I wish someone cute would declare a War Against My Virginity.
Yeshterday, Deshember seventh, Nineteen-forty-one, Michael Ellis’s virginity was savagely and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Cute People.
You just need to launch a pre-emptive attack or something.
That seemed funnier before I typed it.
Oh well.
**Brutus, Libertarian ** (but especially Libertarian),
Not all of us who are against war in Iraq are stupid because we disagree with you. Although I vehemently disagree with you, I respect your opinions. However, for your convenience, I will point out a couple of things.
**Brutus, ** there are ways to bring about regime change in Iraq besides bombing the crap out of them. One which the U.S. had been hoping for in 1991, if you recall, was to encourage the political opposition (ethnic Kurds, etc.) to rise up against him and “regime change his ass” from within, an option which would not have caused the U.S. to violate Iraq’s sovereignty. But given what I’m sure is the near-total news vacuum in Iraq, why should the Kurds, etc., who have been screwed by basically everybody throughout history, trust that the U.S. or anyone else will back them up?
As for you, ** Libertarian, ** it would be nice if you’d acknowledge that a) my level of knowledge is somewhat more sophisticated than “seeing shiny happy people,” and b) the same is true of most of us who are against the war. (Didn’t you catch my comment about wishing for the “good old days” of targeted assasinations? Hint: would I wish Saddam Hussein dead if I thought he were about to plant flowers in Kurdistan or something?)
Believe me, I’ve never known a peace activist who thought Saddam Hussein was a nice guy. However, as outlined above, no matter how evil he is, that doesn’t mean that bombing the crap out of his country will necessarily accomplish anything beyond making ordinary Iraqis more miserable and/or more dead than they already are. I also see that the U.S. has next to no backing for this endeavor in the international community so far; I think the timing is highly suspicious; and I see no long-range plan for what the U.S. hopes to accomplish by going to war in Iraq.
OK, so we bomb the crap out of them, upon which we have the following possible scenarios:
- We win very quickly, upon which Saddam Hussein dies or goes into exile or something; now what? A power vacuum in a Godawful, famine-stricken, war-torn mess of a country, followed by either someone equally wonderful in power, or by a U.S.-backed stabilization administration which will drag on until the country gets on its feet. Do you want an Iraqi Marshall Plan or other long-term U.S. commitment in Iraq? If not, what’s your plan? because I sure haven’t heard Dubya’s.
- Iraq turns into the U.S.'s Afghanistan, possibly at the same time Afghanistan turns into the U.S.'s Afghanistan. Are you willing to commit to a lonmg-term U.S. troop presence in either place, with all that entails in terms of loss of life and expenditures of resources? And BTW, are you going to enlist yourself?
Eva Luna, whose ex-boyfriend suffered from PTSD after serving in Spetsnaz (the Soviet equivalent of the Green Berets) in Afghanistan, and by no means sees shiny happy people everywhere.
No, but you are being short-sighted for silly partisan reasons, just like the Republicans were when it came to Clinton in 1998. Not that I’m convinced Clinton would have done much, but the Reps closed the deal by throwing out accusations of dog wagging. Your above post seems to me that a regime change in Iraq would be good, and you would possible support a war, but not one that might give Republicans political dividends.
That’s just a stupid plan and one that was scrapped for good reasons. The reasons? If Hussein felt that the Kurds were about to rise up against him, he would not hesitate to send in tanks, choppers and chemical weapons and simply wipe them out, village by village. It wouldn’t even be close. The only way the Kurds could succeed would be with American air support. Which would gasp still require Americans to bomb the crap out of the Iraqis.
Not only that, but a Kurdish uprising in Iraq would likely also promote uprisings in Turkey, as well. Turkey is, of course, and American ally and it is trying to be a good democracy. A Kurdish uprising would not help matters in Turkey and would likely cause some backtracking on civil rights over there. Something no one wants.
For those reasons, and many others, the whole Kurdish uprising thing is just silly and not well thought out.
The best option is for the US to invade. If the US begins making plans, it’s likely that much of the rest of the world will jump on the bandwagon. Which is what we have seen so far, anti positions have begun to soften and support has slowly increased. The real problem is idiots running countries with a history of appeasing small problems until they turn into big problems and then come crying to the US for military help deciding that Saddam will probably give unfettered access to inspections THIS time and won’t play games ensuring his survival and increasing his influence in the Middle East.
Of course, the optimal solution would be an Iraqi style Marshall plan. But barring that, I can’t envision the international community NOT taking action to prevent instability in the Mid East after the fall of Hussein. Plus the sanctions will be lifted meaning more investment and economic development in Iraq due to its massive oil industry.
Iraq will not turn into the U.S.'s Afghanistan just like Afghnistan will not turn into the U.S.'s Afghanistan, no matter how many times you stamp your foot and raise the issue.
Go Angels.
Eva Luna wrote:
In the first place, no one advocates bombing the crap out of his country. In the second place, it isn’t his country even though he acts like it belongs to him. And finally, I don’t think you quite realize just how miserable those people really are. Don’t you watch Oprah? How many other regimes have rapists on the government payroll? How many other regimes hold elections with one name on the ballot? How many other regimes intercept humanitarian aid to build palaces and missiles?
You might not be stupid, but you’re certainly asleep. Wake up.
So as I see it, there seem to be two general camps of thought (if you will pardon the mixed metaphor):
Saadam is a lying, cheating, amoral psychopath who has demonstrated a willingness to use chemical warfare against innocent woman and children and has demonstrably tried (and is continually trying) to obtain other WMD’s such as nuclear and bacteriological agents (by using the resources that should instead be used for feeding and clothing his people)…so in the best interest of the world (not just the US):
-
we should attack him and kick his fucking ass, KNOWING that there will be casualties on both sides, or
-
talk nice to him and hope he will change his ways.
Jesus Fucking Christ, HenryB we as a people don’t WANT to go to war!!! Hell, if anything Americans are known to be about as slothful a nation as there ever was. Given our choice, we would much rather kick back with a beer and watch sports. But lessee, a fucking madman directed his cohorts to commit suicide and in the process killed almost 3,000 INNOCENT people simply because he didn’t like us. Now we have another DEMONSTRATED madman, who ALSO just doesn’t like us, who has refused to abide by the terms of his FUCKING SURRENDER, who has REFUSED TO ALLOW THE INSPECTORS INTO HIS COUNTRY, who is starving his people while building up his military (and blaming the U.S. for it), who calls US a tool of Satan…
…and we’re supposed to talk nice to this blithering asshole, just because he NOW says, “OK, OK, you can come back and inspect.”
Fuck you, HENRY, fuck you up the asshole with a very large, spiny cactus.
I won’t feel safe until this absolute pustule on the psyche of the world is lanced.
And I won’t be happy until I see the dessicated remains of Osama bin Laden hanging upside down in Central Park while the widows of the World Trade Center victims stone it into little tiny pieces.
And I don’t give a flying rat’s ass who objects to my viewpoint. I don’t want equality and people joing hands in brotherhood around the world. Not now. Maybe later; what I want right now is bloody fucking vengeance for all the children without fathers and mothers; for all the fucking CHILDREN who fucking died that day, for all the innocent…repeat, INNOCENT people who were killed simply because some goddamn motherFUCKING asshole didn’t like us.
Toaster52
I do not know what You have read, but it does not seem to be what I wrote.
Calm down and read my last post.
There is also a comment about people that obviously do not read the posts, are just posting some shit etc.
You do not seem to have the facts of the issue from Your own press, politicians etc.
Just read and learn. In every political discussion there is 2-3 of Your kind. Try to learn to read!
Please!
- you sound like a fanatical Iraqi terrorist might, 5 years from now, talking about the US.
I think the situation will be made worse by going against international opinion and conventional diplomacy. Efforts must be made in that area first.]
I know that thay failed first time, but it seems wise to me to threaten them and see how well they comply. Not to threaten them and then bomb the living piss out of them.
If this is just sabre rattling and it works it will be viewed as a very smart move by the rest of the world (and me).
EVA –
The Kurds don’t think we’ll back them up because we didn’t before, when we had a chance to – when the hardliners in Bush Senior’s cabinet said “Don’t stop at the Iraqi border; push on the Baghdad and take Saddam down,” and Bush Senior said, “No. That’s not what we’re here to do” and so we went home instead.
The Kurds also know to their profound detriment the cost of “political dissent,” given that Saddam gassed them with nerve gas when they “dissented” before.
HenryB…you ever stop to think it’s YOUR press and politicians that might be lying to YOU??
…fuckhead…
I have read everything that I can find about this. Please don’t try and call me ignorant of the issues, just because I think you’re mistaken, to say the least.
HenryB…you ever stop to think it’s YOUR press and politicians that might be lying to YOU??
…fuckhead…
I have read everything that I can find about this. Please don’t try and call me ignorant of the issues, just because I think you’re mistaken, to say the least.
Toaster52
What press? The European and American?
It seems to me that You hint that I am telling lies? Please be more specific so that I can correct if I have done so.
What politicians? The President of France?
Read the thread before answering please.
Which terms do You mean: “…has refused to abide by the terms of his FUCKING SURRENDER?”
If You mean the no-fly-zones, please give a site of that.
Does he not allow inspectors? Site please.
All over, really.
sputter
Jesus, what rock did you crawl out from under?
Lemme think…I don’t have an exact date/hour of the day right at hand, but golle gee whiz…I seem to recall Sadaam invading Kuwait and then having his vaunted army routed in less than a week, and promptly surrendering and then agreeing to let UN inspectors come in, THEN kicking said inspectors out and refusing to let them come in to inspect…
Surely you remember that series of events? It’s been pretty well documented in, lessee…EVERY FUCKING NEWSPAPER THAT FUCKING EXISTS!!!
If you say that that history is wrong, then there is no use arguing with you. One cannot argue with a madman.
