Protesting the Protesters

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
What I meant was, these are choice cuts to show off the most stupid and tepid minded. Any good, clear answers would be edited out. Its not that "not one" could give a good answer, its that good answers werent used for this video.

Great, you give me good clear answers to the questions asked.

1) What is the answer to disarming Saddam?

2) How long should the inspections continue?

3) In the past has the world community lived up to it's responsibility to deal with Saddam?

4) If it is all about oil, why didn't we keep the oil fields in 1991?

5) Do you believe that Saddam has chemical or biological weapons?

6) How would you compare Pres. Bush to Hitler?

1) I think Saddam should be overthrown from within, if that is what the people of Iraq want.
2) They should continue, other countries have said they would finance putting 3X the current inspectors in there and we reject it, why? I don't know, I would figure the more people inspecting the better.
3) No, including the US which gave him support during the worst of his attrocities, the US has not really shown an interest in human rights unless it can coexist with its plans anyway.
4) here's another good question, why did we leave Saddam in power in 1991?
5) most likely
6) I would not, Bush is not out to obliterate a race of people

what I want to know is how can we liberate a people who the majority of do not want to be liberated by the US and how can we do it by bombing and killing a bunch of them? the first gulf war claimed over 100,000 civilian lives. I'm not against getting rid of Saddam, but I am against innocents getting killed either Iraqi or American.

 

[Ryan]

I've come to the conclusion that protesters are really mindless idiots. I would love to see a protester (or anyone I know of that is against war) with a rational argument against war - I have yet to meet one.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
What I meant was, these are choice cuts to show off the most stupid and tepid minded. Any good, clear answers would be edited out. Its not that "not one" could give a good answer, its that good answers werent used for this video.

Great, you give me good clear answers to the questions asked.

1) What is the answer to disarming Saddam?

2) How long should the inspections continue?

3) In the past has the world community lived up to it's responsibility to deal with Saddam?

4) If it is all about oil, why didn't we keep the oil fields in 1991?

5) Do you believe that Saddam has chemical or biological weapons?

6) How would you compare Pres. Bush to Hitler?

1) I think Saddam should be overthrown from within, if that is what the people of Iraq want.
2) They should continue, other countries have said they would finance putting 3X the current inspectors in there and we reject it, why? I don't know, I would figure the more people inspecting the better.
3) No, including the US which gave him support during the worst of his attrocities, the US has not really shown an interest in human rights unless it can coexist with its plans anyway.
4) here's another good question, why did we leave Saddam in power in 1991?
5) most likely
6) I would not, Bush is not out to obliterate a race of people

what I want to know is how can we liberate a people who the majority of do not want to be liberated by the US and how can we do it by bombing and killing a bunch of them? the first gulf war claimed over 100,000 civilian lives. I'm not against getting rid of Saddam, but I am against innocents getting killed either Iraqi or American.

And now for the counter points to your points

1. The Iraqi people have no power or way to oust Saddam. The man has murdered his opposition and it is nearly impossible to get close to him.

2. Why did we reject it? Because it won't work. The inspectors had plenty of time to find something but Iraq played games with them. They continue to play games with the inspections and will never change.

3. Exactly how did we assist him in murdering his own people or gassing the kurds? We weren't their pulling the trigger.

4. Because we had to. The U.N. resolution that authorized military action in 91 called for the liberation of Kuwait. That was it, nothing more. If we had gone into Baghdad the coalition would have fallen apart and we would have been fighting arabs from both directions.

5. You're right he does have them

6. Another correct answer

How do you know the Iraqi people don't want liberation? Those that do speak on such matters are monitored when they are talking to reporters, etc... the ones that have spoke out are dead now

 

[fatbaby]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
What I meant was, these are choice cuts to show off the most stupid and tepid minded. Any good, clear answers would be edited out. Its not that "not one" could give a good answer, its that good answers werent used for this video.

Great, you give me good clear answers to the questions asked.

1) What is the answer to disarming Saddam?

2) How long should the inspections continue?

3) In the past has the world community lived up to it's responsibility to deal with Saddam?

4) If it is all about oil, why didn't we keep the oil fields in 1991?

5) Do you believe that Saddam has chemical or biological weapons?

6) How would you compare Pres. Bush to Hitler?

