I think i have a good argument...

[Qdeathstar]

The Iraq war was just, and it’s not bad at all.

Look, despite the beheadings, and despite the suicide bombings, in 4 of Iraqis 97 counties, 93 counties are secured and in peace (Info from Prime Minister of Iraq). That means that 93 counties are waiting for the vote, expecting the vote, and steadily moving toward a more democratic state.

No one EVER said that it was going to be a breeze. The administration thought it would go better, but they still knew it was going to be a struggle. They knew that it was going to be an unpopular for them both at home and abroad as the poles had shown that. Still the knew, that the war in Iraq would flock terrorists THERE to Iraq so that instead of having to fight for them where ever they may and may not be we decide to fight them in a space where we knew where they would be at, By starting the war, we brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. You can’t deny that. Now that they are there, in one confined space, regardless of how hard the struggle may currently be, having them all in one place will ultimately make it easy for us to kick them off the face of the earth. And that’s what we want. We want to fight terrorist in a place of OUR choosing not in our house, not in our country, and no where they want us to fight where they have the strategic advantage. I can’t believe anyone can’t see the advantage of bringing the fight TO Iraq, rather then trying to chase them.

In addition, a free Iraq will be a launching pad to spread freedom elsewhere in the Middle East. Once people are free, violence stops. You cant name a place where this WASNT the case, therefore it cant be doubted that democracy in the middle east ultimately brings freedom to the middle ease and that in turn ultimately brings PEACE to the middle east.

[Sunday8pm]

I read the topic line and knew you were LYING.

I Didn't even have to read past the first sentence to confirm it.

**** off an die.

[Structural Integrity]

I agree on:
- Tactical advantage of bringing the fight to iraq. If it was indeed the plan to lure the large terrorist groups to fight in an open war then kudos. Smart tactical move. But I remain sceptical if this is the case.


I disagree on:
- Socalled "freedom" for Iraqi people. Western freedom is not freedom. The freedom to choose between 3 brands of coke is not the kind of freedom that the word means. I also disagree on democracy being the best form of government so I'd rather have seen Hussein being replaced with a benevolent dictator, just for kicks.

- The motivation and preamble (word?) for fighting in Iraq. The US totally ignored treaties and commissions invading a country on the other side of the earth for false reasons. This can not be forgiven and I believe that the US SHOULD be sanctioned for this. However, it being the greatest military and economical power at this moment it is not realistic.


I want to leave this in the middle:
- Iraqi people are not better off with current state of affairs than under Hussein. Not at this moment. Hussein brought stability to his country and provided a sort of basic infrastructure. Stability that is not present at this moment. It might get better in the future though.

[Dace]

You should rename yourself Qfagpost

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

(Info from Prime Minister of Iraq).

Who is, naturally, an impartial source in such matters.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

That means that 93 counties are waiting for the vote, expecting the vote, and steadily moving toward a more democratic state.

But this entirely misses the point. Elections will not, despite the bluster of George and friends, take place if there are areas of Iraq in essential turmoil, such as Falluja, which is the present situation.

If you have an election whereby you essentially exclude areas that are already seriously disaffected with the present state of affairs, then those areas will simply be inflamed further. It would actually be a propoganda coup for the militants in those areas, for self-evident reasons.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

having them all in one place will ultimately make it easy for us to kick them off the face of the earth.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the point where every single Al-Qaeda sympathiser in the world packed their bags and took flight to Falluja and Baghdad, thus totally destroying Al-Qaeda's global network.

Do the words 'Madrid and Istanbul bombings' mean anything to you?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

In addition, a free Iraq will be a launching pad to spread freedom elsewhere in the Middle East.

Not really. One of the most worthwhile things to come out of the Iraq adventure is the implied threat that it has created in the minds of many other dictatorships with have had dalliances with WMD's, however, many of these are outside of the Middle East proper. (North Korea, Iran, etc.)

Most of the Middle Eastern regimes (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) do not have anything nearing proper WMD capabilities or aspire to such capability. Equally, and just as importantly, they are not a threat to their nighbours.

