How else does one oust Saddam Hussein and how does that balance with war in terms of human costs and impact?
You made the claim, you back it up. Don't fabricate unjustifiable comments that blindly support your position and then turn the onus on to the opposition to prove you wrong. You made the claim, you back it up.
You made the claim, you back it up. Don't fabricate unjustifiable comments that blindly support your position and then turn the onus on to the opposition to prove you wrong. You made the claim, you back it up.
Alternative means to war to oust Hussein:
- Cannot be ousted democratically.
- Revolution would likely be suppressed and even if successful would have extremely high cost in human life, infrastructure destruction and regional instability.
- Even his death by natural causes or somesuch would leave his sons in power, who have been groomed to follow in his footsteps and by all accounts are worse than him.
So I say war is the option. It is guaranteed successful. Will retain territorial integrity to whatever extent we desire and with much less human cost than revolution.
A soldier being in a war to win a war doesn't justify a lower standard of morals.
I di dnot say a lower standard of morals. I said a different code of morality than normally used. War is played by different rules then you use on your block. Deal with it.
- Revolution would likely be suppressed and even if successful would have extremely high cost in human life, infrastructure destruction and regional instability.
- Even his death by natural causes or somesuch would leave his sons in power, who have been groomed to follow in his footsteps and by all accounts are worse than him.
So I say war is the option. It is guaranteed successful. Will retain territorial integrity to whatever extent we desire and with much less human cost than revolution.
I would agree with this.
BTW, I visited your link. Nice page, you update it quite frequently. Do you not sleep or what?
Eugene: maybe you missed the part about the A-10 killing and injuring the others on HIS SECOND RUN? Quite a bit of a difference there.
Since you are pretending(at least I hope you are), to be that dense, I'll explain it to you. The A-10 had TWO chances to avoid firing at an ally, and he still did....ON HIS SECOND RUN.
Maybe we're both dense because I find blowing up a tank that looks just like yours just as shocking. But of course, the American is a cocksucker and the Brit was merely very unlucky.
EDIT: In addition, I don't see a time of day/night reference in either articles. It's not likely either of the incidents happened in broad daylight.
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.
Well we can look at the history of how Saddam's regime has demanded to be involved with all humanitarian actions within Iraq and then, in the context of Saddam's regime refusing renewal of the oil-for-food program on the continued logic that Iraq must control it.
I'm sorry if you are ignorant of history or have a problem reading that article.
The UN changed the program to make it completely independent of Saddam and put the administration in the hands of Kofi Annan. Before this change Saddam controlled the "food" part of "oil-for-food". Saddam rejected the newest one (that would take away his control) and accepted the old one (that gave him control).
If you can't see a pattern between actual history and that Iraqi officials words then I'm afraid I can't help you.
- Revolution would likely be suppressed and even if successful would have extremely high cost in human life, infrastructure destruction and regional instability.
- Even his death by natural causes or somesuch would leave his sons in power, who have been groomed to follow in his footsteps and by all accounts are worse than him.
So I say war is the option. It is guaranteed successful.
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.
If you can't see a pattern between actual history and that Iraqi officials words then I'm afraid I can't help you.
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.
I'm afraid it's YOU who chooses not to see a pattern that shows your need for war is unnecessary.
So we do the 12 year dance all over again that will kill 1.2 million Iraqi civilians... because that's the most humane thing to do, eh?
Did we ever get out-of-country interviews with scientists?
Did we ever get documentation on destruction of chemical weapons?
Oil-for-food program != inspections process.
Quote:
Of course, when someone else has an educated guess that doesn't jive with your own, you consider it completely baseless.
Except it's not an educated guess. There is no backing or evidence. There is plenty of backing and evidence for mine, that's the difference.
Will an uprising against Saddam be bloody and most likely fail? Yes. Historical backing? 50,000 dead in 10 days in the '91 uprising.
Can Saddam be removed democratically? No. Historical backing? No one runs against him. Political dissidents are shot or beaten to death with tongues cut out and hung in the streets.
And even if we CAN feed the people to happiness and courage they will still have to overthrow the guy. It's not like they can wake up disliking him and *poof* Saddam disappears. But historical fact tells us that Hussein's regime will not let international bodies run aid programs without regime-intervention, so we couldn't give them direct aid regardless.
Quote:
Would YOU like to take a bet on more major terrorist attacks in the U.S.?
Did we ever get out-of-country interviews with scientists?
Did we ever get documentation on destruction of chemical weapons?
Well, the United States interrupted the process by going to war. Although I find it odd you use that as an example when I never even cited it. Thanks for reminding me though.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Oil-for-food program != inspections process.
No, but sanctions and inspections do work in tandem.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
But historical fact tells us that Hussein's regime will not let international bodies run aid programs without regime-intervention, so we couldn't give them direct aid regardless.
Historical fact tells us that Hussein was wavering. Historical fact tells us that Hussein was giving in to U.N. demands at every turn. So allowed to run their course, non-war solutions would not be subject to the same failures that plagued earlier attempts.
You're saying that because Hussein wouldn't allow us to give aid directly to Iraqis, the '91 coup attempt failed. That's obviously the talk of someone speaking with a forked tongue.
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.
What were the circumstances that led up to those concessions Bunge? Why did Iraq agree? Because we scolded them and they caved? You want a hint?
Well, the United States interrupted the process by going to war. Although I find it odd you use that as an example when I never even cited it. Thanks for reminding me though.
Ah, we interrupted the process. Excellent.
I guess any intervention interrupts something else. We should've just let it linger on and slaughter innocent people with no real goals or outcomes to be expected, eh?
Even towards the end Blix couldn't say that Iraq was working fully to fulfill their obligations. If you aren't going to cooperate with a cocked gun at your head you aren't going to cooperate.
Quote:
No, but sanctions and inspections do work in tandem.
They work in tandem to accomplish very little and slaughter people. Excellent!
Quote:
Historical fact tells us that Hussein was wavering. Historical fact tells us that Hussein was giving in to U.N. demands at every turn. So allowed to run their course, non-war solutions would not be subject to the same failures that plagued earlier attempts.
Saddam never allowed scientists to leave or be alone.
Saddam never provided documentation on the WOMD he supposedly destroyed.
There was no indication before war that he was going to do either.
Quote:
You're saying that because Hussein wouldn't allow us to give aid directly to Iraqis, the '91 coup attempt failed.
That's not what I'm saying at all. They are separate events and they are both fact.
Comments
Originally posted by NoahJ
The circumstances in war preclude normal morality. A soldier is there to win a war and to defend his own countrymen.
A soldier being in a war to win a war doesn't justify a lower standard of morals.
Originally posted by groverat
How else does one oust Saddam Hussein and how does that balance with war in terms of human costs and impact?
You made the claim, you back it up. Don't fabricate unjustifiable comments that blindly support your position and then turn the onus on to the opposition to prove you wrong. You made the claim, you back it up.
Originally posted by bunge
You made the claim, you back it up. Don't fabricate unjustifiable comments that blindly support your position and then turn the onus on to the opposition to prove you wrong. You made the claim, you back it up.
Alternative means to war to oust Hussein:
- Cannot be ousted democratically.
- Revolution would likely be suppressed and even if successful would have extremely high cost in human life, infrastructure destruction and regional instability.
- Even his death by natural causes or somesuch would leave his sons in power, who have been groomed to follow in his footsteps and by all accounts are worse than him.
So I say war is the option. It is guaranteed successful. Will retain territorial integrity to whatever extent we desire and with much less human cost than revolution.
Originally posted by bunge
A soldier being in a war to win a war doesn't justify a lower standard of morals.
I di dnot say a lower standard of morals. I said a different code of morality than normally used. War is played by different rules then you use on your block. Deal with it.
Originally posted by groverat
Alternative means to war to oust Hussein:
- Cannot be ousted democratically.
- Revolution would likely be suppressed and even if successful would have extremely high cost in human life, infrastructure destruction and regional instability.
- Even his death by natural causes or somesuch would leave his sons in power, who have been groomed to follow in his footsteps and by all accounts are worse than him.
So I say war is the option. It is guaranteed successful. Will retain territorial integrity to whatever extent we desire and with much less human cost than revolution.
I would agree with this.
BTW, I visited your link. Nice page, you update it quite frequently. Do you not sleep or what?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Eugene: maybe you missed the part about the A-10 killing and injuring the others on HIS SECOND RUN? Quite a bit of a difference there.
Since you are pretending(at least I hope you are), to be that dense, I'll explain it to you. The A-10 had TWO chances to avoid firing at an ally, and he still did....ON HIS SECOND RUN.
Maybe we're both dense because I find blowing up a tank that looks just like yours just as shocking. But of course, the American is a cocksucker and the Brit was merely very unlucky.
EDIT: In addition, I don't see a time of day/night reference in either articles. It's not likely either of the incidents happened in broad daylight.
Originally posted by NoahJ
I di dnot say a lower standard of morals. I said a different code of morality than normally used.
And conservatives around here are always clamoring because liberals practice moral relativity?
Originally posted by groverat
Alternative means to war to oust Hussein:
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.
U.N. peace keeping troops.
So.... war?
Continued and more stringent inspections reducing both Saddam's WMD and internal military power.
Well they destroyed all proscribed weappons they could find. It's a matter of finding them.
What does "more stringent" mean?
Increased humanitarian AID directly to the Iraqi people, bypassing Hussein's supply channels completely.
Iraq will allow no humanitarian aid that bypasses Iraq. (click)
But in response, Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf poured scorn at the move, saying "Only Iraq can administer this programme."
...
Mr Mohammed also pointed out that no measure can be implemented on the ground if the Iraqi government is not involved.
Originally posted by groverat
Iraq will allow no humanitarian aid that bypasses Iraq. (click)
But in response, Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf poured scorn at the move, saying "Only Iraq can administer this programme."
...
Mr Mohammed also pointed out that no measure can be implemented on the ground if the Iraqi government is not involved.
So we can now quote the Iraqi government and use their opinions as a source? Oh Christ groverat, there go ALL of your arguments.
I'm sorry if you are ignorant of history or have a problem reading that article.
The UN changed the program to make it completely independent of Saddam and put the administration in the hands of Kofi Annan. Before this change Saddam controlled the "food" part of "oil-for-food". Saddam rejected the newest one (that would take away his control) and accepted the old one (that gave him control).
If you can't see a pattern between actual history and that Iraqi officials words then I'm afraid I can't help you.
And the palooka goes down again.
Originally posted by groverat
Alternative means to war to oust Hussein:
- Cannot be ousted democratically.
- Revolution would likely be suppressed and even if successful would have extremely high cost in human life, infrastructure destruction and regional instability.
- Even his death by natural causes or somesuch would leave his sons in power, who have been groomed to follow in his footsteps and by all accounts are worse than him.
So I say war is the option. It is guaranteed successful.
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.
Originally posted by New
None of your claims above are anything but speculations.
Well of course they are to an extent. But they are very educated guesses with lots and lots of historical backing and evidence.
There is no such thing as a guaranteed success. You have no way of telling how theese things will/would have turned out.
Actually there is such a thing as guaranteed success. Would you like to take a bet on Saddam's tenure?
and btw, as long as iraq is a soveregin state the UN has no business bypassing its control of its own resources. however desireable.
You make a compelling case, Mr. Hussein.
Originally posted by groverat
If you can't see a pattern between actual history and that Iraqi officials words then I'm afraid I can't help you.
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.
Originally posted by groverat
Well of course they are to an extent. But they are very educated guesses with lots and lots of historical backing and evidence.
