Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 5 of 15
Arawaen, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, but do you seriously think voting is a violation of some kind? Forget what the dead guys say, is that what you think?
It may be very poetical to not want to sully your hands with voting/politics (certainly I'm all kinds of skeptical about the efficacy of the political process), but is voting violent? If I run for office and I lose, should I feel abused in some way? I will agree that there are all kinds of violence other than the merely physical, but I still don't see participation in democracy as a violation.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
with violence if necessary
stand ready to do violence
Perhaps you should read those quotes again. Or just read those few words that I have highlighted above.
You might notice that these statments imply that violence is used _*/only/*_ as a _*/last/*_ resort.
Kind of takes the bit out of your response, doesn't it.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Not really. I consider that the violence used against the Axis in WWII was the last resort. I actually consider that it was quite possibly applied too late, and that many more people may have died due to that delay.
As for Iraq, we'll never really know. If we'd left Hussein alone, he might have just sat there and never caused a problem. He might also have decided that since no one was stopping him, it was time to invade someone else's country again, or wipe out the Kurds or Shia once and for all.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Actually, no. Ain't nothing but a choice, a style, a posture. We are the greatest military force in the world mainly because we like it that way, never because we have to.
I guess it is a choice. We chose in 1941 to help prevent Germany, Japan, and Italy from taking over the rest of the world. In 1950 we chose to help prevent North Korea and China from taking over South Korea. Also in the '50s/'60s/'70s/'80s we chose to help prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Europe. We chose to help liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. We chose to remove the Taliban government that supported the 9/11 terrorists from Afghanistan.
For a couple of centuries those "rough men" have defended the system of government that gives you the freedom to insult them. You apparently don't believe that such defense is necessary, and you probably won't agree with this statement. Tell me then, what does guarantee your freedom?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I guess it is a choice. We chose in 1941 to help prevent Germany, Japan, and Italy from taking over the rest of the world.
Actually, that war started in 1939. For two years your country sold steel and other war material to both sides
Quote:
Also in the '50s/'60s/'70s/'80s we chose to help prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Europe.
You also used this as an excuse to install and support dozens of dictators and regimes around the world to acomplish this.
Quote:
We chose to help liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.
After having assisted them in their war of aggression with Iran. Questionable way to treat your friend and ally ?
Quote:
We chose to remove the Taliban government that supported the 9/11 terrorists from Afghanistan.
The Taliban government government you were in negotiation with for an oil pipeline, as with the Saudi government whose country has been shown to more of a " support ". In addition, the Taliban offered to have an internationally moderated extridiction hearing, but instead you invaded and set up a puppet government... perhaps your evidence resembles the OJ trial ?
While I agree the application of force is sometimes quite nessersary, as Von Clausewitz said, war is simply foreign policy by extreme means. Force applied to cause another country to do, or stop doing something which they find objectionable. The United States is not the only one who may do this, if the Americans practice foreign policy which alienates and radicalizes segments of the world against them, should we support and help the US. I say no.
For this conflict to have any sort of resolution, both sides will have to modify their positions and future actions. One superpower, one country cannot be allowed to dominate the globe in such a way. Opposing the US, to me is the only sane course. Let us hope it doesn't come to Mr Von Clausewitzs last resort.
Gott min uns
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You need to read a little more carefully. Your argument only holds if his comment was serious. Which I gather isn't the case.
Actually, and I say this as someone arguing on that poster's general side of the debate - his choice of words was ill thought out, whether the comment was serious or not.
Whether the comment was well thought out is not the issue that I was addressing. The fact is that
Anthonyt was attempting to debunk the argument based on something that was clearly false. This was my point, which made A.T.'s comment moot.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Sorry for the delay, gents. What I said was that Gino needed to choose his arguments more carefully, and that promising to perform attacks against the US under certain conditions wouldn't help his case.
It's the only part of Gino's posts I commented on because it is the part of Gino's posts that I had issue with. But I'll do you the favor of not dissecting the word assume.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Actually, that war started in 1939. For two years your country sold steel and other war material to both sides
...
You also used this as an excuse to install and support dozens of dictators and regimes around the world to acomplish this.
...
After having assisted them in their war of aggression with Iran. Questionable way to treat your friend and ally ?
...
We chose to remove the Taliban government that supported the 9/11 terrorists from Afghanistan.
