[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[18-Till-I-Die]

Ok so...anything would be better...

No, anything WE do...would be better...

No...JUST ABOUT anything we do...would be better...


Any other edits you want to make to the argument before you continue? Make sure you get it right...

[The Kernel]

Answer me this Yes or No: Was or was it not U.S. policy to
seek regime change in Iraq prior to the Bush Administration assuming power?

If it was we would have done it after the first Gulf War you little shit. That's the point that you can't seem to get through your thick skull and you refuse to address: no President ever endorsed taking out the Saddam regime by force. Bush Sr. could have, but he didn't because he decided the costs were too high. Clinton agreed with this assessment. Bush Jr. didn't, and look what it got him.

The point I was trying to establish is that our goal was the removal of a tyranical dictator and the creation of a democractic government. I also wanted to express my view that the 2000 deaths weren't "thrown away" for nothing, rather they were heroic deaths in the service of a noble cause.

How is it noble exactly? We've brought more death upon the Iraqi people and instigated a civil war by removing the only thing that was holding the country together. By removing Saddam we created a political vaccum that no one could fill.

Other key words Just about.

You do know that it is implausible to expect someone to "prove" something which has infinite hypotheticals. I'll point to what we are doing as an example of something that is better than Saddam's government. As with all great works, it will have its bumps along the road, but as they say Rome wasn't built in a day...

"Better" than Saddam's government? Saddam's government at least didn't see a prolonged civil war now did they? Who the fuck are you to judge which is better? I've already told you that more people have died under our occupation than Saddam's entire reign and yet you insist that what we are doing is somehow better. Either quantify this or shut the fuck up.

It really doesn't matter whether Clinton condoned the invasion of Iraq. The fact remains that regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy signed into law during the Clinton administration. The ultimate goal was the same even if the methods by which they would seek to achieve it may differ.

That's a pretty big fucking point idiot. According to your logic, if Bush had nuked Afghanistan in order to kill Osama, that would have been justified since it was the US policy since Clinton to kill Osama.

The difference is, Clinton would have never nuked Afghanistan to do it and he would have never removed Saddam by force since he knew what a shitstorm that would have created in Iraq. Obviously you and our simian president didn't get that and still don't.

[The Kernel]

Bottom line: I've said all I have to say on the matter and I don't feel like repeating myself. If he feels that things were better under Saddam then they are going to be once the new government gets established, then that is his oppinion.

Ahh, I see, you are one of these fucktards who can't deal with actually supporting your argument, so you fall back on the position of "that's your opinion and this is my opinion!". Sorry asswipe, but this is a debate board and we don't deal in opinions here, we back up our statements with facts, something you have yet to do.

[Darth Wong]

KHL, there's a difference between "we would like to see somebody else in power in Iraq" and "we are going to invade and remove the current leader by force". Don't be a fucking moron. I would like to see somebody else in power in the US too, but that doesn't mean I think an invasion of America would be a good idea.

You keep using the phrase "regime change" because you're a Republitard, but the fact is that it is deceptive because Bush's policy of regime change is "regime change through military force": a very specific subset of regime change which he (and you) tries to lump in with all other forms of regime change such as diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, waiting the opposition out, etc.

[The Kernel]

KHL, there's a difference between "we would like to see somebody else in power in Iraq" and "we are going to invade and remove the current leader by force". Don't be a fucking moron. I would like to see somebody else in power in the US too, but that doesn't mean I think an invasion of America would be a good idea.

You keep using the phrase "regime change" because you're a Republitard, but the fact is that it is deceptive because Bush's policy of regime change is "regime change through military force": a very specific subset of regime change which he (and you) tries to lump in with all other forms of regime change such as diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, waiting the opposition out, etc.

A good analogy of this would be North Korea. Every President since Kim Jon Ill took power has wanted to see a regime change, but none of them were crazy enough to do it by force.

[KHL]

KHL, there's a difference between "we would like to see somebody else in power in Iraq" and "we are going to invade and remove the current leader by force". Don't be a fucking moron. I would like to see somebody else in power in the US too, but that doesn't mean I think an invasion of America would be a good idea.

