So what else is new on Appleinsider? Not that this happening for the 1,000,000,000,000th time will teach them anything. Maybe stupidity is in the genes. It reminds me of the dog whose leash is wrapped aound the tree, and no matter what, his brain isn't developed enough to realize he should double back.
BTW: Did anyone see Franks' briefing this morning? I thought it was really telling when he say he would be surprised if they did find chemicals, and he wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. He then went on to explain why it wouldn't be news to him if there wasn't chemical weapons found.
But what did the networks do next? They all put big as hell at the bottom of the screen "Franks 'wouldn't be surprised' if chemical weapons found at plant." Funny how they neglected his main point. I guess "chemical weapon plant" gets higher ratings than "maybe a chemicasl plant, but probably not." It's strange how americans uncritically eat it up.
Like I said last week, the basic rule of media is to listen to the reports, but not to believe them until they have been substantiated weeks later.
Has Iraq attacked us recently? Has Iraq ever been on the radar before a few months ago? Several of Bush's cabinet have had designs on regime change in Iraq far prior to 9/11. The WTC attacks were a convenient way to fulfill that agenda. And you still have not given me the terrorist links and precedent fo proliferation to back your claims. Again, this all THEORY that can be applied to DOZENS of countries. Are you upset about Iraq's military capability? Yell at France/Germany/Russia, the countries who subsidized the bastard. Or better yet, let's invade them too, right?
And you've been unable to demonstrate your claim that containment was working. I never claimed Iraq had ties to 9/11. I do say that US intelligence claims they have evidence showing links between Al Queda and Iraq post 9/11 and Afganistan. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of ceasefire. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of mulitple binding UN resolutions. Try all you want to bring other countries into this issue. Whether theyare invloved or not doesn't change the fact that Iraq sign a ceasefire and broke it. Agreed to resolutions and breeched them. Sorry to burst your bubble, but breaking a ceasefire often results in a resumption of hostilities.
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
The fact is that only recently has inspections been started in earnest. Was that a mistake? Yes, I believe so, but that doesn't change the fact that we are grossly impatient for results when the process has only just begun. Nevermind that our brinksmanship has made this war an inevitability from the beginning
Um, no they didn't just start in earnest. They just restarted in earnest. 12 years ago they were quite earnest. The UN allowed their effectiveness to diminish over the years until they were completely halted. Waiting for the UN to repeat it's same mistakes?
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
As I stated before, Afghanistan was a whole different ball of wax. They, being complicit in 9/11, attacked us. We were acting in self-defence which necessitated regime change. I am not against such action, when that action is justified. But now al-Qaeda lies in sleeper cells throughout the world.
Afganistan was complicit only in providing support or shelter to Al Queda. The didn't finance 9/11 or arm them. But you are right, that is enough to show they were involved in 9/11. If Iraq is now providing Al Queda with support and shelter, as intelligence sources seem to claim, what exactly is the difference? Just because the Taliban was willing to admit they were sheltering Al Queda, they are more guilty? No, Iraq was probably not involved in anyway with 9/11. That does not mean they aren't providing similar support to Al Queda now, and are a similar threat.
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
Moderate reform in Iran was around the corner. With a new US led puppet state in Iraq, the hardliners will prevail. Fanatacism will rise to even greater heights.
Was it? Will it?
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
With free elections, some crazy anti-West radical would be sure to rise.
Because they are all crazy, radical muslims?
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
It's all moot, it's too late to turn back now. At this point we must win the war quickly and somehow figure a way to involve the Middle East in some sort of constructive means of building a legitmate Iraq. It's a situation we shouldn't be in, and I'm sure we will f*ck it up, but here's to hoping that it all magically works out.
Well, you last sentance seems to be what you were hoping for before the war. That the UN would magically start working and magically disarm Iraq.
I completely agree with your sentiments. Ironically, I've noticed Fox anchors citing a lot of their stories from Reuters, as well these days.
I think you and Fellowship are proving the 'pinko-lefty' point, that mass media isn't as biased left as the 'gun toting fanatical religious right' seems to think.
So what else is new on Appleinsider? Not that this happening for the 1,000,000,000,000th time will teach them anything. Maybe stupidity is in the genes.
No stupidity is seeing things through such narrow-minded goggles. You're over-reacting, and letting Iraq off the hook all too easily. Go back and re-read the posts here and notice how cautious, intelligent, and unassuming even us "war hawks" were at this announcement. Then stop calling anyone else stupid, be it people here or people over there.
Who is the US going to use these against? Weapons are developed for a purpose, not as ornaments.
I doubt if anyone is going to miss a few tons amongst the 30,000+ tons of (known) chemical weapons currently stockpiled in the U.S. Sounds conspiratorial, but what's the betting some of this material ends up in Iraq, to be triumphantly displayed to the world by the U.S military?
And you've been unable to demonstrate your claim that containment was working. I never claimed Iraq had ties to 9/11. I do say that US intelligence claims they have evidence showing links between Al Queda and Iraq post 9/11 and Afganistan. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of ceasefire. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of mulitple binding UN resolutions. Try all you want to bring other countries into this issue. Whether theyare invloved or not doesn't change the fact that Iraq sign a ceasefire and broke it. Agreed to resolutions and breeched them. Sorry to burst your bubble, but breaking a ceasefire often results in a resumption of hostilities.
Um, no they didn't just start in earnest. They just restarted in earnest. 12 years ago they were quite earnest. The UN allowed their effectiveness to diminish over the years until they were completely halted. Waiting for the UN to repeat it's same mistakes?
Afganistan was complicit only in providing support or shelter to Al Queda. The didn't finance 9/11 or arm them. But you are right, that is enough to show they were involved in 9/11. If Iraq is now providing Al Queda with support and shelter, as intelligence sources seem to claim, what exactly is the difference? Just because the Taliban was willing to admit they were sheltering Al Queda, they are more guilty? No, Iraq was probably not involved in anyway with 9/11. That does not mean they aren't providing similar support to Al Queda now, and are a similar threat.
Was it? Will it?
Because they are all crazy, radical muslims?
Well, you last sentance seems to be what you were hoping for before the war. That the UN would magically start working and magically disarm Iraq.
The cease fire is a UN document which does not call for an automatic resumption of hostilies - this is why Iraq was sanctioned. To pursue hostilites with Iraq under the cease fire, a seperate UN resolution would have to enacted. Tough. Our proof was assumption. Not completely unreasonable assumption, but assumption nonetheless. You say we are safer for going ahead, I say the cost outweighs the benefit. I truly believe that had inspections gone on, the inevitability of war, if indeed it was inevitable, would become abundantly clear. Again, our brinksmanship on the matter pushed war upon the world. We were never in imminent danger, and the rhetoric of terrorism we unleased was completely unfounded.
Incidently, the Taliban was essentially funded by bin Laden. The links between the two were horribly clear - his camp was in Afghanistan for God's sake. That and their refusal to cooperate with his arrest were acts of war. Big difference.
Iran does indeed have a very real moderate movement that is surprisingly pro-US. Instead of delicately encouraging this development, we have labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and are about to set up shop next door in a unilateral action. We have fulfilled every sterotype of the hardliners and greatly furthered their cause. Using the criteria of this war, military confrontation is a feasible possibility.
In the final analysis, do you honestly believe a protracted presence in Iraq is going to be a positive step in our foreign policy? Do you believe the alienation and resentment we have compelled is worth ridding the world of this pathetic regime? Don't answer, I already know what you'll say
Fighting terrorism can only truly be successful with international cooperation. With cells of al-Qaeda and the like embedded in countries all over the world, destroying terrorism will take more than just unilaterally bombing Iraq and making the United States into an even bigger target of hatred. Does this war fill you with a better sense of security? honestly? Must be nice.
I have an Endocrinology exam to study for, so this is my last post on the matter. One thing we can agree on is that a swift end to the war will be in the interests of everybody. \
The cease fire is a UN document which does not call for an automatic resumption of hostilies - this is why Iraq was sanctioned. To pursue hostilites with Iraq under the cease fire, a seperate UN resolution would have to enacted. Tough. Our proof was assumption. Not completely unreasonable assumption, but assumption nonetheless. You say we are safer for going ahead, I say the cost outweighs the benefit. I truly believe that had inspections gone on, the inevitability of war, if indeed it was inevitable, would become abundantly clear. Again, our brinksmanship on the matter pushed war upon the world. We were never in imminent danger, and the rhetoric of terrorism we unleased was completely unfounded.
A conditional ceasefire as a document, implies that hostilities with pause so long as conditions are met. Another resolution was passed, 1441, giving Iraq an opportunity to enter compliance. They did not. The inspectors were being fooled and misled. If they were not, Iraq would have been in compliance. Even Blix wouldn't say they were in full compliance with inspectors. Besides, how were inspectors working? Inspectors were not there to play hide and seek for the weapons. They were there to observe and document the destruction of all proscribed weapons. They weren't. They were only able to document destruction of weapons they stumbled across. Obviously, inspections were not working. They were finding a few weapons here and there, but that doedn't equate to working. Working means fully disarming Iraq.
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
Incidently, the Taliban was essentially funded by bin Laden. The links between the two were horribly clear - his camp was in Afghanistan for God's sake. That and their refusal to cooperate with his arrest were acts of war. Big difference.
Yes, his camp was in Afganistan and Afganistan didn't hide this fact. That made it easy to show the Al Queda was there. If Iraq is supporting Al Queda and providing haven for members there there are complicit with action of Al Queda as much as the Taliban was. Just because they deny it, doesn't mean it ain't true.
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
In the final analysis, do you honestly believe a protracted presence in Iraq is going to be a positive step in our foreign policy? Do you believe the alienation and resentment we have compelled is worth ridding the world of this pathetic regime? Don't answer, I already know what you'll say
I think a presence in Iraq, if handled properly, could have a positive effect on the region and could be a positive step in your foreign policy. The alienation and resentment are already there. As are feelings of thankfulness and friendship from others in the area. Either way this is handles, both will still exist, except those that are counting in the US action would be added to the list of people resentful to the US if the US had left them hanging alone again.
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
Fighting terrorism can only truly be successful with international cooperation. With cells of al-Qaeda and the like embedded in countries all over the world, destroying terrorism will take more than just unilaterally bombing Iraq and making the United States into an even bigger target of hatred. Does this war fill you with a better sense of security? honestly? Must be nice.
One less regime cabable of producing and supplying chem/bio weapons to radical groups is a step towards security, yes. As far as being a bigger target for hatred, you are already hated for any and every reason you can think of. You are hated because you, as a country, are rich, you are not generally Muslim, you are an ally of Israel, your are a superpower. Getting rid of Saddam won't make these people hate you more. They already hate you. They may become more angry, but they already hate you.
Quote:
Originally posted by robotkiller
I have an Endocrinology exam to study for, so this is my last post on the matter. One thing we can agree on is that a swift end to the war will be in the interests of everybody. \
We can always count on bunge to elevate the debate.
Quote:
Tamara Darweesh, 30, is a lawyer with the Los Angeles firm of Kegel, Tobin & Truce. Her parents were leftists, and university scientists, when the Baath Party came to power in 1968.
"They made my parents' lives miserable," said Darweesh, whose 32-year-old brother is a transplant surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Their father, a Kurd, was an engineer but was forced to work in a concrete factory. Their mother, a Shiite Muslim, was a chemistry professor who was imprisoned for teaching children to read and write, Darweesh said. They left in 1980, just before Tamara turned 7, escaping first to England with help from friends in Iraq who subsequently were killed for smuggling them out.
