Arguing with antiwar

[Vympel]

He also has the legel right to use WMD aginst the United States as he never signed any agreements say he would not use them aginst the US
Nevermind either is a hositle act which can justify war

I'm sorry, but that's an obvious bullshit comparison. That's Iraq's own frigging airspace, not the United States airspace.

As an aside, tell me, would Israel be the agressor if it shot down Egyptian planes bombing them because of a UN resolution about 'protecting the Palestinians?' Get real.

[Mr Bean]

As an aside, tell me, would Israel be the agressor if it shot down Egyptian planes bombing them because of a UN resolution about 'protecting the Palestinians?' Get real.

Bullshit comparsion to a bullshit example, Either one is an act of war however one you can aurgue sematintics about the other you can only respond to

[Vympel]

The warplanes of a foreign nation invade your airspace, and when you shoot at them, *you're* the aggressor?

Newspeak. I love it.

[Mr Bean]

The warplanes of a foreign nation invade your airspace, and when you shoot at them, *you're* the aggressor?

Your ass got handed to you in a war you lost, You remain a soverign country only at the will of that foreign nation,
The bullshit about it is how the fact we never asked them to stop but only once in awhile responeded


Course to be fair it is the equivlant of trying to take down the Space Shuttle with a .22 Rifle as we simply flew to high for thier weapons but they shot anyway

[Vympel]

Your ass got handed to you in a war you lost, You remain a soverign country only at the will of that foreign nation

Where'd you get this international law from? Iraq signed no treaty that acquisced to these no-fly zones, and is perfectly within it's legal rights to shoot at these aircraft. There is nothing in international law that says once you're beaten in a war the victorious country has the right to do whatever it pleases with your territory.

The bullshit about it is how the fact we never asked them to stop but only once in awhile responeded

Allied warplanes return fire on Iraqi AD sites every time they're fired at, if I hear the news right.

Course to be fair it is the equivlant of trying to take down the Space Shuttle with a .22 Rifle as we simply flew to high for thier weapons but they shot anyway

It's morale boosting, if anything.

[Mr Bean]

Where'd you get this international law from? Iraq signed no treaty that acquisced to these no-fly zones, and is perfectly within it's legal rights to shoot at these aircraft. There is nothing in international law that says once you're beaten in a war the victorious country has the right to do whatever it pleases with your territory.

There is no International Law simply because in war, The only law that acutaly applies is that "You can do what you want, but somone might try and stop you"

Allied warplanes return fire on Iraqi AD sites every time they're fired at, if I hear the news right

Over 1,200 reported cases of being fired opon by Iraq Forces? I don't think so, Besides half the forces we sent alot since 98 where not even caring anything besides Air to Air Missles which are notriously hard to use aginst ground targets....

[Master of Ossus]

Your ass got handed to you in a war you lost, You remain a soverign country only at the will of that foreign nation

Where'd you get this international law from? Iraq signed no treaty that acquisced to these no-fly zones, and is perfectly within it's legal rights to shoot at these aircraft. There is nothing in international law that says once you're beaten in a war the victorious country has the right to do whatever it pleases with your territory.

It attacked people IN the Northern no-fly Zone with chemical weapons, and conventional troops. It continues to threaten countries in the SOUTHERN No-fly Zone with ground troops. If you wish to ignore genocide, then okay, but you're going against precedent that has long been established and was last used (outside the Middle East) in Yugoslavia. The United States and other nations maintain the right to protect civilians from totalitarian dictators, and they sometimes exercise that right using aircraft to establish no-fly zones.

Moreover, the UN has documented no fewer than 77 violations of the treaty that Iraq signed following the Gulf War. It's irrelevent that this PARTICULAR firing on American and British warplanes is not a violation of that treaty.

