j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 who imposed the sanctions? the pope? "i think this year we'll do a lot better, instead of killing 160,000 people, we'll kill only ~40,000 (including the iraqi military)" it's really infortunate that your only perpective is how many people you ought to kill this year to attain your objectives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 who imposed the sanctions? the pope? "i think this year we'll do a lot better, instead of killing 160,000 people, we'll kill only ~40,000 (including the iraqi military)" it's really infortunate that your only perpective is how many people you ought to kill this year to attain your objectives. So you're pissed about the sanctions too? It doesn't make the least bit of difference to you that he could have easily avoided those sanctions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Well I guess that's as close as J_B can come to admiting the civilian casualties were indeed low for such a war. But notice how he starts a crazy attack on my person. Sad really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 yawn yawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Well I guess that's as close as J_B can come to admiting the civilian casualties were indeed low for such a war. But notice how he starts a crazy attack on my person. Sad really. You sound surprised. That's all that's happened with me since I started posting. Now they completely ignore the issues, since they know they can't defend them, and resort to 3rd grade banter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 yawn yawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 yawn yawn Sal! You're making me tired with this yawning. Who are you talking to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 the civilian casualties were indeed low for such a war. most of the casualties occurred during the inital drive over a 3 week period so i don't think that ~40000 people (military + civilians) is low. your trying to argue that "after all we only killed 40000" just shows the moral bankruptcy of your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 the civilian casualties were indeed low for such a war. most of the casualties occurred during the inital drive over a 3 week period so i don't think that ~40000 people (military + civilians) is low. your trying to argue that "after all we only killed 40000" just shows the moral bankruptcy of your position. So you think it would have been better to leave Saddam in power and allow far more people to die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 PP, where's the "crazy attack on (your) person?" Not that I agree with j_b (I rarely do). But I have noticed that you more than once have resorting to claiming that people personally attack you. And frankly I don't see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 the 160000 dead versus 40000 dead is your dirty conundrum, not mine. i was against sanctions as well as against this war. stop supporting dictators (saddam) and terrorists (bin laden) and they won't be able to stay in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 the 160000 dead versus 40000 dead is your dirty conundrum, not mine. i was against sanctions as well as against this war. stop supporting dictators (saddam) and terrorists (bin laden) and they won't be able to stay in power. Like Castro? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 the 160000 dead versus 40000 dead is your dirty conundrum, not mine. i was against sanctions as well as against this war. stop supporting dictators (saddam) and terrorists (bin laden) and they won't be able to stay in power. Like Castro? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 switch and bait Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 switch and bait I'm just countering your argument. You don't have anyplace to go with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 switch and bait I'm just countering your argument. You don't have anyplace to go with that? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancegranite Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Look, this is NOT the time to keep perpetuating the liberial/conservative thing. The enimies of this country are going to use the weakend state our nation is in right now to their best advantage. Blaming the trouble caused by the Americian war on anybody else is bullshit. As a nation, we all share the burden. The world just changed, we are in trouble. Stop blaming each other and start watching your corner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 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 run the country for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 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? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotterdamerung Posted May 12, 2004 Author Share Posted May 12, 2004 Look, this is NOT the time to keep perpetuating the liberial/conservative thing. The enimies of this country are going to use the weakend state our nation is in right now to their best advantage. Blaming the trouble caused by the Americian war on anybody else is bullshit. As a nation, we all share the burden. The world just changed, we are in trouble. Stop blaming each other and start watching your corner! I think Lance is right here. Watch your 6 and promote alternate energy sources. The best way to shut these guys down is to develop them, get the fuck oughtta the Middle East, fortify ourselves with better counter-intelligence assets, professional airport screening, border guards, cogent foreign policy. In 10 years we could remove the middle east from any equation by removing our dependency on oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 PP, where's the "crazy attack on (your) person?" Not that I agree with j_b (I rarely do). But I have noticed that you more than once have resorting to claiming that people personally attack you. And frankly I don't see it. I say that Jim and J_B continuously attack people usually by claiming some immoral motivation to their actions. I would note how J_B just a few posts ago was claiming how noble his motivations were. Here is what J_B wrote: "i think this year we'll do a lot better, instead of killing 160,000 people, we'll kill only ~40,000 (including the iraqi military)" it's really infortunate that your only perpective is how many people you ought to kill this year to attain your objectives. That my only perspective is on tallying up how many people I ought to kill to achieve my objectives - where is the support for this? Please show me. It is simply bullshit. Many times he has claimed that my motivations in supporting the Iraq war are simply economic - ie I want cheap oil. Not only am I willing to kill non Americans but he has claimed I am willing to send off the youngsters of America and get them killed for monetary benefits. I will donate $100 to the cause of your choice if you can find substantiation of that claim. You won't be able to. He is simply attacking the person. This I believe is contemptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 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? And let's be upfront about the ones we choose to deal with. There are lot's of petty dictators who kill there people, lot's of area's where genocide and mass murder are occuring. However Is it our job to be the world police and install democracies everywhere? (this just rings of cold war tactics to fight communism, and has just as many issues. It rare you can force to warring factions to get along. You can just supress the fighting. i.e. yugoslavia, prior to the dissolution of the soviet union. The fighting between the various factions had stopped but only under the threat of immediate execution of anyone involved. As soon as the Authoritarian communist government broke down it started up again, and has yet to really completely conclude. There are several examples of this. So you can't really enforce a democracy on an unstable area unless your willing to leave a standing military presence. You can remove the dictator but that's a temporary fix.) Also, if we are going to go after dictators because they're bad, we've got a whole list... 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. 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? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.