|
Anonymous
|
 What would it take to convince someone 
#1258778 - 01/29/03 11:30 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Many of you are very much against the upcoming conflict with Iraq. No matter what the opposition says, you come back with, "It's all about the oil." If someone keeps pressing the issue, many are quick to call him an idiot.
I find it ironic that so many here are completely unwilling to listen to opposing arguments, yet openly blast the "anti-druggers" because they refuse to hear our side of the story.
Don't get me wrong, there are many who oppose the war and back it up with strong cases, who are willing to at least listen to Bush's side.
But to those who refuse, what would it take to convince you that we must get rid of Saddam?
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1258796 - 01/29/03 11:33 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's not that I don't believe Saddam is an evil man. I just don't think that's reason enough to go invade his country. One question I have for you Bushies is "What would Saddam have to do to get the U.S. off his back?"
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7]
#1258815 - 01/29/03 11:38 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Proove that he has disarmed.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1258831 - 01/29/03 11:42 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Fair enough. Now for my next question: If we are going after him because he has weapons of mass destruction, why not India or Pakistan? They both have nukes.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper
Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,809
Loc: Swamp
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7]
#1258850 - 01/29/03 11:48 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Why not Russia, Israel, or China since you wanna name countries.
--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Cracka_X]
#1258858 - 01/29/03 11:50 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Exactly. Why not those countries?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
 Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 2 years, 16 days
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7]
#1258946 - 01/29/03 12:15 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Let's not forget North Korea...
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 11 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7]
#1259019 - 01/29/03 12:41 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
First off, let it be stated that I am against the war, but I like to play devil's advocated so..... Quote:
why not India or Pakistan?
Well you have to start somewhere, if it were India, we would be sitting here saying "why not Iraq, Sadaam is a crazy fuck"
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
pattern
multiplayer
Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 years, 2 days
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1259086 - 01/29/03 01:05 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
>No matter what the opposition says, you come back with, "It's all about the oil."
There are have been many other arguments against the Iraq war on this forum.
>But to those who refuse, what would it take to convince you that we must get rid
>of Saddam?
You will have to convince us that: slaughtering civilians, bombing cities and schools, occupying a hostile country, funding war instead of the economy, stealing foreign oil, giving birth to new generations of terrorists, and thrusting the world into chaos, are these prices worth paying for American peace of mind?
A good war happens for good reasons!
--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7]
#1259118 - 01/29/03 01:15 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
silversoul7 writes:
If we are going after him because he has weapons of mass destruction, why not India or Pakistan? They both have nukes.
That is not the only reason. The justification is that Iraq has not fulfilled the terms of the surrender agreement it signed. Discontinuing its WMD development program and destroying its stocks of WMD were some of the conditions of the surrender agreement, but by no means all. There were also reparations, return of POWs, and several other conditions which have yet to be met. Someone (Lord Morham? I can't remember now) posted here a few months back a link to the complete terms of the surrender agreement from the UN website, and Bush a few months back enumerated a bunch of them in one of his televised speeches. In the case of India and Pakistan, the issue of surrender agreements doesn't apply.
For those who are actually interested in learning some facts rather than parroting hysterical denunciations, take a tour of the UN website and note the number of times the UN (NOT just the US) has chastised Iraq for failing to abide by its commitments.
It's analogous to a criminal brought before the courts who is leniently sentenced to probation rather than imprisonment. The courts say, "Here are the terms of your probation. If you follow them, you can walk the streets. If you don't, you are subject to imprisonment." The mugger says, "No problem, judge! I can do all these things -- anything to stay out of prison," then goes out and buys another gun the moment he is out of sight of the courthouse.
Hussein knew at the time he signed the surrender agreement that he had no intention of complying with its terms -- he signed the agreement merely as a ploy to keep the UN coalition forces from crossing his borders. He knew that the UN was a gutless organization which would take no substantive action if he immediately burned his copy of the surrender agreement and put it out of his mind. He probably figured they might impose sanctions, but what did sanctions matter to him? He still had enough to look after himself (and his fifty presidential palaces), to rebuild his army into a 600,000 man force, and to restart his weapons program.
The events of the last dozen years have shown Hussein's estimate of the UN's impotence to be dead on -- not only has the UN done nothing but impose sanctions and introduce condemnatory resolution after condemnatory resolution which he can ignore with impunity, but they even lessened the harshness of the original sanctions. It was an enormous error not to have finished the job by marching into Baghdad, seizing Hussein and hauling him in front of a war crimes court. If they had done what they should have done in the first place, this whole mess would have been over a dozen years ago.
The point is not even necessarily that Hussein may venture beyond his borders again (I personally am not convinced he will, but I may be wrong), but that by allowing him to violate flagrantly the terms of the surrender agreement it sets a dangerous precedent. Do you not think there may be other dictators itching to loot their neighbors who are now asking themselves, "Why not give it a shot? What's the worst that can happen? If I lose, I have to put up with those airheads in the UN yammering at me for a few years until they are persuaded to drop the sanctions because the masses I rule -- whom I hold in contempt anyway -- are having a hard time finding enough food. I can handle that."
Let me ask you if you think it correct that anytime someone wants to try to conquer another country, he need suffer no consequences? Because that is exactly what happened to Hussein. He gambled that no one would oppose his takeover of Kuwait. To his enormous surprise, he lost the gamble. He then gambled that he could fake the UN into letting him get off scott-free. He won that gamble. So far.
To those of you who profess to abhor war, I ask you: is this justice? That the INITIATOR of the war receives no punishment whatsoever? You can answer honestly. No one will think the less of you.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: pattern]
#1259142 - 01/29/03 01:26 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
pattern writes:
You will have to convince us that: slaughtering civilians, bombing cities and schools, occupying a hostile country, funding war instead of the economy, stealing foreign oil, giving birth to new generations of terrorists, and thrusting the world into chaos, are these prices worth paying for American peace of mind?
I personally believe that the best thing to do is hire an assassin or a team of assassins to take out Hussein (and maybe a few of his top lackeys) rather than mounting an invasion. Unfortunately, international law forbids this, claiming that assassination is "uncivilized". How they come to the conclusion that the assassination of a man who ordered the invasion of a peaceful neighboring country is less "civilized" than mounting a war that may result in thousands of deaths (including inevitably a large number of non-combatants) escapes me, but that's the way it is.
I am not convinced that invading Iraq is the correct thing to do at this time, not because the US (or any other signatory to the surrender agreement, for that matter) doesn't have the RIGHT to do so, but because subsidiary factors such as some of the ones you mentioned cannot be disregarded.
The only thing to bear in mind is that by NOT taking some action more substantive than churning out resolution after resolution in the UN or sanctions that don't affect Hussein himself in the slightest, Hussein has won his gamble, and paved the way for others who would follow in his footsteps to do the same.
pinky
--------------------
|
pattern
multiplayer
Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 years, 2 days
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1259153 - 01/29/03 01:29 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> I personally believe that the best thing to do is hire an assassin or a team of
> assassins to take out Hussein
Agreed! 
--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: pattern]
#1259257 - 01/29/03 02:09 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
> I personally believe that the best thing to do is hire an assassin or a team of
> assassins to take out Hussein
Agreed!
I'm sure if it COULD have been done, it WOULD have been done a long time ago, international law or no Problem is that Saddam is (rightfully) paranoid and has numerous body doubles, never stays in the same place for too long, etc.
As for stoned's original question, what would it take to convince me?
Simply this:
To prove that invading Iraq wil do more to protect the US homeland from terrorism than NOT invading Iraq.
