There were inspections going on back then, looks like they did their job well too.

If you're talking about the current situation of Sunnii's, Shi'ite's and Kurds all peeved at each other and 500+ dead allied troops, 350+ dead iraqi security forces, that's not my argument, that's for the people who like to say "isn't it better there now".

The inspectors job was not to disarm Saddam. Their job was to ensure Saddam was complying. The very simple fact here is that Saddam was never forthright with providing evidence as to materials he was documented to have. The resolutions did more than compel him to submit to inspections. They compelled him to disarm and prove that he had done so. Had he done BOTH of those he could have avoided the invasion of his country. Personally, I'm inclined to be happy that he didn't comply otherwise the monster would still be in power. Please don't take that as indifference to the soldiers that lost their lives in the campaign. I just feel that without US intervention in the region things would have been worse in the future.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Have you ignored this? Even the president admits there is no link.



It is absolutely, because it's not giving material support (money, equipment, training, logistics, etc.) to terrorists, but rather simply money to families of suicide bombers. Although it does sound like an incentive, I doubt people who blow themselves up are doing so so their families could get a cheque in the mail from Saddam.



No, but I know what you're trying to get at.

Wow, this thread is still alive? Someone should kill it.

------------------
"Buildings that we have created to be aesthetically pleasing are slaughtering birds."

Not at all, any documented source would have that very information. His claim was very general. It's like pointing at something and saying "That's a ball" without identifying that it's a "baseball." I'm not asking for the brand of the baseball, just what kind of ball it is.



Um, in case you weren't aware, the government IS responsible for releasing connections backing up their claim. THAT IS THEIR RESPONDSIBILITY TO US. There's no one at risk for the release of that kind of information and would of been devestating to all that opposed the war. It was in the Bush Administrations best intrest to reveal such connections. But alas, they did not...




Agreed, I meant to comment about that earlier. Thanks for pointing it out.




A little of both, I think. Though it seems to not have prevented him from continuing to issue generalized comments with not proof to back them up...



ROFL, how can we give a simple yes or no answer to a generalized broad question? I don't think anyone will argue that simply getting Saddam out of power was a bad thing. The issue, however, is much more complicated then that. A lot of boils down to your moral beliefs and how you view the sovereignty of other governemnts while taking their individual culture into consideration.

So, in other words, your attempt to paint the anti-war supporters into a black and white outline has failed.



Proof of said documentation that claimed that Saddam was in possession of documents that outlined the exact location of all of his supposed WMD's?

I ask the only because, many people assume that Saddam knew everything about the military, where weapons were stored, ect. The truth is, he didn't. Neither does President Bush know that kind of detail about our military. Donald Rumsfield (to bring this back full circle for a moment) has even admited to not seeing numerous security documentations prior to 9/11.

So, in other words, you 'slighly' inserting that as if it were fact into your post is unethical. Please do not do it again.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited March 29, 2004).]

Oh, you mean how hundred of migrant workers arn't coming over to the United states, working for min. wage and sending ~70% of their pay check back to their families in Mexico?

Your forgetting that the Mid-Eastern culture isn't like ours. It's very much different. They'd blow themselves up if they knew it would mean that honor would be restored to their family.



------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

... I wasn't comparing cultures, and I doubt family honor would be restored by a despot in another nation. I'm still waiting to hear how that could possibly compare to the argument that Saddam all but flew the planes himself into the Pentagon and WTC.


-Fox

Wookie: The UN is solely responsible for determining compliance. US vigilatism based on comedically bad intelligence is not valid.

Close enough. You still haven't shown anything to the contrary.

Tell me, have we found those materials? What undocumented weapons or weapon-programs or even weapon-program-related activities have we found? Isn't strange that the administration continues to back off even the most minor claims?

erm.....what?

So basically you have no opinion?

...except I'm not using it as an arguement. I already said it is no more than speculation.

Well, alright then. I didn't know that. I haven't heard anything on it and I don't carouse the internet looking for news articles. I use the television. Since I haven't seen it before it would make it really hard to ignore it. Just because you've seen doesn't mean everyone has.

Probably not purely for that reason, but it sure is a bonus and might tip the fence sitters to the suicide bomber side. Strong religious ties + strong family ties + Resentment or even hostility towards Israel + having rewards in the afterlife + becoming an Islamic hero in your community + very little education considering your impoverished(which means you can be influenced easily) + being of young age and adding more to being influenced(I havn't heard of a suicide bomber past their early twenties yet) + possibly monetary bonus for your impoverished family = Kaboom

That's from the stand point from a poor palestinian. Of course, the Palastinians don't have many wealthy among them.

