Bush, Rumsfeld et al American traitors?

Sparks

BDC,

daveirl here is one location
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
However I feel you won't belive it anyhow. There are other sources for this story, feel free to look them up for yourself. And please spare me a propaganda rant.

Tell you what, I read that story, about the Al-Tuwaitha plant. And then I realised, this was the same story I pointed out to you in my reply only a few posts ago. Since you didn't read it the first time, here are the links again:
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030410/UWEAPN/TPInternational/TopStories
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_nuclear_find_6
Now those are reports from the Associated Press quoting UN experts. So where's the Iraqi propaganda coming from?
In case you're not going to read them, the summary is that the nuclear materials are pre-inspected and sealed with UN seals.

Honestly do you feel Saddam has no WMD?

Honestly? Yes. He is/was an evil, sadistic, despotic bastard who would not hesitate to kill his own people - SO WHY DIDN'T HE USE THESE WEAPONS WHILE BEING ATTACKED?

Honestly do you think after twelve years inspections would work?

Honestly, I think they DID. And the evidence supports my opinion, not yours.

Saddam didn't even start to cooperate till 300,000 troops parked outside his boarder.

Actually, not true. For a start, there were 200,000 troops. And he was cooperating prior to this, but yes, the threat of enforcement was needed to push him into compliance. Thing was, the threat was what was needed - not an actual invasion. Now, how will anyone ever be able to say that anything you do find was definitely Iraqi and not planted? I mean, have you seen Rumsfeld's briefings lately? He's now as believable as the Iraqi information minister...
"Can you believe it? They showed this one guy bringing out one vase over and over! There's no chaos!" - this while the ICRC has offically declared Baghdad's humanitarian situation a catastrophe.

The UN will turn into another League of Nations without the US.

Actually, the presence of the US is more likely to cause that, unless the UN can seriously impose sanctions on the US for it's illegal actions of the past few weeks.

The UN needs the US, the US does not need the UN.

Want to bet on that? The bill for repairing Iraq's infrastructure alone is $4 billion, and there's also afghanistan to consider. The US economy is circling the bowl right now, and this war has not helped at all. And you've got the North Koreans now publicly saying that they have nuclear arms (they just declared here on BBC24 that they don't need to test their bombs, Pakistan has done it for them, and they will declare war on the US if needed - and remember, you cannot beat them without losing some of the US's eastern seaboard, and pretty much all of the ROK. And last time you were in korea without the UN backup, you got hammered.
Care to say you don't need the UN now?

If the USA is as evil as so mnay here like to think, why is the US in the UN at all?

Because it set it up, and under other administrations, it's actually done a lot of good through it.

You sound very angry.

How perceptive. Want to know why?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulfwar2/civilians.htm

Maybe too much coffee. Have you tried ExLax?

Does that get rid of the image of a 12-year-old girl with her head splashed open by a US bomb?

Big Daddy Cruz

Daveirl EXLax is a laxative for constipated people.

I was just being rude. Sorry.

Sparks

BDC,

Just the cut and paste tool I didn't want to deal with.

Yes, an educated, informed, humanist. I must be your worst nightmare buddy

I repeat.

Quite a lot I've noticed. Do you ever read the responses?

Fact US soilders found Nuclear material Blix missed.

Not a fact, they had to break UN seals to get to it.

Fact Korea and Gulf War 1 Left business unfinished. I am sitting close to Korean boarder and you are trying to tell me things are fine.

A distorted fact. The korean war left problems - but not because of the UN. And the problem with the DPRK now, is quite solidly the fault of the US. Korea has already publicly stated that they will not allow in UN inspectors because if they don't have nuclear arms, they will be at risk of a US attack.

300,000 troops in Iraq finishing what GW1 didnt.

200,000. And what did GW1 leave unfinished? GW1 (why do you need to number them by the way?) was meant to enforce compliance with UNSC resolution 660 - and it did. And then the US, as it did in Korea, pushed past the mandate. Breaking the Geneva convention and murdering ten thousand protected persons in the process, by the way. And letting saddam then massacre those of his own people that Bush Sr. incited to uprisal. (And you guys let that happen).

