AHHAHAAH DOWNLOAD THIS IRAQ INTERVIEW ROFL

[Sephy]

Originally posted by: 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.

You did listen to the clip, right? The girl, who for some reason some of you nitwits can't understand, is NOT a little girl, she just has the brain of one, calls a radio show, and is asked to defend her point, and does not answer the question. That's all he asked. He never interrupted anything but her saying nothing related.

 

[Mookow]

Jahawkin:

Again, I don't personally have any alternatives. But I'm sure the government could think up of some given the chance.

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??

You seem certain there are "better alternatives", but no one has come up with them since the end of the cold war? W T F ? I'm not making fun of you for not coming up with your very own answer, I am laughing at your positition of "There are better alternatives, but no one in the world knows what they are". Please tell me you are still in high school, because any college should first teach its students a concept called "critical thinking", which involves "logic". If better alternatives exist, SOMEONE had better think of them, since until they are voiced, for all intents and purposes, they dont exist

On a side note, last night involved a lot of drinking so if my spelling or grammar is off, I'm still buzzing. But it was a fun night

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Mookow
Jahawkin:

Again, I don't personally have any alternatives. But I'm sure the government could think up of some given the chance.

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??

You seem certain there are "better alternatives", but no one has come up with them since the end of the cold war? W T F ? I'm not making fun of you for not coming up with your very own answer, I am laughing at your positition of "There are better alternatives, but no one in the world knows what they are". Please tell me you are still in high school, because any college should first teach its students a concept called "critical thinking", which involves "logic". If better alternatives exist, SOMEONE had better think of them, since until they are voiced, for all intents and purposes, they dont exist

On a side note, last night involved a lot of drinking so if my spelling or grammar is off, I'm still buzzing. But it was a fun night

Are you aware of American foreign policy from 1945-present?? Do you understand the patten of behavior that the US has followed since 1945?? Are you aware of the concepts behind collective security and the "rules" of international behavior??
Alot has changed since the end of the Cold War, and the US is left as lone superpower. The rules of international behavior have not changed since then, but Bush and co. want to change them and enter a new era of American exceptionalism.
Most of the world is saying the same thing as I. We don't know exactly how to handle Saddam, but we know that war is not the answer right now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Mookow
Jahawkin:

Again, I don't personally have any alternatives. But I'm sure the government could think up of some given the chance.

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??

You seem certain there are "better alternatives", but no one has come up with them since the end of the cold war? W T F ? I'm not making fun of you for not coming up with your very own answer, I am laughing at your positition of "There are better alternatives, but no one in the world knows what they are". Please tell me you are still in high school, because any college should first teach its students a concept called "critical thinking", which involves "logic". If better alternatives exist, SOMEONE had better think of them, since until they are voiced, for all intents and purposes, they dont exist

On a side note, last night involved a lot of drinking so if my spelling or grammar is off, I'm still buzzing. But it was a fun night

Are you aware of American foreign policy from 1945-present?? Do you understand the patten of behavior that the US has followed since 1945?? Are you aware of the concepts behind collective security and the "rules" of international behavior??
Alot has changed since the end of the Cold War, and the US is left as lone superpower. The rules of international behavior have not changed since then, but Bush and co. want to change them and enter a new era of American exceptionalism.
Most of the world is saying the same thing as I. We don't know exactly how to handle Saddam, but we know that war is not the answer right now.

So you admit the rest of the world does not have answer. That is good enough, ee have an answer.

 

[etech]

jahawkin

Are you aware of American foreign policy from 1945-present?? Do you understand the patten of behavior that the US has followed since 1945?? Are you aware of the concepts behind collective security and the "rules" of international behavior??
Alot has changed since the end of the Cold War, and the US is left as lone superpower. The rules of international behavior have not changed since then, but Bush and co. want to change them and enter a new era of American exceptionalism.
Most of the world is saying the same thing as I. We don't know exactly how to handle Saddam, but we know that war is not the answer right now.

You are right, a lot has changed since the the end of WWII and the end of the Cold War. The technology now exists such that a rouge state or terrorists organzation can kill millions of people with the right weapons. The people that do not recognize that fact are trying to live in the past and hang onto the policies of the past. Their refusal to see what has changed and their refusal to accept it fuel their desire to refuse to deal with the problems of the world as it is today.

When will removing Saddam be the answer? Will it be after he has rearmed and threatened to blackmail the rest of the world? The cost in lives makes that the wrong answer.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

that is awesome.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

So you admit the rest of the world does not have answer. That is good enough, ee have an answer.

And the world doesn't have an answer for the injustice due to Kim Jong Il, Mugabi, Taylor, Quadaffi, or Castro. But are we going to go around and attack NK, Liberia, Libya, Cuba?? No, we look for other solutions, other ways to bring down these dictators.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

So you admit the rest of the world does not have answer. That is good enough, ee have an answer.

