Invasion of Iraq is justified
-
I do not understand why there is so much opposition on the invasion of Iraq. The opposers actually wanted Saddam Hussien to still be the President of Iraq? Bearing in mind that he is the second person to uses chemical gas to gassed thousands of Kurds in 1989. The first is the Nazi in world war 1.
Since 1967 after the 6 day war between the Israeli and Palestians, every successive US president has been urging the Israelis to retreat from the West Bank and Gaza. None of them succeed. But President Bush has pulled it off. By invading Iraq, he prove to the Israelis that he mean business. As can be seen from the past 1 month, the Israeli has pulled out from Gaza and parts of West Bank.
The invasion has forced Libya to give up its secretive nuclear program.
Lastly, pls bear in mind that if we are to be attacked by another country, it will be the US seven fleet that will rush to our aid. The French and the Chineses will still be debating in UN. The SAF doctrine is to hold off the invasion and wait for help. And the only help will only come from the US. -
but it was the reason for the invasion that was weakest link for the invasion, and Powell recently admitted the blunder ....
-
or should Saddam be just replaced instead of a war tat took many innocent lives...of both sides...
-
No,no,no.... SAF should be self reliant , should not depend on US for help..
SAF should have the means to infilct blows on aggressors. -
So basically just step on another country to get another country to behave?
-
Hey guys,
There is no doubt that Saddam is a bad man.
There is no doubt that Libya is pressured to abandon its nuclear programme and open up to inspection and verification.
However, the war has a serious implication. The war seriously undermines the work and credibility of the Security Council. The war is a slap on Kofi Annan face. In any case, people may argue and agree that the UN is ineffective. But now we are on a slippery slope argument. This war will make it easier to attack another country unprovoked in the nature. The USA can do this to Afghanistan and Iraq, one day she can do it to any country including Singapore.
The second serious implication is that Russia can use this as justification for her heavy handed approach in Chechnya and her Georgian minorities.
This two wars in the Middle East just proves that it is much easier to wage war now than before. With the UN arbitration process disrupted and undermined. How can the UN works effectively in the future? Many countries depend on the collective security nature of the UN to uphold their interests and the UN process to ensure that they get a fair treatment. In the future, nations can just bypass the UN and act unilaterally without considering implications for the future. -
One moment please, Chechnya is technically part of Russia's territory. It isn't a sovereign state in its own right, despite the work the separatists put in.Originally posted by zquek:The second serious implication is that Russia can use this as justification for her heavy handed approach in Chechnya and her Georgian minorities. -
Russia should just forget about Chechnya. Don't even bother fighting them. Let them have their indepedence. Soon enough, they'll implode on themselves.
Same thing happened in the Gaza strip. The moment the Israelis went out, the Palestinan Militants started wacking off the Palestinian Authorities' officials. What the heck, they should have pulled out earlier.
Finally, I agree that the UN's power has become weaker cos of the invasion. It really looked as tho the US bo hiew the UN and decided to just move on its own, with its own coalition. It wasn't the best option, but it was the one chosen anyway. However, it sent a very clear message to the Middle east countries. The USA has interest to keep the region peaceful and stable. Punk with them, and the US Army will be knocking on ur door.
Besides, the should have moved into Baghdad the last time round. Unfortunately, they couldnt, as the UN Resolution 678 passed only allowed the coalition forces to IMPLEMENT and UPHOLD resolution 660. And that was for the Iraqi army to withdraw to positions on august 1990. To attack baghdad and to remove saddam at that time, would probably be condemned by US, and cause the coalition to break up at the same time.
The 2nd Gulf War, with all its excuse of WMD... is just finishing something that was started in 1991. Besides, the UN would never be able to pass a resolution calling on the removal of Saddam, and for member states to enforce it. And because the US acted without a UN Security Council Resolution, its arguable that the US and its "coalition of willing" indeed commited a war of aggression. -
not including Amman's stupid son's scandal.
-
Ask any veteran and they'll tell you war does no good to anybody, everybody loses, except the politicians on the victor's side. Only hawkish politicians and young soldiers look forward to war.
Saddam is a baddie but he can be contained. One day he'll die a natural death. Invade Iraq and muslims see it as a collective invasion unto all muslims (its an illogical thing that I can never understand, but then again, how rational are those people eager to blow themselves apart to go to a heaven full of virgins?). The invasion stirred up a hornets nest (came as no surprise to me, they're muslims you know?) and it'll be tit for tat between those fundamentalists and the Western world for goodness knows how long. The Isrealis and Palestinians have been exchanging eyes for eyes, tooth for tooth for millenia.
