<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am comparing the costs of a few human lifes to saving a thousand times that many lives down the line when things really spin out of control had you not employed preemptive action.
<strong>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><hr></blockquote>
Have you asked yourself why? IMO the world at large have lacked in true commitment to solve the problem for 10 years. But that does not justify the extreme act of going to war today. If President Bush had the wit to use his commitment in a prudent way, the world would not be holding its breath right now.
Unfortunately this question isn't realistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may not be realistic out of simplicity, but that means you should be all the more at ease to give a simple answer on it given that you have dismissed its connections to the situation at hand. Yes or no?
<strong> [quote]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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you forgetting the possibility that by not addressing it now, you may find yourself in a war 55 years from now anyway (but I wouldn't even give it that long), except this time the aggressor is whoever is running Iraq and they have become fully nuke capable? Do you think the madness will just stop when Saddam keels over due to natural causes? You don't think he fully has planned a successor to his throne that will carry on the initiatives he has started in an equally or even more brutal manner than he has done? That's leaving an awful lot to "what if?"
<strong>I am comparing the costs of a few human lifes to saving a thousand times that many lives down the line when things really spin out of control had you not employed preemptive action.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see your point (looks like a sound-bit out of the Withe House, but never mind). Problem is - they have yet to prove their case. And a few empty shells and some scientific documents on building nukes is not the foundations of some future doomsday-machine. And certainly no excuse to risk the life of innocent people.
<strong>It may not be realistic out of simplicity, but that means you should be all the more at ease to give a simple answer on it given that you have dismissed its connections to the situation at hand. Yes or no?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There will be thousands of Iraqi civilians that are better off under Saddam than they will be dead along with their current leader.
You're not willing to see the other side of the situation though, that if we don't go to war now we might never have to. That's the best option. Like I said, just because Bush isn't smart enough to figure out a way to handle the situation without war doesn't mean war is the only or best option.
<strong>There will be thousands of Iraqi civilians that are better off under Saddam than they will be dead along with their current leader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus, just answer the question as stated! Don't add new crap in to make it go down better!
Do you feel the Iraqi people are better off [alive! liberated or not] left oppressed, as human shields, as human experiments for WOMD testing, etc?
Yes or no?
<strong> [quote]
You're not willing to see the other side of the situation though, that if we don't go to war now we might never have to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does that mean??? You think if we just ignore the problem, it will go away by itself? How about the likely possibility we will just end up with another "N Korea" in 5 years and have to deal with that then?
Like I said, just because Bush isn't smart enough to figure out a way to handle the situation without war doesn't mean war is the only or best option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you people honestly believe that the blame or credit, depending on your point of view, can be attributed to one person?
What does that mean??? You think if we just ignore the problem, it will go away by itself? How about the likely possibility we will just end up with another "N Korea" in 5 years and have to deal with that then? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm telling you, it's not a yes or no question. Are they better off with or without Saddam? Who is he going to be replaced by? Let's take Afghanistan as an example. I think in the immediacy they're doing worse now than two years ago. I think in the long run they're better off. I don't think the Iraqi people need a war from us to help them be better off though.
And no war doesn't mean ignoring the situation. That's a blind simplification of the situation, distilling it down to the two extreme points of view. War or nothing. That's just wrong. There is a middle ground that will get us to the same place.
I'm not saying it's not Bush's call at all, but I don't believe he came to that conclusion all alone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't matter how he came to the conclusion. It's his call. He's 100% responsible. The buck stops with him and he can't blame his advisors. He chose his advisors. He asks who he wants to ask what he wants to ask.
It doesn't matter how he came to the conclusion. It's his call. He's 100% responsible. The buck stops with him and he can't blame his advisors. He chose his advisors. He asks who he wants to ask what he wants to ask.
It's all him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah right. And the House and the Senate have no say in it at all.
<strong>Like I said, just because Bush isn't smart enough to figure out a way to handle the situation without war doesn't mean war is the only or best option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the point ryukyu is trying for is that it isn't simply Bush that has come to the conclusion that we are reading from him. He's had the input of advisors upon advisors for all we know have come to the very same conclusion. Evidently, you feel you have this genious "middleground" plan that surpasses what the best strategic minds available today could come up with and with only the tiniest fraction of the intelligence info that the experts have access to. What is it? What is the answer? What is the alternative scenario that everyone is missing?
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? <hr></blockquote>
Feh. Civilized. We are the ones talking about preemptive strikes and yet tout we are the civilized ones.
Evidently, you feel you have this genious "middleground" plan that surpasses what the best strategic minds available today could come up with and with only the tiniest fraction of the intelligence info that the experts have access to. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, how childish of you.