What will spread democracy to these states is intelligent use of the diplomatic arts in carrot and stick fashion, not the situation in Iraq. If anything, the Iraq situation is probably damaging to the cause of democracy in the Middle East, as it reflects a picture of instability and violence as a partner with liberalisation. This is hardly going to do much to endear the idea to other states.

Oh, and if George wants to bring true peace to the Middle East, then he should perhaps concentrate on problems such as Israel-Palestine rather than creating new ones through the sort of dilletantism of Iraq.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Once people are free, violence stops. You cant name a place where this WASNT the case,

Yes I can. Three off the top of my head, actually.

Russia/Caucasus, post-1990.
The Balkans, post-1990.
Germany (And much of Europe.) after WW1.

etc.

To say that somehow once people have the right to vote, they suddenly put down their guns is criminally simplistic and retarded. In fact, as the above examples demonstrate, to some degree, a society can actually become more violent after a liberation, or through the prospect of it.

And indeed, it depends on your definition of 'free'. If an individual doesn't consider themselves to be free under the new Iraqi regime, (As many evidently don't.) then they will not support it.

[Leshy]

Since when is Al Qaeda located in Iraq?

[Sunday8pm]

Since Blair obviously said it was the axis of Global Terrorism so everyone thinks we were right to invade iraq.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Since when is Al Qaeda located in Iraq?

It seems that a few from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia who were bored sitting at home decided to venture into Iraq as there was fisticuffs with westerners to be had.

The guy who currently holds Ken Bigley is Al Qaeda, for example.

I think it's advantageous that Al Qaeda has poured some resources into Iraq rather than elsewhere, as at least some of them are in a recognised warzone. That doesn't mean we should be complacent though, because as MM pointed out, AQ are a global network.

I don't see any problem with a chapo such as Saddam being removed, I'd guess most Iraqis are glad to see the back of him - the main problem is that our leaders made a really crap case for doing it, and on top of that they executed whatever plan they concocted in a really shit manner.

[Marilyn Manson]

Oh, and I object to the original post being called an "argument", since it's patently just the unsubstantiated rhetoric of George parroted into one post.

[Ninja_spammer]

This thread makes me laugh and cry in equal measures.


Please at least have the courage to admit that you have the power to alter other nations goverment/ideology through force of arms to better suit your own needs rather than try and dress it up as liberation and democracy, I could at least respect that

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by RTL News

Professor: Al Qaeda no longer exists
The terror ntetwork Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, no longer exists, according to Gent professor Coolsaet in his book "The myth of Al Qaeda".

Pressure
According to Coolsaet, Bin Laden is too busy evading American efforts to capture him. Due to the military actions in Afghanistan, there is no longer a centrally led terror network, which additionally has been thinned out after the September 11 attacks.

Bush
The hype surrounding Al Qaeda is kept alive through the fear in the West for the islamic world, and 'doom prophets' such as the American president Bush, whom uses the war on terror as the main argument is his re-election campaign. But according to the Belgian, the islamic terror in Europe is not by any means a grave threat.

No control
Coolsaet states that on the basis of worldwide research into terrorist networks, that attacks made after September 11th, have been organised and executed by local or regional terror groups. They often called upon the name of Al Qaeda to increase publicity for their actions, but there is no actual control or support by any Al Qaeda leaders.

Attacks
Additionally, he points out that the amount of terrorist strikse since 1977 has not increased, but has in fact decreased. The amount of casualties has increased slightly, with a visible peak at 11 september 2001 (around 3000 casualties). Most terrorist actions are not aimed against the Western world, but against the islamic world itself, where most casualties are also to be noted.

Causes
Terrorism is caused by the exclusion of population groups, according to Coolsaet. He reckons the western world should fully accept them and offer them a chance. Otherwise, they will create ghetto's in which small extremist groups can sow their message of hate and violence, and recruit youngsters for their 'Holy Battle'.

