I hope this will stay a dignified debate, but that's what I hope.
Begin.
Me? I'm Undecided. There is a lot to be gained by taking Saddam out of power, and yes he does need to be taken out. But I also feel that now isn't the right time, War costs billions of dollars and with the shape the economy is in, the taxpayers would end up paying for it in the end, in my opinion.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
The inspectors find some small shit, they get rid of, dissasemble, destroy it.
And if the Iraq really has some big bombs, at least they cannot be used while they're hidden; moving from one hiding place to another, trying to dodge the inspectors.
No one gets killed, the Iraq is stripped of weapons and almost everybody is happy. [ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Tarquinn ]
My reasons:
1. Iraq is not a tangible threat; While his regime is totalitarian and viscious, there is zero evidence of any link between Saddam's regime and terrorist group Al Qaeda and especially no link whatsoever to Jemaah Islamiah. (PM John Howard used Jemaah Islamiah* as his reason to go to war, which is complete bullshit.) There is also no evidence Iraq was planning any strike on the USA or it's allies in the near future. On the other hand, with all the warmongering, and the (now, certain) prospect of an (illegal unless passed by the security council, which ain't gonna happen) invasion on a scale not seen since the second world war, is quite likely to be planning pre-emptive or retaliatory action on the troops stationed in the Gulf.
Back to the so called Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. It has been shown that there are Al Qaeda operations in Iraq. However, there has not been any indication of a connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. They occupy the same space, sure. But the Ku Klux Klan and the assorted Christian fundamentalists that bomb clinics and the like all reside within the mighty US of A. And you don't honestly expect me to believe they're in league with the US government. Jemaar Islamiah is in Indonesia. You likewise cannot expect me to believe the government of Indonesia is in league with those ones either. So show me the proof that there is a link.
2.Weapons of Mass Destruction. Any country, that uses these things will be turned apon by all other countries, and will be turned into a country shaped glass plate. This is fairly straightforward. It is argued that the risk is in terrorist groups getting their hands on them that is the problem. I agree with this; I think that in the deposing of Saddam, the various biological and chemical agents that he most likely has hidden away -might not- be in the control of the Iraqi government when it is being replaced over several years. Who'd be getting their paws on them during this time?
3. More pressing issues to attend to. North Korea rattling the saber over there needs more attention. So does the US economy, health system, education system and social welfare system. The billions to do this would definatly be better spent elsewhere, maybe making your country better rather than dismantling another.
4. The alliances. Mister Bush is not on speaking terms with Jacques Chirac (not that that one matters much) or Gerhard Schröder (The last time this happened on the case of Germany was with herr Hitler.). Also Russia is kinda irritated with the decision as well as France and Germany. This is tugging on things a bit with the alliances. This is openly pissing on the Security council, too. Two of the permanent members with the power of Veto say no. Germany also says no but is a temporary member. But whoop, off to war. This is against international law. (I think?)
5. Finally there's the whole moral thing. All wars are a fundamentally evil act, no matter how noble the premise**, or how necissary the war is. It should always be a last resort, and the peaceful options have not yet been exhausted.
And that is why I am against the War on Iraq. I could probably think of more reasons, but I am going to bed.
* Bali Bombings.
** This war is NOT good versus evil. It is Them versus Us. Saddam is most definatly evil, yes, but George W. Bush is no shining tower of rightiousness either.
I picked choice 1 though, simply because delaying the inevitable war, or even cancelling the war, is only going to cost us more money than not going to war soon.
quote:
G.L. Ryuujin had this to say about (_|_):
These are good opinions, though Kekvit, I'd go into a bit more detail. Some of the yokel folks around here say that everytime they go hunting.
*cradles her 12 gauge with a toothy grin*
Be very very qwiet... I'm huntin' Suddam. 
I have never liked malevolent dictators. Let's look at it this way:
The Iraqi government has ties with terrorists. Hell, they ARE terrorists, training suicide bombers in camps to strike at any US-held interest around the world.
Free elections? Pfft.
The citizens have something against the leader? Chances are they wont see the light of day very soon if they make their opinions public due to Iraqi secret police.
Three words: Biological, Chemical, Nukes. Sure, Israel sent fighters to bomb the only nucluear reactor they had, but they wont stop them. They've already used biological weapons against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war.
quote:
Dr. Pvednes, PhD impressed everyone with:
** This war is NOT good versus evil. It is Them versus Us. Saddam is most definatly evil, yes, but George W. Bush is no shining tower of rightiousness either.