Fact Iraq attacked Iran, Kuwait, SaudiAraiba, Qutar and Israel.DUH!

Ah - attacked. Not invaded. Okay, that's correct. By the way, didn't the US attack Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Iran so far "by mistake" in this invasion?
Would you like a full list of those countries the US has invaded or attacked since the second world war?

Fact Saddam is a very bad person who is a threat to regional and world stability.

Not a fact. Saddam is a very bad person, true. He is not a threat to regional or world stability however. Bush Jr., on the other hand is both a dishonest and unpatriotic chap, with a record for desertion, but he's a serious threat to world stability. His administration practises and promotes war, torture and domestic repression.

You really still don't see that? You back Saddam I want him gone that is causing problems around the world.

What? Point out one instance where I say saddam is a good leader or a defender of human rights or just defend him in general! Go on, do it! You can't can you? Because I haven't and neither has anyone else!

Your response is But this... and but that ... You need to pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

Indeed? You mean I point out that your argument is flawed, your data wrong, your actions illegal and your end result dangerous? Gee whiz.

You seem like a person will argue any fact no matter what I say or what facts I present.

That's the opposite of being gullible, you know. By the way, can you back up even one of your "facts"? Because I can provide sources for each and every one of mine.

You wont even accept the fact that Saddam is very bad.

Can you read english, or is it just that what I type gets mangled between your eyes and your brain? YES, SADDAM IS EVIL!

I don't think it is possible to communicate with you on a level that requires thought.

Oddly enough, I was coming to that conclusion myself...

And for goodness sake, if you are going to do this cut and paste bull****. At least use whole sentences 'ya tool.

Would you care for me to quote your whole post and then refute each part in order? It would strike me as being less readable, and you seem to be having trouble enough as things are with actually reading my replies, or those of the other posters.

Big Daddy Cruz

Sparks chew on this fact.

The USA owns the world, you should be happy we rent you the space you stand on.

Sparks

By the way, BDC, right now I'm watching a 12-year-old girl crying on BBC 24, in some pain, in one of the hospitals in baghdad that the doctors are having to protect from looters with AK47s. She's in some pain because her leg was blown off in a US air raid and the doctors haven't sufficent painkillers to go round.

Care to tell me now why I shouldn't be angry at the actions of the US? This wasn't the act of an evil despot, this was done deliberatly, with planning, by the most advanced military force in history, and in full defiance of the UN and world opinion, expressed in the largest political protests in decades - in my country, the largest ones of their kind in our history.

Sparks

BDC,
Chew on this fact - if OPEC get annoyed enough, they'll do what Iraq did and sell oil for euros not dollars. And the US will see the biggest economic crash it's had since 1929, while the biggest boom in decades will take place in Europe.

Big Daddy Cruz

Sparks with same old argument.

USA is bad Saddam is good.

USA is not stopping those reporters like Saddam did. Remember the same BBC reporters three days ago with Iraqi minders watching their every move?You are such a load.

Big Daddy Cruz

Oh yea. There are lots of US troops in OPECS three largest oil producing countries.

Gas is very cheap in the USA.

Sparks

BDC,
Wrong again. I'll say it again:
Saddam is bad.
Bush is bad.
Clear enough?

USA is not stopping those reporters like Saddam did.

Oddly enough, many journalists are accusing the US of purposely targetting journalists. Several have been beaten by US forces. Before the war, the pentagon told them that it would target unembedded reporters using video links or cellphones or satphones on the battlefield. And in the pentagon briefings, those that ask akward questions are afterwards placed at the back of the room and not answered. Better than presidential briefings, at least, which are scripted. And then there's the matter of faked photographs in US media, already-discredited stories being run on Fox, outright fake stories being run on Fox (like the story that the mosque in Najaf was being used as a bunker by Iraqi militias, a ridiculous story to start with and one refuted by the US commander on the ground prior to the running of the story on Fox).

