StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You do realize that Ramsey Clark is inflating the death tolls?

Ted wrote:

jegs2 wrote:Yes, ware is terrible, but at times it is also necessary.

Is it necessary now though?

I have seen or heard no evidence that it is.

Oy, you need to just take a look at what Saddam does to his own people. Regular torture of political enemies, constantly threatening the relative stability of the middle east, oppression of groups in his country. I suggest you watch one of the documentaries on the History Channel about him.

If ya think about it, there was no initial reason to go after Saddam. Right now, the only idea we have to hold on to is that his regime must be stopped. I agree, Saddam isn't the kind of guy you could hang out at Starbucks with. But other than that, there isn't a real reason to chase him. When he was a bad boy in the 1990's, we gave him a spanking. Now, all the crap he's pulling is in his own country... for my tax dollars, what he does is none of my business, and I'd rather that money go towards something that doesn't involve blowing shit up.

Therefore, if there's no real reason to take down his regime at this time, this leaves me with one thought as to why Bush is chasing this war like a hungry whore looking for a protein shake. If he DOES go into IRAQ and take down Saddam's reign, Bush will be praised as a hero, the guy who removed from this earth an evil evil... well, guy. Books will be written about him. Television specials. 20/20. The George W. Bush Junior Scholarship for People Who Kick Ass. But more immediately, re-election.

Yep. I think they're doing it so the people who got rid of him can say "Hey, I rid the world of evil!" Which he would do, just without due cause. And thus, the people in favor of the actions could relax in their comfy chairs for a little bit (or a lot-a-bit) longer.

I just wish it wasn't my money that went toward it... my state cuts spending on education, and the roof of my old high school caves in... and my cash goes towards stuff that makes MORE buildings crumble. Oy.

Saddam is complying?
You have swallowed a mighty big LIE my friend.
Read Blix's report.
He is complying just enouigh to make a show of it, and has NEVER been in COMPLETE compliance, Please stop propagating this blatent LIE!
Example. The missiles, whick he first claimed he didn't have, (lie, violation)
and then began to destroy, ONE AT A TIME, while not stopping PRODUCTION! Which by the way, he stopped destroying, and has started destroying again. This is theater at it's worst.
The resumption of too little, too late is seen as a triumph for diplomacy!
And production CONTINUES to this second!

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:Saddam is complying?
You have swallowed a mighty big LIE my friend.
Read Blix's report.
He is complying just enouigh to make a show of it, and has NEVER been in COMPLETE compliance, Please stop propagating this blatent LIE!
Example. The missiles, whick he first claimed he didn't have, (lie, violation)
and then began to destroy, ONE AT A TIME, while not stopping PRODUCTION! Which by the way, he stopped destroying, and has started destroying again. This is theater at it's worst.
The resumption of too little, too late is seen as a triumph for diplomacy!
And production CONTINUES to this second!

You have no PROOF that missile production is continuing.

The anti-war group actually has a really good point. Not well pronounced, but consider the calculus from the following presepctive:

The world is limited in terms of resources.
The consumers for those resources are increasing.

The war expends resources needlessly. In fact, nothing works better than lifting the UN sanctions on Iraq, make it clear to him that America's interest is in the oil and make a deal. I'm sure he'd be happy to have support from a super power. As long as the U.S. make a deal that ensures dominance of U.S. corporation (a nod to Wong's favorite line) and make sure Israel continues to exist. What difference does it make if he kills some people. After all, who are we to judge him.

As for NK, same deal, except don't even deal with them. Pull out American troops, and let their neighbors deal with them. The worst case scenario is an all out war, and let's face it, NK's neighbors have far more to lose if that happens. The U.S. is under no obligation to feed the NKs, if they need food, their neighbors could surely provide it. It would remove the expense of having troops stationed there, and with luck lower my tax dollars.

I admit, this is a change from my previous position on the subject of war, but from a pure resources point of view. It would work for the best, America doesn't need to spend resources. If a few wars break out, the second part of the equation (the consumers of resources) above gets reduced, and that's not a bad thing for Americans.