Even if Saddam has WMD, so fucking what? So do Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, probably North Korea as well. The important question is: do they pose an imminent threat to the United States? In addition, enforcing UN sanctions and resolutions is something that the US is not necessarily obliged to do, and something that it certainly doesnt do at all when the violator is Israel, Turkey, or the United States itself.
Terrorists have multiple avenues available to try to obtain WMD. Their two BEST bets by far are neither Iraq nor North Korea, they are Russia and Pakistan. Russia because so much of their biological and chemical weapons are so badly protected and therefore easily stolen (as well as their fissible materials), and Pakistan, which has nuclear technology and also has a great many Islamic fundamentalists in high positions who probably wouldn't have any scruples about passing stuff on to fundamentalist terrorists. By the way, the US has been extremely stingy in terms of helping the Russians get their WMD stocks safe secure. This is extremely, extremely stupid, but I don't expect anything else from Shrub and his cartel. He won't even release federal funds that were earmarked for terror disaster preparedness right here in the US.
Saddam is too interested in his own survival to risk using WMD on US forces or giving them to terrorists to use in the US. There is always a good chance that it can be traced back to him, and if it is, he knows his ass is toast. He could have used them in the first Gulf War: he didn't, obviously because he knew what the consequences would be. If the US goes in to tan his hide, what's to stop him from using them or from giving what he has to terrorists? Answer: zero.
Invading Iraq does NEXT TO ZERO in terms of keeping WMD out of the hands of terrorists. It does a great deal, however, to inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the world, and anti-American rage within the Islamic world in particular. Say hello to tens of thousands of new recruits for the Jihad if the US launches his war.
This Iraq war is not about America's security. If Bush cared as much as he claims to about security, he would be doing more to help the Russians secure their WMDs from theft, he would doing more to keep Pakistan secure, he would be doing more to help the homeland be prepared to react to terrorist attack (he could start by RELEASING THE FUCKING FUNDS THAT CONGRESS APPORTIONED FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE). If you believe his words you are a gullible fool. Look at his actions, instead: they speak volumes.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1259347 - 01/29/03 02:33 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"But to those who refuse, what would it take to convince you that we must get rid of Saddam?"
Why does this matter? He's going to attack no matter what anybody says - He made that clear in the address last night when he spoke out to France and the other countries who oppose them saying something like "This nation's course will continue regardless." There will be McDonald's in Iraq within 10 years.
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
carbonhoots
old hand
Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1259398 - 01/29/03 02:51 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The justification is that Iraq has not fulfilled the terms of the surrender agreement it signed.
I'm sure the signature on that document was coerced out of them, an offer they could'nt refuse. Would a more accurate wording of that be, "the surrender agreement we imposed on them."
What would it take to convince me that war is justified? Well, the discovery of a single WMD might start...maybe an attack by him would continue to convince me.
Even if the guy had anything, the USA surrounding him with armies isn't gonna make him feel much like 'disarming'. Quite the opposite.
Quote:
Do you not think there may be other dictators itching to loot their neighbors who are now asking themselves, "Why not give it a shot? What's the worst that can happen? If I lose, I have to put up with those airheads in the UN yammering at me for a few years until they are persuaded to drop the sanctions because the masses I rule -- whom I hold in contempt anyway -- are having a hard time finding enough food. I can handle that."
Well, that depends on the politacal slant of the dictator, right? I mean, the USA supported Pinochet!
The USA is very picky about what dictators it pursues. USA supported the brutal but still right-wing Cuban dictator Batista, but pursued Castro the commie. Who was better for the Cuban people? Castro.
The ones who 'play ball' tend to get their armies topped up by USA, while more independant or socialist dictators often get war from USA. The torture or non-torture of their own citizens has little to do with it. The interests of the american ruling class has everything to do with it.
What would it take to convince you?
--------------------
-I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me
CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: carbonhoots]
#1259523 - 01/29/03 03:40 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
carbonhoots writes:
I'm sure the signature on that document was coerced out of them, an offer they could'nt refuse.
Of course he could have refused. He could have continued to fight. And as for "coercion", what was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq if not "coercion"? Boo hoo hoo, poor Hussein is forced to choose between signing a surrender document with REASONABLE terms (that let him off with not even a slap on the wrist) or continuing to fight a war that HE started!
Good grief, dude, do you actually bother to think through the things you post before you hit the "continue" button?
The USA is very picky about what dictators it pursues.
And the rest of the world is not picky at all about which dictators they pursue -- they pursue NONE.
Who was better for the Cuban people? Castro.
Uh huh. Tell that to the enormous expatriate Cuban community in the US and in other countries surrounding Cuba. Tell that to the Cuban doctors working in clinics equipped with (if they are lucky) a supply of aspirin and a set of scales. I double dog dare you to say that to the Cubans I know living here in the Dominican Republic. That's a conversation I'd pay admission to hear.
What would it take to convince you?
Hussein's full and immediate compliance with ALL the terms of the surrender agreement, followed by his stepping down from the presidency and calling for a democratic election to be overseen by a body of neutral international scrutineers.
pinky
--------------------
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1259824 - 01/29/03 05:13 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I would put it to you that the psychology of all these other countries are different from Saddams. His whole deal is to kill the infadels and the US is the head of the evil beast. He has called for the destruction of the US. He has probable ties with people who would have no problem strapping a nuke to thier chest and walking into downtown N.Y. All the others seem toi have personal political agendas or national defense motives. Saddam would gladly destroy everything to kill Americans.
It is just my opinion but I think his mental state is a large part of this. These other leaders would never give up one of their weapons for any reason. Saddam would give then to anyone who would use it against the US.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1259917 - 01/29/03 06:00 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Proove that he has disarmed.
How do you prove a negative?
If any arms are found we can think about it (even tho we sold them to him in the first place). Trying to prove something doesn't exist is simply an excuse to go in blasting.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1259922 - 01/29/03 06:04 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well, to be fair, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and point out that he had these weapons at the end of the first Gulf War and now we don't know where they are. So it is true that he hasn't accounted for all the weapons. Still, I don't believe this is good enough reason for war.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1259924 - 01/29/03 06:05 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
take a tour of the UN website and note the number of times the UN (NOT just the US) has chastised Iraq for failing to abide by its commitments.
While you're there note how many times the UN has chastised Israel. When do we start war against them?
The events of the last dozen years have shown Hussein's estimate of the UN's impotence to be dead on -- not only has the UN done nothing but impose sanctions
That have slaughtered 600,000 innocent kids and left the majority of Iraq a wasteland with no public amenties...
Let me ask you if you think it correct that anytime someone wants to try to conquer another country, he need suffer no consequences?
What consequences do you think Bush and his oil corporation masters will suffer for invading Iraq?
If they had done what they should have done in the first place, this whole mess would have been over a dozen years ago.
And fundamentalists would now be in charge of Iraq.
Never presume you know how history is going to turn out. You don't.
The point is not even necessarily that Hussein may venture beyond his borders again
You mean like America?
That the INITIATOR of the war receives no punishment whatsoever?
You have yet to inform me what punishment Bush is going to recieve.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (01/29/03 06:09 PM)
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1259926 - 01/29/03 06:05 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How do you prove a negative?
You show them the place and you would have vidio taped it for proof. Then forensic science would do the rest. That might not prove it was ALL destroyed but it would pretty much tie our hands.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7]
#1259933 - 01/29/03 06:07 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
that he had these weapons at the end of the first Gulf War and now we don't know where they are.
