Abu Gharaib is Little League

[Martlet]

Let's answer one question at a time. You can't just dodge the ones you don't like.

 

everybody can read and see that this is exactly what you have been doing

 

He specifically said if we don't support dictators or terrorists, they won't stay in power.

 

Castro is still in power as far as I know. What happened to his logic?

 

castro is still in power for the same reason that saddam remained in power during the sanction years. they were able to consolidate their grip during sanction/embargo years because lack of goods allowed them to control who got what. instead of pushing these countries to be open to outside influence via business, travel, media and whatnot, and eventually develop democratic constituencies, we gave them further opportunity to crack down on all forms of opposition. cuba makes all of this abundantly clear.

 

So how do you have free trade with a country and not support it?

[sal]

So how do you have free trade with a country and not support it?

 

blah blah blah

yawn yawn yawn

[j_b]

pp, the following quote is yours.

 

Have you no shame! In 1991 the Iraq news agency claimed that 1.6 million Iraqis died because of the sanctions. That’s 160,000 per year. 41% of these were children. During the first year of the war you claim a bit over 10,000 casualties.

 

PP

 

the obvious implication of your post is that we either kill 160,000 per year through sanctions or 10,000 (40,000 including military) through war (up to now). you did not mention any possibility but killing people to reach your objectives, no rethinking of bankrupt policies, in fact you are telling me i should be ashamed of myself for not condoning your imperial venture. am i supposed to say "good job pp"?

[Martlet]

I don't think anyone will disagree with you that Dictators are bad Martlet, Castro, Saddam, whoever. The question is what mechanism should we use to deal with them?

 

That was my question

 

However

 

Is it our job to be the world police and install democracies everywhere?

 

Nope

 

It's a little insulting to the intelligence of the country to say that were going after Sadam because he's a bad guy (not enough, there are lots of those) and because he has WMD (which, while it was believed he did in the past, inspections right up to the start of the war said, we haven't found anything), and because he's a supporter of Al Qaida (again, kind of been shot down). If were going to go in, at least lets be honest and say were going in because he pissed us off with his posturing and we'd like to establish a foothold. That's a least honest.

 

I disagree.

 

It also bothers me that we didn't wait for an international consesus and support and took unilateral action when they weren't a dire and imminent threat to our safety. What really makes this all interesting is that the war plan was initiated almost immediately after Bush took office. The intent to invade Iraq was pre 9-11, (and hence prior to the war on terror) prior to the scuttlebut about uranium purchasing. The decision was made before any of this had come to light. So tell me if he was a big enough threat to plan for war in Winter 2000, why did we wait til mid 2003 to actually invade?

 

We waited 12 years. With people that make the decisions profitting from UN sanctions and extending the waiting, do you think the UN would have EVER ok'd it?

 

Preparing a game plan for possible threats is military leadership 101. Preparing a scenario doesn't necessarily imply intent to invade. Even following your argument and assuming it does, we just ran out of time. Terrorism was always "something to look out for" not "oh shit it's here". Once the game changed, things began moving quicker.

 

So.... if we don't support dictators, they persist, if we remove them, we only remove a symptom of the underlying socio-political issues in the region. If were going to remove let's be honest about why.

 

I think we hae been.

[sal]

I think we hae been.

 

BLAH BLAH ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[minx]

oh my! for shame! i believe that martlet has committed the sin of "spelling error" he obviously does not possess the wirlwind/muffy exemption. based on my platform as moderator, i think he should be banned. who's with me???

[Peter_Puget]

Again you are simply incorrect. My post neither supported neither the war or sanctions. What it did show was the estimates of the number of civilians killed by two different kinds of interventions. The simple and true fact is that 10k+ in civilians killed is extremely low for such a military action. Your rejoinder was simply not supported by the facts but did serve your purpose of showing all those who disagree with you as morally bankrupt.

 

PP

[Martlet]

oh my! for shame! i believe that martlet has committed the sin of "spelling error" he obviously does not possess the wirlwind/muffy exemption. based on my platform as moderator, i think he should be banned. who's with me???

 

Hey minxie, you forgot to hit the <shift> key.

[sal]

oh my! for shame! i believe that martlet has committed the sin of "spelling error" he obviously does not possess the wirlwind/muffy exemption. based on my platform as moderator, i think he should be banned. who's with me???

 

yadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawnyadayawn

 

Hey minxie, you forgot to hit the <shift> key.

[j_b]

Again you are simply incorrect. My post neither supported neither the war or sanctions.

 

i just don't believe you. you have expressed 99.9999% support for this administration policies toward iraq in countless posts on this board. and now you would only mention facts because you think they are 'interesting'? you posted a link to a piece that says that "the collateral damage is low" and everything is 'going great', and it's just for informational purpose? not very convincing.

 

What it did show was the estimates of the number of civilians killed by two different kinds of interventions. The simple and true fact is that 10k+ in civilians killed is extremely low for such a military action.

 

40,000 people killed in 3 weeks is low?

 

and again you persist in mentioning only the types of interventions that will result in people dying in great numbers.

 

Your rejoinder was simply not supported by the facts but did serve your purpose of showing all those who disagree with you as morally bankrupt.

 

no. what is morally bankrupt is to suggest that the only possibilities were to either kill through sanctions or kill through war.

[Martlet]

no. what is morally bankrupt is to suggest that the only possibilities were to either kill through sanctions or kill through war.

 

What would you suggest, I'll ask for the third time?

[selkirk]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

It's a little insulting to the intelligence of the country to say that were going after Sadam because he's a bad guy (not enough, there are lots of those) and because he has WMD (which, while it was believed he did in the past, inspections right up to the start of the war said, we haven't found anything), and because he's a supporter of Al Qaida (again, kind of been shot down). If were going to go in, at least lets be honest and say were going in because he pissed us off with his posturing and we'd like to establish a foothold. That's a least honest.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I disagree.

 

 

If your going to disagree at least be clear why. Otherwise it's just a personal opinion and those really don't count for much in convincing anyone.

 

We've also rather established that while Sadam was a bad dude, he wasn't a terrorist, he wasn't hatching plots to get us, and wasn't involved in the ones that did? So remind me again how terrorism applies to the War in Iraq? Other than in Bush's overly broad "war on terrorism?" So remind me why again we ran out of time and were forced to invade a country that wasn't a threat?

 

Also, as I understand it the war planning was never a contingency, it wasn't let's get ready in case we need to.... it was how do we go in and justify it? Take a look at Paul O' Neils statements about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

 

so.. back to square one.... Why did we go in again? Oh that's right, we thought they were a terrorist threat. How many terrorist do you think we've killed in Iraq? How many suicide bombers do you think we've created in the surrounding countries. And as Israel has learned, suicide bombers area also awfully difficult to prevent.

 

Also, what will we have really changed? Unless we leave a permenant millitary force in control there, do you really think we'll be able to supress civil war and another dictatorship? Take a look at all the the governments that were enforced in central africa and Yugoslavia. As soon as the military power enforcing peace left it evolved back into civil war and tribal bloodshed. Do you honestly think Iraq is any different?

 

And finally, aren't we playing into the Terrorist manifesto's plan? By becoming a hostile power were loosing the support of our allies around the world. By cracking down in Iraq, were becoming progressively less "liberator" and progressively more "Oppressor". By cracking down in this country by increasing the surveillance of our population through use of the patriot act (which I know just allows the use of the same tactics we've used in the drug war, phone taps, surveillance etc to be applied to terrorism, however it lacks the critical oversight to keep it in check and prevent abuse of it by well meaning but overzealous prosecutors) our government is alienating us. The democrats and moonbats are worried about the government infringing on our civil rights. and I have friends who used to be moderate republicans who feel so betrayed and threatened that they've shifted further right and are now libertarians, and are bandying talk about civil war and bringing down the government in order to replace it with a democracy more to their liking. If you look at the fundamental tenents of terrorist groups, this is what they hope to accomplish. Make the government so oppressive, so akin to 1984's big brother that the populace itself revolts.

 

So remind me again what were accomplishing?

[JoshK]

The one thing I haven't seen anybody ask is why the hell anybody should believe figures from the Iraqi news agency in the first place????

[Peter_Puget]

My goal was not to compare various death rates of different options but provide a context for the civilian casualties in the first year of war. I did. That another method of intervention might have had greater effectiveness and cause lower casualties is irrelevant. You were claiming that the civilian death rate for the Iraqi war was not low. Here is what you wrote:

 

>10000 iraqi civilians murdered over the last year is minor? it's when one reads things like this (and the rest of the drivel in that "good short read"), that the extent of deceit becomes obvious

 

I notice now you have changed your reference number to include military personnel. (ie the change from 10k to 40k- both numbers you provided). Since we are discussing “collateral” damage why did it suddenly change? Perhaps you are confused. Perhaps it is deliberate. Either way I will assume your ultimate motivations are good.

 

Joshk -

 

I agree but J-B accepted them!

 

PP

[mothboy88]

Let's talk about Castro. Keeping Cuba poor and isolated is an old and stupid idea that was fostered by the likes of Jesse Helms. Of course, our boy-president has called on Helms' peers like Rumsfeld and Cheney to help run the country for him.

 

Let's answer one question at a time. You can't just dodge the ones you don't like. He specifically said if we don't support dictators or terrorists, they won't stay in power.

 

Castro is still in power as far as I know. What happened to his logic?

 

I would argue that we have been supporting Castro by allowing Cuban imigrants to send money back to their families ($100 million per article below.) Often the same people who were lobbying for sanctions against the country were at the same time sending money home (I guess its OK to engender economic hardship to force change... unless its your family). It looks as though Bush is trying to crack down on this by limiting the amounts of money to be transferred. I am not very impressed with the effectiveness of sanctions, but it seems as though we should either cut them off or we should open up markets to them. I think the half-ass approach is contributing to the stagnation.

 

 

Sending money back to Cuba Link

 

Bush's attempt to restrict sending money back Link Here

[Martlet]

So how do you propose to put a stop to that? Essentially you've proven my point. His proposal is just more whitewashing. It won't work, as has been shown.

[mothboy88]

I agree. I think he would prefer to cancel all ability to send money (if that was possible) but it probably wouldn't paly well politically, especially for Jeb.

 

I don't know if there is a way to stop families from sending money back. I guess they would have to be convinced to be more loyal to the ideaology of sanctions than to their families. And I think that goes against human nature.

 

Geography also plays a part. We would have much less of a problem re: families sending money if we tried to cutoff Macedonia instead of Cuba.

 

 

I don't propose a good way to stop supporting Cuba. There are always going to be loopholes. When resources are tight, the bastards who we are trying to get rid of are going to be the last to feel the effect. Too bad the Bay of Pigs was such a disaster.

[marylou]

oh my! for shame! i believe that martlet has committed the sin of "spelling error" he obviously does not possess the wirlwind/muffy exemption. based on my platform as moderator, i think he should be banned. who's with me???

 

In my classic syNcophantic style, I must say that you are onto a fine idea here, lass!

[Martlet]

The seldom elusive and often laughed at liberal moonbat rears it's ugly head.

[willstrickland]

Here's an honest question for you on Cuba:

 

We trade with China, they are communist. We got rid of sanctions on Vietnam, who are communist. We posture that we have sanctions on Cuba because...they are communist. WTF?

 

In reality, nobody is willing to say "Ok Castro, we tried to get rid of your ass, and we still think you're bad for your country, but we're not going to punish the cuban people any longer because when the USSR fell, you were rendered a non-threat to us". It's ridiculous. I put 50:1 odds that we will remove sanctions as soon as Castro kicks off. It's all grudge that we fucked up trying to eliminate him and he mocks us from a stone's throw away.

 

Personally, I'd love to vacation in Cuba...good cigars, awesome baseball, great music and food.

[j_b]

The one thing I haven't seen anybody ask is why the hell anybody should believe figures from the Iraqi news agency in the first place????

 

there are numerous sources which place the number to >500,000 over the period of sanctions. as far as i am concerned, the exact number is not very important for the purpose of this 'discussion'. what really matters is noting the grim calculus performed by pp and his fellow neocons: "we only killed ~40,000 individuals which is a lot less than *another large number* we'd have killed through sanctions, so we did good"

[Martlet]

The one thing I haven't seen anybody ask is why the hell anybody should believe figures from the Iraqi news agency in the first place????

 

there are numerous sources which place the number to >500,000. as far as i am concerned, the exact number is not very important for the purpose of this 'discussion'. what really matters is noting the grim calculus performed by pp and his fellow neocons: "we only killed ~40,000 individuals which is a lot less than *another large number* we'd have killed through sanctions, so we did good"

 

Here's the 4th time this has been asked:

 

You've done a lot of criticizing, care to offer a solution?

[selkirk]

No Retort for me Martlet?

[j_b]

Here's the 4th time this has been asked:

 

You've done a lot of criticizing, care to offer a solution?

 

how unfair that i am criticizing the murderous policies conservatives have supported for decades ...

 

i have offered solutions: stop supporting dictators and terrorists because it is advantageous to us. neither the sanctions, nor this war, nor arming saddam (and helping him grab power), nor providing him with the technology to produce wmd, etc ... were necessary. some chose to do so even though the same criticisms were made 20 years ago as they are now, then they turn around and tell us it is justified to kill great number of innocent people because we have facilitated a monstrosity. sorry pal, it doesn't fly to present people with no alternatives when they clearly exist(ed).

[Peter_Puget]

Marlet - Do you really expect answer? Notice how he speaks of deceptions but when asked this - I notice now you have changed your reference number to include military personnel. (ie the change from 10k to 40k- both numbers you provided). Since we are discussing “collateral” damage why did it suddenly change? - he was silent.

 

PP