Gott min uns
You know, you're right, we were a little slow off the mark in those instances. If we had slapped Hitler down in 1937, or took out the Soviets in the late '40s, or taken care of Iran right aftr the Islamic revolution, things would have probably turned out better. Probably should have kept Italy, Germany, and Japan after WWII. then your concern about global domination would have actually been justified.
Was your final line supposed to be Gott Mit Uns?
Interesting that you'd use a motto from the army that actually did bring on two world wars to close your comments about America trying to take over the world.
As the British Tommies said after thay found Wehrmacht belt buckles with that motto on them "We got mittens too".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You also helped slap down Irans pro democracy movement when your CIA and Marine Corp helped re-install the Shah in 1951... another trading your values for oil deal.
Hands off from the start, history could have been alot different.
America is quite a bit different than the old colonial powers in that they do not want to own or colonize other countrys, they want other countrys to run themselves in the manner they feel is correct and if an area of mutual interest arises, they want to call the shots. In many ways, by maintaining your forces in Germany, Japan, and Italy you are pushing your interest. After all, once the Soviet Union came apart it became clear that the Soviet Army was never as capable as everyone had feared... to whose advantage was that misconception.
" Gott Mit Uns " Thank you for your spelling correction, written my German is horrible
I believe the translation is God is with us
I meant it as a play on the old saying " If god is with us, how can he be with them "
as you President likes to invoke his God to justify many of his actions, but is then critical of his enemies doing the same ....
I find it kind of funny, ironic applied history trivia.
Mind you I do like that British Tommies quote too... thanks for a good chuckle
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Anthony,
My argument centers on that there are times when the application of force is neccersary.
My twist from the pro-bush types, is I am saying that force applied against the US is also justified. I merely reinforced that statement with the added fact that I feel strong enough about this, if the situation arises....
I personally have no trouble with the thought of applying that force myself, as a former soldier I was willing to take up arms in the defence of my country, and I would do so again... on my own if our political leaders felt it neccersary to sell us out.
Just wanted to be clear,
" If you can't say what you mean, how can you mean what you say ? "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Not really. I consider that the violence used against the Axis in WWII was the last resort. I actually consider that it was quite possibly applied too late, and that many more people may have died due to that delay.
Actually yes it does take the bite out. Especially since WWII has nothing to do with this discussion.
Proof: WWII was a very specific situation with a country that *was* trying to take over the world (or at least Europe). This is, nor was the case in Iraq. QED
Again, don't bring up things that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This thread is about Iraq, _*/not/*_ WWII. As shown the situations are *very* different. Please stay OT.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
As for Iraq, we'll never really know. If we'd left Hussein alone, he might have just sat there and never caused a problem. He might also have decided that since no one was stopping him, it was time to invade someone else's country again, or wipe out the Kurds or Shia once and for all.
In civilized countries that have educated people running things realize that conjecture is no basis for war. But, then again, I wouldn't expect the US to understand something so morally and ethically correct that in any other nation would be considered common sense.
ie Any country that actually wishes peace, would side with the hope and use diplomacy not bombs.
EDIT:
Another addition to HkCavalier's list:
Ghandi
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just thought I'd jump in for a few minutes.
My post was to point out the kind of perverse strip-tease on the reaons for the Iraq war. Some posters clung to every little scrap of fig-leaf rationale as long as they could, but as each reason was throughly discredited, would hide behind another. Now apparently there are no fig-leaves left - and now they're proudly exhibitionist. It wasn't about 9/11, al Qaeda, WMD, or acting in support of UN resolutions after all! Finally, proudly, out in the open and free, the REAL reasons to pound Iraq.
I'd just like to find out what the supporters really think the reaons are. None of the above works anymore, and here are some I also think don't work: getting rid of Hussein (he's gone but we're still there), and improving the lives of Iraqi people (as was said by Iraqis since "Mission Accomplished" - we'll see if this really ends up being a help or not - but the answer increasingly looks like 'not').
So, what was the real reason to go into Iraq? Can you say it in one sentence (or at most a short paragraph) that you will never back away from?
PS My opinion is that most human progress is technological (speech, bowl, fire, clothes, writing, husbandry and agriculture, mechanization, the scientific process) and doesn't involve war or violence. Evolution does have dead-end paths, like the deer in England who grew larger and larger antlers (they were attractive to females I guess) but were such a drain on the males that one cold winter, all the males starved. End of species. War might be like that. Positive feedback leads to increasingly war-oriented cultures which ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME