0
   

Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2004 09:07 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Hussein, and his sons, and staff were still in power? Please try to give a definite yes or no.


Harper wrote:
What difference does it make to us? Saddam wan't a threat to us.

Hussein had had WMD and WMD development programs, and had used his WMD more than once. There is no question that he had these things. The only question is how recently. The two factors were (1) what the likelihood was that he retained them, (2) what the consequences would be if he did. One WMD brought into the US covertly and used in an American city could kill up to a million people in some scenarious. Given the totality of the history over a dozen years with Iraq's WMD programs and its leader, and given the magnitude of the possible consequences, invasion was necessary.

Harper wrote:
The Iraqi people should have overthrown him themselves.

This was not why we went in. We went in because of WMD. Eliminating a brutal dictator was just a fringe benefit. However, you may have noticed that some dictatorships are very difficult for the people within the country to overthrow, e.g. Cuba. It might have been a very long time.

Harper wrote:
Why are we killing them to save them and losing American lives as well?

I am unfamiliar with wars in which no one dies, including wars that pretty much everyone agrees were justified. Anyway, most of the killing is being done by the insurgents. We are trying to stop it.

Harper wrote:
IMO only blind partians continue to justify this fiasco.

Well, there must be millions and millions of us blind partisans.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:21 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
revel wrote:
You know brandon that sounds real nice. But what good is the future to someone who is killed before ever seeing it? How is this magical future supposed to happen? Who is really going to benefit in this future?

Everyone agrees, Saddam was a bad man and it is better that he is gone. But that is all that can be said that is any good.

Apparently the original poster doesn't agree to that at all.

Your logic seems to be:

1. People died in the war.
2. Therefore, the war should not have been fought.

This specific logic you have stated could be used to argue that no war should ever have been fought. Unless you actually do believe that, then it follows that your logic is incorrect.


Usually in a just war there is something at end of it that made it worth all the cost of lives. (I hate saying that; for some reason it don't sit well) This war didn't work out that way at all. For one thing, at the outset; no one trust the Bush administration in the first place, they proved us right with abuses that was allowed to flourish with the prisons and haliburturn. (however you spell that) For another; we had a bigger problem at the time that trumped worrying about Saddam who was for most part; contained at the time and could have waited. For another; it wasn't planned out well for things that might not have gone the way the thought it would. In other words, they thought everyone would be so overjoyed to have gotten rid of such an evil man that they would greet them with flowers and the like. It didn't happen and they didn't plan for things not turing out like they thought. Which is why Iraq is in the horrible shape it is now. Sure, they are rid of Saddam and his bad boys. But look what they are living in now. It is like they traded one hell for another and how is that better?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 07:10 am
revel wrote:
Everyone agrees, Saddam was a bad man and it is better that he is gone. But that is all that can be said that is any good.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Apparently the original poster doesn't agree to that at all.

Your logic seems to be:

1. People died in the war.
2. Therefore, the war should not have been fought.

This specific logic you have stated could be used to argue that no war should ever have been fought. Unless you actually do believe that, then it follows that your logic is incorrect.


revel wrote:
Usually in a just war there is something at end of it that made it worth all the cost of lives. (I hate saying that; for some reason it don't sit well) This war didn't work out that way at all.

It was worthwhile because after 12 years, we were still not sure that he had destroyed his WMD and his WMD programs. Had he retained either, then down the road one single WMD smuggled into the US could have been used to kill as many as a million people depending on the type of WMD. That's a lot of people. A latter day Hitler figure like Hussein simply could not be allowed to possess this type of weapon. He had had WMD, he had used them, and he had lied about them, and the totality of the experience with him made many people believe that he still had something hidden, as he well may have. Had he given us clear evidence that they had all been destroyed, which he could easlily have done, we would have left him there to torture and oppress his people to his heart's content for the rest of his life.

revel wrote:
For one thing, at the outset; no one trust the Bush administration in the first place, they proved us right with abuses that was allowed to flourish with the prisons and haliburturn. (however you spell that)

(a) Millions of Americans trusted Bush and still do.
(b) There is no evidence that Bush was personally responsible for abuses in prison interrogation. Thousands and thousands of people were court martialled under Clinton, but no one tried to make him accountable for every soldier's abuses.
(c) Although the people responsible for the prision abuses should be prosecuted vigorously, as they are being, we might want to note here that the other side kidnaps civilians for blackmail, and then saws their heads of while they are still alive and conscious. This is quite a lot worse than anything our soldiers did, and I resent the double standard.

revel wrote:
For another; we had a bigger problem at the time that trumped worrying about Saddam who was for most part; contained at the time and could have waited.

If Hussein had retained his WMD and WMD programs, we would have had a finite time window of opportunity in which to act. Had he attained enough of a stockpile of WMD and hidden them really safely, or had he gone nuclear with purchased fissionable material, he could have made a later invasion of Iraq nearly impossible, and then continued to build up more WMD as North Korea is probably now doing. What does "containment" mean in an era in which someone can smuggle a WMD into your country and strike a crippling blow against you from within while you attempt to "contain" him? You're living the past.

revel wrote:
For another; it wasn't planned out well for things that might not have gone the way the thought it would. In other words, they thought everyone would be so overjoyed to have gotten rid of such an evil man that they would greet them with flowers and the like. It didn't happen and they didn't plan for things not turing out like they thought.

Wars are often messy. When we occupied various countries after WW 2 and converted them into democracies, we didn't have to worry about a campaign by insurgents who think nothing of planting bombs that blow up their own citizens. You cannot expect any administration to turn a war into a surgical in and out operation. If a war has to be fought, as I believe this one did, then it may indeed be difficult and messy as many wars have been in the past.

revel wrote:
Which is why Iraq is in the horrible shape it is now. Sure, they are rid of Saddam and his bad boys. But look what they are living in now. It is like they traded one hell for another and how is that better?

The hell they are in now, is the work of the insurgents, not the Americans. We are trying to eliminate the insurgents and rebuild the country. Furthermore, now, at least the people are not executed or tortured for stating a political opinion. They are not at the mercy of a government of evil, insane kings and princes, and they have at least an opportunity for a decent future, particularly if people like you would stop chanting that only gloom and doom lie ahead.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 07:44 am
We are now involved in a quagmire with no exit strategy. If we packed up and left today, Iraq would be left in a situation just as bad or worse as when Saddam was in power. BTW Anyone who continues to compare WWII to Iraq doesn't deserve a direct reponse.

The Iraqis future is as bleak as it ever was.

Funny how people can downplay war deaths when sitting behind the safety opf his keyboard. Pretty pathetic really.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 08:54 am
Quote:
The hell they are in now, is the work of the insurgents, not the Americans. We are trying to eliminate the insurgents and rebuild the country.


It don't matter who brings the hell if you are in hell. Iraq is a failure and that is all bush is about so he is a failure. He was warned by some who said that all the warring factions in Iraq would have to be dealt if you get rid of saddam hussien. His own daddy knew it and that is why he didn't do it. But Bush listens to a higher authority; who that authority is only anybody's guess because it sure ain't God. God woudln't have made such a mess of things.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 09:23 am
Revel, at least they are killing themselves now instead of Saddam killing them.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 10:29 am
McGentrix, I really almost feel sorry for you all in having to defend Bush and Iraq. It's really kind of pitiful.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 11:37 am
revel wrote:
Quote:
The hell they are in now, is the work of the insurgents, not the Americans. We are trying to eliminate the insurgents and rebuild the country.


It don't matter who brings the hell if you are in hell. Iraq is a failure and that is all bush is about so he is a failure. He was warned by some who said that all the warring factions in Iraq would have to be dealt if you get rid of saddam hussien. His own daddy knew it and that is why he didn't do it. But Bush listens to a higher authority; who that authority is only anybody's guess because it sure ain't God. God woudln't have made such a mess of things.