Also, Ken Bigsley is supposed to be held by the so-called Tawhid wa Jihad group, not by Al Qaeda itself.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

In addition, a free Iraq will be a launching pad to spread freedom elsewhere in the Middle East.

What sort of freedom rockets will be launched from this pad?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Jester

What sort of freedom rockets will be launched from this pad?

probably militia groups going after undesired administrations

they have plenty in Iraq, so hence iraq is the best place to start the spread for freedom!

[Qdeathstar]

Yes I can. Three off the top of my head, actually.

Russia/Caucasus, post-1990.
The Balkans, post-1990.
Germany (And much of Europe.) after WW1.

etc.

To say that somehow once people have the right to vote, they suddenly put down their guns is criminally simplistic and retarded. In fact, as the above examples demonstrate, to some degree, a society can actually become more violent after a liberation, or through the prospect of it.

]

Right, so germany is still violent? I didnt say that as soon as people vote the violence will stop. I said that freedom will BRING peace, ultimately.

What sort of freedom rockets will be launched from this pad?

Propaganda, and the fact that people will see how Iraq becomes more wealthy

our leaders made a really crap case for doing it, and on top of that they executed whatever plan they concocted in a really shit manner.

I agree with that, but i would add that no one would have supported the war in the REAL reasons were given, and i think the war was justified, and therefore i dont really care that the front of WMD's was used. There were FAR better reasons, such as the ones menchiond above.

Since when is Al Qaeda located in Iraq?

Since the war started, and since Bin Laden called on "his fellow muslims to attack the infidels and crusaders"

I'm sorry, I must have missed the point where every single Al-Qaeda sympathiser in the world packed their bags and took flight to Falluja and Baghdad, thus totally destroying Al-Qaeda's global network

Ok, the all didnt move, but we arnt seen attacks on OUR counrty anymore, they are too busy fighitng over there, and that, as far as im concerned, is a GOOD thing.

And thee for four cities being insecure will not delay the election, and EDIT: its 4 out of 15 PROVIENCES that are unsecure.

The US totally ignored treaties and commissions invading a country on the other side of the earth for false reasons.

Not really, under UN charter, Iraq was supposed to allow inspectors in to allow confirmation of destruction of WMD's. THey stoped doing it. UN resolution 1441 made it clear that inspectors would need to get back in, or serious consequences would occur. Saddam let ispecters in, but didnt give the the access they need .. a couple months later Bush asked the UN to enforce its rules, when the UN faltered, bush decided it was time to act, and it was. He had right under the 13 previous resoluctions that applied to Iraq.

[Dace]

Are you trolling?

I think "yes".

Ya big dobber.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Since the war started, and since Bin Laden called on "his fellow muslims to attack the infidels and crusaders"

Oh, ok. For a moment there, I thought you said something unfounded.

You might like to know that Al Qaeda is located in the Netherlands too, as I'm pretty sure there's some muslims living in the apartment blocks behind my house.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

]

Right, so germany is still violent? I didnt say that as soon as people vote the violence will stop. I said that freedom will BRING peace, ultimately.

look, there are more terrorists and people who hate the us in iraq today than ever before. you do know that the us-army completlys lost control oer central iraq, dont you?

Propaganda, and the fact that people will see how Iraq becomes more wealthy

yes, sure. no electricity, no water supply, no oil, no nothing, if that means wealthy i guess most people can live without it.

I agree with that, but i would add that no one would have supported the war in the REAL reasons were given, and i think the war was justified, and therefore i dont really care that the front of WMD's was used. There were FAR better reasons, such as the ones menchiond above.

like what?

Since the war started, and since Bin Laden called on "his fellow muslims to attack the infidels and crusaders"

yes, and since that war started bin laden has twice as many vulanteers to choose from. he will retake afganistan (since noone seems to give a damn about that country) and get iraq as a bonus. great plan.

Ok, the all didnt move, but we arnt seen attacks on OUR counrty anymore, they are too busy fighitng over there, and that, as far as im concerned, is a GOOD thing.

and after they are finished theyll be stronger than ever.

And thee for four cities being insecure will not delay the election, and EDIT: its 4 out of 15 PROVIENCES that are unsecure.

if a province is 'unsecure' (read: completly out of control) we just dont let people vote there. after the election confirmed our puppet goverment the iraq will automatically turn into a 'free and democratic' country.

Not really, under UN charter, Iraq was supposed to allow inspectors in to allow confirmation of destruction of WMD's. THey stoped doing it. UN resolution 1441 made it clear that inspectors would need to get back in, or serious consequences would occur. Saddam let ispecters in, but didnt give the the access they need .. a couple months later Bush asked the UN to enforce its rules, when the UN faltered, bush decided it was time to act, and it was. He had right under the 13 previous resoluctions that applied to Iraq.

he wanted a new resolution and didnt get it, therfore the whole war was just as illegal as saddam invading kuwait.

[wu_trax]

oh, and just because i didnt get any reaction whatsover last time i posted this ill just post it again :

Originally Posted by some guy

If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?

President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

source

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Right, so germany is still violent?

You said "Once people are free, violence stops". I gave you instances when this was not the case, thus defeating your argument; Germans were 'free' after WW1, yet violence and political instability plagued Germany during the whole course Weimar.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I said that freedom will BRING peace, ultimately.

No you didn't. If you meant this, then you should have phrased what you did say better.

In any case, it's a stupidly bland statement. Of course peace will eventually come to Iraq. However, if this takes twenty-five years to achieve, it's slightly different than if it is achieved in six months.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

but we arnt seen attacks on OUR counrty anymore,

Unless you can directly prove (Or at least successfully argue.) that this is because of terrorists being drawn to Iraq in preference to targets in the mainland United States, your argument here is non-existant; the two facts may simply be coincidental.

Even if it was true, it would still be a shitty argument in favour of military action. Regardless of the inherent silliness of the thing, Americans are still being killed. I don't see what difference it makes if this is taking place in New York or Falluja.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I agree with that, but i would add that no one would have supported the war in the REAL reasons were given, and i think the war was justified, and therefore i dont really care that the front of WMD's was used. There were FAR better reasons, such as the ones menchiond above.

So you don't actually care about your political leadership lying (You seem to imply they lied, or at least, decieved.) to the nation and the world, in order to start a war based on an argument which, if it had been used, would have been rejected by the nation and Congress? Essentially, you are in favour of grossly immoral statecraft?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And thee for four cities being insecure will not delay the election,

Where's the argument?

Nobody knows!

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Saddam let ispecters in, but didnt give the the access they need

Not according to the inspectors themselves. In fact, disarmament was proceeding well, according to them. However, this did not suit Mr Bush's intentions, and he decided that Iraq had to be given seven days to totally disarm itself, or face military consequences, which was, of course, impossible; Mr Blix himself said that the process would take "months."

And the rest is history.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Right, so germany is still violent? I didnt say that as soon as people vote the violence will stop. I said that freedom will BRING peace, ultimately.

It took 71 years after the proclamation of the Republic for Germany to become a stable, peaceful democracy. How long does Geronimo George plan to commit to Iraq?

[Sunday8pm]

Can we just not ban him, I'm getting fed up of misinformed right wing tripe being manifested into some over-arrogant you gotta prove these lies wrong here right now (even though they've been disassembled long ago by various media outlets) or else you are all saying I'm right.

I'm really getting fed up of this pathetic method of argument the contrite lonely little asshole brings to this forum.

[Azof]

... I may be anti-war, but this article strikes me as a completely pointless comparision to try to play on feelings.

One hardly needs to draw some ridiculous analogy between a fictive United States (that would have to have a pretty much identical background to Iraq to even make a valid comparision... and even then, you might as well just say "What if the war was going on in an Iraq with 10x as many people") to point out the issues with the war. In short, don't post that shit again wu-trax.

[mist]

blowing up 3000 americans a week would seem to have a much more valuable impact on the world than removing sadam, therefore as long as this is an outcome of the war gogo george!

