Was Bushes war justified??

This is a history board and there is a separate politics board. Some topics do contain a mixture of history and politics, but your is purely political, without even a thin pretext of an historical tie in. You merely lack the respect to honor the board format, or even to pose a question which allows the possibility of opposing viewpoints. Your question is phrased about as fairly as "Do you still beat your wife?"

If you can lecture us on your political views on boards other than the one designated here for that purpose, then anyone can post his political views anywhere from now on.

Ok brandon your the only one who has complained about this forum so maybe you should take your views elsewhere.



-Hans

This is discussable.


Source: Al Jazeera.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, a total of 3,093 Palestinians have died and 26,783 Palestinians have been wounded since September 29th, 2000 (LINK)
To view this in a broader perspective however, you also have to notice that approximately 870 Israelis have been killed since the beginning of the Intifada, and almost 2,900 injured (I couldn't find the exact numbers). I do have to say however that a number of the Palestinians killed and wounded were killed and wounded by Palestinian terrorgroups, and not by Israeli forces.

Al Jazeera is hardly an objective source. The Red crescent may be more reliable, but as you've already pointed out some large percentage of the casualties stem from non-Israeli terrorist operations. The body count isn't really very indicative to the "rightness" of either cause. All of the maiming and killing in that unhappy land is appalling and regrettable.

The facts will not change because we wish them otherwise, and the fact is that Israel will continue to exist and will protect itself from attack, whether by recognized governments or by anonymous terrorists. Those who support and encourage terrorist attacks are the ones ultimately responsible for all the deaths and destruction that follow ... wherever they occur.

All civilized nations have a stake in the elimination of terrorism, and are made allies by the attacks upon them. It still is in the interest of some States to harbor, supply, finance, encourage covertly terrorist acts outside their borders. They hope to escape the righteous retaliation that would surely follow terrorist attacks. Those nations, cowards all, got away with that little trick for a long time, but then they went too far and awoke the sleeping indignation of the American people. State supported terrorism has become a dangerous strategy.

That's not what I said.

The point of my post was that I do believe the collateral damage is (too) big in the Palestinian territories.

I will simply take this precedent you have established as permission to post my political views on boards other than the politics board, no matter how inappropriate.

Rick,

Who knows? All the reports are biased. It's true you didn't say "a large percentage ...", that's my interpretation of the murky data available.

The body-count is irrelevant. On one side the clear intent is to kill as many personas as possible by indiscriminate terror bombings in public places. On the other side is retaliatory attacks intended to kill those who plan and direct the terrorist attacks. If the israelies could launch a weapon that only killed terrorist leaders, I'm pretty sure that would be their preference. If the Israeli government did nothing in response to the constant attacks on their people, they would soon be driven from office. If the Israelis ceased retaliation at those whose avowed purpose is the annihilation of all Jews and the destruction of Israel, would that cause the terrorists to stop their attacks? Now if the Palestinian Government would/could stop terrorist activities from their territories into Israel, I'm pretty sure that the Israeli government would be happy as clams to stop their counter-attacks.

What would you have the Israeli government do? What practical solution do you propose to make the kids play nice?

OK, so in your view the Nazi's and the Soviets had the right to invade the small countries whose territory they claimed, just because they had the military might to do so. And since the body count is irrelevant, 6 million Jews massacred (the Nazis regarded them as terrorists bent on the destruction of the German nation and Jews had been involved in political assassinations in the 1930s) are just a matter of pre-emptive self-defence.

I agree that the terrorist attack of 11 September was not a surprise (other than in the scale of its "success") after all there had been terrorist attacks on US soil before (like the previous WTC attack). Also Bush's war was no surprise. As soon as I heard of W's appointment in office I wrote to one of my US correspondents to be prepared for war, because "this man will go to war". Osama gave him the perfect excuse (the trouble was just that Osama had no links to Iraq, the real target).

I understand now that the US had every right to occupy Iraq (and claim the oil), because they had the military might to occupy and defend the area. China was right to invade Tibet, because the Tibetans could not defend themselves and they will be right to invade Taiwan, because surely the Taiwanese do not have the means or the will to withstand. Now it also makes sense that the US invaded, occupied and ethnically cleansed the native American land, because the native Americans had no chance in hell to stop the US army. In short, all the bloody annexations of the past become defensible if we follow your reasoning. (I am glad we have no oil or other mineral riches to speak of, for surely a small country like Finland with only 5 million inhabitants cannot resist the US should it claim our territory).

Incidentally, the right to exist of the state of Israel has been recognised by the International community (as in the UN), but not their right to attack their neighbours, to occupy Palestinian land, to build a wall on Palestinian land, etc. but Israel has systematically ignored lnternational laws and treaties (with the tacit or active support of the US). Why should the Palestinians be held to follow the international rules of engagement if the Israelis are allowed to ignore them? I believe that much of the Arab ill will towards the West, is derived from its double standard support for Israel.