Remember the same BBC reporters three days ago with Iraqi minders watching their every move?

Yes. See above. Saddam Bad. Bush Bad. Two legs Bad, erm, Better.

You are such a load.

Indeed?
Prove me wrong then, it should be easy. Show us a fact or two that stands up to inspection.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
The USA owns the world, you should be happy we rent you the space you stand on.

I don’t think its possible to rationally debate this further with BDC.

It’s evident from the above that he is your classic American supremacist white trash and debate is something that is beyond his limited evolutionary capabilities.

Sparks

BDC,

Oh yea. There are lots of US troops in OPECS three largest oil producing countries.

And a damn sight more native troops.
Look, it's like the DPRK - despite the level of force the US can deploy, there are some fights you just can't win. The only way you can beat the DPRK is a massive strategic nuclear strike and that would get you nuked in short order by China. The only way you can win against the other OPEC countries is the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and at that point the DPRK will probably nuke the eastern seaboard thinking they're next in line, and even if they don't, you would make a terrorist of every arab left alive. Plus, they'd contaminate the oilfields with something suitably nasty.

In short, Bush trys anything and we'll wind up forgetting September 11th as a small footnote. Which is what scares the living crap out of me, personally. I'd like to have kids one day, and if Bush isn't stopped soon, I don't like the world they'll grow up in.

Gas is very cheap in the USA.

Yup, and you still can't make a decent car that gets decent milage. And won't explode if someone rear-ends you... :rolleyes:

Corinthian,
True
I just don't understand how he can think Bush (who went UA or AWOL or whatever the term is) from the reservists for 18 months can be a patriot! At least Clinton dodged the draft, he didn't sign up and then duck out!

Big Daddy Cruz

The Corinthian first I am not white, second I am not trash I am pretty rich by most peoples standards.

My comment was just some dick waving to annoy two people in particular. I think it worked.

I am proud to be an American, my country has has been good to me at times. If I insult your country with bone head remarks how do you respond? You seem to hate Americans very much. Did your girl run off with an American or something?

America has the largest concetration of Irish outside of Dublin. We had an Irish president. My mother married an American-Irishman. I like Irish beer. I though I might have some things in common.

I just came here to this site to try to connect with some Irish and I get attacked every way I turn. Sometimes just for being American. I guess this is Irish hospitality. I was planning on going to Europe soon and I really wanted to visit Irealnd. I thinkI need to reconsider. I lived in England three years, maybe I'll just spend my time there. I was really looking foward to pub hopping and just chatting with some Irish.

The Corinthian

You have consistently ignored other people’s arguments and responses to you.

You have taken any criticism of the US to be a direct affront to your nation.

You ultimately responded not with reason, but with direct insult and supremacist rhetoric.

You’re right, we do have things in common - we have white trash too. And you are white trash in my eyes, regardless of your colour or the quality of the pot you piss in.

I am not directing this at your country. Just you.

Big Daddy Cruz

The Corinthian just admit it, you have little man syndrome. Which one pisses you off more; your small wallet, your small dick, your small country, your small car or your small houe?

You are lucky you are very insignifant with nothing to offer, that way we won't park ay troops in your neighborhood.


Screw you and your worthless country. 'Outta here!

Sparks

BDC,

My comment was just some dick waving to annoy two people in particular. I think it worked.

Coincidence that - we've just seen three weeks of war, 1.4 trillion dollars worth at a rough total, all so we could see whether Saddam or Bush had the larger appendage.

I am proud to be an American

I don't know how any american can be proud of their nationality today.

If I insult your country with bone head remarks how do you respond?

As I said earlier, if you were to call our gardai thugs, our politicians corrupt or our military inept, you couldn't be rationally said to be anti-irish. We are not the summation of our military, politicans and law enforcement. In fact, you'd probably find the majority of Irish people support your opinion (I personally think our politicans are corrupt, many of our gardai are thugs and quite a lot of our military have proven their ineptness on more than one occasion).
But then, we're somewhat more mature than you, or so your statements would seem to imply.