Awright, I’ll take this one. You may want to read all of this one, becasue the last little item pretty much sweeps the rug out from you, but first, let’s have a little history lesson, Henry. Let’s not take it from the “biased” American press either, but from the UN sanctions themselves posted at the UN’s website. Some excerpts:
So, we see a definite pattern to non compliance with the terms of the cease fire. Additionally, after each round of non-compliance, Iraq was granted a loosening of restrictions. I believe President Bush is a little skeptical of the UN’s ability to enforce any weapons inspections, when Iraq has so easily sidestepped them in the pass for political gain. In short, Saddam is playing the UN like a fiddle.
OK, here’s the kicker
from just yesterday:
**cite (I got others regarding the same statement by the information minister if you don’t like that source.)
Saddam has no intention of allowing weapons inspectors or respecting international law.
Err, that last site was actually from two months ago, not yesterday.
However, we have this item from today’s edition of the Toronto star.
It is amazing that anyone does not recognize the stalling and time-buying tactic of give-in and take-some. Okay, we’ll let you in. (A month passes, you go in.) Wait a minute, we want a ruling on whether you can do that. (Another month passes while UN votes.) Well, then we’re not going to play. (Another few months pass while UN ponders what to do. It finally passes a new resolution.) We protest that resolution. (Another month passes until appeals process is exhausted.) Okay, we’ll let you in… etc.
My dear **Libertarian, **
You know, you really shouldn’t make negative assumptions about a person’s level of experience with international politics and human rights violations based on her lack of adherence to your own views.
- I bet I’ve seen and/or read more firsthand testimony of torture survivors and other persecution victims than anyone else on this board, unless there’s someone lurking who hasn’t shared some pretty heavy experiences. I spent 3-1/2 years as a court interpreter for the Office of the Immigration Judge, during which time I not only served as an interpreter numerous political asylum cases, but also abstracted and maintained a library of human rights reports from around the world for the reference of the Immigration Judges. I was also responsible for reading and sending out asylum applications to the State Dept. for advisory opinions before the merits hearing. So, darling, I have a pretty good idea of the specific levels of hell to which authoritarian regimes and non-state actors can subject their actual or perceived opponents, or as you put it so succinctly, “how miserable those people really are.” I think I have as good an idea of how “those people” are treated as pretty much anyone can who hasn’t been one of “those people” him/herself.
- I meant that Iraq is Saddam Hussein’s country in the senses that a) America is my country, as I was born here and carry a U.S. passport; and b) he is, by your own admission, running the place, after all. Whether he has a right to be running the place is a separate issue, albeit one of high importance.
- I don’t watch Oprah, except on those very rare occasions when I am home sick during the workweek. I tend to get my information about international human rights from more traditional “hard news” sources. I can do this in my choice of four languages, which I bet gives me access to a much wider range of viewpoints than most of the posters on this thread.
- Again, not that Saddam Hussein is one of my favorite people, but as someone who has spent large chunks of time in the former Soviet Union (some of it while it was still the Soviet Union), I can tell you that Iraq is far from the only country that holds elections that don’t adhere to democratic principles, nor the only country to divert humanitarian aid dollars for military purposes.
- My deepest thanks for at least acknowledging that I’m not stupid; you don’t know how much that means to me. However, FYI I’m not sleeping, either. I read/watch/listen to international news from a variety of sources on a daily basis, as well as attending lectures, etc. sponsored by organizations with a range of ideological biases, to expose myself to a variety of viewpoints beyond that which one is likely to see in the mainstream U.S. media. Can you say the same?
Again, if you want to dispute my interpretation of the facts, or Henry’s for that matter, by all means, knock yourself out. But don’t act like anyone with two firing synapses has to reach the same conclusions that you have. It’s not only rude, it’s short-sighted.
P.S. Neurotik, I’m not a registered Democrat, or a registered anything else for that matter. I like to judge candidates on their individual merits. And I don’t decide whether to support wars, or anything else, based on partisan considerations; I do it based on whether I think they will do more good than harm. My point about the Kurds was that it was an option which was tossed out in ’91 in a half-assed way, and that maybe if we thought harder about our options, we could come up with something which would do more good and/or less harm. I’m not convinced that Dubya’s plan is the way to go, or that he even has a comprehensive plan.
P.P.S.: ** Toaster52, ** why are you taking ** Henry B’s ** arguments so personally? If you’re so bent out of shape, why don’t you do something with more concrete results than posting on a message board? Seems to me all you’re accomplishing at the moment, besides being incredibly rude to someone who has been nothing but polite to you personally, is raise your own blood pressure.
And last, but not least: be honest with yourselves. Which of you would be treating Henry B more respectfully if he were American, especially those of you who assumed he was Russian because of his sig line??
EVA, if you want people to stop jumping to conclusions about you, it would behoove you to stop jumping to conclusions about them. Just as it is insulting for someone to imply that your position arises from insufficient intellect, it is equally insulting for you to imply that others’ positions arise out of xenophobia. The idea that Americans would or do receive gentler treatment here in the Pit is just laughable; insults around here are equal-opportunity.