lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar
View Poll Results: Should the US leave Iraq?
Yes 3 37.50%
No 2 25.00%
Other - read post 3 37.50%
Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll


Thread: Vacating Hell: Iraq
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-09-2007, 05:48 PM   #81
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
You haven't said much beyond..If it worked here, there's no reason it couldn't work there.
That's quite correct, Tot. That, in fact, was exactly what I intended to say, it is all I NEED to say, and I have backed it up with plenty of logical evidence, historical examples, etcetera.

Dictators have been deposed by their own people in the past, this has WORKED in the past, there is no reason to believe it would NOT have worked in Iraq, had the Iraqi people not been starved and bombed into impotence by the US and UK. End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I don't have to prove that it wouldn't work, you have to prove that it would.
Hah! attempts to shift the burden of proof aren't acceptable, Tot. You're supporting an immoral and illegal act of international aggression (the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq) that has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and the lives of thousands of our own troops.

YOU are the one who has to demonstrate that less damaging means were SO unlikely to have worked that they weren't worth trying, in order to support your frankly weak position.

Those who advocate extreme violence in preference to other methods ALWAYS carry the burden of proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Just citing what you think COULD happen is a meaningless and empty reply. Also, to quote you, self-serving.
...
Seriously, al, if this is the best you've got....it might've happened....then you still have nothing. And the argument benefits you only in a fantasy world.
Well that's just nonsense, Tot. Since we DID invade Iraq after battering its people into submission over the course of decades, we will never know with total certainty whether Saddam WOULD have been overthrown by his people. But it's certainly probable. After all, our sanctions were a major factor in strengthening his regime. And as stated above, you and your ilk carry the burden of proof, if you wish to defend an illegal and immoral invasion of a sovereign nation.

In short, my position on this matter is: "If one really wanted to depose Saddam and his regime, there were options available that would have been FAR less damaging to the Iraqi people than the US/UK invasion was. These options could well have worked, but were not explored in any meaningful way."

And your position seems to consist largely of: "We DID invade Iraq... so your ideas are pure fantasy only useful in a fantasy world therefore you lose!"

And frankly... what you're saying boils down to illogical nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Besides, considering that they didn't overthrow SH at the end of the First Gulf War, when they might have had a chance before all those pesky sanctions, your argument is basically bupkiss.
Eh? Tot, are we discussing the same "Iraq" here? As far as I'm aware, sanctions were imposed in 1990, before the start of the Gulf War.

Besides, for some significant period of time after the first Gulf war, the US was still actively supporting Saddam's regime, and foiling attempts to overthrow him. So even if your contention weren't based on a lack of knowledge of the topic (which it apparently was) it would still be erroneous.

For example, at the peace conference following cessation of hostilities in 1991, the coalition granted Saddam's regime the right to use attack helicopters within his own borders, without fear of US interference. These helicopters were subsequently used by Saddam's lot to massacre the Shi'ite uprising in the south of the country, resulting in thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of fatalities.

There's also the matter of the US blocking plans by rebel Iraqi generals to overthrow Saddam. The BBC reported the fact that in early 1991 these rebels requested US permission to launch attacks on Saddam's regime using captured Iraqi weaponry. They were- of course- refused any such permission, and- at least at Nasriyeh- were in fact disarmed by US forces.

I rather think that's QED on this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Self-serving irrelevancy.
What is irrelevant exactly, the point that the US government has a quite astonishing record of squashing popular freedom-fighting movements worldwide through the past fifty years? Come now Tot, don't slide into total denial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
You're sounding a lot like those silly people who say things like communism (for instance) doesn't work because WE (ie the self-deluded purveyors and disciples of the ideology in question) haven't tried it yet.
Well actually communism hasn't been tried by any major states, any more than democracy has.

However, your comment is totally irrelevant, because my earlier statement is frankly uncontestable. I stated: "But what are you trying to say, that oppressive occupying regimes can be overthrown from within by revolutionary violence? Of course they can. They can also be overthrown by non-violent methods. So which should we be encouraging, funding and striving for? Which is more conducive to peace and the preservation of life... and which is more moral? The latter, of course."

