Is the war in Iraq justified? (3 Viewers)

[Ziff]

I find it funny that a war can be considered as being legal or illegal...

What other category is there? Edible? War is not a food, moron.

 

[Generator]

What other category is there? Edible? War is not a food, moron.

I am not a moron. War is war, not some little legal quirk.

 

[thorrnydevil]

As I was reading it, I had an image in my head that the last barricade of conservative nationalists had finally fallen, and you, Thornydevil, was the last one left, with all your conservative nationalists lying around you, all bloodied and dead.

And then, as the wave of the liberal (as in the actual definition of the word) men and women, and yes- even non-citizens marched over your vanquished friends you were there, waving the battered Coalition emblem wildly.

Ha-so why is the Liberal Party in government then? Oh yeah...cause by your logic there are more "Liberals" in Australia than conservatives. Hmmm...makes you think doesn't it. I'm actually here to tell you that the youth of Australia is becoming more conservative than previous generations. And you think where the dying breed. Unlikely.

For the last time- IF THE US HAD PUSHED THE LIBERATION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE AS THE PRESSING ISSUE REQUIRING AN INVASION OF THE COUNTRY, THEN THE UN WOULD HAVE LEGALISED THE WAR.

How many times do I need to tell you? The war got through the General Assembly, but it was France who vitoed it. They vitoed it because they had trade deals with Iraq and the Middle East. Then, when Iraq is being occupied by the US they say they supported the war and hope that their companies will get Infrastructure contracts. Now, they must be the biggest turn coats in history.

My god, what is it with you and 'little'.... damn.... I wasn't going to comment, and am sure you are going to throw all kinds of ignorance back at me, but seriously - how many posts are you going to use aggression and the "little man" "small..." thing in ??.... At first it was Freudian and funny, but now.... your psychological state is just plain disturbing.... QUOTE]
I mention "little" twice in this thread -Posts 79 and 83- and I wrote "small" once in post 79. So thats two posts that I use the "little man" and "small" thing in. Idiot.

BTW, if your going to base your arguements on spelling and grammer you may aswell piss off now. Nobody wants to here it.

Yes, and I guess you are defeated now because, once again, you haven't made a reply to my statements on the previous page

By this I assume you mean the following post:

I think you'd realise that Saddam Hussein is now captured and the only danger that the Iraqis are in by America bombing them (and them bombing back). So shouldn't the Aussie soldiers be out by now, now that the job is complete? Or can you tell me anything else that has to be done. Because I think America can take control, by themselves, from there.

Jobs that aren't complete:
* Provide protection for Australian and foreign diplomats and Ambassadors.
* Keep the peace in towns under coalition control.
* Secure the "green" or "safe" zones under coalition control.

We've made a commitment to the world to stay. These soldiers have also made a commitment to free Iraq and some have chosen to stay in Iraq voluntarily. They enjoy what they do. They wouldn't train for years if they didn't.

 

[crazyhomo]

These soldiers have also made a commitment to free Iraq and some have chosen to stay in Iraq voluntarily. They enjoy what they do. They wouldn't train for years if they didn't.

what an odd thing to say...

 

[thorrnydevil]

what an odd thing to say...

How is it odd?

 

[crazyhomo]

How is it odd?

just seemed strange to me that you were proud that our soldiers enjoy killing

 

[thorrnydevil]

just seemed strange to me that you were proud that our soldiers enjoy killing

I'm proud that our soldiers are there jobs

 

[crazyhomo]

I'm proud that our soldiers are there jobs

sorry, i misunderstood

 

[Ziff]

I am not a moron. War is war, not some little legal quirk.

When someone refers to war as being food they are not attacking you. If I called you a moron now, that would be attacking you.

 

[thorrnydevil]

sorry, i misunderstood

Your apology is accepted.

 

[Generator]

The I guess that I read the 'war is not a food, moron' line incorrectly?
I merely think that such legal discussions of war (or any other bipolar distinction) simplifies the concept's overly complex nature in a way that benefits nobody.


On another note...
http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=5437
A link from the bottom of the page. Kind of old, but oh well.

 

[Ziff]

Well I guess saying "legal" is better from a propagandists viewpoint than saying "morals" or "ethics" because the latter two have no real power or ability to force people to do something. So "legal", purely because it has that power, is the best battleground for the opposing ideologies to wage war on.

Then again "legal" does, well in theory should, reflect the moral and ethics of society (and in international law that of the international community). That's probably why "legal", whilst it seems like a black or white characterisation of the war, is being used so widely and frequently.

 

[McLake]

There's no need to sound so condescending....I was simply making one point...

