Here’s my cite: 
DtC, where you one of the people who were opposed to taking action in '91 against Iraq but instead rallied around the anti-war theme then of “let the sanctions work”? I’m curious.
Based on his posts, I’m of the opinion that DtC was likely ralling around the swingset in '91, but he never answered when I asked him directly how old he was in another thread ( where he was asserting that UN resolutions hold the same weight of law in the US as the Constitution :rolleyes: ).
Thank you, Diogenes. Sure there would be immense hurdles to overcome, but America is at present in a unique position to make a genuine difference for the good in world affairs.
Cranky, I don’t like to offend you, but when you post things like, “Alls I am saying is, some of us seem to find war a lot more horrible and a lot less inevitable” you appear to set yourself on a superior moral plane from those who disagree with you. I’m glad to find that you don’t actually think that.
DtC:
A wise man once told me (10 minutes ago) that:
'nuff said.
Now quit playing semantics and put up or shut up. If you want to make whiffle-statements that are so vague and divorced from reality that you can’t support them, it ain’t my problem. Alternately, at least come up with some indications that support your statements!
Regarding the ONE cite you have actually provided:
I did go to www.awolbush.com, and it remains a highly partisan, biased and non-credible source. We’re talking about a site that asks “Has ABC covered this? NBC? CBS? (We won’t even ask about Fox.)”… Gee, maybe there’s a REASON the mainstream media hasn’t covered it… Hmmm.
Looking at their “new” items; the first is from a “gem” source: Mother Jones Magazine? The next is the UK Herald. Not bad… A very lefty paper, but a real newspaper nevertheless. Too bad the link is to an article that bashes Bush, but makes no mention of the AWOL issue. The third new link, Chicago Sun-Times. Wow! A real publication with some credibility! Oops… Broken link…
Yeah. Credible. :rolleyes:
Are you telling me that it makes no difference if a country is in violation of the UN?
So, what are you going to do with your life once Bush is out of office?
Look, Cranky, I know it was tounge-in-cheek. I respect your opinion, and I really, sincerely wish everyone could be as committed to peace as you are.
But we live in the real world.
Given Saddam’s history, do you really believe we could have worked with him towards a peaceful resolution? Does he seem like a trustworthy, rational person who would want to negotiate seriously with the US to avoid innocents in Iraq dying in a war? Or would he be just trying to save his own skin. Let’s look at the facts:
-
Weapons placed by the Iraqi at such “strategic” locations such as schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods
-
Iraqis being encouraged to sacrifice their lives towards “defeating the American infidels”
-
Hundreds of Kurds in his own country being gased with no reparations
-
The military not playing by the “rules of war”, e.g., not wearing uniforms & attacking while displaying the surrender flag
This guy doesn’t give a flying fuck about his own people, humanity in general, or especially striving for peace. Believe me, I don’t like the fact that innocents are being killed and maimed, but I think the US is going out-of-its-way to avoid civilian casualties with its military strikes.
But that’s the way I see, and you see it somewhat differently — thank God we live here in the US where we have the right to express our opinions so freely!!
I’m 37 years old. (today is my birthday as a matter of fact). I was against both the sanctions and the war in '91.
I think you’d better. But you keep arguing your case anyway, after claiming concession:
OK, but for what it claimed to be, not for what you claimed of it. (More in a minute, there.)
That wasn’t a cite; that was a link. You didn’t cite the link as the source of information (i.e. say “site X says A, B, and C”). I’m not going to do your work for you; if you say Site X supports your position, then not only is the link necessary, but you need to quote or summarize to show how the linked site supports your case.
Either you’re extremely disingenious, or you have a severe reading problem. I didn’t ignore a thing. Here’s what your link says:
So of that alleged 500K excess, only 80K “excess deaths” are in excess of Iraq’s previous death rate; the other 420K is playing with curves.
Then what’s the revised lowball number?
Please don’t extrapolate from that. The very young and very old will have very disproportionate death rates under such circumstances. When we look at the children under 5, we’re looking at the bulk of the humanitarian crisis as it potentially relates to sanctions.
NO.
You know why? Because Richard Garfield, the expert you’re citing for that figure, doesn’t claim that the 106K is attributable to sanctions. How much of it is attributable to sanctions, and how much to Saddam? He isn’t quoted as saying, in the cited piece.
You say that on the basis of absolutely nothing. Nothing.
For all I know, you may be right. But flinging numbers around at random doesn’t show that. Go back to square one and start over.
But you’ll have to convince someone else. I’ve given you all the time I’m going to give you in this thread.
I notice that you haven’t actually refuted anything in the cite. How about the NG documents that showed that Bush never showed up for his last year of duty? Are they forged?
How about putting up with a cite that the US ever opposed UN sanctions against Iraq.
Some of us do find war less inevitable, and so horrible that we’d have to be pushed pretty far before we’d send troops in. My failing is in not finding a way to express that without setting other people off. I am sorry I didn’t do a better job.
