War has never solved anything..

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Except for ending Slavery , Fascism , Nazism , and Communism , War has never solved anything.



Courtesy of the protest warrior

I totally agree...

100% agree!

War didn't END slavery. Slavery still exists. You are simply referring to your own civil war in which slavery played a particular factor, unfortunately the world is amuch bigger place than America. Infact slavery was truly broken by protestors like William Wilberforce pushing acts of parliament to end slavery. Politics not war ended slavery.
War put a stop to the spread of nazism and fascism but it was the fascists and nazis who started the war. They were beaten by a military RESPONSE to fascism not, as in the case of Iraq, a pre-emptive strike against it. No-one is defending war as a response, people are against war as an act of aggression in the first place. There IS a difference.
And Communism ended after the Cold War which was much more to do with sanctions, embargos and ostracisation than it was guns and bombs. Capitalism not war saw of communism. So...you are correct one nation in your opening line - war does not solve anything.

So, I would like to ask, how would any of you proposed to bring this leader, Saddam, to compliance with the UN?

Before answering that...lets go over a couple things.

1. Can't say further Inspections: Why, because with the amount of Inspectors that Iraq would allow to enter at one time will never be enough to do a thorough inspection.

2. Can't say further Sanctions/Embargos: Why, because the three main countries who opposed this conflict are the three main violators of the Sanctions/Embargos...France, Germany, and Russia. Proof you ask? Well, technically speaking, there is no proof, but what is evident is that Iraq has very modern Russian Weaponry (their Tank Killer man pad launchers)...Russia says they haven't sold them directly to Iraq and has further stated that no country they have sold their weapons to, have sold (or provided those weapons) to Iraq, but the fact is evident...Iraq has them. Along with the GPS Jammers from Russia. France has sold repair and spare parts to Iraq for their aircraft. Germany (and Russia) has sent scientist to assist them with their developments...it's been plastered all over the media. Lastly...the sanctions and embargos have only truly hurt who? The Iraqi citizens...Saddam and his friends (and military) have had no impact placed upon them...they bleed their populace to continue to enjoy their lavish lifestyles.

3. Waiting longer, allowing a longer period for inspectors to comb Iraq: This was a very good tactic of the French, Germans, and Russians (unfortunately it backfired on them, they never expected the Coalition to move ahead w/o UN approval)...proposing to give things another several months. Why you ask? Well...1) The heat will become a factor. An extended campaign during the hot summer months, 110+ weather, the three nations opposing the immediate armed intervention (France, Germany, Russia) all knew that the Coalition would be hard pressed to "begin" a campaign in the middle of this type of climate. They knew that if things could be stalled a tad bit longer, it would be at least another 4-6 months minimum before any type of true campaign could begin. They also new that if things were to be drawn out another 6-8 months, the Coalitions own economies could not support leaving that many troops right next door to Iraq, simply could not be afforded.

4. Eventual Armed Intervention to force Saddam to comply: The French, Germans, and Russians never intended to utilize armed intervention....yes they never did, even though they signed up for it, the intent was never there. Why you ask? Their business holdings and interests would never have allowed it, you see, they cannot afford for the Iraqi Regime to change. All of their business ventures would very well be in jeopardy if/when a new government took rule. They needed Saddam and his Regime to stay in power. They felt that they could control him and side track the UN and others long enough to where things would have been forgotten.....in time. Don't believe me? Why then is it, that even now as the UNSG Mr. Kofi Annan does not want the "UN" to have a "major" role (he feels a limited role to meet the immediate needs of the Humanitarian Issues) in the rebuilding of Iraq...France, Germany, and Russia want to be a "major" part in the rebuilding? They have vested interests, they are jockeying for positioin to keep what they have already worked out with an outgoing regime. ***Incidentally, this will be another severe blow to the continued existance of the UN (in my opinion). The UNSG feels the UN shouldn't have a major part in the rebuilding, the French, Germans, and Russians feel the UN should....the US feels the UN shouldn't have a major part...alas, another rift forming. A vote and resolution will be attempted by the French/Germans/Russians, the US will gather who they can and threaten with a veto (very similiar to what the French threatened the coalition with). Someone mentioned WWIII is in the making, now that one ponders on the matters at hand....maybe that is not a far fetched idea.***

So...once we exclude those four ways....tell me, what can we do to make this man comply with the UN?

well put!!!

