damian 0 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 Is it legitimate under label of war for Iraq to bomb the White House? What if 100's of Iraqis in America tried to track down and kill Bush (obviously very very hard). I assume that this would all be ok and the American gvt would have to take it on the chin as a blow sustained whilst at war. In theory, any senior USA member of parliment is fair game. Is it fair for Iraq to destroy American TV stations? I am not trying to stir up anti american chatter, just trying to get a grip on what exactly is going on at the moment. Is this a war? Link to post Share on other sites
rach 1 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 You have a very good point, db. I was thinking the same thing just the other day. Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I think if both countries have declared a state of war, then what you describe is, THEORETICALLY, possible... the thing is, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Iraq to actually be able to stage a military strike on US soil...they don't have battleships, subramines, aircarries, etc...and if they did, they would have a hellova time getting past the gulf... The other possibility is a terror attack, which if I am not mistaken, is not allowed by the geneva convention...and then those guilty of the terror attacks could be detained by the US as "illegal combatants", so the US can ignore geneva conventions for their detainment...and then it is no longer a war against Iraq, but falls under the "war on terror", which is not really a war in the classical sense... of course, this is just how I see it... danz Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Author Share Posted April 9, 2003 I do not doubt what you say, Danz of Ibaraki. What about this: Is it illegitimate for a collection of people, who can not be described by country or government, to be at war with America? Are such people called terrorists? I fear that this action in Iraq is the final ingredient required for terrorism to become legitimate, or perhaps to legitimise the military style efforts of a non-sovereign force, waged against American interests. Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 For the reasons you raise db I refuse to call this mess in Iraq a war. It is an attack. An enlightening thought passed my mind the other day. Here it is. In NZ we have oil. Lanolin oil. If the world got any more screwed up it is quite possible that the US could come and attack NZ to "liberate" us New Zealanders from the sheep and at the same time take our Lanolin oil. Well there you have my passing thought. Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 mogski...you are right...those sheep need a smart bomb or 2 up their arse for sure... db-I believe they might be called mercenaries?? at least in this war, there have been some rogue fighters from syria and egypt who have shown up in Iraq trying to help the Iraqis out...in the news they have been called mercenaries...is that not similar to what you are describing?? these collections of people you describe would be terrorists, from how I understand thing...just like hamas, hizbollah, eta, etc...and I don't think terrorists groups can declare war on soverign nations...only soverign nations can do that...but again, this is just speculation... danz Link to post Share on other sites
snowboard_freak 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 For the most part i am glad that Iraq aren't fighting back as this means that there isn't as much loss of life. And that can't be a bad thing. I'm going to get flamed for what i say next.... But part of me kinda wants to see the coalition (America more to the point) get the arse kicked in a battle or two, just to humble them a bit. Let the flames begin...... Link to post Share on other sites
Davo 1 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 What is a terrorist and what constitutes a sovereign grouping legitimately entitiled to engage inaggressive actions against another? Both pertinant questions. The war being waged at the moment is an attack by a coalition of sovereign nations, albeit a very small one composed mainly of US, British and a smattering of Aussies and some new Eastern European friends. The obtsensive purpose of this war seems to become blurred more as the days pass. The so-called legal basis to engage in such an attack hinges on the premise (which remains as yet unproven) that Iraq has been developing and concealing weapons of mass-destruction in violation of UN resoltions. The coalition acted soon after failing to secure the support of the UN Security council. The US/coalition claim to be acting in a pre-emptitive manner, that is to say, they are striking Iraq before Iraq strikes them following the apparent failure of diplomacy. Should satisfactory evidence of such weapons and/or intent (and I don't mean the type satisfactory to the average Fox News viewer) fail to emerge where will that leave us? What of the role of the UN and the future for the International system? I find it hard to believe that this will solve future problems. Saddam Hussain is the head of a cruel regime (like so many others in the world) and ultimately responsible for heinous crimes against his own people-Fact. Is this a legitimate war-Unproven as far as I'm concerned. Does this add fuel to the fire of forces which feel they can act independently of the sovereign state system (and do) -UMMM....I guess. It's interesting that much talk in the last few days has almost assumed that the war is over, when in fact the bloodiest harshest resistance is potentially about to take place. It certainly isn't as cut and dried as the US propoganda machine makes out-Fact. Link to post Share on other sites
ug 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Quote: But part of me kinda wants to see the coalition (America more to the point) get the arse kicked in a battle or two, just to humble them a bit. I know where you're coming from there, dude. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 FBI definition of terrorism The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual, who has some connection to a foreign power or whose activities transcend national boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a national government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" The FBI definition, although meant to describe acts directed against the United States, would seem to cover rather well countless acts of the US itself. Link to post Share on other sites