And of course non-violent methods have been tried. And they have succeeded. And of course they're more moral. And more peaceful...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Once again, you infer things that are not in someone else's statements. I know you've got a bug up your arse about asserting your overbearing sense of morality into every occasion, but quit reaching.
Childish and mildly profane nonsense Tot, I've never made incorrect inferences regarding your posts. Sadly the reverse is not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
To spell it out for you....take the US and GB out of the picture and you still have other powers who benefitted from SH's rule. Given that one of them was a superpower (the USSR, remember them?), it's foolish to assert like you do that SH would have easily been removed from power through the peaceful means that you blather on about constantly.
Ah, the usual pattern: You accuse others (wrongly) of inferring things from your posts that they shouldn't... and then leap forward and completely misrepresent your opposition, putting words in their mouths and waving straw men around like there's no tomorrow.

I have NEVER asserted that "SH would have easily been removed from power through peaceful means". Who said anything about "easy"? Where did you get this nonsense from? Find a quotation that supports it. Go on.

The fact remains that the US/UK supported Saddam throughout his most grevious atrocities, and by this support, contributed greatly to his longevity as a brutal dictator. The removal of this support would have meant a massive reduction in Saddam's capabilities. We take responsibility for our actions, and the actions of the US and UK helped to create and maintain a violent, brutal war criminal in the seat of power in Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Just a reminder, al, you're the one making the argument that it could work, but consistently fail to prove it. I don't have to prove a negative, remember.
All I have to do is prove that it can work, Tot. And history shows that it can. As for you "having to prove a negative", Nobody's asking you to.

All you have to do to support your incredibly weak position (that our actions in Iraq were justified) is provide some reasons why you think alternative means (peaceful or not) should not have been tried FIRST.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Besides, as you should well know, the middle east is full of dictatorships which are not overthrown by people who haven't been burdened with crippling sanctions.
Many people in the Middle East are oppressed by their amoral governments/rulers. Some of whom also have US support. But what's your point? How does any of that relate to the fact that the US/UK supported a brutal dictator in Iraq for decades, before trashing the innocent populace of that nation? Answer: It doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Yes, apt. Neither SH nor KJI (let alone his father) would have tolerated the interference you advocate allowing to take place. Given that it's easier to fold in the face of intimidation than stand up to it, it's unlikely your pipedream peace activist agenda would have been sown on anything other than rocky soil in either country.
Tish and posh, it's DEMONSTRABLE that at several points in the past few decades, Saddam relied on US/UK support in order that he might commit his atrocities in quelling rebellion. A couple of examples have been cited above.

Plus, Tot... history is full of courageous people who are willing to stand up to intimidation rather than fold, and there are still many. Just because protest is difficult doesn't mean people aren't doing it. And there have always been revolutionary organisations even in the harshest conditions. So I don't think your contention holds water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The only think self-serving so far has been the deluded contention that peaceful activism will ALWAYS work in the end.
Once again... Who has said anything of this sort? Have you been reading the same thread that I have? I certainly haven't seen anyone say "peaceful activism will ALWAYS WORK IN THE END RAAAH!!11" or anything close to it.

Please provide a quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Way off the mark here (par for the course, as always). I basically addressed this above.
Well since I'm still unable to decipher your earlier statement: "Still, the rub is that any "peaceful" organization would be given that kind of latitude required for your "non-violent" solution to take hold in thuggish dictatorships", it's hard to say whether you addressed it or not.

It doesn't make any kind of sense to me. Please rephrase and repost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Earth to al......aw nevermind, you're in your own little universe, billions and billions of LYs away.
Childish...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
If you think that Castro's Cuba or Chavez's Venezuela are great places, then you are deluded
Ah, well since I don't "think they're great places", I must not be deluded. I am however aware that they're better places than the neo-cons make them out to be, just as I'm aware that Castro and Chavez aren't the fire-breathing monsters that the neo-cons make them out to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
(remember, that's just merely a neutral term, so no derision......unless you're willing to concede that you use that term the same way you'll ascribe to me now. ) Frankly, I won't take your word for it, no offense. Your obsession with neo-cons is very telling.
I think pretty much all the thinly veiled slights in this paragraph have been addressed before. As for "taking my word" that conditions in Cuba are some of the best in the region (despite characteristic economic terrorism on the part of the US government), you don't have to take my word for it. Just read some independent studies.

