And France, China, UK, pakistan, India, Israel (not official), Russia two.
The difference that there is no UN resolution asking to remove them. And if UN ask Iraq to remove them, it was for a good reason.
So despite there were no UN resolution asking Bush to kill Saddam, he's going to do that. Double standards are just that. When UN supports the US, it's OK, the US like UN. If not, the US spit in their direction and do what they want. Anything goes.
So despite there were no UN resolution asking Bush to kill Saddam, he's going to do that. Double standards are just that. When UN supports the US, it's OK, the US like UN. If not, the US spit in their direction and do what they want. Anything goes.
Yes the real debate is there. But i would rather say, UN resolution asking to make a war against Iraq. Saddam is a bloody dictator, i would not cry if he dies. Death of other poeple do not bring me happyness, but i think that death of Saddam will bring a lot of happiness beyong the Iraqi population. So i would be happy that they will be happy.
Saddam is a bloody dictator, i would not cry if he dies. Death of other poeple do not bring me happyness, but i think that death of Saddam will bring a lot of happiness beyong the Iraqi population. So i would be happy that they will be happy.
It's all fine, but are you sure about a lot happiness inside the Iraqi population? Every time I hear about tyranny on the TV, I ask myself a question: is it fact or disinformation or speculation or statistics?
It's all fine, but are you sure about a lot happiness inside the Iraqi population? Every time I hear about tyranny on the TV, I ask myself a question: is it fact or disinformation or speculation or statistics?
No true statistics are avalaible. Poll about the Iraq public opinion on Saddam are not allowed in Iraq. But US and europe are democratias, with a free press and WWW access.
Futhermore i have not example in democratia, where the same people is in charge for 35 years.
At a certain point of the live, you have to believe things, because if you discuss all things , you will discuss even the reality of your own existence. Perhaps you are a dream just like in Matrix.
So dispite i discover the contrary i believe that Saddam is a bloody tyrannic dictator.
My president who is supposed to love him, even say so.
Poll about the Iraq public opinion on Saddam are not allowed in Iraq.
Shrewd, I should say.
Quote:
At a certain point of the live, you have to believe things, because if you discuss all things , you will discuss even the reality of your own existence. Perhaps you are a dream just like in Matrix.
So dispite i discover the contrary i believe that Saddam is a bloody tyrannic dictator.
My president who is supposed to love him, even say so.
Yes, I've been thinking about Matrix, and, well, you are right. We need a point of reference to understand what and where we are. The problem is that you cannot trust military speakers during a war. Whichever side it is, it is 98% bold lies, 1% white lies and 1% wild speculation. Only TV reporters working in real time have little chance to censor or edit what they show.
This has drifted off topic but the first two confirmed strikes by patriots in Gulf War One were later found to be Patriot operators with itchy trigger fingers.
To be clear, they shot at nothing, and amazingly managed to hit it, twice.
The US weapons are not proscribed, the Iraqi ones are. (Though I should mention I'd be happy to have all of our chem/bio/nuc weapons destroyed.)
How's that? Do you mean US don't have chemical/bio weapons? Or you mean one and the same WMD type is proscribed for one country and is legal for another? Double standards again?
No, I mean theweapons the US has aren't proscribed -- no one is telling them they have to get rid of them or that they're prohibited to have or build them (er, in official channels anyway). I'm not saying having these weapons is a good thing. I agree that we should lead by example. Deterrence as a strategy is just as obsolete as containment. It doesn't work anyway, and I can't imagine how we would ever use these in good concience, and they we are proscribed from using bio/chem weapons by the Geneva Convention anyway. Besides, how could the US use them in good conscience, even in a war? I'm just making this point on a technicality. I don't mean to support any double standards.
No, I didn't mean you personally. You don't make chemical weapons in your kitchen, do you? I mean those politicians who use double standards to pursue their dirty goals. DS make their life easier and they like it. All of them.
Quote:
No one is telling them they have to get rid of them or that they're prohibited to have or build them (er, in official channels anyway). ... It doesn't work anyway, and I can't imagine how we would ever use these in good concience, and they we are proscribed from using bio/chem weapons by the Geneva Convention anyway. Besides, how could the US use them in good conscience, even in a war?