1) I think Saddam should be overthrown from within, if that is what the people of Iraq want.
2) They should continue, other countries have said they would finance putting 3X the current inspectors in there and we reject it, why? I don't know, I would figure the more people inspecting the better.
3) No, including the US which gave him support during the worst of his attrocities, the US has not really shown an interest in human rights unless it can coexist with its plans anyway.
4) here's another good question, why did we leave Saddam in power in 1991?
5) most likely
6) I would not, Bush is not out to obliterate a race of people

what I want to know is how can we liberate a people who the majority of do not want to be liberated by the US and how can we do it by bombing and killing a bunch of them? the first gulf war claimed over 100,000 civilian lives. I'm not against getting rid of Saddam, but I am against innocents getting killed either Iraqi or American.

In response to #4, we couldn't get to him. If i recall correctly, he threatened to launch his nerve gas missles/rockets/warheads en masse against our unprotected troops if we stepped foot in bagdad or some other city.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
What I meant was, these are choice cuts to show off the most stupid and tepid minded. Any good, clear answers would be edited out. Its not that "not one" could give a good answer, its that good answers werent used for this video.

Great, you give me good clear answers to the questions asked.

1) What is the answer to disarming Saddam?

2) How long should the inspections continue?

3) In the past has the world community lived up to it's responsibility to deal with Saddam?

4) If it is all about oil, why didn't we keep the oil fields in 1991?

5) Do you believe that Saddam has chemical or biological weapons?

6) How would you compare Pres. Bush to Hitler?

1) I think Saddam should be overthrown from within, if that is what the people of Iraq want.
2) They should continue, other countries have said they would finance putting 3X the current inspectors in there and we reject it, why? I don't know, I would figure the more people inspecting the better.
3) No, including the US which gave him support during the worst of his attrocities, the US has not really shown an interest in human rights unless it can coexist with its plans anyway.
4) here's another good question, why did we leave Saddam in power in 1991?
5) most likely
6) I would not, Bush is not out to obliterate a race of people

what I want to know is how can we liberate a people who the majority of do not want to be liberated by the US and how can we do it by bombing and killing a bunch of them? the first gulf war claimed over 100,000 civilian lives. I'm not against getting rid of Saddam, but I am against innocents getting killed either Iraqi or American.

1) Read this and then tell me how the Iraqi people can overthow Saddam. It has been tried many times. They did not succeed.
2) The question was, "How long should the inspections continue?" 1 week, a month, a year. The first inspections went on for 8 years before the inspectors left. Should this round last that long?
3) So if it is your contention that the US is responsible for Saddam than shouldn't the US take responsibility for removing him? I don't agree that we are responsible but that is the feeling I get from your response.
4) Answer my question first.
5) Than by UN Resolution 1441 shouldn't the "serious consequences" now take effect?
6) We agee.

How do you know they do not want to be liberated? The point is though that we are not removing Saddam to liberate the people, that is just a fortitous consequence to getting rid of him and his collection of nasty toys.

Bonus question for you.

"If we go with the inspection route and declare Iraq free of all chemical and biological weapons and then leave. What is to stop Saddam from just rearming? He still has the scientists that know how to make them. If sanctions are dropped he will have billions of dollars to invest in them. What is the answer?"

 

[ViperXX]

Great, you give me good clear answers to the questions asked.

1) What is the answer to disarming Saddam? Removing Saddam by force along with all his cronies.

2) How long should the inspections continue? The time for inspections is over Saddam has had 8 years to disarm.

3) In the past has the world community lived up to it's responsibility to deal with Saddam? No they haven't. They have allowed Saddam to repeatedly defy U.N. sanctions.

4) If it is all about oil, why didn't we keep the oil fields in 1991? It isn't all about oil, if it was we would have seized the oil fields in 91'

5) Do you believe that Saddam has chemical or biological weapons? Yes.

6) How would you compare Pres. Bush to Hitler? I wouldn't. That's just lame ass hippy propaganda.

 

[KGB1]

Originally posted by: TheShiz



1) I think Saddam should be overthrown from within, if that is what the people of Iraq want.
2) They should continue, other countries have said they would finance putting 3X the current inspectors in there and we reject it, why? I don't know, I would figure the more people inspecting the better.
3) No, including the US which gave him support during the worst of his attrocities, the US has not really shown an interest in human rights unless it can coexist with its plans anyway.
4) here's another good question, why did we leave Saddam in power in 1991?
5) most likely
6) I would not, Bush is not out to obliterate a race of people

what I want to know is how can we liberate a people who the majority of do not want to be liberated by the US and how can we do it by bombing and killing a bunch of them? the first gulf war claimed over 100,000 civilian lives. I'm not against getting rid of Saddam, but I am against innocents getting killed either Iraqi or American.

