Save the "already living breathing civilians"from what???</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I already stated, there was some strong criticism of the Bush administration for not preparing post war aid for the victims and refugees. The numbers as estimated are very large and Bush doesn't (hasn't been up until this point) give a rat's ass. He does care about that oil though.
That's sick.
If his concerns regarding the oil were for the health and safety of others he would be preparing to help the aid get to where it will need to get to. If this were truly a war to help the Iraqi people, that would be a priority. Instead oil fields are a priority.
It's also sick that no other UN countries jump in to fill those needs. It seems they would rather sit on their a$$es and point at how the US is handling things to prove a point, rather than jump in and implement their own humanitarian efforts.
A large scale attack on Iraq will put millions of innocent people in harms way. Nobody in their right mind would ever suspect US of willfully harming any of them. Yet it still might end up doing just that.
If there is a war, it is more than likely to include some heavy fighting in populated areas. Even the best laid plans have a tendency to go awry. Thus the increased likelihood of many civilians being hurt/killed.
Add to that, Saddam has a long history of killing his own people. Do any of you guys think it's beyond him to use them as a some kind of human shield against the invading armies. This monster probably have more ways to screw up an invasion than any of you warmongers care to contemplate. And the perverted sickness to such a scenario is, that even by accident, any blame will fall back on the invaders. After all, they are ones who's actually pulling the trigger.
I know this is a worst case scenario. But then again, it is also a very real possibility and should be included in any form of prudent planning before an attack.
And if, a big IF, the shit hits the fan, how the heck are you morbid warmongers (you know who you are) going to justify thousands of dead innocent civilians when you can't even come up with a good reason for going to war in the first place?
I, for one, have some really bad feelings about this situation. If there is a war, I fear it might turn out to be one of the biggest and costliest mistake ever in US history (including Vietnam).
Everybody, please remember, war is a horrible, horrible thing.
<strong>...how the heck are you morbid warmongers (you know who you are) going to justify thousands of dead innocent civilians when you can't even come up with a good reason for going to war in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about millions who are liberated from an oppressive regime that would casually use them as human shields when push comes to shove, rather than defend them from the onslaught of a "malovent invader"? If the Iraqi forces surrender as easily as they did last time, however, you can expect very little casualties resulting from "skirmishes". So it can just as easily be a bright victory, just as you paint a doomsday outcome.
How about liberation from a government that would rather have their people starve and live in utter poverty so they can build another royal palace and funnel massive funds for WOMD research?
Are you suggesting the Iraqi people are better off left under oppression and as human shields by their own oppressor? What kind of humanity is that?
Are you suggesting the Iraqi people are better off left under oppression and as human shields by their own oppressor? What kind of humanity is that? </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the old reliable straw man rearing its ugly head again.
If we're doing this to liberate an oppressed people, there are plenty of other places we should be attacking as well. But, we're NOT going to attack because we want to liberate people.
Remember our priorities? We're going to liberate oil.
<strong>If we're doing this to liberate an oppressed people, there are plenty of other places we should be attacking as well. But, we're NOT going to attack because we want to liberate people.
Remember our priorities? We're going to liberate oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's also nothing stopping other countries from doing the same for those oppressed communities. I guess they are just callus for not caring, right?
USA has chosen Iraq to deal with. If there is oil involved- all the better. There's no rule against getting 2 birds (or actually 3/4/5, as is potentially so in this case) with 1 stone. In fact, that should go down as good resource management.
You need to face the basic question, instead of resorting to diversion.
Do you feel the Iraqi people are better off left oppressed, as human shields, as human experiments for WOMD testing, etc?
Yes or no? ...Or are you of the belief that the Iraqi people are actually doing peachy keen and love Saddam as their ruler? (I'm not being sarcastic with this- honestly, I've actually seen people post exactly this)
Are you suggesting the Iraqi people are better off left under oppression and as human shields by their own oppressor? What kind of humanity is that?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. They have certainly suffered enough all ready. One way or another Saddam must go, but is it worth the risk of going to war.
