StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Enlightenment wrote:

You're acting all high and mighty and perfect because you're not American.

Enlightenment wrote: Not enough numbers to occupy the country.

Moron. You don't have to occupy the entire country. Just use
afghan allies and allied tribal leaders to kill the Taliban, while you take
care of the tricky concentrations.

Not enough bombs to drop and not enough planes to drop them. Not enough money to pay to keep everything running long enough to defeat the Taliban.

Our special forces don't even have the cash for desert camo uniforms for crying out loud.

Cancel that damn gun registration scheme, cut health care back by 25% and
you'd have more than enough money to keep 500 pounders raining down
into Trashcanistan...

Edi wrote:exclusively using sweeping generalisations is going to get you nowhere and just alienate everyone.

I haven't used any sweeping generalizations in this thread.

As for alienating people, most of the SD.net rabid wingnut crowd (e.g. MKS) don't seem to be able to read what's posted let alone consider any information that contradicts the party line as provided by Faux News and/or the Republican Party. These people aren't going to change their positions so there is no point in acting nice to them any more than there is a point in acting nice to creationists or flat earthers. If they don't accept the facts as presented then all they deserve is ridicule and I don't hesitate to dish it out.


Addition: this board isn't a gathering of friends in polite company. It's a collection of many people who deeply dislike eachother. The tone of the discussions here should be expected to reflect this.

No one wants a war to happen in their own back yard.

A reason why they dont want war is because of those self-same civilian casualties.

That is well known to logical thinkers, and intelligent people, which category, it seems, you do not fall into.

Except for those who are under a brutal dictatorships and die for not voting the bastard back in to office so he can continue fucking killing you and your family on his own time schedule.

There are some people in the world Ted, that would accept a little war to stop a fucking butcher from slowly wipping them out. Now I am sure that sitting up there in Canada, it is easy for you to say that NOBODY WANTS WAR. But I am quite certain that there are bunches of people, right now, in Iraq that are praying for America to show up before the Iraqi version of the SS comes a knocking at their door.

Nobody perfers violance as the first option, but some accept that sometimes it needs to be used.

Knife wrote:Except for those who are under a brutal dictatorships and die for not voting the bastard back in to office so he can continue fucking killing you and your family on his own time schedule.

AFIAK the only group that Saddam has made a habit of killing en masse are the kurds. They have their own quasi-state at the moment and aren't generally subject to genocide attempts.

Contrary to what Shrubby would like you to believe, Saddam isn't running death camps with the intention of killing people by the hundreds of thousands. Saddam is just a garden variety dictator, not a genocidal nut along the lines of Hitler or Stalin.

The 'hundreds of thousands' of dead figure that is floated around from time to time is largely due to starvation and illness caused in siginificant part due the destruction of water filtration plants during Gulf War II and due to American and British interferance in the oil-for-food program.

But I am quite certain that there are bunches of people, right now, in Iraq that are praying for America to show up before the Iraqi version of the SS comes a knocking at their door.

The number of Iraqis likely to get a visit from the sercret police in the next two weeks is very likely far smaller than the number of Iraqis killed by bad PGM hits and infrastructure destruction during the first two weeks of Gulf War III. From the perspective of an Iraqi civilian, the devil you do know (Saddam) is far better than the devil you don't (the percentage of US bombs that miss, plus however many people die due to loss of civil infrastructure).

Enlightenment wrote: As for alienating people, most of the SD.net rabid wingnut crowd (e.g. MKS) don't seem to be able to read what's posted let alone consider any information that contradicts the party line as provided by Faux News and/or the Republican Party.

Once again, Dimbulb, Aka unenlightened, aka enlightened, makes
a SWEEPING generalization, like the ignorant fucktard he is.

Enlightenment wrote: As for alienating people, most of the SD.net rabid wingnut crowd (e.g. MKS) don't seem to be able to read what's posted let alone consider any information that contradicts the party line as provided by Faux News and/or the Republican Party.

MKSheppard wrote:Once again, Dimbulb, Aka unenlightened, aka enlightened, makes a SWEEPING generalization, like the ignorant fucktard he is.

