0
   

Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 03:18 pm
As long as we're just pulling stuff out of our asses...

Scenario: We attempt to contain Hussein's WMD programs. Ten years from now, he still hasn't succeeded in doing anything that kills one american, and we spend more of our time and energy fighting AL QUAEDA.

Yeah, that one sounds better.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 03:48 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Nimh, what does the alternative look like? What happens should the US pack up and leave?

Oh, I am not actually in favour for immediate withdrawal - I strongly thought it would be a Very Bad Idea, in fact, though I must admit I've started doubting the last couple of months.

Just making the point that many Iraqis are - and that that doesnt necessarily make 'em all Saddam supporters.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 08:40 pm
kickycan wrote:
As long as we're just pulling stuff out of our asses...

Scenario: We attempt to contain Hussein's WMD programs. Ten years from now, he still hasn't succeeded in doing anything that kills one american, and we spend more of our time and energy fighting AL QUAEDA.

Yeah, that one sounds better.

The fact is that the ordinary advance of technology is bringing WMD of various sorts within the reach of less powerful and sophisticated groups, just as PCs are now accessible to more people and are also more powerful than they were 20 years ago. Various dictators have sought them and will continue to do so in the future. Nuclear weapons are probably more difficult to develop than bioweapons or nerve gas, but someone with enough money and determination will eventually succeed.

Once a country or group possesses them, they will always have the option of smuggling them into the country of an enemy or rival, perhaps in pieces, using them to kill a lot of people, then denying all involvement. The number of people who can be killed with one use of one WMD is highly variable depending on what type it is, but even with nerve gas, the numbers can run to the thousands. Heads of state and terrorists will continue to seek these weapons, and some of them will have to be stopped. Containment is pretty much an obsolete idea, since the country we attempt to contain will always have the option of using WMD from within our country to strike a devastating blow against us. Make fun of it all you like. It's the new reality.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 09:31 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Heads of state and terrorists will continue to seek these weapons, and some of them will have to be stopped.

And what is your argument why Saddam was among those who had to be stopped - as opposed to his counterparts elsewhere who also seek - or actually already have - those weapons?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 11:20 pm
There remains no other option but to nuke the entire planet so as to keep christians and white people safe. Terrorists can be anywhere. Perhaps even your brother or your wife might have been influenced by their lies. Watch them closely. Cut their throats if necessary. And always always believe what your government tells you.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 12:47 am
blatham wrote:
There remains no other option but to nuke the entire planet so as to keep christians and white people safe. Terrorists can be anywhere. Perhaps even your brother or your wife might have been influenced by their lies. Watch them closely. Cut their throats if necessary. And always always believe what your government tells you.

You put words in my mouth that I never said and don't believe. I said only that the worst of the worst dictators cannot be allowed to control such weapons.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 12:59 am
nimh wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Heads of state and terrorists will continue to seek these weapons, and some of them will have to be stopped.

And what is your argument why Saddam was among those who had to be stopped - as opposed to his counterparts elsewhere who also seek - or actually already have - those weapons?

A country, such as North Korea, which already has nukes can't be invaded, since it would possess the option of killing a million people instantly. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving this level of near invulnerability.

Of all the people who are now seeking or will seek WMD, we must stop a few of the very worst of them from succeeding. One could make a list of criteria for someone whom we really need to stop from stockpiling WMD. Criteria might include evidence of absolute amorality (e.g. Hussein's practice of torturing or killing his own people by the million), ties to terrorists, previous attempts to annex neighbors. One could compile such a list of criteria, but I will be close enough to the mark if I say that someone on the level of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Hussein, or a Pol Pot must be stopped from possessing them.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:44 am
Brandon, the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is top STOP DIGGING!
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:48 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
A country, such as North Korea, which already has nukes can't be invaded, since it would possess the option of killing a million people instantly. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving this level of near invulnerability.


So what you're saying is, anyone who's got the Bomb is basically untouchable, can't be invaded, has instead to be bargained with and their sovereignty respected.

...Yeah, hard to imagine why Iraq (or anyone else tarred an... ahem... "evil-doer") would want nukes, huh? What more proof could you need that they're "evil" than that they don't want to be overrun by hordes of fine, decent, upstanding invaders who, after all, only want to kill them for their own good? Clearly, the United States and its allies have provided in Iraq a fine example... though I'd argue one more likely to persuade than dissuade.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 06:11 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
One could compile such a list of criteria, but I will be close enough to the mark if I say that someone on the level of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Hussein, or a Pol Pot

I'm sorry, Saddam was a terrible dictator but in no way can he be compared with Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot. Stalin was singlehandedly responsible for how many deaths - 40, 60 million? Hitler, 20 million? Pol Pot killed a third or half of his own people.

