Iraqi pits peace protester on radio

xenophon41

I’m on the fence about the war for your first reason. But what are the string of lies? I for one don’t care about the government’s reasons if I can justify the war for my own. Regarding the deaths: I think “hundreds of thousands” is probably a bit much but you never know, I suppose. “Responsibility” has a number of different meanings that are applicable here but i choose the one that holds more than just the US responsible.

Xeno

I don’t think it was an unfair question. I really don’t buy into the one-more-month school of thought that basically flies in the face of more than a decade of actual experience. Seldom will a maniacal dictator voluntarily step down, particularly one who has engaged in murder, rape, and torture. If the lady thought that there was a solution other than force, then she could have answered his question that way simply by saying, “It would be better to do yadda yadda rather than using force.” All Muhammed was asking for was the yadda yadda.

And once again, I feel it is necessary to point out that even your staggering projection of casualties is practically guaranteed to happen with or without intervention. It has so far, and you offer no reason why it should suddenly just stop. By my calculations, Saddam already kills around 10 thousand a month. Reliably. Like clockwork. Guaranteed.

I think (or at least hope) that you would agree that coalition forces will at the very least avoid as many civilian casualties as they possibly can. Whatever civilian casualties there are, there are likely to be far more killed by Saddam himself — using them as human shields and guinea pigs and whatnot — than by the allies. Wouldn’t you agree?

Xeno

Incidentally, I meant to say earlier that I appreciate your comments about CNN. I’m able to channel-surf at will, and sometimes the effect is just astounding. For example, just this past minute, I saw a map on Fox News that showed the now 30 nations that comprise the Coalition of the Willing from Japan to El Salvador, along with comments from their foreign ministers and heads of state leaving no doubt that they support the US action. Then, I switch to CNN and Wolf Blitzer is saying that four nations comprise the “so-called” (yes, he actually said that) Coalition of the Willing — US, Australia, UK, and Poland. How can he and his network have any credibility whatsoever? They’re a joke.

KC, the “string of lies” I refer to have been moderately well documented in the media.

There was the IAEA report that didn’t exist, which Bush used to support the rather bizarre claim that Iraq was “six months away” from developing a nuclear weapon, but which the IAEA denies. There were the aluminum tubes which first Condee Rice and then Colin Powell falsely claimed were purchased for a uranium enrichment program, but which the IAEA says were almost certainly purchased, as the Iraqi’s claimed from the start, for missile construction. There was the British security dossier used by Bush to buttress the case against Iraq, which was actually cribbed from a decade-old student paper and from news archives, rather than from intelligence sources. There was the Nigerian connection, which was cited as proof that Iraq had recently tried to buy uranium, but which was revealed as an “obvious forgery”.

All of these have been used by this administration, even cited in the State of the Union Address, to support its war of aggression, even after they were discredited. None of this reinforces my waning trust in Bush & Co.
Lib: There are other methods of intervention than war; none of them satisfyingly quick or fully effective at preventing deaths and human rights abuses. But then, war isn’t known to be very effective at that, either.

I think it can be and many times has been. Particularly in cases of state-sponsored holocausts.

Perhaps. And frankly, I would’ve supported intervention in Rwanda on that basis (as well as, situationally, Liberia, Sudan and various other places). I wish dearly that Bush et. al. would’ve pursued an international humanitarian mission instead of the disarmament song and dance. As it is, I have little faith that this war is the right one, for the right reasons. The consequences go far beyond changes within Iraq, and I fear them.

We see eye-to-eye here: “I have little faith that this war is the right one, for the right reasons”. I don’t oppose intervention in Iraq per se, but merely intervention by the US government. Thanks for sharing your views, Xeno. As always, they are thought provoking.

Sorry, I haven’t listened to the OP’s snippet. Is the Iraqi actually living in Iraq I wonder? For an interesting viewpoint from within Iraq, see http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/. Reading it confirms simple common sense - while the Iraqis would like a Democracy, they don’t really feel like getting bombed to make it happen.

What do you mean? They enjoy getting bombed by their dictator? How about raped? Branded? Ears and arms cut off? Torture? Somehow, I doubt they want the status quo.

But nobody wants the status quo! In fact, my concerns are founded on the fear that war on Iraq now will leave us back at the status quo - albeit under a different dictator than Saddam, but that’s no consolation to the Iraqi people - within a few years. The status quo or worse. And worse is possible.

And if I, a computer programmer whiling away some time during a database backup, can come up with a slightly credible plan to remove Saddam without necessarily going to war, then I’m sure people who actually know about this stuff could do better … which makes me think that the alternatives to war have not been thoroughly explored.

Bingo! We have a winner… :slight_smile:

Seriously, I also listened to the audio posted in the OP. I came to the conclusion that both “Mohammed” and the “little girl” were zealous idiots. Are we really surprised at this?

In the past weeks (months, years…) on talk radio I’ve heard callers state as fact that Muslims will “gladly” break into our houses to slit our childrens’ throats just for the sake of doing it, that Bush has a secret plan to buy up all the Iraqi oil fields after a war, that the French government would prefer to see Saddam Hussein stay in power. I’ve heard a radio host state as fact that the young girl who was killed in Gaza recently was brainwashed by Evergreen State College, which she had attended, and they were directly to blame for her death. I’ve heard guest of every stripe proclaim there opinions and theories as Da TROOTH! as if there could be no other answer. “Mohammed” and the “little girl” he was berating were of the same variety. Passionate and stubborn, but idiots both.

