to go along with that analogy, if the doc has to amputate a limb to save a person, the doc should do it. Is war a good way generally for international problems? (Is amputation generally a good medical practice?) No, but to get rid of Saddam or his wmd or his repression of the Iraqi people, War is the ONLY way. And don't ever talk about "violence" without thinking of the daily violence under which the Iraqis are suffering.
it does...that's an email address i don't check real frequently, though...still have my business email address in your outlook history??
No, I don't, dammit. My out box decided to become a shield for the trash can, and it all got mucked up. Just send a quick e-mail to blake@corp.swirve.com if you don't mind.
So let me get this strait,ur resolving violence with violence. There's a French expression that says "violence fathers violence",I guess it's verified with u... ALA
That proposition is completely wrong. omg, where to begin.... There are going to be violent criminals in every society, including the international community. A policing force given permission to use violence would have to use violence to subdue the criminal and protect the innocent. The violence the police use to kill your kidnapper wouldn't beget any new violence. The violence of the firing squad or electric chair doesn't beget violence. France no longer execute criminals now, but jailbirds are still constantly remined of the violence of electric fences and shotguns in the hands fo the guards. Internationally, when you have to use violence to eradicate tyranny, you do it. If the Americans believed that "violence fathers violence", and refrained from the bloody and violent landing of Normandy, we would be talking about the Gesundheit des Fuehrers just about now.
I know that many in the anti-war camp believe there were different ways of liberating those cities, or perhaps different ways and a different timetable on liberating them with force even. So actually they can support the liberation of Iraqi cities, and protest this particular war policy all they want, and still be consistent. Cohen, As for proetesting the brutality of the regime for years prior to this, you may have a point. I wasn't trying to argue the merits of the protest, but the dishonesty in the journalism, or wherever the captions on those pictures came from. I do wish people would have protested Iraq from way back. Instead after Iraq used chem weapons on it's own people, the Bush administration chose to send billions of dollars in aid to Saddam. Perhaps protesting at that time would have stopped those kinds of acts, and Hussein might have been gone sooner.
Not surprisingly you can't discern the real point. Let me spell it out for you (although you are still unlikely to understand). I like dissent. dissent is what makes this country great. Dissent is part of every Supreme Court decision even. But if you are advocating not showing support to those who are laying their ass on the line and would have them come home to the same reception the Vietnam vets received, then you are some kind of sick person. Your point is laughable. Actually it would be laughable if you didn't mean it. Since you do, it's actually sad and pathetic. So now it is PC to ask people to show support to those who are putting their lives on the line. You really have a lot to learn.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what other ways are there to liberate Iraq? I've yet to hear a realistic alternative.
Well, sign me up for "sad and pathetic." I honestly support the troops and I think about them every single hour of every day. How could I not? But if you can back away from the emotion, consider what "politically correct" means for a moment. It means, in essence, any point with which you are not allowed to disagree in your society. If you disagree, a certain political cost (ostracization) will be enacted. Here are some examples. Can't say some races are smarter than others. .... check. Can't demean women as objects. ... check. (well, depends on the TV channel, sadly) Can't say you don't support the troops. ... check. These are typically good things, in my book. By bashing swopa for pointing out something that's politically correct, you only bolster swopa's point, sad to say. By the way, Ref, I've never seen swopa name-called before, and I don't think it was called for in this thread. Just my take.
Seriously though, treeman, how can we liberate the Iraqi cities though? What if Saddam, or whoever is in charge, is just determined to fight us in Baghdad one block at a time? It now seems clear to me that we have to actually kill a lot of Iraqi soldiers, perhaps the majority of the Republican Guard, somewhere? Preferablly they would be killed in the open, on the road. But that would also raise the image of the "highway of death" and all sorts of international idiotic anti-American sentiments. Just some of my worries.
I specifically did not advocate that, as you acknowledged in your previous response. Lying about what I said now shows how bankrupt your argument has become. Yes it is, and people like you should be ashamed for making it PC. Because you're afraid to discuss the government's dishonesty and ineptitude, you hide behind "supporting the troops," using it as a loyalty oath to stifle dissent. Our troops deserve better than that. If they're fighting for democracy overseas, we shouldn't betray them by adopting a police-state mentality at home. So take your would-be loyalty oath and shove it where Total Information Awareness won't find it.
You probably don't think any solution other than war is realistic. I'm not knocking you, but since you support war, I'm guessing you believe it's reached the point of last option. The ideas I've heard floated was giving the inspectors the time table they were going to submit. Provide them with intelligence to help find the WMD. Once that was done, the whole world would be unified in favor of getting rid of Saddam. Given that kind of legit pressure, he would probably have even less support at home than he has now, and without WMD, and inspectors all over his country, brutality would be reported, and without brutality, Iraqis may liberate themselves, or brutality would again bring a unified international response, which is more powerful, than the current coalition, many of whose members are involved in moral support only. So even if it did come down to military action in the end, it would be done with worldwide support, which might be even more effective than the way it came down in the end now.
I was antiwar because the argument before the war was about national security and weapons of mass destruction. I still don't believe Sadam is a threat to America. Now pro-war people are changing the argument to liberating Iraq from Sadam's tyranny. Policing the world is against America's current foreign policy. The American people was against going into Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda and many republicans used Somalia against Clinton, but now they seem to use the same argument to be pro-war against Iraq. I am fine with going into Iraq to cut Sadam's nuts off, he totally deserves it. However, when something like Rwanda comes up again where 1 million people die in 3 months from knives and clubs, America needs to come up to the plate and do something about it.
It was a monumental mistake not to intervene in Rwanda (and UN was the primary one with blood on its hands). But if we don't go and finish the job this time in Iraq, do you think the chances would increase for future missions like Rwanda? Bush could be in this for oil or what ever, but other Americans and people all over the world could find reasons to support this war. Least of which is the freedom and human rights of the Iraqi people.
I wasn't really directing the comment at you; more of just a discussion. I can understand anti-war, I just cannot understand how those people cannot speak-out against saddam's brutality with just as loud a voice. I think it substantially diminishes their argument.