Saddam doesnt rank with that. Yes, he tried to gas the Kurds, but he didn't kill anything like half of them, the gas attacks themselves involved "just" several towns. Yes, he bombed the Marsh Arabs, but both Kurds and Marsh Arabs were minorities - the overall population was victimised to the terror of a police state, not to an effective genocide.

This must sound very cynical, but we have to be able to differentiate even between levels of utter evil if we are to make sound estimations and decisions ourselves. We have to be able to differentiate between a Horthy, a Pinochet, a Saddam, a Pol Pot and a Hitler - and those are roughly the categories I'd be thinking of. Saddam ranks 'above' Pinochet or Mobutu but definitively below general Bagasora of Rwanda or Pol Pot.

By consistently equating him with Stalin and Hitler you suggest he was one of those unique once-a-half-century perpetrators of as of yet unparallelled mass murder; in effect, he was more like the primus inter pares of third world dictators, terrorising his population, bullying his neighbours and going on killing sprees among the country's minorities. Thats all bad enough in itself, and on the basis of these 'humanitarian' grounds I would actually have supported an invasion when, for example, the gassing of the Kurds was actually ongoing, back in the late eighties, when they were not safely ensconsed in their own autonomous region yet. But Pol Pot it aint - thats just politically motivated rhetorics.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:37 am
Welcome to A2K, Baz. That was logic even a Freeper could get.

And nimh, that was a fine delineation of the point Brandon has proven himself incapable of comprehending for a looooong time now.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 07:57 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:
There remains no other option but to nuke the entire planet so as to keep christians and white people safe. Terrorists can be anywhere. Perhaps even your brother or your wife might have been influenced by their lies. Watch them closely. Cut their throats if necessary. And always always believe what your government tells you.

You put words in my mouth that I never said and don't believe. I said only that the worst of the worst dictators cannot be allowed to control such weapons.


Oh, but you do believe.

There was a wonderful show on the history channel here last evening that related the enlightening story of how the US, working covertly through the CIA and lying through its teeth to its own citizens, overthrew the only democratically elected government Guatemala has ever seen...all in aid of the United Fruit Company...there was 'no other reason' said the CIA operative who led the mission and is still alive. There was a wonderful scene of the US representative to the UN claiming the US was not involved (he was personally a major stockholder in the United Fruit Company). Following the coup, all the major union leaders were murdered, on-going land reforms reversed, and Guatemala sank back and has never recovered. But you still get cheap bananas. All of this story...ALL of it...sits in direct opposition to the values of liberty and democracy. How many times has this story played out?

One very sobering portion of this story involved the introduction of Madison Avenue advertisers into the selling of political persons and policies. That's a technology which has been refined to the point where people just like you say the things just like you have said above. And you say them because you are either too lazy or too frightened to appraise the history of your nation with honesty and rigor. You're a believer. You are exactly the sort of citizen that corrupt and undemocratic governments rely upon. This makes you something other than my friend.
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 09:00 am
nimh wrote:
Saddam doesnt rank with that. Yes, he tried to gas the Kurds, but he didn't kill anything like half of them, the gas attacks themselves involved "just" several towns. Yes, he bombed the Marsh Arabs, but both Kurds and Marsh Arabs were minorities - the overall population was victimised to the terror of a police state, not to an effective genocide.


It's a good point, and I've always found it interesting that people who support the invasion of Iraq always get around to the "poor Kurds" ploy sooner or later. He gassed the Kurds! Yes, he did. Why? Because they were trying to take their land out of Iraq and form Kurdistan. This a good thing, right? Well, yes... unless your name is Georgia and you're trying to form the Confederate States of America, in which case some guy named Sherman will march across your land, burn your homes, crops, and the basic means of support, and murder anyone who gets in his way before the Atlantic Ocean stops him from marching on Lisbon.

So let's recap...

