Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer About the War...

Regarding the list: For you to nullify the list of governments cooperating with America, you need two things to be true -

1) Every single country on the list does not have the support of its people.
2) Every single country on the list is a dictatorship.

Neither of those are true. This means that the US DOES have the support of REPUTABLE countries. Just because France and Germany don't agree with the war, it hardly means the rest of the world doesn't either. In fact, judging by the number game YOU started, the burden to prove that the entire world disagrees with the US lies on YOU, not ME. All I've seen from your side are sweeping generalizations and straw man arguments, and what is obviously summarizing countries by stereotypes that YOU are enforcing.

With the structure of YOUR argument, you've given the following conclusions, and haven't supported any of them; not with fact, and not even with simple logic:

1) The American government is arrogant.
2) US participation in international politics is affected by this arrogance.
3) The majority of the world disagrees with the US.
4) France and Germany don't agree with the war because "they know what war is like".

This is what you have to prove:
1) Give me numbers that prove that the majority of the world is against the United States. If you can't (which you can't) then you probably shouldn't be making this generalization, which I'm almost certain is based on your "opinion".
2) WHY the opinion of the majority should matter more than the voice of the minority, in the event you CAN support your fictitious numbers.
3) Prove the United States is arrogant (you can't; it's a subjective opinion, and hardly a RATIONALIZATION FOR WAR).

This part of your post is just insane:

quote:

---

the arrogance that make them intervene in other countries.

---

Define "intervene". Because if intervene means "participate in" then everything from disaster relief to creating education infrastructure where there previously was none is intervention. Building a school for kids in Somalia or giving food to villages in Sudan is hardly "arrogance".

quote:

---

the arrogance that makes them believe that it's everybody's highest goal to become an american.

---

You're gonna have difficult time supporting that one. Apparently our government is trying to assimilate the Earth into a collective. Sure we are. America also lives in a spaceship, shaped like a cube, and we all look like pasty-white cyborgs, and we all have the same monotonous voice. Have you seen the back of my neck? It has a barcode and everything.

In the MODERN age, Westernization of countries is welcomed (not "Americanization" or whatever you're thinking it is). I'm sick and tired of people getting upset over globalization because of only negative attributes. I'm not saying I support globalization, but come on, it's more three dimensional that "Capitalists want to control everything". Thanks to globalization, practices such as female genital mutilation have almost been eradicated, vaccines have gotten to areas it never would have, and diseases like river blindness are almost completely gone.

Maybe you're right. Maybe helping other nations is arrogant.

Back to your argument:

quote:

---

First of all, we know what saddam has done and everybody knows that he deserves to be in prison (n.b. not to die) but it does not belong in the modern civilisation to assassinate other countrie's leaders, no matter how cruel they may be.

---

The goal wasn't "assassinate Saddam" it was "Regime Change". One advocates murder, the other advocates changing the government. This is what i mean about your argument being filled with strawman examples.

quote:

---

why not be more careful about who you sell your weapons to? europe and america have supplied saddam with weapons for years.

---

Not weapons of mass destruction, which is what half the war's about.

quote:

---

the western world should show the world that they don't accept the method of war to solve conflicts by stopping all weapon export to all countries. that would prevent a lot of cruel wars.

---

You're definately correct in that it would prevent a lot of wars. But that doesn't means it's even remotely possible in any way whatsoever. The idea is so over-idealized it's akin to saying, "if we banished all guns on Earth, less people would die". The reason is, no matter who does what, nations will have weapons. The point in today's world is that we don't want weapons that are biological or chemical, because it's inhumane. If people do have those weapons, we need them to disarm. This is what the whole war was about.

I'm sorry, but to convince anyone of your argument you're gonna have to start supporting it.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

PS - I'm not even FOR the war (nor against it). I'm just pointing out what I mean about neither side supporting their reasons very well (or even thinking them through).

[This message has been edited by razordu30 (edited March 23, 2003).]

thank you for your criticism, i understand that i have to explain some of my arguments.

about the number of countries that support the us, i have two main arguments:

a) according to bush, he has 40 countries behind the us. my question is what about the other 150? and why do these countries support the us?
imagine yourself in the position of the prime minister of for example bulgaria. If you oppose the war, your connections with the us will deep freeze and the economic consequences will be disastrous. Do you really have a choice? a big country like germany or france can do that but not the small ones.
And many of those few that say that they are neutral, are (that's my opinion) afraid to state their opinion too loudly. but of course i have no proof here...

b) the fact that an occupation war is not approved by the un is that it is illegal according to international law and does not have the world bhind it. and 1441 does NOT approve an occupation war. if you know the un and its jargon you know that the "code" for military action is "by all means possible" which is not included in the resolution 1441.

about the people i can't say of course but i think that the repeating demonstrations show us very clearly what many of us think. I don't say that this is an evidence, it's not. but if you know how hard it is to get people out to demonstrate, you surely understand that there must be a lot of frustration and anger against the war if hundreds of thousands display their opinion in demonstrations world wide

about the arrogance:
i think that it is arrogant to give a **** about what the majority of the world population thinks and start a war anyway. it's as simple as that.

about france germany and russia:
you can't say that there are any countries that have suffered more during war than these countries

you say: "...you have to prove [...] 2) WHY the opinion of the majority should matter more than the voice of the minority..."

what? ok i can make it simple for you. it's called democracy D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y if we don't care about the opinion of the majority, we live in a dictatorship. Good idea to fight dictatorships by applying the principles of dictatorship.

about the assassination attempt of saddam:
remember the first strike of this war? the pentagon had got information about where saddam could be and they attacked that building. well if that isn't attempted murder, then what is?

about weapons of mass destruction:
mr blix did not find any weapons.

ok i have to admit, there are some parts in my earlier postings i can't prove. they are just my opinion (i hope that i am allowed to express it)

last i want to remind you of a war that is going on right now. i think it's sad that we have to discuss here while there are people dying. i just heard on the radio that the us has started bombing again. who will die this time? who will lose his/her best friend? who will be crippled from today on?

