<strong>Wow, bunge. This isn't a trial. They don't have the same rights you and I do. They are part of a militant, extremist group hell-bent on destroying the Western world. They are not U.S citizens. They don't even reside here. Prove their guilt? What, I suppose you want to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's ridiculous. One cannot apply our judicial standards regarding burden of proof.
They didn't rob a bank or steal a car, bunge. I suppose our military just goes out in the streets of Karachi and starts rounding up people that look like they did something wrong?
Yes, the big, bad, anti-civil rights United States of America under President Bush. I know, bunge, I know. </strong><hr></blockquote>
We're about to go to war with Iraq because Saddam tortures and murders dissodent Iraqis.
<strong>How many U.N. casualties have there been over the past 12 years? I imagine if we stick with that ratio we'll be OK.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You imagine the casualties will be exactly the same when a considerable occupying force enters Iraq as is proposed in this topic? , indeed! I think your barrel is about empty for meaningful replies. Like I said, better just stick with the "inspections and sanctions are working" spiel.
You imagine the casualties will be exactly the same when a considerable occupying force enters Iraq as is proposed in this topic? </strong><hr></blockquote>
If the Iraqi people love us so much, why would they turn to terrorism if the UN were to move in and actually control Saddam?
You can pretend that my stance is insane, but equating a hypothesized intervention in Iraq with casualties in Vietnam is just plain stupid.
Yeah, the Iraqi people are just going to up and do that?... Did you forget that Saddam's regime will still be hanging around? After 5 or 10 years of occupation, I wouldn't be surprised that a few civilian factions arise and will see the UN occupation as part of their oppression. There you have it- Vietnam v2.0.
I see, we are calling this an "intervention" now. Nice neutral wording. It's War Lite, w/o the messy aftertaste.
I wasn't aware of Bush's plan to nuke Baghdad, someone needs to keep me updated! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, there has been serious talk about using tactical nukes to take out Iraqi bunkers.
At the risk of heading offtopic, I think the concern about non-conventional weapons is more than a little overblown. Chemical weapons in particular seem to be very unreliable weapons, relying on factors like terrain, wind speed etc to not disperse too quickly. On the other hand, "conventional" cluster bombs and fuel-air bombs are relatively reliable ways of dispensing death and suffering on large scales.
We're about to go to war with Iraq because Saddam tortures and murders dissodent Iraqis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you are equating the US with Saddam. It is not our policy to do the kinds of things he does. We don't cut out tounges and behead people that disagree with us. We have thousands of people carrying signs in our streets protesting the policy of the government. No beheadings. No tanks in the streets. Not the same thing. We are talking about enemy combatants. They aren't protected by the Geneva convention. They aren't members of a nation-state army. I haven't seen any real evidence of torture, have you?
What I am saying is that if these two accidentally died in the middle of the desert (unless you are polarized enough to actually think we "murdered" them), I could really care less. I can't even say it is unfortunate. If Khalid Sheik Mohammed accidentally died in custody, would you care? No. I care more about the lives of the innocent that were slaughtered on 9/11 and in other terror attacks.
I haven't seen any real evidence of torture, have you?
What I am saying is that if these two accidentally died in the middle of the desert (unless you are polarized enough to actually think we "murdered" them), I could really care less. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The article I linked to clearly stated that the US Military had officially changed the cause of death from 'natural causes' to 'murder', and in both cases the men were in US custody and being interrogated when they received the life ending injuries.
So, have I seen evidence? As much as we've all seen on anything. Were they in the desert? Sort of I guess, but they were in US custody somewhere held in a facility in a desert I guess. But that's also not what you mean.
Am I equating these actions with Saddam? It's not my fault if they're using the same tactics. Don't kill the messenger as they say, no pun intended. You can get upset with me for pointing you towards the evidence, but it's not my fault if our military is now murdering people during interrogation.
I did not state or simply that I "support the UN's "peaceful" approach".
The sanctions are dually, US imposed as UN!
It is NOT clear that I am "unconcerned with Iraqi casualties at the hands of the UN or Iraq"
What is clear is that the US wants to go to war and the world does not.