[Vympel]

It attacked people IN the Northern no-fly Zone with chemical weapons, and conventional troops. It continues to threaten countries in the SOUTHERN No-fly Zone with ground troops. If you wish to ignore genocide, then okay, but you're going against precedent that has long been established and was last used (outside the Middle East) in Yugoslavia. The United States and other nations maintain the right to protect civilians from totalitarian dictators, and they sometimes exercise that right using aircraft to establish no-fly zones.

Moreover, the UN has documented no fewer than 77 violations of the treaty that Iraq signed following the Gulf War. It's irrelevent that this PARTICULAR firing on American and British warplanes is not a violation of that treaty.

Of course it's relevant. My first post was talking about the no-fly zones, and how they can't be used as a justification for war.

Check my first post. Operative word: legal. As such, it can't be used as a justification for war in the UN, because it is not legal. The UN never mandated the establishing of these no-fly zones. Using the United States' reasoning, they should have established no-fly zones over Israel to protect the Palestinians.

It attacked people IN the Northern no-fly Zone with chemical weapons, and conventional troops

It attacked people who were trying to resist the regime. As insurgents, Iraq was perfectly within it's rights, unfortunately. As for chemical weapons, there was no use of such chemical weapons after the Gulf War, though I could be wrong. Either way, there is no legal right of any nation to impose itself over the sovereignty of any other in domestic affairs, so it's not a justification for war, legally.

It continues to threaten countries in the SOUTHERN No-fly Zone with ground troops

So they need to overfly Iraq's airspace? With the entire country having been surrounded by US military forces for the past decade? After getting its ass royally kicked? It's military bereft of new weapons, spare parts, training etc? Iraq is no threat to any country on its borders militarily.

[Master of Ossus]

Of course it's relevant. My first post was talking about the no-fly zones, and how they can't be used as a justification for war.

Check my first post. Operative word: legal. As such, it can't be used as a justification for war in the UN, because it is not legal. The UN never mandated the establishing of these no-fly zones. Using the United States' reasoning, they should have established no-fly zones over Israel to protect the Palestinians.

Actually, the United Nations has neither sanctioned nor voted to remove the no-fly zones. The fact that Iraq HAS fired on American assets is a worse crime than "invading" Iraqi airspace.

It attacked people who were trying to resist the regime. As insurgents, Iraq was perfectly within it's rights, unfortunately. As for chemical weapons, there was no use of such chemical weapons after the Gulf War, though I could be wrong. Either way, there is no legal right of any nation to impose itself over the sovereignty of any other in domestic affairs, so it's not a justification for war, legally.

Iraq used chemical weapons to put down the Kurdish uprising. How do you think Saddam Hussein stayed in power?

It continues to threaten countries in the SOUTHERN No-fly Zone with ground troops

So they need to overfly Iraq's airspace? With the entire country having been surrounded by US military forces for the past decade? After getting its ass royally kicked? It's military bereft of new weapons, spare parts, training etc? Iraq is no threat to any country on its borders militarily.

Try to pay attention to precedent. During the Gulf War, Iraqi troops DID invade Saudi Arabia, even when the entire country (except for the Jordanian border) was ringed with Coalition armies. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but during the Gulf War:

1. Iraq was getting its ass royally kicked in the air-war.
2. Iraq was COMPLETELY surrounded by hostile forces, who had promised to invade Iraq if the Iraqis did not pull out of Kuwait.
3. Iraq lost virtually its entire air-defense network, and almost all of its aircraft and airfields.
4. Iraqi forces were "bereft" of airsupport, training, and materials.
5. Iraq THEN invaded Saudi Arabia. It also fired SCUD missiles against a neutral country (presenting yet ANOTHER act of war against the innocent). Try to pay attention.

[Vympel]

Actually, the United Nations has neither sanctioned nor voted to remove the no-fly zones. The fact that Iraq HAS fired on American assets is a worse crime than "invading" Iraqi airspace.

So when you fire at aircraft in your own territory, you're the aggressor? Come on.

Actually, the United Nations has neither sanctioned nor voted to remove the no-fly zones

There's no point in voting to remove if the US is going to veto it.