mikazooki 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 yeah SBF, i know how u feel too. i cant keep a straight emotion. sometimes im like - come on iraqis show some metal and others... oh, iraqis not fighting thats a welcome relief. and - go looters get what u can then... hang on loot heads leave some for breakfast. and as for war motivation and justification, i just wonder how can it all be worth it? agree with davos line on viscious leaders. the backlash is bound to leave ongoing trouble for years for everyone to deal with. Link to post Share on other sites
cariba 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 I think there will be retaliation - later. What happens if they don't hide Saddam? There is a chance of that, right? Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 sbf... you are aussie right?? your boys are in the thick as well...you wish harm upon them?? what about this...can you show support for your troops while being against the war??? or does that not work... I know a few people that support our boys, but are opposed to the war... danz Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Author Share Posted April 10, 2003 To be honest, I do not know where I stand on this war. My opinion swings with every convincing non-emotive argument I come across. Sometimes immaturity gets the better of me and don't like seeing all this American dominance and flouting of the UN etc. I also do not enjoy (from an immature perspective) hearing those redneck idiot* pro-war types getting all vocal now that the coalition appear (in the media) to be dominating Baghdad. There is a certain set of pro-war people who are vile and dangerous. They have the big guns behind them and will always win, but will never understand if they are right. If I were an Arab, these people would really shit me. They shit me now and have shitted me in the past. They generally fall into the dull-witted-run-of-the-mill majority. They have little to promote themselves by other than the fact that they exist. Again, immaturely, I do not like hearing the horribly repetitive whines of gutless peace activists** who have no solutions and no realistic connection as they sit behind their PC screen preaching to the world about unrealistic ideals that do nothing to help anyone, including Iraqis who die at the hands of Saddam. When these people speak they usually go of the topic and end up talking about the evils of money and the virtues of bring vegetarian. No offence meant to vegetarians at all, I am just being a bit cheeky in an attempt to demonstrate how some people instantly oppose the war just because it is required of them as per their socio-political preference. One thing I am quite sure of is if I were an Arab and felt that Saddam was really evil and that the region/world would be better without him, I would still feel very uneasy at seeing American troops tanking around significant pieces of the Arab region like they owned it. Particularly in Baghdad. If Australia's next PM is a Saddam and America comes in eventually and saves us I would still feel bitter/sweet at seeing my country, my city, the source of my culture, my home, dominated by a foreign force. This is very irrational and based on emotion, not logic (like most irrational thoughts). My closing thoughts may well draw some fire. But deep down there is a bug in me. This bug craves action and news. Ever since 911 my web-news viewing habits changed. After the chase for OBL fizzled out this bug was left hungry and wanting. War and explosions became interesting. It all started when we saw the WTC collapse over and over on tv for 2 weeks after the terrible event. Now when the prospect of some 'get the Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims' comes up this bug gets interested. This bug is only very very small, but I reckon I have identified it. It exists. It is sickening. I doubt that I am the only one with this bug, but that doesn't justify having the bug in me. Did I mention that the bug is very small? Smaller than a chip out of a grain of salt. * not all pro-war people are idiot rednecks, but there are some, the type that enjoy the hideous Fox coverage, for example. ** not all peace activists are gutless and as I portrayed them. Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 very interesting db....veeeeery interesting... agree with you on almost all of those points... what about this scenario... your country is overrun by a tyrant evil dictator...you are under his control, for at least an entire generation...secret police are everywhere, and you are basically helpless...no means to get rid of this guy, and the only way is by outside help...while the international community is arguing how to help you (guns or diplomacy), do you really have a preference how your salvation comes about??? this is all hypothetical of course...I think I wouldn't mind the foreign presence, but I really have no idea how I would react in such a situation... no about Iraq, let us suppose the US didn't whip out its 6-shooters, and let the UN do its thing...perhaps the WMD are found and destroyed...and Iraq is also disarmed...however sadam and his regime remain in power...can the UN get rid of this guy w/out force?? how?? and if that is not the point, than what to the Iraqi citizens think now?? their situation is unchanged for the most part, although the international community has now become safer...as an international community, do we not have any obligation to them??? just some thoughts.... talk amongst yourselves... danz Link to post Share on other sites
base40 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 So where are the WMD? Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Author Share Posted April 10, 2003 regardless of WMD exist in iraq or not, it is unrealistic for them to have been found by now. The coalition have been there less time than the UN inspection. The coalition are fighting a war. Any WMD at SH's disposal were never going to be used as it obviously justifies Americas stance. he will have had them very very well hidden, if they exist. Perhaps he has already sold them to terrorists, knowing that a) he would lose the war he couldn't use them in the war. Perhaps they never existsed as suspected/accused by other countries, predominantly the USA. Perhaps they are still to be used. What ever the case, small evidence has been found to support their existence and it is too early to expect them to just pop up in places that the UN has already looked (besides palaces). Danz - If the liberating force was one that I had a very long cultural divide with, I would welcome the force but resent the fact that it was who it was that saved me. This is irrational. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 danz, really, you tell me if you can actually 'support our boys' if you don't approve of the reasons given for the war... 'Our boys' join the forces, of democratic countries mind you, freely, in full knowledge of what they may be expected to do. When a war comes along, they don't have to go. They can make up their minds themselves. Officers can resign their commissions, and soldiers can apply for and receive dismissal on grounds of conscience. Also, they can sue the government as several US soldiers did. I was in the UK reserves for a while, with the intention of fighting if it was just, and not fighting if it wasn't. There is no moral imperative that says 'you must support our boys, right or wrong'. That's bullshit that's peddled and exploited by the likes of, well, Bush and Blair, to gain acceptance of their faits accomplis. It's bullshit that's swallowed by millions of people who ought to know better or are too scared to say better. Now while I have actually grieved for the soldiers killed (why? god only knows...), I don't think they should be there, and I don't support them. The cause that they are in Iraq for is not the cause that was given, and nor are they the best solution to this particular problem, or the many similar problems that we face. They are part of the problem, as should be bloody obvious to anyone with vision slightly wider than a TV screen. (Interestingly, the soldiers who sued the government gave very cogent constitutional arguments why they shouldn't have to go. Given the climate that they did this in, one must admire their moral courage. On the other hand, a squaddie by the name of 'Funk' made the news by going AWOL and then seeking discharge as a conscientious objector - although I think his name probably tells the whole story there.) Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 db, your points about WMD are totally invalid. First, lots of countries have WMD, and they don't get invaded or have UN resolutions made against them. And if the UN and it's resolutions have no solid meaning, then there's no reason for any country to accept them. Second, the reason given for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMD, and he would use them by god! (The oft-blathered evidence was that he had used them against 'his own people'. This is of course a wrong argument, because first, they weren't his own people strictly speaking, and secondly, he used them to maintain his own control. Using them on outsiders would have exactly the opposite effect.) But he hasn't used them, contrary to what has been bruited about concerning his ruthlessness. So where are the WMD, and where are the grounds for the war? And if those really are the grounds, who's next? Surely that's a reasonable question... Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 good points o11...as usual... yes, the US and "coalition of the willing" will have many questions to answer (as if they dont already) if no WMD are found... still thinkin about your other points...even though I shouldn't right now, as I have work to do... will get back to ya later danz Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Author Share Posted April 10, 2003 Ocean, I am not arguing that the WMD reason for the invasion was valid/invalid. All I attempted to do was state that i think it is unreasonable to expect for them to have been found at this stage. The fact that they have not been found at week 3 (assuming that they actually exist) is not evidence that they do not exist. I think more time is required before we can conclusively say that they do not have them, but that is not to say that I think they do have them. My reading here and there leads me to feel that it is more likely that Iraq has no WMD worth the invasion. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 db ic. Telegraphic, that is. Link to post Share on other sites
Plucky 0 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I skipped over most of the rhetoric here. I've read everything that has come out, I agree with some, disagree with others. The first thing I have to emulate is that the coalition was correct in removing Saddam. Good for the people of Iraq. I just hope that our (US, UK and OZ) can stick with it and do what is right. On the other hand, what was this really about? Well, to tell you the truth, I'm a bit sickened how the 'repubs' are now screaming bloody victory just because the people of Baghdad came out and celebrated. Good for them! Taste freedom! I thought the whole point of this 'war' was to protect America from WMD and terrorists. Listening to Rush Fatass the other day almost made me sick. He basically tries to perpetuate the war in the middle east with a war going on at home (US) between demos and repubs. Hell, I don't know. It's late, I'm tired, I'm educated. I still have a bad feeling about this. Bless (notice not god bless) those UK, US and Ausies over there fighting for what our western culture believes is freedom. I wish them all the best and a safe return. Link to post Share on other sites
snowboard_freak 0 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 danz, i don't know if i need to answer your questions after the discussion above, but i will. Like db said, I'm not totally sure about where i stand with the war. Yes I am an Aussie. I am aware that some of our troops are there as well, although in very small numbers when compared to the US and even the UK. It's hard for me to put into words. I don't (well didn't, now its all done) want there to be any killing that doesn't need to happen. I just feel that the US and the coaliation needed to be humbled a bit. They went against the UN and a lot of the world as well. I just don't agree with the way the whole war came about. it annoy's me. I am (or was) against the war. But i support the troops. Once the war begun there was no stopping it, so the only thing left to do is support our boys and yell "Go team go!". So, in short i do support our boys but not the war. cheers Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by snowboard_freak: now its all done It may not be over yet. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts