Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 6 of 15

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
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.

Sigma, this is the heart of what is so deranging to me about the current administration's policy of "priemptive war." How can an intelligent guy like Geezer speak so blithely about the possibility that S. could have "just sat there and never caused a problem." When did war become this completely acceptable option, you know, like root canal? It's upleasant, but sometimes it's best, cause if you just leave the tooth to rot it could lead to more trouble down the line.

I'm reminded of that whole period when Bush & Co. were all using the word "imminent" in as many sentences as they could, implying that they believed S. to be an "imminent" threat to this country without actually saying it (much). They knew full well that S. was not an imminent threat to this country by the fact of their pussy-footing around the issue. If they truly believed that S. was an imminent threat they would not have been so coy, they would have said it and said it and said it and said it again. They meant to manipulate the country into backing this unjustified adventure in Iraq.

Anyway, before 9/11 every civilized nation on Earth knew that a so-called "priemptive strike" was a simple act of aggression. But then we lost nearly 3,000 people in one morning and many Americans crossed a line into a whole new way of thinking. I don't think that way of thinking is very stable--it's lasted longer than I thought it would, but then the neo-cons have been puting everything they've got into prolonging this national insanity. No sane person can accept a policy of "priemptive war" unless they feel deeply afraid of imminent attack from the "enemy."

As long as America is terrified of being attacked we will support this madness, but as long as we support this administration's mad policies, many people in the world will want to attack us. Discuss.

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.

GEEZER

Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

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.

But Germany wasn't always trying to take over Europe. First, they just wanted Iran, Oh, excuse me, the Rhineland and Sudetenland, and that was all. Then just Kuwait...Oops...Czechoslovakia. Maybe if Britain and France had let them have Poland, they would have stopped.

Quote:
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.

Diplomacy works when both sides are willing to play by the rules. Diplomacy gave Hitler time to re-arm Germany, in violation of the Versilles treaty. 10 years of diplomacy with Iraq accomplished nothing but to get some of the folks running the "Oil for Food" program rich on kickbacks. Diplomacy in the Sudan has accomplished zip. In certain situations, diplomacy not backed up by the threat of force is not going to work.

Quote:
EDIT:
Another addition to HkCavalier's list:
Ghandi

Ghandi was able to accomplish what he did because the British are basically civilized people. Try him against the Nazis, or the Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, or current North Korea.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:18 PM

"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?"

Here it is: It seemed like a good idea at the time.

The war in Iraq was a bad decision made on bad information. I remember saying to someone when it all started, "I think we should go in there... but we had BETTER find TONS of WMD, or we'll look like the world's asshole."

Guess what?

So you live and learn. Or you ought to. But there are people who'd rather not look like the world's asshole, and who will come up with supporting rationale after the fact. "We're helping the Iraqi people by ousting a dictator and bringing democracy." Well, yes, of course we are. But we're doing it unasked. And could we possibly do it without torturing people in Saddam's old palace of torture?

There isn't much we can really do about looking like the world's asshole anymore. It will take decades to repair the world's opinion of us... assuming we start improving our relations now. Sadly, the type of war we are attempting to fight really does require international cooperation.

At the very least, there comes a time when you have to say, "I believed what they told me. But what they told me was wrong... and so was I."

I look forward to the day when our boys in green are back on the defensive lineup, and get untangled from that offensive pileup.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

HERO

Thursday, September 23, 2004 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

This is one of the stupidest statements that I've seen to date (which is saying something as I've done tech support for FedEx).

What, you don't like History and Moral Philospophy 101?

Quote:

I'd like to think that we've evolved some since and that we can solve our problems diplomatically.

Everybody likes to think that. Chamberlin was a real believer and nobody had better intentions then the League of Nations. But you can't let your principals cloud your common sense. Ignoring the value of force as an influence (positive or negative) on human history is just plain irresponsible.

Quote:

You are as barbaric as those from yester-year. You are dinosaurs.

What yester-year? The '60s, the '70s. Maybe Isreal should have talked to the Arabs who were attacking without warning. Maybe the '80s. I wonder if we could have talked Libya out of its terrorist Pan-Arabic vision or the British could have talked the Argentines off the Falklands. The '90s, gee Mr. Saddam, please leave Kuwait...please.