As of last year, Cuba's economic growth was apparently the highest in Latin America. In terms of healthcare, visits to the doctor and hospital care are free and of a high medical standard, the majority of prescription drugs are affordable to most Cubans, public contentment is reasonable, Castro's regime is still quite well regarded,... literacy runs at about 99% (which, truth be told is probably better than the functional literacy level in my own country) and the Cuban literacy program has been adopted by many other countries. The last I heard in about 2001, university education was state-funded, i.e: free.

What more can be said? Is Cuba perfect? No. Would I rather live there than in the UK? No.

The Cuban press cannot be defined as "a free press" and poverty is high. Certain imported drugs are too expensive for Cubans to afford with any regularity. But for myself I might go on holiday to Cuba. It's not an oppressive hell-hole. But then, I never thought it was. We just don't get the same level of anti-Cuba rhetoric in the UK as you do in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
What I'm saying is that the spineless "peace in our time" proponents should have stood up to Herr Hitler as early as 1934-38 when he was busy openly defying the terms of Versailles.
...
1939-1945 was the result of their cowardice. How many had to die so that the craven and misguided peace crowd could have their moment in the sun? 50+ million. So much for the superior morality of the peacenik.
Heh. In a move typical of those who support our illegal invasion of Iraq, you attempt to equate those who desire peace and justice with appeasers and cowards. It doesn't wash, Tot. People are more than the caricatured extremes you seem to wish to divide the world up into. It is not a case of being either a "cowardly peacenik" or a bloodthirsty warmonger. There are those, like myself (and most dissidents, frankly), who would happily engage in violence if it served some useful, moral purpose.

Should those who engage in international aggression be punished? Of course. Would it have been a really great idea to organise assasinations of the Nazi leadership as early as 1937? I think so. Does any of this apply to the situation in Iraq? Of course it doesn't, Unlike Germany in '37/'38, Iraq was no danger to anyone, no danger to its neighbors, no danger to us. Did our sanctions and bombings do any good for the Iraqi people? No. Did our invasion of Iraq in 2003 improve the lives of the Iraqi people? No.

Therefore, it's one example of aimless, self-interested violence that I'm NOT in favour of. And neither should you be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Do you intentionally misinterpret people?
I've never misrepresented you. I wish the reverse were true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
You've griped about all the money wasted (from your pov) on Iraq and how it's such a mess. No doubt b/c the money was spent on the "illegal/immoral" war.
Eh? You're conflating two issues. The first issue is that our money (the public's money) was wasted on an illegal and immoral war. This is not "money spent on Iraq". It's money spent on DESTROYING Iraq, for the political gain of our rulers. I have indeed complained about this. (Not "griped", thank you very much.)

The second issue is that comparitively little money has been spent by us (the aggressors) on repairing the damage we did in Iraq. I would like to see some money "thrown" at THIS problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The point is that throwing money at a problem is no solution, regardless of the desired outcome.
Is this the best you can do? I say "we're not spending enough money on repairing the damage we did in Iraq", and you respond "throwing money at a problem is no solution". Please.

Suppose someone drives their car into the front of your house, and you take them to court to obtain damages. Would you be satisfied if the Judge dismissed your case on the basis that "throwing money at a problem is no solution"? We did the damage, we should pay for the repairs. And we should pay MORE than we have so far paid, and we should handle the money more intelligently and more MORALLY than we have so far. End of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Several examples of how throwing money at problems doesn't work are:...
Why exactly do you think that fumbling around for examples of how money has been mis-spent helps your case at all?

Here, let me give you another example of mis-directed, mis-handled money: The nine billion dollars from the Iraqi reconstruction fund lost by the American administration of said fund.

So what's your point? My point is that more money has to be spent, and it has to be better handled and morally directed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
al....by definition, he will be more conservative in the areas where you are more liberal and vice versa. That was just sloppy (and immoral )on your part.
Once again you expose the fact that you don't know what classical conservatism means. It's non-ideological, Tot. Classical conservatism and liberalism aren't mutually exclusive. I think the reason you're making this error is that what YOU know of as conservatism is a corrupted, state-capitalist sham, totally unrecognisable as conservatism in the classical sense.

Still, the same could be said of modern "liberalism."

Furthermore, I fail to see how "immorality" comes into the equation as regards this paragraph. Even if your assertion were correct (which it is not). I think you're just throwing random accusations around now.