I realise that, I just think that this point is moot ...

now...what has that got to do with Merlin saying what he said? and how does that makje his view illegitimate?

Anyone can protest...anyone can express views on Australia and its social policy...it doesnt matter what country they come from...George Bush does it all the time and he doesnt even live here let alone is a citizen...

Well said ...

 

[Kulazzi]

By this I assume you mean the following post:


Jobs that aren't complete:
* Provide protection for Australian and foreign diplomats and Ambassadors.
* Keep the peace in towns under coalition control.
* Secure the "green" or "safe" zones under coalition control.

We've made a commitment to the world to stay. These soldiers have also made a commitment to free Iraq and some have chosen to stay in Iraq voluntarily. They enjoy what they do. They wouldn't train for years if they didn't.

I think most of the stuff you have been listed above can also be taken care of by the Americans. Like I said, America can take control on their own once they've captured Saddam Hussein. Why? well it's pretty obvious isn't it? Cos they're powerful and can do anything. I don't see any more need why Australia needs to stay.

I think you've heard from the news abt the debate of when Aussie soldiers are gonna come back? They're itching to come back. I betcha 99% would wanna get out of Iraq and come back to Australia, to their family, to their friends.
Iraq is already FREED! Saddam Hussein is gone, he does not exist in Iraq, he has been captured! What else do they need to free Iraq from?

 

[leetom]

Ha-so why is the Liberal Party in government then? Oh yeah...cause by your logic there are more "Liberals" in Australia than conservatives. Hmmm...makes you think doesn't it. I'm actually here to tell you that the youth of Australia is becoming more conservative than previous generations. And you think where the dying breed. Unlikely.

How many times do I need to tell you? The war got through the General Assembly, but it was France who vitoed it. They vitoed it because they had trade deals with Iraq and the Middle East. Then, when Iraq is being occupied by the US they say they supported the war and hope that their companies will get Infrastructure contracts. Now, they must be the biggest turn coats in history.

The only reason the Liberal Party is in power because all the oldies keep voting it in. We have a significant aged and ageing population and most of those oldies identify themselves with the Coalition.

I think that if the younger Australian generations were to stage a coup against the government it would be successful, because the coup force would consist of healthy, young, left leaning and clear-thinking citizens while the Government forces would consist of old and unfit conservatives all dissillusioned with preventing the left from taking power.

The U.N works on a system of respect. If even just one permanent member decides to VETO a proposal, the other members must respect their decision and work with the nation that cast the VETO in order to gain happiness for everybody. You can't just say 'Yeah? Well fuck you, we're going to do what we want to do anyway.'

And that's exactly what the U.S did regarding Iraq. And it wasn't just France- Germany, Russia and China all opposed the war. And you can't just piss on the opinions of the other members just because you think you're doing the right thing.

An example of the respect system- a few weeks ago a motion was trying to be passed that would declare the Israeli construction of the wall through Palestine illegal. Every single country on the U.N voted for it- exept of course America and Israel, plus a few hardcore Coalition of the Willing countries who didn't vote because they didn't want to upset Bush.

Despite the overwhelming majority in favour of the motion, nothing was done because the U.S disagreed. Now, because all the other countries have sane leaderships, they didn't go into Israel and smash down the wall, they respect the U.S's decision.

 

[Ziff]

Interesting sidenote - I forget which election but Labor won more votes but the Liberals still won because they won more seats.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Interesting sidenote - I forget which election but Labor won more votes but the Liberals still won because they won more seats.

That it totally impossible. How could they? They'd have to win every single vote in there blue ribbon electorates. I highly doubt that.

 

[crazyhomo]

That it totally impossible. How could they? They'd have to win every single vote in there blue ribbon electorates. I highly doubt that.

that could happen quite easily. labor wins one seat by getting 1000 votes, to libs 500. in two other seats libs win by 750 to 700. thats 2000 votes to libs and 2400 to labor. course this is just an example, but the scenario, whether it's true or not, seems quite likely to happen

 

[Ziff]

In the 1998 election Labor gained 50.98% of the two-party preferred vote.

http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/past/hor2party.htm

--
Of course, what else is interesting is how many votes the LP or Nats v. Labor got by way of first preferences. (2001)

First preferences (before preferences are distributed):
LP: 37.08%
NAT: 5.61%
LABOR: 37.84%

--
Also remember that not all electorates have the same amount of people in them.

 

[thorrnydevil]

that could happen quite easily. labor wins one seat by getting 1000 votes, to libs 500. in two other seats libs win by 750 to 700. thats 2000 votes to libs and 2400 to labor. course this is just an example, but the scenario, whether it's true or not, seems quite likely to happen

True. I stand corrected.