A sweeping generalization would not have included the qualifiers 'most' or 'seem.' See what I mean about some people around here not being able to read what's posted?

AFIAK the only group that Saddam has made a habit of killing en masse are the kurds. They have their own quasi-state at the moment and aren't generally subject to genocide attempts.

Plus those who did not vote for him, add onto that those who have spoken out against him, on top of those who oppose him, and don't forget those who did not tell him what he wanted to know.

Contrary to what Shrubby would like you to believe, Saddam isn't running death camps with the intention of killing people by the hundreds of thousands. Saddam is just a garden variety dictator, not a genocidal nut along the lines of Hitler or Stalin.

No, he appearently likes to kill them one at a time so it is personal. It is so much more fun to chop your head off and send it back to your wife than to mass execute a couple hundred people. And with out the "no fly zones", he would be on the par of Hitler and Stalin, we have just denied him the oppertunity.

The 'hundreds of thousands' of dead figure that is floated around from time to time is largely due to starvation and illness caused in siginificant part due the destruction of water filtration plants during Gulf War II and due to American and British interferance in the oil-for-food program

Figures that you would subscribe to the 'America is responsible for the dead and starving due to the sanctions against Iraq' while it never accures to you and your ilk, that Saddam is the one making the sanctions contiue by not coming into complience if not openly violating with the cease fire and following resolutions.

The number of Iraqis likely to get a visit from the sercret police in the next two weeks is very likely far smaller than the number of Iraqis killed by bad PGM hits and infrastructure destruction during the first two weeks of Gulf War III. From the perspective of an Iraqi civilian, the devil you do know (Saddam) is far better than the devil you don't (the percentage of US bombs that miss, plus however many people die due to loss of civil infrastructure).

True, I am sure that the Iraqi internal security forces are consetrating on their military and civilian command structure at this point, to make sure they are loyal. That or the scientists that Blix is trying to interview, bet its a nice repreve for the rank and file civilian. But you are right about the devil you know, they have heard all sorts of bullshit about us and I am sure that alot of them believe it, like you, I think that alot of Iraqi's think we are going to take over from Saddam and contiue on with what they are used to. They got a pleasent supprise coming.

Enlightenment wrote:

Edi wrote:exclusively using sweeping generalisations is going to get you nowhere and just alienate everyone.

I haven't used any sweeping generalizations in this thread.

Not in direct words, but your comments on friendly fire by American troops on their allies gave the impression that it is something they do intentionally or do not care about in the least. If you'd been in the military, you'd know better. And while we agree that the handling of the aftermath of such accidents has often been less than exemplary, it does not change the fact that the impression you gave here was very generalized and entirely inaccurate. I could not have read your posts so badly wrong.

Enlightenment wrote:As for alienating people, most of the SD.net rabid wingnut crowd (e.g. MKS) don't seem to be able to read what's posted let alone consider any information that contradicts the party line as provided by Faux News and/or the Republican Party. These people aren't going to change their positions so there is no point in acting nice to them any more than there is a point in acting nice to creationists or flat earthers. If they don't accept the facts as presented then all they deserve is ridicule and I don't hesitate to dish it out.

Some of them, Shep especially, have a remarkable gift for missing the obvious if it doesn't agree with their preconceptions, but you're often no different with regard to things that run counter to your views, and you also deserve equal ridicule when you do that.

Enlightenment wrote:Addition: this board isn't a gathering of friends in polite company. It's a collection of many people who deeply dislike eachother. The tone of the discussions here should be expected to reflect this.

I haven't been living under a rock, completely ignorant of the goings on of this board since I registered, so you can drop the patronizing tone. I expect there to be spectacular fireworks when stuff like this comes up, but that doesn't preclude polite conversation except when it's people like you, Shep, Ted and occasionally some others who are involved. I've had my run-ins with some of the people here who vehemently disagree with me, but for the most part it's stayed civil, the notable exceptions being my exchanges with the Duchess and Emperor Chrostas.

Edi

Knife wrote:Plus those who did not vote for him, add onto that those who have spoken out against him, on top of those who oppose him, and don't forget those who did not tell him what he wanted to know.