You seem to hate Americans very much. Did your girl run off with an American or something?

Oh dear. Yes that's it. Nothing to do with the horror we have seen over the past few weeks. Nothing to do with the threat your government poses to our security and stability. And nothing to do with that 12-year-old girl who's back on BBC24 here, the one whose leg was blown off by a US bomb.

America has the largest concetration of Irish outside of Dublin.

Really? I though that was Cork!

We had an Irish president.

Who was that then?

My mother married an American-Irishman.

Please, please, please don't tempt me like that. My self control is not that strong.

I just came here to this site to try to connect with some Irish and I get attacked every way I turn.

Nope. Every post you've put up is in this thread, and all of it has been rabidly anti-world. You brought this on yourself.

Sometimes just for being American.

No, for supporting illegal and immoral acts as if they were a given right for the US to perform.

I guess this is Irish hospitality.

Darn, now I feel guilty.

I was planning on going to Europe soon and I really wanted to visit Irealnd. I thinkI need to reconsider.

Speaking purely for myself, please do. Take a trip to Iraq instead and see first-hand what the Bush administration has brought about. It would be a far better idea for you to be honest.

I lived in England three years, maybe I'll just spend my time there. I was really looking foward to pub hopping and just chatting with some Irish.

If you talk to them the way you talk here, please be warned that we're being civil and polite. In a pub it may wind up being rather different - these are highly emotive issues you are being so blase with.

parasite

The Corinthian just admit it, you have little man syndrome. Which one pisses you off more; your small wallet, your small dick, your small country, your small car or your small houe?

You are lucky you are very insignifant with nothing to offer, that way we won't park ay troops in your neighborhood.


Screw you and your worthless country. 'Outta here!

you're just proving all our prejudices right now
ugh
why are you here
go away


please

sam

big daddy cruz:
Killed two million people, .. blah blah.. I have seen how some of you operate.

shut the **** up...

Saddam is bad, Saddam is Evil. He fits my definition of both clearly.

...and give me this definition

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
Screw you and your worthless country. 'Outta here!

Hahaha.

Redneck cretin.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Captain Trips

Originally posted by Sparks
BDC,
Chew on this fact - if OPEC get annoyed enough, they'll do what Iraq did and sell oil for euros not dollars. And the US will see the biggest economic crash it's had since 1929, while the biggest boom in decades will take place in Europe.

Finally! Someone brought up the real reason for the war!

I suppose seeing as Iran said in Dec '02 they would switch to the euro they are next on the hit list of "The Axis of Evil ...(..bastards who won't take dollars anymore)". All those uncashed cheques (sorry, checks) are going to start heading home.

Tell me does any US person here notice that eh, petrol (that's "gas") is way more expensive then say only 5 years ago? Notice that the dollar has lost 20% of it's value in the 24 months since Saddam decided to switch to the euro?

If the US owned the world like it thinks it does, it wouldn't have needed to invade. Personally I don't give much of a **** what it does, the US is largely irrelevant seeing as they are far behind in fuel-cell/alternative power research and funding.

Oh, and I suppose the 2 million people - an whole extra 1 million compared to the Reagan era - in prison in the US. Man, the real land of the free. Nice prison you guys live in. I prefer not having to produce and have have scanned my ID tag when going to a bar. Or to have my car tracked by RFIDs? What sort of ****ed up totalitarian state do you Merikans live in?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Lemming
Ummmm. That's the point of the UN. And just about every one of those voices WAS voicing protest at the current US administration's activities.

Right. But the fact remains that his point was disingenuous.

WTF??? Are you stupid or do you find that you have to work at it? Which part of the various treaties being mentioned by others (which I'm not go to repeat ad nauseum) do you not cop onto abou the legality of this war (or lack thereof)??

