AHHAHAAH DOWNLOAD THIS IRAQ INTERVIEW ROFL

[outriding]

how is this funny ???

you have a 12 year being drilled by someone by someone who is probably reading off a script.

there is no way that a 12 year could really understand what is going on with world politics. a typical 12 year old just learned to be able to understand sarcasm.

as far as the regime change. didn't the US help saddam to power by suppling him with weapons ?

geez who is the US going to put in there next lucifer ?

 

[Dudd]

Ahaha, that was great. My question is, why would you come on a radio show if your whole argument is that war is bad, mmkay? You have to know that people will rip you apart if that's the depth of your argument. And, my favorite line:

You think that my calling you a little girl is an insult. It is not. Everyone is a child at one point in their lives. Then, they grow up.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: jahawkin
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??

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.

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."

After twelve years of trying diplomancy and having it fail with the particular country in question. You keep leaving that one little point out.

 

[Renob]

That was GREAT!

Thanks so much for the link.

 

[dugweb]

Originally posted by: outriding
how is this funny ???

you have a 12 year being drilled by someone by someone who is probably reading off a script.

there is no way that a 12 year could really understand what is going on with world politics. a typical 12 year old just learned to be able to understand sarcasm.

as far as the regime change. didn't the US help saddam to power by suppling him with weapons ?

geez who is the US going to put in there next lucifer ?

you realize the girl being drilled was a full grown adult, volunteering to represent the anti-war view dont you? I doubt a national talk show would have a 12 year old girl on to debate the issues

edit : and the man 'drilling' her was a caller on the show, the girl was the guest, SHE was the one with the script

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
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."

I think that's a very valid answer. We've tried economic pressure in various places, two examples of which are Cuba and Iraq. That has primarily done nothing except hurt the people of those countries. Saddam and Castro still have money and power, so they aren't affected by it at all. We've also tried the alternative, giving economic assistance to rogue nations. In the case of North Korea, we promised to build nuclear power plants in exchange for a cease of their nuclear weapons program. They have since kicked the inspectors out, restarted the weapons program, and have raised hostilities by test firing missiles in the region. With a dictatorship, I believe that war is the only way to change their political structure. In a democracy, diplomacy works much better. If the world community stands united against a certain country's policies, it is within the grasp of that country's citizens to change those policies. In countries like Iraq and NK, the people have no choice. Saddam can put only himself on the ballot, and who is going to stop him? There is no opposition that can affect change. If the opposition inside the country is repressed, then it takes pressure from the outside to force change.

Finally, one point I have to address is when people state that we should not go into Iraq because there are various other places in the world that are in bad shape too. The US military, while the most potent fighting force in the history of mankind, can not do everything at once. Indeed, they shouldn't do everything at once. However, Saddam has had twelve years to disarm, and he hasn't. Also, the Middle East is an important strategic location today. Taking this into consideration, there is ample reason to go to war. We shouldn't have to police every single country on the face of the earth, but if there is one such as Iraq that has been in defiance for 12 years, holds strategic importance to the US, and is generally considered to be a repressive, cruel nation, why shouldn't we go to war? We can't solve everything at once, but we have the motivation and the ability to start in Iraq.

 

[dugweb]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: exp
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!!

thats funny, our indirect actoin of taking Saddam out of power could help bring peace?

But you are right, our primary agenda isn't to make peace in Iraq, it's to remove the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction from a mad man. So our primary objective is to protect people outside of Iraq, including Americans.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: jahawkin
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."

I think that's a very valid answer. We've tried economic pressure in various places, two examples of which are Cuba and Iraq. That has primarily done nothing except hurt the people of those countries. Saddam and Castro still have money and power, so they aren't affected by it at all. We've also tried the alternative, giving economic assistance to rogue nations. In the case of North Korea, we promised to build nuclear power plants in exchange for a cease of their nuclear weapons program. They have since kicked the inspectors out, restarted the weapons program, and have raised hostilities by test firing missiles in the region. With a dictatorship, I believe that war is the only way to change their political structure. In a democracy, diplomacy works much better. If the world community stands united against a certain country's policies, it is within the grasp of that country's citizens to change those policies. In countries like Iraq and NK, the people have no choice. Saddam can put only himself on the ballot, and who is going to stop him? There is no opposition that can affect change. If the opposition inside the country is repressed, then it takes pressure from the outside to force change.

Finally, one point I have to address is when people state that we should not go into Iraq because there are various other places in the world that are in bad shape too. The US military, while the most potent fighting force in the history of mankind, can not do everything at once. Indeed, they shouldn't do everything at once. However, Saddam has had twelve years to disarm, and he hasn't. Also, the Middle East is an important strategic location today. Taking this into consideration, there is ample reason to go to war. We shouldn't have to police every single country on the face of the earth, but if there is one such as Iraq that has been in defiance for 12 years, holds strategic importance to the US, and is generally considered to be a repressive, cruel nation, why shouldn't we go to war? We can't solve everything at once, but we have the motivation and the ability to start in Iraq.

First of all, nice post. Its good to see a reasoned, intelligent post instead of the various flames.
But....
I do agree that when a country is repressed, pressure from the outside is needed to force change. But this pressure need not be military force. The Soviets had quite a brutal regime, and did a great job at repressing the people. The US and Soviets never once shot at each other and the Soviet regime eventually crumpled under its own weight. Progress came to South Africa not from military force, but by intense international pressure.
As for the second paragraph, do we want other nations using the same justification to invade their neighbors?? This is not a good precident for the US to set.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: JudistPriest

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: exp
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!!

thats funny, our indirect actoin of taking Saddam out of power could help bring peace?

But you are right, our primary agenda isn't to make peace in Iraq, it's to remove the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction from a mad man. So our primary objective is to protect people outside of Iraq, including Americans.

From what I've read about the Bush doctrine and PNAC reports, we're going into Iraq to control their oil and as a base for further military operations in the middle east. Things like protecting our security and helping the Iraqi people form the pretext from which they sell the war to the public.

 

[human2k]

Originally posted by: etech

Simplistic nickelodeon diplomacy.

The man is a genius.

"How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq."

Anyone here want to try?

 

[DanFungus]

hahahahaa

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: JudistPriest

Originally posted by: outriding
how is this funny ???

you have a 12 year being drilled by someone by someone who is probably reading off a script.

there is no way that a 12 year could really understand what is going on with world politics. a typical 12 year old just learned to be able to understand sarcasm.

as far as the regime change. didn't the US help saddam to power by suppling him with weapons ?

geez who is the US going to put in there next lucifer ?

you realize the girl being drilled was a full grown adult, volunteering to represent the anti-war view dont you? I doubt a national talk show would have a 12 year old girl on to debate the issues

edit : and the man 'drilling' her was a caller on the show, the girl was the guest, SHE was the one with the script

it doesn't matter if she was pro / anti war it still was stupid. and that was one hell of a script they gave her. they

proabaly had her make up her own script. even though that was a caller he did sound like he was at least preped beforehand

he had way too many precanned responses to not be prepped.

really sad that the pro-war movement has to bully a 12 year old to make themselves look good.

 

[slydecix]

hello is abdar there? this is kerpal

you do not tell me to fvck

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: JudistPriest

Originally posted by: outriding
how is this funny ???

you have a 12 year being drilled by someone by someone who is probably reading off a script.

there is no way that a 12 year could really understand what is going on with world politics. a typical 12 year old just learned to be able to understand sarcasm.

as far as the regime change. didn't the US help saddam to power by suppling him with weapons ?

geez who is the US going to put in there next lucifer ?

you realize the girl being drilled was a full grown adult, volunteering to represent the anti-war view dont you? I doubt a national talk show would have a 12 year old girl on to debate the issues

edit : and the man 'drilling' her was a caller on the show, the girl was the guest, SHE was the one with the script

it doesn't matter if she was pro / anti war it still was stupid. and that was one hell of a script they gave her. they

proabaly had her make up her own script. even though that was a caller he did sound like he was at least preped beforehand

he had way too many precanned responses to not be prepped.

really sad that the pro-war movement has to bully a 12 year old to make themselves look good.

The man is from Iraq, he has thought about this for years. Of course he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. The girl didn't seem to have a clue.

Do you want to take a shot at answering his question?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: outriding
really sad that the pro-war movement has to bully a 12 year old to make themselves look good.

She isn't 12 just misguided.

 

[human2k]

SO has anyone came up with those "other options" other than war? BTW Im neatral on the topic, but havent seen one good Anti-War argument yet.

 

[element]

I think we should kill everyone on earth because that will bring peace to the world. How will it not? Don't evade the question, don't answer with anything but a direct answer to that question....

little boys and girls.....


hehehe

#1: That asshole is faking an accent. I can tell. I wasn't born yesterday. The day before perhaps...but not yesterday. It is an insult to the audience's intelligence to fake an accent and expect them not to notice.

