It's an offensive question that does nothing for the discussion, Setanta. You wouldn't have asked it, so why defend it?
I defend it because c.i. has a good point, Fox commonly shoots her mouth off in that fashion, and he is completely correct to point out that she personally has nothing at stake.
O'Bill, I think c.i. asked a reasonable question. All of the sacrifices suggested by foxfyre are the sacrifices of others. Saying something is worth anything suggests you've paid for it in some way.
How/what has foxfyre paid/sacrificed to make all of this worth it to her?
Why must she have sacrificed anything to make it "worth it"? She has acknowledged many times of having many friends involved over there and the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's will now have a chance for a better life makes it worth it.
Craven de Kere wrote:
He'd have been dead in 20.
So you think it would have been better with his sons in charge?
I think when the U.S. decided to drop the big ones on Japan in hopes of ending the war, it was worth it. Many, many people disagree with this opinion but does anyone here think I'm not entitled to it?
The US was late for WWII. They figured it was a 'foreign problem.' Then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and all hell broke loose. I am absolutely convinced that this incident changed American foreign policy forever. Now, rather than wait, all the wars the US are or have been involved in since are pre-emptive, or done in secret. What that means is up to anyone who cares to form an opinion about it. For me, it's just the facts as I see them.
If it is improper for me to 'shoot my mouth off' saying that it is all worth it to me, what makes it proper for C.I., Setanta, Craven,and ehBeth to say it wasn't worth it?
Hmmm, I wonder why no one wants to answer my question.
I also wonder who's figured out what c.i.'s question added to the discussion.
Get it?
I never supported this preemptive war against Iraq.
But some of us did C.I. And we have as much right to our opinion as you have to yours.
As far as sacrifice goes, I would imagine I have as many friends and relatives and tax dollars in Iraq as you do. And if one must 'sacrifice' further in order to have an opinion about national policy, then I would imagine everybody on A2K would have to pull the plugs on their computers right now.
Karzak wrote:Craven de Kere wrote:
He'd have been dead in 20.
So you think it would have been better with his sons in charge?
I said nothing of the sort.
Firstly, I can't assume that they would have been in charge (frankly, I don't think they were cut of the same cloth as Saddam and I think they needed his shadow to wreak what damage they did).
Secondly, my wish for indefinite inspections was not a consideration of ameliorating the government but rather allaying what I saw as inordinate paranoia about their capability to project power beyond their region.
Few would argue that they could get much done toward mushroom clouds and the like while inspections were under way and I would have been perfectly happy for them to have continued indefinitely.
I remember my dear ole grandpappy. He was a cop in the old days. I loved hearing his stories. "Cav" he used to say, yep, he called me cav, "Back in the old days, getting justice was easier." He usually paused here to take a puff of his pipe. "Say a crime happened, and you weren't sure who dunnit. Well, back then, you could just round up the local troublemaker, take him into a back room, and beat a confession out of him. I always instructed my junior officers to use the hose, but pistol-whippin' was more popular with the young 'uns. See, it didn't matter who commited the crime, because somebody confessed. The people were pleased, and justice was done." I sure do miss my grandpappy's tall tales.
Foxfyre wrote:Craven writes:
Quote:Indefinite inspections.
Not to "put up with Saddam" but to contain him. With inspections all over the place, he couldn't have done anything but bitch at us.
He'd have been dead in 20.
And in 20 years maybe another 300,000 Iraqis would have been put to death at Saddam's consent/order, many or most in most unimaginable horrible ways.
Sometimes good intentions produce unintended bad consequences. And sometimes ambiguous intentions produce unexpected good consequences. Through an investment of our and their blood and treasure, hundreds of thousands of people may have been saved along with a potential new democracy, ally, trading partner, and increased stabilityin the Middle East. All this, to me, made it worth it.
And maybe in 20 years 300,000 Iraqis wouldn't have been put to death. And maybe now that we've invaded, in 20 years there will be 300,000 people killed by a nuclear bomb blast set off by terrorists in Baghdad, all of them in most unimaginably horrible ways. Hypotheticals are meaningless.
Agreed, Kickycan.
The innocent people dead from our bombs in Iraq, however, are NOT a hypothetical. This right here sums up why terrorism is only going to rise as a result of this war....
Cycloptichorn
To Kicky:
Hypotheticals are worthless unless backed up by history. The historical records is that over the last 20+ years, 300,000 (at least--some Iraqi spokesmen have cited many more than that) people have been put to death at the hands/order/consent of Saddam Hussein.
IMO, there is no reason to believe that this practice would not have continued under Saddam or his sons had they been left in power unopposed.
Now if that is not a factor in your assessment of the U.S. policy toward Iraq, that's fine. It is a factor in my assessment of U.S. policy toward Iraq.
Foxfyre wrote:
Hypotheticals are worthless unless backed up by history.
Is this the reason, "crusade" is mentioned nowadays more seldom? :wink:
LOL Walter. Maybe so. I see the parallels as well though I think maybe we are a bit less blood thirsty these days.
Foxfyre wrote:But some of us did C.I. And we have as much right to our opinion as you have to yours.
This a criminal war - supporters are criminal and therefore, evil minded...... Canadians youth are corrected in their assumptions when connected with such actions......
BillW wrote:Foxfyre wrote:But some of us did C.I. And we have as much right to our opinion as you have to yours.
This a criminal war - supporters are criminal and therefore, evil minded...... Canadians youth are corrected in their assumptions when connected with such actions......
So now Fox and I are evil minded criminals?
btw, Is English your second language or did you forget what your namesake taught you?