1. You know they need weapons and training.. its not as easy to confront as enemy as once the United States did with the help of France during the Revoluitonary war. Its kind of harder for Iraqis to fight Saddam, when Saddam has the upper hand
2. Inspectors have not been there since 97? How will more inspectors will solve anything? I dunno seriously the inspectors are themselves are part of nation in the UN that can't agree on anything. Actually. I was optimistic when they sent Hanx Blix to do the searches, he failed and can barely do his job without US pressuring its gonna blow Iraq up with Saddam doesnt cooperate with Blix.
3.US does care about a lot of what goes on in the world TRYING to help when pheasibly possible.
I didn't SEE BULGARIA, ROMANIA, GREECE, AUSTRIA help the KOSOVANS from Genocide? when the Serbians were attacking them? Until the US had ENOUGH with them doing NOTHING they stepped in and put Milosovich away. How come its easy to point out the US when the REST do nothing
4. he signed a TRUCE. Or else the Army would have seized Baghdad and control it. Saddam knew he lost so he surrendered and got back eveything and pretty much he didn't learn his lesson.
6. Bush isn't out to kill people.. we kileld many when the Sanctions during 91- present have already killed plenty of Iraqis eve without using a single bullet

Don't go off Branding Americans as Imperialists. The country to GAIN here is Turkey. Its looking for $$$ from US to "help" in the war and after the war is over, get a few oil fields themselves. Screw contracts of Russia and France and be a monopolist itself. Its about self interest. US is not going for self interests (maybe a little is involved.. but what country isn't guilty of that?) Turkey is also willing to HELP only because if (Allah only knows when) America wins, they will be there to STOP a Kurdish nation from Forming (Turks and Kurds don't have such a wonderful history)

 

[TheShiz]

I really don't feel like answering to everyones arguments on this thing, it seems no one is on the same side as I. But I will say this, do you even question why YOUR government does what it does? Doesn't it make you wonder why all this came out of practically no where after september 11? Do you honestly think the US is willing to spend what 260 BILLION dollars to liberate some people and get rid of a bad dictator? There are plenty of other bad people in the world that we seem to just leave alone. we may have done some good things but we have also taken part in some of the worst attrocities of the past century, and for some reason people don't seem to know about them.

I think it is quite ignorent to catagorize ALL protestors as "hippies, ignorent" or whatever. Just as it is the same to catagorize all the people that support the war.

i'll say something to answer 3 in the post above mine, I bring this up a lot, only because no one can give a good answer. Please explain our policy with Indonesia from about 1975-1999 concerning East Timor, where over 200,000 innocent people were killed with 90% of the arms coming from guess where? The united states, we were not concerned with human rights, we were concerned with profit. The US has given back to East Timor in more recent times but it is impossible to really pay for that. And could we have stopped it, very easily. Why did it eventually stop? because of people in the US that became aware of the situation and did a lot of work getting the word out and eventually they were heard.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I really don't feel like answering to everyones arguments on this thing, it seems no one is on the same side as I. But I will say this, do you even question why YOUR government does what it does? Doesn't it make you wonder why all this came out of practically no where after september 11? Do you honestly think the US is willing to spend what 260 BILLION dollars to liberate some people and get rid of a bad dictator? There are plenty of other bad people in the world that we seem to just leave alone. we may have done some good things but we have also taken part in some of the worst attrocities of the past century, and for some reason people don't seem to know about them. I think it is quite ignorent to catagorize ALL protestors as "hippies, ignorent" or whatever. Just as it is the same to catagorize all the people that support the war.

I knew you would do this - just flat out say you don't want to invest any energy in answering the questions because you have no answers to the questions or don't want to admit that any logical/intelligent person would come up with the same answers everyone has posted so far. You're just as bad as the idiots in the movie.

 

[GoingUp]

The rest of the guys site has some well written articles although they have a more conservative slant.... thought provoking though

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
What I meant was, these are choice cuts to show off the most stupid and tepid minded. Any good, clear answers would be edited out. Its not that "not one" could give a good answer, its that good answers werent used for this video.

Great, you give me good clear answers to the questions asked.

1) What is the answer to disarming Saddam?

2) How long should the inspections continue?

3) In the past has the world community lived up to it's responsibility to deal with Saddam?

4) If it is all about oil, why didn't we keep the oil fields in 1991?

5) Do you believe that Saddam has chemical or biological weapons?

6) How would you compare Pres. Bush to Hitler?

1. Allowing the new, stricter inspections to continue as planned, until he messes up.

2. However long the agreement is for, or however long Saddam is in power, or until we uncover the smoking gun. Its situational.