This is interesting. Even if Iraqi army uses gas/bio weapons against the US, Bush cannot do it in return. At least his administration claims their civilized nature. Seeing this, there is absolutely no way to use the weapons unless after the end of the world. Why keep it? Either they cannot destroy the weapons due to cost/technology or... they are waiting for something.
So despite there were no UN resolution asking Bush to kill Saddam, he's going to do that. Double standards are just that. When UN supports the US, it's OK, the US like UN. If not, the US spit in their direction and do what they want. Anything goes.
This is false logic, as if there IS a single UN voice; of course there is no one UN voice. I find the very idea that France can veto something and that be considered the stance of my nation to be patently offensive, as I'm sure the French feel about US-veto of resolutions about Israeli aggression.
All nations have these "double-standards" in their foreign policy because all nations work towards their best interests. I love how the EU movement has kind of shielded European nations from international scrutiny on this point, because if you want bloody imperialism, if you want mass-murder for world domination you need look no farther than that lovely continent.
So when you hear about American double-standards the problem isn't that, it's America's size that's the problem. Specific to French politics, I think a large part of it is strong nationalism and jealousy. Telling upstart European nations to "shut up" to me is a clear indication that their aim is to inflate their power by not only oppossing the US but by attempting to jockey position within the EU (if it ever becomes a united world power structure, I'm skeptical). So when you look at the motivations you question the message, at least I hope you question the message.
To be fair I'll say that Bush doesn't need to commit suicide but he needs to change course. His bravado got us to this point, and for that I'm grateful, but now he must turn his attention to soothing the very sensitive European anti-war nations. European diplomats require a lot of petting and attention, and Powell should be sent to pat their heads and whisper sweet nothings in their ears. They love nothing more than the powerful US coming to act like they are very important. Bush can't do that, of course, because he's a total disaster when it comes to foreign relations.
The first thing that Bush needs to do is make sure that he is never seen again in public with a leader who either speaks English or Spanish or whose country speaks English or Spanish. It was so embarrassing seeing him near Blair in the Azores. Once he leaves the script behind it is painful. Let's hide him as much as possible till Ralph Nader can take over in 2005.
You're going to be president? Your mere suggestion of as much is just more proof that you extremist conservatives are willing to subvert the Constitution whereever it may be convenient. Youngins ain't allowed, joo know that. **** your candidacy and **** Operation TIPS.
In the context and history of Hussein, absolutely.
What sort of invasion?
Quote:
I don't really think it matters when evaluating it how dangerous they are. There is no reason to excuse anything for Iraq. It's proscribed, and that's that. I don't care if it's a candy bar to be quite honest. You give leeway to people who make honest efforts.
Obviously, I disgree. We simply don't operate in a world of absolutes. There always has to be context. The candy bar violation demands a response of war or destruction of the candy bar? How about the removal of those who are able to make the candy bar?
It's mystifying why we care so much about Iraq, really.
Quote:
It seems helicopter crashes are the main enemy of our armed forces, and those happen in times of peace.
There's lots of sand over there to clog close-to-the-ground aircraft. The US military likes techno wizardry a little too much and don't put enough effort into robustness. The first reported incident was of a helicoptor doing an emergency landing due to ground fire, which was later revised to weather. I'm now wondering if the Marine killed this morning was due to friendly fire or enemy fire.
Typical occurances in military action, but I'm morbidly curious about the statistic and wondering if Iraq will match it...
Quote:
Seems like an odd reason to oppose it. ... Join my team, then, the pro-war, anti-Bush'shandlingoftheprocess club.
Hehe... I quote: "There is no reason to excuse anything for Iraq. It's proscribed, and that's that. I don't care if it's a candy bar to be quite honest. You give leeway to people who make honest efforts."
I view Iraq as harmless to our nation's livelihood. On the other hand, honest politicians and their ability to control our lives are a different matter to me. I'm really sick of it. Tired of seeing it. Tired of people taking up sides. People are doing nothing more than defending and attacking the talking points of politicians. The talking points are primarily lies. It's brainless discussion, and politicians (and the media) should not be rewarded for setting up the discourse this way.
So why should I give Bush leeway for lying and fearmongering our way to this action? Why should I support this war since its not clear what this war is about? If it's roots are in the Wolfowitz doctrine, then I'm opposed regardless of the situation involved. I don't think the right war for the wrong reasons is justifiable in that political climate.
