1 edit
Originally posted by super pawnDo you honestly believe that the only two options at our disposal are 1) go to war or 2) beg and plead. This is quite sloppy thinking on your part. But look on the bright side: if you keep making such poor arguments, perhaps this will turn into the longest thread in RHP history! 😲
what do you think we should do? go over and say "Please, Mr. sadam. will you step down from powere so we can take over you country and put you and your sons in prison? PLEASE!!!!!!!"😠 I DON'T THINK SO!
Originally posted by bbarrBennett, what would you do? Seriously, I would be very interested in what would be the chain of events that you would engage in to address the problem, assuming of course, that you would do anything. Kirk
Do you honestly believe that the only two options at our disposal are 1) go to war or 2) beg and plead. This is quite sloppy thinking on your part.
Originally posted by kirksey957Alright Kirk, but first I need to be clear on just what the problem is to which you're referring. Is it Saddam's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction? Is it that somehow in the future Saddam will come to have weapons of mass destruction? Is it Saddam's possession of conventional long-range missles? Is it the imminent threat of Iraqi terrorists striking the U.S.? Is it the threat that at some unspecified point in the future there may be an Iraqi terrorist attack in the U.S.? Is it the supposed harboring of Al-Queda members within Iraq? Is it the threat Saddam's regime poses to the civilians of Iraq? Is the problem that we need to bring good ol' democracy (read: free market capitalism for their industry and regulated market capitalism for our industry)? I see a lot of hand-wringing about Iraq, but what precisely is the problem? Notice that I'm NOT claiming there is no problem with Iraq, but I do need to know what you take the problem to be before I can recommend a course of action.
Bennett, what would you do? Seriously, I would be very interested in what would be the chain of events that you would engage in to address the problem, assuming of course, that you would do anything. Kirk
Probably the best way to go about the answer would be for you to prioritize what you think the problems are and what if anything do you think should be done. I don't want to limit you as El Presidente by telling you what the "real" problems are. Obviously some are open to debate. This weekend I was listening to a program devoted to opinions about the war and saw two young men interviewed who were very articulate and sincere in their belief that the US is the aggressor and we are going about killing "innocents." After that they interviewed some women from Iraq who witnessed live men being run through a wood chipper. The point I am making is that we are becoming a polarized society.
Give it your best shot, Bennett. Kirk
Originally posted by kirksey957Although the administration has only recently begun justifying the current war by reference to the Iraqi regime's record of human rights abuses, and it's doubtful that the administration gives a damn about human rights abuses around the world, I think that Iriaqi regime's brutality towards its own people constitutes the most powerful reason for intervention. So the question is whether there is any mode of non-military intervention that could lessen the extent to which the Iraqi regime harms its own people. If I had my way, I'd throw the full weight of american power behind the establishment and enforcement of an international criminal court. Additionally I'd suport the UN's universal declaration of human rights, which the US has not supported for economic reasons. I'd indict Hussein for crimes against humanity, specifically the use of chemical agents against his own Kurdish population. The international exposure Saddam's regime would receive as a result of such an indictment would be extreme and the international pressure put upon Iraq would likely effect change. This is, of course, just the broad outline of a plan. Doubtless the response will be that imternational criminal proceedings would be ineffective in removing Hussein. Remember, however, that the problem I'm addressing is not the fact that Hussein is in power, but the fact that Hussein brutalizes his people. If a broad, international coalition put direct, non-military pressure on Iraq, presumably Saddam would not be as cavalier about violating the human rights of the Iraqi citizens, specifically if the consequences of indictment would be mediated by compliance with international law.
Probably the best way to go about the answer would be for you to prioritize what you think the problems are and what if anything do you think should be done. I don't want to limit you as El Presidente by telling you what the "real" problems are. Obviously some are open to debate. This weekend I was listening to a program devoted to opinions about t ...[text shortened]... am making is that we are becoming a polarized society.
Give it your best shot, Bennett. Kirk
If you haven't already, read Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. Then you'll have a much better idea over the issues surrounding the war. This goes for EVERYONE. The "diplomacy" was a joke - is war the answer:-
NO!, NON! NIEN! (Sorry I don't know how to say no in any other languages - a little help?)
