You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ANTI-WAR/USA BASHERS: WHERE ARE YOU NOW, MFERS?!?!
- Thread starter FRuiTY PeBBLe
- Start date
Quote from KymarFye:
"Pfft" is not a response. It is impertinence. If that's all you can manage, then I'll cease expending any effort on you and your posts.
I suppose I could ask you to re-read the relevant sections of my post and to respond directly to my arguments, but you do not seem to be capable of doing so.
I should add, in passing, that the figure you quote as to Iraqi casualties tied to the sanctions has been disputed. The primary responsibility for the casualties cannot really be disputed: It was fully within the Iraqi government's power at any time to ensure that the oil money was humanely distributed, or, even better, to comply with the UN resolutions commemorating the '91 ceasefire.
Much less disputable are the casualty figures for the Iran-Iraq war (2 million direct battlefield casualties on both sides), and the estimates of lives lost during the anti-Kurdish and anti-Shia campaigns. You still have not stated what your preferred policy would have been. Apparently, you would be comfortable allowing Saddam - who you yourself have admitted had absolutely no concern for the lives of his own people, much less for anyone else's lives - to have operated without constraints and without threat of military intervention. Given his record, this policy can mean only that you would have been comfortable with his possessing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, achieving dominance over the Gulf region and the Arab world, and even more actively prosecuting his campaign for the destruction of Israel.
The risks of such a policy were not acceptable either to the United States or, for that matter, the rest of the UN - whose decisions and operations you will defend at all costs, so long as they run counter to US interests.
If you have some other position as to how Iraq should have been handled, then you should state it.
Containment? Non-involvement? Intervention? Which do you prefer. If containment - be specific about how it would have been enforced, who would have enforced it, what would have been required of Saddam, and how these requirements would have differed from the UN policy of which you have been so critical.
If you cannot answer, we will have to conclude that you are incapable of discussing this matter seriously.
As you have not chosen to share this examination that you have conducted, it can not be argued.
I would prefer that you demonstrated a capacity to engage specific arguments with specific responses rather than endlessly re-stated generalizations and immature exclamations like "pffft" and "double pfft." Or maybe you can conduct another one of those brilliant polls.
Sorry for the "pfft" Kymar. I guess I'll just have to bring myself to believe that you actually believe those things you wrote.
The primary responsibility for the casualties cannot really be disputed: It was fully within the Iraqi government's power at any time to ensure that the oil money was humanely distributed, or, even better, to comply with the UN resolutions commemorating the '91 ceasefire.
No sir, it most certainly can be disputed. (I'm doing so right now aren't I?) It was also fully with in your power to stop them. How the HELL can you reconcile caring about human life with being oblivious to such massive loss of it?
The question is, did you or did you not realize that Saddam just didn't give a shit about his people? If you did, then, buddy boy, the blame rests squarely on your shoulders for persisting. If you didn't realize, well, gee, I'm glad we've got the US policing us..
Much less disputable are the casualty figures for the Iran-Iraq war (2 million direct battlefield casualties on both sides), and the estimates of lives lost during the anti-Kurdish and anti-Shia campaigns. You still have not stated what your preferred policy would have been.
Hmm, I think you meant much more disputable are the casualty figures for Iran-Iraq. Where did you pull 2 million from? Casualty = dead right? To call that a "high end estimate" is being generous beyond belief, given that I've never even encountered anything that high. (500k-1MM is normally given).
Now, before you ask me what my own preferred policy is, I think it's worth noting, since you brought it up, (and I'm sure you know this) that your own country had absolutely ZERO problem with Iraq attacking Iran, you were happy to see it, you encouraged it, you provided support to Iraq for it (and yep, we have discussed this, I remember). Oh, and that terrible, horrifying gassing of the Kurds, which you boys never fail to bring up in justifying this war, how was that dealt with? Condemnation? Sanctions? Nope, a handsome $1Billion+ loan. Hmm, whatever my policy, I'm sure I couldn't do much worse than that.
If you have some other position as to how Iraq should have been handled, then you should state it.
Containment? Non-involvement? Intervention? Which do you prefer. If containment - be specific about how it would have been enforced, who would have enforced it, what would have been required of Saddam, and how these requirements would have differed from the UN policy of which you have been so critical.