3. Yes.

4. Becuase we had a level headed leader in 1991. He sought the help of the international community before making any moves, and worked with them for the resolution to the war.

5. Yes.

6. "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II - Im assuming you wanted me to put something like that in there. Actually, I feel the Hitler/Bush people are the extremists that actually hurt to weaken the argument of the more moderate who feel the same way. I support the NRA and their cause, but I think oftentimes they do more harm than good. Such is the case with people who try and make unfair comparisons about Bush and Hitler.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I really don't feel like answering to everyones arguments on this thing, it seems no one is on the same side as I. But I will say this, do you even question why YOUR government does what it does? Doesn't it make you wonder why all this came out of practically no where after september 11? Do you honestly think the US is willing to spend what 260 BILLION dollars to liberate some people and get rid of a bad dictator? There are plenty of other bad people in the world that we seem to just leave alone. we may have done some good things but we have also taken part in some of the worst attrocities of the past century, and for some reason people don't seem to know about them. I think it is quite ignorent to catagorize ALL protestors as "hippies, ignorent" or whatever. Just as it is the same to catagorize all the people that support the war.

I knew you would do this - just flat out say you don't want to invest any energy in answering the questions because you have no answers to the questions or don't want to admit that any logical/intelligent person would come up with the same answers everyone has posted so far. You're just as bad as the idiots in the movie.

i don't feel like answering to what the 3 people that argued against my answers, when most likely they won't listen anyhow, it is a waste of time, there are solid arguments against those questions, but you have to search for it, you probably won't find it in mainstream press.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: TheShiz I really don't feel like answering to everyones arguments on this thing, it seems no one is on the same side as I. But I will say this, do you even question why YOUR government does what it does? Doesn't it make you wonder why all this came out of practically no where after september 11? Do you honestly think the US is willing to spend what 260 BILLION dollars to liberate some people and get rid of a bad dictator? There are plenty of other bad people in the world that we seem to just leave alone. we may have done some good things but we have also taken part in some of the worst attrocities of the past century, and for some reason people don't seem to know about them. I think it is quite ignorent to catagorize ALL protestors as "hippies, ignorent" or whatever. Just as it is the same to catagorize all the people that support the war.

I knew you would do this - just flat out say you don't want to invest any energy in answering the questions because you have no answers to the questions or don't want to admit that any logical/intelligent person would come up with the same answers everyone has posted so far. You're just as bad as the idiots in the movie.

i don't feel like answering to what the 3 people that argued against my answers, when most likely they won't listen anyhow, it is a waste of time, there are solid arguments against those questions, but you have to search for it, you probably won't find it in mainstream press.

You're just copping out.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I really don't feel like answering to everyones arguments on this thing, it seems no one is on the same side as I. But I will say this, do you even question why YOUR government does what it does? Doesn't it make you wonder why all this came out of practically no where after september 11? Do you honestly think the US is willing to spend what 260 BILLION dollars to liberate some people and get rid of a bad dictator? There are plenty of other bad people in the world that we seem to just leave alone. we may have done some good things but we have also taken part in some of the worst attrocities of the past century, and for some reason people don't seem to know about them. I think it is quite ignorent to catagorize ALL protestors as "hippies, ignorent" or whatever. Just as it is the same to catagorize all the people that support the war.

I knew you would do this - just flat out say you don't want to invest any energy in answering the questions because you have no answers to the questions or don't want to admit that any logical/intelligent person would come up with the same answers everyone has posted so far. You're just as bad as the idiots in the movie.

i don't feel like answering to what the 3 people that argued against my answers, when most likely they won't listen anyhow, it is a waste of time, there are solid arguments against those questions, but you have to search for it, you probably won't find it in mainstream press.

Uh huh, sure. Either there are good answers or there aren't. If you are against removing Saddam by force than you should be able to state your reasons. I will probably agree that some of them are valid. I will also say that I think that the dangers involved in removing him are close to the dangers involved in leaving him in power. Overall, from what information I have come up with and after reading all of the arguments from both sides I believe that Saddam should be removed.
Convince me otherwise.

 

[TheShiz]

when reading anything I post you should know that I am biased. I do not value an American life over an Iraqi life. The way Bush has been building support for this war is with fear. I for one am not afraid of a 3rd world country that we obliterated during the first Gulf war, but it seems the typical american has bought into it. Why do we fear Saddam when all the surrounding countries around Iraq do not?

