Debating the War

[SEALInTheMaking]

Hey guys, I've got another school assignment you all can help me out with. I'm dabating the justification of the US launching Operation Iraqi Freedom in my class. My side supports the invasion. We're basing our argument on three major topics: 1) The vast jumps that Kurdistan has made in the past year. 2) The recent discovery of chemical weapons both in Iraq (Sarin/Mustard gas) and linkable to Iraq (Jordan incident) 3) The fact that Saddam was just not a very nice guy.

The problem is, I havent been able to turn up to much info on the first two topics, so if you guys have any helpful information, or can think of more presentable arguments, I'd appreciate the input. Please provide links, or I can't use the information. Thanks in advance.

(Don't turn this into a flame war. Please! I'm not interested in hearing propaganda from either side.)

[squeak]

I agree that it was a good idea to go in.

However debating it in a classroom may be a mistake. Many people are so against the military action, they won't listen to reason. Many don't know the hard facts.

If you do bring it up in class. Include the mass torture in Saddams prisons, which include rape rooms, meat hooks, beatings.

Also include the Fact under his rule he killed innocent people with Chemical weapons. He also used chemical weapons against the Iranians in the war he fought with them.

Also point out that the Baath Party hired Saddam as a killer for them.

[Brozozo]

If they don't accept your facts resort to childish name-calling, or in the eventuality that it doesn't work...MFV: MAXIMUM F*CKING VIOLENCE

[SEALInTheMaking]

However debating it in a classroom may be a mistake. Many people are so against the military action, they won't listen to reason. Many don't know the hard facts.


I live in one of the most libral parts of California, I dont really care what they think about it anymore, I bring it up just to piss them off.

[786mine]

3) The fact that Saddam was just not a very nice guy.

that is a ****ty reason, what about the rest of ****s out there? i agree with some of the other members, debating war in class is a VERY bad idea.

[-=TFN=-Karab]

I don't see a problem with debating in class... Nothing really bad there. The only obstacle is the teacher (who is most likely liberal). It could get you a bad grade if your teacher thinks the other way around.

Anyway, stress that Kurds are well... Not dying as massively as they used to be. They aren't being waxed like they used to be and are becoming more secure.

Stress that chemical agents like Sarin Nerve Gas literally **** you up. It's horrible stuff and kills you. It makes you die pretty painfully. Can't control body, extreme weariness, many pains, muscle tire, etc. etc. Until you finally just stop breathing. 1 drop can kill someone if they come into contact, and note that the 155mm arty shell that had Sarin contained 3-4 liters of that crap.

Also, just remind everyone how bad Saddam was. Not hard to point out how bad he was. He murdered many people, oppressed his people, tortured his people, was an evil dictator, et cetera.

Anyway, good luck.

[Secret Squirrel]

3) The fact that Saddam was just not a very nice guy.

that is a ****ty reason, what about the rest of ****s out there? i agree with some of the other members, debating war in class is a VERY bad idea.

you people think this because these topics turn to flames online. Its much easier to keep it more civil in the real world world than this fake world of arguing with a monitor. rofl

[ibstolidude]

why not add the fact that the invasion created an opportunity to fight terrorists away from US soil. In Iraq the fight on terrorism (there is should be no arguement that terrorists are CURRENTLY in Iraq) has the advantage of having the military fight it. In Iraq the ROE's and resources are much more unrestrained than in the US. It gives an oportunity to present an easy to access target (the US military) for terrorist organizations, albiet one that can bite back.

justified or not - I do not debate, but this product has certainly resulted.

