The peace movement debunct.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

How will leaving sadam in power promote peace and justice in iraq?
Listen to this. Comments are welcome. It portrays a sensible point of view on this war.. and defeats.. easily, the anti-war movement.

http://www.jinjelsnaps.com/pwndhippie.mp3

How will leaving sadam in power promote peace and justice in iraq?

please answer that.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,366 • Replies: 24

No top replies

'debunked'

0 Replies

naw, i'll take debunct. looks like defunct.

fun stuff.

grammar nazi's usually have nothing to say, but good job.

tell me all about my apostrophy.

0 Replies

I was just trying to be helpful, didn't realize you'd chosen to spell the word wrong.

0 Replies

how will leaving Bush in power promote peace and justice in America?

0 Replies

answering a question with a question.

great.

0 Replies

its the american way

0 Replies

I have not yet seen anyone contend that Saddam's Iraq will have been a better place than the future Iraq.

Now my question is: what is your point?

Iraq is hardly the only nation affected by this. Most arguments against the war deal with a much broader scope.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I have not yet seen anyone contend that Saddam's Iraq will have been a better place than the future Iraq.

Now my question is: what is your point?

Iraq is hardly the only nation affected by this. Most arguments against the war deal with a much broader scope.

1) better? I think a main point is regarding human rights.. as in, to live. I see no reason to believe that more iraqi people will live under Saddam's rule than under a post-saddam rule. If you do, please tell.

2) my point? understanding the peace movement's objective. How will leaving sadam in power promote peace and justice in iraq?

3) If your only fear regarding this conflict is the dominoe effect it could cause, then explain why. I do not want to put words in your mouth.

0 Replies

I'm trying to figure out your terms... you are positing that everyone against this war thinks that Saddam should be left in power indefinitely?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'm trying to figure out your terms... you are positing that everyone against this war thinks that Saddam should be left in power indefinitely?

No,

I am aware that the anti-war stance agrees saddam is "bad news".

However, after these 12 years of diplomacy, I fail to see what the peace movement has to offer in regards to a resolution. If this is the only option, then one must assume the opponents do not want what the goal IS - or are childishly naive.

0 Replies

preinfixed wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I have not yet seen anyone contend that Saddam's Iraq will have been a better place than the future Iraq.

Now my question is: what is your point?

Iraq is hardly the only nation affected by this. Most arguments against the war deal with a much broader scope.

1) better? I think a main point is regarding human rights.. as in, to live. I see no reason to believe that more iraqi people will live under Saddam's rule than under a post-saddam rule. If you do, please tell.

2) my point? understanding the peace movement's objective. How will leaving sadam in power promote peace and justice in iraq?

3) If your only fear regarding this conflict is the dominoe effect it could cause, then explain why. I do not want to put words in your mouth.

re 1) I opined is accord with your opinion, if you saw contradiction wither I was unclear or you misread.

re 2) I have not signed any petitions, marched in any protests so I am not a good spokesperson but the protests do not have to call for a termination of the war effort to have utility.

Compare Afghanistan to Iraq, the level of protest was much different. Compare Gulf 1 to Gulf 2. The level of dissent was very dissimilar.

Dissent voiced publicly has registered a dissatisfaction with the current events. The public dissent has differentiated a situation that is more likely to be divisive from other situations in which this was less likely.

re 3) I have not made any reference to any "domino effect".

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

preinfixed wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
I have not yet seen anyone contend that Saddam's Iraq will have been a better place than the future Iraq.

Now my question is: what is your point?

Iraq is hardly the only nation affected by this. Most arguments against the war deal with a much broader scope.

1) better? I think a main point is regarding human rights.. as in, to live. I see no reason to believe that more iraqi people will live under Saddam's rule than under a post-saddam rule. If you do, please tell.

2) my point? understanding the peace movement's objective. How will leaving sadam in power promote peace and justice in iraq?

3) If your only fear regarding this conflict is the dominoe effect it could cause, then explain why. I do not want to put words in your mouth.

re 1) I opined in accord with your opinion, if you saw contradiction wither I was unclear or you misread.

re 2) I have not signed any petitions, marched in any protests so I am not a good spokesperson but the protests do not have to call for a termination of the war effort to have utility.

Compare Afghanistan to Iraq, the level of protest was much different. Compare Gulf 1 to Gulf 2. The level of dissent was very dissimilar.

Dissent voiced publicly has registered a dissatisfaction with the current events. The public dissent has differentiated a situation that is more likely to be divisive from other situations in which this was less likely.

re 3) I have not made any reference to any "domino effect".

0 Replies

Double, double?

0 Replies

lol, I wanted to edit a typo but quoted instead.

is=in

0 Replies

Toil and trouble!

0 Replies

Preinfixed

The ultimate refuge of a warmonger is to pretend that the people who argue against war either...

...can't see the problem that has to be dealt with (in this case Saddam Hussein) -- or

...don't care to deal with the problem (in this case, go to war.)

It is a false and pretentious assertion.

As has been mentioned dozens of times in many threads -- being against the war is not equal to thinking there is nothing wrong with Saddam Hussein -- and being against the war is not equal to wanting to do nothing about it.

I think Saddam Hussein is a scumbagh.

I think going to war against him without the approval of the Security Council not only was wrong -- I think it gave the Saddam Husseins of the world a victory they didn't deserve.

We've now resorted to the kind of thing a Saddam Hussein would do. If a tyrant or dictator anywhere in the world did what we are doing, we would be in an uproar - and people like you would be clamoring for the United States to do something about "that illegal invasion."

But no use arguing with you on this point. It is apparent you are not truly backing this move because you agree with it philosophically. You are making a typical conservative knee-jerk reaction to what George Bush is doing. If it is a conservative doing it, you are for it. If Bill Clinton had initiated this move, you would have dozens of reasons for opposing it.

0 Replies

preinfixed-
Your thread doesn't seem to be going to plan.

Though I was too impatient to wait for the audio, I wanted someone to be nice to you. (Never could pass a playground lynching without sticking up for the outnumbered victim.)

I agree in principal that it's mighty easy to protest and dissent, when you don't have to come up with better or even alternative ideas. There are the people that stick their necks out and make the hard calls, and the red-faced mass that follows them around, criticising everything they do.

A note in reference to Frank Apisa's last paragraph: When Clinton executed his pre-emptive strike on Kosovo, most Republicans backed him. The same protesters who fill the streets these days protesting "Bush's war" seemed just fine with Clinton's... Your charge of partisanship was on target, but directed at the wrong group.

Grandma has melanoma!: half the family wants her to have it removed right away, and don't think any other alternative is sensible. Half the family are really against it. They have good reasons: Grandma is old, she may not live through the surgery. It's expensive as hell..... But, of course, SHE'S GOING TO DIE WITHOUT IT. And, the anti-removal contingent can't explain how they will address the fact that Grandma needs to have the cancer removed. They don't have a solution, they just disagree with the one put forward. So, naturally, the pro-removal contingent thinks the anti-removal contingent are crazy. The anti-removal contingent thinks they love Grandma more than the pro-removal contingent; as they save her from a pre-emptive surgical slices, preferring to let her be eaten alive from the cancer growing inside her...

Wooo. Graphic analogy so soon after breakfast. Who is Grandma?

0 Replies

Preinfixed wrote: "How will leaving sadam in power promote peace and justice in iraq? "

This is a very reasonable question - but not one, however, that I think the peace movement is particularly addressing in its activities - which have more to do, I think, with whether or not invasion of Iraq without UN sanction was necessary for the safety of the world, and with concern about the effects of this action on the rest of the world, as well as Iraq.

0 Replies

dl:

I think that's actually what we're all about.

Pre is simply another one of DUH-BYA's sheep, who only goes by what AM-Radio and FOX "News" tell him.

But many of your questions also mean that this movement needs to keep its legs under it after this is over.

0 Replies

The peace movement debunct.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know