war hawks ( coreyRIT and venom ) please read...

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/18/2003, 2:05 pm

i am going to trap you.

you believe that a pre emptive military strike against iraq is justified because it is a possibility that they will attack the united states in the future.

you accept that this is going to result in the loss of some innocent life, but write this off as the 'price of war' or some such thing.

moreover, you believe that invading iraq is a morally correct action.

is this true?

if what i have just said is not true, please clarify your views on iraq for me.

remember, this is a trap.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 2/18/2003, 5:14 pm

I believe what you have said is not true. What may be just cause for war hasnt even been clarified. Let the UN do their job. When the results come up, then decide. Dont rush into something without proper knowledge. Now that i've fallen into said trap, flame away.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/18/2003, 5:45 pm

my post is directed towards those who are in favour of the war. i am not.

Joe Cooler · Post by **Joe Cooler** » 2/18/2003, 6:52 pm

You must have contradicted yourself then. Either that or i'm dumb.

Either way i digress.

Post by **faninor** » 2/18/2003, 6:54 pm

I believe Iraq has not been forthcoming with complying with resolution 1441. It's an opinion, everyone's entitled to their own. But that's why I think preemptive strike is justified.

I won't say that we can just write off the loss of innocent life . . . can't make that decision until after the event. From what I understand, innocent people in Iraq die already as a result of UN sanctions, Saddam Husayn's policies, etc. so if relatively few people die as a result of a war, and then standard of living goes up for them, I would accept that. But if it's excessive and tons of innocent people are randomly killed, that's not excusable.

I have not been presented with a solution that I really think is practical and morally correct. I'm going off of what I think will solve something that I believe is a problem.

That should be enough for me to be trapped, right?

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 2/18/2003, 11:42 pm

i'm not a war hawk?

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/19/2003, 9:51 am

it's a philisophical trap. i intend to use reason, which i know from experience corey does not believe in, to prove to you that the war is morally wrong.

anyways, since i couldn't get enough responses i'm just going to spring it on you.

the united states government has weapons of mass destruction. they also have had an increasing animosity and military prescence inside the arab world.

as a result, a pre emptive strike [ 9/11 ] was carried out against them. innocent people as well as military targets were killed.

the us assumes iraq has wmd. they have an increasing animosity to the us.

as a result, a pre emptive strike will be carried out against them. innocent people as well as military targets will be hit.

if you believe the 9/11 attacks were wrong, that it is wrong to attack a country which has done NOTHING TO YOU and kill innocent people within that country, you mus then believe the same of iraq.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 2/19/2003, 12:24 pm

Bravo.

Thanks for dedicating a thread to me. I adore how you think you know how I feel about everything, labeling me a "war hawk". I don't believe I ever really supported the war against Iraq. I merely defended the government's motives. I still have not made a personal opinion on whether I believe it is justified or not. But considering you know me so well, so be it. I don't believe in reason? Um, of course I do. Just not your definition of "reason". (i.e. what chris says is right and everybody else is wrong)

One question for you:

Does Iraq not know that we plan on striking? Is there one single individual in this world that doesn't know about the proposed war on Iraq? (excluding complete ignorant people)

Putting that aside. Who here knew about the planned strike against the WTC? Who here turned on the TV and wasn't the least bit surprised? I'm willing to bet none of you.

My, how you've "trapped" me. What a joke.

For those of you that have compassion for our soliders, please let them know by signing here:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/nmam.html

Whether you agree with the war or not, they still deserve your support. In their minds, they are doing it all for you.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/19/2003, 1:15 pm

so? pre emptive killing of civillians to prevent possible future strikes is pre emtpive killing of civillians, regardless of whether or not the attack is announced or secret.

i cannot get around how you people can sit back and think that your twisted logic makes sense. it's amazing.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 2/19/2003, 2:31 pm

Yes pre-emptive strike = pre-emptive strike.. very good, you want a cookie? You excel in simple logic. Unfortunately you are quite awful at more complex logic. You cannot ignore all the other variables.

Having $500 is having $500.

But if I stole that $500 or I received that $500 as a Christmas bonus, is it still really the same? Nope.

Stop omitting variables. You do it all too often. I applaud you too, because you are quite good at it.

pre-emptive as told by dictionary.com
"Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent"

Tell me. What threat did the WTC impose?

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/19/2003, 3:34 pm

in one day the us will launch between 300 - 400 cruise missiles on iraq. these missiles will have various targets, including ones inside iraqui cities. tell me, what threat do the innocents who will die in these attacks pose?

right now, what has iraq done to deserve a strike? have they declared war? have they done anything directly to harm the united states? no.

neither had the us to the "terrorists" who attacked the towers. if you believe it was wrong for "them" to attack the united states out of the blue, i cannot get my mind around how you think it would be ok for the us to do that to somebody else.

it's a double standard. you only think something is wrong when it happens to you. congratulations.

Post by **faninor** » 2/19/2003, 7:51 pm

american idol wrote:it's a philisophical trap. i intend to use reason, which i know from experience corey does not believe in, to prove to you that the war is morally wrong.

anyways, since i couldn't get enough responses i'm just going to spring it on you.

the united states government has weapons of mass destruction. they also have had an increasing animosity and military prescence inside the arab world.

as a result, a pre emptive strike [ 9/11 ] was carried out against them. innocent people as well as military targets were killed.

the us assumes iraq has wmd. they have an increasing animosity to the us.

as a result, a pre emptive strike will be carried out against them. innocent people as well as military targets will be hit.

if you believe the 9/11 attacks were wrong, that it is wrong to attack a country which has done NOTHING TO YOU and kill innocent people within that country, you mus then believe the same of iraq.

