some kind of chrystal ball that Hillary, Kerry, President Clinton, and others on the Democratic side did not have when they voted to give the President the authority to go to war.

This is one of the reasons I do not very often respond to you Deep, because you take such tremendous pleasure in standing on your holier than thou soapbox. How is the view up there?

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.[/Q]

John Edwards is a smart man.