Furthermore, the death-outlook which "potentially could be far less than the numbers attributed to the former 2 examples" is without a crystal ball and can't be used.
MY AGENDA, buddy-boy, is to stop a bigger war than you military-loving people realise.
"I wouldn't be surprised", well then don't be. A lot of news sources say a lot of things. That doesn't imply that I watch them...because they are anti-war.
Stop implicating reactions and sentiments with black&white logic. This is not a boolean world.
BuonRotto:
"Why do you nutcases on the other end of the spectrum think the US is going to commit genocide?"
>>>> That was never implied or stated. Halt further rebuttle.
You need to cut it out with the "I suppose"s, "What ifs" and "We don't"s.
You will kill a lot more innocent people in a war than you want to admit.
"spew this rhetoric with such frightening consistency."
Thats exactly what Bush is doing. Presenting little proof for the need of war and blithering on about protecting America and all the while scaring the crap out of citizens to get them on edge and trigger-happy with that idiotic terror-alert.
Groverat:
"Because they're stupid."
>>>> Good addition. You'd make a great debater at a drunken party or a debate club for "Special people".
"I wasn't aware of Bush's plan to nuke Baghdad, someone needs to keep me updated!"
>>>> What do you mean? There isn't.
Again, neither implied nor stated.
"500,000+ dead Iraqi civilians with absolutely no positive result"
I recognise that people "for war" are not "stupid" or "animals", but stepping up bombing in Iraq, where the US has been killing Iraqis for years during bombing campaigns, will do little to help anyone!! What are you thinking? Saddam is unlikely to be killed in this war, and the people post-war will hardly start sucking the US-dick to form the US's vision of their new "just" government.
War kills. Stupid Diplomacy like sanctions also kills.
If the US would lead a "war on human rights offences" then I'd be on the band-wagon, but smashing up a country with enormous stock piles of oil presents one hell of a debate over WHY the US wants to "help Iraq"!
Furthermore, where in the HELL is the post-war plan? Look ahead to that time.
Iraqis will all form an orderly society free from a dictator? HAHA! That absurd.
<strong>Basically those who are pro-war say that there is no alternative and those who are anti-war say that there is an alternative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But don't offer the alternative. The anti-war position is an easy one. It absolves you from offering any solution at all. Pro-war people have to defend the war as being the last resort. Instead of "anti-war protestors", they should be refered to as "anti-solution protestors".
But don't offer the alternative. The anti-war position is an easy one. It absolves you from offering any solution at all. Pro-war people have to defend the war as being the last resort. Instead of "anti-war protestors", they should be refered to as "anti-solution protestors".</strong><hr></blockquote>
By your answer, you imply that it's difficult to be pro-war for you, because war is ugly, and thus war can be only in last resort. I am happy to hear, that like every pro-war peoples, you are pro-war because you find this necessary, and not because you love war.
In other way, if you are anti-war you have to give alternative to the war, which is not easy also.
I don't think the key of the discussion is easy or not easy. There is nothing easy with the Iraq thing.
After running through the whole thing I have to say that Bunge really stands out. He leaps, twists, tends to grab sections of people's statements and quote them out of context, switches emphasis constantly if it suits him and practices a form of moral and ethical equivalence.
I'm just raising the possibility that he is actually working toward answers with anyone here...and so it may not be worth everyone's time to fight with him.
I'm just raising the possibility that he is actually working toward answers with anyone here... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Seriously though, I most certainly am working towards answers. There is a reasonable alternative to war if we choose.
It might be tougher than war, because a war with Iraq is almost a silly proposition. We'll most likely crush them.
It might be more expensive because when all is said and done, without war we might not get a slice of the potential free oil at the end of the road.
It might take years rather than weeks, and take a certain resolve. One that some members of the U.N. don't always seem to show.
But, it can be done. War is the 'easy' answer, but the easiest answer isn't always the best answer.
With the way people talk about the sanctions over the past decade or so, it sounds like people are giving up on them. That from now on, instead of even trying, we'll just go to war. That's asinine.
