trendal said:

If yes, then you should sign up to go to Iraq. Everyone in favor of this war should.



Seems kind of hypocritical to support a war that you are unwilling to fight in...

---

If you're that convinced Saddam was such a threat, what with all those WMD's he didn't have and all those years of not attacking anyone, then your ass should be out there in the desert. But don't forget to bring your own body armor and you better hope you get one of the few hummvees with armored plating. Crossing yourself and crying "Halliburton" won't save you out there.

mushmaster said:

do you agree with what the peace corps is doing?

---

Quote:

Swami said:
Cheney is the king of double-speak. Basically, no matter what was or was not found, or who was or was not involved, the reasons for war were justified.

Imagine Cheney as a prosecutor: "Your honor, the defendent had no drugs or paraphenalia in his possession which is proof that he is hardened drug abuser."

Seriously, no matter your leanings, how can anyone accept this "logic"? I suggest everyone read (or re-read) Orwell's "1984" where this script was borrowed intact.

---

unbeliever said:

I'll repeat my prison analogy. Cops bust a guy (Saddam). He winds up in jail (sanctions and inspections that have been PROVEN to be working). Meanwhile a group of soldiers break into the jail, tear-gassing and beating up anyone in their way. Many casualties ensue, including other prisoners, guards and prison staff. They finally get their guy (saddam) and they stick him in isolation. Meanwhile all across the prison there are vicious riots and daily violence. Gang power increases dramatically in the vacuum of order and authority created by the raid.

That, in a nutshell, is Iraq.

---

mushmaster said:

You'll have to be more specific.

ok...

do you agree with programs by the peace corps to send volunteers to senegal to educate the local populace about AIDS prevention?

---

unbeliever said:

Absolutely. There are many places world-wide that can benefit from increased education and aid from all of the more wealthy, first world countries. That should be our moral priority and combined with containment of the dangerous regimes would lead to peace much more quickly and safely than carpet bombing. You don't WIN the peace, you EARN it. And it's not with bombs or missles, it's with compassion, education and understanding. Yeah I may sound like a dirty hippy, but better than than a war-mongering chicken hawk*.


*For the record, I'm not saying that you are.

---

d33p said:

unbeliever said:

I'll repeat my prison analogy. Cops bust a guy (Saddam). He winds up in jail (sanctions and inspections that have been PROVEN to be working). Meanwhile a group of soldiers break into the jail, tear-gassing and beating up anyone in their way. Many casualties ensue, including other prisoners, guards and prison staff. They finally get their guy (saddam) and they stick him in isolation. Meanwhile all across the prison there are vicious riots and daily violence. Gang power increases dramatically in the vacuum of order and authority created by the raid.

That, in a nutshell, is Iraq.

---

Lol i dont think him being in prison is the best analogy to him running his won country pretty much free from rules.

---

d33p said:

unbeliever said:

Absolutely. There are many places world-wide that can benefit from increased education and aid from all of the more wealthy, first world countries. That should be our moral priority and combined with containment of the dangerous regimes would lead to peace much more quickly and safely than carpet bombing. You don't WIN the peace, you EARN it. And it's not with bombs or missles, it's with compassion, education and understanding. Yeah I may sound like a dirty hippy, but better than than a war-mongering chicken hawk*.


*For the record, I'm not saying that you are.

---

Now with the indians, American could have earned peace(probably, maybe not all indian clans) but they decided to win. When a brutal dictator is in power it is not possible to earn peace.

And for the federal government has no business handing out aid to all the countries which can't support themselves. Use that method improving conditions in other countries will lower the conditions in this country. Also just handing out money is never the right answer.

insert fish/teach fishing anecedote

---

mushmaster said:

whoa there d33p. the point wasn't to get into a debate about international aid, but to expose the absurdity of the proposal that if one supports a particular cause, but does not actively participate in it, then one is some kind of hypocrite.

---

unbeliever said:

Exactly, that's why I tried to emphasis education. If education and prosperity can be brought to many of the peaceful "3rd world" countries by the U.S. and the UN, that would go a long way I think towards moralizing countries with oppressive regimes. They would have something to hope for. There would be credibility involved.
What would they becoming educated for? Factory jobs?

Instead we have Iraq as an example. We attack and occupy them because an unrelated terrorist group attacked us. We kills tens of thousands of their people and have the gross hubris to claim we're LIBERATING them. Mean while their whole country is complete shambles, not only from the war but also because there were no serious and large scale efforts done to alleviate the consequences of long-term sanctions and restrictions. That admittedly is a failure of american and international policy and is inexcusable in my opinion.

Well many more than one reasonf rot he war. Conditions are now better than before the war. It is rebuilding and the sanctions in time will be forgotten(also they are beign praised in another thread currently). It is getting better. It is just retarded that a few non-iraqis are coming to disrupt the effort. I mean serriously we just want to help. If something happened where it was obviosu the war was for oil, or they start stealing oil then i could maybe give them some leeway.

The lies and the actions based upon those lies that lead us into the mess we're in now with Iraq give no hope to any other countries in similar situations. Working with Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China or any other of the numerous countries in the world where there are either oppressive regimes, deplorable civil and social conditions or both, is going to be that much harder because of our track record so far.

I'm not intirely turned off by our now percieved hardline stance on opressive regimes and terrorism.

My election take on all this is that yes, we have created our own sisyphean task of getting back our credibility, of actually securing some sort of global peace. Bush has no plan except more of the same. He wants us to not only push the boulder up the highest mountain, he wants to push away anyone or anything that would help us. If that suits you, go ahead and vote for Bush. If not, there are other options.

Please, we want help and are trying to get more. And goodness of global standing is over rated.

---