I will be running my father as a puppet. He wears stylish glasses, is 6'2" and has salt&pepper hair, it will be a landslide!
--
THT:
Quote:
What sort of invasion?
Saucy!
To answer the question:
As Dubya would say, "mili-tree" invasion. I think it's going quite nicely at the moment, the inevitable helicopter crash notwithstanding.
I think sabre rattling is a wonderful tool that needs to be used sometimes. And with our ability to wage non-genocidal war I think this is a net positive.
Quote:
Obviously, I disgree. We simply don't operate in a world of absolutes. There always has to be context. The candy bar violation demands a response of war or destruction of the candy bar? How about the removal of those who are able to make the candy bar?
In this context the goal is removal of the Hershey Overlord. As long as he kills his people en masse in a flood of suffocating chocolate and refuses to dismantle his chocolate empire for 12 years I think it is sometimes necessary to send Louie Anderson and his family to go eat the milky tyrant.
One cannot be assured of complete candy disarmament.
Quote:
There's lots of sand over there to clog close-to-the-ground aircraft. The US military likes techno wizardry a little too much and don't put enough effort into robustness. The first reported incident was of a helicoptor doing an emergency landing due to ground fire, which was later revised to weather. I'm now wondering if the Marine killed this morning was due to friendly fire or enemy fire.
I like these reports v. Vietnam reports, I'll tell you that much.
Quote:
I view Iraq as harmless to our nation's livelihood. On the other hand, honest politicians and their ability to control our lives are a different matter to me. I'm really sick of it. Tired of seeing it. Tired of people taking up sides. People are doing nothing more than defending and attacking the talking points of politicians. The talking points are primarily lies. It's brainless discussion, and politicians (and the media) should not be rewarded for setting up the discourse this way.
Well don't listen to politicians or discuss things on their terms and badmouth politicians at any point you get. You can't allow your disdain for politicians to get in the way of actual policy.
This issue predates George, after all.
Quote:
So why should I give Bush leeway for lying and fearmongering our way to this action? Why should I support this war since its not clear what this war is about? If it's roots are in the Wolfowitz doctrine, then I'm opposed regardless of the situation involved. I don't think the right war for the wrong reasons is justifiable in that political climate.
So essentially what you're asking me is "why *shouldn't* I cut off my nose to spite my face?"?
I suppose the difference is that I don't really care about the "political climate" because politicians are self-absorbed liars. I don't care what France's diplomats or even what France's people think about us if we're doing what's right. And on this particular issue diplomacy has routinely gotten in the way of what is right.
Removing Hussein's regime is the right thing to do.
To be fair I'll say that Bush doesn't need to commit suicide but he needs to change course.
Hey Groverat, i never said that Bush need to commit suicide, i was just quoting the sig of CoD and not his answer about Bush. I see where come the confusion, sorry for that.
In this context the goal is removal of the Hershey Overlord. As long as he kills his people en masse in a flood of suffocating chocolate and refuses to dismantle his chocolate empire for 12 years I think it is sometimes necessary to send Louie Anderson and his family to go eat the milky tyrant.
One cannot be assured of complete candy disarmament.
I think we'll just have to disagree. There are multiple ways to eat Reeses, and with certain ways, it tastes a lot better and is more rewarding. We should not be in a position to police all the candy in the world. It's fattening yes, but we have to respect what they want. If they want an overthrow, then it becomes easier to overthrow the overlord. Diplomacy ensures that the message can be brought out.
Quote:
Well don't listen to politicians or discuss things on their terms and badmouth politicians at any point you get. You can't allow your disdain for politicians to get in the way of actual policy.
Hence, I really don't participate in political threads. Problem is, everyone talks about these things in political rhetoric, so there is really no way to talk about it. And actual policy is driven by the politicians and this rhetoric, so I can't get away from it. We, the collective we, should not be beholden to it or tolerate such behavior, but it's so prevalent in this media rich environment that we, the citizenry are being poisoned by it.
Quote:
So essentially what you're asking me is "why *shouldn't* I cut off my nose to spite my face?"?
I suppose the difference is that I don't really care about the "political climate" because politicians are self-absorbed liars. ... And on this particular issue diplomacy has routinely gotten in the way of what is right.