I am in no way defending Palestinian terrorist attacks, but I believe that the Israeli retaliation is equally terrorist. The fact that it is carried out by a regular army with modern weaponry does not make a difference to me; the fact remains that they make overwhelmingly more civilian casualties than the Palestinian attacks.

I believe Israel is doing everything in its power to lay a firm foundation for its own demise and the US are helping.

i havent read the post, but im gonna reply to the first part.

in my opinion the war was justified, because of saddam connections to terrorist, his mass killing, and he killed thousands a year.

Pssdkynrn,

I really don't see how you could twist anything I've said into justification for the Nazi and Communist subversion and invasions in their attempt to become Masters of the World. To compare United States military operations to the actions of the Nazis and Communists is grossly unfair, and false. The holocaust, or any other genocide, is not the same thing as casualties associated with combat during war.

This IS NOT President Bush's War. Iraq was a continuation of the first Gulf War when Saddam violated the conditions of its suspension. Saddam was a destabilizing agent in S.W. Asia, the center of radical Islamic terrorism. After routing Al Quida from their Afghanistan bases, it made a great deal of sense to put an end to the threat posed by Saddam's outlaw regime. The President is Commander and Chief of our Military forces, and the National Command Authority. He is empowered by Congress and the Constitution to act on behalf of the United States. He is required to protect and defend the nation against all threats foreign and domestic. Iraq had many opportunities to avoid military conflict, but didn't believe that the U.S. had the courage to act. This is not Bush's War, not even just America's war, but a struggle to protect western civilization and values against a determined enemy who is willing to die to destroy us all.

You seem determined to condemn the United States and Israel for reacting to terrorist acts committed against them. What course of action would you recommend for nations who are targeted for terrorist murder on a grand scale? The U.S. took far too long to forcefully go after those who rejoice in the murder of our innocents. The Israeli government has repeatedly tried to make peace with the Palestinians, to no avail.

That the israelis and the United States are plotting their own demise has to be the strangest conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

In my eyes you seem to be absolutely sure the Israeli government is doing everything to avoid collateral damage (correct me if I'm wrong). Now, I strongly doubt that. Do you remember the Israeli fighter jet pilots who refused to participate in the 'retaliation' operations in the Palestinian Territories? Their main argument was that they sometimes got orders to shoot at terrorists in the middle of innocents - women, children. When you do that, you just KNOW innocents will get hurt. Now, what you call collateral damage can in many cases be replaced by 'killing', slaughtering. What I propose the Israeli government to do is that they should realize that the life of a Palestinian is worth something, that you should not take for granted with every retaliation operation that innocents will get hurt. Strike the terrorists when it will cause little collateral damage. (preferably: no collateral damage). Not only according to me, but according to Israeli fighter jets pilots, Israeli peace activists, Palestinian peace activists and the Palestinians on the streets, the Israeli government, and the IDF, take collateral damage very much for granted.

Dear Mr Asherman,

I have merely taken you upon your word:



That statement legitimises the Soviet Attack on my country, because they claimed Finland was part of the Russian empire '(which it was for 109 years) and they would have been able to occupy it too, had they not chosen to focus on defeating Nazi Germany. Hitler also claimed that Austria , Czechia, and parts of Poland, Lithuania, France, Holland, Denmark and Belgium "were German, are German and will always be German". And it turned out that Nazi Germany was indeed able to occupy those areas it claimed and a lot more.



I merely extrapolated that remark. The bible says a tooth for a tooth, according to you it is a tooth for a whole set of teeth, since the count is irrelevant. There were assassinations of Nazis (like Ernst vom Rath) by Jewish activists in the 1930s, the Germans could have said that their destruction of the Jews was retaliation for that terrorist attack and that since the bodycount is irrelevant... you get my point?



I have tried to explain that I am not twisting anything. I am just applying your remarks to well known and widely condemned occurrences, to demonstrate that what you hold to be true can lead to dire consequences if brought into practice.

Furthermore, methinks your claim that Bush's war in Iraq is just a continuation of the second Gulf War (liberation of Kuwait) does not stand up to scrutiny. The peace agreement stated that Iraq had to abide by all 12 UN resolutions passed against it (none of which called for regime change) which it accepted. Which of those resolutions did Iraq offend against?

And why should Iraq be invaded for alleged refusal to comply with UN resolutions while another country in the region is allowed by the US to ignore them?

I am NOT defending the terrorists, I merely would like people to see matters from both sides. And I would like to see an international rule of law respected and enforced equally by all nations.