Or Sept 11, 2001. Talk can't resolve the senseless murder of thoudsands of innocents.

Or in Russia last month, how do you compromise with those who cheerfully murder children by the dozen.

Sure, talk is fine. Diplomacy is a great achievement of civilzation. But war has been around a lot longer and has a better track record. After all wars created the world we live in today, no perfect, but better then the unmitigated tyranny, poverty, and injustice of the past.

Might does not always make right, but the right might can make right.

Quote:

EDIT: Talking to the wife revealed a little tid-bit more.

Well that explains your philosphical lack of...never mind, bad joke...

Quote:

There is a difference between solving a problem and ending it. The former is done by talking (ie by the civilized) and the latter is done by bombs and such (by the barbarians). But even then, the latter is typically an endless escalating cycle (note: no real end. That is until the former is completed by the civilized).

Your wife does not know much about war. According to her we never solved the problem of who owns the Western US, our trouble with King George, American slavery amd rebellion, the Kaiser and Hitler are not resolved, etc. And if war is an endless escalting cycle, how do you explain Appomattox Courthouse, VJ day, or any of the countless times violence has led to a sudden and definitive conclusion to conflict.

There is no distinction between solving a problem and ending it. Thats a false premise. To borrow Heinlin's example, Rome ended the problem of Carthage by raising the city and salting the ground, problem solved.

Call us dinosaurs, but I have a feeling that those who recognize the value of "naked aggression" have a better chance of avoiding extinction then those who embrace peace.

You might win this argument with words. I might win it with words. But if one of us is willing to use violence, then the words don't matter.

H

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

As long as America is terrified of being attacked we will support this madness, but as long as we support this administration's mad policies, many people in the world will want to attack us. Discuss.

This is the reason why I wasn't suprise on 9/11 when I first turned on my TV at 9:30am. My first thought was, "Huh... it finally happened."

And since then, its gotten only worse. Then only saving grace for the US may be that it is so terrified already that the terrorists won't do anything b/c there job is being done for them by the administration. Then again, your average terrorist isn't that bright and will probably attack anyway.

And even then, there will come a time when no terrorists attack for such a length of time that the administration can't hold up the charade any longer. At this point 3 things may happen:
- the terrorist will attack
- the administration will stage an attack and make it look like terrorists
- the administration will give up on these tactics

As I've mentioned before, it's your typical continual cycle of escalating violence. Since terrorism will never be defeated, it's only the cause that can be treated. And that is the forgien/domestic policies of the countries involved.

And right now the policies of the US are quite hostile. Someone might want to look to that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

But Germany wasn't always trying to take over Europe. First, they just wanted Iran, Oh, excuse me, the Rhineland and Sudetenland, and that was all. Then just Kuwait...Oops...Czechoslovakia. Maybe if Britain and France had let them have Poland, they would have stopped.

Why do I have to keep reminding you about the topic thing? Stop trying to side track the discusion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Diplomacy works when both sides are willing to play by the rules. Diplomacy gave Hitler time to re-arm Germany, in violation of the Versilles treaty. 10 years of diplomacy with Iraq accomplished nothing but to get some of the folks running the "Oil for Food" program rich on kickbacks. Diplomacy in the Sudan has accomplished zip. In certain situations, diplomacy not backed up by the threat of force is not going to work.

Iraq wasn't re-arming. Iraq wasn't planning on attacking any other country. And you counter your own argument by mentioning that "threat of force." Please note that threat of force does _*/not/*_ mean applied force. Also the resolution never stated anything about force.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
EDIT:
Another addition to HkCavalier's list:
Ghandi

Ghandi was able to accomplish what he did because the British are basically civilized people. Try him against the Nazis, or the Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, or current North Korea.

LOL! That's beautiful! How about Saddam trying to negotiate the days before the attack was planned to start but the US wasn't civilized/intellegent/etc enough to even lend an ear.

And by the way, to put Ghandi in a different context to attempt to make a point is a logical fallacy.

I mentioned Ghandi as an example that people can solve there problems without violence. /That/ is the context of my mentioning him.