Bottom line, it is still a statistical improbability that your ordinary American would ever get gassed by a terrorist from the Middle East. At least it's far less likely that getting run over by a car. So, the anti-war guys have it right, although they haven't clarified that position exactly.

Darth Wong wrote: So you agree with the critics who say it's really about oil?

All about oil? No. There are many other factors included, but oil is a factor. And I don't see why that is so wrong.

Oil runs the economy of the world; wax philosophic about dependence or the need to develop alternate fuels (I agree with the arguments) but that's not the subject. Right now-- and before we have time ot develop alternatives-- the world runs on oil.

Europe and Asia get Iraqi oil, also, not the US. So we're not even going after "our" oil. We get our oil from Venezuala, Angola, and Saudi Arabia.

What do you really, truly think that Saddam Hussein will do with that oil money? Build schools, orphanages, farms, libraries, and cultural centers? Seriously? He's going to build bombs, gas, and use them to kill people. This is not rhetoric; the world has seen this happen and there is body count to prove it.

Saddam has had years and years to disarm, comply with interntionl treaties and agreements that he signed, and he has not disarmed. He's had plenty of chances. The more we dither, the more of his own people or his neighbors he is likely to kill.

If a madman in the street has a gun, and he's shooting bystanders... the cops show up, surround him, tell him to throw down his weapons... and he keeps waving his pistol around and pointng it at people... at some point the cops are going to have to shoot the madman. He had his chance to end it peacefully, and failed.

Lettign Saddam walk will be putting more people in danger, and from WMDs as well, which he's already shown a willingness to use over and over again. I know people aren't arguing in favor of a bloodthirsty maniac or nuclear proliferation... so what realistically can be done?

Coyote wrote:
Saddam has had years and years to disarm, comply with interntionl treaties and agreements that he signed, and he has not disarmed. He's had plenty of chances. The more we dither, the more of his own people or his neighbors he is likely to kill.

If a madman in the street has a gun, and he's shooting bystanders... the cops show up, surround him, tell him to throw down his weapons... and he keeps waving his pistol around and pointng it at people... at some point the cops are going to have to shoot the madman. He had his chance to end it peacefully, and failed.

Lettign Saddam walk will be putting more people in danger, and from WMDs as well, which he's already shown a willingness to use over and over again. I know people aren't arguing in favor of a bloodthirsty maniac or nuclear proliferation... so what realistically can be done?

Why didn't the U.S. step in when he massacred the kurds in 1987? Why wait till now?

0.1 wrote:The anti-war group actually has a really good point. Not well pronounced, but consider the calculus from the following presepctive:

The world is limited in terms of resources.
The consumers for those resources are increasing.

The war expends resources needlessly. In fact, nothing works better than lifting the UN sanctions on Iraq, make it clear to him that America's interest is in the oil and make a deal. I'm sure he'd be happy to have support from a super power. As long as the U.S. make a deal that ensures dominance of U.S. corporation (a nod to Wong's favorite line) and make sure Israel continues to exist. What difference does it make if he kills some people. After all, who are we to judge him.

The supposed UN, keeper of the peace.

As for NK, same deal, except don't even deal with them. Pull out American troops, and let their neighbors deal with them. The worst case scenario is an all out war, and let's face it, NK's neighbors have far more to lose if that happens. The U.S. is under no obligation to feed the NKs, if they need food, their neighbors could surely provide it. It would remove the expense of having troops stationed there, and with luck lower my tax dollars.

Lovely. South Korea gets nuked.

He's going to build bombs, gas, and use them to kill people

So what.... as long as it's not Americans, what difference does it make.

There is NOTHING wrong with Saddam buying weapons. As long as they're American weapons and they aren't turned against America by Saddam directly. That's why we need to lift sanctions. Heck, we need him to pay for it somehow. (it would be perfectly in line with Wong's America corporations first argument) And Saddam is sitting on a lot of oil money.

Besides, if the French and the Russians can profit from selling him weapons, why shouldn't the Americans. Although, a point should be made to the French somehow... but I'm sure the Bush administration can work an exclusive arms deal and fuck over the French arms dealers. Heck, if you think about it, who wouldn't want American arms. And what could be the harm, you don't see the Kurds launching terrorist attacks against the French becasue the Iraqis are using French equipment.