I know every thing possible is being done to shield the civilians, but things can nevertheless spin out of control rather badly. And Saddam would do just about everything in his power to screw it up. If that happens, a worst case scenario, the fall out, in terms of human suffering, regional instability, political turmoil in the Middle East, Europe and the US, etc. could be huge. The best intentions in the world cannot possibly justify that.
So your moral calculator comes up with "screw'em- leave them where they are now because the potential world repercussions are just too risky for us"?
BTW, it is Saddam that is risking a war. The US is soley there to respond to his actions (or in-action). All he has to do is surrender all nonsanctioned weaponry or step down as the ruler. It's that simple.
<strong>So your moral calculator comes up with "screw'em- leave them where they are now because the potential world repercussions are just too risky for us"?
BTW, it is Saddam that is risking a war. The US is soley there to respond to his actions (or in-action).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why now? Why after 9/11? Why wasn't it the very first thing on Bush's agenda after he got elected? What has Saddam done recently that makes him more of a threat than he was 2, 5, or 8 years ago?
9/11 made it very clear that things previously not thought of as threats were indeed threatening, and that preemptive action is certainly a prudent strategy (similar to preemptive maintenance is to avoiding repair costs). Additionally, if covert intelligence is indicating that a nation is very close to becoming nuke capable when they are clearly not sanctioned for such development, by all means, it is a "good time" to step in. Obviously 10 years of "talking things out" and laying out UN peace conditions were ineffective in keeping Iraq reigned in.
<strong>So your moral calculator comes up with "screw'em- leave them where they are now because the potential world repercussions are just too risky for us"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I guess my moral calculator is a tad bit more tuned to the reality of war than yours seem to be. IMO a war, any war, should be avoided at any cost. There must be a better answer.
<strong>9/11 made it very clear that things previously not thought of as threats were indeed threatening, and that preemptive action is certainly a prudent strategy (similar to preemptive maintenance is to avoiding repair costs). Additionally, if covert intelligence is indicating that a nation is very close to becoming nuke capable when they are clearly not sanctioned for such development, by all means, it is a "good time" to step in. Obviously 10 years of "talking things out" and laying out UN peace conditions were ineffective in keeping Iraq reigned in.
That would be a "yes" then? Just say "yes, Tyrihans believes the Iraqi people are better off as oppressed fire fodder", then.
Is there something else better? Ah, yes, that would more talks. Yeah, Saddam will come back in line if we just talk to him a little more, right? How much more talks? Another 5 years? 10? 25? No chance of him completing his arms program in that amount of time, right?
<strong>And who sanctions these countries? Those with the nukes? Feh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is the UN, no? Wouldn't you say the civilized world community would have an idea who can be trusted with nukes and who cannot? You trust Saddam with nukes? You trust him to keep them secured, all the while he seems to be having trouble keeping the weapons he has now properly inventoried and documented?
We aren't preventing them from growing to become a active economic participant in the world community, are we? Surely that should be the primary goal, not having the most powerful weapons on Earth to threaten your neighbors.
[quote] How about liberation from a government that would rather have their people starve and live in utter poverty so they can build another royal palace and funnel massive funds for WOMD research? <hr></blockquote>
sounds like we should invade North Korea first then...the people in Baghdad where we are attacking soon are actually pretty happy right now since their 3 year drought has ended...they are fed and happy and confused as to why America is soon to attack them...the kurds are happy now because we protect them with the no fly zone and they have more freedom now than in many years...who are we liberating?? i don't like sadam and wouldn't care less if he took a shot to the head, but Iraq and Sadam had nothing to do with 9-11...from all reports the Iraqi people actually like americans, they just don't like and fear Bush...perhaps i have a solution...it is just a variation on what the Bush team has said they will accept to stop war...what if Sadam says he will step down as leader of Iraq to stop war and killing if Bush steps down as president?? or what if Sadam says he will accept exile from the country of his birth that he loves to stop war and killing if Bush accepts exile from the country of his birth that he loves...it seems like a great, grand gesture that would seal his place in history as a compassionate conservative....g
<strong>...preemptive action is certainly a prudent strategy (similar to preemptive maintenance is to avoiding repair costs)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you listening to your self? I sure hope you're not comparing the costs of maintenance (an expense you can cover with hard currency) to the cost of a human life.