I agree Sean which is why my opening comment was that slavery hadn't ended.
In answer to zid, the question of alternative methods f dealing with Saddam Hussein ha not been much explored. I made a few points in a post on another thread dealing with this and I'll repeat them here.
First, I agree with no further sanctions. These sanctions ended up killing a million Iraqis through disease and starvation and did not affect the regime at all. In fact it is lifting the sanctions that gives the answer to this question of dealing with Saddam. If Iraq had been allowed to continue with its prosperity in the same way as it had before the first gulf war then an educated middle class would have thrived in Iraq. Educated middle classes are the worst enemy of dictators. all revolutions, absolutely all of them have emerged from a middle class steeped in knowlegde of politics, philosophy and the arts. It has been they who can mobilise the ordinary "peasant" to revolt ad overthrow their tyrant. Sanctions kept people poor in Iraq and uneducated, plus they were seen by Iraqis as the fault of the Americansraher than Saddam. Virtually every man woman and child blamed their poverty on the UN (particularly US) largely because the destrution of the first gulf war had destroyed much of their communications and they weren't able to see what was going on in the outside world. Isolated in this way, the Iraqi people had no appetite to dissent.
Further weapons inspections WERE needed with regard to WMDs. Progress was being made it was simply not being made quickly enough for people like Bush. Well tough! If something's working then to call for war just cos it ain't going at the pace you want it to isn't the action of a responsible world leader. This was the main objection by countries like France, and Russia

Like I explained photek we delayed the chance of a natural internal uprising of the iraqi people by twelve years thanks to our infernal sanctions which kept the ordinary people hungry and oppressed and diverted attention away from Saddam and directed it to the UN. I don't entirely disagree that the countries you mentioned had some oil interest in not wanting a war although I don't accept that that was the only reason. I believe that they also knew that a conflict like this had the potential to set off other wars and destabilise the arab world rather than harmonising it.
I repeat if time is working then go with it. Anything is better than war. And the way you speak its as if Saddam was regularly gassing thousands of people each day as we were disarming him. I really don't think he was having mass executions on a daily basis. I would think that the war killed more people -many more people- in the same time period that Saddam would have been left alone. The fact that no WMD were ever used in the war suggests rather chillingly now that Iraq never had any in the first place which raises some very uncomfortable questions for those instigators of this war.

'if time is working then go with it.'

time was really working??? doing absolutely nothing but irritating hussein every time those u.n inspectors went in was working?? what about his refusal to let them interview his scientists, or come unannounced, or even disallow them to enter certain locations??? that's what you call 'working?'

ok, you tell me the same number of people would have died if we had left saddam alone. what does this have to do with the future of iraq? how does that, in any way, help the future generations of iraqi people who would continue to be under rule of uday or kusay?

and executing people is not the only issue. the point is these people live under oppression. they have no rights, the shiayts fear for their lives in the south, the kurds for theirs in the north. he keeps food from the market, oil revenues out from the country. and you call this time working??????

Then why have no WMd still not been found Enigma? Why in fact were none used by Iraq in the war if they were meant to have them?
Hans Blix himself said that the inspections were working. During the 1990s Iraq was actually a lot more compliant than most people give it credit for and it was only the provocative tamperings of Richard Butler (US weapons inspector) that did much to unsettle the process and directly led to the few days of bombing if Iraq by America. Scott Ritter (US marine and weapons inspector) hated Butler for deliberatel;y provoking the Iraqis and contends that had they been left to get on with it, all WMD would have been dealt waith and a gretaer real;tionship would have emerged between Iraq and the UN inspectors.

once again we are talking about weapons of mass destruction, when we should be concentrating on the people of iraq.

do you think the people of iraq give a **** about those weapons? is that what you think they're worried about after 3 decades of oppression? if we don't find the weapons, are the people of iraq going to stop celebrating and cheering???

STOP TALKING ABOUT WEAPONS, AND FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ. EVEN AFTER FOOTAGE OF THEIR ALREADY-STRENGTHENING FREEDOM YOU CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT WEAPONS!!

we will deal with the weapons, right now we must focus on giving the iraqi people some support so that they can be on their way to make their country prosperous and set an example for the rest of the middle eastern world [which by the way is another good reason we picked saddam to fight and not some other ruler-his regime falling and the people celebrating serve as much more powerful proof to the rest of the region that they have an opportunity to rule themselves, and that these dictators and their followers, no matter how seemingly powerful or great in numbers, can be overturned].

if someone starts talking about weapons or comment on bush's stupidity again, i'am going to go crazy. it's like you're so obssessed with being against this war you acknowledge none of it except that which [only slightly] supports your stance. you also pretend like the people of iraq were happy and completely satisfied with their lives before this conflict. oh yea, everything was perfect. do you know what it feels like to know that no matter what you do, nor you, nor your offspring, nor friends, will ever be allowed to succeed in any way? that all of your efforts and your subsequent gains are taken for saddam and the regime's benefit?

can you imagine, even for a second, what these people must be thinking/feeling? they realize that now there is a solid opportunity for them to make their children's and their children's children's lives fruitful? can you imagine knowing that you have the opportunity to relieve fear from your fellow citizens, possibly for the rest of the existence of your country??

i guess those that died for this country against the british are also 'inhumane' and that war was also 'unjust.' certainly where america is now is not worth 'all the lives lost.'

ridiculous.
WHO CARES ABOUT BUSH? it's insane to think that while this is happening the only thing you can do is whine about your views on bush.