You keep using the phrase "regime change" because you're a Republitard, but the fact is that it is deceptive because Bush's policy of regime change is "regime change through military force": a very specific subset of regime change which he (and you) tries to lump in with all other forms of regime change such as diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, waiting the opposition out, etc.

To be fair, we tried numerous security council resolutions and Bush did give Saddam 24 hours to get out of dodge . But I digress because my argument isn't about the invasion itself persay, rather the goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq.

Look, this is what I'm saying and all that I'm saying. That U.S. policy was for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. And regardless of what you may have throught about the methods by which the U.S. invaded and toppled Saddam, that the current endeavor of building a democracy in Iraq is a noble one.

[brianeyci]

Kosovo.

Fine I walked right into that, so I concede that Clinton condoned forceable removal of regimes. One can even argue that Kosovo was Clinton's Iraq, given that the shit he said about genocides turned out to be blatant lies just like Bush's WMD. However in the context of Iraq, he did not condone removal of Saddam by force, because he wasn't so blinded by the neoCon lights that he didn't see Iraq as a quagmire.

...the establishment of a democracy in Iraq has been U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration.

You post in a thread about 2000 deaths some bullshit about the current foreign policy dating back to Clinton, which is a lie as SirNitram pointed out and you refused to concede.

What is there to concede?

Answer me this Yes or No: Was or was it not U.S. policy to
seek regime change in Iraq prior to the Bush Administration assuming power?

Yes or no, yes or no, you're creating a false dilemma, sounding like those broken record politicians I hear on television who always ask for yes and no when they know those aren't the only choices. It was not US policy to seek regime change by preemptive strike in Iraq prior to the Bush Administration.

The point I was trying to establish is that our goal was the removal of a tyranical dictator and the creation of a democractic government. I also wanted to express my view that the 2000 deaths weren't "thrown away" for nothing, rather they were heroic deaths in the service of a noble cause.

Who said the lives were "thrown away for nothing" and why didn't you just say that retard, rather than mentioning Clinton's foreign policy? Oh that's right, you wanted to deflect blame away from Bush. Of course the deaths are heroic, when men put their lives on the line for something they believe in its always heroic, but whether this cause is actually what it seems to be can be debated.

Other key words Just about.

You do know that it is implausible to expect someone to "prove" something which has infinite hypotheticals. I'll point to what we are doing as an example of something that is better than Saddam's government. As with all great works, it will have its bumps along the road, but as they say Rome wasn't built in a day...

Ohhh just about scary, how many more quantifiers do we need now before I actually get you to show some evidence.

It isn't infinite hypotheticals donkeyfucker, you just need to show what Americans are doing right now and the current state of things in Iraq, derive reasonable expectations, then show how that's better than Saddam. Of course you can't do that, because your whole argument is based on oh fuck it's possible that things will get better without any proof.

Blatant strawman. Where did I say any of those policys were representation of Clinton's foreign policy? How are they even relevant to this discussion?

What did you say... "The goal of removing Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democracy in Iraq has been U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration." How the fuck did Bush remove Saddam? Preemptive strike. I thought you were smart enough to see that removing someone by force and saying "We'd like a different guy there" are different, I guess you're too stupid to have seen the difference between Bush and Clinton's policies and made the connection. In that case, concede, as it's been shown over and over that Clinton's policy was not the same as Bush's.

It's relevant because you said it dipshit, and it's a lie so retract it or concede that Bush's foreign policy is not comparable to Clinton's.

It really doesn't matter whether Clinton condoned the invasion of Iraq. The fact remains that regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy signed into law during the Clinton administration. The ultimate goal was the same even if the methods by which they would seek to achieve it may differ.

Oh noes, the "ends always justify the means" conservative bullshit. Well you know what, you have to show the rationality of the means before you even talk about the ends.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

Kosovo.

Fine I walked right into that, so I concede that Clinton condoned forceable removal of regimes.

Only when asked to do so by the international community.