I think we know where the majority of them went. And remember chemical weapons can't be stored for years - they become inactive and totally useless after a couple of years. So unless he's buying more (from who?) then all the chemical weapons he had at the end of the gulf war are now inactive.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: mntlfngrs]
#1259940 - 01/29/03 06:10 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You show them the place and you would have vidio taped it for proof
And you really think Powell isn't going to say "We don't know where or what they filmed"?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1259946 - 01/29/03 06:14 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You show them the place and you would have vidio taped it for proof
And you really think Powell isn't going to say "We don't know where or what they filmed"?
No, I don't think Powell would say that. He's not one of the warmongers pushing this war. But Donald Rumsfeld might say something like that.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: silversoul7]
#1259948 - 01/29/03 06:15 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not so impressed by Powell. Pilger called him "the false liberal" which I think is pretty accurate.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1259955 - 01/29/03 06:29 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Sure it might be more of the same BS but don't you think that these are things you would do if you were trying to comply? And if they showed us a destruction sight it would (I'm pretty sure) have some sort of residue that forensics could detect. I mean he should be able to show SOMETHING.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 1 month, 23 hours
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1260110 - 01/29/03 09:01 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Bush convinced me. He has very strong arguments.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: zeronio]
#1260117 - 01/29/03 09:04 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He defies all Logiq.
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 1 month, 23 hours
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1260131 - 01/29/03 09:16 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Proove that he has disarmed.
It's funny that nobody finds nothing wrong with that. Since when do you have to prove to be innocent?
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: zeronio]
#1260134 - 01/29/03 09:20 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He must prove that he fulfilled the contractual agreement that he signed. Contracts are a good way to sign away rights that you might have otherwise had.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1260395 - 01/30/03 01:47 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
That have slaughtered 600,000 innocent kids...
That is bullshit and you know it is. Some of the newer members may not have seen the actual words from the UN report (written by the people that actually conducted the studies) that show those figures are incorrect, but YOU have... I have posted them four times now, and each time you have fallen silent. Shall I post them again so you can ignore them again?
...and left the majority of Iraq a wasteland with no public amenties...
Again, bullshit. The majority of Iraq is not a wasteland, or if it is, it is only because it was a wasteland before the Gulf War started. No public amenities? They were last bombed a dozen years ago. Please explain to us how Hussein seems to have no difficulty feeding and equipping a standing army of 600,000, with another half million reserves. How he has no difficulty maintaining his fifty presidential palaces. How he has no difficulty funding his weapons development programs. How freakin' hard can it be to rebuild a water treatment plant or two and replace a few miles of water pipes?
What consequences do you think Bush and his oil corporation masters will suffer for invading Iraq?
They are not "invading" Iraq, they are threatening to finish a war that was put on hold for a dozen years while Hussein flouts the surrender agreement that SHOULD HAVE ended it.
You mean like America?
What was the last country that America conquered and held by force of arms?
You have yet to inform me what punishment Bush is going to recieve.
Here's the deal... you tell me what punishment Hussein deserves, and I'll tell you what punishment Bush deserves. From what you have posted on the subject, I have concluded that you believe Hussein deserves NO punishment other than some bad press, and precious little of that. Here's your chance to prove me wrong.
Why do I not find this "do nothing" stance surprising coming from someone whose stance on any situation is to bury his head in the sand and depend on the kindness of others?
Don't try to defend yourself from armed criminals -- disarm yourself and depend on their mercy.
Don't buy a car with any safety features -- depend on other motorists to never collide with you.
Don't expend any effort trying to get ahead -- depend on the government to seize the goods of others and give them to you.
Don't try to enforce a surrender agreement that has been flouted for twelve years -- depend on a homicidal maniac to change his ways.
Don't try to capture those responsible for an act of terror -- depend on the Taliban to hand him over to you.
Do you hold these views because you are a deeply religious person who believes in turning the other cheek; one who believes that the meek shall inherit the earth? You'd do well here in the Dominican Republic, Alex -- the standard Dominican rationale for doing nothing and hoping for the best, even in the face of all available evidence, is a shrug and a fatalistic "Si Dios quiere," which translates as "If God wills it."
A question for you -- if the UN supported this proposed military action the way they were supported the Gulf War, would you be protesting as loudly? If not, why not? After all, if it is wrong to threaten to "invade" Iraq, it is wrong whether the threat is from a single country or a coalition of countries, isn't it? Come to think of it, you never did answer the questions I asked you three times months ago. Let's see if you are willing to answer them now.
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________
And today I add a third:
3) If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than maintain economic sanctions and file more condemnatory resolutions?
Yes_____
No______
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1260596 - 01/30/03 03:41 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Some of the newer members may not have seen the actual words from the UN report
Guys like Dennis Halliday seem to believe it. He was in charge of the Iraq oil-for-food programme and resigned in disgust at the sanctions.
Shall I post them again so you can ignore them again?
You can post them. Whether they will be taken with anything but a pinch of salt is another matter entirely. I think at the last count 3 UN people had resigned in disgust calling the sanctions "genocide" against the Iraqi people.
They were last bombed a dozen years ago.
Horseshit. There have been hundreds of bombing missions since 1991. You are living in a Bush fantasy if you actually believe this garbage. I remember one american military guy saying that after 12 years of bombing raids the biggest problem would be finding something left standing to bomb.
They are not "invading" Iraq
You positive about that?
What was the last country that America conquered and held by force of arms?
As opposed to supporting and arming lunatics to do your dirty work for you? I think at the last count it was around forty armed coups since 1945.
I have concluded that you believe Hussein deserves NO punishment
Don't be silly. Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake. The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people.
Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
The UN ordered Israel to leave the west bank 30 years ago. We are still waiting for them to do so. No force has so far been used. Why?
Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991
Do you mean do I agree with invading any country with a leader George Bush doesn't like anymore? There are dozens of leaders as bad as Saddam. Most of them american allies. Do we invade them too?
If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than maintain economic sanctions and file more condemnatory resolutions?
No, it should lift the sanctions. If Israel can flout the UN for 30 years without a single sanction being imposed clearly there are other ways of dealing with the problem. 600,000 dead kids isn't solving the problem.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: zeronio]
#1261279 - 01/30/03 08:05 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The treaty Saddam signed to prevent his own overthrow called for him to disarm, thus the burden of proof is on him. Like Bush said, he has to lay out his weapons and publicly destroy them.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 2 years, 16 days
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1261362 - 01/30/03 08:31 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I disagree...Bush is telling the world that Saddam has these supposed weapons of mass destruction, and this is his primary reason for attacking Iraq. I would say the burden of proof is on Bush to prove that these weapons exist in order to initiate a pre-emptive strike.
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Anonymous
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Anonymous]
#1261610 - 01/30/03 09:33 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I've repeatedly asked a pro-war person for a link documenting such a strike is legal. No one has obliged. No one in favor of the war ever comes up with anything besides bullshit rhetoric. If you find me a decent case for it, I would be more than happy to read it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1261627 - 01/30/03 09:39 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hold your horses there little buddy. I'll be back tonite with a whole damned bag of links about how the USA themselves have violated more UN resolutions than anyone else. Do you think it makes sense that we go around picking and choosing wars to start when someone breaks rules we don't even follow ourselves? The "UN credibility" argument is one of the main ones for war, and holds absolutely no water. And I will prove that when I come home tonight.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1261935 - 01/30/03 11:37 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Guys like Dennis Halliday seem to believe it.
Gee, Alex, whatever happened to "Making up your own mind after careful thought? Thoroughly esearched before arriving at your conclusions. Making decisions based on other reasons than blindly following what someone else tells you"? Did it ever occur to you that Mr. Halliday might have his own agenda? When I posted (four times now) the excerpts from the actual UN study that showed those numbers were bogus, you didn't even bother to read the actual study. So much for a "thoroughly researched" opinion. So much for not "blindly following what someone else tells you".