You seem to be suggesting that it is a fact that this war is illegal under international law. Which court has ruled on this?

It's called "leading by example". The US claims to be a world leader. What example is it sending out tot he rest of the world? That the law of the gun dominates all else and that dialogue and diplomacy are to be discarded as soon as they don't suit your agenda

Dialogue and diplomacy were discarded because after 12 years it became kind of clear that they weren’t going to get Saddam to disarm.
Besides, I find the notion that countries like China or Russia are going to look to the lead of the US in conducting their foreign policies hilarious. Compare what the US has done in Iraq with what Russia is doing in Chechnya or China is doing in Tibet.

Because it would have given them access to various countries facilities in the end.

The only country’s facilities they were looking for was Turkey’s and right up to the last minute it looked like they would get them. Bush and Blair went back to the Security Council because they didn’t want it to be rendered irrelevant as the Axis of Weasels did.

Which didn't happen because a) the UN didn't sanction it and b) they side-stepped the UN because it looked like they might have a tough fight to presuade people that war WAS the best option.

It wasn’t a question of “persuading” anyone. Everyone knew war was the only option. The problem was that none of these countries were acting out of any sort of higher principles – just narrow national self-interest.

To say that the minority should dictate to the majority is a dangerous precendent.

I don’t understand your point here. Is it that you’re against the notion of the Security Council altogether? No resolutions should be passed?

Also, the security council is only as powerful as the resources that it's members give it. Since the US is the largest military resource provider of the UN (iirc), then surely you should be levelling this accusation at the US as well then, no??

I don’t understand this point either. The US was willing to enforce the UN’s resolutions – other countries weren’t.

Really??? What would you call war? Just? Humane? Diplomatic? Graceful? Elegant? Compasionate?

I would call this war just, humane and compassionate because it was done with the minimum of civilian casualties and freed a people from tyranny.

War is the most base level of human interaction. It is the complete and utter failure of humanity. There is no justice in war. Only survivors.

So, should the US not have gone to war to free occupied Europe from Nazism then?

Bullets and bombs do not discriminate. Shrapenel does not discriminate. Chemicals do not discriminate. Bayonets do not discriminate.

No, but the important thing this is that the people who use them do.

The law of might says one thing and one thing only. "Those with the largest guns/most powerful weapons are ALWAYS right." I do believe the other term for that is "bully". The same people who beat up weaker kids in the playground for fun. IE. SCUM.

What’s that got to do with anything? No one is saying America is right because it has the most powerful military.

the finest response to anything I've ever read. It only shows your absolute inability to think for yourself. Absolute apathy.

Well what I meant was, “What is wrong with buying the votes of corrupt nations on the UNSC if they’re not going to act out of principle anyway?”

Au contraire. France did it's duty. War is the final step in politics and should never be entered into lightly. France upheld that.

Is this the same France that sent its troops into Côte d’Ivoire last year to enforce a peace deal that no one wanted? I don’t remember France getting Security Council approval for that.

In light of your comments about war being just and humane we should be calling YOU sick and utterly of disgusting moral values.

Why? What’s immoral about human rights?

Whether or not democracy and human rights are delivered to the Iraqis remains to be seen Biffa. Need I also remind you that you cannot force democracy on a populace, since that is the opposite of what democracy is. The right to choose.

Right, a choice you and millions of other free Westerners wanted to deny them.

For those with rather dodgy vision and/or brain's unable to grasp simple concepts ....


_I_ _DO_ _NOT_ _SUPPORT_ _SADDAM_ _HUSSSEIN_

But you would prefer he was still in power?

My objections arise from a number of other issues, such as the US unilateralist approach…

What unilateralist approach?

the US actions are destabilishing world politics. The Turks are already itching to go into N.Iraq on a "pre-emptive" strike of their own following the US. The Indians & Pakistanis are now using the same excuse, the Israelis are at it again seeing how the US does it, and there will be more for sure.