[spikenigma]

"Better" than Saddam's government? Saddam's government at least didn't see a prolonged civil war now did they? Who the fuck are you to judge which is better? I've already told you that more people have died under our occupation than Saddam's entire reign and yet you insist that what we are doing is somehow better. Either quantify this or shut the fuck up.

you are correct in the rest, but I'd need some clarification on the bolded section of your post.

Most figures put Saddams total kill number at

600'000 - 1 million

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deat ... 42503.html

whilst most body counts put Iraqi civilian deaths at around 30'000

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[The Kernel]

Look, this is what I'm saying and all that I'm saying. That U.S. policy was for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. And regardless of what you may have throught about the methods by which the U.S. invaded and toppled Saddam, that the current endeavor of building a democracy in Iraq is a noble one.

Noble? How is it noble? I'm sick of these stupid subjective platitudes being used to justify the invasion, provide proof that Iraq is in a better state then it was under Saddam. I'm sorry but if I lived in Iraq I'd rather have lived under Saddam where I didn't have the freedom of speech then under the current regime where I might get blown to pieces on my way to work in the morning.

[The Kernel]

you are correct in the rest, but I'd need some clarification on the bolded section of your post.

Most figures put Saddams total kill number at

600'000 - 1 million

Your own article points out that 500,000 of the 600,000 figure are from the Iran-Iraq war. That's not Saddam killing his own people, that's the Iranians killing them.

whilst most body counts put Iraqi civilian deaths at around 30'000

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Officially yes, although the unofficial estimates vary wildly with The Lancet estimating over 100,000 killed.

More telling though is this chart:



Are the Iraqi people really safer now?

[spikenigma]

Your own article points out that 500,000 of the 600,000 figure are from the Iran-Iraq war. That's not Saddam killing his own people, that's the Iranians killing them.

that's still 67'000 more than the occupation

Officially yes, although the unofficial estimates vary wildly with The Lancet estimating over 100,000 killed.

More telling though is this chart:



Are the Iraqi people really safer now?

I'm not arguing that Iraq is safer post occupation than pre-oc as I don't have the relevant data to convince me either way.

I just took issue with your assertion that:

Saddam number Killed < Occupation Iraqi civilian "casualties"

[PainRack]

Only when asked to do so by the international community.

I don't think he was asked to do that for Haiti.

[Darth Wong]

Only when asked to do so by the international community.

I don't think he was asked to do that for Haiti.

The UN Security Council authorized coercive means to remove Haiti's current leader. Even after receiving that approval, Clinton still attempted more diplomatic methods and allowed multiple deadlines to pass without action.

[Coyote]

Um, actually, KHL, the mention of Kosovo does not help your case much, if anything, it weakens it. Clinton inherited the Iraq situation from George Bush Sr, after a war had been fought in the area-- so, the possibility of war in Iraq was already established...

Clinton announces the policy of regime change through international pressure, diplomacy, economics, etc... in Iraq. Clinton then goes on to use 'regime chiange via military force' in Kosovo. So, the idea of using military force to bring about regime change is not impossible for him.

But, despite having a precedent for military force in Iraq, and despite having a precedent for regime change by force in Yugoslavia, he still declines to employ the same measures against Saddam Hussein. So, despite Clinton's statement about regime change, military force to enact that change was not an option in his point of view.

[KHL]

I'm particularly interested in how you're going to prove that anything the Americans do with Iraq is better than Saddam KHL. In fact this is a rather common argument used by anybody who was pro-war (now that the Americans are in they better fucking stay to fix problems), and it seems to be always taken at face value that anything would be better, without any proof given. I don't particularly care about any other points, if you want to just focus on this point alone KHL then fine, no more semantic whoring, just prove to me that "anything we establish" will be better.

Brian

How do you expect me to prove something with infininate possibilities? First of all, I said just about anything which means that there are exceptions, but I do not find them anywhere remotely likely. Secondly the phrase "just about anything" is a figure of speech and not meant as a literal declaration. I don't recall anyone demanding that someone prove that "anybody but bush" would be a better president.

