Thread: One Sided:

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Could you be specific? WARCRIMES is a pretty serious offense. Can you please provide some sort of evidense to support the claim that U.S. troops are commiting acts of attrocities (i.e. warcrimes) in Iraq, or is this the new "buzzword" to raise resentment and opposition to the war?

Or, are you interpreting the term "Warcrime" to imply that the whole act of war from the onset was wrong and unjustified and, therefore, a "crime"?

In the moral sense, War is always a brutal crime of destruction of life and property. But in the legal sense war can be justified just as any use of force can be justified.

Bush is a war criminal because he was unjustified in attacking Iraq. Self-defense was a joke and never a serious rationale. Genocide was not a justification because Hussein, although a monster back in the 1980s w/ the full support of Reagan/Bush I, he was not engaged in genocidal behavior. Defense of others...again, N/A b/c Hussein attacked no one--remember the first Gulf War. The only viable rationale Bush could hang his hat on was WMDs---a violation of UN regulations no less.

Despite the US administration's best efforts to shape the facts and direct the debate that Hussein was madman bent on our destruction through WMDs, the best evidence available showed he had no such capabilities.----The UN weapons inspectors showed that. Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in spite of the best evidence available.

Please explain to me how Bush's invasion of Iraq is any different than Hitler's invasion of Poland. You can't. Waging pre-emptive war of this sort was a crime at Nuremburg and it is one in this case also. This type of Pre-emption was not valid for the Nazis, why should it be so for Bush?

Originally Posted by Decker

In the moral sense, War is always a brutal crime of destruction of life and property. But in the legal sense war can be justified just as any use of force can be justified.

remember the first Gulf War...

...Please explain to me how Bush's invasion of Iraq is any different than Hitler's invasion of Poland.

OK, I've pulled some highlights out of your post to try and elaborate on. I honestly have no aspirations of pursuading you one way or the other. You seem to have set your opinions and convictions in stone and appear to have not even the slightest interest in entertaining an opposing view. None-the-less I shall comment briefly and then patiently await the retorst and flames.

You mentioned the First Gulf War. OK, can we agree that Saddam initiated that conflict by invading Kuwait? Can we also agree that our response and subsequent coalition force was "justified" in repelling Saddam's forces? Can we also agree that that war NEVER ENDED. There was a declared "Cease Fire" in which the Coalition Forces agreed to stop kicking the shit out of Iraq so long as Saddam would comply with the U.N. Resolutions subsequent to the "end" of hostilities.

The very fact that Saddam failed to comply with ANY of the U.N. resolutions was justification for a CONTINUATION of the hostilities. Not to mention the numerous acts of aggression that Saddam showed against us when he (his military cronies) continued to fire surface-to-air missles at U.S. aircraft on patrol.

Now the Clinton Administration dealt with Saddam in a very remote and detatched way. He (Clinton) ordered bombings and cruise missle strikes against key targets in the middle of the night on multiple occasions. This hardly even made a 5 second blurb in the news so the public was, for the most part, completely unaware that we had even attacked Iraq. Yet, by your definition of "justification" this would classify Clintaon as a War Criminal as well. (I personally believe that Clinton was justified and his only mistake was not doing more).

Now, I do understand your misgivings about the whole WMD speach we were given prior to the recent invasion. We were led to believe that Saddam had tons of nerve agents poised and ready drop on our churches and elementary schools. But consider this... We KNOW he had them at one point because we saw him USE them! Thousands of kurds were slaughtered by Saddams chemical warfare. Let me summarize with an example:

Let's say that one day I go out into a heavily populated public location and pull out my gun and start shooting everyone I can get a shot off at. I kill, Maime, and wound as many people as possible and then Haul ass back to my house and barracade myself inside. Now the police follow me home and surround my house. There are dozens of witnesses who saw my crime so there is no mistake that I'm the guy the cops are looking for. The Cops demand that I come out and surrender but I refuse. I even take a couple of shots at the cops in defiance. Finally, the cops raid the house and arrest me, BUT, they are unable to find the gun I used in my attack. So, does this mean that I am not a threat?

Oh, Sorry there Mr. Witmaster. Our bad. You're free to go.

I think it was very irresponsible of Bush to rush in on an assumption that Hussein "might" have had WMD's without knowing exactly where they were, because while in the process of trying to fight the US off Saddam wasn't able to provide the security to keep the WMD's out of Al Qaeda's hands. Now here we are with Saddam out and most of his clan gone and we still have no clue where those WMD's are so if we really believe that they exist then we know that they have likely fallen into the worst hands and when they are used it's going to be George W. Bush's fault.

Great post Wit!

How does everyone assume we don't know where they are? It's like they would tell the public if they did. That is top secret info you will never have prevy to. I'm betting we know exactly where they went (Syria) and are contimplating what to do and how to get rid of them.
The government conducts covert missions all over the world almost daily and you never know a thing about it and never will!