You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.

At the moment of the invasion of Iraq, the totality of the history suggested that there was a significant likelihood that Hussein had not complied with terms of his surrender a dozen years earlier by destroying these weapons and programs. Bush said, "...time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." He acted to protect the West from a possible crippling tragedy down the road. What do you think the US would be like after the nuclear annihilation of Washington, DC, or a plague started in the US with a version of smallpox genetically engineered to be immune to vaccines? Can you even conceive of the consequences? Technology is placing mankind in a very precarious situation, and this is something that the present administration understands.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 11:42 am
Quote:
You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.


Gee, that's the thing, yaknow? He really didn't.

After all, there is no real good scenario for us at the moment.

Either:

A. There were WMD in Iraq, and Saddam managed to smuggle them out before we invaded.

or

B. There were NO WMD in Iraq, and we have only exacerbated the problem of Terrorism and anti-US sentiment by going there and precipitating the deaths of over 10k civilians.

Either way, the U.S. is no better off than it was before the war re: national security.

Our borders are streched pretty thin right now. Let me ask you, how many cars do you think get searched coming in from Mexico every day, percentage-wise? Do you really believe that you are safe, if a determined agent wanted to get a device on U.S. soil?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 11:52 am
Harper wrote:
We are now involved in a quagmire with no exit strategy.

It is interesting that you describe a war which has not lasted long compared to many past wars considered just and successful as a "quagmire." When a war is fought to accomplish a goal considered important, then accomplishing the goal is more important than exit strategy. It seems to me to be immensely dysfunctional to view all wars primarily in terms of how to exit them. Yes, one should always trying to have a strategy for exit, but accomplishing the goals, even when they are hard to accomplish, is more important. What was America's exit strategy when it decided to resist British domination in the war for independence?


Harper wrote:
If we packed up and left today, Iraq would be left in a situation just as bad or worse as when Saddam was in power.

If you believe that the present situation is as bad as complete domination by a family that ruled with absolute authority, routinely consigned men, women, and even children to torture chambers, allowed not the slightest political dissent, and routinely raped any women that struck their fancy, I pity you.

Harper wrote:
BTW Anyone who continues to compare WWII to Iraq doesn't deserve a direct reponse.

Note that my particular comparison regarded the complexity of the occupations. Why do you feel that this means that I do not deserve a direct response. What do you mean by "direct?" Do you mean using my name? You are clearly responding. This strikes me as a sort of slogan-like statement that makes little sense.

Harper wrote:
The Iraqis future is as bleak as it ever was.

Covered above.

Harper wrote:
Funny how people can downplay war deaths when sitting behind the safety opf his keyboard. Pretty pathetic really.

Only someone who cannot make his case debates political ideas based on their origins instead of on their inherent merits.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.


Gee, that's the thing, yaknow? He really didn't.

After all, there is no real good scenario for us at the moment.

Either:

A. There were WMD in Iraq, and Saddam managed to smuggle them out before we invaded.

or

B. There were NO WMD in Iraq, and we have only exacerbated the problem of Terrorism and anti-US sentiment by going there and precipitating the deaths of over 10k civilians.

Either way, the U.S. is no better off than it was before the war re: national security.

We simply could not leave such a person to stockpile WMD while perfecting worse ones. That was not a reasonable option. At least Hussein is not personally controlling them now, nor is that particular country developing them at the moment. You are correct, though, that this is a huge problem involving many players, essentially the whole world, and not just Saddam Hussein. The bottom line is that if you have 10 evil madmen developing superweapons, you may, from time to time, have to disarm a particular madman, rather than let him continue to arm himself, even though he may merely transfer the weapon to someone else. Just by virtue of the accessibility of the technology, mankind is in a lot of trouble, and there really is no easy answer.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Our borders are streched pretty thin right now. Let me ask you, how many cars do you think get searched coming in from Mexico every day, percentage-wise? Do you really believe that you are safe, if a determined agent wanted to get a device on U.S. soil?

Cycloptichorn

Absolutely not. It would be very easy to bring WMD into the US and kill a mammoth number of people. But at least Hussein's contribution has been halted.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:06 pm
Quote:

You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.

At the moment of the invasion of Iraq, the totality of the history suggested that there was a significant likelihood that Hussein had not complied with terms of his surrender a dozen years earlier by destroying these weapons and programs...


Brandon your line of reasoning is uncharacteristically irrational.

First. there is very little evidence that any non-nuclear weapon could kill millions of people. The non-political experts are all saying that Chemical and Biological weapons are area control weapons and, while they may have additional psychological fear value, they are not much more deadly than conventional explosives. Every example where chemical and biological weapons have been used has confirmed this.

This is clearly political propaganda that you are putting forth as a reasoned argument.

Second, before the attack on Iraq everyone knew that there was no serious nuclear (or is that nucular) program in Iraq. The UN inspectors said that and intelligence (that was not being pressured by Bush) concurred. The real question was chemical and biological weapons which are not the threat that the Bush propaganda machine (and you) are saying.

Third, there are two countries on Bush's list of "evil" that do have credible nuclear programs. There is real evidence that Iran and N. Korea are now speeding up their nuclear programs in response to the war in Iraq. Bush is at a loss of what to do since he knows, as they do, that we are in no position to launch another war with the inevitable occupation to follow.

For you to suggest that the attack on Iraq potentially saved millions of lives is nothing short of hysteria-driven partisan propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:10 pm
Quote:
The bottom line is that if you have 10 evil madmen developing superweapons, you may, from time to time, have to disarm a particular madman, rather than let him continue to arm himself, even though he may merely transfer the weapon to someone else.


I think the Saddam that exists in reality and the supervillan, madman Saddam that you envisage are two different people completely.

I'm not trying to say he has any redeeming features. But this comic-bookish, supervillian outlook on the world that you put forward has little basis in reality.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:32 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.

At the moment of the invasion of Iraq, the totality of the history suggested that there was a significant likelihood that Hussein had not complied with terms of his surrender a dozen years earlier by destroying these weapons and programs...


Brandon your line of reasoning is uncharacteristically irrational.

First. there is very little evidence that any non-nuclear weapon could kill millions of people. The non-political experts are all saying that Chemical and Biological weapons are area control weapons and, while they may have additional psychological fear value, they are not much more deadly than conventional explosives. Every example where chemical and biological weapons have been used has confirmed this.

This is clearly political propaganda that you are putting forth as a reasoned argument.

1. Nuclear weapons, as you say, could kill millions.
2. I will buy the idea that chemical weapons confine their effects to one area, which is why I didn't say anything about them in my post. Nonetheless, I am under the impression that used properly they could kill thousands of people at once.
3. I can't agree with you at all about bioweapons being area control. Look at how certain diseases spread and become epidemics. There is nothing area control about certain diseases. A terminal disease for which no cure is known could potentially kill any number of people, particularly if it was designed for that purpose and particularly if the terrorists deliberately inititated it at several points across the country.


ebrown_p wrote:
Second, before the attack on Iraq everyone knew that there was no serious nuclear (or is that nucular) program in Iraq. The UN inspectors said that and intelligence (that was not being pressured by Bush) concurred.

From the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" at: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1992/a92/a92.albright.html

Quote:
Iraq's "Petrochemical Three," the secret nuclear program conducted under the authority of its Atomic Energy Commission with links to the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, received massive infusions of money and resources. Like the Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bombs in the United States, Iraq's program simultaneously pursued a number of different technical avenues to the bomb. Not knowing which efforts would succeed, Iraq poured billions of dollars into its multifaceted quest.