As for him gassing the Kurds, I hate to say this but... SO WHAT. People die every day, a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. And considering the gratitude the Americans has gotten lately from Europe, it's plain to see that Josef was right: "gratitude is indeed the disease of dogs" Look at it from the resource point of view, less people using up precious oxygen and water and other essential resources. It might sound callous, but it's true.

Ted wrote:

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:Saddam is complying?
You have swallowed a mighty big LIE my friend.
Read Blix's report.
He is complying just enouigh to make a show of it, and has NEVER been in COMPLETE compliance, Please stop propagating this blatent LIE!
Example. The missiles, whick he first claimed he didn't have, (lie, violation)
and then began to destroy, ONE AT A TIME, while not stopping PRODUCTION! Which by the way, he stopped destroying, and has started destroying again. This is theater at it's worst.
The resumption of too little, too late is seen as a triumph for diplomacy!
And production CONTINUES to this second!

You have no PROOF that missile production is continuing.

Yes, we do. We knew he was producing missiles, and we have yet to see proof that it has ended.

So, what do you do, believe out of his 'good word' that he has stopped, or take it with a grain of salt and assume that he is still continuing production.

Ted, you make some of the most inane anti-war arguments I have yet to see...

0.1 wrote:

He's going to build bombs, gas, and use them to kill people

So what.... as long as it's not Americans, what difference does it make.

There is NOTHING wrong with Saddam buying weapons. As long as they're American weapons and they aren't turned against America by Saddam directly. That's why we need to lift sanctions. Heck, we need him to pay for it somehow. (it would be perfectly in line with Wong's America corporations first argument) And Saddam is sitting on a lot of oil money.

Besides, if the French and the Russians can profit from selling him weapons, why shouldn't the Americans. Although, a point should be made to the French somehow... but I'm sure the Bush administration can work an exclusive arms deal and fuck over the French arms dealers. Heck, if you think about it, who wouldn't want American arms. And what could be the harm, you don't see the Kurds launching terrorist attacks against the French becasue the Iraqis are using French equipment.

As for him gassing the Kurds, I hate to say this but... SO WHAT. People die every day, a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. And considering the gratitude the Americans has gotten lately from Europe, it's plain to see that Josef was right: "gratitude is indeed the disease of dogs" Look at it from the resource point of view, less people using up precious oxygen and water and other essential resources. It might sound callous, but it's true.

WHAT THE FRELL HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?!

It is ALRIGHT for Saddam to use weapons on other countries or on his own people, as long as he doesn't point them at us.

You are one cold hearted SOB...

Plus, what are you going to do once he stockpiles all the weapons he buys and decides to start taking over the middle east? Rap him on the knuckles and say 'bad boy'?

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:

As for NK, same deal, except don't even deal with them. Pull out American troops, and let their neighbors deal with them. The worst case scenario is an all out war, and let's face it, NK's neighbors have far more to lose if that happens.

Lovely. South Korea gets nuked.

That'd be news to Rumpsfelt....

http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/stor ... outh+korea

There's a difference between removing troops and ignoring it completely.

NF_Utvol wrote:WHAT THE FRELL HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?!

Nothing more potent than whatever the US was smoking when it decided to support Iraq war with Iran. Iraqis killing Iranians wasn't seen as a problem that the US should even remotely try to stop.

Don't 'ya just hate it when 'realism' comes around to bite you in the ass?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for NK, same deal, except don't even deal with them. Pull out American troops, and let their neighbors deal with them. The worst case scenario is an all out war, and let's face it, NK's neighbors have far more to lose if that happens. The U.S. is under no obligation to feed the NKs, if they need food, their neighbors could surely provide it. It would remove the expense of having troops stationed there, and with luck lower my tax dollars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Lovely. South Korea gets nuked.

Not necessarily, they could always work out their differences. Come on, have a little faith in human nature, the SK president seem to want to do that anyway.

And if they do wipe each other out. Well, hey, it's too bad... but it's not America's job to be the world's policeman. And in the long run, SK would get the worst end of the deal anyway, not the Americans. I believe that's an argument that the anti-war group makes regularly, and I'm beginning to see the light based on a pure resources type point of view of course.

So in the end, so-called Hollywood liberals aren't so stupid after all. Their anti-war protests are actually grounded in very solid logic even if they never say anything about it. It's the Americans first logic.

Enlightenment wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:WHAT THE FRELL HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?!

Nothing more potent than whatever the US was smoking when it decided to support Iraq war with Iran. Iraqis killing Iranians wasn't seen as a problem that the US should even remotely try to stop.

Don't 'ya just hate it when 'realism' comes around to bite you in the ass?

It is called the lesser of two evils. At the time, it looked like the best decision to support the Iraqis, considering our past with the Iranians. Of course, it was a bad decision, now that we see the effects of it, but, what would it be like if Iran controlled Iraq now? Would it be any better? Would it be any worse?

You know what they say, 20/20 hindsight...

<edit: Fixed a typo>

So... if Saddam gasses Kurds, it's "so what, big deal, people die..."

But when the US is going to bomb the Iraqi Army it's "evil US genocide that must be stopped"?

Why didn't America step in back then? I dunno. The world changes; interests and policies and expectations change. Now Saddam has nukes, missiles that can threaten the neighbors, and signed a treaty specifically stating that he woudl disarm him WMDs.

I do find it odd that people that criticized the US for our past position on the Test Ban Treaty are now applying spin for Saddam Hussein's regime.

NF_Utvol wrote:It is called the lesser of two evils. At the time, it looked like the best decision to support the Iraqis, considering our past with the Iranians.

So in other words "It is ALRIGHT for Saddam [or anyone else] to use weapons on other countries or on his own people, as long as he doesn't point them at" people we like. Glad we cleared that up.

You've got a lot of nerve asking 0.1 what he's smoking given that you just argued in favor of the same position that what countries do to eachother is no concern of the United States

Plus, what are you going to do once he stockpiles all the weapons he buys and decides to start taking over the middle east? Rap him on the knuckles and say 'bad boy'?

No, it's simple, you make a deal with him, since America is the supplier, it'll always be in the superior position. So he'd have: F-15s, F-16s, M1A1s. The Americans would have F-22s, JSFsl, M1A2s.. point: don't pick a fight you can't win.

You are one cold hearted SOB...

Uh huh, Josef's little phrase: "disease is the gratitude of dogs" points to the fact that in the end, you are looking out for #1 first, foremost, and only. And there is NOTHING wrong with enlightened self-interest. The world would understand that at least as it would fall in line with what other countries would do to gain influence, power and money.

Besides, people don't want to be policed, and Americans aren't been asked by everyone else to do it. Ask any of the anti-war people here, and they will tell you that no one is asking the U.S. to be the world's cop, and it ain't America's job.

0.1 wrote:Ask any of the anti-war people here, and they will tell you that no one is asking the U.S. to be the world's cop, and it ain't America's job.

I have a hunch that a fair number of the anti-war types wouldn't mind America being the world's cop as opposed to the world's self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner.

0.1 wrote:point: don't pick a fight you can't win.

Uhh.. we can already win this fight.

Uh huh, Josef's little phrase: "disease is the gratitude of dogs"...

Josef Stalin is your moral compass?

The war expends resources needlessly. In fact, nothing works better than lifting the UN sanctions on Iraq, make it clear to him that America's interest is in the oil and make a deal. I'm sure he'd be happy to have support from a super power. As long as the U.S. make a deal that ensures dominance of U.S. corporation (a nod to Wong's favorite line) and make sure Israel continues to exist. What difference does it make if he kills some people. After all, who are we to judge him.

The war ensures our safety. Didn’t we cut a deal once before with Hussein and weren’t we rewarded with the invasion of an American ally? What makes you think he won’t accept our gifts in the same bad faith as Kim Jong-Il and then proceed to maintain funding Palestinian terrorists who in turn pass on his “generous gifts” to the al-Qaeda network? No. Far better to topple a known menace and then work on entrenching ourselves as allies of the new government. As for the slaughter of innocents, while I don’t condone American action on that basis alone, I daresay the man deserves to be stopped by the United Nations at least.