Originally Posted by dg806

1) Yes they were
2)They did collaborative with each other
3)It was not a win/loose situation. There is no way the US could have not done what it set out to do. They did what they set out to do. They knew it would take many years to stabilize the country
4)You're dreaming

2) There was no link between Hussein/Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

You must realize this.

Mohammed Atta never met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. The CIA, Czech government, and incarcerated Baath party leaders has proven this.

3) It is a win/lose situation in my opinion.

The Americans thought it would take A COUPLE OF MONTHS to restore order.

4) I'm not dreaming. You need to dig deeper and do more research.

Look at the speech analysis of Bush, Rice, Fleischer, Cheney.

www.bushoniraq.com

Originally Posted by dg806

How does everyone assume we don't know where they are? It's like they would tell the public if they did. That is top secret info you will never have prevy to. I'm betting we know exactly where they went (Syria) and are contimplating what to do and how to get rid of them.
The government conducts covert missions all over the world almost daily and you never know a thing about it and never will!

That be the problem. Here are some scenarios.

1)We knew they were in Syria or wherever in the first place, but went after Iraq instead.

2)While we were taking Iraq, they were snuck thru the border to wherever.

So, in scenario 1 we wrongly go to war, and in number 2, we just never had a game plan. So either Bush is a war criminal, or he is just incompetent and failed to appropriately prepare for a war. Honestly, I would rather be a war criminal than an idiot.

winning the war isnt the problem, it has long since been won. The U.S defeated the iraqi military long ago. creating a democracy in a country with lots of people who will fight/die/and do anything to stop it (whatever their reasoing may be) is the problem

Originally Posted by Witmaster

You seem to have set your opinions and convictions in stone and appear to have not even the slightest interest in entertaining an opposing view.

That’s rather rude. Bush and his supporters started this mess. If there’s a reasonable explanation for it, I’m all ears.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

You mentioned the First Gulf War. OK, can we agree that Saddam initiated that conflict by invading Kuwait? Can we also agree that our response and subsequent coalition force was "justified" in repelling Saddam's forces? Can we also agree that that war NEVER ENDED. There was a declared "Cease Fire" in which the Coalition Forces agreed to stop kicking the shit out of Iraq so long as Saddam would comply with the U.N. Resolutions subsequent to the "end" of hostilities.

I do not agree that force in the first Gulf War was justified b/c the US’s position was one of indifference to the invasion—See April Glaspie (US ambassador) who gave Hussein the US’s position of indifference--i.e., the green light--for the invasion of Kuwait. Then we did a 180 and attacked. But in the legal sense I suppose it could be considered defense of others. The war did end April 11, 1991. A cease fire is the end of war. Managing peace is different.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

The very fact that Saddam failed to comply with ANY of the U.N. resolutions was justification for a CONTINUATION of the hostilities. Not to mention the numerous acts of aggression that Saddam showed against us when he (his military cronies) continued to fire surface-to-air missles at U.S. aircraft on patrol..

You are incorrect. Hussein was a fucking pain in the ass but he complied, hesitantly, w/ the resolutions related to the justifications for war. Yes, Hussein did fire at aircrafts in no-fly zones. On the same note, Bush and Blair covertly and illegally started to bomb Iraq prior to official military action in the hopes of causing a reaction from the Iraqis..to fire back....and they did.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Now the Clinton Administration dealt with Saddam in a very remote and detatched way. He (Clinton) ordered bombings and cruise missle strikes against key targets in the middle of the night on multiple occasions. This hardly even made a 5 second blurb in the news so the public was, for the most part, completely unaware that we had even attacked Iraq. Yet, by your definition of "justification" this would classify Clintaon as a War Criminal as well. (I personally believe that Clinton was justified and his only mistake was not doing more)...

I tend to agree with your assessment that the bombing was illegal.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Now, I do understand your misgivings about the whole WMD speach we were given prior to the recent invasion. We were led to believe that Saddam had tons of nerve agents poised and ready drop on our churches and elementary schools. But consider this... We KNOW he had them at one point because we saw him USE them! Thousands of kurds were slaughtered by Saddams chemical warfare.

Saddam had the weapons over a decade ago. He destroyed them in compliance w/ UN resolutions. The UN inspectors verified that finding. That was the best evidence available that War was not justified. Your anecdote is meaningless in light of this evidence. But I do appreciate your well reasoned arguments.

Originally Posted by dg806

How does everyone assume we don't know where they are? It's like they would tell the public if they did. That is top secret info you will never have prevy to. I'm betting we know exactly where they went (Syria) and are contimplating what to do and how to get rid of them.
The government conducts covert missions all over the world almost daily and you never know a thing about it and never will!

