Salty
Salty
I just read your post and so far I don't see anything how peace will solve this. You did not say one way we can solve this by not using force.
Thank you for proving my point. In the meantime, I request fifteen years' time before providing you that plan, as I must first complete a doctorate in international affairs and then spend several years using newly-acquired techniques and contacts to collect information before going through the phases of constructing a coherent peace plan. Now then, as I noted before:
I've found, in my quest for world peace, that the supporters of the war won't accept a non-invasive, non-violent solution unless it is plotted out to the last detail with a 100% guarantee of success. In other words, it seems that people will accept for the justification of killing what they will not accept for the prevention of killing.
So thank you again for proving the point.
So are you saying these people would have not died if US troops were not there?
Well, at
least one of them would still have been in London, plotting his revenge against Hussein. The other probably would have died under similar circumstances, waiting for Hussein to fall to make his stand while his opponents waited for Hussein to fall to make theirs.
You seem to be having some trouble grasping the central point, though: Whether it is these two clerics specifically or the rest of the chaos in general, what to do about it should have been resolved in accord with the Geneva Conventions
before the invasion took place.
there are so many variables in war you can't predict everything I think we did an amazing job as it is. If we could predict everything we wouldnt need tanks
So because it's too tough to be responsible we should jut forego responsibility?
I could easily predict general violence and chaos at the fall of a regime. The responsibility of maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the invading army. Despite the PR damage brought about by, say, US troops entering a mosque guns blazing, the failures by the US and UK to maintain law and order in the days surrounding their invasion are criminal counts to be leveled against the commander of the forces, at least, and also the commanders-in-chief. This is a sticky problem, I admit. But I reiterate: they should have given it better thought
before the invasion.
What is this non-confrontational plan? What is this "cheap way to bring down the statue?" There isint one so thier is a 0% chance of it working. You can pray for peace all day but Saddam would still kill his own people.
In the name of the Dubya, the Cheney, and the Holy Rummy .... I realize that it is difficult for people to think outside a popular track of thought, but like I've said for a while--this situation is not merely twelve years old. In deciding what to do about it, the modern history--at least the twentieth century--should be taken into account. The longer, and even ancient histories are also important; what, for instance, is the relevance of Kapuscinski's tale of the Shia in Iran, included in
Shah of Shahs? It is important to bear in mind that even before their Islamic days, the people who became the Shia lived under tyrants. They are used to tyrants. What does "freedom" mean to them? Will Iraqi liberty include the right of the Shia majority to perssecute? In our minds, of course, it shouldn't, but are
you going to explain that to the clerics who call for fatwas and so forth?
Different UN resolutions could have been applied, perhaps some that focused on
raising the Iraqi people instead of obsessing on punishment for the regime. Like I've said before, there are issues of sovereignty to consider, but it's quite obvious that the only soveriegnty the war dogs care about is the sovereign right to kick someone's ass for profit. But in the end, it could have been done, and if you haven't been paying attention this far into the situation, I'm not about to go delving back weeks to hand you the post you didn't care to pay attention to the first time around.
You're welcome to be a dullard all you want. But stop with your religious devotion to the necessity of human cruelty. Your own narrow mind is the only reason you're simply not capable of envisioning peace. Tell me, is the peace offered Iraqis good enough for you? Why don't you shoot yourself in the head and then let me know?
So we should just let the USSR's Iranian allies just take over Iraq then. Stalin makes Saddam look like a kitten.
Do you know the name, "Mossadegh"? Leave Iran out of it unless you're going to consider the modern history at least.
None of those people are still in power what would be the point of apologizing? Bush never did it.
True, Bush has enough of his own sins to apologize for, but beyond that, I'm wondering if you have any understanding of history? Do you realize that in many world conflicts, the conflict won't end until the oppressed apologize for (A) being oppressed, (B) not liking oppression, and (C) existing in the first place. Ask the Irish in 1972. Ask the Palestinians. Ask indigenous American tribes.
In the meantime, I think Rumsfeld owes a huge apology to the people of Iraq. He, in fact, is responsible in part for Hussein's atrocities.
How would we take Saddam out of power without invading? simple question if there is a peaceful alternativie.