-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Long story short, a strong military alone cannot win politics for you but you cannot win without it.
Define a "strong military". I think we're all in favour of a well trained military force in our own nations. What I'm not in favour of is using that military force to butcher innocent Iraqis for no reason other than political gain for our ruling classes.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 06:15 PM   #82
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
And you can prove beyond doubt there are some form of death squads targeting Iraqi civillians can you? Show us then.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 06:21 PM   #83
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
... It's good to be back.

Why would I have to prove such a thing, Nancy?


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 06:32 PM   #84
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
You are in a debate forum. People are going to debate with you when they believe you are stating things that are not correct. In other words you stated America uses it's military force to butcher innocent Iraqis. I'm going to make this clear, prove it or STFU.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 06:36 PM   #85
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
You are in a debate forum. People are going to debate with you when they believe you are stating things that are not correct.
Didn't a moderator say that to you, not so long ago? How odd.

Quote:
In other words you stated America uses it's military force to butcher innocent Iraqis.
I stated: "What I'm not in favour of is using that military force to butcher innocent Iraqis for no reason other than political gain for our ruling classes." which you'll note is different to what you just typed.

And I was referring to- among other atrocities- our invasion of Iraq in 2003, which caused untold DIRECT Iraqi civilian casualties... and of course indirectly has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. I presume you don't dispute that these things happened?

Quote:
I'm going to make this clear, prove it or STFU
How emotional. As implied above, unless your contention is that our illegal and immoral invasion did NOT cause massive civilian deaths... it is already proven.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 06:41 PM   #86
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
You said that America used it's military to butcher innocent Iraqis. Not that the terrible colateral damage of a war that shouldn't have happened were caused by American forces, or the military was there to strike at Iraqi's army and the cost was far too high, no the direct quote was use it's military to butcher innocent Iraqis. Now I'm demanding that you provide evidence of this. If you cannot your statement is false.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 06:51 PM   #87
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Hahaha... "the terrible collateral damage of a war that shouldn't have happened was caused by American forces" is the nice, friendly, pro-invasion way of putting it.

How I put it is: Before the 2003 invasion, a blind mongoose could have told you that such an invasion would result in massive civilian casualties. The US government knew it. But they invaded anyway, because it was in their political interests to do so. They knew those civilians would die, but they went ahead anyway.

That's murder. In ANYONE'S book, it's murder. So do I feel uncomfortable about using words like "butcher"? No. Hundreds of thousands of people dead? Shot, bombed and starved? That's butchery.

And as stated before, no further evidence is required. We DID invade, we DID kill hundreds of thousands of civilians both directly and indirectly. It happened, our governments are responsible... end of line.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 06:57 PM   #88
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
No, you put it that America "used it's military to butcher innocent Iraqis". We should never have gone into Iraq, just look at what happened. By your inferrence however you're saying that American soldiers were send to the town of Ab Nabi **** to kill the men, women and children who were unarmed. How about Normandy? Would that be classed as murder too?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 07:00 PM   #89
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
By your inferrence however you're saying that American soldiers were send to the town of Ab Nabi **** to kill the men, women and children who were unarmed.
You mean "implication". No, such a thing wasn't implied in my statements. You have inferred something that was not there in the text. Your problem, not mine. I will not respond to further misunderstandings on your part concerning the word "butcher". It's nothing personal, I just don't have the time to keep repeating myself anymore.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 07:02 PM   #90
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Running away rather than answer my questions, again. That's pretty weak.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 07:06 PM   #91
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
When you come up with questions that I haven't answered seventeen times, you will get a new response. Until then... sorry, but it's not worth my effort to go around in any more circles with you- no matter how diverting- as I have in the past.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 07:09 PM   #92
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Would you class Normandy as murder?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 07:13 PM   #93
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
That's a question that's irrelevant to the issue of Iraq, as the two scenarios are not comparable. You may as well ask me "Is cabbage murder?" and I would answer that as readily as I will answer this... i.e: not at all.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 07:23 PM   #94
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Patton, Eisenhower, ect who planned Normandy knew how bad it was going to be, how many people were going to die, and they still went in. Given your statement that "Before the 2003 invasion, a blind mongoose could have told you that such an invasion would result in massive civilian casualties. The US government knew it. But they invaded anyway, because it was in their political interests to do so. They knew those civilians would die, but they went ahead anyway." I'll be generous and leave how valid much of that statement is alone, the point is clearly it does apply. So don't try and dodge the question, answer it.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 07:58 PM   #95
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Ahh Nancy, if you genuinely can't see the difference between the situation in Europe in '44, in which heavily armed and still highly dangerous Nazi forces illegally occupied several other sovereign nations in Europe and were committing atrocities the scale of which had never been seen before in the history of the world,... and Iraq in 2003, a crippled, impoverished nation which the US government declared was no danger to ANYONE as early as 2001...

If you can't see the stark differences between these two invasions that render them incomparable, then my goodness, how are we supposed to have a meaningful debate? Answer: we can't.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2007, 09:01 PM   #96
CLONECOMMANDER501
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 369
I don't think Iraq is fit for democracy, has anyone noticed when Sudan was president there were no suicide bombers? Well, Sudan was a cruel tyrant but he made sure that there weren't any uprisings.


CLONECOMMANDER501 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2007, 07:17 AM   #97
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Saddam was a bug that needed to be stepped on, the people of Iraq can now have the freedom to think act and speak without fear of torture and death. But of course without that fear holding them back the country's fallen apart with war, not just America against Saddam, Sunnis against Shi'ites, Insurgents wanting to drive out the invaders and Al Qaeda rocking up to the party to kill them some Yankees. Is the country better off? Define better off, calm but living in fear and under tyranny or free and exploding in chaos. Both options suck, and Bush was a fool. If he was going to go against everybody anyway then he didn't need to go to war, a nice quiet assassination and orchastration for a coup would have done the job better.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 02:29 PM   #98
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
Didn't a moderator say that to you, not so long ago? How odd.
You'd think I'd at least get a little credit when the quote is verbatim, but what'll you do. /sigh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
a nice quiet assassination and orchastration for a coup would have done the job better.
I have strong doubts that assassinating the leader of a country would have actually accomplished things better in any way that the invasion did, and almost certainly would have created FAR worse global backlash against the United States.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2007, 06:23 PM   #99
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Unfortunetly Bush was going to do something about Saddam no matter what. The UN wasn't going to stop him. Other countries weren't going to stop him. America wouldn't stop him either. So if inaction was clearly not an option was there an alternative to sacrificing American lives? Arming the Sunnis, the Kurds, to take over Iraq after Saddam was assassinated, I'm not sure how valid such an option was but we could have saved so many lives if it was possible.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2007, 02:01 AM   #100
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Dictators have been deposed by their own people in the past, this has WORKED in the past, there is no reason to believe it would NOT have worked in Iraq...
Mere conjecture on your part.......END OF STORY.

Quote:
YOU are the one who has to demonstrate that less damaging means were SO unlikely to have worked that they weren't worth trying, in order to support your frankly weak position. Those who advocate extreme violence in preference to other methods ALWAYS carry the burden of proof.
You are confused. You have to prove that it would've worked, not that it "could've worked" (gee, the sun COULD blow up tomorrow/it worked in the lab ). The other statement is just a conceit on your part and thus meaningless.



Quote:
And frankly... what you're saying boils down to illogical nonsense.
Your statements are fanciful nonsense, al. They, the people of Iraq, had an opportunity in '91 and either didn't or couldn't take it. Sanctions hadn't seriously weakened them at that point. That you think a harsh dictator like SH (or even KJI) would stand aside as you and your misguided companions pumped money and activists into his country while doing nothing is testimony as to how deluded you are on this topic. He didn't get where he was by sitting idly by while people plotted his downfall.

Also, as your childishly condescending rant demonstrates, it wasn't sanctions that stopped anything. It was ill advised policy that resulted in SH being able to take advantage of western ambivalence to prevent himself from being toppled from within. The same kind of brute force that would have been turned on naive people like yourself had you sought to interject yourselves into the political equation. And don't be disingenuous, those "pesky sanctions" you refer to weren't merely between the summer of 1990 and SH's defeat in march '91, but the cumulative effect of several years to over a decade.

Quote:
Childish.......I've never made incorrect inferences regarding your posts. Sadly the reverse is not true....I've never misrepresented you. I wish the reverse were true.
Honestly, al, that you could make such statements with a straight face is illuminating. You consistently engage in misrepresentation and then cry foul that others have done it to you. It's extrememly hypocritical of you to cry wolf about other people's treatment of you when you have been quite prolific at throwing out a slew of ad hominems yourself. My observation about your style was spot on.