And I repeat… we’re surprised at this?

Gee, Libertarian, for a Libertarian you seem to enjoy telling other people what is in their best interest. I don’t know what the Iraqis in Iraq think. I am not them. That is why I pointed to the dear_raed blog (better link is http://dear_raed.blogspot.com).

Question for those who are opposed to the war:

If Saddam were to announce to the world “If one bomb goes off in my country, I will kill a thousand Iraqi’s,” would that make more or less opposed to a war?

I’m not trying to bait anybody. I just find it absolutely ludicrous that people will claim to be so worried about “collateral damage” casualties, and yet don’t seem to care a whit about “deliberate damage” casualties that Saddam inflicts on his own people. Granted, I’m sure it does bother y’all, but for some reason, I see very few people addressing that.

To me, Saddam’s behavior smacks terribly of a neighborhood bully… “If you tattle on me, I’m gonna beat you up!” “But you’re gonna beat me up anyway!” And we’re supposed to pander to this glorified Nelson Muntz? We’re supposed to send him the message that if he commits more human rights violations, we won’t punish him for his human rights violations? You’re trying to tell me that we let him off the hook simply because you’re afraid of getting your hands dirty?

I apologize if my language sounds loaded. It’s just that I simply cannot understand this line of logic, and I have been spending many, many months trying (hell, for the past year, I’ve pretty much stayed out of these debates). But the more I look at it, the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that, quite simply, we (“we” referring to groups, of course) who have the ability to act also have the responsibility to act. I find it morally repulsive to think about sitting on our hands.

Granted, I am not convinced that a full-scale war is the only answer. I do see it as AN answer, though, far more so than a decade of useless “diplomacy” has been. Nor do I buy into a lot of Bush’s rhetoric… frankly, I consider most of the recent “reasons” for going to war has been to pander to people here in the States. However, that does not mean that I think there is NO basis for going to war.

Furthermore - and I apologize if this comes out harshly - I do not consider the opinions of those who say they are opposed to war under any circumstances. People who predetermine that they will NEVER support “Action A”, no matter what, are, in my opinion, too laden with foolish idealism.

I am trying to understand all sides of this issue, and I am hoping that there is a resolution. However, while I do not automatically buy the jingoism of Saddam actively funding terrorists, I also do not buy the jingoism about “Iraqi casualties” or bullshit claims about “bombing civilians”.

No. That’s quite obviously not what any of us is saying. Even a half-hearted attempt to actually read any of the arguments presented just in this thread by those of us opposed to this war would’ve confirmed that for you. If you won’t respect our arguments enough to fairly characterize them, why the fuck should we listen to a damned thing you say?

And I’m picking on you, SPOOFE, because you know better, or should.

To be more specific, because those posts were rather harsh, you say:

Is this not precisely, although with slightly different emphasis, what us peaceniks have been saying?

Xeno, of your three reasons, only #1 has any merit. Buish’s strategem of declaring preemptive war has a strong possibility to come back to bite us in the ass. #2 is nonsense–there has been ample evidence of Iraq’s refusal to come clean on the weapons it possesses, and #3 is just absurd. You guys said that hundreds of thousands would die in Iraq the last time and that it would be a long, protracted conflict. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

World eater responded:

Do you really think that an adult woman enjoys being dismissed as if she were a child? The caller was obviously not paying her a compliment by calling her a “little girl.” To explore this idea further here would be a hijack, but I don’t mind discussing it in another thread if you choose.

Truth Seeker said:

I agree with much of your post, but I’m not certain about the benefits to the “average Iraqi” – who stands a reasonable chance of losing still more family members and friends. Even if we knew that no civilians would be killed, we have no way of knowing what the outcome is going to be – especially considering the volitility of the entire region.

Weirddave said:

Which question do you want me to answer, sir? :wink: (There wasn’t one in the OP.)
Zoe said:

Libertarian responded:

Please notice the first sentence in my first post: “Did anyone hear the woman actually say that she believed that leaving Saddam in power would result in peace and justice? I would really like to know.”

Maybe she doesn’t even believe that leaving Saddam in power is desireable. Maybe she believes that Saddam should be removed from power in as peaceful and just a way as possible.

Which we are doing right now. Do you really think Saddam can be removed in any way other than force?

Listen, I for one am not going to be sorry when Saddam is gone so I can’t say I’m against the war. But I will say this: I think Bush is one of the most incompetent presidents we’ve ever had. I have no faith in his leadership which looks to me like it was cobbled together from an 8th grade history textbook with a healthy dose of Yosemite Sam added in. He has single-handedly managed to unite a good chunk of the world around Saddam–a guy with no redeeming qualities what-so-ever. This is just nuts! This war is going to be more costly in blood and money than it had to be all because Bush and his merry band of arrogant idiots didn’t want to take the time to actually try some nuanced diplomacy before running off with their dicks half cocked. What a damn mess. And they’re not even going to pay for their incompetence–we American citizens are. We’re the ones going to be straining to make ends meet after the economy tanks and we’re the ones that are going to be taking bullets to win this idiot’s little war. At worst he’ll get a job as an highly-paid exec or consultant if he doesn’t get re-elected–big sacrifice there.
Quite frankly–fuck him and the horse he rode in on. He’s not a leader, he’s a damn spoiled 2-year-old who finally got some new toys to play with.
To hell with him.