A few days ago, Darweesh went to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, where antiwar protesters were gathered. She asked to talk to them about why it is important to topple Hussein. The protesters thanked her, turned and walked away.
"I'm so disappointed with the left," said Darweesh, who considers herself a liberal. "They are in complete denial because it doesn't fit into their equation of the Mideast. But Saddam is an Arab leader who has killed more Arabs than Israel ever has."
The antiwar protesters, she added, are "very condescending. They are supposed to be for human rights, but the suffering of the Iraqi people just doesn't exist for them. They deny us our stories."
It is a spooky feeling to imagine that your friends assist you in your bid to escape oppression and then in turn are killed for that action. Makes you really question how evil in the world goes unchecked, and even the the most well-meaning of deeds are punished. What kind of world to live in is that? Just my thoughts.
The antiwar protesters, she added, are "very condescending. They are supposed to be for human rights, but the suffering of the Iraqi people just doesn't exist for them. They deny us our stories."
Actually, a big portion of the 'anti-war left' is aware of the fact that the U.S. has the ability to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people without war.
Actually, a big portion of the 'anti-war left' is aware of the fact that the U.S. has the ability to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people without war.
Actually, a big portion of the 'anti-war left' is aware of the fact that the U.S. has the ability to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people without war.
Yes but war is the only way to get rid of Saddam on a humane time scale. And getting rid of Saddam is the only way to make people's lives better.
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
No chemical weapons found at site.
You beat me to it.
So what else is new on Appleinsider? Not that this happening for the 1,000,000,000,000th time will teach them anything. Maybe stupidity is in the genes. It reminds me of the dog whose leash is wrapped aound the tree, and no matter what, his brain isn't developed enough to realize he should double back.
BTW: Did anyone see Franks' briefing this morning? I thought it was really telling when he say he would be surprised if they did find chemicals, and he wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. He then went on to explain why it wouldn't be news to him if there wasn't chemical weapons found.
But what did the networks do next? They all put big as hell at the bottom of the screen "Franks 'wouldn't be surprised' if chemical weapons found at plant." Funny how they neglected his main point. I guess "chemical weapon plant" gets higher ratings than "maybe a chemicasl plant, but probably not." It's strange how americans uncritically eat it up.
Like I said last week, the basic rule of media is to listen to the reports, but not to believe them until they have been substantiated weeks later.
Originally posted by robotkiller
Has Iraq attacked us recently? Has Iraq ever been on the radar before a few months ago? Several of Bush's cabinet have had designs on regime change in Iraq far prior to 9/11. The WTC attacks were a convenient way to fulfill that agenda. And you still have not given me the terrorist links and precedent fo proliferation to back your claims. Again, this all THEORY that can be applied to DOZENS of countries. Are you upset about Iraq's military capability? Yell at France/Germany/Russia, the countries who subsidized the bastard. Or better yet, let's invade them too, right?
And you've been unable to demonstrate your claim that containment was working. I never claimed Iraq had ties to 9/11. I do say that US intelligence claims they have evidence showing links between Al Queda and Iraq post 9/11 and Afganistan. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of ceasefire. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of mulitple binding UN resolutions. Try all you want to bring other countries into this issue. Whether theyare invloved or not doesn't change the fact that Iraq sign a ceasefire and broke it. Agreed to resolutions and breeched them. Sorry to burst your bubble, but breaking a ceasefire often results in a resumption of hostilities.
Originally posted by robotkiller
The fact is that only recently has inspections been started in earnest. Was that a mistake? Yes, I believe so, but that doesn't change the fact that we are grossly impatient for results when the process has only just begun. Nevermind that our brinksmanship has made this war an inevitability from the beginning
Um, no they didn't just start in earnest. They just restarted in earnest. 12 years ago they were quite earnest. The UN allowed their effectiveness to diminish over the years until they were completely halted. Waiting for the UN to repeat it's same mistakes?