@photek

you are right ....


but ........


there is the Iraqi people and that war.

Iraqi people are free now, very good thing.

The war, the reasons of that war, the way it has been started, the first motive, the second motive and then the last one, all these created a precedent regarding the International law.

Why do you think that Blair is still trying to convince the British parliament about that ? for it's head.

Don't know how it will go in U.S., but U.K. citizens seems to not forget ....

I've read it again and again and I'm sorry one nation but that is certainly how it came across. Including the words "in America" at the end of your sentence would have made it clearer. As it stands your statement clearly says War ended slavery and any reader would take that to mean completely.

Are you so nitpicky that you won't agree that war ended slavery in this country.
The war in question was the "civil war". The name of the war itself suggests that it was an internal conflict limited to this country. Not a war against slavery through out the world.
The fact of my original statement was that WAR ended slavery. Which in this case it did. The statement was a jab at the naive folks who think that war is never the answer. I am not one who likes war. I don't think that most people are for war. It, however, is sometimes necessary. Such as now and in the 1860's
I don't have time to get into petty arguements about such nonsense.

While I generally take the side of photek, I have to say that we can't exactly focus the discussion on the Iraqi people instead of the weapons of mass destruction. Don't get me wrong--I feel that the freedom of the Iraqis is at least as important as the removal of the threat of Saddam's weapons. However, the main reason for this war was to eliminate Saddam's threat to the world by eliminating the weapons he's not supposed to have. So we certainly can't ignore the topic of weapons of mass destruction. With that said...

Maybe the UN screwed up. Maybe the sanctions weren't the best idea and maybe they played a role in dragging this thing out so long. I'm sure the sanctions were fiercely debated a decade ago, but the fact is that they don't matter now: we can't change history. Now, on to the present...

So, Grimminick, you said:

It might be a petty argument One Nation but your accusation that I misuderstood your meaning is unfair. Read your own post again and you'll find that you didn't say civil war you said war. I said civil war. So your assertion that war ended slavery is wholly different from war ended slavery in your country.

Thanks for your reply Doug. Nice to see that someone at least isn't calling me names just cos I disagree.
That said, the number crunching of lives lost if war did/didn't take place is academic I think. The idea of allowing revolution to occur in Iraq through freedom from sanctions would also cost lives but it will be iraqi lives fought in a cause they themselves wanted with a clear idea of objectives and a movement of one nation united to overthrow a tyrant. Just because that was then and this is now doesn't justify the war. It's why people like myself still maintain that war was the wrong way about this.
Yes, Doug I'm afraid I really do believe Bush wanted a war - nothing less. Although to be fair that little jolly probably fell more to the desires of people like Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld. For this "cabal" pre-emptive strike is the name of the game, the warrior ideology first propsed by Wolfowitz in Bush sr's reign. 9/11 gave them the impetus to use it after Clinton rejected it. There was always going to be a war I was never in any dobt about that.
I'm also interested in your defining difference between an "earlier" war and a pre-emptive war. Isn't one just a less controversial way of saying the other?

War has accomplished alot through history what you that fu..... blind. how do you think you got your freedom, and so many other countries the same. Through war. time to quit whineing and open your eyes you think you are the only people who deserve freedom? The freedom from being tortued, beaten and murdered. The freedom from being gassed or haveing chem/bio weapons used on them. Freedom from expressing yourself or freedom from being prosecuted or murdered because of your beleifes. You people are so selfish and selcentered. You think you are the only ones that deserve freedom? i am an vetrin from the vietnam war and seen all the natrosites and senseless killings and death. You think you are the only ones that deserve peace of mind from all the brutallity......wrong........all people of the world do and it is our JOB as a free nation and the job of all free nations to perserve the right of freedom and the right for all people to enjoy the same freedoms you do with out the fear of being murdered, tortured, and beaten and raped. That dosent happen in the usa and other countries of the free world and shouldnt be neither tolerated or put up with by a rougue dictator and murder. You enjoy your freedom , so now let someone else enjoy it also...im ashamed of some of you and you call yourself americans. Let us not forget what america stands for. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND WHAT SHE STANDS FOR AND GOD BLESS OUR SOILDERS AND THE SOILDERS WHO ARE STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS BEST FOR NOT ONLY IRAQIS PEOPLE BUT FOR THE WORLD. yOU COULD HAVE BEEN NEXT LIKE THE KURDS WERE.