So since we can give aid a coup attempt could succeed. I guess that means 'obviously not.'
That would make sense if more food and medicine would make the Iraqi people (those who would rise up in a coup) immune to bullets, poison gas and shrapnel from mortars and bombs.
That would make sense if more food and medicine would make the Iraqi people (those who would rise up in a coup) immune to bullets, poison gas and shrapnel from mortars and bombs.
I think plenty, and I think you're misunderstanding the discussion, that's all.
Credible threat = good.
I've always argued that point. I initially gave Bush a thums up for pursuing the Iraqi problem (although I felt doing so at the expense of the Palestinian Problem was a mistake.)
I think plenty, and I think you're misunderstanding the discussion, that's all.
Credible threat = good.
I've always argued that point. I initially gave Bush a thums up for pursuing the Iraqi problem (although I felt doing so at the expense of the Palestinian Problem was a mistake.)
Lets look at your post again. The one you said:
Yes, and in 98 they said the inspectors couldn't come back. And when the did come back the Iraqis said they couldn't search the palaces. And when they did search the palaces, the Iraqis said they wouldn't destroy the missiles. And when they did destroy the missiles, the Iraqis said we couldn't use spy planes over their country. And when we were allowed to fly the spy planes over the country....
I'm afraid it's YOU who chooses not to see a pattern that shows your need for war is unnecessary.
All this happened because of the coalition military posted right outside of their nation. Things were happening but not very quickly and they were slowing in many areas. Saddam was testing our resolve at every turn and as we kept giving ultimatums and not enforcing them he was finding that he did not have to comply 100% to keep us out. All he had to do was throw us a bone once in a while and we would go back to the waiting game. He pussyfooted around one too many times and now he is finding out what the real consequences of his actions are. I understand your conversation just fine.
You believe that all we had to do was stay parked out there waving our big stick around and eventually he would cave to our every demand. I say you are wrong. That is where we are now.
Continued and more stringent inspections reducing both Saddam's WMD and internal military power.
Increased humanitarian AID directly to the Iraqi people, bypassing Hussein's supply channels completely. This allows more communication with and a greater self-reliance for the Iraqi people which in turn would encourage a more peaceful revolution because most agree that a country fighting for itself will be a more lasting peace than one imposed by an outside entity.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head that would work better than war, even if not as quickly.
This sounds like us effectively being in the country and running it without him interferring with any of this. He would allow this because....why again?
He would accuse all the humanitarian aid workers of being spys, terrorist organizations against the Iraqi government, rebels training an army against him.
Of course once a week or so, someone who's family was compensated but held hostage to insure their compliance, would drive a nice van loaded with explosives into the middle of these "occupational" U.N. compounds and blow up a bunch of U.N. troops (read 90%+ U.S. troops)
State radio and television would run messages saying the infidels are liars and attempting to poison the minds of your youth. They may even be poisoning your food too. Iraqi news would run periodic stories about somebody dying from bad or poisoned food.
You believe that all we had to do was stay parked out there waving our big stick around and eventually he would cave to our every demand. I say you are wrong. That is where we are now.
Well, unless you wanted war, I do think it was probably a bad idea to park that much firepower outside Iraq so quickly. I think a slower build up would have produced the same results without so much cost on our end.
But you're right, this is basically the fundamental difference between the two sides of the argument. I think what it really comes down to is that the pro-war crowd isn't so interested in WMD, but regime change whereas I (and many anti-war people) don't believe it's right to use a war to enact such a change.
Whats irrational and anti-bush about qouting the statistics used by the BBC?
Did you just quote the wrong post or what?
I was adding that onto the end of our post to make it sound more like a VISA commercial they run here in the states.
Please don't play stupid. It is so beneath you. It is obvious through a series of posts that you are posting these statistics to try to show Bush in a bad light when there was really no other way of resolving this issue. People through this thread have pointed out that the war will ultimately do less harm than what Saddam does to his own people or what the economic sanctions have done to Iraq. You keep posting the numbers just so you can ignore the true facts of the matter and that is Saddam harms his own people, his neighbors, and wishes to cause dramatic harm to us.
BTW here are some of your posts throughout this thread.
Quote:
If it was part of this war, yes I blame Bush, that doesn't exclude me from blaming Saddam as well.
"What good is a smart bomb if you have a dumb president?"
I'm telling you that your analogy of comparing pest and colera is flawed. Continued sanctions are not the only alterantive to this war. The war was never initiated to abolish the sanctions. these are the facts. The fact is also that both sanctions and war are results of US initiated policies. You seem to want to blame others for the sanctions. They are just as much US foreign policy as this war. Luckily the UN thought different this time. And remember, these are only direct civilian casualties. The humanitarian effects remain to be seen. In addition; most likely several hundred iraqi soldiers are killed every day. Making the war way more deadly than the sanctions for the iraqi population as a whole. And then there are the material and environmental damages of the war. So we went from bad US-initiated policy supported by the SC, to worse US-initiated policy. NOT supported by the SC... Rolleyes indeed...
Groverat is using the sanctions as an argument for the war. Thats like saying "Since your arm is brroken we might just as well chop of your leg." Stupidest pro-war argument ever... Even Rumsfeld makes more sense with his democratic-iraq rant... Even Blair, still talking about about WOMD makes a better case... "What good is a smart bomb if you have a dumb president?"
None of your claims above are anything but speculations. There is no such thing as a guaranteed success. You have no way of telling how theese things will/would have turned out. and btw, as long as iraq is a soveregin state the UN has no business bypassing its control of its own resources. however desireable.
In case you were wondering the very first line happens to be your first words outside the statistics being said on this issue. As I said the statistics are just a ploy to ignore arguments and bash Bush. My original point clearly stands. You think you can ignore counterpoints because people are dying.
It is obvious through a series of posts that you are posting these statistics to try to show Bush in a bad light when there was really no other way of resolving this issue.
No other way of resolving the issue? Even if we agree that we ultimately had to go to war, there's no way you could legitimately argue that we couldn't win without 1000+ civilian casualties. We certainly don't have to drop 4 2000 pound bombs in a residential district to win the war.
No other way of resolving the issue? Even if we agree that we ultimately had to go to war, there's no way you could legitimately argue that we couldn't win without 1000+ civilian casualties. We certainly don't have to drop 4 2000 pound bombs in a residential district to win the war.
Of course I can legitimately argue it. It is called what is an acceptable margin of error when operating against an enemy that will send suicide bombers and soldiers at you dressed as civilians. When you consider that the enemy itself is also taking civilians and attempting to use them as shields and sometimes drive them towards coalition forces this becomes even harder to avoid.
Well according to this link the population of Baghdad is almost 5 million and the population of Iraq is almost 22.5 million.
I punched it into my OS X calculator and while I haven't read numbers of that nature for a while, I believe the result was .0004% of the civilian population has been killed by war actions.
I would easily call that "surgical precision" or whatever euphamism the warmongering news channels pass along. In fact it is more in line with the number of people killed per year in California due to drunk drivers and things of that nature.
Yet we don't ban cars or booze because we understand that even with those variables taken care of you are never going to get to zero.
To have a war and believe you aren't going to have any civilian deaths is unreasonable. We cannot account for all 22.5 million people ALL the time nor can we account for what Saddams regime is going to do with them as well.
That percentage, when viewed in the context of the total population of either Baghdad or Iraq certainly reflects maximum effort not to take innocent life in my eyes.
Comments
Originally posted by NoahJ
What were the circumstances that led up to those concessions Bunge? [/IMG]
What relevance does that have to this discussion? Absolutely none.
Originally posted by groverat
That's not what I'm saying at all. They are separate events and they are both fact.
So since we can give aid a coup attempt could succeed. I guess that means 'obviously not.'
Originally posted by bunge
So since we can give aid a coup attempt could succeed. I guess that means 'obviously not.'
That would make sense if more food and medicine would make the Iraqi people (those who would rise up in a coup) immune to bullets, poison gas and shrapnel from mortars and bombs.
If they are fatter they can't die?
Originally posted by groverat
That would make sense if more food and medicine would make the Iraqi people (those who would rise up in a coup) immune to bullets, poison gas and shrapnel from mortars and bombs.
Check?
Originally posted by bunge
What relevance does that have to this discussion? Absolutely none.
Think a little bit, it will come to you.
Originally posted by NoahJ
Think a little bit, it will come to you.
I think plenty, and I think you're misunderstanding the discussion, that's all.
Credible threat = good.
I've always argued that point. I initially gave Bush a thums up for pursuing the Iraqi problem (although I felt doing so at the expense of the Palestinian Problem was a mistake.)
Originally posted by bunge
I think plenty, and I think you're misunderstanding the discussion, that's all.
Credible threat = good.
I've always argued that point. I initially gave Bush a thums up for pursuing the Iraqi problem (although I felt doing so at the expense of the Palestinian Problem was a mistake.)
Lets look at your post again. The one you said:
Yes, and in 98 they said the inspectors couldn't come back. And when the did come back the Iraqis said they couldn't search the palaces. And when they did search the palaces, the Iraqis said they wouldn't destroy the missiles. And when they did destroy the missiles, the Iraqis said we couldn't use spy planes over their country. And when we were allowed to fly the spy planes over the country....
I'm afraid it's YOU who chooses not to see a pattern that shows your need for war is unnecessary.
All this happened because of the coalition military posted right outside of their nation. Things were happening but not very quickly and they were slowing in many areas. Saddam was testing our resolve at every turn and as we kept giving ultimatums and not enforcing them he was finding that he did not have to comply 100% to keep us out. All he had to do was throw us a bone once in a while and we would go back to the waiting game. He pussyfooted around one too many times and now he is finding out what the real consequences of his actions are. I understand your conversation just fine.
You believe that all we had to do was stay parked out there waving our big stick around and eventually he would cave to our every demand. I say you are wrong. That is where we are now.
Statistic update:
Iraq:
712 civilian deaths
unknown military deaths (probably between 10000 - 30000)
US/UK
87 military deaths (several missing)
These are unconfirmed numbers
Originally posted by bunge
U.N. peace keeping troops.
Continued and more stringent inspections reducing both Saddam's WMD and internal military power.
Increased humanitarian AID directly to the Iraqi people, bypassing Hussein's supply channels completely. This allows more communication with and a greater self-reliance for the Iraqi people which in turn would encourage a more peaceful revolution because most agree that a country fighting for itself will be a more lasting peace than one imposed by an outside entity.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head that would work better than war, even if not as quickly.
This sounds like us effectively being in the country and running it without him interferring with any of this. He would allow this because....why again?
He would accuse all the humanitarian aid workers of being spys, terrorist organizations against the Iraqi government, rebels training an army against him.
Of course once a week or so, someone who's family was compensated but held hostage to insure their compliance, would drive a nice van loaded with explosives into the middle of these "occupational" U.N. compounds and blow up a bunch of U.N. troops (read 90%+ U.S. troops)
State radio and television would run messages saying the infidels are liars and attempting to poison the minds of your youth. They may even be poisoning your food too. Iraqi news would run periodic stories about somebody dying from bad or poisoned food.
Sure, that solution would work.
Nick
Originally posted by New
None of your claims above are anything but speculations.
There is no such thing as a guaranteed success. You have no way of telling how theese things will/would have turned out.
and btw, as long as iraq is a soveregin state the UN has no business bypassing its control of its own resources. however desireable.
These are not speculation any more than you would "speculate" on the outcome of a science experiment.
The outcome of the last election, vote 100% Saddam.
Saddam has gassed Kurds and slaughtered the southern Shiites to put down rebellions.
Before this war, Saddam gave control of various parts of Iraq to his sons.
Yep, sounds like baseless speculation to me.
Nick
Originally posted by New
02.04.2003
Statistic update:
Iraq:
712 civilian deaths
unknown military deaths (probably between 10000 - 30000)
US/UK
87 military deaths (several missing)
These are unconfirmed numbers
Watching New reflexively interpret everything in an irrational anti-Bush manner....
Priceless...
Nick
Originally posted by NoahJ
You believe that all we had to do was stay parked out there waving our big stick around and eventually he would cave to our every demand. I say you are wrong. That is where we are now.
Well, unless you wanted war, I do think it was probably a bad idea to park that much firepower outside Iraq so quickly. I think a slower build up would have produced the same results without so much cost on our end.
But you're right, this is basically the fundamental difference between the two sides of the argument. I think what it really comes down to is that the pro-war crowd isn't so interested in WMD, but regime change whereas I (and many anti-war people) don't believe it's right to use a war to enact such a change.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure, that solution would work.
Well we could open a new thread and discuss details. Let's just say that I disagree with you here. It could work.
EDIT:
Originally posted by trumptman
Watching New reflexively interpret everything in an irrational anti-Bush manner....
Priceless...
Nick
Whats irrational and anti-bush about qouting the statistics used by the BBC?
Did you just quote the wrong post or what?
Statistic update:
Iraq:
1072 civilian deaths
unknown military deaths (probably between 25000 and 35000)
US/UK and others
about 110 military deaths (several missing)
about 10 - 20 dead journalists (maybe as many as 40 missing)
These are unconfirmed numbers
Originally posted by New
Whats irrational and anti-bush about qouting the statistics used by the BBC?
Did you just quote the wrong post or what?
I was adding that onto the end of our post to make it sound more like a VISA commercial they run here in the states.
Please don't play stupid. It is so beneath you. It is obvious through a series of posts that you are posting these statistics to try to show Bush in a bad light when there was really no other way of resolving this issue. People through this thread have pointed out that the war will ultimately do less harm than what Saddam does to his own people or what the economic sanctions have done to Iraq. You keep posting the numbers just so you can ignore the true facts of the matter and that is Saddam harms his own people, his neighbors, and wishes to cause dramatic harm to us.
BTW here are some of your posts throughout this thread.
If it was part of this war, yes I blame Bush, that doesn't exclude me from blaming Saddam as well.
"What good is a smart bomb if you have a dumb president?"
I'm telling you that your analogy of comparing pest and colera is flawed. Continued sanctions are not the only alterantive to this war. The war was never initiated to abolish the sanctions. these are the facts. The fact is also that both sanctions and war are results of US initiated policies. You seem to want to blame others for the sanctions. They are just as much US foreign policy as this war. Luckily the UN thought different this time. And remember, these are only direct civilian casualties. The humanitarian effects remain to be seen. In addition; most likely several hundred iraqi soldiers are killed every day. Making the war way more deadly than the sanctions for the iraqi population as a whole. And then there are the material and environmental damages of the war. So we went from bad US-initiated policy supported by the SC, to worse US-initiated policy. NOT supported by the SC... Rolleyes indeed...
Groverat is using the sanctions as an argument for the war. Thats like saying "Since your arm is brroken we might just as well chop of your leg." Stupidest pro-war argument ever... Even Rumsfeld makes more sense with his democratic-iraq rant... Even Blair, still talking about about WOMD makes a better case... "What good is a smart bomb if you have a dumb president?"
None of your claims above are anything but speculations. There is no such thing as a guaranteed success. You have no way of telling how theese things will/would have turned out. and btw, as long as iraq is a soveregin state the UN has no business bypassing its control of its own resources. however desireable.
In case you were wondering the very first line happens to be your first words outside the statistics being said on this issue. As I said the statistics are just a ploy to ignore arguments and bash Bush. My original point clearly stands. You think you can ignore counterpoints because people are dying.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It is obvious through a series of posts that you are posting these statistics to try to show Bush in a bad light when there was really no other way of resolving this issue.
No other way of resolving the issue? Even if we agree that we ultimately had to go to war, there's no way you could legitimately argue that we couldn't win without 1000+ civilian casualties. We certainly don't have to drop 4 2000 pound bombs in a residential district to win the war.
Originally posted by bunge
No other way of resolving the issue? Even if we agree that we ultimately had to go to war, there's no way you could legitimately argue that we couldn't win without 1000+ civilian casualties. We certainly don't have to drop 4 2000 pound bombs in a residential district to win the war.
Of course I can legitimately argue it. It is called what is an acceptable margin of error when operating against an enemy that will send suicide bombers and soldiers at you dressed as civilians. When you consider that the enemy itself is also taking civilians and attempting to use them as shields and sometimes drive them towards coalition forces this becomes even harder to avoid.
So what is the margin for error in this case?
Population.com
Well according to this link the population of Baghdad is almost 5 million and the population of Iraq is almost 22.5 million.
I punched it into my OS X calculator and while I haven't read numbers of that nature for a while, I believe the result was .0004% of the civilian population has been killed by war actions.
I would easily call that "surgical precision" or whatever euphamism the warmongering news channels pass along. In fact it is more in line with the number of people killed per year in California due to drunk drivers and things of that nature.
Yet we don't ban cars or booze because we understand that even with those variables taken care of you are never going to get to zero.
To have a war and believe you aren't going to have any civilian deaths is unreasonable. We cannot account for all 22.5 million people ALL the time nor can we account for what Saddams regime is going to do with them as well.
That percentage, when viewed in the context of the total population of either Baghdad or Iraq certainly reflects maximum effort not to take innocent life in my eyes.
Nick