Hey, you’re welcome to turn in your Lifetime Membership Card[sup]TM[/sup] any time you want.
Of course, that means you won’t get the 50% discount at Denny’s any more, and we know how much you love their Grand Slam breakfasts… 
First off, when I say “it seems like”, is not putting words in your mouth. Had I left out the word “seems”, then yes, I would be quite guilty off what you accuse me of, but I am not, in reality, so STFU.
Secondly, while you are claiming that RedFury “get’s all his information from lunatic fringe lefty websites”, which last time I checked was not a valid criticssm, do want to actually answer more themn one of his poits? For example, the one where he asks about your willingness to live in Iraq now, or after the first war.
Third, in Tom’s example, he shows that Saddam is no longer engaged in large scal killings. There are many dictatiors who kill their own men. Shall we go out and have badley plaaned and executed campaigns againsnt them too, or should we streetch our forces much thin?
Thanks for the cite, tomndebb. I had a reply all ready for you, but I see others have already made the point I was about to make, which is that Hussein and his henchmen would not have had to be killing people at wartime rates in order to be murdering or otherwise causing the deaths of more Iraqis than are dying now as a result of our action there. I believe Weirddave’s assertion was that Hussein was killing Iraqis at a greater pace than exists now, and I felt that to say that wasn’t the case because he wasn’t killing at wartime levels was a bit of a red herring (unintentional though it may have been). Anyway, thanks again for the cite. I appreciate your taking the time to find and post it.
Regards,
SA
Keep in mind that many or most of those insurgents are also Iraqis. They don’t trust democracy – just as some Americans no longer think that democracy is actually being allowed to function in this country. They see themselves as freedom fighters for what they think is right. You and I both may disagree with them. The world might be a better place if each side tried to see the other’s point of view – even when we know that we cannot embrace it.
Oh, so this thread is about current events. I thought you were being pitted.
The things you learn on the SDMB…
It’s not? Shall I take it then that you and your ilk will stop using Fox News as a pejorative? Because, you know, one’s source for news isn’t a valid criticism, right? In any event, the claim that he was making, that the war was “illegal” because of that clause in the Constitution, is one that you only see amongst the lunatic fringe of the anti-war crowd. Anyone with a lick of sense in their head knows that the Constitution says no such thing.
Now. In a fucking heartbeat.
So, what’s the statue of limitations, huh? “Oh, it’s been years since he massacred Kurds with WMDs, decades even, do you have to keep throwing that in his face?” Fuck yes I do. Tell me, what exactly was preventing Sadaam from murdering any number of people anytime he wanted before the war? Did he find Jesus? Convert to Scientology? Would you be willing to bet your LIFE on Sadaam’s good graces?
I don’t advocate a poorly planned anything, nor do I think extending our military commitments at this time is wise or even possible, but I have no problem with taking out every tinpot dictator in the entire world at the point of a gun and installing democracies instead. It wouldn’t bother me a bit.
Nah, we jumped that rail back on page 2.
I’m thinking of starting a pool to see what topic this thread will migrate to next.
So then…which country you headed to first? Oh that’s right, you meant OTHER people should go and fight against all these evil dictators. I wish cons weren’t such pussies who talk a big game and then expect me to do the dirty work. Go over there and risk YOUR life for some random democracy. Be my guest. With any luck, all the fucking moronic cons will leave and let us turn our country back into a tolerant and enjoyable place to live.
<not holding breath>
Since, in the years leading up to our invasion, Hussein was not actively killing more people per month than are currently dying, then it is a falsehood to claim that he was killing more people per month than are currently dying. Just a matter of the Straight Dope and all that. There are enough opinions and exaggerations among your posts and RedFury’s (and those of nearly every other poster in this thread) to keep us here for another decade atempting to identify the “real facts” and I have noticed several errors on each side. Your particular claim, however, was a vehemently posted falsehood and I challenged it. If the removal of Hussein was so necessary that we could ignore international law, then our reasons should be able to stand on honest appraisals, not falsehoods.
Tom, since the purpose of this thread is to fight ignorance, could you post the errors made by anyone, and I do mean on my, (and I assume, your) side of the arguement in this case? You know, the ones you just mentioned?