Even by my version of it, which you've utterly ignored in weeks past, you probably still get to murder a bunch of people. But here's the critical difference: you get to do it
honestly in the sense that you've tried a legitimate peaceful solution, and it failed. Even for how awful and indecent a person you are, I couldn't just walk up to you on the street and give you the thrashing you deserve; it would be
illegal. However, if I played my cards right, I could get you to commit to the fight and then be perfectly justified in defending myself against a legitimate and imminent threat.
Look, dude ... I don't forgive stupidity because it doesn't require forgiveness. However, willful stupidity is a different question.
Do the right thing, and get back to me on the peace that's good enough for the Iraqis.
Because North Korea is bad we can't liberate Iraq? We shouldnt have gotten involved in WWII then because other atrocities were happening over the world. We also are trying to negotiated a peacful way with North Korea isint that what you want?
The NK situation demonstrates clearly the dishonesty of the Iraqi invasion. There is a human disaster, an evil regime, and a much more immediate and severe threat to our security. But two facts speak against an invasion of North Korea: a lack of oil, and the prospect of a difficult war.
I'm happy to liberate Iraq, but I'm not about to pretend that a greed and cowardice equal liberation.
The warring way is what led the US to support people like Shah Reza, Saddam Hussein, and even Sese Seko, among others. You speak of zero percent chance, but what about a zero percent
result? Why ignore the objective results of the warring way to speculate about what you're unwilling to or incapable of understanding, much less trying?
In the name of the Bullet, the Missile, and the Holy Petrol ....
What has war solved? Communism, Faschism, colnialism, nazism and slavery.
In other words, war has addressed some but not all of the negative consequences it has brought to the world. Seems like a negative balance so far,
Salty. But you just keep worrying about the things you're afraid to try and reminding us all of how you know they won't work ....
Force got rid of most of the baath party it looks like to me.
One of the symptoms of force. Force also brought the Ba'ath to power, and in Iraq it was with American assistance.
You are considering this little thing in Iraq to what could have happened if the Cold War went hot???
Hardly. Is that really the best you can come up with? I'm merely pointing out that the warring way didn't bring peace.
There are no more nuclear blast drills where you hide under your desk.
True. But why not worry first about the
nuclear power that's getting ready to rumble and that, it appears,
can, indeed, strike our sovereign territory? It's a matter of priorities. Dominion first, money second, pride third, and people apparently don't appear anywhere on the list.
I would rather have success take a while then never happen.
Which is all the more reason to rush blindly into war ...?
You think Saddam and sons would just be one "this has been a fun run but I think im bored of being a dictator." When in the history of the world has a dictator like that ever done that!
Try using question marks occasionally. Otherwise, it appears you're trying to think for me. And given that you can't even think coherently for yourself, I seriously recommend that you do not undertake the enterprise of thinking for me.
Too bad you weren't paying attention the first time. I mean, forcing the situation so that a war was justified by the rhetoric of immediate threat was not the hardest thing in the world to do. But it was far too inconvenient for the bloodthirsty war pigs just itching for a chance to slaughter Iraqis. Apparently the indirect method of supporting Saddam Hussein wasn't enough for the war pigs.
Look you want to pay for an enificient bureacracy controling everything. Or some kind of tyrant streamlining the goverment good for you. You can live in that world. Ill live in my free one where I can choose to get a good job and make some money or I can be poor and just take it easy.
I'm an American. My tax money already supports an inefficient bureaucracy that is trying to control everything down to the thoughts in my head and the words I speak or write. In the meantime, once you find your utopia, send us a postcard.
You call it that, I call it simple human nature.
Yes, but I'm not the type to believe that human nature is either wholly known or utterly fixed (non-transitional). The evidence is not there to support the assertion of a known and non-transitive human nature. This is, in part, because "human nature" is a fiction. "Human nature" is merely a translation of the living nature of organisms into a human template. We don't know entirely what that template is or looks like, else we would understand the "meaning" or "purpose" of life.
However, I refuse to excuse dangerous idiocy and willful stupidity just because it's "human nature".
If you're anxious to kill, do the right thing and kill the one person you have a right to kill. If you can live with that, let us know how it goes, and we'll all give you objective credibility to speak about the rightness of killing.
:m:,
Tiassa