Removing Hussein's regime is the right thing to do.
But my problem is that I'm not sure that is the intention of the administration - the intention being that the Iraqi people will have the right to self determination whence Hussein is removed. The right thing falls out as a side effect, but the wrong thing is so wrong that the right thing isn't worth it.
I think we'll just have to disagree. There are multiple ways to eat Reeses, and with certain ways, it tastes a lot better and is more rewarding.
Ah, the "we have alternatives".
Well perhaps we had a very ambiguous alternative in the minds of the intelligentsia, but as far as world policy goes there was only one proposal for removing Hussein, that was ours.
I read your view in another thread and while it was compelling and interesting, it was nowhere to be seen from nations or leaders of real importance. Essentially it was entirely unrealistic, so from a practicality standpoint it was completely unworkable.
Quote:
We should not be in a position to police all the candy in the world.
But we are. We were given that mantle (and we sought it as well).
Quote:
It's fattening yes, but we have to respect what they want. If they want an overthrow, then it becomes easier to overthrow the overlord.
Well who is "they"? The people of the country. I'm willing to bet that quite a few people in Iraq want Saddam overthrown. I'd say the vast majority of the voices we hear from Iraq say Saddam needs to go.
Quote:
Diplomacy ensures that the message can be brought out.
You think the Iraqi people could actually speak honestly about their desires under Hussein?
Are we to accept the wholesale slaughter of innocents until they make the proper diplomatic request and even then only if everyone else agrees it's ok?
Quote:
We, the collective we, should not be beholden to it or tolerate such behavior, but it's so prevalent in this media rich environment that we, the citizenry are being poisoned by it.
Well, one has to be selective and think, that's where the poison is. So many people prefer to merely listen to a talking head and believe whatever their chosen talking head says.
I, personally, try to evaluate information and choose between the realities. Or if I don't feel any reality is preferable I take the ambiguous and idealistic route (i.e. - voting for Nader in 2000). To me the thought of 12 more years of containment when the option to remove Saddam is there is really no contest, have a quick war and oust Saddam and lift the sanctions. There's no hope for sanctions to be lifted without him. And this is a matter of life and death for hundreds of thousands so it has to be addressed realisitically.
Quote:
But my problem is that I'm not sure that is the intention of the administration - the intention being that the Iraqi people will have the right to self determination whence Hussein is removed. The right thing falls out as a side effect, but the wrong thing is so wrong that the right thing isn't worth it.
Well even if the administration's intentions are not so good they will be gone soon, such is our democracy. Also, it's not just the Bush administration that has a say in the future of Iraq, the people of Iraq and the UN will be involved as well.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
And France, China, UK, pakistan, India, Israel (not official), Russia two.
The difference that there is no UN resolution asking to remove them. And if UN ask Iraq to remove them, it was for a good reason.
So despite there were no UN resolution asking Bush to kill Saddam, he's going to do that. Double standards are just that. When UN supports the US, it's OK, the US like UN. If not, the US spit in their direction and do what they want. Anything goes.
Originally posted by costique
So despite there were no UN resolution asking Bush to kill Saddam, he's going to do that. Double standards are just that. When UN supports the US, it's OK, the US like UN. If not, the US spit in their direction and do what they want. Anything goes.
Yes the real debate is there. But i would rather say, UN resolution asking to make a war against Iraq. Saddam is a bloody dictator, i would not cry if he dies. Death of other poeple do not bring me happyness, but i think that death of Saddam will bring a lot of happiness beyong the Iraqi population. So i would be happy that they will be happy.
For the other point of your post, i agree.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Saddam is a bloody dictator, i would not cry if he dies. Death of other poeple do not bring me happyness, but i think that death of Saddam will bring a lot of happiness beyong the Iraqi population. So i would be happy that they will be happy.
It's all fine, but are you sure about a lot happiness inside the Iraqi population? Every time I hear about tyranny on the TV, I ask myself a question: is it fact or disinformation or speculation or statistics?
Originally posted by costique
It's all fine, but are you sure about a lot happiness inside the Iraqi population? Every time I hear about tyranny on the TV, I ask myself a question: is it fact or disinformation or speculation or statistics?
No true statistics are avalaible. Poll about the Iraq public opinion on Saddam are not allowed in Iraq. But US and europe are democratias, with a free press and WWW access.