The notion that these countries would only launch military action in imitation of the US is risible.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
This is what must be done. It angers me, to say the least, when people claim that because the laws don't work as well as they could or at all in many cases, that we should acknowledge their failure and turn our backs on them. To me, that is the most irresponsible position of all.

I’d agree with you there.

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Wha-a-at? Let's remind ourselves what he said:

There are many Americans who love their country too, people who are horrified by the betrayal of their founding values and by the hubris of those holding the reins of power. I stand with them. By their side, I declare myself pro-American.

You call that hate speak? To paraphrase another great American, Groucho Marx: 'That's a new definition of hate speak with which I'm not familiar'

No, this is what I call hate speech:
“I protest with them against the brutalities brought about by the injustice of the mighty, against all restrictions of the freedom of expression, against information control reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian states and against the cynical equations that make the death of thousands of women and children acceptable so long as economic and political interests are protected.”

Originally posted by dathi1
Armed militias
Doctors defending hospitals with ak47's from looters.
No Law and order (very important Human rights etc)
a country on the break of 3 way partition
Suicide bombers
Arab national separatists
Kurdish infighting
Probable Turkish invasion
Shia infighting
10,000 dead civilians
uranium bullets and carpet bombs
Unknown dead civil and military admin 10,000-50,000?
No poloice
No army
No civil service
Rumsfeld on the telly smiling and joking at the idea of all the above..its bull man.

I would prefer democracy and the rule of law to all those things which is what the Iraqis now have the chance of getting – thanks to the United States of America.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by seamus
No-one has said that they liked having Saddam in power.

But plently, including yourself, have said they would prefer he was still in power. I can’t understand that.

If Bush was so unhappy about Saddam being in power, then the UN could have worked towards peaceful ways of removing him from power, without throwing World politics into disarray.

Like what? Sanctions?

I'm glad that Saddam is gone, but upset that the Americans won, simply because I would have like to see the Americans bitten, and maybe Bush would think twice before pushing war on anyone else.

You’d like to have seen more Americans die, is that what you’re saying? This is morality?

It may take longer to remove him peacfully, but it would have been well worth it.

How long would it have taken? Where is your magical solution to getting rid of Saddam peacefully that no one else seems to have come up with?

If only to give that boy back his arms and his family, a few more years under Saddam for the entire population would be well worth it.

By whose calculation would it have been worth it? Yours? In the meantime, how many other innocent Iraqis would have been tortured, murdered, raped, mutilated, starved, poisoned?

If Saddam couldn't have been removed peacefully, and the UN decided that force was the only option, then I'd back them.

The UN did think force was the only option. They simply didn’t want him removed, and especially not by the US.

Most of it's major players have had cities devastated and chunks of their populations killed. I trust them, they won't do anything too rash.

I’m astonished that you’d think the motley crew that make up the UNSC wouldn’t do anything “too rash”. What about Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet?

The Americans haven't experienced it. 9/11 and Pearl Harbour were both minor compared to the devastation in Europe in WWII…His population would seem to prefer him to proactively 'defend' the US, because they have no horrible history to learn from.

You do realise that hundreds of thousand of Americans have died in wars in France, Germany, Korea, Vietnam? You think Americans don’t understand the realities of war?

Originally posted by daveirl
Indeed it's not, It kills them instead, see- Reuters Cameramen, Terry Lloyd we could go on...

They put themselves in harms way, that was a calculated risk and usually one that a war journalists relish.
There is a saying " he who loveth the danger shall perish therein "
I don't think it was a case that a brigadeer woke up one morning and said .." right lads our mission today is to kill another journalist " but no doubt Sadam had that notion in his head many times.
Incidently in the case of, Terry ( RIP ) his employers believe, he came under fire from both sides.
mm

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I don’t think its possible to rationally debate this further with BDC.

It’s evident from the above that he is your classic American supremacist white trash and debate is something that is beyond his limited evolutionary capabilities.