 

[rgwalt]

Its like my roommate who made signs saying "I'm with stupid" and stood with people protesting a "gay" play at my university.

Ryan

 

[UDT89]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I hope you understand this to be humor.

If Triumph the comic insult dog was doing the interviewing, it would have been humor. This was simply a factual documentary of stupidity on parade.

I agree. Just protestors that arent informed.

And now maybe people realize how hard bush's and powell's lives are

And i cant wait to tell people "told you so" when we dont take the oil fields. unreal, people are so uninformed.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: TheShiz
I really don't feel like answering to everyones arguments on this thing, it seems no one is on the same side as I. But I will say this, do you even question why YOUR government does what it does? Doesn't it make you wonder why all this came out of practically no where after september 11? Do you honestly think the US is willing to spend what 260 BILLION dollars to liberate some people and get rid of a bad dictator? There are plenty of other bad people in the world that we seem to just leave alone. we may have done some good things but we have also taken part in some of the worst attrocities of the past century, and for some reason people don't seem to know about them. I think it is quite ignorent to catagorize ALL protestors as "hippies, ignorent" or whatever. Just as it is the same to catagorize all the people that support the war.

I knew you would do this - just flat out say you don't want to invest any energy in answering the questions because you have no answers to the questions or don't want to admit that any logical/intelligent person would come up with the same answers everyone has posted so far. You're just as bad as the idiots in the movie.

i don't feel like answering to what the 3 people that argued against my answers, when most likely they won't listen anyhow, it is a waste of time, there are solid arguments against those questions, but you have to search for it, you probably won't find it in mainstream press.

Uh huh, sure. Either there are good answers or there aren't. If you are against removing Saddam by force than you should be able to state your reasons. I will probably agree that some of them are valid. I will also say that I think that the dangers involved in removing him are close to the dangers involved in leaving him in power. Overall, from what information I have come up with and after reading all of the arguments from both sides I believe that Saddam should be removed.
Convince me otherwise.

the main argument I have against it is that with the methods the US intends to use there will be many civilian deaths, that is all I am concerned with. We make a huge deal out of 9/11 but it cannot compare to what many other countries have gone through. How can we keep the human toll to a minimum?

 

[etech]

the main argument I have against it is that with the methods the US intends to use there will be many civilian deaths, that is all I am concerned with. We make a huge deal out of 9/11 but it cannot compare to what many other countries have gone through. How can we keep the human toll to a minimum?

It's getting late but I have to ask. Why do you think that the Pentagon has released the methods or plan of attack that they actually will use?

In other words, there are a few Generals and Admirals that know the plan, you and I don't. They will be planning to have the fewest casualties on both sides as they can.

 

[TheShiz]

you would think that would be obvious, but it is not. How many people know that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died during the first gulf war? All they know is that very few americans died, and that is all that is to be concerned with. Have things changed all that much in 12 years?

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: etech

the main argument I have against it is that with the methods the US intends to use there will be many civilian deaths, that is all I am concerned with. We make a huge deal out of 9/11 but it cannot compare to what many other countries have gone through. How can we keep the human toll to a minimum?

It's getting late but I have to ask. Why do you think that the Pentagon has released the methods or plan of attack that they actually will use?

In other words, there are a few Generals and Admirals that know the plan, you and I don't. They will be planning to have the fewest casualties on both sides as they can.

I actually shared similar concerns with him until about a week ago when I saw Clinton give his speech here at UT. Clinton seemed confident (Im sure he knows a few details on the matter) that the actual war with Iraq would be swift. His concern (as is mine) was with the international community and their opinion on the matter.

 

[TheShiz]

well if it is infact swift then the international opinion should be good. if we manage to get rid of saddam and have very few deaths on each side I don't see what people can complain about, if this war happens I really hope this is the way it goes.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
you would think that would be obvious, but it is not. How many people know that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians died during the first gulf war? All they know is that very few americans died, and that is all that is to be concerned with. Have things changed all that much in 12 years?

How many Iraqis died? The sites I have seen have numbers from a few thousand to the 100,000 that you mention. Where did you come up with your number?

And yes, things have changed quite a bit in the last twelve years. It's far from perfect but the accuracy of the bombs has been improved.

Of course one thing hasn't changed, Saddam is still in power.


If the above didn't make sense, I'll deal with it later tonight when I get home from work. good night.
edit/


When the Enemy Is a Liberator

 

[TheShiz]

I have seen that figure a few times, here is one place with something:

6th paragraph down

I can't seem to find that study though.

 

[DaWhim]

backlash