You can post them. Whether they will be taken with anything but a pinch of salt is another matter entirely.
So if they are the conclusions of the people who actually conducted the research, they are to be taken with a pinch of salt, but if someone else misreads the studies and reaches an erroneous conclusion, his opinion is to be taken uncritically? Uh huh.
I think at the last count 3 UN people had resigned in disgust calling the sanctions "genocide" against the Iraqi people.
Of course these people never bother to point out that if Saddam had followed the terms of the surrender agreement there would have been no sanctions.
There have been hundreds of bombing missions since 1991.
Of course there have been. But not against public amenities. Please explain to us how Hussein seems to have no difficulty feeding and equipping a standing army of 600,000 (with another half million reserves), maintaining his fifty presidential palaces, funding his weapons development programs, but is somehow unable to rebuild a water treatment plant or two and replace a few miles of water pipes in twelve years?
Don't be silly. Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake.
So my conclusion was correct -- you believe Hussein deserves no punishment.
The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people.
If Hussein had complied with the surrender agreement, there would have been no need for sanctions. He wouldn't even have had to step down. Conditions in Iraq are a direct result of Hussein's actions. He bears full responsibility for them.
I notice that you are still (surprise, surprise) afraid to answer my questions:
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________
No, it should lift the sanctions.
Ah. In other words, I was correct again in concluding your stance was (as always) "do nothing". Hussein is not to suffer even (for him) the mild inconvenience of dealing with sanctions.
...clearly there are other ways of dealing with the problem.
Of course there are. FORCE him to abide by the terms of the surrender agreement. Hussein has made it abundantly clear that his preferred method of interaction with other humans is through the use of force. Words mean nothing to him. Sanctions mean nothing to him.
...600,000 dead kids isn't solving the problem.
Even if that number weren't sheer fantasy, the fact remains that the lives of any dead children are the responsibility of Saddam Hussein's actions. Standard Statist ploy... lay the blame anywhere but where it belongs.
pinky
--------------------
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Rono]
#1262231 - 01/30/03 01:31 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately the burdon of proof doesn't apply to the USA Government.
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1262941 - 01/30/03 05:42 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Did it ever occur to you that Mr. Halliday might have his own agenda?
So four highly placed UN officials, one actually running the oil for food programme are mistaken are they? You know more than they do? All the evidence and reports they have read lead them to believe 600,000 kids have died and they are so disgusted they resign their jobs. That's pretty hard evidence to fake.
Oh, i get it - you think Dennis is a commy right?
So if they are the conclusions of the people who actually conducted the research
No, the people who conducted the research concluded there were 5000 kids under five dying a month thanks to sanctions. That's why Dennis and the other UN officials resigned.
Of course these people never bother to point out that if Saddam had followed the terms of the surrender agreement there would have been no sanctions.
What world are you living in?
Of course there have been. But not against public amenities.
You really have no idea. They are bombing goatherders walking alone through empty valleys. Bombing missions arn't always like you see on the tv i'm afraid. Don't believe everything you are told.
So my conclusion was correct -- you believe Hussein deserves no punishment.
No, you are profoundly incorrect as usual. Read my reply again.
I notice that you are still (surprise, surprise) afraid to answer my questions:
LOL. Sounds like you know you've lost the argument and have decided to do an evolving and keep repeating meaningless questions instead of making any rational attempt to address the issues.
Hussein is not to suffer even (for him) the mild inconvenience of dealing with sanctions.
Suffer? Make up your mind. You've stated he isn't suffering. The Iraqi people are suffering from sanctions not Saddam.
Of course there are. FORCE him to abide by the terms of the surrender agreement.
And when do we invade Israel and make them abide by the terms of the surrender aggreement pray tell?
Even if that number weren't sheer fantasy
You are living in a dream world.
the fact remains that the lives of any dead children are the responsibility of Saddam Hussein's
Nope, he isn't the guy blocking childrens medicines from entering Iraq. The western groups brave enough to break the sanctions and take in childrens medicines encounter no problem from Saddam. They encounter problems from America pressuring them to stop.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Strumpling]
#1262950 - 01/30/03 05:44 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Strumpling writes:
Unfortunately the burdon of proof doesn't apply to the USA Government.
You misunderstand one of the terms of the surrender agreement. The UN agreed not to direct their coalition forces to enter Iraq and destroy Hussein's WMD if and ONLY if he would commit to destroy them on his own, and PROVIDE TO THE UN CREDIBLE PROOF of such destruction. The burden of proof was NEVER on the UN (or on America), it was on Iraq from the beginning, and remains on Iraq today.
pinky
--------------------
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 13 years, 9 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1263216 - 01/30/03 07:19 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
OK then 
whoops
--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1263230 - 01/30/03 07:24 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
So four highly placed UN officials, one actually running the oil for food programme are mistaken are they?
According to the UNICEF studies, yes they are.
You know more than they do?
I know enough to read the actual reports before shooting off my mouth, yes.
All the evidence and reports they have read lead them to believe 600,000 kids have died...
It is not my fault they can't read, or that they are unable to UNDERSTAND what they read.
That's pretty hard evidence to fake.
Misinterpreting evidence isn't the same as faking evidence.
No, the people who conducted the research concluded there were 5000 kids under five dying a month thanks to sanctions.
They did no such thing. I urge you once again to read the reports. Don't rely on someone's erroneous interpretations of the reports. Read them for yourself, then make up your mind. Haven't you proudly proclaimed to us your practice of doing just that?
pinky -- "Of course these people never bother to point out that if Saddam had followed the terms of the surrender agreement there would have been no sanctions."
Alex123 -- What world are you living in?
A world where people debating on a bulletin board are expected to have at least a rudimentary grasp of logic. If Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait, there would have been no sanctions. If Hussein had withdrawn voluntarily from Kuwait rather than forcing the UN to kick him out, there would have been no sanctions. If Hussein had abided by the terms of the surrender agreement, there would have been no sanctions. Why do you have such difficulty grasping these glaringly obvious facts?
They are bombing goatherders walking alone through empty valleys.
Since when are goatherders "public amenities"?
No, you are profoundly incorrect as usual. Read my reply again.
I read your replies, Alex. Do you? Here is all that you have said about whether or not you believe Hussein should be punished for his actions:
"You have yet to inform me what punishment Bush is going to recieve."
"Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake. The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people."
I repeat: So my conclusion was correct -- you believe Hussein deserves no punishment.
Sounds like you know you've lost the argument and have decided to do an evolving and keep repeating meaningless questions...
Meaningless questions? You mean questions you are afraid to answer. Why are you so afraid to answer two questions that have a direct bearing on the matter under discussion? They're not trick questions; they are not couched in biased rhetoric -- they are as neutral as is possible to make them:
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________
...instead of making any rational attempt to address the issues.
And you are making no attempt to address the issues, rational or otherwise. Instead you are indulging (as usual) in the patented Alex123 dance of evasion.
Suffer? Make up your mind. You've stated he isn't suffering.
Sigh. You are so transparent. I said that in your opinion, "Hussein is not to suffer even (for him) the mild inconvenience of dealing with sanctions." You think the readers of this thread are too dim to understand the meaning of "mild inconvenience"? Show them some respect.
Nope, he isn't the guy blocking childrens medicines from entering Iraq.
According to the numbers shown in the UN report, he is unable to block the goods arriving in NORTHERN Iraq, true, but I'll wager it's not through lack of trying.
Hmmm... I was going to post the link to my most recent posting of the excerpt of the UNICEF study you haven't bothered to read yet, but the link renaming function seems not to be working at the moment. I'll do a separate repost of it instead.