It's also obvious that you have a blindspot when it comes to facts that don't fit easily into your paradigm. You're completely oblivious to the fact that were the US/GB not supporting SH, then the French and Soviets would have filled that gap. Fact. The real reasons that the Russians and french were not on board with either conflict in the first place was b/c of their business ties. So, before you go off into left field, as is often your MO, this means (as I pointed out earlier) that SH was extremely unlikely--to the point of not at all--to have been removed through the methods you obsess about in your replies. Whether it was US/GB support or from the French/USSR, SH was VERY unlikely to have been toppled in either (or any other)case.


Quote:
All I have to do is prove that it can work, Tot. And history shows that it can.
History doesn't exist in a vacuum, al.


Quote:
Many people in the Middle East are oppressed by their amoral governments/rulers..... But what's your point....
The point is that you don't have any proof that sanctions are the cause of the inability of anyone in that region to remove their despots. The rest of your statement is your usual self serving rant.



Quote:
Tish and posh, it's DEMONSTRABLE that at several points in the past few decades, Saddam relied on US/UK support in order that he might commit his atrocities in quelling rebellion. A couple of examples have been cited above.

Plus, Tot... history is full of courageous people who are willing to stand up to intimidation rather than fold, and there are still many. Just because protest is difficult doesn't mean people aren't doing it. And there have always been revolutionary organisations even in the harshest conditions. So I don't think your contention holds water.
Not really sure how this relates to your point that SH could have been toppled though "peaceful means" (it doesn't, to be blunt). Also, you make the obvious glaring mistake here of assuming that I take the position that "peaceful protest" can NEVER work, which is not something I've ever said. I just don't share your obvious delusions about how effective it WILL be.
Quote:
... Who has said anything of this sort?
Here you strain credulity to the breaking point. Your position can FAIRLY be summed up as "given the opportunity, peaceful activism WILL work (apparently no matter what the case) b/c it has worked in the past."

Quote:
Earth to al......aw nevermind, you're in your own little universe, billions and billions of LYs away.

Quote:
Childish...
No, humorous and spot on to boot.



Quote:
Furthermore, I fail to see ........
Sadly, that's true.


To be honest, al, your arguments about whether SH could have been removed peacefully rest on "what ifs", so you can assert anything you want, but that won't make it true. Just delusional.

Also, your other consistent mistake is to assert a moral stance to any of my arguments (other than of your own making). You may think that I've been amoral in my approach to the situation, but can't actually cite any examples of my saying "going into Iraq was moral b/c..." (hence my extremely appropos comment about your need to assert your sense of morality re. everyone's comments). But frankly, if you wish to assert that the US/GB created the frankenstein monster called Saddam, it CAN BE argued that it was their moral responsibility to remove him. I assert that it was merely pragmatic in the end. Regardless of what you think about the legality of the first Gulf War, the second was merely a resumption of hostilities that were only halted by a cease fire agreement. Frankly, if a war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, it would be a resumption of hostilities, not technically a "new war". But as to the current conflict in the region, I actually don't disagree with the notion that it has been botched.

Quote:
...you attempt to equate those who desire peace and justice with appeasers and cowards. It doesn't wash....
I'm sure Neville Chamberlain felt the same..... .

As a wise man said, don't go away angry......just go away.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2007, 02:18 AM   #101
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Your position can FAIRLY be summed up as "given the opportunity, peaceful activism WILL work (apparently no matter what the case) b/c it has worked in the past."
Actually, (and Al can correct me if I'm wrong) I believe the position was it has worked in the past, therefore it is worth at least giving it a chance to happen in the present, instead of simply assuming that it cannot work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
To be honest, al, your arguments about whether SH could have been removed peacefully rest on "what ifs", so you can assert anything you want, but that won't make it true.
Isn't that exactly the point? Of course it's "what ifs", we never tried it, so we obviously cannot make concrete statements on the results. Merely point out that we never even tried, though it is the more moral path to take.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2007, 05:07 AM   #102
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Not exactly sure what it is you think we never tried. I do recall him being given an option to leave peacefully (Marcos, Duvalier and the Shah were pretty much removed that way).


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Vacating Hell: Iraq

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB 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 07:59 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.