Originally posted by robotkiller
As I stated before, Afghanistan was a whole different ball of wax. They, being complicit in 9/11, attacked us. We were acting in self-defence which necessitated regime change. I am not against such action, when that action is justified. But now al-Qaeda lies in sleeper cells throughout the world.
Afganistan was complicit only in providing support or shelter to Al Queda. The didn't finance 9/11 or arm them. But you are right, that is enough to show they were involved in 9/11. If Iraq is now providing Al Queda with support and shelter, as intelligence sources seem to claim, what exactly is the difference? Just because the Taliban was willing to admit they were sheltering Al Queda, they are more guilty? No, Iraq was probably not involved in anyway with 9/11. That does not mean they aren't providing similar support to Al Queda now, and are a similar threat.
Originally posted by robotkiller
Moderate reform in Iran was around the corner. With a new US led puppet state in Iraq, the hardliners will prevail. Fanatacism will rise to even greater heights.
Was it? Will it?
Originally posted by robotkiller
With free elections, some crazy anti-West radical would be sure to rise.
Because they are all crazy, radical muslims?
Originally posted by robotkiller
It's all moot, it's too late to turn back now. At this point we must win the war quickly and somehow figure a way to involve the Middle East in some sort of constructive means of building a legitmate Iraq. It's a situation we shouldn't be in, and I'm sure we will f*ck it up, but here's to hoping that it all magically works out.
Well, you last sentance seems to be what you were hoping for before the war. That the UN would magically start working and magically disarm Iraq.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../24_plant.html
Originally posted by Randycat99
I completely agree with your sentiments. Ironically, I've noticed Fox anchors citing a lot of their stories from Reuters, as well these days.
I think you and Fellowship are proving the 'pinko-lefty' point, that mass media isn't as biased left as the 'gun toting fanatical religious right' seems to think.
Originally posted by giant
You beat me to it.
So what else is new on Appleinsider? Not that this happening for the 1,000,000,000,000th time will teach them anything. Maybe stupidity is in the genes.
No stupidity is seeing things through such narrow-minded goggles. You're over-reacting, and letting Iraq off the hook all too easily. Go back and re-read the posts here and notice how cautious, intelligent, and unassuming even us "war hawks" were at this announcement. Then stop calling anyone else stupid, be it people here or people over there.
http://www.virose.pt/moms/analytical...ol_03/13a.html
Who is the US going to use these against? Weapons are developed for a purpose, not as ornaments.
I doubt if anyone is going to miss a few tons amongst the 30,000+ tons of (known) chemical weapons currently stockpiled in the U.S. Sounds conspiratorial, but what's the betting some of this material ends up in Iraq, to be triumphantly displayed to the world by the U.S military?
Originally posted by giant
Maybe stupidity is in the genes.
Just the conservative ones.
Any conservatives willing to step out and agree that this was 'much ado about nothing'?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You're over-reacting, and letting Iraq off the hook all too easily.
Don't bunch your panties; I didn't name names.
BTW: When did I make a judgement about Iraq in this thread? From what I can see, my comment was about taking news stories as fact.
Don't worry. You were careful. Not everyone here is.
Originally posted by Tulkas
And you've been unable to demonstrate your claim that containment was working. I never claimed Iraq had ties to 9/11. I do say that US intelligence claims they have evidence showing links between Al Queda and Iraq post 9/11 and Afganistan. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of ceasefire. It is NOT THEORY that Iraq is in violation of mulitple binding UN resolutions. Try all you want to bring other countries into this issue. Whether theyare invloved or not doesn't change the fact that Iraq sign a ceasefire and broke it. Agreed to resolutions and breeched them. Sorry to burst your bubble, but breaking a ceasefire often results in a resumption of hostilities.
Um, no they didn't just start in earnest. They just restarted in earnest. 12 years ago they were quite earnest. The UN allowed their effectiveness to diminish over the years until they were completely halted. Waiting for the UN to repeat it's same mistakes?
