Alternatives to US global policy (continuation of "lying idiots" thread)

[freeandfun1]

You base this opinion on what....it is a a well known dilemma that you cannot prove a negative....the alternative is the need to prove the positive. No amount of inspections (as the inspectors were already establishing) could produce the evidence of wmd's. Base your foundations and your opinions on established facts and you will not be so likely to end up with erroneous outcomes.

Did he comply with the UN's inspection program? No.

I have no idea how you have determined I am making assumptions. You are the one assuming.

It is a very well known fact that he had to comply with an ONGOING inspection program. It was not only a program to determine where his KNOWN and ACKNOWLEDGED stockpiles were, but a program to ensure he didn't restart any programs or rebuild any stocks. He impeded the UN and kept them from doing their job - as was acknowledged by the UN.

So you my dear, are the one using NO FACTS.

 

[theim]

"Saddam did not kill hundred of thousands of people. He killed in the ten thousands at most."


Oh, WELL. That just makes a world of difference doesn't it? I mean, if he ONLY killed in the TENS OF THOUSANDS he wasn't as bad as Bush made him out to be.

 

[IControlThePast]

The U.N. is the force we need? The force we need is the force that shows up. You disagree with the military action in Iraq? Do you believe in fighting the global war on terrorism but not in invading Iraq as part of that war? Please clarify.

If military action is possible elsewhere with UN support then we can fight two targets at once instead of one on our own. What if Iran, Syria attack us now? We'll be completely vulnerable and we're being stretched too thin, which is how empires fall, without UN support.

Nope. One less dictator is always one less dictator.

And two less dictators is always greater than one if we can attack multiple targets.

OK. Let's let the UN run the war on terrorism.

You see another way we can attack Iran and North Korea and rid Africa of dictators without going bankrupt or having a draft?

The world court has no jurisdiction anywhere.

So International law is developed by a sole national entity. That makes perfect sense .

OK. well, bush and the republicans are the ones actually treat it like a war. All you do is nit pick at history. Do you think this is helping the war on terror?

Do you think putting your head in the Iraqi desert sand instead of looking at what has worked and failed in the past is helping the war on terror?

You libs keep bringing up the wmd, as if it was the only reason offered. You falsely limit the discussion to this one issue. If you acknowledge there were many valid reasons for taking out saddam, all of which the administration mentioned, then we can drop the whole WMD thing.

Don't throw me in with the liberal pile, but they wonder why would you defend the WMDs if they are not why we went? Why would you defend that position if against what the US and most of the world thinks if it doesn't matter? Are you prepared to concede the WMD situation?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Two things:

1. UN support would be nice. The thing is I think they have proven themselves morally and organizationally unfit to the task. So I'll premise planning on their support going forward when I see one hair of it.

2. I will concede the point about WMD cannot be proven either way. Will you concede the administration never claimed WMD was the only reason for war? This is a false constriction of the argument you lefties use to spread disinformation and ignorance.

 

[theim]

Don't make our founding fathers roll over in their graves. You can't defend yourself if you have to prove innocence. We could accuse any country of having WMDs and attack them. If we don't find any evidence they must have moved them and are still guilty. This is just a warhawk's logic that can be applied to claim justification for attacking any country they so desire. What about 9/11 would change innocent until proven guilty?



The US props him up as innocent over the WMDs. This post needs another . Saddam did not kill hundred of thousands of people. He killed in the ten thousands at most. You have no source for your statistic as well. Many of his horror stories were actually hyperbolic and completely fictional accounts from the PR firm Hill & Knowlton hired by an Isreali PAC. The rest of your post is reduced to generalized ranting where you list no specific situations. I "shit" on Bush because he did not offer Saddam that doubt for WMD, that's why. Ecological disaster, he's bad. Number of people Saddam killed, he's bad. But there are much much worse atrocities have been commited out there, which our involvement with Iraq prevents us from dealing with. I know you might prefer that I leave you to have a conservative jackoff session, but I am here to learn. If you can convince me of something through debate you can bet I'll remember it. You seem to be the one having the problem here, maybe you should leave?

You are interested in learning nothing. Democrats such as yourself just try and get your jollies by spreading your pessimistic worldview onto others. Your type have always been on the wrong side of history. ALWAYS.

"Oh no! You can't declare independance! The majority of people don't want it and its hopeless to fight Britain!"
"Oh no! You can't free the slaves! It will DESTABALIZE the southern economy!"
"Oh no! We can't join WWII! That's Europes problem, not ours!"
"Oh no! You can't call the USSR an Evil Empire and actually say you want to destroy it! They might get mad!"
"Oh no! You can't attack Afghanistan! All those caves! It will be Vietnam in caves!"
"Oh no! You can't remove Saddam Hussein! Maybe People DONT WANT FREEDOM! Maybe the WANT TO BE OPPRESSED AND WHO ARE WE SAY THEY DON'T LIKE LIVING IN A TYRANNICAL NIGHTMARE REGIME!"

"Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah!! We can't do it! We can't do it! It's impossible It's a quagmire It's too hard It's too costly It's too expensive wah wah wah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

Thank God nobody listened to you back then. And I hope no one listens to you now.

 

[IControlThePast]

"Saddam did not kill hundred of thousands of people. He killed in the ten thousands at most."


Oh, WELL. That just makes a world of difference doesn't it? I mean, if he ONLY killed in the TENS OF THOUSANDS he wasn't as bad as Bush made him out to be.

Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman estimates that between 2000 and 3000 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by bombs that missed their targets in Gulf War 1. Our bombings of water sources and treatment stations, transportatoin, energy sources contaminated many water supplies and left hospitals without power, unable to treat patients. By that May, our bombings had also indirectly killed 55,000 children, and a Harvard study estimated another 170,000 deaths from our infrastructure bombings. (Exoo, 9)

So we would give freedom to Kuwait once we freed it from Saddam, right? Wrong. "The United States does not want to do anything that could destabilize the Kuwaiti government" was a statement issued by the White House on why they were leaving the absolute autocrats of the Emir family in charge, as they had been since they dissolved the Democratic parliment in 1986. (Exoo, 14-15)

These exerpts are taken from "The Politics of the Mass Media" by Calvin F. Exoo.

 

[theim]

Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman estimates that between 2000 and 3000 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by bombs that missed their targets in Gulf War 1. Our bombings of water sources and treatment stations, transportatoin, energy sources contaminated many water supplies and left hospitals without power, unable to treat patients. By that May, our bombings had also indirectly killed 55,000 children, and a Harvard study estimated another 170,000 deaths from our infrastructure bombings. (Exoo, 9)

So we would give freedom to Kuwait once we freed it from Saddam, right? Wrong. "The United States does not want to do anything that could destabilize the Kuwaiti government" was a statement issued by the White House on why they were leaving the absolute autocrats of the Emir family in charge, as they had been since they dissolved the Democratic parliment in 1986. (Exoo, 14-15)

These exerpts are taken from "The Politics of the Mass Media" by Calvin F. Exoo.

Nononon you missunderstood me. I was not being sarcastic at all. I wsa being totally serious. Saddam was not that bad, Certainly not as bad as those bastards the Americans. God Americans are so evil. All those poor children...

 

[IControlThePast]

Two things:

1. UN support would be nice. The thing is I think they have proven themselves morally and organizationally unfit to the task. So I'll premise planning on their support going forward when I see one hair of it.

2. I will concede the point about WMD cannot be proven either way. Will you concede the administration never claimed WMD was the only reason for war? This is a false constriction of the argument you lefties use to spread disinformation and ignorance.

1. They've worked before like in Rwanda, Kosovo, Gulf War I, etc. There was terrorism before 9/11, it just hadn't hit US soil and the UN managed to deal with it. We didn't even try to see where we could go with their support after Afghanistan.

2. Then I accept, because he would be unable to be proven guilty. I concede as well, we didn't only go there for WMDs. Ww went there for oil too . Really since we did go based on human rights violations why did we not pick someone with WMDs, or someone who admitted to be working on a WMD program, or someone who commited worse offenses against human rights?

 

[IControlThePast]

Nononon you missunderstood me. I was not being sarcastic at all. I wsa being totally serious. Saddam was not that bad, Certainly not as bad as those bastards the Americans. God Americans are so evil. All those poor children...

Our offenses were at the same time or more recent than Saddams. The point is what makes him so much worse than us and also worse than some of the dictators out there? We call it realpolitik, doing whatever it takes to aid the US against moral concerns, in which case you can drop the facade of moral red, white, and blue bunting like the White House did after freeing Kuwait. I forgot to add that doing things like bombing the factories so that 90% of the Iraqi population is unemployed and then increasing the cost of food to 20-60 times the pre-war price is one of those ways terrorism starts.

The sources that say Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people count war casualties in his own country from him fighting against Iran with US backing, and the number of his own people that died during the Gulf War as a result of US actions.

Also look at the tsunami and how many people it killed.

In Rwanda between 800,000-1,000,000 people were killed in a hundred days. The genocide continued at a rate of 3 times greater than the Holocaust's rate. You'd be suprised at what goes down in Africa.

 

[IControlThePast]

You are interested in learning nothing. Democrats such as yourself just try and get your jollies by spreading your pessimistic worldview onto others. Your type have always been on the wrong side of history. ALWAYS.

"Oh no! You can't declare independance! The majority of people don't want it and its hopeless to fight Britain!"
"Oh no! You can't free the slaves! It will DESTABALIZE the southern economy!"
"Oh no! We can't join WWII! That's Europes problem, not ours!"
"Oh no! You can't call the USSR an Evil Empire and actually say you want to destroy it! They might get mad!"
"Oh no! You can't attack Afghanistan! All those caves! It will be Vietnam in caves!"
"Oh no! You can't remove Saddam Hussein! Maybe People DONT WANT FREEDOM! Maybe the WANT TO BE OPPRESSED AND WHO ARE WE SAY THEY DON'T LIKE LIVING IN A TYRANNICAL NIGHTMARE REGIME!"

"Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Oh no! Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah!! We can't do it! We can't do it! It's impossible It's a quagmire It's too hard It's too costly It's too expensive wah wah wah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

Thank God nobody listened to you back then. And I hope no one listens to you now.

More inflamatory rhetoric. Conservatives wanted to conserve the old order, they didn't want change. They didn't want the southern order to change (although there were some "dixiecrats" who were conservatives diguised as liberals like Strom Thurmond), Thomas Paine was liberal, liberals wanted to join WWII to revive our economy based on the government spending theory of John Maynard Keynes, I can't remember anyone who voted against action in Afghanistan.

However there is something you should know about oppresion. It might seem counter intuitive, but history has proven time and again the more oppressed people are, the less whiners (liberals ) there are, and the less likely people are to revolt. All successful revolutions we started in the upper middle class and beyond, by the people who actually had the least to lose. The Slave Revolutions compared to the European Revolutions of the 1600s, the French Revoultion, the Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution, etc. Look at how well off places were back in 1600 for an easy comparitive study. Eastern Europe was the most oppressed and the worst off yet they had far less rebellions and revolutions than Europe in general. Within Europe, the main problem was feeding people. People would sell their children for food or kill them so they wouldn't have to feed them. The average person consumed enough calories to suffer from only mild malnutrition. England was the best off because they had the best farming technology. What was the only revoultion to succeed in Europe? The English Civil War.

You are taking what I've said out of context and when put in context you are using it against your own position. You say we can fight one war, I say we can fight two. I'm really whining against action and quagmires right? What is your explanation of why we are only fighting one war now if there are deserved enemies out there and we are capable of fighting two?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

1. They've worked before like in Rwanda, Kosovo, Gulf War I, etc. There was terrorism before 9/11, it just hadn't hit US soil and the UN managed to deal with it. We didn't even try to see where we could go with their support after Afghanistan.

Oh yes. the U.N. has nothing but successes in it's past. Now we know your completely detached from reality.

2. Then I accept, because he would be unable to be proven guilty. I concede as well, we didn't only go there for WMDs. Ww went there for oil too . Really since we did go based on human rights violations why did we not pick someone with WMDs, or someone who admitted to be working on a WMD program, or someone who commited worse offenses against human rights?

You sound like an idiot.