-mist

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Can we just not ban him, I'm getting fed up of misinformed right wing tripe being manifested into some over-arrogant you gotta prove these lies wrong here right now (even though they've been disassembled long ago by various media outlets) or else you are all saying I'm right.

I'm really getting fed up of this pathetic method of argument the contrite lonely little asshole brings to this forum.

quoted for the truth.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Azof

... I may be anti-war, but this article strikes me as a completely pointless comparision to try to play on feelings.

One hardly needs to draw some ridiculous analogy between a fictive United States (that would have to have a pretty much identical background to Iraq to even make a valid comparision... and even then, you might as well just say "What if the war was going on in an Iraq with 10x as many people") to point out the issues with the war. In short, don't post that shit again wu-trax.

do you deny that 300 people die per week, that there pretty much chaos and high crime and that a part of the country seems to be completly out of control?
maybe it helps Qdeathstar to read an article with city-names he can pronounce.

edit: and yes, probably it is 'slightly' exaggerated, but so what?

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Can we just not ban him, I'm getting fed up of misinformed right wing tripe being manifested into some over-arrogant you gotta prove these lies wrong here right now (even though they've been disassembled long ago by various media outlets) or else you are all saying I'm right.

I'm really getting fed up of this pathetic method of argument the contrite lonely little asshole brings to this forum.

"I know, lets ban people whose opinions we don't like!"

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

"I know, lets ban people whose opinions we don't like!"

let's ban people who are utter and wilfully misinformed cretins for trolling!

sunday, QDS, egress is that way.

[Nondescript Human]

He isn't trolling, he's just wrong.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

He isn't trolling, he's just wrong.

i prefer to think he's trolling because nobody can be quite as ****ing stupid as QDS portays himself.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

] a couple months later Bush asked the UN to enforce its rules, when the UN faltered, bush decided it was time to act, and it was. He had right under the 13 previous resoluctions that applied to Iraq.

That is not good enough. There are other countries that openly flaunt UN resolutions and nothing is done about them.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Phang

i prefer to think he's trolling because nobody can be quite as ****ing stupid as QDS portays himself.

Points Phang to any post by Sunday

~Vaio~

[Superpig #1]

This thread makes my head hurt

[Qdeathstar]

Are you trolling?

No, if you want to flame me because you disagree with me, thats idiocy on your part.

ook, there are more terrorists and people who hate the us in iraq today than ever before. you do know that the us-army completlys lost control oer central iraq, dont you?

Your wrong about the fact hat none of central iraq is under US control, baghdad, and other cities UR:. And, TODAY YES TODAY but not forever.

yes, sure. no electricity, no water supply, no oil, no nothing, if that means wealthy i guess most people can live without it.

All good things take time, as i have said, Read before you post. That would be nice. WOuldnt it.

like what?

spread freedom, get rid of a ruthless dictator, bring the fight to al qaeda rather than having al qaeda fight us on our grounds, the list goes on

he will retake afganistan (since noone seems to give a damn about that country)

No, thats where you are wrong. The media doesnt give a damn about that country and focuses on iraq instead. Bush just sent more troops to afganistan as a matter a fact, and we are constantly hunting down al qaeda along the pakistan/afganistan board. Get your facts at least half correct.

and after they are finished theyll be stronger than ever.

Why how? any evidence, are do you just talk.

he wanted a new resolution and didnt get it

he wanted it, but he didnt need it, the UN already gave him what he needed.... you totally blew past the point. Kuwait never defied 13 UN resolutions, poor analogy. Try again.

if a province is 'unsecure' (read: completly out of control) we just dont let people vote there. after the election confirmed our puppet goverment the iraq will automatically turn into a 'free and democratic' country.

That makes no since at all, but its more of the usuall from you. 4 provinces that maybe hold 20 percent of the vote, if the people choose to vote will probably not change the vote that much. And also, no one eversaid automatic democratic government, but that freedom, which we gave will LEAD to democracy and that will LEAD to peace. Guess how long it took Germany to come out of the violence after world war 2? Given the other choice, I hardly see anyone who thinks it wasnt worth it today, but people had their doubts then, as they always do when they actually have to get off their ass and do something. It wasnt quick, but it was worth it. This wont be quick but it will be worth it

Once people are free, violence stops

Oh so you were being pedantic, or did you just not get reading comprehension? I did say ultimately, in turn, ect, those words indicate TIME change... I didnt say wam bam their you go :-/

Of course peace will eventually come to Iraq. However, if this takes twenty-five years to achieve, it's slightly different than if it is achieved in six months

we didnt bring peace to germany in six months. Did we?

Even if it was true, it would still be a shitty argument in favour of military action. Regardless of the inherent silliness of the thing, Americans are still being killed. I don't see what difference it makes if this is taking place in New York or Falluja.

Because, we are killing terrorists.

o you don't actually care about your political leadership lying (You seem to imply they lied, or at least, decieved.) to the nation and the world, in order to start a war based on an argument which, if it had been used, would have been rejected by the nation and Congress? Essentially, you are in favour of grossly immoral statecraft?

I dont care about the fact that they lied about this, no. But, in addition, i think it was bad intellegence that was to blame, and BUSH has taken steps to fix that... But even it was a charade, no, the ends justifies the means.

Not according to the inspectors themselves. In fact, disarmament was proceeding well, according to them

hans blix contradicted himself saying at once that Iraq was cooperated but it could do more. IT COULD DO MORE. And the rest is history.

That is not good enough. There are other countries that openly flaunt UN resolutions and nothing is done about them.

Yeah, i know, but some one had said that it was illegal for bush do it, and it wasnt... Bush chose to take action.

i prefer to think he's trolling because nobody can be quite as ****ing stupid as QDS portays himself.

Yeah. Im stupid becuase i dont have the same opinion as you. BRILLIANT!

Expressing my opinion is not Trolling, if you didnt like the post you could have CHOSEN not to respond, but you CHOSE to flame me. Shouldnt you be banned for flaming? being that all i am doign is expressing my opinion in GENERAL discussions? Ta'

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Because, we are killing terrorists.

I think this is part of the problem. You're seeing this as a conventional war where the enemy has a standing army of x thousand troops. Once enough of these troops are killed you can go home, and the world will be safe for democracy or whatever.

It doesn't work like that in these types of conflicts. Every week that American forces occupy Iraq (and elsewhere) "terrorists" (or simply people who don't like the United States) grows. Not simply in Iraq (which is simply where the fighting is ocurring, not any sort of stronghold of Islamic fundamentalism by any means) but in every country with Muslims in it. Even in Western Europe there are increasing signs of pro-Islamism by European muslims. If there are people converting in Britain (a free, democratic and affluent state) to this kind of radicalism, what hope do you have in places like Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc?

There have always been Muslim zealots. However, the exponential growth in their support is a relatively recent phenomenon, one that is being made worse by every military action by the United States. To use terminology of another conflict the US really should be attempting to win 'hearts and minds'. But I suppose we all know what happened in that conflict too...

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Points Phang to any post by Sunday

~Vaio~

Points to Vaio so people can see why I'm not banned when other users lower the bar with said shite posts.

I am actually getting a bit depressed at how easily validated I am here when Vaio, Rumad, Rids, RR, Phang etc just start wildly commenting about users without any absolute clue about what they are arguing for (not doing their homework).

At least when I attack a user I cover all the bases and don't just figment something.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

A worthwhile contribution to GD.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

he wanted it, but he didnt need it, the UN already gave him what he needed....

The UN decided to issue a new resolution, 1441, which stated that Iraq must disarm, and such progress, or lack of, was to be decided on by the Security Council collectively. When progress was made, Bush suddenly declared that progress wasn't being made, and issued the seven day ultimatum.

No-one ever said "If Iraq doesn't disarm, we'll invoke supposed breaches of previous resolutions which we have chosen to ignore for the last decade!"; Bush certainly didn't, and doesn't. So why you are using this as an argument is anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And also, no one eversaid automatic democratic government, but that freedom, which we gave will LEAD to democracy and that will LEAD to peace.