Futhermore i have not example in democratia, where the same people is in charge for 35 years.
At a certain point of the live, you have to believe things, because if you discuss all things , you will discuss even the reality of your own existence. Perhaps you are a dream just like in Matrix.
So dispite i discover the contrary i believe that Saddam is a bloody tyrannic dictator.
My president who is supposed to love him, even say so.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Poll about the Iraq public opinion on Saddam are not allowed in Iraq.
Shrewd, I should say.
At a certain point of the live, you have to believe things, because if you discuss all things , you will discuss even the reality of your own existence. Perhaps you are a dream just like in Matrix.
So dispite i discover the contrary i believe that Saddam is a bloody tyrannic dictator.
My president who is supposed to love him, even say so.
Yes, I've been thinking about Matrix, and, well, you are right. We need a point of reference to understand what and where we are. The problem is that you cannot trust military speakers during a war. Whichever side it is, it is 98% bold lies, 1% white lies and 1% wild speculation. Only TV reporters working in real time have little chance to censor or edit what they show.
To be clear, they shot at nothing, and amazingly managed to hit it, twice.
Originally posted by costique
As far as I know, the US army has much more proscribed weapons than Iraq.
The US weapons are not proscribed, the Iraqi ones are. (Though I should mention I'd be happy to have all of our chem/bio/nuc weapons destroyed.)
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The US weapons are not proscribed, the Iraqi ones are. (Though I should mention I'd be happy to have all of our chem/bio/nuc weapons destroyed.)
How's that? Do you mean US don't have chemical/bio weapons? Or you mean one and the same WMD type is proscribed for one country and is legal for another? Double standards again?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I don't mean to support any double standards.
No, I didn't mean you personally. You don't make chemical weapons in your kitchen, do you? I mean those politicians who use double standards to pursue their dirty goals. DS make their life easier and they like it. All of them.
No one is telling them they have to get rid of them or that they're prohibited to have or build them (er, in official channels anyway). ... It doesn't work anyway, and I can't imagine how we would ever use these in good concience, and they we are proscribed from using bio/chem weapons by the Geneva Convention anyway. Besides, how could the US use them in good conscience, even in a war?
This is interesting. Even if Iraqi army uses gas/bio weapons against the US, Bush cannot do it in return. At least his administration claims their civilized nature. Seeing this, there is absolutely no way to use the weapons unless after the end of the world. Why keep it? Either they cannot destroy the weapons due to cost/technology or... they are waiting for something.
Originally posted by costique
So despite there were no UN resolution asking Bush to kill Saddam, he's going to do that. Double standards are just that. When UN supports the US, it's OK, the US like UN. If not, the US spit in their direction and do what they want. Anything goes.
This is false logic, as if there IS a single UN voice; of course there is no one UN voice. I find the very idea that France can veto something and that be considered the stance of my nation to be patently offensive, as I'm sure the French feel about US-veto of resolutions about Israeli aggression.
All nations have these "double-standards" in their foreign policy because all nations work towards their best interests. I love how the EU movement has kind of shielded European nations from international scrutiny on this point, because if you want bloody imperialism, if you want mass-murder for world domination you need look no farther than that lovely continent.
So when you hear about American double-standards the problem isn't that, it's America's size that's the problem. Specific to French politics, I think a large part of it is strong nationalism and jealousy. Telling upstart European nations to "shut up" to me is a clear indication that their aim is to inflate their power by not only oppossing the US but by attempting to jockey position within the EU (if it ever becomes a united world power structure, I'm skeptical). So when you look at the motivations you question the message, at least I hope you question the message.
To be fair I'll say that Bush doesn't need to commit suicide but he needs to change course. His bravado got us to this point, and for that I'm grateful, but now he must turn his attention to soothing the very sensitive European anti-war nations. European diplomats require a lot of petting and attention, and Powell should be sent to pat their heads and whisper sweet nothings in their ears. They love nothing more than the powerful US coming to act like they are very important. Bush can't do that, of course, because he's a total disaster when it comes to foreign relations.
You heard it here first folks, 'rat in 2004.
Originally posted by groverat
In the context and history of Hussein, absolutely.
What sort of invasion?