Iraq used chemical weapons to put down the Kurdish uprising. How do you think Saddam Hussein stayed in power?

The Kurds weren't a threat to himself in power- it wasn't a question of 'gas the kurds or I'll be overthrown'. Regardless, Iraq has used chemical weapons on all and sundry (including Iran, and Iran also used them back at Iraq during their war, which is when the infamous 'gassing of the kurds' occured), so at least him and his officers should be brought up for war crimes, but the genocide claim is nonsense. There has been no extermination campaign, it's pure rhetoric totally devoid of facts.

EDIT: In addition, to assert that these no-fly zones prevent genocide is quite silly. They are no FLY zones, i.e. Iraqi aircraft aren't allowed to fly in them. You don't need aircraft with chem weapon bombs to perfom genocide- it's totally unecessary. If they really wanted to kill everyone, they could just pull a Nazis in WW2. There'd be nothing to stop them at all.

Try to pay attention to precedent. During the Gulf War, Iraqi troops DID invade Saudi Arabia, even when the entire country (except for the Jordanian border) was ringed with Coalition armies. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but during the Gulf War:

What?!?!?! Check your facts. Iraqi troops NEVER invaded Saudi Arabia. It did launch SCUDs however at Coalition military facilities.

[Vympel]

It also fired SCUD missiles against a neutral country (presenting yet ANOTHER act of war against the innocent).

Yeah. During the war. That war is now over. What exactly is your argument? That war against all and sundry is justified because of conduct before the last war ended?

[Vympel]

Just to add:

4. Iraqi forces were "bereft" of airsupport, training, and materials.

Their training and supply was adequate (one of the best equipped militaries in the Gulf), they were not in a state of privation as they are now, due to to sanctions on military equipment.

3. Iraq lost virtually its entire air-defense network, and almost all of its aircraft and airfields.

Actually it's air defense network was battered severly but it wasn't taken apart to nothing. It is intact now, and remember that Iraq hasn't had anyway to purchase large numbers of SAMs.

I don't what history you studied mate, but for you to think that Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, honestly ... Your precedent argument fails completely.

[Stravo]

I don't what history you studied mate, but for you to think that Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, honestly ... Your precedent argument fails completely.

There's this town called Khafji....Khafji is in Saudi Arabia....Iraqi Forces launched an attack on that town on January 29, 1991. That town is ONCE AGAIN IN Saudi Arabia...what do we call it when an army sends forces across the border into one of your cities or towns..here in America we call that INVASION...can you say it after me...IIINNVVVASSIIOOOONNN. See that wasn;t so hard.

I don't know what history you studied mate, but I guiess you were absent that day they taught what invasion was...try to pay a LITTLE more attention when you sling BS around, you're liable to get some on you.

[Arrow]

Just to add:

4. Iraqi forces were "bereft" of airsupport, training, and materials.

Their training and supply was adequate (one of the best equipped militaries in the Gulf), they were not in a state of privation as they are now, due to to sanctions on military equipment.

3. Iraq lost virtually its entire air-defense network, and almost all of its aircraft and airfields.

Actually it's air defense network was battered severly but it wasn't taken apart to nothing. It is intact now, and remember that Iraq hasn't had anyway to purchase large numbers of SAMs.

I don't what history you studied mate, but for you to think that Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, honestly ... Your precedent argument fails completely.

The 'invasion' of Saudi Arabia did happen. I remember watching it on TV. I don't remember the name of the town the Iraqis attacked, but this occur around the beginning of the war (a Google search has yielded nothing). An Iraqi armor company approached an US position in Saudi Arabia with their turrets pointed backward, as if to surrender. At the last minute, they turned their turrets around and opened fire on the US forces. The Iraqis then made their way to the center of the town (I believe the US only had infantry in the town). A day later, after US helicopter attacks, US forces retook the town. I know this not detailed description, but this I how I remeber the event playing out on the news. The key thing is that the Iraqis DID cross the border into Saudi Arabia.