Besides, there is no such thing as preemptive action in a war where you are the one drawing first blood. It's called starting a war, and you better have a damn good reason for it. If not, your actions will be no more justifiable than "preemptive actions" like the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Do you feel the Iraqi people are better off left oppressed, as human shields, as human experiments for WOMD testing, etc?
Yes or no? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately this question isn't realistic. We can't just flip a switch and give the Iraqis a land without Saddam. There's a process (war) we have to go through to get there. I think you're oversimplifying things too much
Will they be better off in 50 years if Saddam is gone by the end of 2003? Probably, almost certainly. But if there's another way that takes 55 years instead but avoids war, then I think we've found the answer.
The contridictions here amaze me. The conservatives constantly argue that the state shouldn't help the needy because it's better for those people to help themselves. But for some reason going to war to help these needy Iraqis is better than getting them to go to war for themselves. Amazing how blindly dogmatic the conservative crowd seems to be (that's not directed at you Randycat99, because I have no idea how you would debate government assisstance.)
"There MUST be another way..." , "There has to be another answer...." If I had a dime everytime I heard that, yet no one can COME up with another answer. Just pine away about there HAVING to be another answer.
We simply need to employ a million monkeys with a million typewriters and chances are they will figure out an answer before any of us do.
<strong>sounds like we should invade North Korea first then</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, too late, they already have the weapon. All that is left is blackmail and endless talks.
<strong> [quote]...the people in Baghdad where we are attacking soon are actually pretty happy right now since their 3 year drought has ended</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I saw the "news" report of the happy Baghdaddians, too. No one thought it was just the least bit strange, almost staged? I'm not saying it was staged, as that would be a definite step to the conspiricists domain. What else would you expect them to say? Do you think there were a few there that would say, "Yeah, Saddam is a real pain in my ass, it sucks here". Would you say that if you knew you would be inexplicably found dismembered to numerous pieces the next day for saying it?
<strong> [quote]...or what if Sadam says he will accept exile from the country of his birth that he loves to stop war and killing if Bush accepts exile from the country of his birth that he loves...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is isn't a game of give and get niceties. Bush did not lose a war.
<strong>"There MUST be another way..." , "There has to be another answer...." If I had a dime everytime I heard that, yet no one can COME up with another answer. Just pine away about there HAVING to be another answer. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well according to the U.N. Charter (and thus the law of the United States Constitution) there does have to be another way. If Bush isn't smart enough to figure it out that doesn't mean he can piss on the Constitution to get the results he needs for reelection.
Comments
<strong>
Save the "already living breathing civilians"from what???</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I already stated, there was some strong criticism of the Bush administration for not preparing post war aid for the victims and refugees. The numbers as estimated are very large and Bush doesn't (hasn't been up until this point) give a rat's ass. He does care about that oil though.
That's sick.
If his concerns regarding the oil were for the health and safety of others he would be preparing to help the aid get to where it will need to get to. If this were truly a war to help the Iraqi people, that would be a priority. Instead oil fields are a priority.
That's sick.
A large scale attack on Iraq will put millions of innocent people in harms way. Nobody in their right mind would ever suspect US of willfully harming any of them. Yet it still might end up doing just that.
If there is a war, it is more than likely to include some heavy fighting in populated areas. Even the best laid plans have a tendency to go awry. Thus the increased likelihood of many civilians being hurt/killed.
Add to that, Saddam has a long history of killing his own people. Do any of you guys think it's beyond him to use them as a some kind of human shield against the invading armies. This monster probably have more ways to screw up an invasion than any of you warmongers care to contemplate. And the perverted sickness to such a scenario is, that even by accident, any blame will fall back on the invaders. After all, they are ones who's actually pulling the trigger.
I know this is a worst case scenario. But then again, it is also a very real possibility and should be included in any form of prudent planning before an attack.
And if, a big IF, the shit hits the fan, how the heck are you morbid warmongers (you know who you are) going to justify thousands of dead innocent civilians when you can't even come up with a good reason for going to war in the first place?