I gotta tell you, your post to me really stunned me. I went $60,000 into debt so I could be belittled and talked down to in grad school. 
I don’t need more of it from a long-time fellow Doper.
Honestly, it might be time for me to take a break.
Against the sanctions AND the war? So what was your solution to the situation then?
I do. But in this debate, I was mostly irked by a poster waving 1441 as a magic wand.
I think there are ample justifications for the war, and that having it “blessed” by an anachronistic debating society is immaterial. Whether it’s “illegal” or not is not something I find of interest (the concept of “international law” being pretty damned shaky to start with IMHO).
[/quote]
People have different views about international law, obviously. I note that it seemed to abruptly matter to the Bushies when our Iraqi-held POWs were paraded before the TV cameras.
The alternative to international law is, of course, might makes right. We have to reckon that when we show disregard for international law in the midst of an apparent series of asymmetrical wars, the other side might violate international law in asymmetrical ways. We may do so in nice clean geopolitical ways like invading another country; if the other side disregards it by, say, sending back POWs who are missing the occasional body part, will we just accept that as tit for tat? Somehow I can’t see it.
IOW, the fragile consensus of ‘international law’ is there for our protection as well as that of the other guy. There are risks in forgetting that.
What a nice way to put it. You’re right, and I think that’s why I feel so incredibly discouraged sometimes. It’s hard for me to envision world peace with ratfuckers like Saddam on the planet.
I do respect the military’s efforts to avoid civilian casualities. Thank god for that. FTR, I am just as sad, honestly even more sad, about our men and women soldiers losing their lives.
RTF:
Hey, it’s your football. If you wanna quit playing catch, it’s up to you…
DtC:
What’s to refute? You posted a lame, biased site with a clear agenda as “proof” of your claim. You couldn’t even be bothered to post direct links to the “legitimate sources” you claim it links to. I tried a few and they flat out didn’t address the issue. I didn’t bother checking some others as they pointed to other tremendously biased sources. (You’re just never going to convince me citing Mother Jones Magazine).
So I didn’t find what you say is there. If you want to return, find the credible sources you claim are there, and post some links to them (as I asked in the beginning), then the issue of refuting them would be applicable.
How about you quit trying to dump this off on me? They’re YOUR assertions, you support 'em. Quit playing the silly “can’t prove a negative” game. That applies to ONE assertion you made (and note that by your own argument you made an assertion you cannot prove???). So enough word-games: perhaps you could be bothered to support it even if you don’t “prove” it? Citing people or media with credibility who have expressed the same view would be a start… (hint).
While you’re at it, you could address the many other assertions you made that you continue to refuse to back up or support in any way other than the playground-tactic of “am too so right!”
When (IF) you do, then we’ll have something to discuss.
Most likely giving Saddam a big hug, and the Nobel Peace prize.
That’s the problem with fruitcakes in general (left or right), they are good at pointing fingers, but never at solving an actual problem with no perfect solution, and won’t even put forth an alternative course of action for fear of having holes poked through it.
Huh, small world, I’ll be 36 on Saturday. Anyway:
Happy Birthday!
I’ll see your news story and raise with this one:
Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs
RTF:
I tend to agree. I found it hypocritical as well as naive when they started yelling “b…b…but the Geneva Convention…!!!”
I don’t like seeing POWs treated improperly. And I certainly hope we continue to treat Iraqi POWs properly. But to expect anything from Hussein other that what we got is stupid. And it was just silly to see us duck behind the Geneva Convention for cover.
I do have to point out, however, that a black-and-white treaty which various nations have signed is slightly different than a legislative body which various nations have joined but which is organic and is by no means set down in “this is allowed, this isn’t” terms… I think it’s entirely reasonable to ignore or withdraw from the UN without it invalidating the concept of multilateral treaties.
Inasmuch as the views of some who oppose the war are tainted by a partisan dislike of the current administration, I submit that your support of this war is tainted by the noble ideals you espoused above. In fact, the other way around. The ideals you espouse are tainted by your support for this war as there seem to be larger motives at play.
Spending your own resources to aid a country and its people fight its leadership, liberate itself, thus helping it take a giant step forward, is an act of charity, an act of sacrifice. In this particular instance, it is very difficult for me to see the charitable motives. There appears to be a self-centered politically motivated ideology at work and I cannot comprehend those who speak of this war as having multiple motives: “We are there for many things including the liberation of Iraq”.
No, I cannot understand how an administration’s desire for a stronger foothold in the Middle-East, and strategic control of oil can MIX with the morally pure motive to liberate the people of Iraq and improve their lives. An Iraq free of Saddam, a brutal dictator, could be termed a “liberation” but the question that bothers me is: “If the Iraqi people were not the point of focus…how would a post-Saddam Iraq emerge?” May be we will see a noticeable improvement in the lives of its people, but in the long-term, could the US be putting its interests above theirs, thus retarding the country’s growth?
This is why I believe that counting the liberation of Iraq to buttress the list of motives for the war does not appeal to me. Oil and water do not mix (in more ways than one)