As for NK, same deal, except don't even deal with them. Pull out American troops, and let their neighbors deal with them. The worst case scenario is an all out war, and let's face it, NK's neighbors have far more to lose if that happens. The U.S. is under no obligation to feed the NKs, if they need food, their neighbors could surely provide it. It would remove the expense of having troops stationed there, and with luck lower my tax dollars.

Pulling our troops off the penninsular at this point would (A) decrease American influence in a key region of the globe, (B) decrease by far our political weight and influence with the Japanese, tarnishing forever our position as a worthwhile ally, and (C) provide Kim Jong-Il with a propaganda victory. While I support eventually redeploying our 37,000 young men and women to other points (such as Afghanistan, post-war Iraq, or the homefront), I do recognize the need for the current maintenance of a status-quo in the region. I feel George Bush’s current plan is working quite well: silent containment coupled with constant observation and continued defensive assistance for the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.

I admit, this is a change from my previous position on the subject of war, but from a pure resources point of view. It would work for the best, America doesn't need to spend resources. If a few wars break out, the second part of the equation (the consumers of resources) above gets reduced, and that's not a bad thing for Americans.

You mean if a “few wars break out” on their terms rather than our own? No. Fighting when they set the timetable and choose the location will be a far more costly affair even with United Nations assistance.

Bottom line, it is still a statistical improbability that your ordinary American would ever get gassed by a terrorist from the Middle East. At least it's far less likely that getting run over by a car. So, the anti-war guys have it right, although they haven't clarified that position exactly.

I’m not willing as an American citizen to take your risks or your odds.

So in other words "It is ALRIGHT for Saddam [or anyone else] to use weapons on other countries or on his own people, as long as he doesn't point them at" people we like. Glad we cleared that up.

In truth? Yes. So long as he doesn’t pose a threat to the United States or our allies – or didn’t -, we are – or were – happy. But now he has and we aren’t. Not that the liberation of Iraq (in order to form a democratic state) is a poor objective considering the benefits such a state provides for all concerned.

Uh huh, Josef's little phrase: "disease is the gratitude of dogs" points to the fact that in the end, you are looking out for #1 first, foremost, and only. And there is NOTHING wrong with enlightened self-interest. The world would understand that at least as it would fall in line with what other countries would do to gain influence, power and money.

Besides, people don't want to be policed, and Americans aren't been asked by everyone else to do it. Ask any of the anti-war people here, and they will tell you that no one is asking the U.S. to be the world's cop, and it ain't America's job.

The world is current divided over just the sort of self-interest you speak – although I agree with you analysis on that part in full.

As for the position of “global policemen?” Nobody wants it. Unfortunately, given the Saddam Husseins, Yasser Arafats, and Kim Jong-Ils of the world, it’s very necessary.

And moving back to Ted ...

You have no PROOF that missile production is continuing.

No, but we have suspicions - and in this case, that's enough. After all, he's got the infrastructure to build missiles with four times the thrust of the already-banned al-Samoud II missile. Why?

Don't you think that's silly though? Why would any country want to be the world's policemen... there isn't really anything in it for them. Not like the world is paying money directly to us for the services of being the world's cop

Josef Stalin is your moral compass?

who said anything about a moral compass, I'm looking at things logically without the clutter.

Enlightenment wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:It is called the lesser of two evils. At the time, it looked like the best decision to support the Iraqis, considering our past with the Iranians.

So in other words "It is ALRIGHT for Saddam [or anyone else] to use weapons on other countries or on his own people, as long as he doesn't point them at" people we like. Glad we cleared that up.

You've got a lot of nerve asking 0.1 what he's smoking given that you just argued in favor of the same position that what countries do to eachother is no concern of the United States

What the...

No, you are twisting my words incredibly. I said that we supported IRAQ because, at the time, it was in our best interest, as far as we could tell.

That is the complete opposite of what he was saying!