#2: He's picking on a little girl, that took a lot of guts I REALLY respect that man he's a genius. Do any of you ATOT geniuses detect any sarcasm or do I have to explain it to you? Everyone's a @#$%ing genius....and no I haven't turned off the sarcasm yet.

#3: As if it wasn't bad enough he's picking on a little girl, he interrupts her without letting her finish. What an asshat. And equally so for anyone who calls him a genius. You must be a poor judge of character. not surprising unfortunately.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: JudistPriest

Originally posted by: outriding
how is this funny ???

you have a 12 year being drilled by someone by someone who is probably reading off a script.

there is no way that a 12 year could really understand what is going on with world politics. a typical 12 year old just learned to be able to understand sarcasm.

as far as the regime change. didn't the US help saddam to power by suppling him with weapons ?

geez who is the US going to put in there next lucifer ?

you realize the girl being drilled was a full grown adult, volunteering to represent the anti-war view dont you? I doubt a national talk show would have a 12 year old girl on to debate the issues

edit : and the man 'drilling' her was a caller on the show, the girl was the guest, SHE was the one with the script

it doesn't matter if she was pro / anti war it still was stupid. and that was one hell of a script they gave her. they

proabaly had her make up her own script. even though that was a caller he did sound like he was at least preped beforehand

he had way too many precanned responses to not be prepped.

really sad that the pro-war movement has to bully a 12 year old to make themselves look good.

The man is from Iraq, he has thought about this for years. Of course he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. The girl didn't seem to have a clue.

Do you want to take a shot at answering his question?

Perhaps if the guy allowed the woman to answer his loaded question she would display her intelligence on the matter. We don't have the interview before or after this asshole's call, so we have no way of telling how informed she is. You based your judgement on her based on a few words she said before the asshole repeatedly talked over her and called her names.
Lets put that asshole on the hot seat and ask him "how do you think bombing the Iraqi people will bring them peace and justice?" and then talk over him and call him names so he can't answer the question. If he goes on to say "peace and justice will be acheived through American occupation and a new regime" yell over him for not answering the question. Call him a little boy or a chirping bird. At all costs avoid discussing what he has to say and yell at him further for not answering a simple question.

 

[NightTrain]

The host wasn't rude. He asked her the same question. She just gave the same spiel over and over because she has no idea what what she is talking about. She just knows she's against bombing people. Her peabrain can't grasp anything more complicated than that.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: jahawkinAt all costs avoid discussing what he has to say and yell at him further for not answering a simple question.

He answered her question frankly. He said people would die if force was used to affect a regime change. He lived there it seems to be his opinion that a regime change is the better alternative.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: JudistPriest

Originally posted by: outriding
how is this funny ???

you have a 12 year being drilled by someone by someone who is probably reading off a script.

there is no way that a 12 year could really understand what is going on with world politics. a typical 12 year old just learned to be able to understand sarcasm.

as far as the regime change. didn't the US help saddam to power by suppling him with weapons ?

geez who is the US going to put in there next lucifer ?

you realize the girl being drilled was a full grown adult, volunteering to represent the anti-war view dont you? I doubt a national talk show would have a 12 year old girl on to debate the issues

edit : and the man 'drilling' her was a caller on the show, the girl was the guest, SHE was the one with the script

it doesn't matter if she was pro / anti war it still was stupid. and that was one hell of a script they gave her. they

proabaly had her make up her own script. even though that was a caller he did sound like he was at least preped beforehand

he had way too many precanned responses to not be prepped.

really sad that the pro-war movement has to bully a 12 year old to make themselves look good.

The man is from Iraq, he has thought about this for years. Of course he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. The girl didn't seem to have a clue.

Do you want to take a shot at answering his question?

Perhaps if the guy allowed the woman to answer his loaded question she would display her intelligence on the matter. We don't have the interview before or after this asshole's call, so we have no way of telling how informed she is. You based your judgement on her based on a few words she said before the asshole repeatedly talked over her and called her names.
Lets put that asshole on the hot seat and ask him "how do you think bombing the Iraqi people will bring them peace and justice?" and then talk over him and call him names so he can't answer the question. If he goes on to say "peace and justice will be acheived through American occupation and a new regime" yell over him for not answering the question. Call him a little boy or a chirping bird. At all costs avoid discussing what he has to say and yell at him further for not answering a simple question.