It not that hard to justify war by lying to the public when most people take for granted that the gov't usually tell the truth. Yes, it would be real difficult for the public to know A Priori whether or not Iraq has WOMDs; it's not like they'll fly anyone who demands proof to Iraq to show them. Also, when the vast majority of the world is openly against this conflict, they probably have a reasonable point. I could be wrong, but our government has been acting rather suspiciously over this whole issue.

As I run Model United Nations conferences, I feel should point out several things:

quote:

---

it's called democracy D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y if we don't care about the opinion of the majority, we live in a dictatorship. Good idea to fight dictatorships by applying the principles of dictatorship.

---

It's not democracy. Any person studying political science knows that international politics is an anarchy. There is no leader, and each state can do whatever it wants. If for some reason Seychelles attacked Madagascar, there's no one to say it's "illegal" or not allowed.

The United Nations isn't a governing body. It's a glorified gentlemen's club where state's express their opinion and give support or reject support based on their own opinion.

quote:

---

is that it is illegal according to international law

---

Again, there is no democracy when it comes to international politics: that's not an opinion, that's simple fact. That's why the most the UN can do is use economic sanctions. Read up on the efficacy of the ICC. Where's Milosevic? Karadzic? Heck, Bill Clinton was brought up on crimes against humanity for that strike in Sudan.

quote:

---

about france germany and russia:
you can't say that there are any countries that have suffered more during war than these countries

---

Sure you can. England suffered horrendous bombings during WWII. The actions of Japanese soldiers towards POW's and the Pacific Islands partly prompted the Geneva Convention.

quote:

---

If you oppose the war, your connections with the us will deep freeze and the economic consequences will be disastrous. Do you really have a choice?

---

Of course you do. Turkey pulled back their airspace, and you could always NOT get involved. The US government does give aid to other nations; but this isn't as much as the World Bank provides - nations are more indebted to the World Bank and the UN more than they are the US.

Also, you would have to explain why larger nations that DO have a choice are siding with US, like England and Australia.

quote:

---

mr blix did not find any weapons.

---

I still haven't found my keys, doesn't mean their not in my house.

Hiding nukes is almost impossible; but hiding chemical or bioweapons is incredibly easy. This is why there is less emphasis on inspection and more on intelligence when it comes to gaining knowledge on the possession of these type of weapons. Israel and US intelligence (which, say what we will, very few can deny that Israel and US intelligence are probably among the most sophisticated in the world) both confirm biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.

Lastly, (and again, I'm not throwing support either for or against the war), to say war is never justified is ridiculous.

As terrible as it sounds, war is the only reason we've gotten rid of slavery, naziism, fascism, and communism.

War can be justified. In this case, I don't know; I'm only reactionary towards anti-war protesters because their argument seems much more muddled, yet more vocalized.

I know two people that are against the war that have provided very clean and persuasive arguments, and even these are having trouble denting the logical arguments of those for the war.

Again, very skeptical on the "global opinion" factor. So far the best line of arguments I've heard against the war has been whether or not diplomacy would have made a decent impact with obviously less risks. The counter I've heard for that is a time factor argument that was very strong in trumping the other.

I dunno. Lemme submit this:

1) Iraq needed a regime change; no way diplomacy would have done anything in this department.
2) Bush is a horrible advocate for the war. Don't base the justification for that argument on a bad deliveryman.
3) Saddam was told if he did not leave Iraq peacefully, he would be attacked.

Honestly, the best line of argument for anti-war people is probably the idea that diplomacy would have been a better route, yet no one seems to push it. I would be much more impressed if someone crafted a decent argument with that in mind, rather than generalized statements about the US and the negative effects of war at specific points in history.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

this is starting to be ridiculous.

i can concentrate on only two of your nice arguments (i don't want to bore you)

you haven't found your keys? well blow up your house then!

no international democracy? i don't want to live in your world, that's for sure. I believe in democracy on all levels, even if you don't. the reason why we've created the un is to establish international democracy even if the usa doesn't give a **** about the democracy they claim to defend. i agree with you that the un is not perfect but that's no reason to ignore it. change it instead

maybe i come back to the rest of your arguments later...

ps Milosevic is in the hague, just an example for the good work work of the un. the erasopn why karadzic is still free is that the nato has failed to find him (if they really want to)

pps saddam was told that the us would attack iraq EVEN if he left it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nile,
Just one plug. The only reason the UN has done "good work" with Milosevich is because the U.S. had the courage to wage a small war against him and effectively completed a "Regime Change" If it weren't for the US the UN would still be debating what we should do about him while he systematically destroyed his own people. I can say the same thing about Bosnia, the UN would still be there talking about what should be done.
The UN is worthless without the money, military might, and leadership of the US

Dudedman is right--Clinton gave up with the U.N. regarding Kosovo. Democracy and diplomacy are slow because everyone has his own interests.

POWs footage is quite distrubing for many American viewers who saw it via P2P video downloading.

Of course Bush is not one who governes by national opinion polls as mentionned by Astrowill. If he cared he would not be president at all. Since we have a president who was appointed and we have no choice but to support a war, not because we wanted or needed it, but because that president decided to start it; the question is why should we bother with such words as freedom and democracy, why not let Tommy Frank and the Pentagon rule this country too? After all if it will be good for Irak it could be good for the US as well!

Why don't you all ask yourselves what the U.S.A is getting out of this war. Surely the emancipation of the Iraqi people is'nt the only reason.