Democracy and freedom go hand in hand. If Iraqi democracy fails, then freedom in Iraq fails.

You cannot have freedom enforced by a dictator or an authoritarian state. I thought that much would be obvious to you.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

we didnt bring peace to germany in six months. Did we?

Yes, we did. Pretty much. Not true recovery, but the security situation (Or indeed, the situation generally.) was nowhere comparable to the one in present-day Iraq.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Because, we are killing terrorists.

See Dante's response.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I dont care about the fact that they lied about this, no.

What possible basis do you have for claiming the moral high ground, when you repudiate any notion that your government acted in anything resembling a moral fashion?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

hans blix contradicted himself saying at once that Iraq was cooperated but it could do more.

How is this a contradiction?

For instance: You have a seriously flawed and disjointed argument, but it could be worse.

Where's the contradiction?

Oh, and why are you even bothering arguing this point is beyond me, since you've already stated that you think WMD's had nothing to do with the war?

[Summanus]

The only time a war is just is when you have been unjustly invaded, or helping those who have (eg the Gulf War, Korean War)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Summanus

The only time a war is just is when you have been unjustly invaded, or helping those who have (eg the Gulf War, Korean War)

What about internal issues, like genocide, etc? (Cf Kosovo)

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What about internal issues, like genocide, etc? (Cf Kosovo)

It just gets more complicated. I mean one of the reasons we get bombarded with for going into Iraq is "Saddam was a bad dude, he killed his own people wtfpwned". But yes we had a duty in Rwanda, and Kosovo, but I guess that's the difference between 'peacekeeping' and 'war'.

On WWII: I guess you could call it just from the perspective of the Allies (excluding Russia in the Baltic States), who intervened after Hitler invaded Poland, and America's involvement after Pearl Harbor in the Pacific. But let me be clear that there is nothing about WWi which can be called just.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Summanus

I mean one of the reasons we get bombarded with for going into Iraq is "Saddam was a bad dude, he killed his own people wtfpwned". But yes we had a duty in Rwanda, and Kosovo, but I guess that's the difference between 'peacekeeping' and 'war'.

But Rwanda and Kosovo were ongoing and present crises that needed to be tackled; the people who use the humanitarian intervention card on Iraq are talking about massacres, such as Halabja, that happened nearly twenty years ago, and which the west turned a blind eye to at the time.

I would say there is a qualitative difference here, and I would go so far as to say that some people are using this argument a little bit disengenuously and convieniently.

[Dante Hicks]

I'd say Kosovo was a completely different situation from Rwanda, both in scale and the nature of what was happening.

[Leshy]

Qdeathstar, what is your definition of a terrorist?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd say Kosovo was a completely different situation from Rwanda, both in scale and the nature of what was happening.

Oh, I agree.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

We want to fight terrorist in a place of OUR choosing not in our house, not in our country, and no where they want us to fight where they have the strategic advantage. I can’t believe anyone can’t see the advantage of bringing the fight TO Iraq, rather then trying to chase them.

I'm sure the people of Iraq are really happy for you now that you've found an acceptable place to have your war :)))

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm sure the people of Iraq are really happy for you now that you've found an acceptable place to have your war ))

Silly man. Iraq are terrorists and terrorists aren't people. What people of Iraq?

[Marilyn Manson]

I think QDS is ignoring the fact that the reason Iraq is now swarming with militants is through mistake, rather than design.

It seems a tad curious to me that people may wish to employ arguments which are not even accepted by Bush, are not in tune with the guiding principles of the operation, and don't make sense anyway, in support of it. But it takes all sorts, I suppose.

[JonnyBGood]

If it all works out somehow nobody can complain because george bush clearly knew precisely what he was doing and it's our fault because we lack faith.

[Tomkat]

This would never happen in Communist Russia.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

This would never happen in Communist Russia.

Stop promoting Marxist-Leninism. We all know that QDS would have been shot at the earliest opportunity under it, but that's no basis for an entire system.