Afganistan was complicit only in providing support or shelter to Al Queda. The didn't finance 9/11 or arm them. But you are right, that is enough to show they were involved in 9/11. If Iraq is now providing Al Queda with support and shelter, as intelligence sources seem to claim, what exactly is the difference? Just because the Taliban was willing to admit they were sheltering Al Queda, they are more guilty? No, Iraq was probably not involved in anyway with 9/11. That does not mean they aren't providing similar support to Al Queda now, and are a similar threat.
Was it? Will it?
Because they are all crazy, radical muslims?
Well, you last sentance seems to be what you were hoping for before the war. That the UN would magically start working and magically disarm Iraq.
The cease fire is a UN document which does not call for an automatic resumption of hostilies - this is why Iraq was sanctioned. To pursue hostilites with Iraq under the cease fire, a seperate UN resolution would have to enacted. Tough. Our proof was assumption. Not completely unreasonable assumption, but assumption nonetheless. You say we are safer for going ahead, I say the cost outweighs the benefit. I truly believe that had inspections gone on, the inevitability of war, if indeed it was inevitable, would become abundantly clear. Again, our brinksmanship on the matter pushed war upon the world. We were never in imminent danger, and the rhetoric of terrorism we unleased was completely unfounded.
Incidently, the Taliban was essentially funded by bin Laden. The links between the two were horribly clear - his camp was in Afghanistan for God's sake. That and their refusal to cooperate with his arrest were acts of war. Big difference.
Iran does indeed have a very real moderate movement that is surprisingly pro-US. Instead of delicately encouraging this development, we have labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and are about to set up shop next door in a unilateral action. We have fulfilled every sterotype of the hardliners and greatly furthered their cause. Using the criteria of this war, military confrontation is a feasible possibility.
In the final analysis, do you honestly believe a protracted presence in Iraq is going to be a positive step in our foreign policy? Do you believe the alienation and resentment we have compelled is worth ridding the world of this pathetic regime? Don't answer, I already know what you'll say
Fighting terrorism can only truly be successful with international cooperation. With cells of al-Qaeda and the like embedded in countries all over the world, destroying terrorism will take more than just unilaterally bombing Iraq and making the United States into an even bigger target of hatred. Does this war fill you with a better sense of security? honestly? Must be nice.
I have an Endocrinology exam to study for, so this is my last post on the matter. One thing we can agree on is that a swift end to the war will be in the interests of everybody.
Originally posted by robotkiller
The cease fire is a UN document which does not call for an automatic resumption of hostilies - this is why Iraq was sanctioned. To pursue hostilites with Iraq under the cease fire, a seperate UN resolution would have to enacted. Tough. Our proof was assumption. Not completely unreasonable assumption, but assumption nonetheless. You say we are safer for going ahead, I say the cost outweighs the benefit. I truly believe that had inspections gone on, the inevitability of war, if indeed it was inevitable, would become abundantly clear. Again, our brinksmanship on the matter pushed war upon the world. We were never in imminent danger, and the rhetoric of terrorism we unleased was completely unfounded.
A conditional ceasefire as a document, implies that hostilities with pause so long as conditions are met. Another resolution was passed, 1441, giving Iraq an opportunity to enter compliance. They did not. The inspectors were being fooled and misled. If they were not, Iraq would have been in compliance. Even Blix wouldn't say they were in full compliance with inspectors. Besides, how were inspectors working? Inspectors were not there to play hide and seek for the weapons. They were there to observe and document the destruction of all proscribed weapons. They weren't. They were only able to document destruction of weapons they stumbled across. Obviously, inspections were not working. They were finding a few weapons here and there, but that doedn't equate to working. Working means fully disarming Iraq.
Originally posted by robotkiller
Incidently, the Taliban was essentially funded by bin Laden. The links between the two were horribly clear - his camp was in Afghanistan for God's sake. That and their refusal to cooperate with his arrest were acts of war. Big difference.
