The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Reviewing the rationale for war > Comments

Reviewing the rationale for war : Comments

By Soren Williams, published 8/7/2005

Soren Williams argues there were legitimate reasons for the United States to go to war with Iraq.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
..continued part 2

(Pericles)Your usual form is to recognize the 'way of the world' and suggest that the invasion of Iraq is no 'less' justified than many other invasions which we would describe as 'just' throughout history.

5/ TEIRAN.

at least you made a very valid point, about tackling OTHER genocides as well, rather than just those which fit self interest. Alas, people and countries (except Saint Teiran :) are not like that. Besides, Pericles and Destructor would crucify you for meddling in someone elses back yard.

To all...

To condemn the US invasion, is also to condemn D Day, to condemn the British for declaring war on Germany when they had not attacked Britain, but invaded Poland. I think their decision to declare war was of the 'Move now, or never have the chance' ilk.

Personally, I cannot justify the attack on Iraq any more than I can condemn it. I just look back over world history, and see that by and large we have the choice of evils. If one is less evil than another, we have little choice but to go with it. With every 'liberation' their also comes 'exploitation', I can't see that changing while human hearts and selfishness reigns supreme. The UN, 'international law' none of these will change what we fundamentally 'are'.

I see no less cruelty today than 1000 yrs ago, I don't accept we are 'socially evolving better' (take away our comforts based on previous wars and exploitation and our true selves will emerge quick smart)

Is it any wonder that I repeat the call 'All have sinned'(and continue to make it). I see the kingdom of God as the goal of humanity, where God reigns in our hearts.

There is no earthly utopia for the making or the taking. New systems or ideologies don't change people, they just repackage them. Inner renewal at our deepest level will remove a lot of the ugliness of humanity, and that is only found through and in Christ.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 11 July 2005 7:34:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How surprising it is that only our crusading Christian missionary is thus far in agreement with Williams' pathetic attempt at historical revisionism.

The Oil War in Iraq was illegally begun by the American Neo-Cons and their obsequious allies, including Australia. It was justified by a bald-faced lie about WMDs, and continues unabated in Iraq.

Last week's events in London only confirm that the Oil War's link to the abatement of terrorism is a nonsense. But at least the oil is flowing again, at least until it runs out.

Perhaps B-D could do us the service of confining his biblical blather to the theological threads?
Posted by garra, Monday, 11 July 2005 7:53:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps Garra could do us the service of confining his communist propaganda to the trashcan?

Anyone crying about how the iraq war was all about Oil is doing so on blind faith.

I find it amazing that people think legality is decided by the UN. What a load of crap. To let the UN decide legality is the most absurd concept in all of history (Maybe after communism). Having China and russia with vetoes, and some of the worlds biggest human rights violators on the UN human rights committees should clue you in, but obviously you are so blinded by your zealous fanatical faith that you cannot do anything but bow down in worship to this corrupt and bloated bureaucracy. What is clear from findings since the invasion is that much of the UN members opposition to removing a brutal terrorist sponsoring democidal dictator was due to their oil interests being tide up in iraq.

For those who claim that we could have used more diplomacy. It is quite clear that waiting too much longer would have proved disasterous. Saddam's oil for food scam had made a mockery out of sanctions and given him a lot of support for removing them and any call for inspections. It is quite clear that he intended to immediately restart all his nuclear ambitions once that happened. And all the time whilst we waited for diplomacy to 'work' the iraqi people continued to be oppressed and abused by Saddam.

Clearly the leftwing fanatacism is strong with this thread.
Posted by Grey, Monday, 11 July 2005 8:59:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Grey - I supposed I asked for that...

However, while I'm more of a middle-aged hippie/greenie than a 'communist', I think that an intelligent Neo-Marxian analysis of current world events would be very pertinent to this discussion - e.g. the commentary provided by George Monbiot et al.

I refer to the current version of the Middle Eastern conflict as the Oil War, because that's what I think future historians will call it. It began in the Middle East after the Second World War, and will only end when we come up with an economically and environmentally viable alternative to oil. You should read the mounting evidence for 'Peak Oil' - i.e. the theory that world oil production will soon start to decline, at the same time as demand for it increases exponentially in 'developing' economies. While I don't share the doomsday scenarios that some people are beginning to take seriously, I fear that we are entering a period of unprecedented global economic instability - and hence, conflict.

I also think that it will prove to be a historically tragic coincidence of the worst order, that vast reserves of oil were initially discovered underneath the sands of the birthplaces of two of the world's great religions. The unfortunate admixture of religious zealotry and global economics based on oil have been two of the major determinants of the mess the world's in today.

Under these conditions, what would you propose as an alternative to the UN? That everybody unites under Christ, or some other such twaddle?

At least the UN provides a rational basis for improvement.
Posted by garra, Monday, 11 July 2005 11:12:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair crack of the whip Grey.

>>I find it amazing that people think legality is decided by the UN<<

Legality is a slippery term at the best of times Grey, but fundamentally you always have to identify it with a political entity. It does not have some form of separate existence as you seem to imply. What is legal in California could well be illegal in Oregon, as you well know, so pretending that there is some special case for the UN is untenable.

It's decisions only have as much legality - same as every jusrisdiction - as its members allow it. Of course, if the US were not a member, they could argue that their resolutions don't apply to them. But they are, so they can't.

>>For those who claim that we could have used more diplomacy. It is quite clear that waiting too much longer would have proved disasterous.<<

As I said before, this is unprovable. You like to think of the US invasion as a humanitarian exercise because that eases your conscience. But it doesn't make it any more right.

You and Boaz make a good pairing on this.

>>Such a body as the UN has no value or moral authority.<<

Boaz, if this is the case, why is the US a signed-up member? Why is Australia? You cannot have your cake and eat it you know. It is like playing soccer and making up your own rules. In 1823 William Webb Ellis decided the game was not to his taste, picked up the ball and ran with it, thus inventing rugby - but at least he was honest about it. If the US were honest, they would have withdrawn from the UN at the same time as taking the law into their own hands. But they didn't, hence my reference to vigilantism.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 11 July 2005 11:34:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I sometimes wonder how apologists of the war can be so divorced from reality. They are unable or unwilling to comprehend opposing arguments, but are quite adept at doublethink.

To claim that the supposed risk that Saddam would give his stockpiles of WMDs to terrorists was not the justification is utterly absurd. There is no credibility in any article or anyone who claims otherwise. Now the reason for war, that can't be reduced to something so simple as oil, but it was a factor.

What I would like is a cite that France, Germany, Russia etc. were opposed to the war because of oil interests/scams. Not just that oil kickbacks occurred, the US itself received most of the kickbacks, but that they were a motivator.

More diplomacy to what end? For him to give up his WMDs? Done. For him to cooperate with inspections? Done. Perhaps for him to give up control of Iraq? Not an easy thing to do diplomatically and yet, backed up by the threat of military force, an offer was made only to be disregarded by the US. Diplomacy was working, but the Bush administration wanted war.
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 11 July 2005 1:18:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy