Opposing war = passive support?

by expatbrit 62 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  ThiChi,

  Not true. The missies that Iraq have been using to bomb Kuwait since the start of the war are banned under UN Resolutions.

  This is another common misapprehension. These missiles, though banned under the UN resolutions owing to their ability to travel beyond the permitted 150 miles are not the weapons of mass destruction that the UN resolutions allude to. It is their potentail payload that makes them weapons of mass destruction. The missile is NOT a weapon of mass destruction unless its payload is nuclear or chemical. The Iraqi's deny that they still have such capability and as of today's date the Coalition forces do not deny this.

  HS
• 

  dubla

  h.s.-

  yeah, i understand your point. in fact, i have some reservations about the way this whole thing will unfold as well, and i have some reservations about the ways we went about it. i dont think "liberation" is the main reason we are there, and touting the whole war as a liberation war is simply a media ploy to gain support. do i think the iraqi people will be better off? i do. do i think "liberation" is a complete and total reason to invade a nation? not neccesarily....depends on the case (obviously the only reason we were in somalia was "liberation", and it was indeed valid, imo). it happens to be, in this case, a wonderful outcome of a regime change in iraq that was needed for reasons outlined many times over in many other threads. you might not agree with the "main" reasons we are there either, as you perhaps want more proof of saddams danger to others, and i maintain that proof is in the past, and more is yet to come. just for the record, im internally split on the timing of it all. on one hand i know that saddam had plenty of chances, second chances, third chances, and so forth to comply with all u.n. resolutions regarding his nation, and he didnt. on the other hand, im not sold on the fact that had we not invaded immediately saddam wouldve posed a greater threat as each passing month went by. i think theres a great argument for both sides, and as far as timing is concerned, im on the fence personally. im for the war, for the regime change, but as ive said, ive got some reservations about the way it was handled.

  aa
• 

  dubla

  The Iraqi's deny that they still have such capability and as of today's date the Coalition forces do not deny this.

  i heard this morning that the latest missle intercepted in kuwait (by a patriot) was confirmed to be a "scud". if this is true (ill have to confirm somehow, as i was barely awake when i heard it, and i cant find a credible link on it yet), its my understading that all of the "scud" missles are banned under u.n. resolutions, and i do know that iraq has denied (since the war began) that they have any scud missles. again, it might have been a false report, or just the end of my morning dream, lol.....further confirmation to come.

  aa
• 

  hillary_step

  Adam,

  Please use the example of Hillary Step of how NOT to respond to the question.

  This seems to be some thinly veiled attack on the points that I have made above. Should you wish to address them point by point I will be quite willing to debate. Rhetoric is when you make such statements above and do nothing to define them technically.

  As to the issue as to what alternatives to war might their be. Well, I discussed this in detail in Expats last thread on this issue. Read all the posts carefully and we can discuss this if you wish to start yet another thread on this issue.

  HS
• 

  ThiChi

  "These missiles, though banned under the UN resolutions owing to their ability to travel beyond the permitted 150 miles are not the weapons of mass destruction that the UN resolutions allude to"

  According to UN Resolution 1441, this places Iraq in material breach. Not just WMDs were mandated for destruction........Don’t worry, more is still to come....

  Appeasement has not worked for 12 years......
• 

  Adam

  H S,

  Not at all an attack on your points made above. I simply did not want Trauma Hound to go off about why we're not liberating other opressed people or about how it's not the US's job to liberate them or any other anti-US, anti-Bush, or anti-war issue. I wanted him to stick very specificly to my quesiton and used your response as an example of what I was hoping not to get from him.

  Not interested in a discussion about alternatives to war in Iraq at the moment as the war is already on and the discussion moot, but thank you for the invitation.
• 

  hillary_step

  ThiChi,

  The two reasons for invading Iraq that I note above have been repeatedly used by the President of the USA and Prime Minister of England as the justification for invading Iraq. My argument is that as of today's date, eight days into the war, neither of these given reasons have been born out by any evidence.

  I would be very surpised if no such weapons are found, or that connections to Al Qaeda were not discovered. If they are not it would be catastrophic to the Coalition cause because it is on such accusatory claims that many inncocent people have died and will need to die.

  As you note, time will tell.

  HS
• 

  ISP

  'Opposing War' is not passive support for anything.

  Killing kids and women is not acceptable. If you are so hard and so well equipped...go into those cities and mix it. Don't just bomb the hell out of the innocents.

  ISP
• 

  hillary_step

  Adam,

  Not at all an attack on your points made above. I simply did not want Trauma Hound to go off about why we're not liberating other opressed people or about how it's not the US's job to liberate them or any other anti-US, anti-Bush, or anti-war issue. I wanted him to stick very specificly to my quesiton and used your response as an example of what I was hoping not to get from him.

  In which case keep me out of your personal war, I have enough of my own....lol

  Best regards - HS
• 

  reubenfine

  From Amnesty International:

  AI's Annual Report 2002 details human rights violations in 2001. It records:
  

  • Confirmed or possible extrajudicial executions in 47 countries in 2001.
  • People "disappeared" or remained "disappeared" from previous years in 35 countries.
  • People reportedly tortured or ill-treated by security forces, police or other state authorities in 111 countries.
  • Confirmed or possible prisoners of conscience in 56 countries.
  • People arbitrarily arrested and detained, or in detention without charge or trial in 54 countries.
  • During 2001, people were sentenced to death in 50 countries and executions were carried out in at least 27 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true figures are certainly higher.
  • Serious human rights abuses by armed opposition groups committed serious human rights abuses, such as deliberate and arbitrary killings of civilians, torture and hostage-taking, in 42 countries.\

  If the reason we are attacking Saddam is because he is evil then we have a lot of attacking to do. Oh yeah, the US is on the list for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without being charged. We obviously need to attack ourselves since we are so righteous. Come on, this is about oil and only about oil. The US never has and never will attack someone just for being evil. Politics just don't work that way, espcially US politics. The selling of wars always works that way, though.