Tsk Tsk groverat, if someone else posted a stat without a source you would say:
[quote]4 million Iraqis<hr></blockquote>
Source?
Gelding, didnt mean to make you feel sad. Maybe you should envision your wife on your right and groverat on your left, since he did vote for Nader after all. It will be a bedroom bonanza for you.
[quote] Not Baghdad alone I'm sure. But surely Iraqis outside of Baghdad are real people, too. *sniff* <hr></blockquote>
people are always allowed to move from a country as far a i am concerned....and don't sniff too much for those that left...they may well be the lucky ones.....i *sniff* much more for the "real people" in baghdad that will lose homes and lives and loved ones....g
[quote]That's acceptable to me, I know that civilians die in war. Unfortunate but that's how it goes. <hr></blockquote>
Does anyone else find the use of the term 'unfortunate' to describe the killing of innocent civilians somewhat distasteful?
Groverat, you know as well as everyone else that currently Iraq poses no realsitic threat to the US. They couldn't defeat Iran even with the help of the West, they have been debilitated by the first Gulf War and a decade of sanctions.
You seem very casual about accepting the price that others may have to pay - what would be the cost to the US or Europe even if no war took place? Do you think that Sadaam could threaten anyone soon? Israel hasn't seen the need to wipe him out yet, thay have a track record of fiercly defending their safety and are the strongest nation in the region, if they don't feel threatened why does GW?
Perhaps attempts to develop weapons could be controlled in other ways, why should Iraq be attacked instead of contained?
[quote] like i said before though....what can we do other than rain down missiles on a populated city??? <hr></blockquote>
gelding, I generally enjoy reading what you have to say, but was a little surprised to hear you compare our guided cruise missile technology to the carpet bombing of Dresden. That type of biased ignorance is as rediculous as the idiots that say "Just nuke 'em all."
Just remember that Saddam is the one that is concentrating weapons in populated areas, and that is why our troops are training for urban combat. That has put their civilians and our military in more danger. We would much rather fight a battlefield type war that could be finished within weeks, rather than smoking the rats out of the towns.
I have no problem with people opposed to the violence of war, but I haven't seen any alternatives offered from the other side. Leaving him be hasn't worked for the past 12 years, and there is no evidence it will work now.
<strong>Groverat, you know as well as everyone else that currently Iraq poses no realsitic threat to the US. They couldn't defeat Iran even with the help of the West, they have been debilitated by the first Gulf War and a decade of sanctions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, yes I do.
[quote]<strong>You seem very casual about accepting the price that others may have to pay</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anti-war folks seem quite casual about the price that the Iraqi population pays because of sanctions.
[quote]<strong>what would be the cost to the US or Europe even if no war took place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not interested in us taking the easy way out.
[quote]<strong>Do you think that Sadaam could threaten anyone soon? Israel hasn't seen the need to wipe him out yet, thay have a track record of fiercly defending their safety and are the strongest nation in the region, if they don't feel threatened why does GW?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not about being threatened.
[quote]<strong>Perhaps attempts to develop weapons could be controlled in other ways, why should Iraq be attacked instead of contained?</strong><hr></blockquote>
if it is not about a "threat" of attack by Iraq nor of "containment" of Iraqi weapons, then why are we planning for attack and killing??
ps..i agree sanctions suck...we need to think better...we may have a "c" student president, but he has "A" student advisers all around him...what the hell are they doing....
________________________________________________
Muah:
gelding, I generally enjoy reading what you have to say,
me: thanks, that means alot to me
Muah:
but was a little surprised to hear you compare our guided cruise missile technology to the carpet bombing of Dresden.
me:
sorry, it will not be like dresden (raining missiles is such a poetic way of phrasing it...and it may well feel like that to the people of Baghdad)...but i have way too much empathy...i know most of those missiles will strike true...but some will not, or the target will be wrong....children will die, parents will try to protect them as missiles fly overhead...working where i work this is hard for me to accept...accepting hard things is part of life though, but it still hurts to do....
Muah:
Just remember that Saddam is the one that is concentrating weapons in populated areas, and that is why our troops are training for urban combat. That has put their civilians and our military in more danger. We would much rather fight a battlefield type war that could be finished within weeks, rather than smoking the rats out of the towns.
me: war is hell....the british wanted to fight the americans in the open also...it didn't fit in our plans to fight that way...iraq has no way to win a war against the US...they can only make it as hard as possible so the US will think twice before attacking...
Muah:
I have no problem with people opposed to the violence of war, but I haven't seen any alternatives offered from the other side. Leaving him be hasn't worked for the past 12 years, and there is no evidence it will work now.
me:
i have given many options...but the real question is how have we made friends of enemies in the past?? britian is our friend, japan is our friend, italy is our friend, mexico is our friend, germany and france and spain are kinda our friends...we have had wars with all these countries to some extent or another...yet we now have mostly free trade and travel to all of them...we need to do the same in Iraq and other arab countries....why aren't we doing that? g
<strong>if it is not about a "threat" of attack by Iraq nor of "containment" of Iraqi weapons, then why are we planning for attack and killing??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read the 17 resolutions drafted against Iraq over the last 12 years.
[quote]<strong>i agree sanctions suck...we need to think better...we may have a "c" student president, but he has "A" student advisers all around him...what the hell are they doing</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, our "A" student former president had a part in influencing the way they are now. He was there for 8 of these 12 years remember. Don't try to pin this whole thing on Bush v2.
Too bad it took 9/11 for the Wolfowitz docrine to start resonating with his peers. But at least there?s one person who has the capacity to think beyond yesterday.
occupy Korea (well, maybe not korea, they don't have anything we want)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And Scott was being paranoid?
Groverat: A great start to the thread. But asking questions of protesters is a lost cause. Many of them don't understand why they're marching, nor do they understand why the US is sending troops into the Phillipines and the Middle East. And they probably never will. These are the type of folks who just sit back and watch the world unfold around them. Cause and effect is meaningless.
all we ask for are "just" wars and caution in killing
maybe if the government was a little more open and explained why they had to do this or that, us little folks could understand and support it....hell, this government won't even tell us who they talk to to form our energy policy...now they want a blank check to attack forgien countries...open up "W" and talk to the people that kinda elected you....g
the people like me might even be helping...seems more communication and more forward progress is being made...perhaps we will get out of this mess without a war, or at the least, it will be a war that iraq chooses but not destroying missiles and such....g
<strong>all we ask for are "just" wars and caution in killing]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, sounds surreal and wise. "Just" and "caution" are pretty relative terms. It doesn't matter how just or cautious a war ends up being, it will always be not just or cautious enough for someone. It's about as useless a statement as saying there is absolutely no justification for war (all problems can be negotiated whether it takes 11 years or 111 years). Basically it's a guaranteed end out because it can never be just or cautious enough in someone's estimation (meet the core of the antiwar coalition, for example).
Comments
[quote]4 million Iraqis<hr></blockquote>
Source?
Gelding, didnt mean to make you feel sad. Maybe you should envision your wife on your right and groverat on your left, since he did vote for Nader after all. It will be a bedroom bonanza for you.
and now i have visions of that damn groverbat thing brad made in my head...ick
g
people are always allowed to move from a country as far a i am concerned....and don't sniff too much for those that left...they may well be the lucky ones.....i *sniff* much more for the "real people" in baghdad that will lose homes and lives and loved ones....g
i remember a seseame street book...the monster at the end of this book....great grover book...ahhh, the classics will never die....g
Oh that's great. Do I look like a guy in a David Beckham jersey holding a TIVO in one hand and a time machine in the other?
[ 02-21-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</p>
Does anyone else find the use of the term 'unfortunate' to describe the killing of innocent civilians somewhat distasteful?
Groverat, you know as well as everyone else that currently Iraq poses no realsitic threat to the US. They couldn't defeat Iran even with the help of the West, they have been debilitated by the first Gulf War and a decade of sanctions.
You seem very casual about accepting the price that others may have to pay - what would be the cost to the US or Europe even if no war took place? Do you think that Sadaam could threaten anyone soon? Israel hasn't seen the need to wipe him out yet, thay have a track record of fiercly defending their safety and are the strongest nation in the region, if they don't feel threatened why does GW?
Perhaps attempts to develop weapons could be controlled in other ways, why should Iraq be attacked instead of contained?
<strong>
but how many civilians die in wars we start?? g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, millions.
That was just in Cambodia. One war.
gelding, I generally enjoy reading what you have to say, but was a little surprised to hear you compare our guided cruise missile technology to the carpet bombing of Dresden. That type of biased ignorance is as rediculous as the idiots that say "Just nuke 'em all."
Just remember that Saddam is the one that is concentrating weapons in populated areas, and that is why our troops are training for urban combat. That has put their civilians and our military in more danger. We would much rather fight a battlefield type war that could be finished within weeks, rather than smoking the rats out of the towns.
I have no problem with people opposed to the violence of war, but I haven't seen any alternatives offered from the other side. Leaving him be hasn't worked for the past 12 years, and there is no evidence it will work now.
<strong>Groverat, you know as well as everyone else that currently Iraq poses no realsitic threat to the US. They couldn't defeat Iran even with the help of the West, they have been debilitated by the first Gulf War and a decade of sanctions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, yes I do.
[quote]<strong>You seem very casual about accepting the price that others may have to pay</strong><hr></blockquote>
Anti-war folks seem quite casual about the price that the Iraqi population pays because of sanctions.
[quote]<strong>what would be the cost to the US or Europe even if no war took place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not interested in us taking the easy way out.
[quote]<strong>Do you think that Sadaam could threaten anyone soon? Israel hasn't seen the need to wipe him out yet, thay have a track record of fiercly defending their safety and are the strongest nation in the region, if they don't feel threatened why does GW?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not about being threatened.
[quote]<strong>Perhaps attempts to develop weapons could be controlled in other ways, why should Iraq be attacked instead of contained?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because containment isn't the goal.
if it is not about a "threat" of attack by Iraq nor of "containment" of Iraqi weapons, then why are we planning for attack and killing??
ps..i agree sanctions suck...we need to think better...we may have a "c" student president, but he has "A" student advisers all around him...what the hell are they doing....
________________________________________________
Muah:
gelding, I generally enjoy reading what you have to say,
me: thanks, that means alot to me
Muah:
but was a little surprised to hear you compare our guided cruise missile technology to the carpet bombing of Dresden.
me:
sorry, it will not be like dresden (raining missiles is such a poetic way of phrasing it...and it may well feel like that to the people of Baghdad)...but i have way too much empathy...i know most of those missiles will strike true...but some will not, or the target will be wrong....children will die, parents will try to protect them as missiles fly overhead...working where i work this is hard for me to accept...accepting hard things is part of life though, but it still hurts to do....
Muah:
Just remember that Saddam is the one that is concentrating weapons in populated areas, and that is why our troops are training for urban combat. That has put their civilians and our military in more danger. We would much rather fight a battlefield type war that could be finished within weeks, rather than smoking the rats out of the towns.
me: war is hell....the british wanted to fight the americans in the open also...it didn't fit in our plans to fight that way...iraq has no way to win a war against the US...they can only make it as hard as possible so the US will think twice before attacking...
Muah:
I have no problem with people opposed to the violence of war, but I haven't seen any alternatives offered from the other side. Leaving him be hasn't worked for the past 12 years, and there is no evidence it will work now.
me:
i have given many options...but the real question is how have we made friends of enemies in the past?? britian is our friend, japan is our friend, italy is our friend, mexico is our friend, germany and france and spain are kinda our friends...we have had wars with all these countries to some extent or another...yet we now have mostly free trade and travel to all of them...we need to do the same in Iraq and other arab countries....why aren't we doing that? g
<strong>if it is not about a "threat" of attack by Iraq nor of "containment" of Iraqi weapons, then why are we planning for attack and killing??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read the 17 resolutions drafted against Iraq over the last 12 years.
[quote]<strong>i agree sanctions suck...we need to think better...we may have a "c" student president, but he has "A" student advisers all around him...what the hell are they doing</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, our "A" student former president had a part in influencing the way they are now. He was there for 8 of these 12 years remember. Don't try to pin this whole thing on Bush v2.
<strong>bush lite is the one gunning for war....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clinton's rhetoric against Iraq was just as strong, if not worse.
Time will tell us whose policy (sanction vs. war) will take more Iraqi civilian lives.
Too bad it took 9/11 for the Wolfowitz docrine to start resonating with his peers. But at least there?s one person who has the capacity to think beyond yesterday.
<strong>
occupy Korea (well, maybe not korea, they don't have anything we want)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And Scott was being paranoid?
Groverat: A great start to the thread. But asking questions of protesters is a lost cause. Many of them don't understand why they're marching, nor do they understand why the US is sending troops into the Phillipines and the Middle East. And they probably never will. These are the type of folks who just sit back and watch the world unfold around them. Cause and effect is meaningless.
But it was a nice try.
[ 02-22-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
maybe if the government was a little more open and explained why they had to do this or that, us little folks could understand and support it....hell, this government won't even tell us who they talk to to form our energy policy...now they want a blank check to attack forgien countries...open up "W" and talk to the people that kinda elected you....g
the people like me might even be helping...seems more communication and more forward progress is being made...perhaps we will get out of this mess without a war, or at the least, it will be a war that iraq chooses but not destroying missiles and such....g
[ 02-22-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>all we ask for are "just" wars and caution in killing]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, sounds surreal and wise.
[ 02-22-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>