Sorry, but this is an utterly tiny death rate when compared to the wholesale slaughters conducted by the likes of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin. Saddam is--at most--killing thousands of people a year. He doesn't run production death camps killing hundreds of thousands monthly.

There is absolutely no doubt that Iraq's human rights record is awful but by no stretch of the imagination is Iraq running a genocide program 'processing' trainloads of undesirables weekly.

Figures that you would subscribe to the 'America is responsible for the dead and starving due to the sanctions against Iraq' while it never accures to you and your ilk, that Saddam is the one making the sanctions contiue by not coming into complience if not openly violating with the cease fire and following resolutions.

Ilk? Since I have not expressed my full position here you have utterly no idea which 'ilk' I might belong to.

The entire point of the oil for food program is to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for supplies (cheifly food) necessary to keep its civilian population alive. Who or what remains in control of the Iraqi state is not relevant to how the program should be administered. The fact, however, remains that the US and UK have deliberately blocked Iraqi (purchase) orders for food and medicine. General economic sanctions remain because Saddam is still in power but a substantial portion of the blame for the malnourishment of the Iraqi population can and must be placed at the feet of the Americans and the British.

True, I am sure that the Iraqi internal security forces are consetrating on their military and civilian command structure at this point, to make sure they are loyal. That or the scientists that Blix is trying to interview, bet its a nice repreve for the rank and file civilian.

Again, Iraq is not run by a genocidal regime. They're not marching people out of their homes by the thousands with intention of killing them. As a percentage of the total population, the number of people killed by the secret police is trivial.

They got a pleasent supprise coming.

I'm sure Pinochet was a pleasent surprise for the Chileans. Similarly, I'm sure the US-backed Indonesian invasion of East Timor was a pleasent surprise for the Timorese. Not to mention the Shah being a pleasent surprise for the Iranians.

Simply put, the US cannot be trusted not to install a strongman who will give more importance to US dictates than to the welfare of his population.

Enlightenment, have you ever happened to talk to Iraqis, whether expatriate or not? I've spoken to one expatriate who had to flee Iraq 30 years ago, and who has made a life in Britain, and who isn't one of these people who would get to divvy up the spoils after Saddam is gone if the power is given to the expatriate Iraqi opposition. The stories he told were chilling. Saddam is hardly a garden variety dictator, or if he is, he's one of the most virulent type then. Knife has you completely beaten here, just bow out while you still can.

Edi

Edi wrote:Saddam is hardly a garden variety dictator, or if he is, he's one of the most virulent type then. Knife has you completely beaten here, just bow out while you still can.

Edi

Oh hell yes, When the Iraqi National Soccer team lost a match, Saddam
had them thrown into a jail cell in the basement of the secret police HQ and
had them forced to kick a CONCRETE soccer ball around...

He first became known as the "Butcher of Baghdad" when he had his
entire Uncle's family offed when he became Dictator of Iraq.

On second thought, Enlightenment, fuck you. Keep pushing your head deeper into the sand, I won't bother even trying to cover for you anymore. You can shove all that self-righteous bullshit about right back up your ass, your comments that the deaths of Iraqi citizens perpetrated by Saddam's regime are trivial just took away all of your credibility. He's killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, and would have killed more if he had not been prevented from doing so in the north and south for the past 12 years, and how many has he killed during his reign? That number is not trivial, and what if he were to stay in power another 20 or 25 years? How many?

Go fuck yourself!

Edi

Edi wrote:On second thought, Enlightenment, fuck you. Keep pushing your head deeper into the sand, I won't bother even trying to cover for you anymore. You can shove all that self-righteous bullshit about right back up your ass, your comments that the deaths of Iraqi citizens perpetrated by Saddam's regime are trivial just took away all of your credibility. He's killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, and would have killed more if he had not been prevented from doing so in the north and south for the past 12 years, and how many has he killed during his reign? That number is not trivial, and what if he were to stay in power another 20 or 25 years? How many?

Go fuck yourself!

Edi

Enlightenment doesn't seem to think much of the value of Muslim life. I and most others around here think the Muslim religion is basically worthless, but he goes far beyond that.

Edi wrote:The stories he told were chilling. Saddam is hardly a garden variety dictator, or if he is, he's one of the most virulent type then.