Lincoln murders secessionist civilians... HERO Very Happy
Saddam murders secessionist civilians... VILLAIN Mad

And by the way... if protecting the Kurds was this all-important... where was the US when Hutus were slaughtering Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, and the UN was begging the States to send troops to bolster the Belgians, Canadians, Pakistanis and Ghanans trying to hold the fort? Guess the Rwandans didn't have enough oil.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 09:06 am
This thread got off the topic some 70 posts or so ago with Brandon's query relative to the "better-off" question, which has nothing to do with the Iraqis' objections to being used as Bush's political ad fodder (I suppose now it's simply insufficient for the Iraqi people to serve as cannon fodder).

This sort of misdirection is GOP stock-in-trade, so let's let Brandon continue running down his little rabbit trail while the rest of return to the point.

After the Iraqi soccer team blasted Bush for his ad, the United States Olympic Committee tells them they're in violation of rules regarding the usage of their name:

Quote:
ATHENS, Aug. 19 - The United States Olympic Committee has asked the Bush campaign to stop using the Olympic name in commercials. Federal law grants the U.S.O.C. exclusive rights to the name.

The campaign recently began running an ad that shows a swimmer, with flags of Afghanistan and Iraq. An announcer says: "Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics, there will be two more free nations and two fewer terrorist regimes.''

"We're awaiting a reply," Darryl Seibel, a U.S.O.C. spokesman, said.



These guys will exploit anything until they get called on it.
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 09:11 am
Quote:
"Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics, there will be two more free nations and two fewer terrorist regimes.''


..."This message brought to you by a terrorist regime. Shooting from the bushes since 1775!" Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:19 pm
Harper wrote:
Brandon, the first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is top STOP DIGGING!

As usual, you are unable to address any of my specific points. When one debater makes very impersonal, specific points about the topic of debate, and another responds with nothing more than a wisecrack, the logical conclusion is that the second person is unable to respond on topic.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:31 pm
Bazooey wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
A country, such as North Korea, which already has nukes can't be invaded, since it would possess the option of killing a million people instantly. We invaded Iraq to prevent Hussein from achieving this level of near invulnerability.


So what you're saying is, anyone who's got the Bomb is basically untouchable, can't be invaded, has instead to be bargained with and their sovereignty respected.

Of course I'm saying that since it's blatantly obviously true.

Bazooey wrote:
...Yeah, hard to imagine why Iraq (or anyone else tarred an... ahem... "evil-doer") would want nukes, huh? What more proof could you need that they're "evil" than that they don't want to be overrun...

Do you not have enough proof that Hussein, his sons, and his administration were evil? You are saying that they weren't? Yes, of course the idea of the invulnerability conferred by nuclear weapons appeals to people.

Bazooey wrote:
...than that they don't want to be overrun by hordes of fine, decent, upstanding invaders who, after all, only want to kill them for their own good?

You are putting words in my mouth which neither I nor the other conservatives here have said or believe. Why do you invent arguments for your opponents? Who said that any individual was being killed for his own good? I have consistently, over and over, including in this thread, said that we invaded Iraq primarily to prevent it from developing WMD, which, judging from Hussein's character, might soon be used to kill many people, perhaps Americans.

Bazooey wrote:
...Clearly, the United States and its allies have provided in Iraq a fine example... though I'd argue one more likely to persuade than dissuade.

When a person like Hussein is developing WMD, he must be stopped, by negotiation if possible, but by other means if negotiations do not yield results in a reasonable amount of time.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:40 pm
nimh wrote:
...we have to be able to differentiate even between levels of utter evil...Saddam ranks 'above' Pinochet or Mobutu but definitively below general Bagasora of Rwanda or Pol Pot.

My point was clearly not that these dictators were equal in evil deeds. They were merely examples of people who one wouldn't like to see in control of WMD.

My point was that because Hussein was very evil, because Iraq had ties to terrorism, and because a number of other criteria were met, Hussein, who among his other acts killed about a million of his own people *, qualifies as someone who it would be foolish to allow to develop and stockpile WMD.

* http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/15/132752.shtml
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:41 pm
Quote:
When a person like Hussein is developing WMD


Yea, well, he wasn't.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2004 05:42 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Welcome to A2K, Baz. That was logic even a Freeper could get.

And nimh, that was a fine delineation of the point Brandon has proven himself incapable of comprehending for a looooong time now.

Rubbish. I never intended to imply in any way that these dictators were equal. I was merely listing people whom one wouldn't like to see with WMD. If you plan to attempt to argue with me, at least argue with me based on what I actually say.
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 01/20/2022 at 12:04:56