I, for one, have some really bad feelings about this situation. If there is a war, I fear it might turn out to be one of the biggest and costliest mistake ever in US history (including Vietnam).
Everybody, please remember, war is a horrible, horrible thing.
<strong>...how the heck are you morbid warmongers (you know who you are) going to justify thousands of dead innocent civilians when you can't even come up with a good reason for going to war in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about millions who are liberated from an oppressive regime that would casually use them as human shields when push comes to shove, rather than defend them from the onslaught of a "malovent invader"? If the Iraqi forces surrender as easily as they did last time, however, you can expect very little casualties resulting from "skirmishes". So it can just as easily be a bright victory, just as you paint a doomsday outcome.
How about liberation from a government that would rather have their people starve and live in utter poverty so they can build another royal palace and funnel massive funds for WOMD research?
Are you suggesting the Iraqi people are better off left under oppression and as human shields by their own oppressor? What kind of humanity is that?
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Are you suggesting the Iraqi people are better off left under oppression and as human shields by their own oppressor? What kind of humanity is that? </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the old reliable straw man rearing its ugly head again.
If we're doing this to liberate an oppressed people, there are plenty of other places we should be attacking as well. But, we're NOT going to attack because we want to liberate people.
Remember our priorities? We're going to liberate oil.
<strong>If we're doing this to liberate an oppressed people, there are plenty of other places we should be attacking as well. But, we're NOT going to attack because we want to liberate people.
Remember our priorities? We're going to liberate oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's also nothing stopping other countries from doing the same for those oppressed communities. I guess they are just callus for not caring, right?
USA has chosen Iraq to deal with. If there is oil involved- all the better. There's no rule against getting 2 birds (or actually 3/4/5, as is potentially so in this case) with 1 stone. In fact, that should go down as good resource management.
You need to face the basic question, instead of resorting to diversion.
Do you feel the Iraqi people are better off left oppressed, as human shields, as human experiments for WOMD testing, etc?
Yes or no? ...Or are you of the belief that the Iraqi people are actually doing peachy keen and love Saddam as their ruler? (I'm not being sarcastic with this- honestly, I've actually seen people post exactly this)
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Are you suggesting the Iraqi people are better off left under oppression and as human shields by their own oppressor? What kind of humanity is that?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. They have certainly suffered enough all ready. One way or another Saddam must go, but is it worth the risk of going to war.
I know every thing possible is being done to shield the civilians, but things can nevertheless spin out of control rather badly. And Saddam would do just about everything in his power to screw it up. If that happens, a worst case scenario, the fall out, in terms of human suffering, regional instability, political turmoil in the Middle East, Europe and the US, etc. could be huge. The best intentions in the world cannot possibly justify that.
BTW, it is Saddam that is risking a war. The US is soley there to respond to his actions (or in-action). All he has to do is surrender all nonsanctioned weaponry or step down as the ruler. It's that simple.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>So your moral calculator comes up with "screw'em- leave them where they are now because the potential world repercussions are just too risky for us"?
BTW, it is Saddam that is risking a war. The US is soley there to respond to his actions (or in-action).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why now? Why after 9/11? Why wasn't it the very first thing on Bush's agenda after he got elected? What has Saddam done recently that makes him more of a threat than he was 2, 5, or 8 years ago?
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>So your moral calculator comes up with "screw'em- leave them where they are now because the potential world repercussions are just too risky for us"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I guess my moral calculator is a tad bit more tuned to the reality of war than yours seem to be. IMO a war, any war, should be avoided at any cost. There must be a better answer.
<strong>9/11 made it very clear that things previously not thought of as threats were indeed threatening, and that preemptive action is certainly a prudent strategy (similar to preemptive maintenance is to avoiding repair costs). Additionally, if covert intelligence is indicating that a nation is very close to becoming nuke capable when they are clearly not sanctioned for such development, by all means, it is a "good time" to step in. Obviously 10 years of "talking things out" and laying out UN peace conditions were ineffective in keeping Iraq reigned in.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
And who sanctions these countries? Those with the nukes? Feh.