Invading Iraq is just that, an invasion. And no invasion is righteous, pre-emptive or not. Imagine your neighbour breaking down your door, cutting you and your family to pieces, because you beat your wife and kids. Justified? -
x2 i agree!Originally posted by huaichien:Ask any veteran and they'll tell you war does no good to anybody, everybody loses, except the politicians on the victor's side. Only hawkish politicians and young soldiers look forward to war. -
in a war there are no winners, only losers. u win the war u still lose, u lose the war u lose more.
-
the war was never justified if you guys remember the British Dossier and the Hutton Report. The main reason they wanted to attack Iraq was never proven.
So what if Saddam is still the ruler? His army is almost no-existent. But what the hell i think the war was just stupid. US made a very bad move. -
I'm pretty sure the Yanks and Brits knew there was no WMD in Iraq circa 2003. The combined efforts of the CIA, NSA and MI6 really can go so wrong meh? I don't believe it. George W Bush just wants to get rid of the enduring thorn by his side (and his father's side) and needs to find an excuse for Congress and the public, hence we have WMD.
Poor Colin Powell, I think he's probably an upright man, but because of the orders from higher-ups, he had to lie about the WMD in front of the UN. -
The reason to invade Iraq was simply to remove Saddam. That was the reason right from the start. The whole fiasco about the WMD is just an excuse to try to get UNSC to pass a resolution to allow the US to invade Iraq. Despite having much opposition to the invasion, NO SANCTION, or Resolution was passed on the USA for the invasion.
The US justification was, the new UN resolution 1441, together with the previous resolutions from the first iraq war, simply meant that the first War was never over in the first place, as long as Iraq was developing WMD the "ceasefire" of the 1991 gulf war is OFF.
However, most would disagree that because there was no UN resolution passed for the gulf war of 2003, it is therefore Illegal.
But look at it this way. The middle east has changed alot ever since Iraqi Freedom. Its quietened down quite a bit, tensions have eased somewhat. The Gaza issue is comin to a close. Iran's willing to negotiate over its Nuclear plants. People just seem to be more agreeable over there now.
Overall, a quietened down middle east is to everybody's gain. Tension isnt good for the flow oil. -
In 1997 during the financial meltdown in the region, especially the riots in Indonesia, I was in one of the airbase in S'pore during my reservirist, I saw a squadron of US fighter planes stationed in the airbase. I can't remember the model, but it was very beautiful, parked side by side, 2 planes in a row. I guess we does have a treaty with the US.Originally posted by fkh:No,no,no.... SAF should be self reliant , should not depend on US for help..
SAF should have the means to infilct blows on aggressors. -
i guess u mean the F-15 then...Originally posted by Sid_Vicious:In 1997 during the financial meltdown in the region, especially the riots in Indonesia, I was in one of the airbase in S'pore during my reservirist, I saw a squadron of US fighter planes stationed in the airbase. I can't remember the model, but it was very beautiful, parked side by side, 2 planes in a row. I guess we does have a treaty with the US.
-
Remember, Bush won his presidency beating AI Gore by only a few hundred votes. 911 came and Bush needed to react!! or he would lose the little support he had. but where was the enemy? osama bin laden could not be found even after bombing out the whole of afganistan, the attack was on american land, using american planes so no identifiable enemy!!Originally posted by huaichien:I'm pretty sure the Yanks and Brits knew there was no WMD in Iraq circa 2003. The combined efforts of the CIA, NSA and MI6 really can go so wrong meh? I don't believe it. George W Bush just wants to get rid of the enduring thorn by his side (and his father's side) and needs to find an excuse for Congress and the public, hence we have WMD.
Poor Colin Powell, I think he's probably an upright man, but because of the orders from higher-ups, he had to lie about the WMD in front of the UN.
Saddam was a convenient target!! Evidence that Saddam had WMD was created, still can't convince the UN? no back out, just hope that they could find some laboratories or gas chamber kind.
It was clear after they conquered the place, there was no WMD? no laboratory, no storage of gas or any kind of poison, not even the Repubican Guards was of any threat to anybody by then!
Poor Colin Powell, great american liar.
Has tension in the middle east eased as a result of the american invasion? can't see the link. But threat was issued, likely targets are LA and Sidney. May be we are just having the calm before the storm.