And the world doesn't have an answer for the injustice due to Kim Jong Il, Mugabi, Taylor, Quadaffi, or Castro. But are we going to go around and attack NK, Liberia, Libya, Cuba?? No, we look for other solutions, other ways to bring down these dictators.

And those other ways are?

Why should we ignore one problem that something can be done about just because there are other problems in the world? That, in my opinion, is a stupid arguement.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech
jahawkin

Are you aware of American foreign policy from 1945-present?? Do you understand the patten of behavior that the US has followed since 1945?? Are you aware of the concepts behind collective security and the "rules" of international behavior??
Alot has changed since the end of the Cold War, and the US is left as lone superpower. The rules of international behavior have not changed since then, but Bush and co. want to change them and enter a new era of American exceptionalism.
Most of the world is saying the same thing as I. We don't know exactly how to handle Saddam, but we know that war is not the answer right now.

You are right, a lot has changed since the the end of WWII and the end of the Cold War. The technology now exists such that a rouge state or terrorists organzation can kill millions of people with the right weapons. The people that do not recognize that fact are trying to live in the past and hang onto the policies of the past. Their refusal to see what has changed and their refusal to accept it fuel their desire to refuse to deal with the problems of the world as it is today.

When will removing Saddam be the answer? Will it be after he has rearmed and threatened to blackmail the rest of the world? The cost in lives makes that the wrong answer.

You have to be very dim to believe that Saddam would give one of his WMD's to a terrorist org. Why would a paranoid dictator give some of his prized weapons to a group that he had absolutly no control over? It doesn't make any sense. The CIA and other intelligence orgs. support this view as well.

The technology has existed for years for rogue states to kill thousands. Deterrance has worked before, and it will continue working in the future.
I agree that we need to change the way we interact with unjust regimes like Saddam's, but the way to do that is with the cooperation of the international community, not going alone.

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
DO NOT PLAY DE PING PONG

heh heh

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

So you admit the rest of the world does not have answer. That is good enough, ee have an answer.

And the world doesn't have an answer for the injustice due to Kim Jong Il, Mugabi, Taylor, Quadaffi, or Castro. But are we going to go around and attack NK, Liberia, Libya, Cuba?? No, we look for other solutions, other ways to bring down these dictators.

And those other ways are?

Why should we ignore one problem that something can be done about just because there are other problems in the world? That, in my opinion, is a stupid arguement.

We can choose to do something about the injustices in North Korea, Liberia, Libya etc. but we choose not to. Why are we dealing with Iraq right now?

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

you cannot answer de question. you are a joke! a joke! i give you one more chance to answer and then i never listen to another word, you chirping bird.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

So you admit the rest of the world does not have answer. That is good enough, ee have an answer.

And the world doesn't have an answer for the injustice due to Kim Jong Il, Mugabi, Taylor, Quadaffi, or Castro. But are we going to go around and attack NK, Liberia, Libya, Cuba?? No, we look for other solutions, other ways to bring down these dictators.

And those other ways are?

Why should we ignore one problem that something can be done about just because there are other problems in the world? That, in my opinion, is a stupid arguement.

We can choose to do something about the injustices in North Korea, Liberia, Libya etc. but we choose not to. Why are we dealing with Iraq right now?

What do you propose that we do about North Korea, Liberia and Libya?

Do they have a twelve year history of refusing to give up weapons banned by the UN. Are there large superpower countries on their border that can deal with them in a better fashion without danger to their neighbors?

Once again, why should we ignore the Iraqi problem because we can't solve every problem at once? Are you also advocating that the US use a cookie cutter type of diplomancy? Does that make any sense?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

So you admit the rest of the world does not have answer. That is good enough, ee have an answer.

And the world doesn't have an answer for the injustice due to Kim Jong Il, Mugabi, Taylor, Quadaffi, or Castro. But are we going to go around and attack NK, Liberia, Libya, Cuba?? No, we look for other solutions, other ways to bring down these dictators.

And those other ways are?

Why should we ignore one problem that something can be done about just because there are other problems in the world? That, in my opinion, is a stupid arguement.

We can choose to do something about the injustices in North Korea, Liberia, Libya etc. but we choose not to. Why are we dealing with Iraq right now?

What do you propose that we do about North Korea, Liberia and Libya?

Do they have a twelve year history of refusing to give up weapons banned by the UN. Are there large superpower countries on their border that can deal with them in a better fashion without danger to their neighbors?

Once again, why should we ignore the Iraqi problem because we can't solve every problem at once? Are you also advocating that the US use a cookie cutter type of diplomancy? Does that make any sense?

