Rebuilding Iraq - Pokemon Forum

Alakazam · #1 03-09-2004, 04:46 PM

Check out this BBC News Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3153732.stm

Anyway, the US government has hoped to draw up an Iraqi constitution in about six months...however this seems to be unrealistic.

As it says in the article, the US government is unsure wether the delegates on the constitutional convention should be elected or appointed, the latter would be the more difficult and time consuming.

It seems to me that they would HAVE to be elected, as tedious as the preperation for such an election would most likely be. If the US were to appoint members, there would be a inherent bias towards the western way of thinking, which is quite unfair for the people of Iraq.

Crimson Spider · #2 03-09-2004, 09:27 PM

Well, we wouldn't put someone who hates us into office. That would be purpose-negating.

Alakazam · #3 03-10-2004, 02:47 PM

*

hopes that CS doesn't hold the belief that Might makes Right

*

We shouldn't put anyone in office at all. It has little to do with us; it's none of our business. "Purpose-negating"...hmm, that's interesting. What purpose are you referring to? Certainly not to grant Iraqis self-determination...

Crimson Spider · #4 03-11-2004, 01:12 AM

One of the purposes for the liberation of Iraq in the first place.

plasmaball3000 · #5 03-11-2004, 01:38 AM

But we didn't have any just cause or right to invade Iraq in the first place.

Crimson Spider · #6 03-11-2004, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plasmaball3000

But we didn't have any just cause or right to invade Iraq in the first place.

Give the word and I'll prove you wrong.

plasmaball3000 · #7 03-11-2004, 02:06 AM

Why should we be able to invade other countries without the UN's approval for breaking UN resolutions, and we don't even follow them ourselves?

Crimson Spider · #8 03-11-2004, 03:18 AM

Because a specific country is inflicing harm upon other valuable supporters of the US and in fact has itself an emnity towards the US and has the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

The UN wasn't going to issue an abide by it's resolutions. What it was doing was going by it's standard precedure: Each country agrees on an action, then takes that action.

Due to the rule that the in order to take action the vote has to be unanimous (sp?), the UN wasn't able to take action because France was recieving money from Iraq (even though now they are funding the US).

3/4ths of the UN agreed.

Alakazam · #9 03-11-2004, 10:49 AM

I heard that the VAST majority of the UN sided with the invasions; and only one country did not: France. Thus all of that anti-french crap last year. However, a unanimous vote is/was neccessary for a military invasion...go figure.

Why were we justified? I'm not so sure that we were, but we weren't the only ones going in there; many countries were backing us up. The only thing that really sucked (other than troops being sent over) is the illusion the Hussein was in leage with Al-Qaeda set up Bush.

plasmaball3000 · #10 03-11-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Spider

Because a specific country is inflicing harm upon other valuable supporters of the US and in fact has itself an emnity towards the US and has the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.

Israel also has the ability to produce WMD, actually, they already have one, and you know that whole, Isreali-Palistinian thing? People are dying all the time over there from hostility between the two countries. So in that way, Israel is in the same case as Iraq, but we don't invade them. Why? Because they are allied with us.

This could easily be reversed; the US being a corrupt dictatorship and them going after all the democracys in the world. One of the reasons so many people support this war is becasue they are the ones doing the invading. If you need proof, look at the world's opinion of the US right now. Everyone hates us!

Alakazam · #11 03-11-2004, 02:29 PM

We've been trying to assuage the Israeli-Palestinian confluct for years, and that's very different situation than Iraq, a poor parallel, I must say.

Everyone hates us? Why wouldn't they? The president openly named countries as evil, dennounced Iraq as housing terrorists without ample proof, has imperialized numerous areas in the world, allow ourselves to have nukes but no other countries can, and much more.

Do you really think that if we didn't invade Iraq that the world opinion of the US would be that much better? I don't think so.

plasmaball3000 · #12 03-11-2004, 08:22 PM

Oh, I'm not calling the Palistinian-Israeli conflict a parallel at all. I'm just pointing out how the causes CS gave for invading Iraq aren't unique by any means.

And I don't think the public opinion of the US would be much better by not invading, the hate has been building up for a long time, but it really started showing in the past three years.

Tamer Marco · #13 03-12-2004, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alakazam

We've been trying to assuage the Israeli-Palestinian confluct for years, and that's very different situation than Iraq, a poor parallel, I must say.

Everyone hates us? Why wouldn't they? The president openly named countries as evil, dennounced Iraq as housing terrorists without ample proof, has imperialized numerous areas in the world, allow ourselves to have nukes but no other countries can, and much more.

Do you really think that if we didn't invade Iraq that the world opinion of the US would be that much better? I don't think so.

Look we never had a right to destroy Iraq but we have a job to fix it. If you guys don't remember Desert Storm you'll find out that we gave Iraq the power because another country(Forgot Name) was terrorizing Iraq. So Bush can get outta office cause Sadam is alive and the elections are coming SOON.

Crimson Spider · #14 03-12-2004, 12:45 AM

Someone asked me a question. I answered. That wasn't justification for entering. That was right. If you wanted justification, just ask.

O.K. early intelligence from Alqaeda stated that Saddam had givin funding to the orginization. That was part of the justification for an attack on Iraq. Apparantly our terrorrist orginization lied.

BTW: It wasn't just Bush. When his father was in office, he legally set up a regime change for Iraq in the to-do list of the nation. Clinton followed through with this list scarcely. Mostly by relying on Aerial attacks. Problem was that they did little to nothing. (Remember how Clinton attacked Iraq right before he was impeached to distract people?)

It didn't matter who came into office next. They would have to follow through with the plan for a regime change. For all we know, Gore could've done the same thing.

plasmaball3000 · #15 03-12-2004, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Spider

O.K. early intelligence from Alqaeda stated that Saddam had givin funding to the orginization. That was part of the justification for an attack on Iraq. Apparantly our terrorrist orginization lied.

So that's justification for killing thousands of innocent civilians?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Spider

BTW: It wasn't just Bush. When his father was in office, he legally set up a regime change for Iraq in the to-do list of the nation. Clinton followed through with this list scarcely. Mostly by relying on Aerial attacks. Problem was that they did little to nothing. (Remember how Clinton attacked Iraq right before he was impeached to distract people?)

It didn't matter who came into office next. They would have to follow through with the plan for a regime change. For all we know, Gore could've done the same thing.

I don't mean to say that Bush is the only person that would have done this. But regardless, we shouldn't be the ones to make that change, the Iraqi people should get that chance.