Oh, and **Libertarian, ** believe me, I’m far from dispassionate in these matters. That’s why I don’t work at Immigration Court anymore; it was literally making me sick to see the daily evidence of man’s inhumanity to man and have to keep my mouth shut about it. I had asthma attacks, heart palpitations, the works. I’m glad you think I manage to keep my cool while I write.
I’ll tell you a dirty little secret, though; even as an admittedly bleeding-heart liberal, I wouldn’t be at all sorry if Saddam Hussein ended up with a few bullets in the back of his head. And there aren’t many people about whom I’d say that. I think the world has met its burden of proof in re: his crimes against humanity.
The first site here above, makes quite clear that the rest of the world will not go for war against Iraq, before an inspection, only if the inspection is made impossible by Saddam etc.
The last paragraph means in the second site, says that Bush would agree with the rest of the world that first there is an inspection and if that fails, “the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime.”
How can he othervise say like this?
But when I read the whole site, I got the impression that USA goes to war in any case. But this is pure speculation from my side, so I let it drop, but I am interested to hear what You other ones think?
Here is also the reason given by Bush: Weapons of mass destruction.
So it is not said anymore that the terrorism (bin Laden & gang) is the reason. Or that USA is saving the honour of UN, etc. etc.
I think Saddam is in his soul “a carpet-dealer in a bazaar”. He will continue to twist arms with Mr Blix to the very last moment.
But I am quite sure that he will be quite flexible at the end, because he knows that that is his end if he isn’t. This or that, it will just affect his future: If he has weapons of mass destruction, he’s doomed. If he does not let the inspectors in, he is doomed.
There is two alternatives from our point of view: 1) The inspectors goes to Iraq and we will see if there is arms of mass destruction. 2) The work of the inspectors is made impossible or not let in, which means that there is a coalition against Iraq, which means war.
In either case there is no need for US to go alone to a war against Iraq.
Someone wanted to teach me history, and I am naturally greatful for that.
I will write about history tomorrow; the no-fly-zones, the bombing in Iraq etc.
And I still have one question: Was there ever a signed surrender act between the coalition against Hussein in the earlier war. If anyone have a site, I would be grateful.
(What is written by UN I already have, but I mean has Hussein actually agreed to anything after the war?).
I ask this in earnest, because I am interested in the question “in which all cases has he eaten his word?”
I know e.g. that Iraq has never agreed about any “no-fly-zones” and thus cant break their word on this. And these zones has not been made by UN, as many of us seems to believe.
But more about it tomorrow.
Well, it’s his crimes against Americans that concern me, but it is certainly heartening to hear you say that you favor justice, since he has squandered mercy.
Incidentally, the president today said that he considers military action to be a last resort.
Standing back?
I have so far written in this thread 12 times. Standing back, indeed.
This comes from a person that has not given any single meaningful comment about the OP. (Or just show me something You have written).
The only thing he wrote with some hinting to my questions was:
[quote]
The reason I (or anyone else) is treating Henry like an idiot is that he is one.
I mean, anyone asking for a cite that Saddam doesn’t allow weapon inspectors unrestricted access?**
Even if I do not see that misquoting me is a very good idea.
I never asked for a site about “… unrestricted access”
So Your idiotism is relaying on something You made up Yourself.
Please, do not misquote me again.
Leftist? I wonder how You define that?
Maybe the “firebomb” You wrote I’ve been throwing is, when I wrote about that there are people that just reacts, has feelings, but not so much to say, nor knowledge?
Just count how many of these there has been on this thread, and add Yourself to them if You wish.
Imagine if I accused you of being hostile towards Jews because of your posts to me. I’d imagine you’d think something like “But I didn’t even know you were Jewish.” And then imagine if I kept saying “But why don’t you ask yourself about your potential anti-Semitism and how it’s affected your relationship with me, a Jew who disagrees with you.”
There’s a slimyness there, unintentional or not. There’s the unspoken accusation that just maybe there is something more than a legit greviance. And when you KNOW that there’s nothing to the “call for self examination” it seems even more…slimey.
In all seriousness: I don’t have any idea if you’re an anti-Semite or not (I strongly doubt it, and in any case I’m sure that our disagreements are completely unrelated to any issue regarding Judiasm), I doubt you have any repressed feelings about men or that you’re racist: you’ve exhibited none of those behaviors. You have no reason to “self examine your motives” as you’ve given no cause for them.
So why do you keep insisting that I think Henry’s a raving idiot because he’s a forigner when I’ve stated repeatedly that I had no idea of his national origin when I called him one. Did you read the post where I compared him to December? That’s why I think he’s an idiot. Not because he disagrees with me. Not because he’s on the other side of an issue. Not because he’s from whereever the hell he’s from.
Kidding and pit-icisms aside, I’m finding this conversation extremely frustrating.