[Vympel]

I don't know what history you studied mate, but I guiess you were absent that day they taught what invasion was...try to pay a LITTLE more attention when you sling BS around, you're liable to get some on you.

Fucking bullshit Stravo- you think a raid on Khafji (an empty town 12km from the border), in mere BATALLION strength, after hostilities have already begun is an INVASION? Riiight. It doesn't help Ossus' precedent argument in the least.

http://call.army.mil/Products/mout/docs/Khafji.htm

Check you facts before you accuse me of slinging BS.

To repeat: raid on town near border after hostilities (air war) have already begun for the purposes of gathering prisoners does not = precedent for much weaker Iraq having already gotten it's arse kicked to be about to invade at any time Remember, Khaji happened before the ground war had begun (Iraqis didn't know how overmatched they were).

[Master of Ossus]

So when you fire at aircraft in your own territory, you're the aggressor? Come on.

Actually, you are. In cases in which aircraft that pose "no reasonable threat" are involved, firing on them is a clear act of aggression.

Actually, the United Nations has neither sanctioned nor voted to remove the no-fly zones

There's no point in voting to remove if the US is going to veto it.

I see. I guess that stopped the United Nations from asking what to do about the Cuban embargo. Oh wait, they DID bring that matter to vote. Well, then, I guess that the US veto power is too powerful to change Israeli policy in Palestine. Oh wait, they DID vote on that issue. The General Assembly usually votes on important matters like this, even if they KNOW that their vote will be vetoed by one of the Security Council members.

Iraq used chemical weapons to put down the Kurdish uprising. How do you think Saddam Hussein stayed in power?

The Kurds weren't a threat to himself in power- it wasn't a question of 'gas the kurds or I'll be overthrown'. Regardless, Iraq has used chemical weapons on all and sundry (including Iran, and Iran also used them back at Iraq during their war, which is when the infamous 'gassing of the kurds' occured), so at least him and his officers should be brought up for war crimes, but the genocide claim is nonsense. There has been no extermination campaign, it's pure rhetoric totally devoid of facts.

Uh huh. I guess that justifies the use of chemical weapons if the other side is also using them, except that the Iraqis would target civilians with such weapons.

EDIT: In addition, to assert that these no-fly zones prevent genocide is quite silly. They are no FLY zones, i.e. Iraqi aircraft aren't allowed to fly in them. You don't need aircraft with chem weapon bombs to perfom genocide- it's totally unecessary. If they really wanted to kill everyone, they could just pull a Nazis in WW2. There'd be nothing to stop them at all.

No, but they make it more difficult to move military forces into position in both no-fly zones, and make the Iraqis more vulnerable to attacks from the air. They are accredited with maintaining a modicrum of Kurdish independence from Baghdad.

Try to pay attention to precedent. During the Gulf War, Iraqi troops DID invade Saudi Arabia, even when the entire country (except for the Jordanian border) was ringed with Coalition armies. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but during the Gulf War:

What?!?!?! Check your facts. Iraqi troops NEVER invaded Saudi Arabia. It did launch SCUDs however at Coalition military facilities.

Actually, yes it did. It invaded Khafji BEFORE Coalition ground troops invaded Iraq, but after the air-war was going on. That IS an invasion. Their firing of SCUD missiles against NEUTRAL Israel is similarly unjustifiable.

[Darth Wong]

I'm ambivalent on attacking Iraq, but:

So when you fire at aircraft in your own territory, you're the aggressor? Come on.

Actually, you are. In cases in which aircraft that pose "no reasonable threat" are involved, firing on them is a clear act of aggression.

Any armed, foreign military aircraft in your airspace without permission cannot possibly fall into the category of "no reasonable threat."

[Master of Ossus]

I don't know what history you studied mate, but I guiess you were absent that day they taught what invasion was...try to pay a LITTLE more attention when you sling BS around, you're liable to get some on you.