Stay alert, the world has not become safer. Invasion of Iraq was only an american political game. -
Originally posted by huaichien:
Unfortunately, we are not talking about wives and kids being beaten. We are talking about savages.
And no invasion is righteous, pre-emptive or not. Imagine your neighbour breaking down your door, cutting you and your family to pieces, because you beat your wife and kids. Justified?[/b]
Savage account 1
Saddam has two sons. The elder one is the president of the Olympic Sports committee. In one of the match, the Iraqi football team lose. He was so angry that he demanded all the players to take the boots off their feet above the floor. Then he use a baton to hit at all the players feet. Pity their legs. Wonder whether they can walk again?
Savage account 2
In 1998, two daredevil Iraqis plot to assassinate Saddam two sons. The plot failed. But at least a few bullets hit the sons. Saddam manage to capture one of the
mastermindÂ’s father. The father refused to tell his son hideout. As a result, anyone that know the mastermind are being killed, his friends, his relatives, cousins, brothers, sisters are all killed. Probably a few hundred who has nothing to do with the plot are killed.
Spare a thought for Saddam? Think again. By the way, the above mastermind is now a school teacher in a public school in Iraq. Teaching normal academic subjects in school. -
...because Kim Jong Il seems to be a bigger threat than Saddam & what is the US doing?Originally posted by Sid_Vicious:I do not understand why there is so much opposition on the invasion of Iraq.
However evil Saddam was, the pure & simple reason the US went to war was to jumpstart an ailing economy & control of the black gold. Period. -
Well, the world can't live without oil.Originally posted by hardyhall:...because Kim Jong Il seems to be a bigger threat than Saddam & what is the US doing?
However evil Saddam was, the pure & simple reason the US went to war was to jumpstart an ailing economy & control of the black gold. Period.
-
There's no doubt Saddam and sons are big baddies. But however cruel they treat their people, its not justification to invade their country. Invading other lands is very wrong, except if you are invading to recapture lost land, like Normandy. Plus you get rid of 3 baddies, out emerge dozens of other baddies, stirred up by hatred of being invaded.Originally posted by Sid_Vicious:Unfortunately, we are not talking about wives and kids being beaten. We are talking about savages.
Savage account 1
Saddam has two sons. The elder one is the president of the Olympic Sports committee. In one of the match, the Iraqi football team lose. He was so angry that he demanded all the players to take the boots off their feet above the floor. Then he use a baton to hit at all the players feet. Pity their legs. Wonder whether they can walk again?
Savage account 2
In 1998, two daredevil Iraqis plot to assassinate Saddam two sons. The plot failed. But at least a few bullets hit the sons. Saddam manage to capture one of the
mastermindÂ’s father. The father refused to tell his son hideout. As a result, anyone that know the mastermind are being killed, his friends, his relatives, cousins, brothers, sisters are all killed. Probably a few hundred who has nothing to do with the plot are killed.
Spare a thought for Saddam? Think again. By the way, the above mastermind is now a school teacher in a public school in Iraq. Teaching normal academic subjects in school. -
So, in your book, it is OK to forcibly take what is not yours?Originally posted by iveco:Well, the world can't live without oil. -
How to remove Saddam when he is still in power? Let say u still have total control over your whole country and one day i came and say.." give up your power" will u be willing to give it up?Originally posted by sgboy2004:or should Saddam be just replaced instead of a war tat took many innocent lives...of both sides...
In this type of cases, what are we gonna do? nth much..except for invasion... -
It is acceptable to forcibly intervene in a sovereign nation if it has contravened human standards of decency, e.g genocide and Holocaust- type acts.
Sometimes, the rest of humanity have got to realise that they cannot be constrained too much inaction.Care to tell the vets that they are war criminals for bombing and invading Germany?
I would rather start a war to end a genocidal regime than to sit back and enjoy the false peace which you and I know is false.Liberty needs blood to live, and no one has ever secured freedom through false pretenses of neutrality.
The only gripe is that Bush took the UN for idiots and did not properly phrase his demand for action in a more concise and persuasive manner to convince them in a legal sense that Saddam must be removed.
The days where states can engage in acts against humanity and hide behind the pretense of national sovereignty is gone.If you do not go against global opinion, you have nothing to fear.Overfragmentalisation of the world goes against what we've all been working on for a long time, a more united world with shared interests.