Nope. We have, as noted above, been over all this before. I’m not going to launch a hijack that I have already indicated would last a decade to resolve. And, of course, what I perceive as a clear error is going to prompt someone else to describe with just enough spin to make the whole thing one of interpretation all over again.
As an example of “facts” that no one will agree to, look at any discussion of the death toll reported in The Lancet. Long before we get to trying to figure out whether there have “really” been over 100,000 “excess” deaths, we have to climb a mountain of statistical sampling methods, the validity of such methods, and whether such methods were genuinely used to arrive at a legitimate conclusion. My personal view, based on readings of commentaries, not on my own statistical analysis, is that the protocols that were established were legitimate and were carried out in good faith by the workers involved, but that field modifications forced onto the field teams by on-the-ground events resulted in a severly hamstrung effort and I do not accept the 100,000 figure. But proponents and opponents of the study do not even have to support or oppose the U.S. invasion to come to bloody blows over the legitimacy and accuracy of the methodology and the results.
My reaction to Weirddave’s statement was based on my perception that it is one of the errors identifiable with a bright stripe. Most of the other errors that I perceive clearly will be seen by others (on both sides) as faulty vision on my part.
Say, isn’t someone due to bash rjung about now? It’s his thread, isn’t it?
You know I respect you, tomndeb, but I just read through the information you linked to and I still don’t see anything resembling concrete evidence that the rate of Iraqi deaths under Hussein was less than it is now. The fact that this particular writer averaged Iraqi deaths over a number of decades in no way proves that fewer (innocent) people were dying under Hussein than are dying now. And, of course, as I said earlier, it is a virtual certainty that many more lives will be saved as time goes by and things in Iraq stabilize. In other words, far fewer innocent Iraqis will die over the next decades (assuming Iraq does indeed become a stable self-governing democracy, which only time will tell) than would have been the case had Hussein and his despicable progeny continued to rule Iraq.
Zoe…yes, I know some of the insurgents regard themselves as freedom fighters. But they are fighting and trying to kill our soldiers, and they are deliberately targeting innocent Iraqis in an effort to destabilize attempts to create a viable government there. To me, this makes them enemy combatants and terrorists. (I would imagine that in just about every war the combatants on each side feel they are the ones with the greater moral imperative.) Therefore, I don’t believe they should be counted among the “innocent” Iraqis that have been killed as a result of the war.
It is still my contention that fewer Iraqis are dying now than under Hussein, and that many, many fewer will die as time goes by.
Sorry, tom, your last post came in as I was composing mine. It isn’t my intention to participate in a hijack when the thread is attempting to get back on topic. If you want to just agree that we disagree that would be fine with me, and unless I hear otherwise I’ll just let the subject drop.
It is?
Wonder how much I can get for selling this on eBay…
rjung is a cretinous, syphilitic, festering hemorrhoid upon the asshole of humanity. He is like a toxic fungus, except with less political acumen, and contact with him is more painful. His breath reveals his penchant for snacking on owl pellets, while his face suggests that Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollack decided to collaborate on a painting. He is less personable than Bill O’Reilly, though in rjung’s case, women consider sex with falafel to be a valid alternative to sex with him. He is less welcome in social events than Phyllis Diller in a see-thru dress, particularly because his body odor inspires party guests to search for nonexistent smoked salmon canapés. Plus, his mama dresses him funny.
Just so we don’t forget the purpose of this thread.
How about a two-fer:
rjung sucks the sweat off of George Bush’s lying nutsack.
In response to this query upthread:
Locksteppin’ Weirdave, predictably responds in the only way his bunkered position will allow:
I’ll just note that said heartbeat might very well be his last if indeed he made that choice.
It is almost as if Baghdad has turned into a giant graveyard.
(my bolding)
Idyllic, isn’t it?
Anyway, here’s some more pablum from said poster:
Except a “dictator” is only a dictator when he’s not advancing US interests. See Islam Karimov for a current example, or read about some of the following gentlemen:
FRANÇOIS & JEAN CLAUDE DUVALIER
Plenty more where those came from.
What’s that they say about people living in glass houses?
That it’s hard to take a dump in peace?
Plus they really have a bad relationship with neighbor children playing baseball.
Hah! True that. But I see it hasn’t stopped Weirdave from doing so all over this thead.