Fucking bullshit Stravo- you think a raid on Khafji (an empty town 12km from the border), in mere BATALLION strength, after hostilities have already begun is an INVASION? Riiight. It doesn't help Ossus' precedent argument in the least.

http://call.army.mil/Products/mout/docs/Khafji.htm

Check you facts before you accuse me of slinging BS.

To repeat: raid on town near border after hostilities (air war) have already begun for the purposes of gathering prisoners does not = precedent for much weaker Iraq having already gotten it's arse kicked to be about to invade at any time Remember, Khaji happened before the ground war had begun (Iraqis didn't know how overmatched they were).

So, it's okay to invade another country... a little bit? I don't think so. The Iraqis DID know how outmatched they were. Their air-defenses were crumbling around them. They were militarily outmatched on the ground. They went in to Khafji ANYWAY for no reason? Saddam knew that, realistically, he wasn't going to win the battle or the war. Everyone thought the Iraqis would do more damage than they did, but even Saddam knew by then that he wasn't going to win. He ordered his ground forces into Saudi Arabia, anyway. That DOES represent a precedent, as does his invasion of Kuwait. His firing of SCUD missiles against a country that wasn't even involved (and had declared its neutrality) during the Gulf War only adds to his list of crimes.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm ambivalent on attacking Iraq, but:

So when you fire at aircraft in your own territory, you're the aggressor? Come on.

Actually, you are. In cases in which aircraft that pose "no reasonable threat" are involved, firing on them is a clear act of aggression.

Any armed, foreign military aircraft in your airspace without permission cannot possibly fall into the category of "no reasonable threat."

Yes they do. Those aircraft are flying at altitudes too high to do any damage to Iraqi ground forces, for the expressed reason of preventing Iraqi aircraft from encroaching on the No-Fly zones. The Iraqis have no aircraft in the area. That is not a threat to Iraqi positions on the ground.

[Vympel]

Actually, you are. In cases in which aircraft that pose "no reasonable threat" are involved, firing on them is a clear act of aggression.

So if China establishes no-fly zones over America, it's not the aggressor? You are excluding terms from the equation.

I see. I guess that stopped the United Nations from asking what to do about the Cuban embargo. Oh wait, they DID bring that matter to vote. Well, then, I guess that the US veto power is too powerful to change Israeli policy in Palestine. Oh wait, they DID vote on that issue. The General Assembly usually votes on important matters like this, even if they KNOW that their vote will be vetoed by one of the Security Council members.

So you're saying that because they didn't vote on it, it's tacit approval by the UN? On the contrary, the US has never brought Iraq firing on it's aircraft to the UN a a case for war. What does that tell you?

Uh huh. I guess that justifies the use of chemical weapons if the other side is also using them, except that the Iraqis would target civilians with such weapons.

Strawman. I said they should be brought up for WAR CRIMES. Please don't show me up to be justifying their use.

No, but they make it more difficult to move military forces into position in both no-fly zones, and make the Iraqis more vulnerable to attacks from the air. They are accredited with maintaining a modicrum of Kurdish independence from Baghdad.

Ground forces are unaffected- the Iraqi army is not exactly dependent on air mobility.

Actually, yes it did. It invaded Khafji BEFORE Coalition ground troops invaded Iraq, but after the air-war was going on. That IS an invasion.

Cross border raid in batallion strength to capture prisoners after a war had already begun. Hardly indicative of invasion, nor a precedent as you were arguing for for Iraq to attack it's neighbours when it has no hope of victory, considering the ground war hadn't begun, and Iraq is MUCH weaker now than it was then. You also claimed that Iraq was bereft of training and materials, which was not the case.

Their firing of SCUD missiles against NEUTRAL Israel is similarly unjustifiable.

I agree. So what? We're not talking about that. We're talking about whether the no-fly zone incidents are legal justications for war. They are not.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, you are. In cases in which aircraft that pose "no reasonable threat" are involved, firing on them is a clear act of aggression.