Yes, his camp was in Afganistan and Afganistan didn't hide this fact. That made it easy to show the Al Queda was there. If Iraq is supporting Al Queda and providing haven for members there there are complicit with action of Al Queda as much as the Taliban was. Just because they deny it, doesn't mean it ain't true.
Originally posted by robotkiller
In the final analysis, do you honestly believe a protracted presence in Iraq is going to be a positive step in our foreign policy? Do you believe the alienation and resentment we have compelled is worth ridding the world of this pathetic regime? Don't answer, I already know what you'll say
I think a presence in Iraq, if handled properly, could have a positive effect on the region and could be a positive step in your foreign policy. The alienation and resentment are already there. As are feelings of thankfulness and friendship from others in the area. Either way this is handles, both will still exist, except those that are counting in the US action would be added to the list of people resentful to the US if the US had left them hanging alone again.
Originally posted by robotkiller
Fighting terrorism can only truly be successful with international cooperation. With cells of al-Qaeda and the like embedded in countries all over the world, destroying terrorism will take more than just unilaterally bombing Iraq and making the United States into an even bigger target of hatred. Does this war fill you with a better sense of security? honestly? Must be nice.
One less regime cabable of producing and supplying chem/bio weapons to radical groups is a step towards security, yes. As far as being a bigger target for hatred, you are already hated for any and every reason you can think of. You are hated because you, as a country, are rich, you are not generally Muslim, you are an ally of Israel, your are a superpower. Getting rid of Saddam won't make these people hate you more. They already hate you. They may become more angry, but they already hate you.
Originally posted by robotkiller
I have an Endocrinology exam to study for, so this is my last post on the matter. One thing we can agree on is that a swift end to the war will be in the interests of everybody.
Agreed.
Good luck with your exam.
Originally posted by bunge
Just the conservative ones...
We can always count on bunge to elevate the debate.
Tamara Darweesh, 30, is a lawyer with the Los Angeles firm of Kegel, Tobin & Truce. Her parents were leftists, and university scientists, when the Baath Party came to power in 1968.
"They made my parents' lives miserable," said Darweesh, whose 32-year-old brother is a transplant surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Their father, a Kurd, was an engineer but was forced to work in a concrete factory. Their mother, a Shiite Muslim, was a chemistry professor who was imprisoned for teaching children to read and write, Darweesh said. They left in 1980, just before Tamara turned 7, escaping first to England with help from friends in Iraq who subsequently were killed for smuggling them out.
A few days ago, Darweesh went to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, where antiwar protesters were gathered. She asked to talk to them about why it is important to topple Hussein. The protesters thanked her, turned and walked away.
"I'm so disappointed with the left," said Darweesh, who considers herself a liberal. "They are in complete denial because it doesn't fit into their equation of the Mideast. But Saddam is an Arab leader who has killed more Arabs than Israel ever has."
The antiwar protesters, she added, are "very condescending. They are supposed to be for human rights, but the suffering of the Iraqi people just doesn't exist for them. They deny us our stories."
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
We can always count on bunge to elevate the debate.
So this means you're willing to admit that the story really was 'much ado about nothing'?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The antiwar protesters, she added, are "very condescending. They are supposed to be for human rights, but the suffering of the Iraqi people just doesn't exist for them. They deny us our stories."
Actually, a big portion of the 'anti-war left' is aware of the fact that the U.S. has the ability to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people without war.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, a big portion of the 'anti-war left' is aware of the fact that the U.S. has the ability to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people without war.
Whatever you say, sparky.
but who's counting.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, a big portion of the 'anti-war left' is aware of the fact that the U.S. has the ability to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people without war.
Yes but war is the only way to get rid of Saddam on a humane time scale. And getting rid of Saddam is the only way to make people's lives better.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Whatever you say, sparky.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
We can always count on [zaphod_beeblebrox] to elevate the debate.