Is there something else better? Ah, yes, that would more talks. Yeah, Saddam will come back in line if we just talk to him a little more, right? How much more talks? Another 5 years? 10? 25? No chance of him completing his arms program in that amount of time, right?
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>And who sanctions these countries? Those with the nukes? Feh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is the UN, no? Wouldn't you say the civilized world community would have an idea who can be trusted with nukes and who cannot? You trust Saddam with nukes? You trust him to keep them secured, all the while he seems to be having trouble keeping the weapons he has now properly inventoried and documented?
We aren't preventing them from growing to become a active economic participant in the world community, are we? Surely that should be the primary goal, not having the most powerful weapons on Earth to threaten your neighbors.
[ 01-20-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
sounds like we should invade North Korea first then...the people in Baghdad where we are attacking soon are actually pretty happy right now since their 3 year drought has ended...they are fed and happy and confused as to why America is soon to attack them...the kurds are happy now because we protect them with the no fly zone and they have more freedom now than in many years...who are we liberating?? i don't like sadam and wouldn't care less if he took a shot to the head, but Iraq and Sadam had nothing to do with 9-11...from all reports the Iraqi people actually like americans, they just don't like and fear Bush...perhaps i have a solution...it is just a variation on what the Bush team has said they will accept to stop war...what if Sadam says he will step down as leader of Iraq to stop war and killing if Bush steps down as president?? or what if Sadam says he will accept exile from the country of his birth that he loves to stop war and killing if Bush accepts exile from the country of his birth that he loves...it seems like a great, grand gesture that would seal his place in history as a compassionate conservative....g
<strong>...preemptive action is certainly a prudent strategy (similar to preemptive maintenance is to avoiding repair costs)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you listening to your self? I sure hope you're not comparing the costs of maintenance (an expense you can cover with hard currency) to the cost of a human life.
Besides, there is no such thing as preemptive action in a war where you are the one drawing first blood. It's called starting a war, and you better have a damn good reason for it. If not, your actions will be no more justifiable than "preemptive actions" like the attack on Pearl Harbor.
<strong>
Do you feel the Iraqi people are better off left oppressed, as human shields, as human experiments for WOMD testing, etc?
Yes or no? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately this question isn't realistic. We can't just flip a switch and give the Iraqis a land without Saddam. There's a process (war) we have to go through to get there. I think you're oversimplifying things too much
Will they be better off in 50 years if Saddam is gone by the end of 2003? Probably, almost certainly. But if there's another way that takes 55 years instead but avoids war, then I think we've found the answer.
The contridictions here amaze me. The conservatives constantly argue that the state shouldn't help the needy because it's better for those people to help themselves. But for some reason going to war to help these needy Iraqis is better than getting them to go to war for themselves. Amazing how blindly dogmatic the conservative crowd seems to be (that's not directed at you Randycat99, because I have no idea how you would debate government assisstance.)
We simply need to employ a million monkeys with a million typewriters and chances are they will figure out an answer before any of us do.
<strong>sounds like we should invade North Korea first then</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, too late, they already have the weapon. All that is left is blackmail and endless talks.
<strong> [quote]...the people in Baghdad where we are attacking soon are actually pretty happy right now since their 3 year drought has ended</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I saw the "news" report of the happy Baghdaddians, too. No one thought it was just the least bit strange, almost staged? I'm not saying it was staged, as that would be a definite step to the conspiricists domain. What else would you expect them to say? Do you think there were a few there that would say, "Yeah, Saddam is a real pain in my ass, it sucks here". Would you say that if you knew you would be inexplicably found dismembered to numerous pieces the next day for saying it?
<strong> [quote]...or what if Sadam says he will accept exile from the country of his birth that he loves to stop war and killing if Bush accepts exile from the country of his birth that he loves...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is isn't a game of give and get niceties. Bush did not lose a war.
<strong>"There MUST be another way..." , "There has to be another answer...." If I had a dime everytime I heard that, yet no one can COME up with another answer. Just pine away about there HAVING to be another answer. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well according to the U.N. Charter (and thus the law of the United States Constitution) there does have to be another way. If Bush isn't smart enough to figure it out that doesn't mean he can piss on the Constitution to get the results he needs for reelection.