You only partially answered one of the four questions I posed to you, ignoring the other three and a half. I had asked:
"If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than maintain economic sanctions and file more condemnatory resolutions?"
You replied that they should lift the sanctions. Does this mean that you believe they should take no further action other than filing yet more condemnatory resolutions? No, that can't be right, because you also stated "...clearly there are other ways of dealing with the problem." I must confess I am too dim to think of any other ways of dealing with the problem that do not involve the application of force. Here's your chance, Alex. Specifically what "other ways" of dealing with the problem do you advocate?
You ignored the other question: "If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you be protesting as loudly? If not, why not?" I presume you ignored it only because you had overlooked it, not because you are afraid to answer it, so I thought I'd remind you of it now.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1263248 - 01/30/03 07:31 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There are many contributors to this forum who seem to accept as gospel the inflated numbers casually kicked around by opponents of the UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq. "Half a million Iraqi children have died as a direct result of sanctions." -- "What about the 600,000 dead Iraqi children?" -- etc.
This is now the fifth time I have posted the following in this forum, but some of the newer members may not have seen it yet:
As UNICEF itself is scrupulously careful to point out in UNICEF: Questions and Answers for the Iraq child mortality surveys - BAGHDAD, 16 August 1999 (UNICEF) Survey Methodology/credibility --
"These surveys were never intended to provide an absolute figure of how many children have died in Iraq as a result of sanctions. Given the difficulty of accurately and specifically attributing the cause of death of a child to sanctions, any such figure that may be derived would certainly be questionable."
UNICEF also said in the same report:
"A dramatic increase in bottle-feeding of infants has occurred in Iraq. Given the contribution of bottle-feeding to higher levels of malnutrition and child mortality, UNICEF is urging the Government to remove breastmilk substitutes from the rations and replace them with additional food for pregnant and lactating women. UNICEF has also called on the Government to promote exclusive breastfeeding of infants as a national policy."
What is the connection between Iraqi women following the worldwide trend of moving towards a more modern (albeit arguably less nutritious) method of child-rearing (bottle-feeding vs. breast-feeding) and the imposition of the United Nations sanctions? The only connection I can think of is that infant bottle-feeding formula is one of the aid items being provided to Iraq's populace. Could it be possible that the sanctions have nothing to do with the situation at all -- that all of the increase in infant mortality is instead due to the "dramatic increase in bottle-feeding"? For the record, I personally don't believe it is entirely due to bottle-feeding, but as UNICEF themselves say, it is difficult to specifically attribute the death of a child to any single cause. Certainly UNICEF feels bottle-feeding is a serious enough factor in the increase in Iraq's infant mortality to emphasize in no uncertain terms their opposition to it.
Here's some more from the report:
"In the autonomous northern region, under-5 mortality rose from 80 deaths per 1000 live births in the period 1984-1989 to 90 deaths per 1000 live births during the years 1989-1994. The under-5 rate fell to 72 deaths per 1000 live births between 1994 and 1999. Infant mortality rates followed a similar pattern."
Now isn't that interesting! In the northern region of Iraq, where Hussein's control is weakest, the latest available mortality rates are actually 10% lower than they were ten years earlier, before sanctions were imposed. What is the only possible conclusion we can draw from this? Why, it must be that the sanctions are actually SAVING CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!!! *sarcasm*
Seriously, though, what is the most likely explanation for this documented drop? Someone with less belief than I in Hussein's oft-demonstrated concern for his fellow man might speculate that in the autonomous north the humanitarian supplies are actually making it to those who need it, rather than being hijacked by Hussein's thugs to be resold at a profit through the black market.
Sound bites and carefully selected snippets are worse than useless when it comes to statistical analyses. The methodology of the surveys must be considered, and all factors looked at, not just the ones which appear to support your personal agenda. Those who conducted the studies are well aware of this and took the trouble to warn specifically against such abuse of their work -- it is unfortunate that those seeking to foist their own version of reality on a trusting public have deliberately ignored such warnings.
Besides, all of this is moot, because it is all Saddam's fault anyway. Have the sanctions made life more difficult for the Iraqi poor? Yep. Would the sanctions have been imposed if Iraq had not invaded Kuwait? Nope.
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (01/30/03 07:41 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Strumpling]
#1263261 - 01/30/03 07:35 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No problem.
What I find baffling about the situation is the astounding naivete the UN exhibited in taking Hussein at his word that he would actually destroy his weapons. How dumb is that?
pinky
--------------------
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1263584 - 01/30/03 09:29 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You really have no idea. They are bombing goatherders walking alone through empty valleys. Bombing missions arn't always like you see on the tv i'm afraid. Don't believe everything you are told.
The same should go for you. You think that because 1 of 100 missions goes wrong and the media jump on it that that is the norm. No other country in the world could wage a war with so few civillian casualties. We are the ones who have invested countless billions of dollars to develop technology to avoid civillian casualties.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Strumpling]
#1263744 - 01/30/03 10:37 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There will be McDonald's in Iraq within 10 years.
Best damn news I've heard in a coon's age. It's about time those people get something good to eat!
I just luv their fries.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1264345 - 01/31/03 04:25 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It is not my fault they can't read, or that they are unable to UNDERSTAND what they read.
I don't know how old you are pinkie but people don't tend to give up highly paid jobs for spurious reasons. I've certainly never known it. It usually takes an awful lot of convincing to get someone to give up a highly paid, high status job. Dennis Halliday isn't an idiot. He knows what's going on. And he was so disgusted he had to resign. As did 3 other UN officials for the same reason. You really expect us to believe they are all mistaken?
Don't rely on someone's erroneous interpretations of the reports.
Sorry man, but my experience of life has tended to show that people don't abandon highly paid jobs for no reason. Dennis Halliday was in a far better position to know what was going on in Iraq than me or you. Your knowledge extends to doing a 2 minute google search. Halliday has been working on the ground for years. I'm more inclined to trust Halliday.
If Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait, there would have been no sanctions.
You've yet to address why Israel wern't kicked out of the west bank. It's no use having one rule for one country and one for another - what has that to do with justice?
Since when are goatherders "public amenities"?
If they're bombing goatherders they arn't going to worry too much about what their other bombing missions hit. Understand? It's not like they're sat in the planes terrified of hitting public amenities. That's perfectly clear.
"Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake. The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people.
I repeat: So my conclusion was correct -- you believe Hussein deserves no punishment.
"
Nope, not even close. Read my response again and try and understand.
Explain to me how bombing Iraqi civilians is going to "punish Saddam".
Meaningless questions?
Yep.
Don't bury your head in the sand. Address why Israel hasn't been invaded after the UN resolutions were passed ordering it to stop the invasion.
According to the numbers shown in the UN report, he is unable to block the goods arriving in NORTHERN Iraq, true, but I'll wager it's not through lack of trying.
Actually the documentary I saw showed childrens medicines being smuggled into Basra. The greatest threat facing the western charities doing the smuggling was the americans not the iraqi's.
You'll wager? Based on what evidence? Or is this just something else you've made up? Do you have any evidence of Saddam confiscating childrens medicines?
I must confess I am too dim to think of any other ways of dealing with the problem that do not involve the application of force.
Look to Israel. How have we dealt with their flouting of UN resolutions for the last 3 decades?
If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War
Seeing as the US has such a stranglehold over the UN you have to very carefully consider what's going on. The UN has condemed Israel in dozens of resolutions, none have ever been acted on. Why?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1265843 - 01/31/03 12:25 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Your knowledge extends to doing a 2 minute google search.