So if China establishes no-fly zones over America, it's not the aggressor? You are excluding terms from the equation.

False analogy. The Iraqis unconditionally surrendered to Coalition forces, AND the No-Fly Zones are both designed to protect American allies, AND the Iraqis are only fobidden from moving MILITARY aircraft within the areas. Moreover, the Chinese would not have evidence that American planes flying in these regions posed a safety hazard to the free world and to American citizens.

I see. I guess that stopped the United Nations from asking what to do about the Cuban embargo. Oh wait, they DID bring that matter to vote. Well, then, I guess that the US veto power is too powerful to change Israeli policy in Palestine. Oh wait, they DID vote on that issue. The General Assembly usually votes on important matters like this, even if they KNOW that their vote will be vetoed by one of the Security Council members.

So you're saying that because they didn't vote on it, it's tacit approval by the UN? On the contrary, the US has never brought Iraq firing on it's aircraft to the UN a a case for war. What does that tell you?

Actually, the US has. Didn't you watch Bush's first address to the American people, in which, among other Iraqi crimes, he cited the hundreds of examples in which Iraq has fired on American and British aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zone?

Uh huh. I guess that justifies the use of chemical weapons if the other side is also using them, except that the Iraqis would target civilians with such weapons.

Strawman. I said they should be brought up for WAR CRIMES. Please don't show me up to be justifying their use.

Conceded.

No, but they make it more difficult to move military forces into position in both no-fly zones, and make the Iraqis more vulnerable to attacks from the air. They are accredited with maintaining a modicrum of Kurdish independence from Baghdad.

Ground forces are unaffected- the Iraqi army is not exactly dependent on air mobility.

Effectiveness is limited, and the Iraqis are dependent on either roads or aerial recon missions to determine their positions. They still haven't appeared to upgrade their military to GPS systems.

Actually, yes it did. It invaded Khafji BEFORE Coalition ground troops invaded Iraq, but after the air-war was going on. That IS an invasion.

Cross border raid in batallion strength to capture prisoners after a war had already begun. Hardly indicative of invasion, nor a precedent as you were arguing for for Iraq to attack it's neighbours when it has no hope of victory, considering the ground war hadn't begun, and Iraq is MUCH weaker now than it was then. You also claimed that Iraq was bereft of training and materials, which was not the case.

So, what would it qualify as? Let's look at Iraq's track record since Saddam took power.

1. Invaded Iran. Debateable morality.
2. Invaded Kuwait. Completely immoral.
3. Invaded Saudi Arabia. Completely immoral.
4. Fired SCUD missiles at Israel. Completely immoral.
5. Constructed and refuses to acknowledge Weapons of Mass Destruction in direct violation of UN mandates. Completely immoral.
6. Arms, shelters, trains, and equips terrorist organizations. Completely immoral.
7. Has violated its post-Gulf War Treaty with the United Nations no less than 77 times. Completely immoral.
8. Accused the United States of forging evidence against Iraq with regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Completely immoral.
9. Has organized armies for the express intent of attacking Israel.
10. Forces its people to participate in such armies, or form human shields to protect high-ranking leaders from attack.
11. Illicitly trades oil to other nations in exchange for arms, while taking money from the "Oil for Food" UN programs and spending it on weapons, materials that can be used to construct weapons, and on constructing palaces and buying luxory cars for senior officials while Iraqi citizens starve to death.
12. Attempted to construct an artillery piece capable of firing on Israel from Iraq.

