No one's hands are clean, that is not a surprise to anyone. You try to act like they wanted to lift sanctions for those poor poor Iraqi people... what a joke.
No, you continually claim that the US is invading for the benefit of the "poor poor" Iraqi people. You do so as it is the *only* result of this war which is not utterly odious, disregarding the fact that it is an unintended byproduct at best.
And, as I've said before, Bush & Co. selling this war on humanitarian grounds turns my stomach.
I guess nothing is worth doing if there's a possibility that you might screw up, huh? There is risk in everything that you do. You're trying to imply that if these gases are used then civilians will die. That's like saying "Building pong in sub-division" + "children in sub-division" = "children will die by drowning in the pond"
Well it's not 100% accurate but it's safe to say that's the reason. When you have an otherwise stable environment (Saddam as the iron-first ruler since the 70s.
The rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease is directly attributable to the sanctions.
These aren't numbers I made up, this is from the UN itself and aid and relief agencies.
To put it off as "it didn't help, but..." is disrespectful to the people who suffered under it and only guarantees that the UN will continue to allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.
I must resist getting angry with this attitude. It's same one that allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in 1994. That kept the UN silent on Yugoslavia.
Groverat don't twist my words. I did not say that the sanctions are not responsible of deaths of people. I just try to explain how expert calculate things, with statistical tools and how any calculation of this type is not 100 % proof. I explain also how this type of calculation can be biased. Now if you consider that my post was a denial, free to you to understand it badly. When you are reading a scientifcal studies you read directly the conclusion, but it's interesting sometimes to look deeper in the article, studying the methodologia, and the analysis of the result. If you do not do this you can have strange results. Example there is more heart attack in countrie where there is the bigger number of phones (true assertion) : conclusion the phone create heart attack (false conclusion). The real conclusion that heart attack is a common illness of rich countrie due to bad habits (food, smoke), if it's correlated with phones it's only because rich countries have many ones.
Now the relation of sanctions and deaths are indirect. If i shot someone in his heart , the link is direct between me and his death, now if i destroy his garden and all his vegetables, and he die the link is indirect. If he has nothing else to eat than what is in his garden because he has no money, i am responsible of his death, now if by purpose the guy spent all his money buying arms, and he had nothing to eat, he share the responsabilitie.
Indirect does not mean, they do not exist, it's not a denial but just a precision. That's why i said it's a shortcut, i do not say it does not exist.
And concerning my attitude, find a thread where i said that sanctions where great. And i don't see any relation between my post and rwanda or Yugoslavia. This is a really cheap shot
No, you continually claim that the US is invading for the benefit of the "poor poor" Iraqi people. You do so as it is the *only* result of this war which is not utterly odious, disregarding the fact that it is an unintended byproduct at best.
And, as I've said before, Bush & Co. selling this war on humanitarian grounds turns my stomach.
Um, corporations do the same things. It's called 'PR' or 'Public Relations'. If you are surprised by this then welcome to the real world. Everyone has an agenda. And on this topic, Bush has changed reasons for invading Iraq every week. Sometimes it's 'Saddam supports Osama', sometimes it's 'to liberate the Iraqis', sometimes it's 'Saddam has WoMD', sometimes it's 'Iraq has not cooperated with the UN and disarmed'.
Where were you for the past year during the debate over whether tactical nukes could be used?
Oh I was here.
Just as pointless. Was there ever any plan to use them?
The chemicals are unsafe, that's not surprise to me. I'm not arguing with you there. I will argue with portraying them as "chemical weapons" in a topic where "chemical weapons" is used to describe VX and sarin gas. I will also argue with associating the Russian screw-up with our military.
They are unsafe but can be perfectly reasonable crowd-control instruments.
---
stupider:
Quote:
No, you continually claim that the US is invading for the benefit of the "poor poor" Iraqi people.
I do?
I say the US invasion will be and is for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
As far as the Bush administrations rationale goes I really don't care. It's beside the point. Oil, dead babies, kindness... whatever the motivation is I don't really care. The end result is a HUGE positive for the people of Iraq.
To me, life on the ground in Iraq is more important than the innerworkings of the Bush administration. Figuring out what the "motivation" is is impossible and circular.
Quote:
You do so as it is the *only* result of this war which is not utterly odious, disregarding the fact that it is an unintended byproduct at best.
"Unintended"? While I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people the removal of Saddam Hussein is far from "unintended", it's the stated goal.
Quote:
And, as I've said before, Bush & Co. selling this war on humanitarian grounds turns my stomach.
Well when Bush & Co post here you can talk to them about it.
You can suffocate on too much of ANY gas. The 'non-lethal' part means that the chemical isn't poisonous once it's in the blood-stream via the lungs.
STOP making things up and go and educate yourself. There are plenty of links in this thread or Google if you want to go it alone.
Quote:
Development of Non-Lethal Weapons Programs
The most significant program[1] is actually the United States Department of Defence (hereafter DoD) Non Lethal Program, launched in 1996 by the creation of the Joint Non-Lethal Directorate (hereafter JNLWD). The relevant document is DoD Directive 3000, which sets the entire American policy for non-lethal weapons, which are defined as follows:
Non-lethal weapons that are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injuries to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment.
Unlike conventional lethal weapons that destroy their targets principally through blast, penetration and fragmentation, non-lethal weapons only employ means other than gross physical destruction to prevent the target from functioning.
Non-lethal weapons are intended to have one, or both, of the following characteristics:
* They have relatively reversible effects on personnel or materiel.
* They affect objects differently within their area of influence.[2]
According to this workable definition several points must be highlighted. The first point is the concept of non-lethal intent. If non-lethal weapons, when properly employed, should significantly minimize casualties, one cannot reasonably expect a "zero probability of producing casualties".[3] This is the reason why some government organization, such as the National Institute of Justice prefer the term less than lethal[4] emphasising the fact that "enough marshmallows will kill you if properly placed".[5] Beside this purely semantic issue, the element that separates non-lethal weapons from the conventional munitions is the intent. Any lawful weapon can be used in an unlawful way. Unintended effects can -and must- only be addressed through the employment strategies.
The second point is that non-lethal weapons are not restricted to peace-keeping, peace-enforcement or humanitarian missions. They can be used across a wider spectrum of military operations, to "enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of military operations".[6]
The third point is that they can be used in conjunction with the traditional arsenal, and shall not in any case "limit a commander's inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available".[7] According to the guiding principles of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Executive Agent for the DoD Non-Lethal Program, non-lethal weapons shall "Augment Deadly Force". The enemy would quickly discern a lack of will to employ deadly force. Accordingly the non-lethal weapons provide commanders with a wider choice of options, in a continuum.[8] The wider range of options "augments deadly force but does not replace it".
This is exactly my point. The dosage is what is lethal. I can have lethal levels of salt in my body. Doesn't meant that salt is 'lethal'. That article states that the area where they are used and the way they are used is what causes 'lethal doses'. I also don't see why he mentioned the fact that the comatose captors were executed in violation of international law...It has no bearing on his article about the lethality of the gases.
Um, corporations do the same things. It's called 'PR' or 'Public Relations'. If you are surprised by this then welcome to the real world. Everyone has an agenda. And on this topic, Bush has changed reasons for invading Iraq every week. Sometimes it's 'Saddam supports Osama', sometimes it's 'to liberate the Iraqis', sometimes it's 'Saddam has WoMD', sometimes it's 'Iraq has not cooperated with the UN and disarmed'.
I'm not surprised. I am however confused as to whether you are disagreeing with me, as your tone suggests, or agreeing, as the facts you relate suggest.
This is exactly my point. The dosage is what is lethal. I can have lethal levels of salt in my body. Doesn't meant that salt is 'lethal'. That article states that the area where they are used and the way they are used is what causes 'lethal doses'. I also don't see why he mentioned the fact that the comatose captors were executed in violation of international law...It has no bearing on his article about the lethality of the gases.
Don't try to feign pyrrhonism to get yourself out of a hole. The paper says what it says pretty clearly: that there is no safe way to use those agents.
If he has nothing else to eat than what is in his garden because he has no money, i am responsible of his death, now if by purpose the guy spent all his money buying arms, and he had nothing to eat, he share the responsabilitie.
Well the *people* had no choice to spend money on arms instead of food. I think Saddam is more to blame than the UN for the sanction deaths. But even though it is partly Saddam's fault and is indirect, I think it is dispicable how the UN (and the US) has acted against the Iraqi people up until now.
To me this war is different because, although it will kill innocent people, it has a very clear end and that end will benefit the Iraqi people and remove an evil person from the world stage. To me, that's the "moral case" for war.
STOP making things up and go and educate yourself. There are plenty of links in this thread or Google if you want to go it alone.
Irregardless of the definition, this is a topic that is currently being debated. 'Non-lethal' gases are used in crowd control too. It's not like using them in Iraq is some 'evil plot'. Or that using gases that are 'debatable' as to whether or not they are 'non-lethal' is as or more evil than if Saddam drops anthrax / mustard gas / etc on our troops. These are things that EVERYONE agrees are lethal gases.
The chemicals are unsafe, that's not surprise to me. I'm not arguing with you there. I will argue with portraying them as "chemical weapons" in a topic where "chemical weapons" is used to describe VX and sarin gas.
the chemical weapons convention clearly states that they are chemical weapons:
What? I thought it was WOMD. Or was that just the excuse? Why not be honest and upfront about his motives? This only proves that we cannot trust our president to be truthful about matters of national security.
"Unintended"? While I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people the removal of Saddam Hussein is far from "unintended", it's the stated goal.
And if Saddam was developing prohibited nuclear, biological and chemical weapons with the express intention of supplying them to Al-Queda (as your government and mine continue to insinuate) while running a succesful oil-rich socialist state then the Americans would be off invading the 11 countries with worse human rights records than Iraq? I think not.
Don't try to feign pyrrhonism to get yourself out of a hole. The paper says what it says pretty clearly: that there is no safe way to use those agents.
Thought this has no beairng on the war on Iraq, if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside. That's what I was getting at. I'm sure that there are experts out there that would refute his claim, hence that is why they are still considered 'non-lethal' gases.
And if Saddam was developing prohibited nuclear, biological and chemical weapons with the express intention of supplying them to Al-Queda (as your government and mine continue to insinuate) while running a succesful oil-rich socialist state then the Americans would be off invading the 11 countries with worse human rights records than Iraq? I think not.
Again.
I
do
not
give
a
shit
about
the
motivations
of
George
W
Bush.
Keep beating the dead horse.
Argue with him if you want to debate his policy.
Being pro-war does not mean you have a mental ****ing connection to George Bush where you can ask him what his inner child is telling him to do.
Well the *people* had no choice to spend money on arms instead of food. I think Saddam is more to blame than the UN for the sanction deaths. But even though it is partly Saddam's fault and is indirect, I think it is dispicable how the UN (and the US) has acted against the Iraqi people up until now.
To me this war is different because, although it will kill innocent people, it has a very clear end and that end will benefit the Iraqi people and remove an evil person from the world stage. To me, that's the "moral case" for war.
*hugs powerdoc*
1) i agree
2) i expect you are right, more i wish it. One thing will be sure, Saddam will be removed.
3) No lashes are necessary, until you love them .
4) i heart you too.
5) The "war" or more precisely in my case the sound of war reported by the media, tend to irritate the nerves of many people including me. Sorry if i over-react.
Being pro-war does not mean you have a mental ****ing connection to George Bush where you can ask him what his inner child is telling him to do.
How about his outer child?
That link you posted also has a good section on targeted and smart sanctions, which are a very good case against the need for war.
It's what I've been saying all along, that the sanctions as implemented in '91 are not the same as what was occuring now. Targeted or smart sanctions worked in Iraq (look at the 'travel' implementation listed in section 6) and would continue to do so if implemented. And that was even without a credible threat of 300,000 troops.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
No one's hands are clean, that is not a surprise to anyone. You try to act like they wanted to lift sanctions for those poor poor Iraqi people... what a joke.
No, you continually claim that the US is invading for the benefit of the "poor poor" Iraqi people. You do so as it is the *only* result of this war which is not utterly odious, disregarding the fact that it is an unintended byproduct at best.
And, as I've said before, Bush & Co. selling this war on humanitarian grounds turns my stomach.
Originally posted by pyr3
I guess nothing is worth doing if there's a possibility that you might screw up, huh? There is risk in everything that you do. You're trying to imply that if these gases are used then civilians will die. That's like saying "Building pong in sub-division" + "children in sub-division" = "children will die by drowning in the pond"
third time posted:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_che...apacitants.pdf
Originally posted by giant
The last place you are going to find accurate information is within the official claims from the DoD.
True, but quotes from the battlefield can be inaccurate too. "A couple od soldiers said" means nothing. Unless there is more to this than I realize.
Originally posted by groverat
[B]
Well it's not 100% accurate but it's safe to say that's the reason. When you have an otherwise stable environment (Saddam as the iron-first ruler since the 70s.
The rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease is directly attributable to the sanctions.
These aren't numbers I made up, this is from the UN itself and aid and relief agencies.
To put it off as "it didn't help, but..." is disrespectful to the people who suffered under it and only guarantees that the UN will continue to allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.
I must resist getting angry with this attitude. It's same one that allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in 1994. That kept the UN silent on Yugoslavia.
Groverat don't twist my words. I did not say that the sanctions are not responsible of deaths of people. I just try to explain how expert calculate things, with statistical tools and how any calculation of this type is not 100 % proof. I explain also how this type of calculation can be biased. Now if you consider that my post was a denial, free to you to understand it badly. When you are reading a scientifcal studies you read directly the conclusion, but it's interesting sometimes to look deeper in the article, studying the methodologia, and the analysis of the result. If you do not do this you can have strange results. Example there is more heart attack in countrie where there is the bigger number of phones (true assertion) : conclusion the phone create heart attack (false conclusion). The real conclusion that heart attack is a common illness of rich countrie due to bad habits (food, smoke), if it's correlated with phones it's only because rich countries have many ones.
Now the relation of sanctions and deaths are indirect. If i shot someone in his heart , the link is direct between me and his death, now if i destroy his garden and all his vegetables, and he die the link is indirect. If he has nothing else to eat than what is in his garden because he has no money, i am responsible of his death, now if by purpose the guy spent all his money buying arms, and he had nothing to eat, he share the responsabilitie.
Indirect does not mean, they do not exist, it's not a denial but just a precision. That's why i said it's a shortcut, i do not say it does not exist.
And concerning my attitude, find a thread where i said that sanctions where great. And i don't see any relation between my post and rwanda or Yugoslavia. This is a really cheap shot
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No, you continually claim that the US is invading for the benefit of the "poor poor" Iraqi people. You do so as it is the *only* result of this war which is not utterly odious, disregarding the fact that it is an unintended byproduct at best.
And, as I've said before, Bush & Co. selling this war on humanitarian grounds turns my stomach.
Um, corporations do the same things. It's called 'PR' or 'Public Relations'. If you are surprised by this then welcome to the real world. Everyone has an agenda. And on this topic, Bush has changed reasons for invading Iraq every week. Sometimes it's 'Saddam supports Osama', sometimes it's 'to liberate the Iraqis', sometimes it's 'Saddam has WoMD', sometimes it's 'Iraq has not cooperated with the UN and disarmed'.
Where were you for the past year during the debate over whether tactical nukes could be used?
Oh I was here.
Just as pointless. Was there ever any plan to use them?
The chemicals are unsafe, that's not surprise to me. I'm not arguing with you there. I will argue with portraying them as "chemical weapons" in a topic where "chemical weapons" is used to describe VX and sarin gas. I will also argue with associating the Russian screw-up with our military.
They are unsafe but can be perfectly reasonable crowd-control instruments.
---
stupider:
No, you continually claim that the US is invading for the benefit of the "poor poor" Iraqi people.
I do?
I say the US invasion will be and is for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
As far as the Bush administrations rationale goes I really don't care. It's beside the point. Oil, dead babies, kindness... whatever the motivation is I don't really care. The end result is a HUGE positive for the people of Iraq.
To me, life on the ground in Iraq is more important than the innerworkings of the Bush administration. Figuring out what the "motivation" is is impossible and circular.
You do so as it is the *only* result of this war which is not utterly odious, disregarding the fact that it is an unintended byproduct at best.
"Unintended"? While I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people the removal of Saddam Hussein is far from "unintended", it's the stated goal.
And, as I've said before, Bush & Co. selling this war on humanitarian grounds turns my stomach.
Well when Bush & Co post here you can talk to them about it.
Originally posted by pyr3
You can suffocate on too much of ANY gas. The 'non-lethal' part means that the chemical isn't poisonous once it's in the blood-stream via the lungs.
STOP making things up and go and educate yourself. There are plenty of links in this thread or Google if you want to go it alone.
Development of Non-Lethal Weapons Programs
The most significant program[1] is actually the United States Department of Defence (hereafter DoD) Non Lethal Program, launched in 1996 by the creation of the Joint Non-Lethal Directorate (hereafter JNLWD). The relevant document is DoD Directive 3000, which sets the entire American policy for non-lethal weapons, which are defined as follows:
Non-lethal weapons that are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injuries to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment.
Unlike conventional lethal weapons that destroy their targets principally through blast, penetration and fragmentation, non-lethal weapons only employ means other than gross physical destruction to prevent the target from functioning.
Non-lethal weapons are intended to have one, or both, of the following characteristics:
* They have relatively reversible effects on personnel or materiel.
* They affect objects differently within their area of influence.[2]
According to this workable definition several points must be highlighted. The first point is the concept of non-lethal intent. If non-lethal weapons, when properly employed, should significantly minimize casualties, one cannot reasonably expect a "zero probability of producing casualties".[3] This is the reason why some government organization, such as the National Institute of Justice prefer the term less than lethal[4] emphasising the fact that "enough marshmallows will kill you if properly placed".[5] Beside this purely semantic issue, the element that separates non-lethal weapons from the conventional munitions is the intent. Any lawful weapon can be used in an unlawful way. Unintended effects can -and must- only be addressed through the employment strategies.
The second point is that non-lethal weapons are not restricted to peace-keeping, peace-enforcement or humanitarian missions. They can be used across a wider spectrum of military operations, to "enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of military operations".[6]
The third point is that they can be used in conjunction with the traditional arsenal, and shall not in any case "limit a commander's inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available".[7] According to the guiding principles of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Executive Agent for the DoD Non-Lethal Program, non-lethal weapons shall "Augment Deadly Force". The enemy would quickly discern a lack of will to employ deadly force. Accordingly the non-lethal weapons provide commanders with a wider choice of options, in a continuum.[8] The wider range of options "augments deadly force but does not replace it".
Originally posted by giant
third time posted:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_che...apacitants.pdf
This is exactly my point. The dosage is what is lethal. I can have lethal levels of salt in my body. Doesn't meant that salt is 'lethal'. That article states that the area where they are used and the way they are used is what causes 'lethal doses'. I also don't see why he mentioned the fact that the comatose captors were executed in violation of international law...It has no bearing on his article about the lethality of the gases.
Originally posted by pyr3
Um, corporations do the same things. It's called 'PR' or 'Public Relations'. If you are surprised by this then welcome to the real world. Everyone has an agenda. And on this topic, Bush has changed reasons for invading Iraq every week. Sometimes it's 'Saddam supports Osama', sometimes it's 'to liberate the Iraqis', sometimes it's 'Saddam has WoMD', sometimes it's 'Iraq has not cooperated with the UN and disarmed'.
I'm not surprised. I am however confused as to whether you are disagreeing with me, as your tone suggests, or agreeing, as the facts you relate suggest.
Originally posted by pyr3
This is exactly my point. The dosage is what is lethal. I can have lethal levels of salt in my body. Doesn't meant that salt is 'lethal'. That article states that the area where they are used and the way they are used is what causes 'lethal doses'. I also don't see why he mentioned the fact that the comatose captors were executed in violation of international law...It has no bearing on his article about the lethality of the gases.
Don't try to feign pyrrhonism to get yourself out of a hole. The paper says what it says pretty clearly: that there is no safe way to use those agents.
I <heart> powerdoc!
If he has nothing else to eat than what is in his garden because he has no money, i am responsible of his death, now if by purpose the guy spent all his money buying arms, and he had nothing to eat, he share the responsabilitie.
Well the *people* had no choice to spend money on arms instead of food. I think Saddam is more to blame than the UN for the sanction deaths. But even though it is partly Saddam's fault and is indirect, I think it is dispicable how the UN (and the US) has acted against the Iraqi people up until now.
To me this war is different because, although it will kill innocent people, it has a very clear end and that end will benefit the Iraqi people and remove an evil person from the world stage. To me, that's the "moral case" for war.
*hugs powerdoc*
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
STOP making things up and go and educate yourself. There are plenty of links in this thread or Google if you want to go it alone.
Irregardless of the definition, this is a topic that is currently being debated. 'Non-lethal' gases are used in crowd control too. It's not like using them in Iraq is some 'evil plot'. Or that using gases that are 'debatable' as to whether or not they are 'non-lethal' is as or more evil than if Saddam drops anthrax / mustard gas / etc on our troops. These are things that EVERYONE agrees are lethal gases.
Originally posted by groverat
Was there ever any plan to use them?
yes. that's why there was a debate.
The chemicals are unsafe, that's not surprise to me. I'm not arguing with you there. I will argue with portraying them as "chemical weapons" in a topic where "chemical weapons" is used to describe VX and sarin gas.
the chemical weapons convention clearly states that they are chemical weapons:
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_article_II.html
I will also argue with associating the Russian screw-up with our military.
They are unsafe when used by anyone:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_ch...capacitants.pdf
(fourth time posted)
Originally posted by tonton
What? I thought it was WOMD. Or was that just the excuse? Why not be honest and upfront about his motives? This only proves that we cannot trust our president to be truthful about matters of national security.
*point flies over head*
Originally posted by groverat
"Unintended"? While I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people the removal of Saddam Hussein is far from "unintended", it's the stated goal.
And if Saddam was developing prohibited nuclear, biological and chemical weapons with the express intention of supplying them to Al-Queda (as your government and mine continue to insinuate) while running a succesful oil-rich socialist state then the Americans would be off invading the 11 countries with worse human rights records than Iraq? I think not.
Originally posted by giant
Don't try to feign pyrrhonism to get yourself out of a hole. The paper says what it says pretty clearly: that there is no safe way to use those agents.
Thought this has no beairng on the war on Iraq, if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside. That's what I was getting at. I'm sure that there are experts out there that would refute his claim, hence that is why they are still considered 'non-lethal' gases.
Originally posted by groverat
"Blocking the sanctions from functioning"? What does that mean?
Go here and check out section 5.3 specifically because it explains the U.S. use of 'Holds' on goods imported into Iraq.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
And if Saddam was developing prohibited nuclear, biological and chemical weapons with the express intention of supplying them to Al-Queda (as your government and mine continue to insinuate) while running a succesful oil-rich socialist state then the Americans would be off invading the 11 countries with worse human rights records than Iraq? I think not.
Again.
I
do
not
give
a
shit
about
the
motivations
of
George
W
Bush.
Keep beating the dead horse.
Argue with him if you want to debate his policy.
Being pro-war does not mean you have a mental ****ing connection to George Bush where you can ask him what his inner child is telling him to do.
Originally posted by groverat
Well the *people* had no choice to spend money on arms instead of food. I think Saddam is more to blame than the UN for the sanction deaths. But even though it is partly Saddam's fault and is indirect, I think it is dispicable how the UN (and the US) has acted against the Iraqi people up until now.
To me this war is different because, although it will kill innocent people, it has a very clear end and that end will benefit the Iraqi people and remove an evil person from the world stage. To me, that's the "moral case" for war.
*hugs powerdoc*
1) i agree
2) i expect you are right, more i wish it. One thing will be sure, Saddam will be removed.
3) No lashes are necessary, until you love them
4) i heart you too.
5) The "war" or more precisely in my case the sound of war reported by the media, tend to irritate the nerves of many people including me. Sorry if i over-react.
Originally posted by groverat
Being pro-war does not mean you have a mental ****ing connection to George Bush where you can ask him what his inner child is telling him to do.
How about his outer child?
That link you posted also has a good section on targeted and smart sanctions, which are a very good case against the need for war.
It's what I've been saying all along, that the sanctions as implemented in '91 are not the same as what was occuring now. Targeted or smart sanctions worked in Iraq (look at the 'travel' implementation listed in section 6) and would continue to do so if implemented. And that was even without a credible threat of 300,000 troops.