Iraq Yes or No

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

grifferz

(1) In my opinion, your distinction between war and terrorism is spurious.

If a rich nation attacks a poor nation with planes and tanks, that’s war. If the poor nation hits back with the meagre weapons at its disposal, that’s terrorism.

That – and only that – is the difference between war and terrorism.

(2) For two reasons, I am not as sanguine as you are about the outcome of a military operation against Iraq.

(A) The stated purpose of this action is to depose Saddam. That means abandoning the safety of aerial bombing for door-to-door fighting all over the country; and

(B) Most of the world opposes this action. Ergo, TV cameras will be in Iraq to record the carnage of destroyed hospitals, schools, mosques, nursing homes, etc. Incantations of “collateral damage” won’t cut it. It is likely that the US and the UK are dancing on the edges of a PR nightmare.

(3) If our aim is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, why don’t we attack China?

22

Sorry for the accident of the double post.

23

Al-queda attacked with planes. :confused:

Terrorism can be considered a war tactic in a way. The definition of war and terrorism is somewhat broad. :unamused:

24

cba1067950

(1) You point out that terrorists “attacked with planes.”

Yeah, ours. Were it not for the loss of life, the WTC disaster would have been funny. The US spends $300 billion a year on defense, and maniacs take out the WTC with hijacked airliners.

At the time, Bush was talking about “Star Wars.” Perhaps he thought a missile would have knocked a box cutter out of the hand of a terrorist.

(2) You write, “The definition of war and terrorism is somewhat broad.”

You’re right. In recent press releases, Russia talks about “Chechnyan terrorists.” China is doing the same with the “terrorists” of Taiwan.

I suppose if Bush has the right to launch a “preemptive strike” against Iraq, then India has the right to do the same thing with Pakistan.

25

Look at your emotive language. “kill kill kill”. Is anyone really doing that? Most Americans don’t want to go to war without UN backing either. That’s the same as what most UK people think, and the same as what most European people think. My sole complaint is that I see a whole lot of people slagging off the entire American nation, and you are doing it some more. “kill kill kill”. Would you like to be branded as bloodthirsty based on no evidence at all?

Face it: you are being racist!

This is a whole other conversation. I was objecting to Iain’s point of view that America was responsible for all the world’s ills by means of capitalism.

Oh come on! That’s a domestic matter for the US. It’s their problem whether their election was handled correctly or not. I don’t even care! If you want to bang on about it, do me a favour and start a new topic. It’s not like they had soldiers on the streets stopping people from voting one way or another.

I’m not going to continue responding if this is the level of debate that is to be found here. “Americans are arrogant warmongers because I have watched saving private ryan 4 times” !?

Grow up. The matter would not be up for debate if that were the case. Is this your point? That America is a nation of terrorists?

Once again, the purpose of war is not to kill civilians. The purpose of terrorism is, because that is what invokes the most terror.

It is because you have this chip on your shoulder that you are racist towards americans.

You aren’t at all worried about being caught in an explosion just because you happen to be British or American or whatever? You aren’t worried about an aggressive expansionist country who Britain has been at war with recently deciding to use some weapons of terror and mass destruction on us? Because those are things I worry about, not being “enslaved”. What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that modern western democracies don’t need armed forces?

I said “Gulf War”. i.e. the first one.

And I still think that there will eventually be UN-backed military action in Iraq again, but that it will be after a lot more discussion. Which is fine with me. I’d prefer if there wasn’t war at all, ever, but that’s not very realistic.

What “assumptions” have I made that you disagree with? All I said was that statements without evidence to back them up are not helpful and in many cases are offensive and racist, as in the case where people say “americans are arrogant” “americans are terrorists” “americans don’t care what the rest of the world thinks” “americans think they are better than us”.

I mean, listen to yourselves! It is clear that someone has a problem, and it isn’t America. Try to get over it.

26

The definition of terrorism is perpetrating acts of terror to coerce societies or governments. Whilst some forms of war certainly could fall into that category, it should be clear to most that the type of war I was discussing does not.

Modern democratic nations and organisations like the UN exhaustively debate every action. It is discussed in the world’s press. Bulletin boards like this one exist everywhere.

Are you really suggesting that somewhere there is an ilovetaliban.com where they have a phpbb for people to debate about whether they should fly planes into buildings this week?

If not then I do not see how you can call my distinction spurious.

