LOL.
The point I´m trying to make is that after decades of diplomatic run-arounds, nothing in Iraq changed. Don´t make war? Ok, but what´s your alternative? How are you going to stop the torture, famine, disease etc.?
the problem with politicians is that they are good at politics, but not much else. There is very little imagination in the world today as far as dealing with complex problems. The simplest solutions are the ones we jump to - bomb, sanctions, etc. There is next to no elegance in what blairbush did, and although it “worked” i think that the whole thing has been muddled for the last 12 years, and better solutions have not been applied that may have worked better.
I´m not pro-war per se, but I didn´t see an alternative. A lot of people argued that embargos and what not didn´t have a chnce to make an impact. But they did. They hurt the civilians. Saddam wasn´t hurt by them. And the civilians didn´t get their forces together to overthrow him.
Sure, civilians died in the war. It was unavoidable. But how many died as a result of the war and how many would have died anyway due to hunger, treatable diseases, torture etc.? I realize this is coldhearted numbers-crunching, but that´s where it ends for me.
and how many died as a result of Saddam’s reprisals against western funded organizations blah blah blah.
And we caused the hunger, we set up a despot to torture these people, and we forbade this country simple medicines because of our hubris or because they contained life-saving nitrates.
As far as name-calling … You may be insulted by being called “pro-torture”, but how do you feel about calling someone “ignorant, rude, hateful”? Don´t assume I´ve had too little sleep, I´ll just assume that you´re drunk. :wink:
ug again. I didn’t call you that. I said that your statement might be read as that if interpreted in a bad light.
Embargo!
Are you including the brilliant UN ‘Oil for Food’ program? Or as Gen. Franks referred to it, “Oil for Palaces…”
And the UN allowed such shenanigans to continue for 12 years and 17 resolutions, which they didn’t enforce.
When the US was willing to wait for the UK to work out an eighteenth resolution, France said it would veto any resolution pertaining to military action against Iraq(though that is exactly what UN Rersolution 1441 refers to - without specifics - which are not required as far as I have read in the UN resolutions.)
OK, so who needs a resolution?
@Xi:
Embargo!
Are you including the brilliant UN ‘Oil for Food’ program? Or as Gen. Franks referred to it, “Oil for Palaces…”
And the UN allowed such shenanigans to continue for 12 years and 17 resolutions, which they didn’t enforce.
When the US was willing to wait for the UK to work out an eighteenth resolution, France said it would veto any resolution pertaining to military action against Iraq(though that is exactly what UN Rersolution 1441 refers to - without specifics - which are not required as far as I have read in the UN resolutions.)
OK, so who needs a resolution?
its all pretty stupid (shrugs), but not much more than war.
@cystic:
@Xi:
Embargo!
Are you including the brilliant UN ‘Oil for Food’ program? Or as Gen. Franks referred to it, “Oil for Palaces…”
And the UN allowed such shenanigans to continue for 12 years and 17 resolutions, which they didn’t enforce.
When the US was willing to wait for the UK to work out an eighteenth resolution, France said it would veto any resolution pertaining to military action against Iraq(though that is exactly what UN Rersolution 1441 refers to - without specifics - which are not required as far as I have read in the UN resolutions.)
OK, so who needs a resolution?its all pretty stupid (shrugs), but not much more than war.
Yes, but war will solve the problem. UN resolutions only prolonged the inevitable conflict…
I don’t understand how anyone can take such an absolutist standpoint. To so blatantly say that it’s black and white, and there is only your one, absolute Truth seems ignorant, in my opinion. The idea of absolutism seems completely absurd and is rather dangerous.
To be an absolutist is to lower yourself to the level of a terrorist. Those who planned an exicuted the destruction of the WTC beleived that they were fighting for the one real Truth, and that they were doing a good thing by destroying the enemy of their Truth. Our government is doing the same thing now. If you’re not with us you’re against us? Sounds more like, if you don’t believe in our Truth then we’ll make you believe by bombing the shit out of you. Why not have one Truth in all respects? Why not have one party and one religion and one language and one skin colour? (after all only one can be the true party or religion ect.) Where does the absolutism end? When do we realize that there is not a Truth, but there are truths? You can say all you want about the evils of relativism, I will always prefer it over absolutist bull.
applauds wholeheartedly to bossk
Ted Turner Sour Grapes (Vinegar)
In a speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Ted Turner referred to Rupert Murdoch( whose News Corp. Ltd. owns Fox News Channel.) Turner said, “He’s a warmonger; he promoted it [the war in Iraq].”
Turner started CNN more than two decades ago and was practically the only game in town when it came to covering the 1991 Gulf War. But this time around, Fox News trounced CNN in the war coverage’s ratings.
Turner’s response: “Just because your ratings are bigger doesn’t mean you’re better.”
@Xi:
But this time around, Fox News trounced CNN in the war coverage’s ratings.
Turner’s response: “Just because your ratings are bigger doesn’t mean you’re better.”
Ahm….
so the one with the bigger ratings made a comment that bigger ratings do not mean better quality?
… Aussies logic, probably ;)…
Joe Millionaire got good ratings.
Oops, i misread the names… my bad, sorry…
feel free to delete this and the last posting