The stories which have reached the public media haven't been worse than what I've heard about what things were like behind the old iron curtain or in the various Central American, South American and African hellholes. Saddam's Iraq is certainly no worse than RUF-controlled Sierra Leon, for instance. There are a lot of good reasons to get rid of Saddam but fabricating a 'moral' argument on the invented justification that he is engaging in genocide is no different from the 'Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators?' propaganda thrown around just before Gulf War II.

Saddam is a nutcase but he's no Pol Pot.

Darth Wong wrote:Enlightenment doesn't seem to think much of the value of Muslim life.

There isn't a racial component here. I don't place much value on human life in general, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. There's over six billion humans wondering around and by no means are all of us necessary.

Even 25,000 dead at the hands of Saddam's security aparatus over the course of 30 years is well below the number of people killed annually in road accidents in the western world. The losses, while tragic to the families of the victims are statistically insignificant in the broader scheme of things. It's just not possible to save everyone.

And thereofre you shouldn't even try to help those who would need it?

Edi wrote:And thereofre you shouldn't even try to help those who would need it?

Don't even bother replying to unenlightened. Let him hoist himself by
his own petard.

Edi wrote:And thereofre you shouldn't even try to help those who would need it?

If you (the generic 'you') want to save lives in absolute terms, many more people die from preventable causes on a regular basis than die at the hands of Saddam's secret police. It's very bad luck to be an Iraqi but risking an inordinate number of lives--possibly into the tens of millions--by invading Iraq just to save even 250,000 people is a false economy. Do something about smoking or find a cure for cancer and you'll save a hell of a lot more people at a much lower risk of killing more people in the effort.

If all you're interested in is saving lives, there's simply no humanitarian reason to invade Iraq.

Enlightenment wrote:There isn't a racial component here. I don't place much value on human life in general, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background. There's over six billion humans wondering around and by no means are all of us necessary.

That doesn't mean we dismiss large-scale massacres as trivial.

Even 25,000 dead at the hands of Saddam's security aparatus over the course of 30 years is well below the number of people killed annually in road accidents in the western world. The losses, while tragic to the families of the victims are statistically insignificant in the broader scheme of things. It's just not possible to save everyone.

That number is much too small to account for the number of people dead because of him. I'm not a warmonger by any means, and I share your cynicism over the fact that "moral intervention" applies in Iraq but not myriad other countries with similar or worse problems (or for that matter, even in Iraq itself in the past, when the US was supporting it), but that doesn't mean we can turn a blind eye to it.

"Even 25,000 dead at the hands of Saddam's security aparatus over the course of 30 years is well below the number of people killed annually in road accidents in the western world. The losses, while tragic to the families of the victims are statistically insignificant in the broader scheme of things. It's just not possible to save everyone."

There is no comparison between car accidents and mass murder. Car Accident are indivduals taking their lives in there own hand, and this is there choice and risk. In Saddams case, he is forcing death upon them, one man is making the choice for many. Not the samething.



Lets WWII.........

20-25% of US losses in Europe were taken by friendly fire. Usually due to British Artillary. War happens, and it is a sad but true fact.

Here you are complaining about the US accidently killing allied forgien soilders................but mass murder is no big deal. Please explain?

Sam Or I wrote:Here you are complaining about the US accidently killing allied forgien soilders................but mass murder is no big deal. Please explain?

Don't worry. Unenlightened lives in his own fantasy dream world, along
with Deimos Anomaly...

anarchistbunny wrote:First of all, what fantasy world do you live in, ALL WARS HAVE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES! ALL! War isn't some pretty little thing like you see in the movies, people die.
Second, alot of those will be because Saddams using them like friggin' human shields.

Now I'm totally indifferent to wheter there is a war or not, but it's pretty frickin' clear that the people living there will not appreciate being shot at and killed, even if they dislike living under Saddam's rule.

Thirdfain wrote:Yeah, the French were REALLY pissed when Allied troops marched through Paris, and you should have seen how horrified southern slaves were as the Union armies forced Confederate capitulation....

I think thats rather a bad anaology, you could certainly do better.