Actually, El_Kabong, the “Neener” Pit thread has outlived its ignoble origins. Stinkpalm–who began the thread on the false premise that WMDs had actually been found, as well as the equally false premise that anti-war posters had insisted that no such WMDs were in existence–has retracted his “Neeners” after learning that the story he heard was yet another false alarm. I’m not sure whether he still believes that anti-war posters are claiming special knowledge of what is or isn’t going to be found in Iraq. But since his apology was sincere to the point of abjection, we can only hope.
Personally, though, I give Stinkpalm a major edge over I Know Lots, since at least Stinkpalm’s confusion concerned a matter of some complexity: the position on WMDs. By contrast, I Know Lots seems to believe that anti-war protesters feared that Iraq would defeat the United States in battle–an eye-opening howler if ever there was one.
In any case, since the Pit thread has become fairly amicable of late, and has detoured into fairly sophisticated hypothetical and historical terrain, I’m thinking that I Know Lots would be out of his/her depths there. My preference would be for I Know Lots to read a few of the GD threads on the subject of the war until he or she Knows at Least a Little about what’s been said here. Failing that, I guess there’s MPSIMS.
You got a cite for your “obvious” bullshit? This attempt at salvaging face is beyond pathetic and you should be fucking ashamed. Belittling those better than you, and stating inuendoes that you can’t support is cowardly. So I hope you have a substantiated cite. And I do not care how close to San Fran you are, that is considered a fucking insult where I come from.
I will let IKL defend himself, but what is up with this straw man starting from Daniel down? He never said anything about losing the war. He said that the anti’s asserted that Baghdad would be comparable to Stalingrad. The US hasn’t won the war yet. But Baghdad did fall rather easily in the face of the doom-sayers.
There are people, however, who prefer to think of human beings as, well, human beings, and some who consider it more intellectually honest to say “we killed ten babies today, to save a hundred.” If you can justify it, fine, but hiding behind words is not nice.
Fine. We killed many civilians, and many soldiers who didn’t want to be there in the first place. We blasted them to ash, and many went quite painfully. Many people will likely be crippled, or scarred. Children were killed. There were likely a number of slow, painful, agonizing deaths.
And the result of this awful, awful death and destruction is that now millions of Iraqis are no longer subject to Saddam’s cruel whims. There will be no more rapes, murders, and tortures at his bequest. There will be no imprisoning of disloyal children. There will be no more acid baths for dissidents, no more cutting out of tongues, no more trips to the plastic shredder (head first for the lucky ones). Saddam will not be able to take ton upon ton of food and medicine, and stick it in warehouses to rot, while his people die of disease and hunger.
There, that’s about as honest as I imagine one could be about this situation. Yet still, I feel cause for cheer. I guess I’m just a sick bastard, and for that I apologize.
Jeff
I think this has been covered ad nauseum on the SDMB, and is really beyond the scope of this thread to go into any detail, but here’s the short answer (which I know you’ll disagree with, but what they hey, I have nothing better to do at the moment):
We conquer Iraq, on the premise that Iraq was, or was likely to, supporting terrorists directly or indirectly. That sends a message to other Middle Eastern nations to the effect of: “When we say no terrorism, we mean no terrorism.” Thus, we can go to Syria, for example, and say “We know you support terrorists. Knock that crap off, or we’ll send you the way of Iraq.” The governments, being more interested in preserving their way of life than pleasing Osama, will help us, even if only reluctantly. Thus, our job of going around picking off terrorists is made easier. Fewer terrorists means less terrorism. QED.
Jeff
Sigh – we’ve been over that, yes, and there is still no plausible basis to believe that Iraq is a primary, or even major, sponsor of terrorism in the world today, unlike such US “allies” as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Osama is no doubt laughing his ass off at the removal of a regime he hated, too, at the hands of another of his enemies, and at the fertile recruiting grounds for al-Qaeda he has now. It would be nice to see you acknowledge that that just might be true.
Enjoy your celebration if you must, but keep in mind that you’re celebrating a lie. If this were a defeat of al-Qaeda, our real Number One enemy, I’d be happy to join you, though. But I think you’d be happy at the defeat of France, too, wouldn’t you?
<off topic>
ElJeffe-> This thing about Saddam and the plastic/wood shredder, sounds an awful lot like an urban legend. Is there any reliable source to this? Is it even believable/practical ?
Remember they said the iraqis took babies out of the incubators, and it turned out to be a confirmed lie.
</off topic>
I guess human nature is prone to conflict, big and small. Each soldier needs his “confirmed kill”.
I was kind of hoping overwhelming world opinion could prevent a friggin unprovoked war. But nope.
What has happened at most is to (further) reveal the difference in interests between governments and the common folk.