Now, from this evidence, I don't even see how one can argue that a war is not necessary. If anything, it should have been done a long time ago. The evidence Powell presented makes it CLEAR that weapons inspections are not working to prevent Iraq from developing and maintaining Weapons of Mass Destruction. It proved that Iraq has been lying to the world about its weapons stockpiles. Sorry, that constitutes justification for a war. We KNOW that Iraq has, in the past, attempted to destabilize the tenuous peace in the region by constructing weapons designed to threaten other nations. We KNOW that Iraq has invaded other nations in the past. We KNOW that Iraq has been developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that they continue to do so. There is NO reason to assume that Iraq has changed at all, and there is no reason to assume that they will change unless they are made to. Iraq's behavior has been unconscionable, both in Iraq and outside of the country. This evidence constitutes not only justification for war, but also shows its necessity.

Edit: Added point about No-Fly Zones as a response.

[Vympel]

False analogy. The Iraqis unconditionally surrendered to Coalition forces, AND the No-Fly Zones are both designed to protect American allies, AND the Iraqis are only fobidden from moving MILITARY aircraft within the areas. Moreover, the Chinese would not have evidence that American planes flying in these regions posed a safety hazard to the free world and to American citizens.

Why do Iraqi aircraft flying in their own airspace pose a safety hazard to the free world and American citizens?

Why have no fly zones not been established above Turkey to protect the Kurds in that country from the the Turkish Army?

EDIT: Iraq's surrender to the Coalition contained nothing about forfeiting their own airspace to another country.

Actually, the US has. Didn't you watch Bush's first address to the American people, in which, among other Iraqi crimes, he cited the hundreds of examples in which Iraq has fired on American and British aircraft enforcing the No-Fly Zone?

The argument has never been made in the UN for deliberation.

Effectiveness is limited, and the Iraqis are dependent on either roads or aerial recon missions to determine their positions. They still haven't appeared to upgrade their military to GPS systems.

True, but I was speaking in relation to genocide. The Germans didn't need air support to round up and exterminate the Jews. Prosecuting a war against insurgnets, air support does help.

So, what would it qualify as?

A cross border raid, like I said. I presented a variety of reasons why it cannot be used as reasoning to say that Iraq is NOW poised to invade it's neigbours without these no-fly zones. It's in no position to attack anyone.

Let's look at Iraq's track record since Saddam took power.

Why? We're talking about the no-fly zones as a justifcation for war. I'm not talking about anything else. Regarding war, I'm ambivalent. Iraq is battered, weak and surrounded, but is probably pursuing a WMD program. The question is why.

You listed numerous facts and claims against Iraq, the chief of which is at the crux of the matter:

6. Arms, shelters, trains, and equips terrorist organizations. Completely immoral.

Absolutely no proof of this whatsoever.

[Stravo]

Where the FUCK are people getting this idea that the NO FLY zones are made up and not legal??? It was part of the terms of SURRENDER. HE LOST THE FUCKING WAR. Part of the treaty established the No Fly zones in order to proetct the Shiates in the Southern No Fly Zone and the Kurds in the North.

This is not an illegal thing - peace treaties are not illegal. He LOST. Was it illegal to impose limitations on Germany's army and sovereignty? Let's go back in history folks, German troops were not allowed into the Rhine by treaty. That's German territory but they were not allowed to deploy troops in their own territory. So there is precedent AND we all know what happened when the Allies allowed Gremany to start breaking that treaty.

Stop acting as if the No Fly zones are some sponatneous thing that the US just imposed.

When you lose wars you pay a price.

[Darth Wong]

Aren't you going a little overboard here?

1. Invaded Iran. Debateable morality.
2. Invaded Kuwait. Completely immoral.

What's the difference? Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil through horizontal drilling, Iraq complained vociferously and publicly about it, they were told to shut the fuck up, so they invaded them. How is this necessarily any more immoral than attacking Iran?

3. Invaded Saudi Arabia. Completely immoral.

You exaggerate. If we take every small-force incursion as an "invasion", America has invaded dozens of countries since WW2.

4. Fired SCUD missiles at Israel. Completely immoral.

Israel has made surprise attacks on Iraqi territory in the past. I consider that mere tit-for-tat, hardly something to huff about over morality.

5. Constructed and refuses to acknowledge Weapons of Mass Destruction in direct violation of UN mandates. Completely immoral.

