I'll tell you what, since I'm a nice guy, I'll go ahead and give you the background on this discussion that you missed.LuvRPgrl said: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.
RWA believes that it is impossible to be against the war, but support the ousting of Saddam Hussein. I said that not only is it not impossible, but it's actually the position most of the anti-war take.
RWA believes that there were only ever two options -- full-scale war, or do nothing. I countered that it is conceivable that he could have been removed from power in a number of other ways without having to commit hundreds of thousands of our soldiers to war. He asked me for some examples of ways that might be done.
Just tossing out ideas (I'm not a military strategist, and clearly neither is RWA), I said that it is conceivable that he could have been taken out by covert assassination, or other small-scale military activities.
The other idea I tossed out is the one which you caught only part of. It was this -- the sanctions we already have in place have fomented an atmosphere of unrest and dispair among the Iraqi people. That atmosphere makes the conditions right for an uprising against Saddam Hussein, if the public opinion is tweaked in the right way, and we were to arm them, supply them, and support them, and nudge things the right way to set off that pressure cooker and encourage the Iraqis to rise against their dictator and overthrow him themselves. That opinion was based on the fact that so many successful uprisings in other countries have arisen from similar conditions.
RWA then decided to make a strawman, claiming that I was suggesting continuing sanctions until the Iraqis just got fed up on their own and rose up. Anybody with the ability to read can see that no such suggestion was ever made. Then he asked me if I would be for continuing sanctions.
My answer was that if it was tried (it, being manipulating public opinion and instigating an uprising, not simply sitting back and letting things continue as they were, as RWA wants you to believe) and worked, then there wouldn't be a need for continued sanctions, because Saddam would be gone. And if it didn't work, then war might an option.
It was this last point that you came in on and mistakenly identified it as the whole argument. Thus I suggest you make sure you have seen the whole argument before you jump in next time.