"How will leaving Saddam in power bring peace and justice to the Iraqi people."

I won't talk over you and will give you all of the space you want to answer the question.

 

[element]

"How will leaving Saddam in power bring peace and justice to the Iraqi people."

I won't talk over you and will give you all of the space you want to answer the question.

You are so kind.

Let me take this time out to thank those reponsible for giving me all of the space I want to answer this question. Thanks Anand, and all those that work at Anandtech.com and on Anand's Forums, such as Zuni, et al.

Now on to the question. First of all, who says leaving Saddam in power will bring peace and justice to the Iraqi people? Oh yeah that's right....some jackass with an attitude that called a radio show and picked on a little girl. Well if he says so then perhaps he should back it up and not me, nor that little girl. I don't think leaving Saddam in power will bring peace and justice to the Iraqi people. I never said it would. and neither did the girl. She tried to explain what her opinion is on the subject and was rudely interrupted. How nice.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech


"How will leaving Saddam in power bring peace and justice to the Iraqi people."

I won't talk over you and will give you all of the space you want to answer the question.

Once again, I say that leaving Saddam in power will not bring peace and justice to the Iraqis. But peace and justice can be brought to the Iraqis through peaceful means. Just because I can't formulate those means right now does not mean my viewpoint is discredited. At the core of this issue is how states interact with each other in the post Cold War era. Our system international collective security has worked for the past 50 years, and scrapping it by changing the rules of the game (ie, preemptive attack is acceptable) is not the best idea right now. Only through international cooperation will we solve the problems that face us in now or in the future. Our upcoming war with Iraq is the antithesis of international cooperation, as it looks like now we may be going in alone (literally - without the UN approval or support from the UK).

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: jahawkinFirst of all, nice post. Its good to see a reasoned, intelligent post instead of the various flames.
But....
I do agree that when a country is repressed, pressure from the outside is needed to force change. But this pressure need not be military force. The Soviets had quite a brutal regime, and did a great job at repressing the people. The US and Soviets never once shot at each other and the Soviet regime eventually crumpled under its own weight. Progress came to South Africa not from military force, but by intense international pressure.
As for the second paragraph, do we want other nations using the same justification to invade their neighbors?? This is not a good precident for the US to set.

I'm not very knowledgeable about South Africa, so I can't really comment on that. However, while it wasn't a direct military conflict that led to the downfall of the Soviets, I'd say that military force played a large role in their downfall. They had the insatiable urge to be the best. They had to be the world's great power, they had to be able to stand up to the US. However, while the US was flourishing under capitalism and had the revenue to undertake the massive Cold War military expansion, the Soviets, under the flawed premise of communism, did not. So, while they tried to keep up with the US, they couldn't. However, with so many years of tension, they felt that they had to remain a viable enemy. They had to pose a credible threat. So, they spent and they spent and they spent, and eventually it all came crashing down.

With Saddam, I think the situation is markedly different. Saddam knows that he can not hope to match up with the US. No country can. So, he's not spending his country into failure. He won't get suckered into an arms race that is unsustainable. He will build up his army, but he'll only do so to the point where he still has enough cash left over to keep his core followers faithful. The Soviets weren't able to keep their army loyal, so when the communists leaders tried one final coup, the army was unwilling to follow through. Saddam's Republican guard is kept loyal, and they are willing to keep Saddam in power. Until they turn, then there will be no hope from the inside. If they are willing to turn today, then the coming war will be a short and painless one. If not, then they will crushed, and Saddam will fall from power much sooner than if we simply sat on our thumbs.

Finally, I don't think that other countries will be able to use this same criteria to invade their neighbors. The US is a special case in today's world, whether or not people want to believe it. No one has the ability to hold out on us. No one can say, hey, what you are doing isn't right, and here are some troops to stop you. However, if there is an invasion of another country using this criteria and the US or for that matter any of our main allies, such as the UK, France, Germany, China, or others think that the justification is dubious at best, they are in a position to stop it. Theoretically, let's say that Milosovic is still in power, and he invades Kosovo, using the same justification that the US is using on Iraq. Does anyone think that NATO would change it's mind from what really happened simply because the Serbs claimed precedent? I doubt that it would have any effect at all on NATO's decision. Precedent might work in the justice system, but I don't think that it translates well to international diplomacy. Economic and military power are what drives decisions.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

nicklelodean diplomacy ROFL