[Secret Squirrel]

why not add the fact that the invasion created an opportunity to fight terrorists away from US soil. In Iraq the fight on terrorism (there is should be no arguement that terrorists are CURRENTLY in Iraq) has the advantage of having the military fight it. In Iraq the ROE's and resources are much more unrestrained than in the US. It gives an oportunity to present an easy to access target (the US military) for terrorist organizations, albiet one that can bite back.

justified or not - I do not debate, but this product has certainly resulted.

yep the "result" and the whole point. The U.S got a bloody lip so now it was time to go for a knockout. And i doubt we'll never know if there were terroists in Iraq before the invasion, but they're certainly there now. But thats the benefits of an ideological war isnt it? You essentially write yourself a green card (no pun intended) to go where YOU think terrorists may be hiding. The infamous "you're either with us or against us" and its attempt to cast the world in terms of black and white shades.

[henksmoeder]

I have never supported this war.
1). Iraq was not a threat to international security. (at least not more than N-Korea, Pakistan and more)
2). Does torturing warrant an entire war? Should the world go to war now with the US? Or any other country that uses torture?
3).The war was behind the backs of UN. There should be only one organisation to condone war and that is the UN. Otherwise, everybody is going to start their own war.
4).Don't even bring up WMD's. How many you found, a couple of shells with remainders of gas? Woow. Almost every f*cking country has WMD's one way or the other.
5). The war is purely offensive and not legal according to international law.
6). You don't fight terrorism with bombs,bullets, etc. What the US government did was the most foolish decision in years. They have created terror instead of exterminating it. Wouldn't you be p*ssed of some country would bomb your house (even if it's just collateral damage) and kills your family?

and a lot more

[Kilgor]

6). You don't fight terrorism with bombs,bullets, etc. What the US government did was the most foolish decision in years

I think the israelis would disagree with you there.

The only way to fix a terrorist is to lock him up or preferably put a bullet through his head.

[henksmoeder]

Indeed they don't agree but one thing is a fact. Violence breeds violence. Their way of counterterror isn't really effective either, since the conflict is getting more and more out of control

[Secret Squirrel]

Indeed they don't agree but one thing is a fact. Violence breeds violence. Their way of counterterror isn't really effective either, since the conflict is getting more and more out of control

but theres really no other way to fight terrorism other than head on. Unless you can suggest another way to fight terrorism? One that doesnt involve capturing or killing them?

[Argyll]

Indeed they don't agree but one thing is a fact. Violence breeds violence. Their way of counterterror isn't really effective either, since the conflict is getting more and more out of control

From's whose point of view Henk?

Since the IDF began targetting HAMAS,how may suicide bombs have gone off?

Sounds like it's out of control in that department?

[Secret Squirrel]

Indeed they don't agree but one thing is a fact. Violence breeds violence. Their way of counterterror isn't really effective either, since the conflict is getting more and more out of control

From's whose point of view Henk?

Since the IDF began targetting HAMAS,how may suicide bombs have gone off?

Sounds like it's out of control in that department?

I think it was a suicide bomber which started aggressive targetting of Hamas leaders (the attack on an airport?). Since this began, i dont think there has been a suicide bomber attack. Seems to be working, at least it looks that way.

[786mine]

3) The fact that Saddam was just not a very nice guy.

that is a ****ty reason, what about the rest of ****s out there? i agree with some of the other members, debating war in class is a VERY bad idea.

you people think this because these topics turn to flames online. Its much easier to keep it more civil in the real world world than this fake world of arguing with a monitor. rofl

rofl rofl rofl rofl [you're joking right?!]

[Fargin]

why not add the fact that the invasion created an opportunity to fight terrorists away from US soil.

Trading American civilian casualties with Iraqi civilian casualties, seems like a fair trade-off. ;)

[Mr. Nielsen]

Since the IDF began targetting HAMAS,how may suicide bombs have gone off?

Sounds like it's out of control in that department?

I don't believe there is any connection between killing the leaders of Hamas, and the number of suicide bombs. Quite on the contrary, it increases the likelihood of more such attacks. Hamas is now stronger and more popular than ever.

When there haven't been any retaliation it's because Israel has just been better to close the gaps, the suicide bombers have exploited in the past. Such as the one in the harbour, where they had been hiding in a container coming from Gaza.

