SFO Archive Forums - View Single Post - Just another 'war' thread.

03-22-2003, 01:02 PM

I'd like to state just a few breif things:

1. I am against the ideal that it is the US responsibility to free nations like Iraq, North Korea, and all other facist/communist/dictorial regiems throught the world. The US has no soverienty over those nations, and while these people are oppresed and deserve to be free, there is no reason for a single nations to make themselves world mediator. This is only detracting from the US v. Iraq true "objective" of disarmament, and is hypocritical of past US and current US actions if more is to be said on that subject.

2. I am against the US defying the UN by acting on its own and threatening/carrying out an invasion of Iraq. Yes, this is a major benefit (so far) for the people of the nation, there have been few casualties, and it is almost a certainty that Weapons of Mass Destruction will be found. However, Iraq signed a peace treaty with the UN that was broken countless times. And it is the UN that must act. When it does refuse to act in instances like this, then there is a major problem with the organization (possibly due to the Bush administration's forgein policies), and should be the thing that is mended so that it won't happen again.

3. I am against this philosophy of pre-emptive war. It is something that has been used before in wars, namely WWII, and has only seemed to lead to more destruction then anything else. It causes the invader (the US in this case) to be seen as an agressor nation. And by all means, the worst case scenario is that this manner of thought could lead to more pre-emptive strikes. The Cold War was in the exact epitome of what pre-emptively striking may have lead too...

4. I am in no way against Saddam and his facist regeim's overhthrough. He has without a doubt proven himself to be a mallicious tyrant of his nation for over 30 years. He has blatantly used his own weapons against his own people. He has supresed revolts (the largest I believe was by the Kurds some time ago) with chemical warefare, and is obviously only looking out for himself. However, as should have been gathered by the rest of this post, I believe it's the UN's place to attend to matters of world order.

5. More of a comment more then a real issue of the debate. Although I know that most of the reason behind Bush's proclaimations that the war is against the regeim, his/the military's constant insistance that they are not targeting civilians and constant urging of the Iraqi soldiers to surrender instantly in order to decrease casualties is centered around propaganda motives, I think it's probably one of the most moral things I've even heard of happening in a war. Though I've said before that it shouldn't be the US' place to police the world, I do think this is something that would greatly benefit the world if incredibly superior nations would try to minimize casualties against weaker nations in the same manner.

I am hoping the rest of the debaters in here can express their oppinions in less hostility in their future posts...

03-22-2003, 01:02 PM	#33
Guest Posts: n/a Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given): Thanks (Received): Likes (Given): Likes (Received): Dislikes (Given): Dislikes (Received): Points: 0 Mentioned: Post(s) Tagged: Thread(s) Quoted: Post(s)	I'd like to state just a few breif things: 1. I am against the ideal that it is the US responsibility to free nations like Iraq, North Korea, and all other facist/communist/dictorial regiems throught the world. The US has no soverienty over those nations, and while these people are oppresed and deserve to be free, there is no reason for a single nations to make themselves world mediator. This is only detracting from the US v. Iraq true "objective" of disarmament, and is hypocritical of past US and current US actions if more is to be said on that subject. 2. I am against the US defying the UN by acting on its own and threatening/carrying out an invasion of Iraq. Yes, this is a major benefit (so far) for the people of the nation, there have been few casualties, and it is almost a certainty that Weapons of Mass Destruction will be found. However, Iraq signed a peace treaty with the UN that was broken countless times. And it is the UN that must act. When it does refuse to act in instances like this, then there is a major problem with the organization (possibly due to the Bush administration's forgein policies), and should be the thing that is mended so that it won't happen again. 3. I am against this philosophy of pre-emptive war. It is something that has been used before in wars, namely WWII, and has only seemed to lead to more destruction then anything else. It causes the invader (the US in this case) to be seen as an agressor nation. And by all means, the worst case scenario is that this manner of thought could lead to more pre-emptive strikes. The Cold War was in the exact epitome of what pre-emptively striking may have lead too... 4. I am in no way against Saddam and his facist regeim's overhthrough. He has without a doubt proven himself to be a mallicious tyrant of his nation for over 30 years. He has blatantly used his own weapons against his own people. He has supresed revolts (the largest I believe was by the Kurds some time ago) with chemical warefare, and is obviously only looking out for himself. However, as should have been gathered by the rest of this post, I believe it's the UN's place to attend to matters of world order. 5. More of a comment more then a real issue of the debate. Although I know that most of the reason behind Bush's proclaimations that the war is against the regeim, his/the military's constant insistance that they are not targeting civilians and constant urging of the Iraqi soldiers to surrender instantly in order to decrease casualties is centered around propaganda motives, I think it's probably one of the most moral things I've even heard of happening in a war. Though I've said before that it shouldn't be the US' place to police the world, I do think this is something that would greatly benefit the world if incredibly superior nations would try to minimize casualties against weaker nations in the same manner. I am hoping the rest of the debaters in here can express their oppinions in less hostility in their future posts...