Ah, ** Fenris, ** this is getting funnier and funnier. Maybe I just pick up on the language patterns of non-native English speakers more quickly than most, because I’ve made my career of dealing with them in various capacities. I didn’t see how any literate native English speaker could NOT pick up on ** Henry’s classic non-native-speaking mistakes (sorry **Henry, ** I know you’re trying hard!), and I didn’t see any posts where you showed that you thought he was American, although I did see one that implied you might have initially thought he was Russian.
In the course of looking to make sure I hadn’t missed anything you’d said, though, I found one post right after yours on p. 1 of this thread where someone mentioned that Henry is from Finland, which leads me to believe that you haven’t read every post here carefully and may have skimmed or skipped over some. So I’m not having trouble with the concept that you didn’t know ** Henry** was a foreigner; it’s just that you never explicity stated that until just now.
AS for your dislike of my call for self-examination: maybe, just maybe, there’s someone out there lurking on this thread who could use a little self-examination, whether or not that person is you. And maybe, just maybe, there is someone out there lurking who is xenophobic, or who thinks that ** Henry** is stupid because he’s Russian, or Finnish, or Swedish, or a foreigner. If you’re not that hypothetical person, then my question didn’t apply to you. Is that so hard to understand, or should I say it differently somehow? Why are you assuming that I’m addressing the question to you in particular? I don’t think I gave you any reason to assume that.
I did, however, see several personal insults hurled by various posters in ** Henry’s ** direction, ones which had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues of foreign policy under discussion. That is, unless you think that ** Henry’s ** genitalia are somehow relevant to U.S. military action in Iraq. My initial posts on this thread were an attempt to recreate some semblance of civility, even in the Pit, and maybe in the process lead a person or two to see the issue in a new light. I’m sorry if anyone misunderstood me.
And BTW, it would be pretty damn funny if you were to accuse me of anti-Semitism, because I’m Jewish (albeit non-practicing).
Again Eva: I’m NOT accusing you of it. I want to be clear on that. I’m not at ALL. Not even a tiny bit. Ok?
Regarding Henry, no. I didn’t read most of the posts in the thread. The idiot title of the thread and the OP were enough to generate my response. You want a debate on the USA’s role in world affairs? The OP and title are not the way to do it.
Anyway, I’m getting frustrated and either you’re not getting my point or I’m not making it clearly. Either way, I’m happy to call a truce and, agree to disagree regarding the self-examination thing.
(but I’m standing by my statement that Henry’s a loon.)
To anyone else who is still interested in debating the U.S. role in world affairs, especially the Middle East, and differing U.S. and European perceptions of that role, I invite you to check out my thread of yesterday in GD, which so far has been rather poorly attended (I guess my title wasn’t catchy enough or something):
And Fenris, I never thought you were accusing me of anti-Semitism, thus my carefully selected use of the subjunctive in my previous post. See what you can notice if you read carefully? I do still want a debate on the U.S.’ role in world affairs, however. Anyone care to join me?
It’s interesting how aggression against Iraq seems common-sensical to so many American citizens.
The US and Iraq were friendly until the Gulf conflict, and Saddam was given reason to believe that the US would remain neutral during his meeting with U.S. ambassador April Glaspie in 1990, when he specifically asked for the U.S. position on a possible invasion of Kuwait and was told:
Two days before the invasion, John Kelly, the Asst Sec. of State for Near East affairs, stated publicly:
Iraqi aggression against Kuwait could almost certainly have been avoided through simple diplomacy. However, for some reason, it was more attractive to paint Hussein as a little Hitler to justify a war. I’ll avoid the temptation to play the cui bono? game, as it has been more-than-adequately explored elsewhere and is so obvious as to be tedious.
The depleted-uranium shells used against Iraq continue to wreak havoc with the Iraqi populace, who suffer from out-of-control cancer rates and commonplace and horrific birth defects.
If you get out from underneath the shadow of CNN, it looks more and more like the bad guy in this particular furball is Uncle Sam. Nations that are friendly with the U.S. stop just short of saying this out loud, because, on the whole, we love the U.S. Sort of how some people can overlook the fact that their best friend beats his wife once in a while.
People are surprised that there’s a backlash against this sort of hegemony? Saddam’s a despot? Fuck, look a little closer to home. Genocidal madman? Murdering bastard? You got your own.
I’m going to emulate Ari Fleischer and suggest the American people take it upon themselves to put things right. One bullet.
That sounds insane, doesn’t it? Well, it is, even when spoken in jest by some fuckwit on a popular message board. Well, it’s not as fucking monstrous as when it comes from the administration of the most heavily-armed nation on the planet.
Attack Iraq and the response from a substantial part of the world may just be “This aggression will not stand.” It’s a much more serious thing than contemplating assassinating some obscure Archduke – and the consequences could very well make that conflict look like a hockey fight.
Jesus Christ-- what the fuck do we do? Bush doesn’t care if he drags us all into global armageddon – him and half his fucking nutball administration PRAY for that shit, so they can be caught up in the goddamned motherfucking rapture and sit at the right hand of God.
Somehow I still feel happy about that my mind is not orbiting in the same spheres.