I said nothing of the kind, Mandelstam . I suggested nothing of the kind in my over-the-top mockery (yes, over-the-top mockery and deliberate childishness. Next time I’m embarking on a leg-pull I will hold up a giant sign saying “IRONY” for the benefit of anyone with a single-digit IQ).
The “anti-war” types, in their own genuinely childish and reductionist way, have spent months yelling and shouting down reasoned arguments from the pro-war and undecided camps.
They repeatedly predicted, and presumably were looking forward to, a long, miserable road to victory for the coaltion, popular resistance from the Iraqi people against the “invaders”, and a final bloodbath in Baghdad. Which they could follow with a smug “I told you so.”
But they didn’t get this. They got a rapid and extremely professional campaign by the allies which has quickly overcome the bumbling pro-Saddam Iraqis. And guess what? When we marched into Baghdad, it seems against the prediction of the “anti-war” camp, the Iraqis are happy that we have come to get rid of a dictator who feeds children to starving cats in front of their mothers. Now, I certainly didn’t expect that from them. [IRONY]
After months of abuse and being labelled as an evil warmonger and all that by the holier-than-thou “anti-war” camp, I do think I deserve to mock them. What goes around comes around. Next time, certain people should think before they takes sides and make predictions and start heaping abuse on anyone who speaks up against them.
And, by the way, I do know what I’m talking about, boyo. I’ve got an Master Degree in IR from Durham University. My MA degree trumps your smugness. Neener neener and all that.
I must have missed it in all the confusion, I Know Lots, but I don’t recall hearing admist all the war coverage when the U.S. forces found authorization from the United Nations to use military action against Iraq.
That the U.S. would defeat Iraq was obvious; this war is more one-sided than having Mike Tyson fight a blind paraplegic toddler. But a victory still doesn’t make it morally justified.
Sorry to continue the hijack, but this one has been bugging me too. The short answer is, not quite urban legend, not quite fact.
The “plastic shredder” story apparently first turned up in a piece written by Arnaud de Borchegrave, and published in the March 23 issue of the Washington Times. With its theme the disillusionment of some of the people who went to Iraq as voluntary human shields, the article quoted a statement from a Rev. Kenneth Joseph, of the “Assyrian Church of the East”.
I’ve not seen the original article, but the bit quoted in the link appears to be the entire story. The Reverend did not witness any such torture; furthermore he does give any notion of where he heard it, whether anyone else had verified the story, who might have been tortured in this way or even where or when this might have taken place.
While I would never argue that the plastic shredder story could not possibly have happened, it’s along way from a verified fact.
First, the Bush Administration spent a great deal of time saying that the war could be long, counted in months rather weeks. If there was any “predicting” going on, it was coming straight from the mouths of those who led us to war.
Second, the suggestion that any anti-war people were “looking forward to” a long war is ridiculous and offensive in the extreme. I challenge you to find support for that claim.
And finally, the only person giving a smug “told you so” at this point is you. You’re so much better than the (fictitious) people you’re criticizing. :rolleyes:
Professor De Genova of Columbia said this a few weeks back, that he wished for “a million Mogadishus” for Coalition troops to encounter. Marginal? Perhaps. But someone has said it.
So, wait, you do feel as you stated in the OP. So, where is the irony? Please help me to understand, oh wise one with a Master’s Degree, or an Master Degree from Durham University.
Congratulations. This is nearly as offensive as it is illogical and ill-reasoned. Remember the old saying, when you presume, you make an ass out of yourself. You presume that those protesting against the war were hoping for a bloodbath? Wait, is this some more of your special brand of irony? Did they learn you that irony up to the colledge, when you was gettin that Master Degree?
Can you show me one expression of any form that suggested that those opposing the war believed that Iraqis would not be happy with a change in regimes? The point is that there was no legitimacy behind the US’s decision that regime change was appropriate at this time and could be enforced in a unilateral fashion. Remember that big presentation that Colin Powell provided to the UN? Wasn’t that about something other than human rights violations of Iraq and how happy the Iraqis would be to avoid being cat food.
Somehow I suspect that this was not your first occasion of mocking the antiwar crowd. Just try a bit harder to understand what you are mocking them for. Or is this some more of your unique brand of irony? Oh, and this would be the second time today I had to observe how weak it is for someone to point to their purported academic degree to support an argument (see the neener thread). Pathetic, really.
This statement flabbergasts me. How can anyone be so incredibly biased that they believe this to be true? ‘Arrested or worse’ for expressing anti-American sentiments?
This kind of comment just amazes me. I could understand it coming from a lackey of Saddam’s regime or something, but from rjung? Amazing.
Incidentally, there WAS someone in the crowd of cheering Iraqis today who was screaming “Child Killers!” at the American troops.
It was a ‘human shield’ who came to Iraq to prevent the war which liberated the people all around her. Some people are just blind, I guess.