And the knowledge of those who actually conducted the studies took many person-years of work and thousands of interviews. Your knowledge, however, took less than 2 minutes. You still haven't even bothered to read the studies.
Halliday has been working on the ground for years. I'm more inclined to trust Halliday.
I have no doubt that Halliday felt the sanctions are harming Iraqi citizens, and that he was so distressed by this that he chose to resign his position. I don't criticize him for resigning from a position in order to send a message that the sanctions were not the way to get Hussein to behave -- I (and many, MANY others) said at the time the sanctions were imposed that they would not bother Hussein one little bit.
What I do say is that the only people in a position to give an actual number of the deaths attributable to sanctions refuse to do so, for the very reasons they outline -- it is impossible to do so. The 600,000 figure is a myth. Not even Halliday uses that figure.
You've yet to address why Israel wern't kicked out of the west bank.
Look to Israel. How have we dealt with their flouting of UN resolutions for the last 3 decades?
The UN has condemed Israel in dozens of resolutions, none have ever been acted on.
So no action is ever to be taken against anyone before all unacted upon UN resolutions have been acted upon? Any dictator can do whatever he chooses with no fear of retaliation because Israel (and many other nations) has ignored UN resolutions?
It's not like they're sat in the planes terrified of hitting public amenities. That's perfectly clear.
They may not shed tears if it happens, but it isn't happening. That's perfectly clear.
Nope, not even close. Read my response again and try and understand.
I have read your responses. Have you? You have said that Hussein is not being punished by sanctions, so the sanctions should be lifted. You then say that some unspecified "other ways" should be used to solve "the problem". You imply that Bush should be punished, and Israel, but on Hussein you are strangely silent. Nowhere have you said that you believe Hussein deserves to suffer even a little bit for his actions. Come, come, Alex -- you usually miss no perceived opportunity to make your opponent look dim -- why are you not elaborating in great detail the glaring obviousness of your suggested punishment for Hussein which is so cleverly buried in your statements that I am just too dim to miss? I have once again carefully re-read all your posts, and this is all I have been able to find:
"You have yet to inform me what punishment Bush is going to recieve."
"Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake. The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people."
Maybe another reader can help me out here -- can anyone tell me from reading these statements whether Alex even thinks Hussein should be punished at all? If so, what punishment is Alex advocating so subtly that I am missing it completely?
Do you have any evidence of Saddam confiscating childrens medicines?
No evidence, only a statistical correlation -- the infant mortality rate in Northern Iraq (where the aid is actually being delivered to the populace) has dropped 10% since sanctions were imposed and the humanitarian aid programs to offset the effect of those sanctions on the populace were begun. Is this hard evidence of humanitarian aid being diverted in Southern Iraq? Nope. Would a reasonable person reject that as a possible interpretation of the differing child mortality rates? Nope. Do you have an alternate explanation for the numbers?
You continue to ignore not just the UNICEF report, but also my previous questions. Why are you so afraid to answer the questions? What is it about actually stating your opinion that terrifies you? How much longer will you continue to evade and switch topics in the hopes the readers won't notice your evasion?
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________
3) If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than file more condemnatory resolutions?
Yes _______
No________
3 a) If you answered "no", what actions (if any) should the UN take instead of filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________
4) If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose miltary intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1266823 - 01/31/03 07:45 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The 600,000 figure is a myth. Not even Halliday uses that figure.
You're right. Halliday thinks it's an underestimate:
Denis Halliday, head of UN humanitarian operations in Iraq, resigned his post effective last week. He announced his intention to resign last July, citing personal opposition to the economic blockade. Halliday managed the oil for food program for 13 months and prior to that had been with the UN for 30 years.
On October 6 he told a briefing in Washington, DC that UN estimates of 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children dying every month were "probably modest." "The death of one Iraqi child attributable to economic sanctions is one death too many. Unfortunately, we are faced with thousands," Halliday said. "It is unnecessary and unacceptable to allow this human tragedy to continue."
In earlier comments to the Reuters news agency Halliday called sanctions "a totally bankrupt concept." He said the trade embargo violated the UN charter and UN conventions on human rights. "There is an awful incompatibility here, which I can't quite deal with myself. I just note that I feel extremely uncomfortable flying the UN flag, being part of the UN system here," he said.
Halliday noted the "4,000 to 5,000 children dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions, because of the breakdown of water and sanitation, inadequate diet and the bad internal health situation." He said the sanctions were impacting Iraqi society in many ways. Effects include the breakdown of family life, an increase in crime and the number of street children.
Using Hallidays "probably modest" figure of 5000 a month, we are well over 700,000 now not 600,000. Thanks for correcting me.
So no action is ever to be taken against anyone before all unacted upon UN resolutions have been acted upon?
What price justice? Do we jail all murderers unless you happen to know and like the murderer? Is that justice? Or a mockery of justice?
They may not shed tears if it happens, but it isn't happening.
Looks like the amenties can't even be rebuilt to bomb again thanks to the sanctions:
"In fact, Mr Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General had in October last year sent a letter to the Security Council indirectly criticizing the US for holding up approval of hundreds of contracts for humanitarian goods under the Oil-for-Food programme.
This means many basic items such as chlorine which is essential for water purification, are banned because of their alleged potential use in chemical weapons production. Such policies have made many other vital infrastructures providing amenities such as waste and sewerage treatment, electricity, food and oil production impossible to be rebuilt and/or repaired. "
You imply that Bush should be punished, and Israel, but on Hussein you are strangely silent.
You have been saying that because Saddam may theoretically be in breach of UN resolutions he should be "punished". You have ignored the fact that both the US and Israel have breached UN resolutions for the last 30 years and recieved no "punishment" yet. You are strangely quiet on my repeated question "Why".
You have yet to suggest how Saddam is going to be "punished". I have explained to you that sending 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad is going to punish the Iraqi people more than Saddam (who will be probably be nowhere near Baghdad). This is so simple a child could grasp it. Clearly you are having trouble.
but also my previous questions
No, I answered them the first time you asked them. Repeating them in the hope I will reply in the way you want displays your childishness in extreme clarity.
And if you think such questions can be answered with a childish Yes or No you need to apply to the George Bush admin for a job as a spokesman. You'd fit in well.
Again, I ask you why has Israel not been attacked when it has been in clear breach of UN resolutions for 30 years?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1266948 - 01/31/03 08:31 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
You're right. Halliday thinks it's an underestimate:
No, Alex -- he thought it was an underestimate. Once again you demonstrate your apparent inability to grasp the linguistic concepts of "past tense" and "present tense". Halliday resigned his position in early October of 1998, as the article you quoted states quite clearly. The UNICEF report I quoted was released in mid August of 1999 -- ten months later. Do you have any statements from him more recent than his resignation speech that show he is still throwing around the bogus 600,000 figure? Didn't think so.
Get the picture, Alex?
Do we jail all murderers unless you happen to know and like the murderer?
Nice try, but what you have actually been saying all along is that we mustn't jail any murderers until all other murderers have first been jailed.
"This means many basic items such as chlorine which is essential for water purification, are banned because of their alleged potential use in chemical weapons production."
So chlorine has to be made in Iraq rather than imported. What's the problem?
You have been saying that because Saddam may theoretically be in breach of UN resolutions he should be "punished".
No, I am saying because he embarked upon a war of conquest he must be punished. For some bizarre reason, the UN decided that he personally was to suffer no more than the indignity of having to abide by the terms of the astoundingly lenient surrender agreement. He was not required to step down from power, he was not required to call for a democratic election. All he had to do was fulfill his part of the deal. He hasn't.
You have ignored the fact that both the US and Israel have breached UN resolutions for the last 30 years and recieved no "punishment" yet.