If the sanctions aren't working, it's because of implementation and execution. For the long term good of Iraq and the world, a viable solution needs to be found. War is not that solution. It's just crap to do a half-assed job of solving the problem, and ultimately deciding war is the only answer simply because your poorly executed plan isn't working.
Saddam hasn't failed over the past 12 years, we have. Saddam is a sick bastard and everyone knows it. Everyone knows he's bad for Iraq and bad for the world. The solution isn't war though, it exists via alternative means. Through a democratic process, not through medieval force. Resorting to violence is giving up. It's weak. It's pathetic.
We're supposed to be the enlightened ones. We're supposed to be the civil ones. We're supposed to be able to handle a problem in the equivalent of a court of law rather than on a battlefield. To resort to might is a failure. It's childish. It's immature.
War under these circumstances comes out of laziness. It shows a complete lack of courage and a lack of strength. It comes because we're unwilling to do the dirty work that a war-less solution would take. Because we're afraid of the consequences of solving this problem in a peaceful, democratic manner.
A war in Iraq is as risk free as the attack on Afghanistan. Victory is a foregone conclusion. It's just the wrong conclusion. In the end it will solidify the belief that military might is the only mitigating factor when dealing with international issues. North Korea is showing this already. It looks like Iran is next.
It's conceivable that a war with Iraq would save the greatest number of lives. That's not the goal though. Liberty, freedom, democracy, self-determination; these principles are all of greater importance than any life. But to achieve and maintain these ideals, we mustn't turn our back on them in the short term.
We have to prove that by using these means, be it a Nation or the international community, it is possible to achieve anything. We need to prove to the world again and again for the next century, next two centuries, however long it takes, that there is only one way to maintain a lasting internal or global peace. And that is not through war.
Alexander the Great failed, the Romans failed, Napoleon failed, the US will fail too. War is not the means to the end we want. The principles that this nation was founded on are enough in and of themselves. They will see us through it all if we have faith in them, if we have the backbone to trust in them, but we don't. We're scared.
So in lieu of a battle, we go to war. Like the bully on the playground, we'll kick anyone's ass until the next bully comes around. And when they turn their fists on us, we'll have no legs to stand on.
But if we stand firm on the principles that have guided us this far, over the course of the past centuries, the whole world will succeed. To do otherwise is failure.
You speak in broad terms with no real solutions. How should we execute sanctions to get Saddam to disarm? What would be done differently? He does't care about his people. He steals the "oil for food" money. How can they work? He just turns around and says the Great Satan killed a million children. Sanctions for Iraq are a proven failure.
[quote] Because we're afraid of the consequences of solving this problem in a peaceful, democratic manner. <hr></blockquote>
Again, how would we do that?
[quote]We have to prove that by using these means, be it a Nation or the international community, it is possible to achieve anything. We need to prove to the world again and again for the next century, next two centuries, however long it takes, that there is only one way to maintain a lasting internal or global peace. And that is not through war. <hr></blockquote>
How misguided. Peace is not defined solely by the absence of conflict. Often war must come first.
[quote]Alexander the Great failed, the Romans failed, Napoleon failed, the US will fail too. <hr></blockquote>
Whoa. Back up, there. The US compares to the above examples? We are interested in taking over Iraq for the sake of doing so? Three words: Over the Top.
[quote] But if we stand firm on the principles that have guided us this far, over the course of the past centuries, the whole world will succeed. To do otherwise is failure. <hr></blockquote>
What principles are those, bunge? Peace at all costs? Letting other nations run our foreign policy?
I ask you, giant, SJO and others: What are the actual solutions? You can't answer because there is now only one option. War. It would be nice if Saddam just caved in and cooperated. It's not going to happen. Period. Inspections fail because there is no real cooperation. Sanctions only hurt civilians because Saddam makes sure it is so. UN resoltutions are ignored. Just yesterday, Saddam demanded that sanction be lifted on his country and the UN rebukes Israel for its possession of WOMD. Does that tell you who we are dealing with, bunge?
Go ahead. Show me another way. Or, should we wait another twelve years?