I do believe there is a middle ground and it would probably be easy to find if you exclude two factors from this current conflict.
1. Oil. Ignore the oil.
2. Weapons sales. Pretend you don't know anyone that profits off of weapons sales.
After that there will be a middle ground that isn't all that difficult to see.
Wouldn't you say the civilized world community would have an idea who can be trusted with nukes and who cannot?NO</strong><hr></blockquote>
Define civilized world community. The UN is an absolute joke.
[quote]You trust Saddam with nukes?YES<hr></blockquote>
No, but I also don't trust North Korea with them...yet let's try diplomacy there...
[quote]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?YES<hr></blockquote>
You think that he is "having trouble keeping the weapons properly inventories and documented"? You have got to be kidding me. I guarantee you that he knows exactly where his weapons are. He's hiding it from us. That's all. We are acting as if Iraq is the only dictatorship around that oppresses its people and has weapons of mass destruction. Sorry, but that just isn't true.
[quote] Yes, I saw the "news" report of the happy Baghdaddians <hr></blockquote>
i didn't watch any news reports...i talked to a gentleman just back from Baghdad...he is an american from albuquerque and he told me that the people there (at least the ones he met) are happy (ending of a 3 year drought will do that to you i guess) and that they really do like the people of the USA...they just don't like our government...i guess they are sort of like us....we don't hate the Iraqi people, just the Iraqi government...
we have learned to live with Castro---his people would be better off with out him (most likely...we would have to see who takes over)...we have learned to live with Korea and Iran and other countries...
g
ps...was kinda sad talking to the guy...he was real excited and happy because he was invited back to talk in Baghdad at the end of Feburary...didn't have the guts to tell him that the chances of him making that speech are slim to none...most likely baghdad will be burning at that time...
Comments
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am comparing the costs of a few human lifes to saving a thousand times that many lives down the line when things really spin out of control had you not employed preemptive action.
<strong>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><hr></blockquote>
Have you asked yourself why? IMO the world at large have lacked in true commitment to solve the problem for 10 years. But that does not justify the extreme act of going to war today. If President Bush had the wit to use his commitment in a prudent way, the world would not be holding its breath right now.
<strong>
Unfortunately this question isn't realistic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may not be realistic out of simplicity, but that means you should be all the more at ease to give a simple answer on it given that you have dismissed its connections to the situation at hand. Yes or no?
<strong> [quote]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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you forgetting the possibility that by not addressing it now, you may find yourself in a war 55 years from now anyway (but I wouldn't even give it that long), except this time the aggressor is whoever is running Iraq and they have become fully nuke capable? Do you think the madness will just stop when Saddam keels over due to natural causes? You don't think he fully has planned a successor to his throne that will carry on the initiatives he has started in an equally or even more brutal manner than he has done? That's leaving an awful lot to "what if?"
<strong>I am comparing the costs of a few human lifes to saving a thousand times that many lives down the line when things really spin out of control had you not employed preemptive action.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see your point (looks like a sound-bit out of the Withe House, but never mind). Problem is - they have yet to prove their case. And a few empty shells and some scientific documents on building nukes is not the foundations of some future doomsday-machine. And certainly no excuse to risk the life of innocent people.
<strong>It may not be realistic out of simplicity, but that means you should be all the more at ease to give a simple answer on it given that you have dismissed its connections to the situation at hand. Yes or no?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There will be thousands of Iraqi civilians that are better off under Saddam than they will be dead along with their current leader.
You're not willing to see the other side of the situation though, that if we don't go to war now we might never have to. That's the best option. Like I said, just because Bush isn't smart enough to figure out a way to handle the situation without war doesn't mean war is the only or best option.
<strong>There will be thousands of Iraqi civilians that are better off under Saddam than they will be dead along with their current leader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus, just answer the question as stated! Don't add new crap in to make it go down better!
Do you feel the Iraqi people are better off [alive! liberated or not] left oppressed, as human shields, as human experiments for WOMD testing, etc?
Yes or no?
<strong> [quote]
You're not willing to see the other side of the situation though, that if we don't go to war now we might never have to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does that mean??? You think if we just ignore the problem, it will go away by itself? How about the likely possibility we will just end up with another "N Korea" in 5 years and have to deal with that then?
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>
Like I said, just because Bush isn't smart enough to figure out a way to handle the situation without war doesn't mean war is the only or best option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you people honestly believe that the blame or credit, depending on your point of view, can be attributed to one person?
<strong>
Do you people honestly believe that the blame or credit, depending on your point of view, can be attributed to one person?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like Saddam?