I don't really think it matters when evaluating it how dangerous they are. There is no reason to excuse anything for Iraq. It's proscribed, and that's that. I don't care if it's a candy bar to be quite honest. You give leeway to people who make honest efforts.
Obviously, I disgree. We simply don't operate in a world of absolutes. There always has to be context. The candy bar violation demands a response of war or destruction of the candy bar? How about the removal of those who are able to make the candy bar?
It's mystifying why we care so much about Iraq, really.
It seems helicopter crashes are the main enemy of our armed forces, and those happen in times of peace.
There's lots of sand over there to clog close-to-the-ground aircraft. The US military likes techno wizardry a little too much and don't put enough effort into robustness. The first reported incident was of a helicoptor doing an emergency landing due to ground fire, which was later revised to weather. I'm now wondering if the Marine killed this morning was due to friendly fire or enemy fire.
Typical occurances in military action, but I'm morbidly curious about the statistic and wondering if Iraq will match it...
Seems like an odd reason to oppose it. ... Join my team, then, the pro-war, anti-Bush'shandlingoftheprocess club.
Hehe... I quote: "There is no reason to excuse anything for Iraq. It's proscribed, and that's that. I don't care if it's a candy bar to be quite honest. You give leeway to people who make honest efforts."
I view Iraq as harmless to our nation's livelihood. On the other hand, honest politicians and their ability to control our lives are a different matter to me. I'm really sick of it. Tired of seeing it. Tired of people taking up sides. People are doing nothing more than defending and attacking the talking points of politicians. The talking points are primarily lies. It's brainless discussion, and politicians (and the media) should not be rewarded for setting up the discourse this way.
So why should I give Bush leeway for lying and fearmongering our way to this action? Why should I support this war since its not clear what this war is about? If it's roots are in the Wolfowitz doctrine, then I'm opposed regardless of the situation involved. I don't think the right war for the wrong reasons is justifiable in that political climate.
--
THT:
What sort of invasion?
Saucy!
To answer the question:
As Dubya would say, "mili-tree" invasion. I think it's going quite nicely at the moment, the inevitable helicopter crash notwithstanding.
I think sabre rattling is a wonderful tool that needs to be used sometimes. And with our ability to wage non-genocidal war I think this is a net positive.
Obviously, I disgree. We simply don't operate in a world of absolutes. There always has to be context. The candy bar violation demands a response of war or destruction of the candy bar? How about the removal of those who are able to make the candy bar?
In this context the goal is removal of the Hershey Overlord. As long as he kills his people en masse in a flood of suffocating chocolate and refuses to dismantle his chocolate empire for 12 years I think it is sometimes necessary to send Louie Anderson and his family to go eat the milky tyrant.
One cannot be assured of complete candy disarmament.
There's lots of sand over there to clog close-to-the-ground aircraft. The US military likes techno wizardry a little too much and don't put enough effort into robustness. The first reported incident was of a helicoptor doing an emergency landing due to ground fire, which was later revised to weather. I'm now wondering if the Marine killed this morning was due to friendly fire or enemy fire.
I like these reports v. Vietnam reports, I'll tell you that much.
I view Iraq as harmless to our nation's livelihood. On the other hand, honest politicians and their ability to control our lives are a different matter to me. I'm really sick of it. Tired of seeing it. Tired of people taking up sides. People are doing nothing more than defending and attacking the talking points of politicians. The talking points are primarily lies. It's brainless discussion, and politicians (and the media) should not be rewarded for setting up the discourse this way.
Well don't listen to politicians or discuss things on their terms and badmouth politicians at any point you get. You can't allow your disdain for politicians to get in the way of actual policy.
This issue predates George, after all.
So why should I give Bush leeway for lying and fearmongering our way to this action? Why should I support this war since its not clear what this war is about? If it's roots are in the Wolfowitz doctrine, then I'm opposed regardless of the situation involved. I don't think the right war for the wrong reasons is justifiable in that political climate.
So essentially what you're asking me is "why *shouldn't* I cut off my nose to spite my face?"?
I suppose the difference is that I don't really care about the "political climate" because politicians are self-absorbed liars. I don't care what France's diplomats or even what France's people think about us if we're doing what's right. And on this particular issue diplomacy has routinely gotten in the way of what is right.
