[CP5670]

I assumed that the rolling eyes smiley was a substitute for an argument.

[phreak]

why doesn't anybody want us to go into Iraq?

the world is too squeamish and doesn't like to see blood on anyone's hands.

[CP5670]

That unfortunately has some truth to it.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
I assumed that the rolling eyes smiley was a substitute for an argument.

I see your points. All three of them.

[CP5670]

Three points? I was actually trying to make just one.

[Levyathan]

That's my point.

[CP5670]

eh? You talked about three of them...

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by CP5670
You stated the last part very well there. As vyper said in an earlier thread, governments exist to protect their and only their populations. It does not matter if all the Iraqis get "blown up, maimed or straved" if it helps the Americans in any way, and this can be reduced to enough precision such that no opinions matter at all and everything can be objectively deduced from logic. I think that at some point there will be a single united government that rules the entire globe, but for today, this is the way the world works and how things stand.

It depends wherther people are honest about this, which is never the case, especially with politicians so stating it a couple of times wouldn't do a lot of harm. Wherther all governments are like this is a different matter.

Originally posted by CP5670
I doubt they would release all of the top secret information.

No but blair has tryed to associate Iraq with Al Quaeda (which the MI later said wasn't true) in order to whip up war fever.

Originally posted by CP5670
I don't quite trust the US government either to make truly rational decisions based on the information, looking at their history (e.g. irrational fear of communism), but these petty moral excuses that people use against them are just pathetic.

The Plutocratic US government's fear of Communism was not irrational. They had a lot to fear from it, seems as most of the US Reps and Senators are way, way above the National average wealth scale and are financed by large corporations (which really have a lot to fear for communism).

Originally posted by CP5670
I cannot see how this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. People apparently just love to use these moralistic excuses; the US may be the biggest, baddest monster regime in the world (and probably is), but so what? The Vietnam events were bad, but for completely different reasons. I have said this many times and I will say it again: the truly sensible nations do not fight for any stupid ethical values.

Someone's been reading Nietzche


But those morals are generally the ones preached by the politicians (with small differences) and the ones heald by the sheeple, which will ultimately decide wherther there is war or not.

Of course if we want to drag this thread way off topic, we could discuss the purpose of life (to live according to logic, to aquire knowledge, to pursue happiness (which is silly seems a shot of cocaine will make you more happy than you could ever be naturally), human nature (which can be modified to suit the former) and how it relates to others.

Originally posted by CP5670
Someone get daveb in here...

I'm assuming you're after him for his (and mine in rebuking him) entertainment value. Seems as he argues upon ethics rather than logic.

Originally posted by CP5670
but they fight for the continued long-term survival of their people and their people alone.

Interesting and probably right, although it depends who you define as your people. people you share a geographical location with or people who share your ideology? Mind you, if everyone in the world made their decisions based on logic then there would be no difference between any of the peoples and no war.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Levyathan
That's my point.

0wnage.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
eh? You talked about three of them...

Argh. Read the thread again, from my first post. You might even get it.

[CP5670]

I need to go at the moment so I will have to make this quick, but I will come back later.

The Plutocratic US government's fear of Communism was not irrational. They had a lot to fear from it, seems as most of the US Reps and Senators are way, way above the National average wealth scale and are financed by large corporations (which really have a lot to fear for communism)

Yeah, but the businesses they are not really serving the interests of the people of the nation as a whole; they only serve the interests of individuals trying to make money. I suppose the business executives had the necessary political influence to stir up this anti-communist fever at that time though. (and they still do, unfortunately) Hey, I am just as opposed to the corporations as you are.

Someone's been reading Nietzche

You got that one right.

Yes, morals mean nothing but it's in Humanity's interests to have a set (otherwise we wouldn't exist for very long). But those morals are generally the ones preached by the politicians (with small differences) and the ones heald by the sheeple, which will ultimately decide wherther there is war or not.

Yes, but the governments themselves do not actually exist for the interests of everyone; they were founded and still exist only to serve a certain group of people. A government that existed for the interests of humanity would be a true world government, but that will form a bit later. In today's world, if a government tried to follow the morals like a religion, they would get beaten into the ground right away by everyone else (a good example of this is 1930s India under Gandhi) and in a world containing partially moral/partially logical and fully logical nations, it is pretty obvious who would emerge the victors.

Of course if we want to drag this thread way off topic, we could discuss the purpose of life (to live according to logic, to aquire knowledge, to pursue happiness (which is silly seems a shot of cocaine will make you more happy than you could ever be naturally), human nature (which can be modified to suit the former) and how it relates to others.

Well, all these things are continuously related anyway, so everything in the end must be considered to get a result... (Hegel once said that "the truth is the whole;" I love that statement )

Interesting and probably right, although it depends who you define as your people. people you share a geographical location with or people who share your ideology?

I would go for the latter here; it is true that the nations of today are united only by their location/birthplace for the most part, but this seems to be slowly giving away to the ideological bonds instead. (note how societies based on ideas seem to be forming everywhere today; these will only grow more powerful over time) In this situation, any Iraqis that agree with US ideologies will probably instigate rebellions as the fighting starts, thus helping the US side anyway; in fact, it is unknown how many of Hussein's forces are actually loyal to him and will continue fighting if he dies.

Argh. Read the thread again, from my first post. You might even get it.

Sorry, I looked over your posts again but cannot understand what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate a bit?

[vyper]

Destroyed iraqi regime=regional chaos

regional chaos=everyone out there fighting each other

everyone out there fighting each other=not fighting us.

[CP5670]

That would also work.