I am not sure why you are holding up the open nature of the reporting of these activities as a problem. It’s exactly the the kind of thing that to me sets apart a “peacekeeping operation” from terrorism.

China isn’t threatening the rest of the world.

27

(3) If our aim is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, why don’t we attack China?

China are not about to use these weapons against the US and enemies, Iraq will.

Some have asked why Iraq should be attacked because they own weapons of mass destruction when the US also has weapons of mass destruction. What is the probability that the US will USE those weapons of mass destruction against its enemies? What is the probability that Iraq will? Perhaps some of you find it easy to open your mouths because you don’t live in a target area (I live in the Silicon Valley, California).

Think about it for a while. If the leader of your nation and a few others (yes blair is involved and pro-war) came out and said that there IS evidence that Iraq has these weapons of mass destruction or will have nuclear weapons soon, and that there IS evidence that they have PLANS to use them against your country and your hometown or city, what would YOU do ?

I am not pro war. But if the leaders of the US and UK nations believe beyond a doubt that they will be attacked with weapons of mass destruction, is it wrong that they prevent such an attack ? This is a defense, not an offense.

Iain>>>In supporting Tony Blair, i think we have made a grave mistake.
He appears to only be interested in carrying favour with the current US administration, which as i will explain, is already dangerously arrogant.

The US is your ally. Blair has seen evidence that Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction with planned intent to use them against the US and enemies. He is trying to defend your country. Is this wrong?

Iain>>> The so called, War On Terrorism, is nothing more than an excuse to hit out at those that oppose the US capitalist regime. Imposing your views upon others is fundamentally wrong, everyone should be entitled to his own view, whether it conflicts with every other view that anyone has ever had or not.

Flying civilian jumbo jets into the world trade center are exaggerated examples of an ‘opinion’ I think.

Iain>>> Yes, those that perpetrated these terrorist atacks should be punished. For no reason should it entail the “acceptable” loss of civilian life, conveniently termed “Collateral Damage”. What a cold term for what is basically an atrocity equal to the loss of life incurred by every terorrist action that has been committed.

It is not about punishment. Do none of you understand this? The war on terrorism and the war in Iraq are to prevent further loss of life. If America did nothing, attacks would continue. If America does nothing in regards to Iraq (and Bush/Blair are correct in their evidence), then attacks (biological and nuclear) will occur.

Iain>>> I have been accused of being Anti-American, and likened to Osama Bin Laden, simpy for excercising views that differ from the “socially accepted norm” in the US. If America stands for oppression of belief, extreme capitalism, and hypocrisy, then yes, I must be Anti American.
Is America not supposed to be the land of the free?

Capitalism is a free economy :slight_smile: The rest is obvious nonsense and stereotyping. As far as hypocrisy goes, who is the one being racist ? I don’t see any Americans spouting off Anti-British propoganda. How many wars have the british been involved with in the last 100 years? What about Hong Kong?

Iain>>>> In a similar way, why should killing, say, 3000 Iraqi civilians matter to us western folks? Oil flows, our prices are down, we are happy.
What about the families and friends of the people that we have killed? Do they feel the warm glow of capitalism? All they know, and all they have been taught to know, is that the West will exploit them. Are they wrong?

Who said anything about killing 3000 Iraqi civilians??!?!?! I’m so confused about this comment I won’t even reply. That and grifferz already gave a great reply.

Iain>>>> As far as I know, summary execution is not part of any western judical system. Innocent, until proven guilty, and the countless civilians killed in failed air raids against strategic targets, cannot possibly be guilty of any crimes, far less any crimes that would warrant execution under western judicial systems. I shall take this opportunity to point out that the US is the only “ciivilised” nation to still exercise the death penalty. - Even then, convicts wait on death row for years. Do we extend the same courtesy to your “eastern enemies”?

The US does NOT excercise the death penalty. Certain US states (not even a majority) excercise the death penalty. I won’t mention this has absolutely nothing to do with the war on terrorism or Iraq.

BluTGI>>> I mostly agree and im american. The fact is that the facts are not clearly defined. Americans and others know only what media says.

Where is that? Kentucky? Where I live everyone knows all of the facts. The opinion is spread down the middle. We are certainly not all pro-war. In fact I’m quite certain if we took a poll here on whether we should go to war or not, the war would never happen. Iain has no idea what he’s talking about when he -stereotypes- the US.

I’m quite Ill of the kiddy “Americans want to slaughter Iraq! STUPID AMERICANS” viewpoint. We (yes here in America) have the EXACT same viewpoints as you do in Europe and the UK. How dare anyone assume otherwise? – It all stems from racism.