I'm not trying to trick you with any "well, you don't want Saddam in power so you should stop complaining" BS that the more conservative people do. That's just stupid. I'm just confused on how some people (no, I'm not saying you are or anything, I'm speaking generally) seem to think Bush is worse than Saddam. With Bush, the worst case is that he lied to millions of people(those that count anyway) so that he could kick out a ruthless dictator. Best case being he is naive and stupid. With Saddam, best case is that he has murdered thousands(possibly millions?) of his own people(including the Kurds) and kept them subjugated. Worst case being the best case plus having WMD's which he shipped or hid really well, and supported terrorists that acted against Israel and the United States. I'd still take worst case Bush over best case Saddam. Does that mean I can't gripe about some of the things he has done? No. But I'm certainly make it clear that I'm not as made at Bush as I should have been were circumstances different. I need to make another paragraph.

[edit: I took out the part that was here because it had nothing really to do with the topic. If someone quoted me, oh well]

He was not referring to that Fox (unless he said something about it earlier and you are just alluding to it now). He was talking about the Palestinian suicide bomber families.

------------------
Beware of music. It brings out the animosity in everyone.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited March 29, 2004).]

I cannot think of one rational person who would believe in such. I shed no tears knowing that Saddam was toppled. I am, however, disappointed with the justifications Bush used to bolster his support for attacking Iraq.



... The latter.


-Fox

Nothing has been found thus far. There may not even be any at this point. Regardless of that, there was good reason to believe Saddam wasn't being as forthright about everything given that he has denied access to UN inspectors before.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

1) You HAVE to compare cultures. If you don't, it leads to the same false conclussion you came to.

2) Case Proved in Point. I like how your using phrases such as 'I believe' and 'I doubt' instead of 'I know' or 'my research'.

A lot of people have asked themselves (and me) 'How could anyone do that (suicide bombing)?' My answer is always the same, 'research their culture.' I was fortunate enough to be dating a girl from the mid-east when 9/11 occured. I learned a great deal about their culture. Things that we believe are wrong, are acceptable in their society and vice versa. Respecting the countries Soverignty has a lot to do with respecting their culture as well, even if we (nations) disagree on different issues.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

1) No one in the US thinks that Bush is "worse" then Saddam. I am continually amazed at how many 'war-supporters' jump to this conclussion the first time an 'anti-war supporter' lashes out at Bush for doing what he did. Because it's not so much the fact that the US went in and took out a "dictator" (which, is false wording, as it was a Monarchy). If Bush had come out from the get go and said "We're going to take out Saddam and bring freedom and democracy to Iraq:, he may of gotten much more support here in the US (the problem with that, of course, is the UN would never allow it. Thus why the Bush Administration decided to try and make a case for going to war with Iraq based on violations and what not. BTW, I love the way people like to use words with negative conitation to emphisize their point...EVEN IF IT'S WRONG), it's more about HOW he did it and under what FALSEHOODS he did it. I'm, therefor, equally amazed when someone calls an "anti-war supporter" unpatriotic. Bush has made a fool of the Executive branch of our government and has angered BILLIONS around the world. I'm sorry, our country wasn't founded apon making false pretexts to go to war with another country. It was founded apon doing what is RIGHT (Morally and Ethically, giving International differences consideration). I say, it is those "war-supporters" that support such unethical behavior to be the ones that are unpatriotic as it goes against our primary values and principles.

2) Let's get something straight. THE KURDS ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE HE'S PEOPLE! They were continually rebelling against his rule in Iraq. That is a very tired and OLD argument.

3) STOP WATCHING THE DAMN TV! My Unlce follows that same flawed logic of "I'm gonna listen/watch the News of My people." My question is, why the hell would you want to get your news from only ONE side?! Further more, why would you want to get it from either of the sides involved? I'm sorry, I prefer my news to be unbiased (unbiased because they hold no intrest in the outcome either way, so they have nothing left to report but the facts...not speculation, propaganda, and lying politicians).

4) Meh, ignorance...nevermind...

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited March 29, 2004).]

Yes, Iraq was a monarchy...in 1958. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was officially a republic, but realistically a dictatorship. Perhaps you were confusing him with the former king of Jordan.