I think it's more likely that he is someone who loves his country and is upset and and angry that the US is being viciously slandered after having helped overthrow one of the vilest tyrannies in the world today.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I think it's more likely that he is someone who loves his country and is upset and and angry that the US is being viciously slandered after having helped overthrow one of the vilest tyrannies in the world today.

And thus resorts to the mindset and language of the mob?

No. Even you, who would be considered the most Americaphile proponent on these boards will debate your views (with the exception of the odd trolling sound bite). You will respond and refute the points of others, to give you credit.

BDC was unwilling to debate or even consider that there was a viewpoint that differed from his own, to the level that his language became that of violence and not of reason. What chilled me was that it was the very ignorant swaggering arrogance that fuels anti-Americanism and causes us to be weary of US motives.

There is regrettably only one word for that type of ideological orthodoxy - Fanaticism.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No, this is what I call hate speech:
“I protest with them against the brutalities brought about by the injustice of the mighty, against all restrictions of the freedom of expression, against information control reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian states and against the cynical equations that make the death of thousands of women and children acceptable so long as economic and political interests are protected.”

I see nothing hateful in that. I can't find anything which is in any way untrue or misleading.

This also underpins - for me - why you cannot understand the apparent implication that the anti-war protestors would have preferred to see Saddam still in power.

You look at this from a perspective of "Saddam gone = better for Iraq". Ergo, this was was both justified and good.

Lets leave aside the blatantly obvious facts that this war and the fallout from it is far from over and assume for the sake of argument that your perspective is indeed correct - that Iraq will be a better place because of this war.

Does that make the war just? You seem to think it does, and cannot understand how anyone can think otherwise.

Well - asnwer me this.

If you had a potentially fatal illness, and a doctor decided to operate on you without your consent, with potentially fatal consequences because he felt it would result in an improvement, would you say the doctor was correct in decided for you to carry out the surgery?

Now, lets assume that there are hundreds of people like you, and the same doctor decides that the rich - those who can pay his exorbitant fees - will get operated on because they will help make him richer, but the poor patients can just go and rot somewhere. Their problems are there own.

Is the doctor still right?

Now, lets assume that this doctor has a track record of this type of behaviour - deciding that patients needed surgery, but only when it was to his advantage. Lets also assume that this doctor has a track record of performing this incredibly expensive surgery and leaving the patient to deal with any post-surgical complications which arise....often complications which can be as serious (or more serious) than the original illness being treated.

Now you tell me....would you consider any such doctor to be "right" or "good" just because his most recent patient had lived through the surgery without going into cardiac arrest, and was currently sitting in ICU, still getting worse, but with the doctor telling you everything was looking rosy and it would all be well.

If you can see why someone could consider that doctor to be wrong, and his practices to be condemned - even if the current patient lives then you should be able to understand why people would have "preferred to see Saddam still in charge" - as you choose to simplify it to.

They wouldnt have preferred to see him still in charge...they are saying that the manner in which this operation was carried out was not and is not justifiable.


jc

seamus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But plently, including yourself, have said they would prefer he was still in power. I can’t understand that.

Quote me once saying, "I wish Saddam was back in power". I'm glad he's gone. But I'm absolutely appalled at the contempt shown by Bush for the rest of the world, in carrying out Saddam's removal.

You’d like to have seen more Americans die, is that what you’re saying? This is morality?

This is something we have to wait and see. If Bush sits back now and allows peaceful solutions to disarm his other targets, then I'll take back my statement. However, I believe that this success will only make him even further gung-ho, ultimately killing more Americans and more global citizens. More Americans dying in Iraq may prove to be the lesser of two evils imo.

How long would it have taken? Where is your magical solution to getting rid of Saddam peacefully that no one else seems to have come up with?

I'm not an historian nor a politican nor a military strategist. I don't know of how to organise peaceful mediation of disputes. However, I trust the UNSC, and if they claim that force is not necessary then I stand with them. Besides, as we've said over and over, this war was allegedly about WMDs, NOT about removing Saddam. WMDs were being removed peacefully.