You are taking that out of context and trying to make a point you cannot make as different cultures at different periods in time cannot be compared in this way.

Again, please stay in context, on topic and stop making OT remarks to confuse the issue.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

This is one of the stupidest statements that I've seen to date (which is saying something as I've done tech support for FedEx).

What, you don't like History and Moral Philospophy 101?

I like it, the US doesn't use it. This is clear. There is the old saying, "If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it." Recent history suggests my conjecture here is true.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

I'd like to think that we've evolved some since and that we can solve our problems diplomatically.

Everybody likes to think that. Chamberlin was a real believer and nobody had better intentions then the League of Nations. But you can't let your principals cloud your common sense. Ignoring the value of force as an influence (positive or negative) on human history is just plain irresponsible.

Violence has value, _*/but only/*_ in _*/very/*_ extreme circumstances. If you think that it is the solution to the worlds problems then you are deluding yourself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or Sept 11, 2001. Talk can't resolve the senseless murder of thoudsands of innocents.

Yes those people were innocent, but don't think for one second that the US didn't bring this on themselves by way of there forgein policies.

This event was a tragity, but for the sake of the rest of us, please stop bringing it up. It's been years, let it go!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or in Russia last month, how do you compromise with those who cheerfully murder children by the dozen.

There is a logical fallacy that is an "emotional appeal." This is what you do here.

Also, these rebels have been fighting for the independance of there country for years and have only been dealt with with increasing military pressure. This is a prefect example of continual escalation of violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Sure, talk is fine. Diplomacy is a great achievement of civilzation. But war has been around a lot longer and has a better track record. After all wars created the world we live in today, no perfect, but better then the unmitigated tyranny, poverty, and injustice of the past.

Might does not always make right, but the right might can make right.

LOL, you slay me. War _*/is/*_ tyranny and injustic for those that are innocent that live in the combat zones. War _*/creates/*_ poverty for everyone in the country attacked. It also creates poverty for those in the attacking country after the war is done by means of a recession.

Perhaps you should talk to those who survived WWII. They can tell you what it's like to live in a decimated country. Or better yet, why not go over to Iraq and ask them. They'll tell you of the great USA, and how the USA liberated them of there water, electricity, gas, etc. Wow, the USA, what a country.

And if you think that the ways of the extremists are the ways that must be followed by the "defender" then I pitty you. An eye for an eye, makes the world blind.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Your wife does not know much about war. According to her we never solved the problem of who owns the Western US, our trouble with King George, American slavery amd rebellion, the Kaiser and Hitler are not resolved, etc. And if war is an endless escalting cycle, how do you explain Appomattox Courthouse, VJ day, or any of the countless times violence has led to a sudden and definitive conclusion to conflict.

There are still neo-nazis in Germany and the US I might add. How about the KKK. How about the using of effectively slave labour by corporations in the US in the less developed world. How about the same

PUMA

Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or Sept 11, 2001. Talk can't resolve the senseless murder of thoudsands of innocents.

Yes those people were innocent, but don't think for one second that the US didn't bring this on themselves by way of there forgein policies.

This event was a tragity, but for the sake of the rest of us, please stop bringing it up. It's been years, let it go!

Hell no, never forget. There is absolutely NO reason that those 3000, innocents should have been killed. OBL, and his people are monsters. The US has made some bad moves, but they don't excuse terrorist attacks on civilian targets! It has been years, and we should see video of those planes flying into the towers, every day. The fire should neve leave us. We are in a battle. A battle for our way of lives. You are deluding yourself completely, if you think anything less.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Or in Russia last month, how do you compromise with those who cheerfully murder children by the dozen.

There is a logical fallacy that is an "emotional appeal." This is what you do here.

Also, these rebels have been fighting for the independance of there country for years and have only been dealt with with increasing military pressure. This is a prefect example of continual escalation of violence.

No, this is a perfect example of someone that wants to appease terrorists and murderers, and make it seem ok. Until you realize that there is evil in this world, you will always be a victim of it. It is monsters that have no iota of humanity in them, that can do this to children. You can make peace with a man, you can not make peace with a monster.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Perhaps you should talk to those who survived WWII. They can tell you what it's like to live in a decimated country. Or better yet, why not go over to Iraq and ask them. They'll tell you of the great USA, and how the USA liberated them of there water, electricity, gas, etc. Wow, the USA, what a country.