Oh, I take it you were asleep from, say, July 2002 to March 2003?
Let me jog your memory. Remember an organization called the United Nations? Laugh, mock, deride, whatever. It's still the avenue of choice for all but the biggest of US hawks. I really don't think I need to defend why the UN would have been by far the best option.
Well, you did try. Remember that (so-called) "evidence" Powell embarrassed himself with? And the secretive "we have proof of Al Qaeda link, but we just can't tell you what it is"? (The same stunt they're pulling with this new "mystery scientist") That was just brilliant. I hope you don't start applying the same principle in your own courts.
Look, I don't have a fail-safe, all-encompassing solution Kymar. I'm just a student, lest you forget. But it's pretty damn obvious that I don't need one of my own in order to be able to condemn the "solution" your government chose.
Whatever the real "right" thing would have been, I'm pretty sure that the way to come to a consensus would have been to do it through the UN; and I'm equally sure that what you did, in fact, end up doing, was about as close to the "wrong" thing you can get, in fact it was probably it.
Quote from alfonso:
Let me jog your memory. Remember an organization called the United Nations? Laugh, mock, deride, whatever. It's still the avenue of choice for all but the biggest of US hawks. I really don't think I need to defend why the UN would have been by far the best option.
The UN, eh? Let me jog your memory. Answer this: How many children died unnecessarily during the lengthy UN inspection process?
Quote from max401:
The UN, eh? Let me jog your memory. Answer this: How many children died unnecessarily during the lengthy UN inspection process?
Wha?
Died of what? Are you referring to the sanctions you insisted on maintaining?
Ooh, and, gee, I'm so so sorry about the "lengthy" inspections Max. Maybe they should have just whizzed around the Iraqi countryside in a weekend, decided Iraq must have them, because, afterall, that you can't find them is a sure sign they've got them (this is US logic, to those of you unfamiliar with it), and let's just get on with the bombing already.
Not neccessarily, since you continue to believe that it was US policy that caused the deaths. But Saddam siphoned off at least $650 million dollars in cash (i.e. beyond palace construction, WMD development and munitions purchases), in spite of the sanctions. Did he spend it on the children?Quote from alfonso:
Wha?
Died of what? Are you referring to the sanctions you insisted on maintaining?
Quote from max401:
Not neccessarily, since you continue to believe that it was US policy that caused the deaths. But Saddam siphoned off at least $650 million dollars in cash (i.e. beyond palace construction, WMD development and munitions purchases), in spite of the sanctions. Did he spend it on the children?
It's like talking to a brick wall (but worse).
Let me ask you, 3 questions:
1 Did you, or did you not notice that Saddam simply didn't care that his people were suffering as a result of the sanctions, that he knew they'd suffer if they didn't receive certain forms of aid, but he chose spend the money on himself anyway?
2 If you did notice, would you say your strategy was being effective?
3 If you decided your strategy wasn't being effective, why persist with it?
Quote from alfonso:
It's like talking to a brick wall (but worse).
Let me ask you, 3 questions:
1 Did you, or did you not notice that Saddam simply didn't care that his people were suffering as a result of the sanctions, that he knew they'd suffer if they didn't receive certain forms of aid, but he chose spend the money on himself anyway?
2 If you did notice, would you say your strategy was being effective?
3 If you decided your strategy wasn't being effective, why persist with it?
His people were suffering "as a result of the sanctions?" They were suffering decades prior to any sanctions. Your strategy fails because it is predicated on the assumption that Saddam would have applied the extra revenue, sans sanctions, to humanitarian aid.
Quote from max401:
His people were suffering "as a result of the sanctions?" They were suffering decades prior to any sanctions. Your strategy fails because it is predicated on the assumption that Saddam would have applied the extra revenue, sans sanctions, to humanitarian aid.
Whoah! Good point Max! Keeping on my toes buddy!
How's this: his people, though already suffering under the Saddam regime, began suffering a hell of a lot more (like, dying, by the tens of thousands, of things they weren't dying form before) because of the sanctions.
As for your second sentence, I'm not sure if you ever noticed, but every single dollar (or dinar) an Iraqi done didn't actually go through Saddam's hands. Get it?