Then woudlnt you want the war if ti was a strugle of evil vs. evil ebcosue the only outcoemwould be one evil woudl destroy the other and in it become weeker?
quote:
Check out the big brain on Azizza!
I am suprised by the results so far. I thought the board leaned the other way.
The antis are just louder. 
quote:
Dr. Pvednes, PhD thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
...3. More pressing issues to attend to. North Korea rattling the saber over there needs more attention. So does the US economy, health system, education system and social welfare system. The billions to do this would definatly be better spent elsewhere, maybe making your country better rather than dismantling another.
From my understanding, The issue of North Korea is not that big of an issue quite yet, 'cause basicly the US has been trying to tell North Korea that if they don't play ball with us, well then they have to deal with China, and they are not as nice as we are.
quote:
Kekvit Irae had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Bitch must die. Now.
Indeed.
quote:
This one time, at Azizza camp:
I am suprised by the results so far. I thought the board leaned the other way.
Ditto. [ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Kegwen ]
quote:
Talonus's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
You're missing the option, "I'm for war with Iraq, but only if UN gives the OK."I picked choice 1 though, simply because delaying the inevitable war, or even cancelling the war, is only going to cost us more money than not going to war soon.
And the option for "Yes, Saddam needs to be removed, but there is still very little to support going to war."
quote:
Kermitov obviously shouldn't have said:
And the option for "Yes, Saddam needs to be removed, but there is still very little to support going to war."
That's what the "No" option is for.
It's not something people hear about.
However, my older brother is over there and would probably be in the first British wave over the border. I'm a little scared that if a war comes along, he may never come back. 
Oops!
quote:
Baron Von Mortay wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Saddam needs to be removed.However, my older brother is over there and would probably be in the first British wave over the border. I'm a little scared that if a war comes along, he may never come back.
Yikes mort I didn't know that. If it is any consolation I have a bunch of good friends over there as well in advanced bases.
Also remember that the Iraqi army is already trying to surrender at some places. I think cassualties will be very low.
..yeah...
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Dr. Pvednes, PhD said this:
[QB][color=orange]there is zero evidence of any link between Saddam's regime and terrorist group Al Qaeda
quote:
2.Weapons of Mass Destruction. Any country, that uses these things will be turned apon by all other countries, and will be turned into a country shaped glass plate. This is fairly straightforward. It is argued that the risk is in terrorist groups getting their hands on them that is the problem. I agree with this; I think that in the deposing of Saddam, the various biological and chemical agents that he most likely has hidden away -might not- be in the control of the Iraqi government when it is being replaced over several years. Who'd be getting their paws on them during this time?
The most dangerous weapon Iraq has IS the Hussein regime. Give a man a nuke and you kill a few million, teach an ambitious madman who's demonstrated hostile expansionism and a complete disregard for human life how to build a nuke, and the sky's the limit.
quote:
3. More pressing issues to attend to. North Korea rattling the saber over there needs more attention.
It's getting it and will continue getting it during the war with Iraq.
quote:
So does the US economy
It's been doing fine, which isn't surprising given that all through the history of American economics, tax cuts have never failed to increase government revenue.
quote:
health system, education system and social welfare system.
Safety takes priority over comfort. A fat lot of good a sparkling health system will do for dead people.
quote:
4. The alliances. Mister Bush is not on speaking terms with Jacques Chirac (not that that one matters much) or Gerhard Schröder (The last time this happened on the case of Germany was with herr Hitler.). Also Russia is kinda irritated with the decision as well as France and Germany. This is tugging on things a bit with the alliances.
Nobody cares. After the war, everybody will pretend they were all for it.
quote:
5. Finally there's the whole moral thing. All wars are a fundamentally evil act, no matter how noble the premise
But you'll sit back in relax in the peace brought to you by previous wars. How morally superior you are!
quote:
or how necissary the war is. It should always be a last resort, and the peaceful options have not yet been exhausted.
You sound like you have a long list of other ideas. Perhaps you should share them?
quote:
This war is NOT good versus evil. It is Them versus Us. Saddam is most definatly evil, yes, but George W. Bush is no shining tower of rightiousness either.
This is not George Bush VS Saddam Hussein either, it's "America and every country who values human life, peace, and safety and has the stones to stand up for themselves" VS Saddam Hussein.
So yes, it very much is good VS. evil.