*Insert self-aggrandizement here*

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited March 30, 2004).]

What false conclusions? You mean like the one you made about how I believe western and Middle-Eastern cultures are identical?



... I think that's obvious to any rational person. And who are you to say that I have no understanding of the topic?


-Fox

I though I made it pretty clear that that was my opinion, there certainly isn't any evidence to contradict the fact that Iraq was in full compliance with regards to WMD's. Short range missiles, no, they weren't in compliance, but Iraq wasn't invaded over Al-Sunil-Gavaskar missiles or whatever they were called.






You certainly stated an opinion up there, if you don't want to be taken out of context, don't post other people's "speculation".

Avenger: How can you justify the invasion of a country complying with every demand made of it with five-year-old violations that have since been remedied?

The false conclusion that you made for your believe that suicide bombers would not do what they do for the above reasons. And, btw, I made no such conclusion that you believe Western and Middle-Eastern cultures are identical, only that you can't ignore their cultural differences in your arguement as you attempted to do.




1) Obvious to any rational person, yet you completely ignored it. Probably deliberately based on your debate strategy history.

2) I never said you have no understanding of the topic. You simply have no understanding of the culture other then your 'beliefs' and 'doubts' (which are NOT facts, only opinions stimmed from incorrect conclusions).

Argath: What's in a name?
"In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves."

While it true that the Term 'Republic' was meant to give the impression of shared power with the people, it most clearly was not. Keep in mind that Iraq also has/had 18 Govenorates (which is common in both a Monarchy and Democracy). The only TRUE difference between a Monarchy and Dictatorship is word conitation. Monarchy is always seen as far less negative then Dictatorship.

monarchy
n : an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority.

*Insert Aggrandizement-Deflator here*

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

What the hell are you talking about? I've done nothing unethical.

Numerous people keep asking me for proof to things that were rarely even considered debateable in the UN. This is idiotic. The issue the UN failed to resolve was whether or not it was going to authorize military action against Iraq and even that was only because of the opposition of countries with veto powers. Resolution after resolution had been passed over a period of years because Iraq was not in compliance. They were not all of the sudden in compliance when we invaded. Whether or not the administration releases any information about WMDs has no bearing on whether or not Iraq was in compliance. It is also idiotic to think that the administration didn't believe that there were WMDs. Everyone thought there were, to include Hans Blix. Everyone believed this because Iraq was not in compliance. This is not even debatable as it is clearly a matter of record. What is a fair and honest debate is whether or not you think the war was just and also issues dealing with the intelligence of the matter.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

"which, is false wording, as it was a Monarchy"

i.e. Iraq was not a dictatorship.

"The only TRUE difference between a Monarchy and Dictatorship is word conitation."

i.e. Iraq was a dictatorship, but calling it a monarchy is nicer.

I'm not interested in a debate over monarchy's semantics; you can call Iraq a wangocracy for all I care. Defend your claim that "Saddam Hussein was a dictator" is false wording.

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited March 30, 2004).]

How can you let previous violations go unpunished? You do realize that if Iraq had been open with inspectors 8 years ago, the current situation probably wouldn't have happened.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Stating untrue/unvarified information as if it were fact is unethical. You have done this several times.



It's "false" wording because of it's negative conitation. People have been deliberately using it (especially the Bush Administration) to further paint the picture of Saddam as a "Bad Man.' This is also wrong and unethical.



------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

dictator

Tyrant

How exactly is using dictator "false wording"?

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Rather or not Iraq complied in the past is irrelevant. The question is, "was Iraq complying with the UN right up until the moment the US launched the first wave of attacks?" The answer is a resounding "YES." And this is heavily documented.

Besides, your forgetting that Iraq HAS been punished for past violations. Does OPERATION: DESERT FOX ring a bell? What about the UN placed economic sanctions?

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

I've covered this already. It has to do with word conitation and it's implications. Let the record speak for itself, don't imply things with how you semantically describe a persons rule of their country.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

So he did nothing to warrant the title of dictator? You've got to be kidding me.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Stop talking.

Besides, they had elections in Iraq, but they were just show elections. You might as well call him a President if you're going for the nicest-sounding word for him. He was still a dictator - above the law, ultimate in authority.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 30, 2004).]