I hope you weren't trying to trap me. If you were, you completely ignored what I said. I don't believe in complete disarmament. Here is why the US is not in the same shoes as Iraq.

Resolution 1441 wrote: Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

I believe that Iraq has not cooperated as required of them, and I believe the "serious consequences" referred to in paragraph 13 would be justified. When there is a UN resolution like this demanding the US to disarm, then we'll be in the same place as Iraq. Not until.

Give me my trap.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 2/19/2003, 11:51 pm

american idol wrote:in one day the us will launch between 300 - 400 cruise missiles on iraq. these missiles will have various targets, including ones inside iraqui cities. tell me, what threat do the innocents who will die in these attacks pose?

right now, what has iraq done to deserve a strike? have they declared war? have they done anything directly to harm the united states? no.

neither had the us to the "terrorists" who attacked the towers. if you believe it was wrong for "them" to attack the united states out of the blue, i cannot get my mind around how you think it would be ok for the us to do that to somebody else.

it's a double standard. you only think something is wrong when it happens to you. congratulations.

well it's obvious that war is going to happen, these people should understand that. and, since the US has been dropping leaflets telling these people to move away from military positions, they are flat out stupid sticking around these perimiters. unless your apart of the human shield thing then whatever. now, a percentage of those missiles will vear off target, resulting in a tragedy. but considering that they are laser guided, and other smart bombs, that number will probably be as low as possible.

how many times does this have to be spelled out? it's not the US vs Iraq it's the fact that Iraq is in voilation of UN rules. we cannot have dumbasses breaking rules set by the majority of the world and just stand idly by. then what's the damn point? the US is spearheading the campaign, but it's not just the US. this isn't out of the blue, Sadam has been jerking around three presidents now, testing them to see if he will use force against him. the first two presidents have, and this one will too.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/20/2003, 9:28 am

i don't care about the UN. this is not about politics, this is about philosophy and ethics.

if it was wrong for an attack on america to kill innocent people, then how can it be right for an attack on iraq to do the same thing?

do you deny that the us has done things to the arab world [ ie israel ] that merit some sort of consequence? do you feel that the consequence they got was appropriate?

i do not support any action that knowingly and willingly claims the lives of innocent people. i just want to find out, philisophically, why you do?

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 2/20/2003, 11:56 am

do you know why the first armies were assembled? for the purpose of killing innocent people. it didn't matter back in those days whether you were a child, or and old man or a woman, that army was hell bent on killing everyone that was is an enemy. look at today's military from any country, they don't have those beliefs now do they? i'm expecting you to say, well america this and america that, but we don't go around killing women and children intentionally like sadam. last time i checked we stopped genocide.

i don't see you point, the fact is the majority of these innocent people are stupid for staying in/near a military facility. others are going to be hit by a stray missile, ok that happens in war...accidents happen get over it. honestly, if i were in that situation i'd get the fuck out of the damn country. the last time we did this shit in Iraq, Sadam ordered innocent people killed and then planted at missle areas. he kept claiming innocent lives being lost and those stories had no backing to them at all.

the difference from the towers and these innocent people in Iraq is this. The talk of war with Iraq has been going on for months now, these people know that war is likely and they should have moved away and disenfrancised themselves from Sadam and the military. the towers situation is simple, those people were working, minding their own godamn business.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 2/20/2003, 12:24 pm

i can't "get over it". we are talking about people's lives. i can never "get over" how you and your ilk are so quick to just dismiss the lives of totally innocent people. it's amazing.

the people whose homes are going to get 'hit by stray missiles' are minding their own business too. killing innocents is wrong. period.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/20/2003, 12:42 pm

right now the united states of amerika is killing arabs by the thousands and has in custody over three thousand men of middle eastern dessent who are being denied their rights to communicate with their own governments or families. they are being held in a concentration camp where they are tortured and harassed.

reminds me of hitler & the jews.

reno, i have to remind you that a few years back the worlds biggest economic powerhouse imposed sanctions against iraq which crippled the nations economy. not to mention iraq is ruled by a man who doesn't exactly let you grab your shit and leave. people in iraq can't just get out of the damn counry, either because their government won't allow it or because they can't afford it.

reno_ruelas wrote:the difference from the towers and these innocent people in Iraq is this. The talk of war with Iraq has been going on for months now, these people know that war is likely and they should have moved away and disenfrancised themselves from Sadam and the military. the towers situation is simple, those people were working, minding their own godamn business.

So, if i give you advance warning of a month or so, it's ok for me to murder you?

happening fish · Post by **happening fish** » 2/20/2003, 4:16 pm

maninthemarble wrote:reminds me of hitler & the jews.

"During the late 1930's and through the 1940's, Prescott Bush, George I's father and W's grandfather, was one of seven directors in the Union Banking Corporation, owned by Nazi industrialists. After filtering their money through a Dutch bank, they hid an estimated $3 million in Bush's bank. As a principal player, it's unlikely that Bush would have been unaware of the Nazi connection. The government eventually seized the assets and the bank dissolved in 1951, after which Prescott Bush - and his father, Sam Bush - received $1.5 million."

(This information was published in the Boston Globe, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the Jewish Advocate.)

emily · Post by **emily** » 2/20/2003, 4:28 pm

fucking nazis.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 2/20/2003, 4:29 pm

damn yankees.