President Bush is going to start!!

[Nightwish]

Yes. They just needed a crate of pom poms. And a thumbs up poster. Were you for eliminating the sanctions?

If it were tried and worked, then there wouldn't be any more need for sanctions. If it were tried and failed, then war (which should always be the last option), might be the way to go. Unfortunately, in war, sanctions and embargos are a regular strategy. And I'm sure it probably would have gone the way it actually did -- try to cut Saddam off, and offer the people at least marginal aid, while not diverting too much from the offensive itself. That's simply the way war goes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If it were tried and worked, then there wouldn't be any more need for sanctions. If it were tried and failed, then war (which should always be the last option), might be the way to go. Unfortunately, in war, sanctions and embargos are a regular strategy. And I'm sure it probably would have gone the way it actually did -- try to cut Saddam off, and offer the people at least marginal aid, while not diverting too much from the offensive itself. That's simply the way war goes.

There were sanctions against saddam. They had been failing. By your own logic tree, war was the way to go. Wow. This was easy.

 

[Nightwish]

There were sanctions against saddam. They had been failing. By your own logic tree, war was the way to go. Wow. This was easy.

Dude, I'm going to ask you an honest question here. Does you IQ get up into triple digits? I'm honestly thinking no.

Okay, let me try to explain this to you one more time. Yes, the sanctions were against Saddam. Yes, they were failing (because we relaxed them for the Food for Oil program, which Saddam abused, to the detriment of his people). But they did succeed in creating an atmosphere of unrest among the Iraqi populace. We could have taken the opportunity to work with that atmosphere of unrest and manipulate the population to rise up against Iraq. It's been done countless times throughout history, often successfully, in other nations. It could have been done in Iraq, but it wasn't. We had an opportunity, but we dropped the ball.

 

[Said1]

Dude, I'm going to ask you an honest question here. Does you IQ get up into triple digits? I'm honestly thinking no.

Okay, let me try to explain this to you one more time. Yes, the sanctions were against Saddam. Yes, they were failing (because we relaxed them for the Food for Oil program, which Saddam abused, to the detriment of his people). But they did succeed in creating an atmosphere of unrest among the Iraqi populace. We could have taken the opportunity to work with that atmosphere of unrest and manipulate the population to rise up against Iraq. It's been done countless times throughout history, often successfully, in other nations. It could have been done in Iraq, but it wasn't. We had an opportunity, but we dropped the ball.

I think a power struggle would have ensued, resulting in a situation similar to the present. This is interesting, though I wounder how successful it was: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Dude, I'm going to ask you an honest question here. Does you IQ get up into triple digits? I'm honestly thinking no.

Okay, let me try to explain this to you one more time. Yes, the sanctions were against Saddam. Yes, they were failing (because we relaxed them for the Food for Oil program, which Saddam abused, to the detriment of his people). But they did succeed in creating an atmosphere of unrest among the Iraqi populace. We could have taken the opportunity to work with that atmosphere of unrest and manipulate the population to rise up against Iraq. It's been done countless times throughout history, often successfully, in other nations. It could have been done in Iraq, but it wasn't. We had an opportunity, but we dropped the ball.

So you DID think we should just continue sanctions, hoping the suffering of the people would be enough to force them to rise up. I'm saying that's unrealistic considering Saddam's tight control. Given that, It's just an evil plan.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This dude was an idiot. I'll wager he's done here, having been thorougly embarrassed .

 

[Nightwish]

So you DID think we should just continue sanctions, hoping the suffering of the people would be enough to force them to rise up. I'm saying that's unrealistic considering Saddam's tight control. Given that, It's just an evil plan.

Man, can you freakin' read English? What is your mental malfunction?

What part of the sanctions were already there, and tweak the public opinion, based on the suffering THEY HAD ALREADY ENDURED, don't you comprehend? Do you see the words "continue sanctions" anywhere in that? If so, please point them out!

Egads, man, you are the most imbecilic poster I think I've ever come across!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Man, can you freakin' read English? What is your mental malfunction?

What part of the sanctions were already there, and tweak the public opinion, based on the suffering THEY HAD ALREADY ENDURED, don't you comprehend!

Egads, man, you are the most imbecilic poster I think I've ever come across!

DUde. You wanted to keep the sanctions in place, and hope the people would rise up. It's a shit plan.

 

[Nightwish]

DUde. You wanted to keep the sanctions in place, and hope the people would rise up. It's a shit plan.

Again, where did you see the words "keep the sanctions in place?" Where did you see the words "continue sanctions?" Please stop making shit up, because you're making yourself look like a moron for doing so.

I think I've had done with you now. I've come to the conclusion that you're either a complete mental midget, or a troll. Either way, you're certainly not worth the time of any serious debater.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Again, where did you see the words "keep the sanctions in place?" Where did you see the words "continue sanctions?" Please stop making shit up, because you're making yourself look like a moron for doing so.

I think I've had done with you now. I've come to the conclusion that you're either a complete mental midget, or a troll. Either way, you're certainly not worth the time of any serious debater.

You said they were there. Did you want to lift them? Quit being stupid.

 

[Nightwish]

You said they were there. Did you want to lift them? Quit being stupid.

You asked that before, and it was already answered. I'm sorry if you didn't like the answer, but continuing to ask the same question isn't going to make the answer change.

To refresh your apparently short memory, the answer was: if it were tried and successful, there would be no more need for sanctions. If it were tried and failed, then war might be the best option, and like them or not, sanctions are a regular part of war, take it or leave it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You asked that before, and it was already answered. I'm sorry if you didn't like the answer, but continuing to ask the same question isn't going to make the answer change.

To refresh your apparently short memory, the answer was: if it were tried and successful, there would be no more need for sanctions. If it were tried and failed, then war might be the best option, and like them or not, sanctions are a regular part of war, take it or leave it.

You have problems. You can't answer a simple question. Do you think you look intelligent?

 

[Nightwish]

Do you think you look intelligent?

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I am pretty intelligent. I'm not bragging, just a fact. I'm guessing you're not terribly bright, though. Either that, or you're a really good actor.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I am pretty intelligent. I'm not bragging, just a fact. I'm guessing you're not terribly bright, though. Either that, or you're a really good actor.

Dude. You keep explaining the same thing, and then denying it when it's summarized with slightly different words. you seem retarded.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You have problems. You can't answer a simple question. Do you think you look intelligent?

Do you?

 

[Nightwish]

Dude. You keep explaining the same thing, and then denying it when it's summarized with slightly different words. you seem retarded.

No, you weren't summarizing my argument with slightly different words. You were creating a strawman, assigning me a completely different argument that the one I made.

Let me give you an example, see if you can understand it.

My argument: I am hungry, and I want some pizza. I've got a jar full of coins, and so I'm going to take those coins to the bank, cash them in, and buy a pizza.

Your strawman: Nightwish has a jar, he wants to start saving up coins, and when he has enough, he'll cash them in and buy a pizza.

Do you see the difference? My argument is that I've already got the coins, I can go buy that pizza now. Your strawman is that I only want to start saving the coins now, then buy the pizza later (a few weeks, a couple months?) Replace the theme with the one in our debate, and the first one is what I'm saying, and the second one is what you're incorrectly saying I said.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Dude, I'm going to ask you an honest question here. Does you IQ get up into triple digits? I'm honestly thinking no.

.

When questioning someone's IQ, one should always be careful about spelling and english.

Saddam had the place locked up. He was paranoid. He had human shredding machines if you dissented. He got 100 percent of the vote. He had doubles and nobody knew where he was. He changed his schedule daily, sometimes hourly and never repeated behavior. He didnt get to the top their being totally stupid.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

When questioning someone's IQ, one should always be careful about spelling and english.

Saddam had the place locked up. He was paranoid. He had human shredding machines if you dissented. He got 100 percent of the vote. He had doubles and nobody knew where he was. He changed his schedule daily, sometimes hourly and never repeated behavior. He didnt get to the top their being totally stupid.

When critiquing someone questioning someone's IQ, one should always be careful about spelling and English.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You asked that before, and it was already answered. I'm sorry if you didn't like the answer, but continuing to ask the same question isn't going to make the answer change.

To refresh your apparently short memory, the answer was: if it were tried and successful, there would be no more need for sanctions. If it were tried and failed, then war might be the best option, and like them or not, sanctions are a regular part of war, take it or leave it.

You arent making any sense.
"if it were tried and successful, there would be no more need for sanctions"
Ok, two possibilities, they already are successful, (which they werent), or you want to continue them, which you deny.

You then state, if they dont work, then go to war.

You cant claim: the sanctions havent worked, if they dont work we should go to war, I dont want the sanctions to continue AND say we shouldnt have gone to war yet.

 

[Nightwish]

You arent making any sense.
"if it were tried and successful, there would be no more need for sanctions"
Ok, two possibilities, they already are successful, (which they werent), or you want to continue them, which you deny.

You then state, if they dont work, then go to war.

You cant claim: the sanctions havent worked, if they dont work we should go to war, I dont want the sanctions to continue AND say we shouldnt have gone to war yet.

And folks, here we see what happens when someone jumps in on the tail end of a conversation without having read the previous posts. Go back, read the previous posts so that you will understand the context and the full scenario that we were discussing, then come back and rejoin us.