Yes. Weapons of mass destruction are always immoral to possess or construct, unless you're the US or one of its allies, in which case it's OK.

6. Arms, shelters, trains, and equips terrorist organizations. Completely immoral.

Third-party guilt? That's the same rationale Osama Bin Laden gives for declaring open season on Americans for supporting Israel.

7. Has violated its post-Gulf War Treaty with the United Nations no less than 77 times. Completely immoral.

How do you define "immoral"? I grow curious. Is it always immoral to break a treaty? Because they're hardly the only state that's done it.

8. Accused the United States of forging evidence against Iraq with regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Completely immoral.

Public rhetoric is completely immoral but gassing Iranians was only of "questionable" morality?

9. Has organized armies for the express intent of attacking Israel.

When have his armies ever made a move toward Israel, not including rhetorical attacks?

10. Forces its people to participate in such armies, or form human shields to protect high-ranking leaders from attack.

Definitely bad. I'll agree on that one. However, I would also point out that this is quite typical of nations suffering from a tactical disadvantage.

11. Illicitly trades oil to other nations in exchange for arms, while taking money from the "Oil for Food" UN programs and spending it on weapons, materials that can be used to construct weapons, and on constructing palaces and buying luxory cars for senior officials while Iraqi citizens starve to death.

Definitely bad. I'll certainly agree on that one. Mind you, the entire continent of Africa pretty much falls into that category too.

12. Attempted to construct an artillery piece capable of firing on Israel from Iraq.

Much more immoral than the Israelis acquiring various weapons capable of flattening Iraq from Israel, eh?

Now, from this evidence, I don't even see how one can argue that a war is not necessary. If anything, it should have been done a long time ago. The evidence Powell presented makes it CLEAR that weapons inspections are not working to prevent Iraq from developing and maintaining Weapons of Mass Destruction. It proved that Iraq has been lying to the world about its weapons stockpiles. Sorry, that constitutes justification for a war. We KNOW that Iraq has, in the past, attempted to destabilize the tenuous peace in the region by constructing weapons designed to threaten other nations. We KNOW that Iraq has invaded other nations in the past. We KNOW that Iraq has been developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that they continue to do so. There is NO reason to assume that Iraq has changed at all, and there is no reason to assume that they will change unless they are made to. Iraq's behavior has been unconscionable, both in Iraq and outside of the country. This evidence constitutes not only justification for war, but also shows its necessity.

What major wars of aggression has Iraq really been involved in? They invaded Iraq, but tensions had been simmering on both sides for quite some time. They invaded Kuwait, but the Kuwaitis were stealing their oil with their horizontal drilling and were therefore violating Iraqi territory. I've never seen any evidence that they posed a real threat to anyone outside their sandbox, or that they launched a completely unilateral war of aggression. Indeed, the "civilized" world's response to the horror of the Iran/Iraq war was ruthless profiteering, as something like a dozen nations immediately moved in to profit from arms sales to both sides (including Israel, believe it or not).

What is the big threat posed by Iraq? Why should they be kept from possessing the same weapons that half the civilized world already seems to have? What record is there of them attacking somebody without being antagonized in some way first? Why didn't the US declare war on India and Pakistan before they acquired nukes?

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say is that Iraq seems like a paper tiger to me.

[Vympel]

Where the FUCK are people getting this idea that the NO FLY zones are made up and not legal??? It was part of the terms of SURRENDER. HE LOST THE FUCKING WAR. Part of the treaty established the No Fly zones in order to proetct the Shiates in the Southern No Fly Zone and the Kurds in the North.

What the fuck is your problem?! I defy you to find the terms of surrender that say that no-fly zones shall be established.

Stop acting as if the No Fly zones are some sponatneous thing that the US just imposed.

That's exactly what they were. Iraq never signed a treaty agreeing to them.

When you lose wars you pay a price.

And that price is laid out in the damn treaty.