Comments
<strong>Wow, bunge. This isn't a trial. They don't have the same rights you and I do. They are part of a militant, extremist group hell-bent on destroying the Western world. They are not U.S citizens. They don't even reside here. Prove their guilt? What, I suppose you want to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's ridiculous. One cannot apply our judicial standards regarding burden of proof.
They didn't rob a bank or steal a car, bunge. I suppose our military just goes out in the streets of Karachi and starts rounding up people that look like they did something wrong?
Yes, the big, bad, anti-civil rights United States of America under President Bush. I know, bunge, I know. </strong><hr></blockquote>
We're about to go to war with Iraq because Saddam tortures and murders dissodent Iraqis.
<strong>How many U.N. casualties have there been over the past 12 years? I imagine if we stick with that ratio we'll be OK.
You imagine the casualties will be exactly the same when a considerable occupying force enters Iraq as is proposed in this topic?
<strong>
You imagine the casualties will be exactly the same when a considerable occupying force enters Iraq as is proposed in this topic? </strong><hr></blockquote>
If the Iraqi people love us so much, why would they turn to terrorism if the UN were to move in and actually control Saddam?
You can pretend that my stance is insane, but equating a hypothesized intervention in Iraq with casualties in Vietnam is just plain stupid.
I see, we are calling this an "intervention" now. Nice neutral wording. It's War Lite, w/o the messy aftertaste.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>There you have it- Vietnam v2.0.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, there you have it.
<strong>
I wasn't aware of Bush's plan to nuke Baghdad, someone needs to keep me updated! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, there has been serious talk about using tactical nukes to take out Iraqi bunkers.
At the risk of heading offtopic, I think the concern about non-conventional weapons is more than a little overblown. Chemical weapons in particular seem to be very unreliable weapons, relying on factors like terrain, wind speed etc to not disperse too quickly. On the other hand, "conventional" cluster bombs and fuel-air bombs are relatively reliable ways of dispensing death and suffering on large scales.
<strong>
I see, we are calling this an "intervention" now. Nice neutral wording. It's War Lite, w/o the messy aftertaste. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I was referring to the backed inspections as intervening. What would you like to call it?
<strong>
We're about to go to war with Iraq because Saddam tortures and murders dissodent Iraqis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you are equating the US with Saddam. It is not our policy to do the kinds of things he does. We don't cut out tounges and behead people that disagree with us. We have thousands of people carrying signs in our streets protesting the policy of the government. No beheadings. No tanks in the streets. Not the same thing. We are talking about enemy combatants. They aren't protected by the Geneva convention. They aren't members of a nation-state army. I haven't seen any real evidence of torture, have you?
What I am saying is that if these two accidentally died in the middle of the desert (unless you are polarized enough to actually think we "murdered" them), I could really care less. I can't even say it is unfortunate. If Khalid Sheik Mohammed accidentally died in custody, would you care? No. I care more about the lives of the innocent that were slaughtered on 9/11 and in other terror attacks.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
I haven't seen any real evidence of torture, have you?
What I am saying is that if these two accidentally died in the middle of the desert (unless you are polarized enough to actually think we "murdered" them), I could really care less. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The article I linked to clearly stated that the US Military had officially changed the cause of death from 'natural causes' to 'murder', and in both cases the men were in US custody and being interrogated when they received the life ending injuries.
So, have I seen evidence? As much as we've all seen on anything. Were they in the desert? Sort of I guess, but they were in US custody somewhere held in a facility in a desert I guess. But that's also not what you mean.
Am I equating these actions with Saddam? It's not my fault if they're using the same tactics. Don't kill the messenger as they say, no pun intended. You can get upset with me for pointing you towards the evidence, but it's not my fault if our military is now murdering people during interrogation.
I did not state or simply that I "support the UN's "peaceful" approach".
The sanctions are dually, US imposed as UN!
It is NOT clear that I am "unconcerned with Iraqi casualties at the hands of the UN or Iraq"
What is clear is that the US wants to go to war and the world does not.
Furthermore, the death-outlook which "potentially could be far less than the numbers attributed to the former 2 examples" is without a crystal ball and can't be used.
MY AGENDA, buddy-boy, is to stop a bigger war than you military-loving people realise.