I find it interesting you mention this. Since you have no grounds in reality to base it on. One of the guys I work with just came back from Iraq. He was an MP, and was in the hotzones. He says the Iraqi people, like us. Treat us as friends. The major number of combatants there, are NOT Iraqi citizens, but foriegn "freedom fighters", that want cnotrol of the country.

Another point to show the evil that we are fighting over there. He relayed a story, where they were on guard stationed in front of a base. A guy comes up, and throws a grenade at them, and then runs off. Thankfully, no one was hurt. He then runs up again, and tosses another grenade. They take him down, before he can throw the third grenade. They then did some digging, to find some information on this man. The reason that he was throwing grenades... was it that we blew up his family? No. Did we take his livelyhood away? No. It seems that his wife and children were being held hostage by some terrorist insurgents, and he was FORCED to throw grenades at our people. You talk as if negotiation has a chance in hell of working. It doesn't. These monsters are like rabid dogs. You put them down, there is no cure. We are not Islam, so they want to kill us. There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can say or do (short of converting to their violent religion), to change that. You have to wake up, and realize that we are coddled over here, in the Americas. The world sucks. Life is unfair.

Another point. This thread was started, with Annan saying that the war was illegal. What were we supposed to do? 17 resolutions, Saddam tried to assassinate a former president, we have complete PROOF that he has WMD. They were used on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of his people. It's not a rumor, it's not a lie... it is documented proof. Those WMDs don't just vanish. Something happ

HKCAVALIER

Friday, September 24, 2004 1:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Ghandi was able to accomplish what he did because the British are basically civilized people.

LOL! That's beautiful!

Yeah! Tell it to the Irish! LOL!

Hey, Sigma, you notice how ol' Geezer said "the British?" His tendencies are showing. See, to someone like Geezer, the British people are basically civilized while the Iraqi people, well...not so much. It was never a war against Saddam Hussein was it? He's alive and well while tens of thousands of Iraqi people are dead. And folks like Geezer think they deserved it.

Geezer asked me what guarantees my freedom and I'd like to answer that question as an anodyne to all the bloodthirsty bluster that's cropped up on the forum of late.

What guarantees my freedom is the love and high regard which the United States of America enjoys throughout the world. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a phrase known to people everywhere and America symbolizes these values for people in every country on Earth. I know people in Tehran today that are obsessed with Thomas Jefferson. People everywhere dream of coming to America and living life as they choose. As long as so much of the world loves us, America will prosper. It's that simple. As long as we embody these "inalienable rights" we lead the world and the world follows.

The people of the world know that tyrants come and go, that the military arm of every government is a medieval throwback and not to be trusted. All governments in the world are at least 300 years behind the general population. For the most part our government has been the tool of the richest Americans, which is a distinct improvement over the previous model of government where the most violent faction governs.

Our current masters would turn back this clock and return the people to the rule of naked force. They imagine that their violence is the real power in the world and not a disease from which our people suffer. If they succeed and America ceases to be a beacon of hope around the world, our people and our way of life may truly be threatened.

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.

RUE

Friday, September 24, 2004 3:04 AM

I noticed no one of the habitual 'nuke 'em' persuasion answered my question:
What is the reason to pound Iraq that you will never back away from? (A single sentence, or at most a short paragraph, please.)
Hero and Geezer seem to be carrying the spears (ahem) in this thread. Aside from general discussion about war, and historical discussions about WW II, I'd like to hear YOUR specific answers about why it was vital to go into Iraq.

AnthonyT - It's funny, a friend used to say that (it seemed like a good idea, at the time), only with such a witless demeanor, you knew it was a complete dissing. Your reply brought back memories. It actually never seemed like a good idea to me, but I knew Hussein didn't have any WMD. What was your perspective that made it seem like a good idea, at the time?

Puma, yes, there are monsters in the world. But if you use it to rationalize the unthinkable (they're not people, after all), isn't it an excuse to become one yourself? Are you worried about being safe? Or out to cleanse the world once and for all?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE