Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
BombsBurstingInAir BombsBurstingInAir is offline
Member
BombsBurstingInAir's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
BombsBurstingInAir is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2003, 01:09 PM        Nice little read
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003084
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 18th, 2003, 01:45 PM       
Quote:
Remember: The U.N. inspectors would not be within a thousand miles of Baghdad without the threat of force. Saddam would not be making a single concession without the knowledge that forces were gathering against him.
This is a fair point, but not all that true. Both the British and American regimes want this war. The American regime wanted this war PRIOR to 9/11. The U.S. has NEVER really placed that carrot at the end of the proverbial stick, and you can see that all throughout the 90s. Whether put in actual policy or not, the end goal has always been to get rid of Saddam. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid.

Quote:
Iraq, under Saddam became the first country to use chemical weapons against its own people. Are we sure that if we let him keep and develop such weapons, he would not use them again against his neighbors, against Israel perhaps?
WHILE he was our buddy. Where was the indignation then????

Lets also keep in mind that whether or not it was "innocent Kurds" he gassed is highly debatable. He is a horrible man, who DID gas people. But lets also keep in mind how brutal and terrible the Iranian regime was. They sent children to the fron to be butchered as sacrifices to God. We saw the tactics of the "Butcher of Baghdad" to be a necessary evil back then. Now we use it as a convenient foot note in his indictment.

Quote:
If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people.
For someone who claims to detest the "old ways" of Europe, he sure continues to view the world through that scope. We live in a different world. There are more than two options. How long does Iran tolerate the Ayatollah once they become more liberal both culturally and economically? Placing oppressive sanctions on a country like Iraq is exactly the WRONG way to get rid of a dictator, IMO.

Quote:
A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five--70% of these deaths are from diarrhea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the center and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.
Again, no mention of sanctions, and likewise no mention of the advancements in Iraq PRIOR to the first Gulf War. Despite having Saddam as a leader, Iraq has continually been pegged by the UN (forgot the committe name off hand) as one of the most advanced Arab societies. Prior to the Gulf War, they had a water filtration system that made even Europe jealous. Women can attend college, unlike some of our trusted "allies," such as Saudi Arabia (or was it Turkey?? Maybe Qatar?? Our new friend Syria??? Oh hell, they're all better than Iraq, right?).

Quote:
Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.
Read above. And as for the "Well, Saddam has palaces, his people starve, blah blah," before sanctions his people had water. Yet after sanctions it's somehow his fault they don't. The American economy is struggling, when will our President sell off some of his stock investments, maybe give up the Texas ranch and re-invest it into public works...? California could've used his money not too long ago.

Not a bad read, you're right. I agree with a lot of what he had to say. And even though I disagree with him, I respect his eloquence.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 10:54 AM       
Kevin, well said.

All I have to add is in regards to the first argument, about the threat of force bneing what it took to get concessions from Saddam.

Okay, sure, for the sake of argument, given. But this is ONLY significant if we DON'T go to war. Then the whole thing is a massive success and even I'd have to give Bush some credit. If we get all these concessions and go to war anyway, concessions were never the point.

My advice? Keep your eye on the oil. What we end up doing with the oil, what businesses get to control it and where the money goes will tell the tale. I'm not on boatd with the idea that this is a war strictly about oil, but once we overthrow iraq, it'd be a shame to let that reserve just benefit Iraquis, right? I mean, after we spent so much money 'liberating' them? Won't they kind of owe us their oil?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 11:39 AM       
"This is a fair point, but not all that true. Both the British and American regimes want this war. The American regime wanted this war PRIOR to 9/11. The U.S. has NEVER really placed that carrot at the end of the proverbial stick, and you can see that all throughout the 90s. Whether put in actual policy or not, the end goal has always been to get rid of Saddam. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid."

Bush does not want this war. Bush wants Saddam to abide by U.N. resolutions. Why do you refuse to recognize this? Saddam has had 12 years and he knew that this was his last chance. He has no intention of getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction that France and Germany supplied him with....oops. Did I say that out loud?

"WHILE he was our buddy. Where was the indignation then????

Lets also keep in mind that whether or not it was "innocent Kurds" he gassed is highly debatable. He is a horrible man, who DID gas people. But lets also keep in mind how brutal and terrible the Iranian regime was. They sent children to the fron to be butchered as sacrifices to God. We saw the tactics of the "Butcher of Baghdad" to be a necessary evil back then. Now we use it as a convenient foot note in his indictment."

I might have to agree with you there, I'm simply not aware of the political climate at the time but no matter what it was I can't see supporting that sort of activity by not condemning it.....which leads me to believe that it might not have happened....All that aside, it's got nothing to do with here and now and I will not mention it again.

"For someone who claims to detest the "old ways" of Europe, he sure continues to view the world through that scope. We live in a different world. There are more than two options. How long does Iran tolerate the Ayatollah once they become more liberal both culturally and economically? Placing oppressive sanctions on a country like Iraq is exactly the WRONG way to get rid of a dictator, IMO."

Rumsfeld was the one who said "old europe", not Tony Blair.

Second, the sanctions that were approved by the U.N. are more than enough for the people of Iraq. They are not enough for both, Saddam's weapons programs and palaces...and the people.

"Again, no mention of sanctions,"

He doesn't have to. The way Saddam has abused the sanctions only strengthens Tony's argument.

"and likewise no mention of the advancements in Iraq PRIOR to the first Gulf War. Despite having Saddam as a leader, Iraq has continually been pegged by the UN (forgot the committe name off hand) as one of the most advanced Arab societies. Prior to the Gulf War, they had a water filtration system that made even Europe jealous. Women can attend college, unlike some of our trusted "allies," such as Saudi Arabia (or was it Turkey?? Maybe Qatar?? Our new friend Syria??? Oh hell, they're all better than Iraq, right?)."

Yeah! He shouldn't have invaded Kuwait. Let that be an example to other world leaders.

"Read above. And as for the "Well, Saddam has palaces, his people starve, blah blah," before sanctions his people had water. Yet after sanctions it's somehow his fault they don't. The American economy is struggling, when will our President sell off some of his stock investments, maybe give up the Texas ranch and re-invest it into public works...? California could've used his money not too long ago."

He's not spending the money that he's got taking care of his people. How can you defend that?
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #5  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 12:26 PM       
Nadlo, you prideful, prideful guy;

"Why do you refuse to recognize this?"
Has it crossed your mind that some people disagree with you? And it doesn't mean they've failed to recognize truths to which you are privy? Why is it you fail to recognize that people could see things differently than you do on a whole host of issues? Do you view Bush with the same unshakeable credability you place in your version of Christ? Because that's the sin of Idolatry.

Much as Falwell equates those who practice a different slant of religion, or who enjoy this countries freedom of religion as 'Christ Haters' (sin of pride) You equate anyone who's anti war with 'Supporting Sadam'. Spend less time peering into the hearts of others and more time peering into your own, examining your motivations behind your back-patting I'm saved God speaks directly to me why can't you recognize I'm never wrong Christianity, and MAYBE if you ever get within spitting distance of Heaven, Jesus won't greet you by slapping your face.

Do you know, in all seriousness, I actually pray that you are wrong about God? Because as awful s eternal damnation sounds, if God is as you say he is, Heaven is no place I'd want to be.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 12:55 PM       
I hope you change your mind Burbank.

I know it might sound cheesey to you, but I hope to one day see you there. There and only there is probably the one place where we could be friends.

I'm not even going to comment on the rest.....
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 01:03 PM       
Well put, Max, and I see that Ronnie has automatically dismissed most everything you've said.

I find that, as a Christian (who does not ally myself with the church at large, or perhaps even, at all), I too do not want to find myself in THAT kind of heaven one day.

AND RONNIE, AS LONG AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE IGNORING U.N. RESOLUTIONS, ARE WE GOING TO GO AFTER ISRAEL NEXT??
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #8  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 01:12 PM       
The U.S. should give itself a time-out and stand in the corner for a few months to think about all the stuff that it's done.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 01:40 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
Bush does not want this war. Bush wants Saddam to abide by U.N. resolutions. Why do you refuse to recognize this?
Because this is disingenuous. Israel is one of the largest violators of UN resolutions, where is the anger? Where is the outrage? George W. Bush, much like yourself, could care less about the "sanctity" of the UN. You are using it as yet another foot note to justify war, and it's sad.


Quote:
Saddam has had 12 years and he knew that this was his last chance. He has no intention of getting rid of his weapons of mass destruction that France and Germany supplied him with....oops. Did I say that out loud?
Where are the weapons, and an even MORE important question, why don't you want the inspectors to keep looking for them...? Wouldn't it be convenient if we blew the hell out of Iraq, thus "destroying" all of these WMD...?


Quote:
I might have to agree with you there, I'm simply not aware of the political climate at the time but no matter what it was I can't see supporting that sort of activity by not condemning it.....which leads me to believe that it might not have happened....All that aside, it's got nothing to do with here and now and I will not mention it again.
The U.S. turns a bling eye to a lot of things, Ronnie. Welcome to reality.

Quote:
Rumsfeld was the one who said "old europe", not Tony Blair.
In this very speech Blair laments over Europe's brutal past.

Quote:
Second, the sanctions that were approved by the U.N. are more than enough for the people of Iraq. They are not enough for both, Saddam's weapons programs and palaces...and the people.
Can't have pencils for school because he may use it to make a weapon, can't have coolants because he may store bio-weapons, can't have filtration devices because he may build a hydrogen bomb, etc. etc. etc. You're wrong.


Quote:
He doesn't have to. The way Saddam has abused the sanctions only strengthens Tony's argument.
And the way the sanctions have abused the Iraqi people only strengthens Saddam's argument.


Quote:
Yeah! He shouldn't have invaded Kuwait. Let that be an example to other world leaders.
You're taking what I said about pre-Gulf War out of its context. Blair was speaking about how terrible Iraq has been since Saddam took power, and pre-Gulf War Iraq shows that that's clearly not as true as Blair would like people to believe.



Quote:
He's not spending the money that he's got taking care of his people. How can you defend that?
I'm not, I'm asking you exactly when W will be giving up his investments for the struggling economy here in America. I'm asking why is it that he can sit at his ranch in Texas while roughly 40 million Americans have little or no health care. ?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 01:50 PM       
"Because this is disingenuous. Israel is one of the largest violators of UN resolutions, where is the anger? Where is the outrage? George W. Bush, much like yourself, could care less about the "sanctity" of the UN. You are using it as yet another foot note to justify war, and it's sad."

The situation with Israel's resolutions in no way effects our national security.

I have to go .....later....
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Baalzamon Baalzamon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The darkness of your soul
Baalzamon is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 03:18 PM       
Quote:
The situation with Israel's resolutions in no way effects our national security
And that means its not worthy of your attention right?

Thank you for destroying any attempt for the Bush administration to claim the moral high ground here. I'm sick of the crap we keep hearing about "freeing the iraqi people" and "stopping the evil dictator". This is about the U.S. looking out for its own interests, and nothing more. To claim otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of every human being on the planet.

So what are the U.S. interests here? a little bit of two possibilities:

1. protect itself.
2. get something it wants but cant get otherwise.(such as oil, just as an example)

in the case of #1, I'm not convinced Saddam could successfully hurt even a neighbor at the moment, and I certainly dont expect to see iraqi nukes flying towards the east coast anytime soon, so #1 is bullshit. In the case of #2, this is an example of he who has the biggest gun trying to take whatever the fuck he wants, and I beleive that if the U.N. goes along with this they are irrelevant, not the other way around the way Bush would have us beleive.


I would love to see a country or group of countries take it upon themselves to make the world a better place, for the simple sake that its the right thing to do, even though they have nothing to gain by it. I do not beleive that the U.S. is now or has ever been the country to entrust with that task, or would want to be, and I'm not alone here. It therefore angers me when they try and claim that they are following such idealistic motivations.

Can you please get that through your head ronnie. I support overthrowing saddam, I support doing a lot of things that need to be done in the world, but I do not under any circumstances believe for a second that the U.S. is the country that should be doing this. And a bunch of european allies that where armtwisted into supporting the U.S. in the first place doesnt validate them. I dont care that the government of Britain supports the U.S. on this, The PEOPLE DO NOT.


So anyway, I dont expect that you're going to try to argue that the U.S. ever intended to do anything but look out for its own interests and thats fine. Just understand that that is why I dont buy Bush's idealistic "destroy the evil" crap.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 04:18 PM       
Naldo; If you really work on yourself and stop being so prideful and sure that you understand God's mystery than maybe we will see each other in Heaven. For about a minute and a half, during which you'll keep bellowing about how this can't be heaven what with all the Christ haters running around like they own the place and Jerrry falwell nowhere to be found. You'll catch up with him at some point, though, as you wander the foggy slopes of limbo getting more and more cranky and wondering allowed just where the gated community in the sky you always dreamed of really is.

I'm not even going to comment on the rest...

No, wait, I am. You don't comment on the rest because it makes your dogmatic little brain actually work. But think about this. Civillians will certainly die in our war. And according to your lights, as if being blasted to smithereens wasn't enough, they'll go straight to hell. Thanks, God! That'll show 'em!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 05:32 PM        Wait...
Max,
Aren't they going to hell anyway? I mean, that's where Muslims go right? Because they're wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 19th, 2003, 05:50 PM       
Well, Sure! But it seems mean to make them suffer first.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.