By whose calculation would it have been worth it? Yours? In the meantime, how many other innocent Iraqis would have been tortured, murdered, raped, mutilated, starved, poisoned?

Again, lesser of two evils. How many people have already died in this war and are going to die in the chaos that the US seem unwilling or unable to deal with?

The UN did think force was the only option. They simply didn’t want him removed, and especially not by the US.

They didn't want the US to go in without their approval, and damn right. Bush has upset the entire world stage of politics. IMO, a nuclear explosion is imminent, somewhere, because of Bush, and I believe that's what the UN is afraid of too.

I’m astonished that you’d think the motley crew that make up the UNSC wouldn’t do anything “too rash”. What about Russia in Chechnya, China in Tibet?

They're horrific situations, but totally different. As far as both Russia and China are concerned, Chechnya and Tibet are simply pockets of their lands with terrorists causing trouble. Totally different situation.{edit:Ok, Tibet isn't, learn something new every day } I actually don't trust China much, and Russia to a lesser extent than France and Germany. However I still do trust them, as a group to make reasonable decisions

You do realise that hundreds of thousand of Americans have died in wars in France, Germany, Korea, Vietnam? You think Americans don’t understand the realities of war?

There's a massive difference between getting beaten in a country thousands of miles away and getting beaten on your home turf. In the former, even though they're your own troops, it's possible to detach form the war, because most people don't have to deal directly with it. Instead they come home with bruised pride and anger at the Government. Getting attacked on your home turf makes it much more personal and horrific though. Suddenly, the entire country is involved, and citizens and military alike are forced to deal with the sheer devastation of war.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by seamus
As far as both Russia and China are concerned, Chechnya and Tibet are simply pockets of their lands with terrorists causing trouble. Totally different situation.

Tibet was a sovereign state which was subseqently annexed by China. AFAIK, it is still recognised as such by the UN.

Originally posted by daveirl
Indeed it was their perogative and the Spanish deaths were most likely the result of trigger happy Marines. Does that still make it an accident. They just didn't think before they did it. Even the Pro-War David Chater [Sky News] was disgusted and got very angry with the idea that it was an accident.

[/size]

An Accident? yes unless the marines had deliberate intentions to shoot them because they were journalists and I doubt that.
That said however they probably would have had clearly marked Press or TV bullet proof jackets on, although they mustn't be very reliable. So the marines must have been trigger happy.
I'd find it difficult other than that to comment, when I've never been a soldier in a combat situation, the decisions when theres fire coming at you from all angles must be very difficult to take, and theres no guarantee that you will get them all right.

And how do you explain multiple attacks on Al'Jazeera. The one in Kabul, they were given a warning. So that was deliberate and in Iraq they gave the co-ordinates so they wouldn't be targeted.

To answer that, I'll have to do something I don't normally do, but it's infectious around here.
{start conspiracy theory}
Al Jazeera had one of their journalists expelled from Baghdad in the days before it fell, and in protest they decided to stop all live reports from Iraq. Now the press release did not give details as to why or what happened.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2911935.stm
They sorted it all out the very next day, as it wasn't helpfull to the Hussein government to have that happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2919107.stm
Now co-inciding with the bombing of Al jazeera'a offices, Iraqi TV and radio, finally went off the air for good.
Could it be that some of their facilities were being used to keep it on air, and Aljazeera didn't want that which led to the row....
{end conspiracy theory}

And even if both of them were mistakes, your neglecting the fact that the Al'Jazeera website was brought down by Denial of Service attacks from .gov internet IP addresses?

that wouldn't be a very secret way of doing it, it would be like me going to rob your house tonight, and put an add in the paper next day, saying I did it.
'twas more like, some who work there did it because they could and they don't like Al Jazeera's view point.
If there was widespread hatrid of the idea of free press in the U.S, then the NY Times would be gone long ago.
Incidently Aljazeera is now available on cable in the U.S

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2931689.stm

I wonder is fox news available in palestine?
mm