"I wouldn't be surprised", well then don't be. A lot of news sources say a lot of things. That doesn't imply that I watch them...because they are anti-war.
Stop implicating reactions and sentiments with black&white logic. This is not a boolean world.
BuonRotto:
"Why do you nutcases on the other end of the spectrum think the US is going to commit genocide?"
>>>> That was never implied or stated. Halt further rebuttle.
You need to cut it out with the "I suppose"s, "What ifs" and "We don't"s.
You will kill a lot more innocent people in a war than you want to admit.
"spew this rhetoric with such frightening consistency."
Thats exactly what Bush is doing. Presenting little proof for the need of war and blithering on about protecting America and all the while scaring the crap out of citizens to get them on edge and trigger-happy with that idiotic terror-alert.
Groverat:
"Because they're stupid."
>>>> Good addition. You'd make a great debater at a drunken party or a debate club for "Special people".
"I wasn't aware of Bush's plan to nuke Baghdad, someone needs to keep me updated!"
>>>> What do you mean? There isn't.
Again, neither implied nor stated.
"500,000+ dead Iraqi civilians with absolutely no positive result"
I recognise that people "for war" are not "stupid" or "animals", but stepping up bombing in Iraq, where the US has been killing Iraqis for years during bombing campaigns, will do little to help anyone!! What are you thinking? Saddam is unlikely to be killed in this war, and the people post-war will hardly start sucking the US-dick to form the US's vision of their new "just" government.
War kills. Stupid Diplomacy like sanctions also kills.
If the US would lead a "war on human rights offences" then I'd be on the band-wagon, but smashing up a country with enormous stock piles of oil presents one hell of a debate over WHY the US wants to "help Iraq"!
Furthermore, where in the HELL is the post-war plan? Look ahead to that time.
Iraqis will all form an orderly society free from a dictator? HAHA! That absurd.
Your own senate is even upset about this!
<strong>Basically those who are pro-war say that there is no alternative and those who are anti-war say that there is an alternative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But don't offer the alternative. The anti-war position is an easy one. It absolves you from offering any solution at all. Pro-war people have to defend the war as being the last resort. Instead of "anti-war protestors", they should be refered to as "anti-solution protestors".
<strong>
But don't offer the alternative. The anti-war position is an easy one. It absolves you from offering any solution at all. Pro-war people have to defend the war as being the last resort. Instead of "anti-war protestors", they should be refered to as "anti-solution protestors".</strong><hr></blockquote>
By your answer, you imply that it's difficult to be pro-war for you, because war is ugly, and thus war can be only in last resort. I am happy to hear, that like every pro-war peoples, you are pro-war because you find this necessary, and not because you love war.
In other way, if you are anti-war you have to give alternative to the war, which is not easy also.
I don't think the key of the discussion is easy or not easy. There is nothing easy with the Iraq thing.
After running through the whole thing I have to say that Bunge really stands out. He leaps, twists, tends to grab sections of people's statements and quote them out of context, switches emphasis constantly if it suits him and practices a form of moral and ethical equivalence.
I'm just raising the possibility that he is actually working toward answers with anyone here...and so it may not be worth everyone's time to fight with him.
But, hope springs eternal!
<strong>What an exhausting thread to read.
After running through the whole thing I have to say that Bunge really stands out. He...is...moral and ethical....
I'm just raising the possibility that he is actually...worth everyone's time...eternal! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the glowing review!
<strong>
I'm just raising the possibility that he is actually working toward answers with anyone here... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Seriously though, I most certainly am working towards answers. There is a reasonable alternative to war if we choose.
It might be tougher than war, because a war with Iraq is almost a silly proposition. We'll most likely crush them.
It might be more expensive because when all is said and done, without war we might not get a slice of the potential free oil at the end of the road.
It might take years rather than weeks, and take a certain resolve. One that some members of the U.N. don't always seem to show.
But, it can be done. War is the 'easy' answer, but the easiest answer isn't always the best answer.
With the way people talk about the sanctions over the past decade or so, it sounds like people are giving up on them. That from now on, instead of even trying, we'll just go to war. That's asinine.