[Mr. Nielsen]

1) The vast jumps that Kurdistan has made in the past year. 2) The recent discovery of chemical weapons both in Iraq (Sarin/Mustard gas) and linkable to Iraq (Jordan incident) 3) The fact that Saddam was just not a very nice guy.

1) By "jumps" I guess you mean progress? Try searching the news.

2) The "mustard gas" found by danish troops, turned out not to be any chemical weapon. And I suggest that you wait for confirmation of the latest find of an alleged sarin gas shell.

In any case they wouldn't constitute the smoking gun, as it would be to little and too old and perhaps already marked by UN inspectors.

3) Saddam was a brutal dictator that will not be missed. The attack could be justified by humanitarian intervention. A precedent was set with the NATO intervention in Kosovo 1999.

But I doubt the american public would have bought that one. In Denmark though I believe the prime minister should have spend much time on that issue, when arguing the case for participating in the invasion.

[WARPIG]

Liberals don't hesitate to piss thier views all over everyone.. so don't be a bit hesitant to put some perspective out in front of your classmates.

Do a search for my discussion of this called "Debate the war on terrore with me".. or something like that.

Most of the people who contributed, really took a practical look at why the US has taken the war to Iraq.

The basic outline of this discussion was at how our presence in Iraq will impact terrorism at the source. Someone here said that bullets and bombs won't stop terrorism. I agree. That is what my thread was trying to illustrate. War on terror is won by depleting the pool from wich terrorists are recruited. Germany and Japan had insurgents and terrorists during the US occupation of those countries... it took a long time but neither of them are a threat to the US or anyone else.

Weathering through the small groups of insurgents, guerrillas, and terrorists, is the easy part. Standing up to the media ****-storm is where our real battle is. The political climate of the world is being terrorised by the media. This is the battle we don't know how to fight.

[IDFM203]

Since the IDF began targetting HAMAS,how may suicide bombs have gone off?

Sounds like it's out of control in that department?

I don't believe there is any connection between killing the leaders of Hamas, and the number of suicide bombs. Quite on the contrary, it increases the likelihood of more such attacks. Hamas is now stronger and more popular than ever.

When there haven't been any retaliation it's because Israel has just been better to close the gaps, the suicide bombers have exploited in the past. Such as the one in the harbour, where they had been hiding in a container coming from Gaza.Argyll is totally right!!!

For in the absence of any genuine and real peace partner on the other side no matter what Israel does or doesn’t do, the IDF has been forced to act and indeed it has worked big time to limit the actions that were coming from their side!!

Listen mr nielson, no one is disputing the motivation from a lot of pali's to want to carry it out, but your factually wrong to say Israel’s offensive campaign against these terrorist group haven’t produced concrete results, for it has!!!!!

Before 2002, Israel had a shooting attack and a homicide bombing against its civilians on a almost daily basis (sometimes even twice a day) and for sure weekly, now after we went in and went after them (before we really didn’t do much but stayed in stationary defensive positions and only responded from there but never really went in and to go after them, like we have been doing recently) there have been a reduction of homicide bombings by well over 50 percent and shooting attacks against Israeli civilians have dropped even more so.

That’s fact!! and only as a RESULT of IDF actions.

I also reject your use of the words hamas "retribution", as if they only respond or attack out of retribution of IDF attacks for that’s false!! There is no calculating retribution with them, simply because they are on systemic campaign and they attack regardless of IDF actions and the fact that say this week there was no homicide bombing or that the week before the Rentisi assassination there was no either is not because hamas stopped or didn’t try, no its because they couldn’t succeed, for all the time the IDF is stopping and apprehending them (I saw a figure recently were now its at 90 percent success rate where we are successful in stopping infiltrations or apprehending or killing those that are on their way).

Lastly as for going after hamas leaders and individuals, it does work in limiting them, for it puts hamas in disarray and it disrupts their organizing and also a lot of those that have been killed or apprehend had expertise in bomb making, a expertise that not everyone has and it takes time for hams to replenish that lost expertise.