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea or Liberia?
Please answer the question.

 

[etech]

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

Do they have chemical and biological weapons? Have they had an active program to acquire nuclear weapons in the past?

This is getting old.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

Do they have chemical and biological weapons? Have they had an active program to acquire nuclear weapons in the past?

This is getting old.

Nooooo, we're talking about promoting peace and justice in those nations. This was never about WMD's. They never talked about WMD's in the interview.
The question posed by this guy was "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq"
Now I'm asking you, How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

 

[ohtwell]

OMG! That was hillarious!!


: ) Amanda

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

Do they have chemical and biological weapons? Have they had an active program to acquire nuclear weapons in the past?

This is getting old.

Nooooo, we're talking about promoting peace and justice in those nations. This was never about WMD's. They never talked about WMD's in the interview.
The question posed by this guy was "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq"
Now I'm asking you, How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

No we are talking about Iraq. The man on the tape was from Iraq. That is the subject.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

Do they have chemical and biological weapons? Have they had an active program to acquire nuclear weapons in the past?

This is getting old.

Nooooo, we're talking about promoting peace and justice in those nations. This was never about WMD's. They never talked about WMD's in the interview.
The question posed by this guy was "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq"
Now I'm asking you, How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

No we are talking about Iraq. The man on the tape was from Iraq. That is the subject.

And I'm just demonstrating how loaded a question "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq" is.
I'm just asking you to answer a simple question.
How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

Do they have chemical and biological weapons? Have they had an active program to acquire nuclear weapons in the past?

This is getting old.

Nooooo, we're talking about promoting peace and justice in those nations. This was never about WMD's. They never talked about WMD's in the interview.
The question posed by this guy was "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq"
Now I'm asking you, How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

No we are talking about Iraq. The man on the tape was from Iraq. That is the subject.

And I'm just demonstrating how loaded a question "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq" is.
I'm just asking you to answer a simple question.
How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

stop playing de ping ping

 

[fatbaby]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

Do they have chemical and biological weapons? Have they had an active program to acquire nuclear weapons in the past?

This is getting old.

Nooooo, we're talking about promoting peace and justice in those nations. This was never about WMD's. They never talked about WMD's in the interview.
The question posed by this guy was "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq"
Now I'm asking you, How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

No we are talking about Iraq. The man on the tape was from Iraq. That is the subject.

And I'm just demonstrating how loaded a question "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq" is.
I'm just asking you to answer a simple question.
How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

Charles Taylor is not gassing is own people.

And so what you're saying is that the world doesn't know how we can "peacefully" resolve the situation in iraq, but the world definitely knows that war is wrong?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: fatbaby

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: etech

The US should have consistent policy regarding the promotion of peace and justice. That's what this thread is about.
So again, how does keeping Kim Jong Il or Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in North Korea?
Please answer the question.

I believe the US does have a consistent policy regarding peace and justice. The means to implement it are and have to be different.

Keeping Kim Jong Il in power in N. Korea does not help the people of his country. But you ignore the fact that any military move by the US would result in untter devastation for Seoul, South Korea. Once again, cookie cutter methods will not work.

Your turn,

What are your alternatives to removing Saddam by force?

That's right, you don't have any.

What about Liberia or Zimbabwe?? Why don't we invade them??

Do they have chemical and biological weapons? Have they had an active program to acquire nuclear weapons in the past?

This is getting old.

Nooooo, we're talking about promoting peace and justice in those nations. This was never about WMD's. They never talked about WMD's in the interview.
The question posed by this guy was "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq"
Now I'm asking you, How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

No we are talking about Iraq. The man on the tape was from Iraq. That is the subject.

And I'm just demonstrating how loaded a question "How does keeping Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq" is.
I'm just asking you to answer a simple question.
How does keeping Charles Taylor in power promote peace and justice in Liberia?

Charles Taylor is not gassing is own people.

And so what you're saying is that the world doesn't know how we can "peacefully" resolve the situation in iraq, but the world definitely knows that war is wrong?

Charles Taylor is doing plenty of horrible things. The US has given Taylor the biological agents and the means to deliver them as of yet. Given the chance, I'm sure Taylor would gas his own people.
Advancing peace and justice in Iraq has little to do with Saddam's WMD. The world knows we can keep Saddam contained, so the most of the world believes that war is not necessary in this case.

 

[etech]

jahawkin

Advancing peace and justice in Iraq has little to do with Saddam's WMD. The world knows we can keep Saddam contained, so the most of the world believes that war is not necessary in this case.

Saddam has already started asking for the sanctions to be lifted. France can't go in and drill on the oil leases he has almost given them until the sanctions are lifted.

Saddam will not be contained.