Hey, look, another non-answer to the question
EDIT: Just in case jahawkin wants to ask me questions like I asked him, I'm giving advance warning you'll have to wait, I'm off to the bar
Hey, look, another non-answer to the question
EDIT: Just in case jahawkin wants to ask me questions like I asked him, I'm giving advance warning you'll have to wait, I'm off to the bar
How is it "morally" right to justify letting Saddam kill even more people?
You think by giving Saddam more time to play "disarm" (read: hide the missles) will result in a peaceful end? This BS has been going on for years and we're finally cracking down on it.
Chaos begets peace and peace begets chaos. Welcome to the world.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
jahawkinOthers seem to be doing a fine job of debating here so I won't bother, but I will state that the situation in NK, China, and eastern canada all have nothing to do with Iraq. If you believe that war is a worthwhile last resort for removing Saddamn from power you have to realize that we're there now. Nothing else works. To make Iraq any better for the world and for Iraqis he has to go. 12 years has proven that he won't go except with bullets biting the dirt behind him as he runs. It's that simple.
So I can't come up with any alternatives for peace and justice in Iraq. But you know what?? There are alternatives out there. I don't know them. You're complete inability to even fathom that these alternatives are out there speaks of your worldview. Perhaps if we had better leadership, or listen to alternatives presented by other countries (but the French and Canadians are such wimps, why listen to them) we wouldn't be in this situation. Its a pretty pathetic situation in this nation when advocating war is the default position.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Well you're in the same boat as the rest of the world. Don't feel bad - nobody else has any viable alternatives either, so you're not alone.
"War is bad" "don't kill" these are catch phrases which sound nice and are easily taught to somebody in grade 6, but in time people realize that in certain situations there are cases when it is needed. Stepping up to the plate is the reason Hitler's life ended in a bunker instead of on a throne. Thank God there are times when people are willing to step up to the plate.
Damn it the thread sucked me in!
BTW Chretien in Canada recently mentioned a 21 day deadline to Iraq. He clearly has no other alternative either.
Take all the time you want. Research what alternatives France has provided.(I haven't seen any). Go to any anti-war site you can find. Then come back and let us all know what the alternatives are.
If you are so convinced that after twelve years there are alternatives, find them and post them. I would love to see them.
War is not the default position, diplomancy has been tried and has failed for the past twelve years.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Right. Fact is all non-violent alternatives that any of us can think of have been tried and we've had 12 years to watch them fail. As the protestors continue to promote the no-bombs ideology Iraqis continue to die and Saddamn continues to carry on doing what he wants. Only the thread of war has even brought inspectors in recently. That's as good as Saddamn admitting that violence is the only thing that he understands. Well the threat has gone so far, but a real invasion is what is needed to go the extra step because even now with 1/4 capable troops outside his door step he continues to defy. And if he defies now why would anybody in their right mind think that pulling those troops back and putting in some non-threat alternative will do a damn thing? It won't. My God!
In the past 12 years, have any of our diplomatic efforts centered around advancing peace and justice in Iraq??
One of the biggest problems with the anti-war position is that its advocates are unable (or should I say unwilling?) to grasp the concept that war in Iraq could quite possibly result in a *lower* body count than the status quo. Death is not exclusive to war, you know.
I know that this is a possibility. Is it probable?? Hell no, not with our "shock and awe" strategy and urban combat in Bagdhad.
I should add that the US policy in Iraq has absolutly nothing to do with promoting peace and justice in Iraq. Not one thing. It could end up helping as a indirect result of our action, but helping the Iraqi people has nothing to do with our agenda. It may be used as a pretext for war (to soften up the populus -and that is indeed working pretty well among this crowd) but not a reason.
So for all of you high and mighty folk who like to believe that the US is doing this to help the people of Iraq, wake up!!
You do realize you've flushed your credibility down the toilet here?
"You're wrong there are plenty of other solutions..erm...I just don't know what they are."
I was amazed at how the dumb the chick on recording was...until I read your last post.
You've taken a position that you're correct...but that you just don't why. You've a few issues to settle yourself before worrying about the perceptions of others.
Again, I don't personally have any alternatives. But I'm sure the government could think up of some given the chance.
Now do you care to show how the efforts the US has made to advance peace and justice in Iraq.
The problem is that you have arrived at your assessment through pure speculation, just as I did. When it comes to estimating casualties there is no concrete evidence to validate one opinion over the other. Since the future is unclear neither side is justified in claiming the moral highground here. We are all guessing.
I wish people on both sides of the issue would stop claiming moral superiority when there is nothing to justify such self-righteousness.
OK, I've thrown my credibility out the window because I can't answer a question that has been plauging international politics since the end of the Cold War?? That question being...
How do you influence soverign nations without attacking them??
I'm sorry if I don't have all the answers, but this is an core issue of the world we live in today. Clinton tried various solutions to the problem, some worked, some didn't. Now Bush is in control and his answer is "I don't care, the US has the most power so we do what we want, and if you don't like what we do, f*ck off!" By doing this he is throwing away the concept of collective security that has protected us for more than 50 years.
As I've stated before, I myself cannot come up with any alternatives. Now you can dwell on this issue, or you can answer my question. Don't worry, I don't know is an acceptable answer.
No, your credibility is in doubt because you said there are alternatives and have not been able to come up with any. Why did you say that there are if no one since the "end of the Cold War" has been able to?
Now you are advancing that you know Pres. Bush's attitude and why he is taking the course of action that he is. I don't believe that you do. Your characterzation of his actions if obviously biased and flavored by the same attitude that caused you to say there were alternatives to removing Saddam when you cannot present even one.
You've expended quite a bit of energy castigating the current administration for being too eager to go to war. You've lectured the hawks that there are far better alternatives and that Bush is plainly just an idiot. Yet when finally pressed for *your* solution, you've eagerly admitted you have absolutely no idea what to do.
It's so hilarious that I cannot believe you're actually serious.
I was actually surprised anyone would bother to defend the hapless soul on the recording as she is obviously in over her head. She wants to be "for" something but is really more comfortable being "against" things. It's a helluva lot easier to point and laugh than to actually *do* anything. It's also quite obvious you've found yourself a kindred soul.
I know Bush's reasons because I've read the PNAC report, I've read the letters and papers written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Jeb Bush et al. Their strategy has nothing to do with peace and justice (OK, sometimes Wolfowitz talks about these issues, but he is in the minority) and everything to do with American supremacy.
If the US were to be threatening North Korea, Iran or any other country with war prior to diplomacy that would be highly inappropriate and would justifiably provoke much protest from the international community. The first steps are diplomacy and the use of economic sanctions to attempt to appeal to the leader's desire to provide his people with a better life. Diplomacy and sanctions haven't worked with Saddam.
The UN has proven far too sluggish to be of any value. The US-UK-Spain should issue a joint ultimatum to Saddam. Giving him one final chance to choose peace; the ball has been in his court for quite some time now.
The UN has proven far too sluggish to be of any value. The US-UK-Spain should issue a joint ultimatum to Saddam. Giving him one final chance to choose peace; the ball has been in his court for quite some time now.
How do you influence soverign nations in the post Cold War era without attacking them??
That is what this issue boils down to. I've stated that the US and countries around the world have been struggling to answer this question since '91.
Your answer to this question is "we can't influence other nations, we can only attack them."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter