I tend to agree with your assessment, RandyCat, but I do think it's a little more than "laughable" in that it's not totally outside of common sense, but that a close look of its consequences does reveal a lot of problems. For example, "laughable" is when France mentioned getting Hussein to outlaw WMDs as part of a solution.
What new sanctions, tell me what the anti-war Security Council nations have proposed. Please please please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're obviously not paying attention, something I've been trying to point out. We're talking about what was proposed in the first post of this thread. You're bias is too obvious at this point. You're not even sure what you're arguing, just as long as you're arguing in favor of war.
"More sanctions mean...absolutely no ill effects for Saddam?"
Like I said, you're bias is making you blind. You're not making sense anymore. Get on topic or get out is what I say. Reread the first post. Or should I say, READ the first post.
<strong>Good point, but when the alternative is war, a definitive meatgrinder, then an option that possibly doesn't include a meat grinder already seems better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What happened to the "Iraqi military is weak and presents no threat" argument? If we go in to specifically "pound" them, it won't be a meatgrinder at all (meatgrinder meaning, IMO, a prolonged conflict where casualties abound over time- that is, you can minimize casualties for a specific operation, but you can count on a continuous trickle of casualties every week/month/year you prolong the conflict).
<strong> [quote]Besides, if it's a UN endeavor, when the UN troops start dying, you've got many nations no currently 'with us' (does that really mean they're against us?) now more motivated than ever to solve the problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...or they may waffle under endless redtape, diplomacy, and rhetoric. The goal would have been unconditional peace, is it not? So you can count on a significant opposition to "any punitive response", no matter how bad it gets. If the UN finally clues in after a year that too many uprisings have occurred, too many casualties have been taken, and that a full-scale invasion appears to be the best course of action, what would have been gained over the US having come to the same conclusion since the beginning and completed the job in 1 week (hypothetically speaking)?
I simply cannot see any way to argue "for" this alternative with a straight face.
I find it fascinating that those opposed to war instead propose that we send in 30,000 armed UN troops to escort inspectors and guard inspected sites, backed up by complete control of Iraqi airspace, use of airdropped bombs to destroy sites (not specifically mentioned in this proposal, but in others), and unannounced surveillence overflights.
Call me crazy, but this sounds a heck of a lot like "war" to me. Except a poorly conceived and executed "war" with little hope of acheiving its goals and enormous risks to those involved (remember those UN "troops" protecting Srebrencica?).
Maybe it will make everyone happy if we call the Bush "war plan" a "super-duper multilateral comprehensive smart invasive inspection plan". But instead, can we just call it "war", do it, and get it over with so we all (Iraqis most of all) can get on with our lives?
<strong>What happened to the "Iraqi military is weak and presents no threat" argument? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I was just using the term 'meatgrinder' to represent all of the potential casualties of an all out attack. I'm most definitely NOT saying that this will be another Vietnam.
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>what would have been gained over the US having come to the same conclusion since the beginning and completed the job in 1 week (hypothetically speaking)? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The world would be one step closer to realizing the potential of democracy.
The world would be one step closer to realizing the potential of democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...at the cost of 1 year's worth of casualties, and evidently no great gains in disarmament. Hey, strike up the band to congratulate the idealists! Forget about results.
There are MANY alternatives to "war", this is in the definition of the United States attacking Iraq, mass murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
INNOCENT!
Like you and I, your brother's child, your boss's wife, your children and thier friends.
The USA is NOT the moral and ethical pinnacle of the world.
The citizens of the United States are not better than any other people so when defending your beloved, uneducated, ignoramous of aPresident check your Bible or your dictionary for the definitions of love, hate and ethics.
No matter what your sophist minds take from this response, know that the United States will be participating in mass murder of innocents.
MASS MURDER!
And I pray that each scream of terror and pain as your bombs and bullets hit their communities and store fronts wake each of you in your sleep with guilt,
for if the United States kills MY FRIENDS, MY BROTHERS, MY SISTERS, MY FELLOW HUMANS,
The UN is already responsible for mass murder of Iraqis via sanctions. Continuing to support the UN's "peaceful" approach will only prolong this already existing mass murder. So your hysterical plea falls to the floor. Clearly you are unconcerned with Iraqi casualties at the hands of the UN or Iraq, itself- just that of the US which potentially could be far less than the numbers attributed to the former 2 examples. Thus your true agenda is exposed.
Why do you nutcases on the other end of the spectrum think the US is going to commit genocide? Christ, we kill soldiers in wars, we don't slaughter every man, woman and child left standing. We don't plaster villages and bulldoze cities. Although I'm sure you don't thnk this is possible, we've learned a little from our mistakes in the past that cost civilian lives. You and Noam Chomsky (hey Noam, where's that Afghan genocide you mentioned?) need some elctro-shock or something. Sickos on the other side of the loony bin, you are.
And I suppose those Iraqis are doing just fine under Saddam? I suppose we're the only one commiting genocide? I suppose we're the Evil Satan of the world? Get a grip. Bunge and others around here disagree with the war, but they're not screwballs.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these "alternative", supposedly unbiased, news sources are/have been alluding to or making outright direct statements that a US war necessarily means purposely slaughtering every Iraqi man, woman, and child under the very roof they are cowering in for safety. That could be the only explanation for all the anti-war types who hold themself with great esteem as being highly informed from worthy news sources, yet spew this rhetoric with such frightening consistency.
I wasn't aware of Bush's plan to nuke Baghdad, someone needs to keep me updated! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nice. You're blood lust is pretty stupid too. I can't believe you're too dumb to see any way out of this situation without war, I just think you don't care. That's worse.
Of course, if that was true I'd be against war maybe and be saying we need more sanctions! 500,000+ dead Iraqi civilians with absolutely no positive result, I'm getting all tingly just thinking about it!
Try reading the post next time.</strong><hr></blockquote>Um wait.... do you mean this post:
[quote]Pardon me if I don't give a f***. They aren't citizens,they aren't part of a "real" army. They are terrorists. I have better things to fret about than two low-life, scum bag non-citizen, Islamic revolutionaries dying in the middle of the desert. <hr></blockquote>
<strong>You got me, I just want to kill people. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm just waiting for a better argument from you that shows otherwise. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
We both agree on one thing, that when all else fails war is going to be needed to oust Saddam. I just think you're lying/ignorant/blind/something when you say all else has already failed.
You even agree that the sanctions are now working/improving because of the credible threat of force, but somehow you can argue that war is still necessary. So, if you admit sanctions are working but still say we must go to war, you want war. How else could the logic work?
Comments
<strong>
What new sanctions, tell me what the anti-war Security Council nations have proposed. Please please please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're obviously not paying attention, something I've been trying to point out. We're talking about what was proposed in the first post of this thread. You're bias is too obvious at this point. You're not even sure what you're arguing, just as long as you're arguing in favor of war.
"More sanctions mean...absolutely no ill effects for Saddam?"
Like I said, you're bias is making you blind. You're not making sense anymore. Get on topic or get out is what I say. Reread the first post. Or should I say, READ the first post.
Thanks.
<strong>Good point, but when the alternative is war, a definitive meatgrinder, then an option that possibly doesn't include a meat grinder already seems better.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What happened to the "Iraqi military is weak and presents no threat" argument? If we go in to specifically "pound" them, it won't be a meatgrinder at all (meatgrinder meaning, IMO, a prolonged conflict where casualties abound over time- that is, you can minimize casualties for a specific operation, but you can count on a continuous trickle of casualties every week/month/year you prolong the conflict).
<strong> [quote]Besides, if it's a UN endeavor, when the UN troops start dying, you've got many nations no currently 'with us' (does that really mean they're against us?) now more motivated than ever to solve the problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...or they may waffle under endless redtape, diplomacy, and rhetoric. The goal would have been unconditional peace, is it not? So you can count on a significant opposition to "any punitive response", no matter how bad it gets. If the UN finally clues in after a year that too many uprisings have occurred, too many casualties have been taken, and that a full-scale invasion appears to be the best course of action, what would have been gained over the US having come to the same conclusion since the beginning and completed the job in 1 week (hypothetically speaking)?
I simply cannot see any way to argue "for" this alternative with a straight face.
Call me crazy, but this sounds a heck of a lot like "war" to me. Except a poorly conceived and executed "war" with little hope of acheiving its goals and enormous risks to those involved (remember those UN "troops" protecting Srebrencica?).
Maybe it will make everyone happy if we call the Bush "war plan" a "super-duper multilateral comprehensive smart invasive inspection plan". But instead, can we just call it "war", do it, and get it over with so we all (Iraqis most of all) can get on with our lives?
<strong>What happened to the "Iraqi military is weak and presents no threat" argument? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I was just using the term 'meatgrinder' to represent all of the potential casualties of an all out attack. I'm most definitely NOT saying that this will be another Vietnam.
[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>what would have been gained over the US having come to the same conclusion since the beginning and completed the job in 1 week (hypothetically speaking)? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The world would be one step closer to realizing the potential of democracy.
<strong>I didn't see the new sanction proposals in your last post, bunge, could you point them out?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You really aren't paying attention, are you....
<strong>let me paraphrase the words of our most thoughtfull SDW:
"I don't care about them there Arabs they aren't human they're just animals in the middl-ah-nowhair"
let me further paraphrase
"i am a racist arsehole . . "</strong><hr></blockquote>
Try reading the post next time.
<strong>
The world would be one step closer to realizing the potential of democracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
...at the cost of 1 year's worth of casualties, and evidently no great gains in disarmament. Hey, strike up the band to congratulate the idealists! Forget about results.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
(http://www.1uptravel.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq26.html)
There are MANY alternatives to "war", this is in the definition of the United States attacking Iraq, mass murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
INNOCENT!
Like you and I, your brother's child, your boss's wife, your children and thier friends.
The USA is NOT the moral and ethical pinnacle of the world.
The citizens of the United States are not better than any other people so when defending your beloved, uneducated, ignoramous of aPresident check your Bible or your dictionary for the definitions of love, hate and ethics.
No matter what your sophist minds take from this response, know that the United States will be participating in mass murder of innocents.
MASS MURDER!
And I pray that each scream of terror and pain as your bombs and bullets hit their communities and store fronts wake each of you in your sleep with guilt,
for if the United States kills MY FRIENDS, MY BROTHERS, MY SISTERS, MY FELLOW HUMANS,
The United States will be guilty.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
And I suppose those Iraqis are doing just fine under Saddam? I suppose we're the only one commiting genocide? I suppose we're the Evil Satan of the world? Get a grip. Bunge and others around here disagree with the war, but they're not screwballs.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>Why do you nutcases on the other end of the spectrum think the US is going to commit genocide?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because they're stupid.
I wasn't aware of Bush's plan to nuke Baghdad, someone needs to keep me updated!
<strong>
Because they're stupid.
I wasn't aware of Bush's plan to nuke Baghdad, someone needs to keep me updated!
Nice. You're blood lust is pretty stupid too. I can't believe you're too dumb to see any way out of this situation without war, I just think you don't care. That's worse.
Of course, if that was true I'd be against war maybe and be saying we need more sanctions! 500,000+ dead Iraqi civilians with absolutely no positive result, I'm getting all tingly just thinking about it!
<strong>
Try reading the post next time.</strong><hr></blockquote>Um wait.... do you mean this post:
[quote]Pardon me if I don't give a f***. They aren't citizens,they aren't part of a "real" army. They are terrorists. I have better things to fret about than two low-life, scum bag non-citizen, Islamic revolutionaries dying in the middle of the desert. <hr></blockquote>
<strong>You got me, I just want to kill people. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm just waiting for a better argument from you that shows otherwise. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
We both agree on one thing, that when all else fails war is going to be needed to oust Saddam. I just think you're lying/ignorant/blind/something when you say all else has already failed.
You even agree that the sanctions are now working/improving because of the credible threat of force, but somehow you can argue that war is still necessary. So, if you admit sanctions are working but still say we must go to war, you want war. How else could the logic work?