If the sanctions aren't working, it's because of implementation and execution. For the long term good of Iraq and the world, a viable solution needs to be found. War is not that solution. It's just crap to do a half-assed job of solving the problem, and ultimately deciding war is the only answer simply because your poorly executed plan isn't working.
Saddam hasn't failed over the past 12 years, we have. Saddam is a sick bastard and everyone knows it. Everyone knows he's bad for Iraq and bad for the world. The solution isn't war though, it exists via alternative means. Through a democratic process, not through medieval force. Resorting to violence is giving up. It's weak. It's pathetic.
We're supposed to be the enlightened ones. We're supposed to be the civil ones. We're supposed to be able to handle a problem in the equivalent of a court of law rather than on a battlefield. To resort to might is a failure. It's childish. It's immature.
War under these circumstances comes out of laziness. It shows a complete lack of courage and a lack of strength. It comes because we're unwilling to do the dirty work that a war-less solution would take. Because we're afraid of the consequences of solving this problem in a peaceful, democratic manner.
A war in Iraq is as risk free as the attack on Afghanistan. Victory is a foregone conclusion. It's just the wrong conclusion. In the end it will solidify the belief that military might is the only mitigating factor when dealing with international issues. North Korea is showing this already. It looks like Iran is next.
It's conceivable that a war with Iraq would save the greatest number of lives. That's not the goal though. Liberty, freedom, democracy, self-determination; these principles are all of greater importance than any life. But to achieve and maintain these ideals, we mustn't turn our back on them in the short term.
We have to prove that by using these means, be it a Nation or the international community, it is possible to achieve anything. We need to prove to the world again and again for the next century, next two centuries, however long it takes, that there is only one way to maintain a lasting internal or global peace. And that is not through war.
Alexander the Great failed, the Romans failed, Napoleon failed, the US will fail too. War is not the means to the end we want. The principles that this nation was founded on are enough in and of themselves. They will see us through it all if we have faith in them, if we have the backbone to trust in them, but we don't. We're scared.
So in lieu of a battle, we go to war. Like the bully on the playground, we'll kick anyone's ass until the next bully comes around. And when they turn their fists on us, we'll have no legs to stand on.
But if we stand firm on the principles that have guided us this far, over the course of the past centuries, the whole world will succeed. To do otherwise is failure.
You speak in broad terms with no real solutions. How should we execute sanctions to get Saddam to disarm? What would be done differently? He does't care about his people. He steals the "oil for food" money. How can they work? He just turns around and says the Great Satan killed a million children. Sanctions for Iraq are a proven failure.
[quote] Because we're afraid of the consequences of solving this problem in a peaceful, democratic manner. <hr></blockquote>
Again, how would we do that?
[quote]We have to prove that by using these means, be it a Nation or the international community, it is possible to achieve anything. We need to prove to the world again and again for the next century, next two centuries, however long it takes, that there is only one way to maintain a lasting internal or global peace. And that is not through war. <hr></blockquote>
How misguided. Peace is not defined solely by the absence of conflict. Often war must come first.
[quote]Alexander the Great failed, the Romans failed, Napoleon failed, the US will fail too. <hr></blockquote>
Whoa. Back up, there. The US compares to the above examples? We are interested in taking over Iraq for the sake of doing so? Three words: Over the Top.
[quote] But if we stand firm on the principles that have guided us this far, over the course of the past centuries, the whole world will succeed. To do otherwise is failure. <hr></blockquote>
What principles are those, bunge? Peace at all costs? Letting other nations run our foreign policy?
I ask you, giant, SJO and others: What are the actual solutions? You can't answer because there is now only one option. War. It would be nice if Saddam just caved in and cooperated. It's not going to happen. Period. Inspections fail because there is no real cooperation. Sanctions only hurt civilians because Saddam makes sure it is so. UN resoltutions are ignored. Just yesterday, Saddam demanded that sanction be lifted on his country and the UN rebukes Israel for its possession of WOMD. Does that tell you who we are dealing with, bunge?
Go ahead. Show me another way. Or, should we wait another twelve years?