<strong>
Like Saddam?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about 2 entirely different forms of government?
<strong>
What does that mean??? You think if we just ignore the problem, it will go away by itself? How about the likely possibility we will just end up with another "N Korea" in 5 years and have to deal with that then? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm telling you, it's not a yes or no question. Are they better off with or without Saddam? Who is he going to be replaced by? Let's take Afghanistan as an example. I think in the immediacy they're doing worse now than two years ago. I think in the long run they're better off. I don't think the Iraqi people need a war from us to help them be better off though.
And no war doesn't mean ignoring the situation. That's a blind simplification of the situation, distilling it down to the two extreme points of view. War or nothing. That's just wrong. There is a middle ground that will get us to the same place.
Means justify the ends, not the other way around.
<strong>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about 2 entirely different forms of government?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes we are. If you're trying to say it's not Bush's call to go to war then I'll just say I disagree with you.
<strong>
Yes we are. If you're trying to say it's not Bush's call to go to war then I'll just say I disagree with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying it's not Bush's call at all, but I don't believe he came to that conclusion all alone.
<strong>
I'm not saying it's not Bush's call at all, but I don't believe he came to that conclusion all alone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't matter how he came to the conclusion. It's his call. He's 100% responsible. The buck stops with him and he can't blame his advisors. He chose his advisors. He asks who he wants to ask what he wants to ask.
It's all him.
<strong>
It doesn't matter how he came to the conclusion. It's his call. He's 100% responsible. The buck stops with him and he can't blame his advisors. He chose his advisors. He asks who he wants to ask what he wants to ask.
It's all him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah right. And the House and the Senate have no say in it at all.
<strong>Like I said, just because Bush isn't smart enough to figure out a way to handle the situation without war doesn't mean war is the only or best option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the point ryukyu is trying for is that it isn't simply Bush that has come to the conclusion that we are reading from him. He's had the input of advisors upon advisors for all we know have come to the very same conclusion. Evidently, you feel you have this genious "middleground" plan that surpasses what the best strategic minds available today could come up with and with only the tiniest fraction of the intelligence info that the experts have access to. What is it? What is the answer? What is the alternative scenario that everyone is missing?
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
[QB]
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? <hr></blockquote>
Feh. Civilized. We are the ones talking about preemptive strikes and yet tout we are the civilized ones.
<strong>
Feh. Civilized. We are the ones talking about preemptive strikes and yet tout we are the civilized ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So your answers would be:
Wouldn't you say the civilized world community would have an idea who can be trusted with nukes and who cannot? NO
You trust Saddam with nukes? YES
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? YES
...or do you feel that reciting endless introspective bashing rhetoric is getting to the bottom of the matter?
<strong>
Evidently, you feel you have this genious "middleground" plan that surpasses what the best strategic minds available today could come up with and with only the tiniest fraction of the intelligence info that the experts have access to. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, how childish of you.
I do believe there is a middle ground and it would probably be easy to find if you exclude two factors from this current conflict.
1. Oil. Ignore the oil.
2. Weapons sales. Pretend you don't know anyone that profits off of weapons sales.
After that there will be a middle ground that isn't all that difficult to see.
<strong>
So your answers would be:
Wouldn't you say the civilized world community would have an idea who can be trusted with nukes and who cannot? NO</strong><hr></blockquote>
Define civilized world community. The UN is an absolute joke.
[quote]You trust Saddam with nukes? YES<hr></blockquote>
No, but I also don't trust North Korea with them...yet let's try diplomacy there...
[quote]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? YES<hr></blockquote>
You think that he is "having trouble keeping the weapons properly inventories and documented"? You have got to be kidding me. I guarantee you that he knows exactly where his weapons are. He's hiding it from us. That's all. We are acting as if Iraq is the only dictatorship around that oppresses its people and has weapons of mass destruction. Sorry, but that just isn't true.
i didn't watch any news reports...i talked to a gentleman just back from Baghdad...he is an american from albuquerque and he told me that the people there (at least the ones he met) are happy (ending of a 3 year drought will do that to you i guess) and that they really do like the people of the USA...they just don't like our government...i guess they are sort of like us....we don't hate the Iraqi people, just the Iraqi government...
we have learned to live with Castro---his people would be better off with out him (most likely...we would have to see who takes over)...we have learned to live with Korea and Iran and other countries...
g
ps...was kinda sad talking to the guy...he was real excited and happy because he was invited back to talk in Baghdad at the end of Feburary...didn't have the guts to tell him that the chances of him making that speech are slim to none...most likely baghdad will be burning at that time...
[ 01-21-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>