Now is the right time, but that's at least in part because GW has pushed things to the point that it is the right time. The first side to back down, loses big time. It's a loss we can't afford.
Do I agree with what GW did to bring it to this point? Do I think it would have come to this sooner or later without him? Sorry, but I just don't know the answers to that.
I hate war, and I wish it didn't have to happen. But, things now stand at a point where we can't back down.
But Hussein is not respecting the UN. He's violating sanctions he's been given many chances on, repeatedly, and still people say "More time, give him more time".
So I have to ask, which is it? Do people want the UN to be respected? If so, then why is there so much opposition to someone who is going to see that happens?
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
1.
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I do have to say that I find it very ironic that many naysayers of war are unhappy that Bush would be going against the UN. Some want the US to respect the UN.But Hussein is not respecting the UN. He's violating sanctions he's been given many chances on, repeatedly, and still people say "More time, give him more time".
So I have to ask, which is it? Do people want the UN to be respected? If so, then why is there so much opposition to someone who is going to see that happens?
How would a unilateral offensive war, the very thing the UN was put in place to avoid, help raise respect for the UN?
quote:
We were all impressed when Shazorx / Modrakien wrote:
How would a unilateral offensive war, the very thing the UN was put in place to avoid, help raise respect for the UN?
by being agaisnt poeple who disegard the un mroe then we do
quote:
Mog wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
by being agaisnt poeple who disegard the un mroe then we do
So vigilante justice is good for the legal system?
I loathe the idea of war; I loathe the fact that we as a race will push ourselves to the point that we have no alternative but the death of some to prevent the death of many.
But that is how things are, until we are willing to change them.
Saddam Hussein has been given chances at peace: he's responded with death.
It's time for a change.
But if we go in for this we have to follow through. We have to see Saddam die (although given that, as I understand, he has myriad decoys posing as him this may be difficult). We have to dismantle and rebuild the government. It may be costly, but if we don't do it now then it will remain a problem, the war will have solved nothing, and we will likely have to do it again in a few years.
quote:
Originally Kupoed by Maradon:
It's been doing fine, which isn't surprising given that all through the history of American economics, tax cuts have never failed to increase government revenue.
Not saying you're wrong, but this seem rather counterintuitiveupo. I don't have that good of a grasp of economics, but it seems as though staunching the revenue source would staunch the revenue. Would you takupo a moment to explain?
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
More money in the hands of consumers means consumers are willing to spend more money, and invest more money in things such as savings bonds.
If people have more money, they are more than likely willing to spend. If you have less, you arent as willing to spend at all.
I THINK thats how it works, but its been a yearish since my economy class
quote:
Check out the big brain on Falaanla Marr!
Moogle, I believe it works something like this:More money in the hands of consumers means consumers are willing to spend more money, and invest more money in things such as savings bonds.
If people have more money, they are more than likely willing to spend. If you have less, you arent as willing to spend at all.
I THINK thats how it works, but its been a yearish since my economy class
Ahh...I was thinking something along those lines. Thanks for clearing it up, now I kupknow, and...
Kup-knowing is half the battle!
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
quote:
Shazorx / Modrakien wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
How would a unilateral offensive war, the very thing the UN was put in place to avoid, help raise respect for the UN?
My point wasn't that war without UN approval wouldn't be disrespecting the UN. It was that disrespecting the UN is a reason I've heard batted around to be against the war, and I find it pretty stupid to hide behind something so flimsy. Because the one they're saying to give more chances to is openly flouting the UN's dictates and demands.
If people want to oppose war, that's fine. If they think it's not necessary, or they think Saddam could be reasoned with or whatever, no problem with that. But a really idiotic reason like it's disrespecting the UN is just laughable when they're supporting someone doing the same thing. [ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Lyinar Ka`Bael ]
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Why try to fix another country when yours need it too. Give the good exemple. And US aint the right one. None is perfect. People keep saying they are dying over there, children need the food and education..look around..we all got them also.
quote:
Jewel had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Ok, well my point of view seem a bit different.Why try to fix another country when yours need it too. Give the good exemple. And US aint the right one. None is perfect. People keep saying they are dying over there, children need the food and education..look around..we all got them also.
?
quote:
Jewel had this to say about dark elf butts:
look around..we all got them also.
Is your leader killing innocents in large amounts for no good reason? I know our's isn't...
We should occupy them and let General MacArthur fix things. That is the true way to win.