Let me and off with a repeat of a post of mine after the Rentisi assassination.




Yep we are after them big time!! :D


Oh and I remember last time after Yassin was killed, all the detractors here said it was a terrible thing because now Hamas will revenge blah blah or that it will just create more blah blah blah (as if they weren’t lining up before anyways :roll: )


The bottom line is this.

Hamas has been on a systematic campaign of terror for the past few years now and this whole notion of revenge for them is BS for they attempt and attack regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, the same is for their ominous announcements that Israel will pay big time for that too has been said from the beginning and it is always repeated so nothing new here.

Before the yassin killing they were trying and after they were trying….no difference in the amount of attempts from before and after.

Before Israel went after them a little over two years ago in a bigger way, there was a homicide bombing and shooting attacks almost daily and for sure weekly and now after the IDF actions, it has been dramatically reduced by over fifty percent to where even after yassin is killed and they said that Israel would pay for that immediately they couldn’t pull it off.

Of course I believe there will be another homicide bombing for there is no 100 percent awy to stop everyone, but we have limited them big time and are going to limit it even more with some of the bigger moves that we are making (the completion of the anti terror security fence and a few other things)


Shalom :D

[Longbranch]

Unless you can suggest another way to fight terrorism? One that doesnt involve capturing or killing them?
The answer's in your name Squirrel: "secret". Everything requires money. The easiet method to removing terrorism (and a great many other fraud crimes as well) is by removing the secrecy around money. Banks have secrecy laws, countries have secrecy laws… Consider how difficult it would be to buy weapons, train people and enact violent activities if everybody had their financial records open and available? For this to work, everyone and everything would need to make all their financial transactions public domain. The reason this doesn't happen is because a great many people consider their "money" and financal dealings to be confidential.

It's a solution that most aren't willing to accept. Nothing is lost except personal privacy where neighbours would know how much you earn and what brand of breakfast cereal you buy. In exchange for giving up that secrecy, we'd all know where the money goes… not just with terrorist funding, but with government agencies, corporate and private frauds and so on and so on.


War on terror is won by depleting the pool from wich terrorists are recruited.
That's called genocide.

[California Joe]

Ditto what WARPIG said. It was a good thread.

[Fox2]

Ditto what WARPIG said. It was a good thread.

And then it died.

And now such discussions are almost extinct.

[California Joe]

Hiya Fox. How are things.

[Secret Squirrel]

Unless you can suggest another way to fight terrorism? One that doesnt involve capturing or killing them?
The answer's in your name Squirrel: "secret". Everything requires money. The easiet method to removing terrorism (and a great many other fraud crimes as well) is by removing the secrecy around money. Banks have secrecy laws, countries have secrecy laws… Consider how difficult it would be to buy weapons, train people and enact violent activities if everybody had their financial records open and available? For this to work, everyone and everything would need to make all their financial transactions public domain. The reason this doesn't happen is because a great many people consider their "money" and financal dealings to be confidential.

It's a solution that most aren't willing to accept. Nothing is lost except personal privacy where neighbours would know how much you earn and what brand of breakfast cereal you buy. In exchange for giving up that secrecy, we'd all know where the money goes… not just with terrorist funding, but with government agencies, corporate and private frauds and so on and so on.


War on terror is won by depleting the pool from wich terrorists are recruited.
That's called genocide.

not hard to make a bomb, strap it to someone and bang, you have a suicide bomber. So, how is it a question of finance? Your suggestion would just open a bigger black market than already exists. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

[Fox2]

I'm just dandy. How's the walnut stocks?

[Ruutiukko]

Take into consideration that a single artillery shell containing Sarin is hardly a proof of the existence of WMD's. A shell like that could just have been snatched by an Iraqi bushwhacker from a pile of discarded weapons and used as a part of an improvised explosive device. That the shell happened to contain chemical agent is not, in my opinion, a smoking gun, especially when it was found more than a year after the war itself started. I think that whoever made this device was did not know of the dangerous agent inside. For these reasons I would not use the case of the single shell as a part of a presentation in a class.