Where do you get your definitions from? Or are you just picking the ones that conviently support your point. I'll repost the previous deffinition I posted...since you obviously missed it.

monarchy
n : an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority.

Reguardless, the point is, calling someone a "dictator" (and since it's ussually placed hand in hand with Tyrant) has been used as a form of name calling in an attempt to discredit Saddam, solely based on the "title" of his position. So, my point is, keep the debate on the facts of the events at hand, and NOT use an arbitrary title to reinforce points.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

Friend, Saddam did not inherit power. He killed all those who opposed him then was "elected" the [insert his oficial title here] by those who suported him. That, sir, is not a monarch.

Furthermore, show me how he was not a tyrant.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

[This message has been edited by Avenger (edited March 30, 2004).]

He italicized usually specifically because Saddam did not inherit his power. He's pointing out that a person need not inherit his power to be a monarch.

In reality, monarchy is so defined because countries like Malaysia have elective monarchies, but Friend14 thinks that it allows him to apply the term to any autocracy.

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited March 30, 2004).]

It CAN be applied to any autocracy. You don't have to have an election to have a Monarchy either. It's any position of absolute rule. Monarchy and Dictatorship are both autocracies, meaning "One-Man Rule". As I've previously pointed out, Dictatorship is the one with the negative conitation, so it is the one that many 'war-supporters' use. I don't care WHAT you call the position he held, just steer away from the ones that hold negative conitations aimed at discrediting him solely based on the words commonly associated with them (IE. Tyrant, Stalinism, tyranny, despotism, caesarism, etc.). Why am I asking this? Because rational/objective debates are held when these types of unethical tactics are not used.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited March 30, 2004).]

All monarchs are dictators by definition. So in reality you're full of crap, Friend14, and this entire line of argument is irrelevant.

But Saddam Hussein never was a monarch, nor did he claim to be. All along he's claimed that his rule was democratic. Which means, again, you're just full of crap. Please, for the love of Christ, stop talking. You are not witty nor are you competent in a debate. Stop.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 30, 2004).]

I don't really care if suicide bombing is considered acceptable to them.

With the way some people talk about him (and even on these forums, though in the last two pages, the only two I've looked at, no one has sprung up like that) it suprises me. Bush is Hitler, Bush is a murderer, Bush is a dictator, etc.

No contest there.

Friend14, think of it this way. The people I don't like is people that do nothing but dwell on the bad of the war(i.e the Iraqi people don't feel as safe as before) and completely disregard any good(i.e. the Iraqis have almost everything else better than when Saddam was in power) because it helps their little agenda. and vice versa.

They were rebels under his jurisdiction whom originated from Iraq. That makes them his people. They are just his people that are really pissed off. Iraq is their homeland and it is his duty to take care of them. Even if they weren't his people, that still isn't an excuse.

Dictatorship = rule legitimized by the use of force
Monarchy = rule legitimized by religion or tradition

------------------
Beware of music. It brings out the animosity in everyone.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited March 30, 2004).]

Again Friend, please enlighten us on how Saddam was not a dictator. This is the throd time I've asked and you have yet to answer.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Thanks for clearing that up, Professor. I always thought that kings had to be elected.

Here's something that might be helpful. Fill in the chart and post your results.

[This message has been edited by Argath (edited March 30, 2004).]

I've done no such thing. Anything I've stated as fact I believe to be fact. Whether I choose to support it or you interpret any sources I do provide differently is a different issue.


------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Again, what false conclusions? What "above reasons"?



Addressing red herrings wasn't what I intended to do in this debate.


-Fox

The cross-cultural comparison is quite interesting. I was in Egypt a while ago, and I took a camel ride through a less touristy village, and I saw something that really amazed me, something I have never seen the likes of in Britain.

A barrel.

It was a barrel, and it had water in it. On top was a metal lid, and a large cup, and passers-by could take a drink from the barrel (I was in Egypt during Ramadan, so it was only the children that were using it, the adults drank from it after sunset). These barrels were on every other street corner.
Anyone could drink from them, and no-one paid anything to use them.
Some bloke has to go out of his way every day, or every other day, to take that barrel and fill it up with water; he would not get money for it, or anything, there is no 'barrel tax'.
If I want a drink of water in Britain, I have to go into a shop and buy a bottle of water for £0.50.
I wish we had barrels here.

...Britain hasn't discovered the tap yet?

------------------
Hahaha, clownsuit.

...Zuh? Did Argath delete his post?