In case you haven't noticed, Alex, the topic of THIS thread is Iraq, not Israel. If you want to ask that question in one of the many dozens of threads in this forum condemning Israel's actions, go ahead. This is one time you are not going to get away with de-railing a thread by dancing and dodging.
I note that you still refuse to give us your opinion on whether or not Hussein should be punished. Any reasonable person would presume this is because you believe he should NOT be punished, but are too afraid to say so. I am not surprised you believe he should get off scott-free. After all, he is not an American or an Israeli.
No, I answered them the first time you asked them.
No, Alex, you didn't. You didn't answer the first two when I asked them several times in October in the thread titled "Neville's Folly", and you aren't answering them today. We all know that if you had ever answered them, you would immediately have pointed out the thread where you had done so in the hopes of making me appear mistaken. You would never let an opportunity like that slide by. And of course the two I first posed in this thread remain unanswered -- that is apparent to anyone reading the thread. Here's your chance to answer them now:
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________
3) If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than file more condemnatory resolutions?
Yes _______
No________
3 a) If you answered "no", what actions (if any) should the UN take instead of filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________
4) If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose miltary intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________
And if you think such questions can be answered with a childish Yes or No you need to apply to the George Bush admin for a job as a spokesman.
*scratches head* Gee, Alex, I have reviewed those questions a dozen times and I fail to see how they can't be answered with a simple yes or no.
Repeating them in the hope I will reply in the way you want displays your childishness in extreme clarity.
Once you have said, "No, I don't agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991," you are of course perfectly free to explain why you don't agree. I would expect nothing less. You are of course also free to continue ignoring them completely, hence demonstrating your childishness even more thoroughly than you have already. Your choice.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1267158 - 02/01/03 01:46 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
still throwing around the bogus 600,000 figure?
700,000.
I certainly havn't heard him say he's changed his mind. Have you?
but what you have actually been saying all along is that we mustn't jail any murderers until all other murderers
No. But you cannot be selective about which you jail. Breaching UN resolutions is either a crime worthy of punishment or it isn't. There is no way round this pinkie.
So chlorine has to be made in Iraq rather than imported. What's the problem?
LOL. Don't be idiotic. Have you read a newspaper lately? If Iraq even attempted to make chlorine Bush would bomb them for "making weapons of mass destruction".
No, I am saying because he embarked upon a war of conquest he must be punished.
Israel? Why do you keep ducking Israel?
He was not required to step down from power
I think you'll find Bush Senior had no interest in Saddam stepping down from power. Which is why the americans turned a blind eye when he abused the no fly zone and slaughtered the shi'ites under their very nose.
In case you haven't noticed, Alex, the topic of THIS thread is Iraq, not Israel.
In other words you have no answer. Israel has committed exactly the same offence as Iraq and recieved no punishment. This isn't a minor point pinkie - it's the key to the whole issue.
Any reasonable person would presume this is because you believe he should NOT be punished
For the fifth time, explain precisely how bombing Baghdad and killing thousands of innocents will "punish" Saddam? Don't duck this question again.
Gee, Alex, I have reviewed those questions a dozen times and I fail to see how they can't be answered with a simple yes or no.
Sadly, i think your understanding of the issues really is this limited. Tragic.
No, I don't agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991
Once again explain why Israel can invade the west bank, be condemed in resolution after resolution and still recieve massive support from the US. Then explain why this is ignored while Iraq is slaughtered. Think about it.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1267170 - 02/01/03 01:58 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe another reader can help me out here
Sorry but trying to show Alpo a point is like trying to show a blind man what he looks like in a mirror.
Trying to get him to answer a direct question has the same results as beating your own head against a concrete wall.... all you get is a headache.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#1267176 - 02/01/03 02:04 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Nice to see you back looney.
Still nothing to say on topic I see
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
SnuffelzFurever
Psychonaut
Registered: 09/17/02
Posts: 734
Loc: Miami, florida
Last seen: 21 years, 1 month
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: zeronio]
#1267180 - 02/01/03 02:07 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Proove that he has disarmed.
It's funny that nobody finds nothing wrong with that. Since when do you have to prove to be innocent?
um, when you've waged wars and killed people and fuck shit up for everybody... i think that might have something to do with it. but i dunno. i mean, call me crazy, but somebody who praises airplane crashes into tall buildings to kill a couple thousand people doesnt just become peaceloving and treehugging... unless he did acid
wait a sec... thats the answer! fuck assasination! poison his water with acid! take it a step further! and put some psicocybin, weird maois, dmt, and let him drink that shit up unknowing of what will happen. while we're at it, try that on me?
now, dont go around sayin that I love Bush, cuz the only thing I love about him is the fact that he cant be president forever. Everyone is handling this situation all wrong tho. From the anti-war people to the blood-thirsty crackfiending republicans, you just gotta stop wanting shit for yourself. You gotta sacrifice your own beliefs sometimes, to save the lives of others. Which means sacrifice your bullshit protestingiscoolsoimgonna protest attitude and pull Saddam outta there. He isnt good for anybody. Taking him out of power would make a whole lot of people happy. No need for war. Just go up to him, deck him in the face, and jizz in his mouth. Take a picture, show the entire world, have a good laugh, and smoke some pot.
This was probably one of the worst posts I've ever made. It has no real point, I think. It doesnt state my position on the war, really. It just kinda says "I like to babble."
That's it for now :-)
--------------------
"I think it's time we stop
Children, What's the sound,
Everybody look what's going down"
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1267183 - 02/01/03 02:12 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Never left Alpo, just been watching you show what an ignorant buffoon you are.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1267195 - 02/01/03 02:34 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
I certainly havn't heard him say he's changed his mind. Have you?
Perhaps after reading the UNICEF report he was too embarassed to ever speak of it again. Have you any statements from him that were published after August 1999?
Breaching UN resolutions is either a crime worthy of punishment or it isn't.
As you are well aware, I hold no faith in UN resolutions, nor have I ever claimed that Iraq may rightfully be forced to comply with any UN resolutions (unless of course it is a resolution demanding that Iraq abide by the terms of the 1991 surrender... a redundant resolution, obviously). Hussein is to be punished for violating the terms of the surrender agreement. That's the way it has been throughout history, UN or no UN. You start a war and lose it, you have to eat crow.
If Iraq even attempted to make chlorine Bush would bomb them for "making weapons of mass destruction".
Incorrect. First of all, he would have no way of knowing whether they were making it or not. Secondly, if he hasn't bothered to bomb Hussein's other chemical plants, he isn't going to bomb a bleach factory.
Why do you keep ducking Israel?
Because this thread is about Iraq. If you want my comments on Israel, open a new thread, or bump an old one -- heaven knows there's enough of them. This is one time that I will not allow you to derail a thread. Confine your comments to the topic at hand or shut your gob.
Don't duck this question again.
That's not how it works, Alex. I asked my questions first. If you ever summon up the courage to answer them I'll answer yours -- presuming I'm not dead of old age by then.
Sadly, i think your understanding of the issues really is this limited. Tragic.
What's "tragic" is your terror at actually having to state an opinion. What's "tragic" is that this time the questions are worded so unambiguously that you have absolutely no wiggle room.
Last chance, Alex -- put up or shut up:
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________
3) If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than file more condemnatory resolutions?
Yes _______
No________
3 a) If you answered "no", what actions (if any) should the UN take instead of filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________
4) If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose miltary intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________
pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1267202 - 02/01/03 02:46 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Come on Alpo, answer the questions.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1267248 - 02/01/03 04:05 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You really don't expect Alex to answer do you? That would be like expecting a rock to swim.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Evolving]
#1267421 - 02/01/03 06:42 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's good to dream.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1267445 - 02/01/03 06:56 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Have you any statements from him that were published after August 1999?