Removing Hussein's regime is the right thing to do.
Originally posted by groverat
To be fair I'll say that Bush doesn't need to commit suicide but he needs to change course.
Hey Groverat, i never said that Bush need to commit suicide, i was just quoting the sig of CoD and not his answer about Bush. I see where come the confusion, sorry for that.
Originally posted by groverat
In this context the goal is removal of the Hershey Overlord. As long as he kills his people en masse in a flood of suffocating chocolate and refuses to dismantle his chocolate empire for 12 years I think it is sometimes necessary to send Louie Anderson and his family to go eat the milky tyrant.
One cannot be assured of complete candy disarmament.
I think we'll just have to disagree. There are multiple ways to eat Reeses, and with certain ways, it tastes a lot better and is more rewarding. We should not be in a position to police all the candy in the world. It's fattening yes, but we have to respect what they want. If they want an overthrow, then it becomes easier to overthrow the overlord. Diplomacy ensures that the message can be brought out.
Well don't listen to politicians or discuss things on their terms and badmouth politicians at any point you get. You can't allow your disdain for politicians to get in the way of actual policy.
Hence, I really don't participate in political threads. Problem is, everyone talks about these things in political rhetoric, so there is really no way to talk about it. And actual policy is driven by the politicians and this rhetoric, so I can't get away from it. We, the collective we, should not be beholden to it or tolerate such behavior, but it's so prevalent in this media rich environment that we, the citizenry are being poisoned by it.
So essentially what you're asking me is "why *shouldn't* I cut off my nose to spite my face?"?
I suppose the difference is that I don't really care about the "political climate" because politicians are self-absorbed liars. ... And on this particular issue diplomacy has routinely gotten in the way of what is right.
Removing Hussein's regime is the right thing to do.
But my problem is that I'm not sure that is the intention of the administration - the intention being that the Iraqi people will have the right to self determination whence Hussein is removed. The right thing falls out as a side effect, but the wrong thing is so wrong that the right thing isn't worth it.
Originally posted by THT
I think we'll just have to disagree. There are multiple ways to eat Reeses, and with certain ways, it tastes a lot better and is more rewarding.
Ah, the "we have alternatives".
Well perhaps we had a very ambiguous alternative in the minds of the intelligentsia, but as far as world policy goes there was only one proposal for removing Hussein, that was ours.
I read your view in another thread and while it was compelling and interesting, it was nowhere to be seen from nations or leaders of real importance. Essentially it was entirely unrealistic, so from a practicality standpoint it was completely unworkable.
We should not be in a position to police all the candy in the world.
But we are. We were given that mantle (and we sought it as well).
It's fattening yes, but we have to respect what they want. If they want an overthrow, then it becomes easier to overthrow the overlord.
Well who is "they"? The people of the country. I'm willing to bet that quite a few people in Iraq want Saddam overthrown. I'd say the vast majority of the voices we hear from Iraq say Saddam needs to go.
Diplomacy ensures that the message can be brought out.
You think the Iraqi people could actually speak honestly about their desires under Hussein?
Are we to accept the wholesale slaughter of innocents until they make the proper diplomatic request and even then only if everyone else agrees it's ok?
We, the collective we, should not be beholden to it or tolerate such behavior, but it's so prevalent in this media rich environment that we, the citizenry are being poisoned by it.
Well, one has to be selective and think, that's where the poison is. So many people prefer to merely listen to a talking head and believe whatever their chosen talking head says.
I, personally, try to evaluate information and choose between the realities. Or if I don't feel any reality is preferable I take the ambiguous and idealistic route (i.e. - voting for Nader in 2000). To me the thought of 12 more years of containment when the option to remove Saddam is there is really no contest, have a quick war and oust Saddam and lift the sanctions. There's no hope for sanctions to be lifted without him. And this is a matter of life and death for hundreds of thousands so it has to be addressed realisitically.
But my problem is that I'm not sure that is the intention of the administration - the intention being that the Iraqi people will have the right to self determination whence Hussein is removed. The right thing falls out as a side effect, but the wrong thing is so wrong that the right thing isn't worth it.
Well even if the administration's intentions are not so good they will be gone soon, such is our democracy. Also, it's not just the Bush administration that has a say in the future of Iraq, the people of Iraq and the UN will be involved as well.