Missing the point 101. (Or maybe dodging the point 101).
Don’t repeat stuff that you’ve already been called on.
Do provide what you’ve been asked for.
Well I can see how the timing brings the question; why now, after all these years would we decide to take unilateral (almost) military action?
My opinion is that GW and company have info that we do not have. I didn’t vote for him but I believe him. I trust him because I can’t believe that he would put so many lives on the line for oil or selfish political goals. I think our special forces or CIA got hold of some kind of intelligence that made them think that military solutions were among the best options available. I do believe that there have been diplomatic breakdowns. There may be folks out there that could have solved this diplomatically. Unfortunately, we don’t know who they are. What we have are ordinary men and women that have great decisions to make. I choose to trust them.
Fuck you, asshole. I’ve answered your fucking stupid inane dumbass dipshit moronic head-up-your-ass question. I even did the math for you. If you’d rather hear some other answer, go ask one of your fellow Saddam lovers. You obviously have nothing whatsoever bad to say about him. Why the hell did I ever come back to this cesspool of duplicity and puke liberalism? Wait. I can answer that one. Because I was fucking stupid. There. You got what you wanted. I’m gonna go watch them hunt down your mentor now. You may continue your liberal orgy.
You are far more trusting than I am willing to be at this moment.
Who knows? Maybe I’ll come around.
Tom
I showed you evidence (proof, really) of a trend that has spanned many, many years. I think that, at this point, it is up to you to show that the trend has stopped. What I am curious about is why you suspect he might have suddenly reformed. While I can’t show you that he murdered 5,000 in February, 2003, you can’t really show any reason to believe that he has not. Can you? This whole line of reasoning had to do with the fact that given projections from the liberals of thousands of Iraqi’s killed in a potential invasion (a projection that was merely a guess anyway), it seemed reasonable to presume that those casualties might happen even without an invasion — at Saddam’s own hand. Thus, the successful conclusion of the invasion would be the end of the civilian casualties. And that, my friend, is logical.
By the way, he killed more Kurds just this morning with rockets and artillery. Sources: CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
Lib, I don’t know what’s gone wrong with you, or how to help you. You’re saying vicious, hateful things, and neither of those traits are in your heart. You’re saying stupid and simpleminded things, and you’re a smart, insightful man. If there’s anything I can do that will help you, let me know.
Libertarian, did any of the atrocities you cited happen while UN inspectors were in the country? That’s one difference between the 1980’s and now.
Uhh… are you talking about this thread or the SDMB?
So, the only thing preventing him from committing atrocities is a slew of UN inspectors? The same inspectors that he has prevented from doing their jobs in the past? People seem to think this is acceptable… 
and fuck you right back.
you claim to act logically, that you have Christian love in your heart etc.
but you continue to assail at us, calling us “Saddam lovers” who have “nothing whatsoever bad to say about him”
that’s a bald face fucking ass lie of epic proportions.
fuck you.
Cheesesteak, I think what people almost universally think is unacceptable are the atrocities themselves. Some of us consider an armed invasion, the most radical of all “solutions” to these abuses, without strong international support as less than acceptable also. The question of whether the atrocities have continued to occur, and at what rate, while Iraq has been under intense international scrutiny is of vital relevance to the question of acceptable means of intervention. If less destabilizing and violent means of intervention are available and their effectiveness can be measured, we feel these means should be employed in preference to war.
I like how times of great stress really bring out the best in people, encouraging them to stop and treat each other better. I especially like how people who are suffering, each in their own way, are mindful not to turn that into lashing out at each other.
Shh. Don’t wake me. I’m going to dream about pie next.
::pssst… Drastic…
here’s a scoop of ice cream… shh…::
Well, not the only thing. Not the inspectors themselves, anyway. As long as the inspection process was underway, the eyes of the world were on Iraq. I doubt if SH would have committed anything like the atrocities of the 1980’s knowing that he couldn’t keep it a secret. This, for me, makes it hard to believe that giving inspections more time to work would have led to tens of thousands of further civilian casualties.
The numbers presented at the point where I asked about current murders had been in reference to activities that had occurred over the 15 years prior to the first gulf war, with most of the specific atrocities documented between 1987 and 1990. Since that time, the U.S. seriously damaged his army, established a no-fly zone over the Kurd region (preventing air attacks), and provided for a great deal more direct monitoring of that region to report on any continued atrocities. In addition, far more Kurds have been able to flee the region (except when Turkey turns them back) and the refugees have not continued to bring out further stories of such massacres. Further, neither Bush nor Powell have made any reference to recent massacres during their attempts to sway the Security Council. That tends to argue that there is no current policy of mass murder.
It was hardly up to me to “prove” that Hussein had changed his intents, since I doubt that he has and only asked about his successful actions.
I am sure that he continues to murder people (and his son takes great delight in doing so), however, as we are not currently planning to invade Russia to save the Chechens, Israel/Palestine to save the peoples in those countries, Korea (where self-inflicted starvation is taking a serious toll of Kim Il-Jung’s people), or any of several other places where governments are killing their own, then I do see that the numbers of people whom Hussein is murdering currently will have a bearing on the appropriate approach to ousting him, now.
If he was currently killing 5,000 people a month, then putting off the invasion while we attempted to build a broader world coalition is condemning 5,000 people a month, to death. If he is currently killing 10 or 20 people a month, then those numbers may be off-set by the numbers of people throughout the world who will not be slain by terrorists recruited in response to U.S. action–particularly if the UNSCOM teams found the weapons we expected them to.
“This whole line of reasoning” that you laid out is something on which I have expressed no opinion (on this MB or off it) and I have also voiced no opinions regarding the unknowable-in-advance number of casualties in the upcoming invasion. (In fact, I think that the widely reported efforts of the Psy Ops guys along with the change from 20% guided to 80% guided weapons shows that the administration is working very hard to minimize civilian–and even military–casualties.)
I simply asked a question while you keep attributing motives to me which I have not expressed.
Wow. So much for tolerance.
I assert that, for the duration of this conflict, Godwin’s Law can reasonably be applied to any mention of Neville Chamberlain that occurs in the context of a discussion on recent international relations and diplomacy. This will apply even more clearly if the invoking of Chamberlain’s name is accompanied by the word “appeasement.”
Why indeed? Despite disagreeing with many of your political positions, i’ve always thought you were pretty rational and level-headed. I was apparently wrong.
But oddly enough, Bush seems to be buying it with Pyongyang, which flat-out admits to being a threat to the rest of the world, to say nothing to its own people.
Huh??
Would you care to provide some links to this information? I have been watching the news coverage here for the past 2 or 3 hours, and all I have seen is that Iraq has launched 4 scud missiles into nothern Kuwait, none of which hit anything? (I know he is not supposed to them etc)
I have had a quick look on MSNBC and CNN and can’t find any mention of what you are saying.
Why, yes, I do think a few billion should go to burundi. Cash would be fine. I promise–cross my heart–in return, not to cause any mass deaths. 