What if we had lifted the sanctions? Sanctions would be useless, obviously. And not just in Iraq.Quote from alfonso:
Whoah! Good point Max! Keeping on my toes buddy!
How's this: his people, though already suffering under the Saddam regime, began suffering a hell of a lot more (like, dying, by the tens of thousands, of things they weren't dying from before) because of the sanctions.
What would the difference be in the end result (of deaths) if he supplied all the humanitarian aid but selected the same number (that would have died) from the population and executed them?
Then it's soley his fault,right?
So this despot purposefully tightens the screws on his own people for the sole reason that he can then advertise that fact to the world. And that makes it our fault?
War is great: your national debt will grow even more and will permit Europe to control US in the background without even you knowing it. If you don't know what national debt means this is a little refresh from history:
In 1791, Jefferson said: "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we will then be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
Even though Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (later to be the 4th President, 1809-17) opposed the Bill, Washington signed it into law on February 25, 1791, Alexander Hamilton became a very rich man. He and Aaron Burr helped establish the Manhattan Co. in New York City, which developed into a very prosperous banking institution. It would later be controlled by Warburg-Kuhn-Loeb interests, and in 1955 it merged with Rockefeller's Chase Bank to create the Chase Manhattan Bank.
When Jefferson (1801-09) became President, he opposed the Bank of the United States or BUS [*] as being unconstitutional, and when the 20 year charter came up for renewal in 1811, it was denied. Nathan Rothschild, head of the family bank in England, had recognized America's potential, and made loans to a few states, and in fact became the official European banker for the U.S. Government. Because he supported the Bank of the United States [*], he threatened: "Either the application for renewal of the Charter is granted, or the United States will find itself in a most disastrous war"; he then ordered British troops to: "Teach these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to Colonial status." This brought on the War of 1812, the second war with England, which facilitated the rechartering of the Bank of the United States. The war raised the national debt from $45 million to $127 million.
[*] the Bank of the United States or BUS was the name of the first Central Bank in America's History. The main capital's holder was ... Bank of England. Today it is impossible to know who the holders of the actual Federal Reserve Bank are except through an old enquiry from Congress in the seventies - that showed European Bankers were still vastly among the holders as in the former Central Bank during the 19th century.
<CENTER><B>If your brain still don't grasp then 1984's fiction has burst into reality: "...the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on PEOPLE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING it. They could be made to accept the MOST FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF REALITY, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were NOT SUFFICIENTLY INTERESTED IN PUBLIC EVENTS TO NOTICE WHAT WAS HAPPENING"</B></CENTER>
In 1791, Jefferson said: "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we will then be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
Even though Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (later to be the 4th President, 1809-17) opposed the Bill, Washington signed it into law on February 25, 1791, Alexander Hamilton became a very rich man. He and Aaron Burr helped establish the Manhattan Co. in New York City, which developed into a very prosperous banking institution. It would later be controlled by Warburg-Kuhn-Loeb interests, and in 1955 it merged with Rockefeller's Chase Bank to create the Chase Manhattan Bank.
When Jefferson (1801-09) became President, he opposed the Bank of the United States or BUS [*] as being unconstitutional, and when the 20 year charter came up for renewal in 1811, it was denied. Nathan Rothschild, head of the family bank in England, had recognized America's potential, and made loans to a few states, and in fact became the official European banker for the U.S. Government. Because he supported the Bank of the United States [*], he threatened: "Either the application for renewal of the Charter is granted, or the United States will find itself in a most disastrous war"; he then ordered British troops to: "Teach these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to Colonial status." This brought on the War of 1812, the second war with England, which facilitated the rechartering of the Bank of the United States. The war raised the national debt from $45 million to $127 million.
[*] the Bank of the United States or BUS was the name of the first Central Bank in America's History. The main capital's holder was ... Bank of England. Today it is impossible to know who the holders of the actual Federal Reserve Bank are except through an old enquiry from Congress in the seventies - that showed European Bankers were still vastly among the holders as in the former Central Bank during the 19th century.
<CENTER><B>If your brain still don't grasp then 1984's fiction has burst into reality: "...the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on PEOPLE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING it. They could be made to accept the MOST FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF REALITY, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were NOT SUFFICIENTLY INTERESTED IN PUBLIC EVENTS TO NOTICE WHAT WAS HAPPENING"</B></CENTER>