-Erik

28

grifferz

(1) You write, “The definition of terrorism is perpetrating acts of terror to coerce societies or governments.”

That is a precisely what Bush proposes to do to Iraq.

Aren’t you tired of seeing the US roll over impoverished third-world nations?

Since World War II, the US has fought Korea, Vietnam, rebels in the Dominican Republic, Libya, Granada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Serbia and Afghanistan.

In 1996, Secretary of State Madeliene Albright admitted to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that the US-led embargo of Iraq had killed 500,000 children.

Is that terrorism?

According to UNICEF, the embargo kills 4,500 children a month from shortages of food and medicine.

Is that terrorism?

(2) You write, “I am not sure why you are holding up the open nature of the reporting of these activities as a problem.”

When the international press descends upon a demolished hospital in Baghdad, you’ll find out real quick.

(3) You write, “China isn’t threatening the rest of the world.”

According to the rest of the world, neither is Iraq.

29

You seem to have completely disregarded the text that followed where I pointed out exactly how the type of war that Bush proposes differs from terrorism. Until you can learn to read and respond to points without removing all of the context and reiterating what you have already said, there’s nothing to “debate”.

And most other member nations of the UN have done similar. Some of what you mentioned above was even UN (not US) initiated.

Only a simpleton would call a trade embargo terrorism. Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should force the US to trade with whoever?

Or is your point now that all rich nations of the world should share their wealth with poorer ones ands if they don’t it’s terrorism, which gives the poorer nations the right to use terrorism back??

A trade embargo is not terrorism.

Nice and emotive again. What point are you making here? I asked why a free press is bad, you tell me because it might show me atrocities? Am I to assume that you would like atrocities to go unreported? I can’t begin to work out why a free press makes America a bad nation, which was the viewpoint I was arguing against.

I must be watching a different BBC News 24 and CNN to you then. But at least you can be glad that should it be generally accepted that Iraq poses no threat to any other country, I’ll be 100% against military action there.

Are we forgetting that the reason they got it the first time was because they took military control of another country!? It certainly bears close inspection this time around.

You obviously think I’m pro-war, but I’m not at all. I’d rather there was no war there. If it turns out that Iraq is no threat then I absolutely oppose it. But I am sick to death of the continual attacks on the US govt. and the UK govt. (to a much lesser degree) simply for discussing it.

One country invades another taking complete control of it and seeking to own it totally, and starts using chemical and biological weapons on its own population and you sit by. A terrorist organisation flies two planes into the WTC and you sit by. Some people discuss military action with the rest of the UN and you’re equating the two?

30

grifferz

(1) I am glad you are not a warmonger. That would be sadistic and pathological.

(2) You write, “I must be watching a different BBC News 24 and CNN to you…”

Right now, 70% of the US population opposes attacking Iraq in the absence of UN approval. The figure is roughly the same for the UK.

Apart from Israel, everybody – everybody in the world – opposes war with Iraq.

(3) You write, “One country invades another taking complete control of it and seeking to own it totally…”

Does that include Europeans who invaded the Americas and slaughtered millions of their indigenous inhabitants?

(4) You continue, “…and starts using chemical and biological weapons on its own population and you sit by.”

During the 80s, the US and Europe sold Iraq chemical and biological weapons for use in its war against Iran. Indeed, in 1988, the US supplied Iraq with satellite intelligence for aiming a chemical attack.

Poisoning Iranians is praiseworthy, but poisoning Kurds is not because of geography.

My, my, how you split moral hairs.

(5) You write, “A terrorist organisation flies two planes into the WTC and you sit by.”

What does Iraq have to do with the WTC?

(6) You conclude, “Some people DISCUSS (your emphasis) military action with the rest of the UN and you’re equating the two?”

Are you saying that Bush and Blair talk war just to blow the air around?

31

Grifferz have you ever considered that this war may not go to plan? e.g. american imperialism may triumph like it did in:-
Korea (what a great job was done there)
Somailia (wow, even better)
Kosovo (how many dead refugees?)
Afghanistan (wedding party, what wedding party?)
Iraq (whoops, there goes yet another hospital)
Vietnam (do dead children count only when we mean to kill them?)

accept it, this war has nothing to do with “weapons of mass destruction”. money is the reason for it. and where is this wealth of evidence that is suspossed to have proved beyound doubt that Sadam has all these weapons? a few grainy photos of “missile pads” and “chemical factories”, thats as much evidence as was given attacking Afghanistan, and what has that achieved, not much. surely by far the best approach is too make sure that you don’t sell them arms in the first place?

as for terrorism, so coercing the Iraqi government into letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq by threatening to invade and kill their leader isn’t terrorism?

32

Ok, this is quite simple. Why does nobody want to fire nuclear weapons at, lets say, Ireland, or maybe Swizerland? I hope that this point speaks for itself.

We must look at the underlying problems. People dont hate Ameica for no reason. You should not be asking how to stop Iraq from attacking its enemies, but how to stop Iraq from wanting to attack its enemies. People overlook the reason behind actions. Why did Afghanistans fly into the WTC? Most peole did not know of the problems in Afghanistan previous to this occurance but now they do. The reasons that so many Middle eastern countries dislike America are high in number but one of the most important ones is that they see america as being the controlling country behind the World Bank, which, to a certain extent it is. The World bank gave massive loans to countries in need of assistance. This money was ill-used by the governments and the cost of it was pushed onto the average citizen in the form of taxes, thus pushing the country further into poverty.

A mistake. By the World Bank. So the problem should not be solved by an ongoing war full of revenge but by the opposite. Make the world like the rest of the world and nobody will want to kill anyone. An idealistic view perhaps, but this should be the undermining objective of foreign policy.

America has weapons of mass destruction and is not in the least bit willing to get rid of them. They are a threat to their enemies just as much as their enemies are a threat to them. Americas weapons are for their protection from terrorists and the iraqis weapons are for their protection against the Americans. Protection which is clearly justified folowing recent events.

In summary the UN representative from Iraq summed it up perfectly. It is a war motivated by revenge, personal ambitions, security for Isreal and oil.

Beside all this, economically speaking, the attack of Iraq is the most stupid idea in along time.

33

Damn me… I forgot all about this arguement and have fallen behind. Forgive me for the length of my post.

No I’m being sarcastic. I didn’t go saying everyone wants to bathe in a puddle of blood. Nor did I say that I wanted to. What I meant to imply was that Bush’s policy with dealing with iraq is stupid. All evidence points to him wanting to go to war. Now I don’t know the guy personally but he seems kind of obsessed about this whole war thing. If you are familiar with the onion you may enjoy that.

theonion.com/onion383…sking.html

By the way most americans don’t care. What polls fail to ask is why they have made whatever decision they have made. Most americans aren’t politicians for a reason. “They don’t want to go to war.” Well they aren’t… so what exactly do they care? They aren’t worried about the after math of their decision to go to war they are worried about getting hit by a nuke that isn’t built yet. Besides two weeks ago they thought bush didn’t have enough evidence to go after iraq. But now after a few speeches everything makes sense.

Well america did make al-qaida. I’m not exactly sure why they created saddam but I’m pretty confident that I can trace it back to money.

Yea well… maybe I will.

Ha… that was a joke. But honestly war is cool and hip. As well as death and violence. Well that is until someone gets shot in the head then war is not cool nor hip. And all of the sudden you can’t dance to the beats of war. Hmm :frowning: Low rider was a great song.

No my point is that your definition of terrorist and terrorism isn’t totally correct in this situation. It has nothing to do with following a mob. Well unless it inflicts terror on someone.

Yea but I think I’d be pretty scared if I knew someone was going to drop thousands of bombs around my country. Are you suggesting that there is no pschological factor to war? Do you think that it isn’t possible to start a rebellion in the country by scaring enough people into believing that if they don’t kill their dictator they could die?

No I’m not racist. I just don’t trust their decision making.

I’m not worried yet about iraq. I’m not yet worried about a nuke that won’t be able to hit me for 5 years. I’m more worried about going to war for a stupid reason. I’m saying we don’t need armed forces for this reason. Not yet anyway.

Even so last time we weren’t in it to kill the guy with the key to toxic weapons.

I was just saying you make it seem like no one else can make intelligent decisions besides yourself. But that’s a stretch and I’m going to sound like a dick for saying that. American’s are arrogant and I’d assume all other people are but I haven’t been out of america. American’s being terrorists is argueable but a different arguement. Americans don’t care what everyone else thinks. I figured you would get the impression from our decision to go to war without iraq no matter what other countries say. A lot of people are just giving in to repetition and just agreeing because the issue doesn’t matter enough to people (my opinion though). They do think they are better than the rest of the world though to an extent but who doesn’t?

How soon is soon?

You are aware that this war on iraq could potentionally increase the amount of terrorists. Loss of life is not going to stop by starting a controversial war.

I’m not sure if this is true or not but I heard cases where they send people to the states that do excercise the death penalty specifically so they would be executed.

Not everywhere is your area. With location opinions change as you have demonstrated by stating that kentucky doesn’t get all the information needed to make an educated decision on a political matter.

Not every american is you and your friends either. Or you and the people you’ve talked to. People always associate with people that are similar to themselves. I wonder how diverse your sources are. A slight majority have similar viewpoints to europeans. I think you are giving more credit to your opinion that should be. I’d suggest speaking for yourself but I’d eat those words in a second.

Again another arguement in itself but think about it. If you were poor and dying wouldn’t you hold a grudge against rich people that refused to help you out? I’m not expecting an answer for this one. Make another post if you want an arguement on it.

But the press isn’t really free. They have to compete with other companys for viewers. There should really only be one news company that should cover all views and opinions but that’s not possible. Instead you have to look for opposing statistics and facts.
[quote"anonomous and lovin it
"]
America has weapons of mass destruction and is not in the least bit willing to get rid of them. They are a threat to their enemies just as much as their enemies are a threat to them. Americas weapons are for their protection from terrorists and the iraqis weapons are for their protection against the Americans. Protection which is clearly justified folowing recent events.
[/quote]

America would probably use them if they didn’t have other forms of attack. Say the attack on iraq (rhymes) doesn’t go well. Would the president then be able to use more deadly means of killing saddam?

34

Thought this might bring some laughs…

35

Ouch!

The hammer should say, “Made in the USA.”

The rocket should say, “Made in the USSR.”

36

Cruelty to camels. Invade iraq!

37

Me again,
Is this meant as a comment, rhetorical question, normal question or what?

America would probably use them if they didn’t have other forms of attack. Say the attack on iraq (rhymes) doesn’t go well. Would the president then be able to use more deadly means of killing saddam?
[/quote]

Oh yeah, cool cartoon! Back to the original question. From your current standpoint, and I fully realise that people are still able to change their opinion as the debate continues, but what we really need to understand is whether you would or would not attack Iraq and why?

38

To give this discussion some context, here is a link to a condensation of an article written by Murray Waas and published in the Village Voice on January 22, 1991:

http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/013091.html

The thrust of this piece is that, publicly and privately, President Bush (the original), Secretary of State James Baker, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait in 1990.

Intentionally or otherwise, the Bush Administration gave a go-ahead to the attack.

39

Well I see no way for america to change and yet stay the same. We can not be ulitmately safe, and we can not be fully free. and any comprimise will be faulty since it comprimises on saftey.

Choosing to pre-emptive attack would have been the best solution. I dont see why this has been discussed so fuggin openly. This should have been discussed by only the representatives of all parties(except Iraq) involved and then done or not done. Pre-emptive would have destroyed iraq’s ability to return fire with deadly weapons.

Personally I think civility and war should not walk hand in hand. While i admire codes of honor and civility we should not follow them in war. they only make the pain and the death worse and drag it out. America could have the Iraqie boarder locked down in a set amount of time, this amount of time would be small enough that Iraq wouldnt know what was going on. Then proccede to walk in and kill every soldier and every weapon. Leave the civilians only rocks to use as weapons. the whole invasion should be complete by the time they have the chance to pass gas, let alone pass deadly gas. That is the only way you will have a safe victory.

But the problem is those in the know are still debating over if it is worth it or not. if there has been this much debate then the argument is not strong enough and we should coil back up and prepare to strike later. Anything america does now after such a long debate would result in higher death toll on both sides.

But It is my view on the debate that we should spend more time in stregnthing borders and watching the imports of stock, goods, people. after america is secure from the outside begin to worry about the inside.
But aslong as a mexican citizen can cross a river and enter the american country We will have a threat from the outside. The chinese are already making deals supposedly with mexico to send in goods that normally would have been shown as illegal.

But america worries more about ecenomics than defense/offense we leave that up to a group who’s budget is cut more than meat at a butcher.

40

I’m going to assume that I didn’t make myself clear enough and just try to explain again…

Say america didn’t have the power to launch a large scale invasion but still didn’t trust Iraq with nukes. I wonder if the president of america would then consider using nukes as their weapon of choice.