However, as I said before I CAN point to what we are doing over there:

http://www.iraqigovernment.org/constitution_en.htm

I could paste the section detailing guaranteed freedoms here as "proof" but you can look it up in the link easy enough.

[Darth Wong]

And what about "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam"?

[Ace Pace]

Or the lack of definition of what is morality? Thats just open to abuse.

[KHL]

Ok so...anything would be better...

No, anything WE do...would be better...

No...JUST ABOUT anything we do...would be better...


Any other edits you want to make to the argument before you continue? Make sure you get it right...

Look fucknut first of all, my original statement was "Just about anything we do would be better".

Secondly, Its called a figure of speech.

[KHL]

And what about "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam"?

I think they will grow out of that phase in the long run. And I also think the key word there being undisputed which gives some leeway for law makers for the tenets of islam over which there is dispute.

[Durandal]

Look fucknut first of all, my original statement was "Just about anything we do would be better".

Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. This right-wing logic strikes me as odd. "The Iraqi people want to be free! In fact, they want freedom so much that they want us to come in and occupy their country for a totally indeterminate amount of time!"

[Ace Pace]

And what about "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam"?

I think they will grow out of that phase in the long run. And I also think the key word there being undisputed which gives some leeway for law makers for the tenets of islam over which there is dispute.

Look, any shitwad can give excuses for bad decisions, it takes a special kind of shitwad to belive the middle east can 'grow out' of fundamentalisim.

[KHL]

Or the lack of definition of what is morality? Thats just open to abuse.

I have a feeling that if you look through the consitutions/article of government for most nations that you will find things that could potentially be abused. It is not until the actual abuse takes place, and the people react against it, that things are actually changed.

[Broomstick]

Look, this is what I'm saying and all that I'm saying. That U.S. policy was for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. And regardless of what you may have throught about the methods by which the U.S. invaded and toppled Saddam, that the current endeavor of building a democracy in Iraq is a noble one.

Well, shit, the US government has wanted to Fidel Castro removed from power for the past 50 years... but we haven't invaded Cuba, have we? Oh, wait, we did - the Bay of Pigs fiasco. After which we decided that a frontal assault wasn't for the best.

Why invade Iraq but not Cuba? Particularly when, at one point, Cuba was busy installing missiles clearly aimed at the continental US and a clear and present danger to the US... but rant as he might, Saddam never had a way to threaten us directly?

I don't believe an invasion launched on the pretext of lies and falsified data with insufficient resources and shit planning is a "noble" endeavor. Nor am I convinced we're going to succeed in building any form of lasting democracy in Iraq. Sure, while we're there we can impose a form of government from outside but once we leave Iraq will go its own way... which may not be our way. Not everyone is convinced democracy is the best of all worlds. That is why there are still monarchs in the world, alongside dictatorships. The only way to guarantee "democracy" in Iraq is for a western power to stay there forever... and pour blood and treasure into Iraq... forever. Otherwise, you pull out and take the risk that your precious "democracy" (and just how democratic is it, if imposed from without?) will be overturned and replaced.

Sure, the US wanted Saddam out of power... but until Bush Jr. the use of military force was not on the table. Why should it be? We never had to fire a shot to see the USSR go down, did we? Castro is still in Cuba, and that insane guy still in North Korea, and Kaddafi still in Lybia, and so on and so forth. Was a war required to bring down the Berlin wall?

This war was not inevitable, nor was it necessary... and THAT is what makes those thousands of deaths - on both sides - a tragedy however nobly any of those indiviuals fought for what they believed in.

[Ace Pace]

Or the lack of definition of what is morality? Thats just open to abuse.

I have a feeling that if you look through the consitutions/article of government for most nations that you will find things that could potentially be abused. It is not until the actual abuse takes place, and the people react against it, that things are actually changed.

Yes, but I find that most western countries are not based on a recent history of fundamentalisim in a region that runs on fundamentalisim.

Read what Broomstick said, if the US are going to go in to free Saddam, howabout cleaning the U.S backyard first? You have Cuba, an actual threat(in the imagined mind of a Neo-con), but for some reason you're halfway around the world trying to force change. When was the last time such a move worked?