[GrantT]

Take into consideration that a single artillery shell containing Sarin is hardly a proof of the existence of WMD's.

It's clear enough proof that Saddam didn't abide by any UN resolution and still had WMD in his possession. Every shell should have been accounted for and now we know that obviously never happened.

[SpazzMunky]

It's clear enough proof that Saddam didn't abide by any UN resolution and still had WMD in his possession. Every shell should have been accounted for and now we know that obviously never happened.
The United States can't even account for all of its chemical weapons. How do you expect a third world country like Iraq to account for every single last shell?

If they found a stockpile, then that would be convincing evidence. One random shell? Most likely left over from the Iran-Iraq war? If this is where all the WMD claims lead to, thats just sad.

[Fintin]

It's clear enough proof that Saddam didn't abide by any UN resolution and still had WMD in his possession. Every shell should have been accounted for and now we know that obviously never happened.
The United States can't even account for all of its chemical weapons. How do you expect a third world country like Iraq to account for every single last shell?

If they found a stockpile, then that would be convincing evidence. One random shell? Most likely left over from the Iran-Iraq war? If this is where all the WMD claims lead to, thats just sad.

i wouldnt jump out and call iraq a third world country...they are fairly westernized and have pritty up to date technology...

[Secret Squirrel]

It's clear enough proof that Saddam didn't abide by any UN resolution and still had WMD in his possession. Every shell should have been accounted for and now we know that obviously never happened.
The United States can't even account for all of its chemical weapons. How do you expect a third world country like Iraq to account for every single last shell?

If they found a stockpile, then that would be convincing evidence. One random shell? Most likely left over from the Iran-Iraq war? If this is where all the WMD claims lead to, thats just sad.

i wouldnt jump out and call iraq a third world country...they are fairly westernized and have pritty up to date technology...

But Iraq does fit most of the characteristics of a 3rd world country. Up to date technology? such as what? Not trying to start an argument, just wondering.

Characteristics
The underdevelopment of the third world is marked by a number of common traits; distorted and highly dependent economies devoted to producing primary products for the developed world [oil,oil,oil]and to provide markets for their finished goods; traditional, rural social structures; high population growth; and widespread poverty. Nevertheless, the third world is sharply differentiated, for it includes countries on various levels of economic development. And despite the poverty of the countryside and the urban shantytowns, the ruling elites of most third world countries are wealthy.[guess that would have been Saddam before the war?]
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/General/ThirdWorld_def.html

[Fintin]

It's clear enough proof that Saddam didn't abide by any UN resolution and still had WMD in his possession. Every shell should have been accounted for and now we know that obviously never happened.
The United States can't even account for all of its chemical weapons. How do you expect a third world country like Iraq to account for every single last shell?

If they found a stockpile, then that would be convincing evidence. One random shell? Most likely left over from the Iran-Iraq war? If this is where all the WMD claims lead to, thats just sad.

i wouldnt jump out and call iraq a third world country...they are fairly westernized and have pritty up to date technology...

But Iraq does fit most of the characteristics of a 3rd world country. Up to date technology? such as what? Not trying to start an argument, just wondering.

Characteristics
The underdevelopment of the third world is marked by a number of common traits; distorted and highly dependent economies devoted to producing primary products for the developed world [oil,oil,oil]and to provide markets for their finished goods; traditional, rural social structures; high population growth; and widespread poverty. Nevertheless, the third world is sharply differentiated, for it includes countries on various levels of economic development. And despite the poverty of the countryside and the urban shantytowns, the ruling elites of most third world countries are wealthy.[guess that would have been Saddam before the war?]
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/General/ThirdWorld_def.html

good point...when i thin third world i dont think of a country that has infastructrue for cell phones..