That's just not good enough that our government asks for its citizens' lives..."but we can't tell you why! It's a secret." so shhhhhh

So dg806, essentially you are saying trust Big Government....with your very life no less.

Originally Posted by Decker

I do not agree that force in the first Gulf War was justified b/c the US’s position was one of indifference to the invasion—See April Glaspie (US ambassador) who gave Hussein the US’s position of indifference--i.e., the green light--for the invasion of Kuwait.

Ahhh ok. Not many people subscribe to this school of thought. If you ask most people in general, they will tell you that the first gulf war was justified. Seeing now that your opposition to the whole campain stems back that far does explain your dogmatic opposition.

I'll not presume to persuade you one way or the other. As I mentioned before, your convictions appear to be set in stone. You believe my arguements to be false. I tend to feel the same about yours.

I too whole heartedly disagree with your assesment of how Saddam "did comply" with U.N. resolutions. Furthermore, the U.N. inspectors did NOT verify that Saddam had "destroyed" his weapons. They simply were unable to find them. The absense of a smoking gun doesn't mean the gun didn't exist and was never fired.

It puzzels me how you can be so steadfast in blaming Bush for the evils of other nations. Now please understand, I do follow your reasoning in this matter. I just feel this reasoning is desperately flawed. I am curious though, are you also of the opinion that Bush somehow conspired and collaborated with the attacks on September 11?

Regardless, I do appreciate your candid and forthright responses. It's a bit refreshing to see a well written arguement as opposed to the usual narrow-minded "Bush is a complete idiot" responses we see all-too-often here.

Here, have a pop-tart

Originally Posted by Witmaster

I'll not presume to persuade you one way or the other. As I mentioned before, your convictions appear to be set in stone. You believe my arguements to be false. I tend to feel the same about yours.

I gave you reasons why the first gulf war was not justified--US hypocrisy. I did not dogmatically assert all war is not justified. Your arguments are false b/c the evidence does not support your contentions...not b/c I wish they were false.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

I too whole heartedly disagree with your assesment of how Saddam "did comply" with U.N. resolutions. Furthermore, the U.N. inspectors did NOT verify that Saddam had "destroyed" his weapons. They simply were unable to find them. The absense of a smoking gun doesn't mean the gun didn't exist and was never fired.

Hussein did grudgingly comply--he destroyed/eliminated his WMDs and let the WMD inspectors in his country--that's a fact and not a matter of opinion.

The WMD inspectors found no evidence of WMDs or the infrastructure for the manufacture of WMDs. The absence of Unicorns does not mean that unicorns didn't exist...hell, there could be unicorns running around in some secret Iraqi grotto. The scientists knock out your contention.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

It puzzels me how you can be so steadfast in blaming Bush for the evils of other nations. Now please understand, I do follow your reasoning in this matter. I just feel this reasoning is desperately flawed. I am curious though, are you also of the opinion that Bush somehow conspired and collaborated with the attacks on September 11?.

What puzzles me is that I did not blame the evils of Hussein on Bush but you say I did. Bush's father helped arm Hussein...that's a fact. Bush attacked Iraq b/c he asserted the country was a threat to the US b/c it had WMDs. Iraq was never a threat, and by that definition, why aren't we bombing Korea, Pakistan, Russia etc? Bush ignored the best scientific evidence avaible which crushed his legal justification for war--no WMDs--and he attacked anyways.

Why can't you see the clear illegality of Bush's actions?

Thanks for the poptart Witmaster, you're all right.

Originally Posted by Decker

The absence of Unicorns does not mean that unicorns didn't exist...hell, there could be unicorns running around in some secret Iraqi grotto. The scientists knock out your contention.

Last time I checked, Unicorns didn't kill 5000 Kurdish civillians and leave another estimated 7000 with permanent debilitating injuries. But hey, I could be misinformed about Unicorns.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Last time I checked, Unicorns didn't kill 5000 Kurdish civillians and leave another estimated 7000 with permanent debilitating injuries. But hey, I could be misinformed about Unicorns.

They are savage bastards w/ that horn of death.

But if you're referring to the gassing of the Kurds--a horrible event for which the US should have attacked Iraq but didn't--Reagan/Bush and many of the current Bush II advisors working for Reagn/Bush thought it was an ok way for Hussein to quell the Kurdish rebellion....Hussein was still 'our guy' then.

Those particular WMDs for gassing the Kurds (provided by the British curiously enough) have a limited shelf life....they'd have been no good a decade down the road. The UN inspectors are world class scientists that can tell if weapons were manufactured in certain place, if they are moved etc. The denigration of their talents by those supporting the war--Inspector Clouseau--does not change the fact that they were correct.

It's insufferable that Bush asked for more time to find the WMDs (after he invaded) when he kicked the experts out of Iraq prematurely.