We have ongoing collective punishment of the Iraqi people, similar to the collective punishment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. These two situations are in blatant breach of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols written to protect civilians in time of warfare. What is happening in Palestine and in Iraq under sanctions is warfare. Sanctions are intended to target civilians the innocent so that the people will somehow revolt and overthrow a regime, the
decision makers that the UN wants to punish. In the case of Iraq, as we all know, the sanctions of twelve years are built on US war crimes leading to extensive civilian infrastructure damage committed during the Gulf War when the UN provided cover for the American military.
We have illegal bombing of most of Iraq by the US and Britain. There is no UN Resolution to support this aggression undertaken in blatant neglect of Iraqi sovereignty. And we have UN Resolution 1441 about
Weapons of Mass Destruction - no it's really about oil, and US control thereof. It is a game, a charade, a form of theatre. It's about war on Iraq, about oil and about providing UN respectability for Bush to have his unilateral war.
Dennis Halliday - December 19 2002.
Doesn't sound like he's embarrassed to me pink.
Hussein is to be punished for violating the terms of the surrender agreement.
You sure seem impressed by "surrender agreements". I've never been too impressed by them myself. Do you think the "surrender agreements" the Nazi's placed on the countries they conquered should have been abided by?
Incorrect. First of all, he would have no way of knowing whether they were making it or not.
Excuse me, but we've had inspectors in there until 1998, they're back in now. When precisely do you think he had time to rebuild the water amenties?
Secondly, if he hasn't bothered to bomb Hussein's other chemical plants, he isn't going to bomb a bleach factory.
Have you heard of Chlorine gas? It's a famous "weapon of mass destruction". Do you really believe Dubya would allow Iraq to make chlorine without invading? If he won't even allow them to import it? What world are you living in son?
Because this thread is about Iraq.
No, it's about what the international response should be to countries accused of breaking UN resolutions. George Bush has accused Iraq of breaching UN resolutions therefore it should be invaded. He has not done the same to Israel. For the sixth time answer me why.
That's not how it works, Alex
Well you're certainly doing some ducking and diving!
What's "tragic" is your terror at actually having to state an opinion.
No, the tragedy lies in being so utterly moronic you can only comprehend the situation in terms of "Yes" or "No". It's too childlike to be taken with anything but amusment.
Last chance, Alex
*yawn* 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1267477 - 02/01/03 07:08 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Here's more from Dennis - March 2002:
The thought that this is somehow the policy of the Baghdad government is rubbish. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has never ever pointed a finger in that direction. He's reported regularly that the program, in as much as it works, works. There's no diversion of monies, or of foodstuffs. To point the finger at Saddam Hussein, of course, is very attractive. He's the bad guy, he's been demonized, etc., but we are in charge of the economy in Iraq so only we can change that. If you look at the history of the Baath Party and its social policies, this party stayed in power for 20 years by providing housing, employment, education and healthcare -- the very aspects of life that are missing now -- thanks to the U.N. and the deadly embargo of the Security Council.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1267493 - 02/01/03 07:13 AM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Do you have any statements from him more recent than his resignation speech that show he is still throwing around the bogus 600,000 figure? Didn't think so.
Looks like you thought wrong pink. Here's Dennis from November 29 2001. Hope that crow tastes nice!
The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food programme. The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this programme). The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4309594,00.html
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
#1269284 - 02/01/03 06:38 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Here's Dennis from November 29 2001.
So Mr. Halliday has read UNICEF'S report yet continues to publicly misrepresent its findings. Since he can no longer claim ignorance, I will no longer accord him the courtesy of attributing his earlier opinions to simple ignorance. My respect for him is now zero.
Do you think the "surrender agreements" the Nazi's placed on the countries they conquered should have been abided by?
Are you seriously trying to say that the aggressor's rights trump those of the liberator's? Do you want to let that statement stand? Surely you mis-spoke yourself. You may correct it with no negative commentary from me -- even I can't believe you really mean that.
Excuse me, but we've had inspectors in there until 1998, they're back in now. When precisely do you think he had time to rebuild the water amenties?
Inspectors wouldn't have objected to water purification plants and water mains being repaired. He's had 12 years to rebuild both.
Do you really believe Dubya would allow Iraq to make chlorine without invading?
Yes.
No, it's about what the international response should be to countries accused of breaking UN resolutions.
Actually, no it's not. Re-read the opening post in the thread. Stonedfish asked: "But to those who refuse, what would it take to convince you that we must get rid of Saddam?"
No, the tragedy lies in being so utterly moronic you can only comprehend the situation in terms of "Yes" or "No". It's too childlike to be taken with anything but amusment.
The only thing amusing here are your lame evasions. Let's sum up:
Alex123 believes that:
-- Iraq should not be invaded before all other countries who have had UN resolutions filed against them have been.
-- The UNICEF personnel who conducted the Iraq mortality surveys are lying, but those who misrepresent their results are not.
-- Iraq's public amenities damaged in 1991 have not been rebuilt because Hussein is incapable of rebuilding them.
-- Fundamentalists would now be in charge of Iraq if the UN coalition had deposed Hussein in 1991.
-- Initiators of wars are to receive no punishment.
-- Hussein must not be deposed by force until dozens of leaders as bad as Saddam are deposed by force.
-- The UN sanctions should never have been imposed -- ***on this we agree***
-- The UN does whatever the US wants it to.
-- The UN decision to expel Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait in 1991 was a bad decision.
-- The decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 was a good decision.
-- The UN should take no action against Iraq other than continuing to file condemnatory resolutions.
-- Even if the UN supported an attempt to invade Iraq, Alex123 would not.
-- Surrender agreements have no validity.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
#1269369 - 02/01/03 07:29 PM (22 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So Mr. Halliday has read UNICEF'S report yet continues to publicly misrepresent its findings.
See, this is the trouble with doing 2 minute google searches and thinking you are an expert pink. Halliday has obviously seen a lot more UN and UNICEF's reports than you, including the one in 2001. He believes 700,000 kids have been slaughtered. You ever considered you just might be wrong and Halliday's right? Think about it.
Are you seriously trying to say that the aggressor's rights trump those of the liberator's?
Well Israel has breached UN resolutions for decades and never been invaded yet. Why havn't we invaded and imposed "surrender aggreements" in Israel? Whatever happened to justice? Isn't blowing the fuck out of a country enough? Do you really need to torture them for the rest of eternity?
And of course you're assuming the best way of getting Iraq to comply with anything is going to war. As public opinion and everyone from Nelson Mandela on thinks - this has nothing to do with making Iraq "comply" with anything and a helluva lot to do with getting your hands on oil.
Inspectors wouldn't have objected to water purification plants and water mains being repaired. He's had 12 years to rebuild both.
Chlorine pink, Chlorine. Saddam is forbidden from importing Chlorine. Do you think they are going to let him make it for christs sake? THINK.
Actually, no it's not.
Actually it is. If this was about getting rid of Saddam we would have done it 20 years ago when he had enormous quantities of chemical weapons that america had supplied him with. Instead of course, Rumsfield was over there shaking his hand and trying to sell him more.
Don't believe everything Dubya tells you. Consider that he might be lying.
Alex123 believes that:
Where on earth did you get this crap from?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Substrate 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Kratom Powder For Sale 
Kratom Capsules for Sale 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
wingnutx
1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58
lonestar2004
SirTripAlot
Too Vanilla
Great_Satan
luvdemshrooms