[Styxx]

Weren't you leaving?

[CP5670]

Only for about 20 minutes. But I have to go again now, this time for several hours. (brother is here )

[Grey Wolf]

Anyone have a price for property on the moon? At this rate, I figure that'll give me a nice view of the mushroom clouds.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by CP5670
Sorry, I looked over your posts again but cannot understand what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate a bit?

Oh boy.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Anyone have a price for property on the moon? At this rate, I figure that'll give me a nice view of the mushroom clouds.

Ah, so you wish to live in the an0nian Lunar Facist Reich? Eeeexcellent.

*starts nuking randomly from orbit*
*nukes Greenland*
*resumes nuking randomly*

[Tiara]

Originally posted by an0n
Eeeexcellent.

Were you the mad doctor from Hitman 47?

[Kellan]

I seem to have arrived a little late for this party. I'm sure that what I'm about to say has been covered by an0n, Top Gun and others, but that won't stop me from saying it. So there.

*ahem*

Anyway, the reasons that I oppose war on Iraq are as follows. First, the facts:

• The US and the West in general support unpopular, murderous dictators throughout the world - many far nastier than Saddam. Historical examples include Franco and Pinochet (anything to get rid of those damn Communists), but Gen. Parvez Musharraf of Pakistan wasn't elected - he overthrew the government. However, since he's helping the US his transgressions are forgiven.
• It should be remembered that Reagan and Daddy Bush supplied Saddam with all those nasty weapons of his. At the time it was acknowledged (as outlined in the recently-published Scott Inquiry) that he could use materials supplied to make NBC weapons. However, since he was at war with Iran, he was deemed the lesser of two evils and supplied with weapons. Ooops. :rolleyes:
  
• Iraq is actually one of the more Liberal Arab states, believe it or not. Women have greater rights there than in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and the industrial infrasturcture is far more advanced. Iraq has been called by some analysts "the keystone of Middle Eastern democracy" - but not if we blow it all up.
• Speaking of the Middle East in general, an attack on Iraq is not going to endear the West to the Arab world. There'll likely be more reprisals against Israel, possibly even more terrorist strikes. The cycle of violence will continue and hopes for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian Conflict would be reduced. An attack may even destablize the region, as Saudi Arabia has shown its negative position by pulling assets out of America and threatening to restrict oil supplies.
• A brief note about the economy: talking up a war is not the way to instill confidence in investors back home. The potential for high oil prices discourages investment and share-buying. With the US economy in a fragile state at best, war might push it back into recession.
• Assuming that a war went ahead, Saddam isn't going to repaeat the mistakes of the Gulf War and put all his troops out in trenches where shiny tanks can blast them from 2 miles away, resulting in low casualty rates. If he's as evil as Rumsfeld et al would have us believe, he'll garrison all his troops in major cities. That way the US can either bomb the places flat and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians - which I imagine won't go down well - or go in on foot and sustain much higher casualty rates, plus lots of civilian deaths. This won't be an easy fight, either - Saddam's Elite Guard are reputedly loyal, some trained by the US in their own terrorist training camps, and armed with the best weapons Iraq can muster. That may not be saying much, but in street fighting I'd imagine a gun is a gun.

Now for my idelogical objections. Feel free to sigh, groan or roll your eyes at this point.

• Not all other alternatives have been exhausted. Iraq is offering UN weapons inspectors access to its military installations. This may be a ruse to buy more time, but the opportunity should be taken and explored. Because options which use less force are available, they should be explored first.
• Relating to the above: the entire legitimacy of this war is that Saddam is refusing to allow inspectors to check if he's developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. If he lets them in, complies with UN demands and we still depose him, the war has no legitimacy.
• Speaking of which, simply deposing elected (because yes, he was once elected) heads of state is a no-no according to international law. By deposing Saddam for no other reason than "we don't like him" we become dictators ourselves - of who nations choose as leaders. It's a dangerous precedent to set. What if, one day America (etc.) decides that the new German Chancellor is unacceptable? Or the new Russian Premier is a Communist?
• Yes, there is no real reason other than failure to comply to UN resolutions to depose Saddam. So he's not nice to his people? Why the **** do you care? You don't care about Chechnya, Kashmir or any number of other conflicts. Dictators the West have sponsored have been just as barbaric. He's not launched an attack on a Western, or any sovereign nation since his 1991 defeat, nor does he show any sign of doing so. His government cannot be tied to Al-Qaida in any way at present, nor any other terrorism. So what, are we scared of his macho posturing and dyed hair? :doubt:
• This war will not lessen the aggregate of suffering that Saddam's rule results in. As he does not cause suffering to other nations, there are only his people to consider. A war might be terminal to some people's health, and the ones that were left would have to exist in a damaged environment - a destroyed infrastructure, no central government and authorities, DU shells and the like. Whilst it's true that 1 million children have died since 1991, partly as a result of Iraqi government mismanagement, that only becomes an issue because we won't let them have medicine in sufficient quantities. See below for a bit more.
• If I believed that the US was going to stick around after the war was over, pick up the pieces and recreate a safer, more democratic Iraq maybe I'd be happier. Unfortunately, past history says no. The US wasted no time in pulling out of Afghanistan once its mission was over, is pulling the plug on aid to the area and contributes a miniscule amount to the development of poor countries. It is my belief that if a war goes ahead, there will be no reconstruction - just another country shattered by Western neo-Imperialist fantasies.

Phew. Well, that's it for now.

Where's Stryke 9 when you really need him to dispense withering sarcasm on the supporters of Bush and the war on Iraq, eh? Don't make me take his place... ;)