1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

What right does the US have to go to war with Iraq?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by DaDakota, Jan 22, 2003.

Tags:
  1. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    What right do we have to go to war with Iraq?!?!?!?

    "He tried to kill my Daddy!"

    ---pResident George W. Bush at a John Cornyn fundraiser in Hosuton, two days before the midterm election.

    Anything else you want to know?
     
  2. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    It won't do the Iraqis any good?

    Even with he pain felt by the war, Afghanis appear to feel that the war was a good thing for them. I don't have hard number on that, though.

    Many people have suffered greatly when fighting for their own freedom. How many would have suffered much less if an outside force had provided assistance to overcome their tyrants?

    I imagine the people who are presently beign tortured in Iraq would like the war to start yesterday.

    The UN inspectors 'haven't found anything', but should they have? In 1995, the UN was aware of 29,000 liters of chemical weapons, 300 biological warheads, and that Saddam had spent $8 billion developing a nuke. Not only have they not found 'anything' of much significance, but there are no references to these issues in Iraq documents. Hmmm.

    The embargo has surely failed from a human rights and thus PR perspective. Next time, I guess the world will just have to go to war right away instead of letting a dictator let his people starve while he amasses billions in personal wealth; apparently the more humane approach of embargo over war is no longer a viable option.
     
  3. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    128,940
    Likes Received:
    39,385
    The point I am trying to make is that I have not seen the so called Threat outlined in order to go to war.

    It seems we are warring just to protect our economy, and not because we are threatened.

    Economic sanctions are proving ineffective. They used to work because the people would rise up and overthrow the dictator...but that was before the dictator had tons of guns and weapons.

    That strategy is ineffectual in today's world.

    Do I think Saddam is a bad guy, you betcha !

    However, when we start pushing our views on the rest of the world and they don't want it...that makes us a bully, and no one likes a bully.

    DaDakota
     
  4. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    DaDa,

    Do you read the threads that you start?
     
  5. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,985
    Likes Received:
    36,838
    I would recommend against it. ;)
     
  6. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    128,940
    Likes Received:
    39,385
    Cohen,

    I have read it, I still am not convinced that all out WAR is the right answer.

    The US of A is treading on very thin ice morally, we have always had the moral high ground, but this is different.

    The threat of another nation having nuclear arms? Who are we to tell other nations what they can and can not have?

    I mean no one tells us that we can't have nuclear weapons and goes to war with us over it.

    I just think that our bully mentality is going to lead us into very deep waters.

    Iraq could be another Vietnam.

    DD
     
  7. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Wasn't it the UN that told an aggressor nation (Iraq) what they couldn't have, and Iraq that agreed to those terms under the cease fire?
     
  8. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    128,940
    Likes Received:
    39,385
    Yes Cohen it was...and so following YOUR logic, shouldn't the argument be with the UN?

    It is the UN's ceasefire agreement, not the USA's.

    DD
     
  9. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
     
  10. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    1) GIVEN: Iraq is not to have WMD

    Seems like we're now agreed on that. Next...

    2) Do they still have them?

    It is well documented by the UN that they had copious quantities that are unaccounted for

    3) Hypothetically (of course), what to do if the UN does not support its own mandates?

    We will be the ones who will pay the penalty in the future if the UN does not act in a timely fashion . We are the one's who are asked to clean up the messes. Now, if the rest of the world wanted to take care of the Bosnias (a good example of damaging indecision), or Hitlers (another good example, albeit much older), then fine. Don't involve us. But that's not the reality.

    Granted, Iraq is somewhat different since there is a potential threat to US directly (arguable, fine) and a threat to the world economy (which would impact everyone)

    IMO, the discussion on timing is appropriate, i.e. whether Bush should wait or not, but don't act like we're in the same situation as every other country.
     
  11. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    (I'll try again....)


    :D
     

Share This Page