We knew that Iraq had sought nuclear weapons and made considerable effort. The very lack of hard information on status presented a danger. Had Hussein been working on this actively, we might have been faced with a finite time window of opportunity of unknown size, particularly if he could take a development shortcut by purchasing fissionable material.

ebrown_p wrote:
The real question was chemical and biological weapons which are not the threat that the Bush propaganda machine (and you) are saying.

See my comments above. Note that I did not refer to chemical weapons in the post to which you are responding.


ebrown_p wrote:
Third, there are two countries on Bush's list of "evil" that do have credible nuclear programs. There is real evidence that Iran and N. Korea are now speeding up their nuclear programs in response to the war in Iraq. Bush is at a loss of what to do since he knows, as they do, that we are in no position to launch another war with the inevitable occupation to follow.

1. North Korea already has the bomb. It is too late to attack. Now we have no alternative but to negotiate no matter how unreasonable their demands. We did not want to allow Hussein to achieve this level of near invulnerability.
2. Iran is a very complex case and there are many arguments both for an against an eventual need to invade. We have not been trying to persuade Iran to stop it's nuke program for a dozen years as we had been with Hussein. I hope that negotiation can work in this case.

ebrown_p wrote:
For you to suggest that the attack on Iraq potentially saved millions of lives is nothing short of hysteria-driven partisan propaganda.

A nuke or a bioweapon could realisitically achieve these kill numbers. See above.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:37 pm
By your reasoning, Brandon, we would best ensure the lives of every American by exterminating all other human life on the globe before it becomes a threat.

After all, there are many, many countries out there that pose a threat to the U.S.; why, at any time they could decide to launch an attack on us. So why suffer their existence? To do so would be a betrayal of the American people.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The bottom line is that if you have 10 evil madmen developing superweapons, you may, from time to time, have to disarm a particular madman, rather than let him continue to arm himself, even though he may merely transfer the weapon to someone else.


I think the Saddam that exists in reality and the supervillan, madman Saddam that you envisage are two different people completely.

I'm not trying to say he has any redeeming features. But this comic-bookish, supervillian outlook on the world that you put forward has little basis in reality.

Cycloptichorn

The central point is that Saddam Hussein's history indicated that he was not someone who ought to be allowed to develop and stockpile WMD. Yes, I know you could say that about a lot of people, or maybe even everyone, but realistically, the world would have been at great risk had someone like Hussein been allowed to amass a more and more deadly stockpile of WMD. It would have been foolhardy in the extreme to allow him to continue developing and stockpiling WMD.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:42 pm
This is true. But it was certainly possible to deny him the ability to pursue a WMD program, without invading the entire country.

Want evidence? We did it for the last ten years or so, and it worked just fine.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
By your reasoning, Brandon, we would best ensure the lives of every American by exterminating all other human life on the globe before it becomes a threat.

After all, there are many, many countries out there that pose a threat to the U.S.; why, at any time they could decide to launch an attack on us. So why suffer their existence? To do so would be a betrayal of the American people.

Cycloptichorn

You are putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that dictators on a par with Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Pol Pot, etc., cannot be allowed to have WMD, and that is all that I am saying. If it gets to the point that a goodly number of people like Hussein have stockpiles of WMD, I think that their use will be almost inevitable.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:49 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
This is true. But it was certainly possible to deny him the ability to pursue a WMD program, without invading the entire country.

Want evidence? We did it for the last ten years or so, and it worked just fine.

Cycloptichorn

He might easily have been hiding WMD, and holding WMD development programs in stasis until the spotlight was off him. Some amount of development might even have been continuing in secret. Iraq is a pretty large area in which to hide things. He might have had an active campaign going to smuggle a few WMD into the US in an effort to strike a crippling blow against us. With weapons of this destructive capability, we must protect ourselves very carefully.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:50 pm
No one ever claimed that every iraqi supported being freed, there are still plenty of saddam supporters in iraq who hate that people were liberated from their yoke of terror.

If you thought about it for a moment, who trained these athletes?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 07:43:20