You crack me up groverat. Of course, when someone else has an educated guess that doesn't jive with your own, you consider it completely baseless.
So you will admit that there is no "obvious" need for war, and thus your statement was a lie.
Originally posted by groverat
Actually there is such a thing as guaranteed success. Would you like to take a bet on Saddam's tenure?
Would YOU like to take a bet on more major terrorist attacks in the U.S.?
I'm afraid it's YOU who chooses not to see a pattern that shows your need for war is unnecessary.
So we do the 12 year dance all over again that will kill 1.2 million Iraqi civilians... because that's the most humane thing to do, eh?
Did we ever get out-of-country interviews with scientists?
Did we ever get documentation on destruction of chemical weapons?
Oil-for-food program != inspections process.
Of course, when someone else has an educated guess that doesn't jive with your own, you consider it completely baseless.
Except it's not an educated guess. There is no backing or evidence. There is plenty of backing and evidence for mine, that's the difference.
Will an uprising against Saddam be bloody and most likely fail? Yes. Historical backing? 50,000 dead in 10 days in the '91 uprising.
Can Saddam be removed democratically? No. Historical backing? No one runs against him. Political dissidents are shot or beaten to death with tongues cut out and hung in the streets.
And even if we CAN feed the people to happiness and courage they will still have to overthrow the guy. It's not like they can wake up disliking him and *poof* Saddam disappears. But historical fact tells us that Hussein's regime will not let international bodies run aid programs without regime-intervention, so we couldn't give them direct aid regardless.
Would YOU like to take a bet on more major terrorist attacks in the U.S.?
No thanks. Never guaranteed it wouldn't happen.
To you, apples are oranges.
Originally posted by groverat
Did we ever get out-of-country interviews with scientists?
Did we ever get documentation on destruction of chemical weapons?
Well, the United States interrupted the process by going to war. Although I find it odd you use that as an example when I never even cited it. Thanks for reminding me though.
Originally posted by groverat
Oil-for-food program != inspections process.
No, but sanctions and inspections do work in tandem.
Originally posted by groverat
But historical fact tells us that Hussein's regime will not let international bodies run aid programs without regime-intervention, so we couldn't give them direct aid regardless.
Historical fact tells us that Hussein was wavering. Historical fact tells us that Hussein was giving in to U.N. demands at every turn. So allowed to run their course, non-war solutions would not be subject to the same failures that plagued earlier attempts.
You're saying that because Hussein wouldn't allow us to give aid directly to Iraqis, the '91 coup attempt failed. That's obviously the talk of someone speaking with a forked tongue.
Originally posted by groverat
To you, apples are oranges.
At least they're not Dells.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
What were the circumstances that led up to those concessions Bunge? Why did Iraq agree? Because we scolded them and they caved? You want a hint?
Originally posted by bunge
Well, the United States interrupted the process by going to war. Although I find it odd you use that as an example when I never even cited it. Thanks for reminding me though.
Ah, we interrupted the process. Excellent.
I guess any intervention interrupts something else. We should've just let it linger on and slaughter innocent people with no real goals or outcomes to be expected, eh?
Even towards the end Blix couldn't say that Iraq was working fully to fulfill their obligations. If you aren't going to cooperate with a cocked gun at your head you aren't going to cooperate.
No, but sanctions and inspections do work in tandem.
They work in tandem to accomplish very little and slaughter people. Excellent!
Historical fact tells us that Hussein was wavering. Historical fact tells us that Hussein was giving in to U.N. demands at every turn. So allowed to run their course, non-war solutions would not be subject to the same failures that plagued earlier attempts.
Saddam never allowed scientists to leave or be alone.
Saddam never provided documentation on the WOMD he supposedly destroyed.
There was no indication before war that he was going to do either.
You're saying that because Hussein wouldn't allow us to give aid directly to Iraqis, the '91 coup attempt failed.
That's not what I'm saying at all. They are separate events and they are both fact.