No, you are not. You do not dispute my argument. You merely re-state your own argument - which does not address either my specific point or the larger discussion. To be clear - there is no general disagreement between us, apparently, as to Saddam's inhumanity. The only relevant disagreement in this specific context, bearing on the question of policy towards Iraq, would therefore be over the proper way to confront that inhumanity. Yet, when I press you to explain what option you would have supported for confronting Saddam's inhumanity, you are unable to choose among the main categories, or to provide one of your own. Instead, you give two typically non-responsive responses: Yes, you do need to defend why the UN would have been "by far the best option" - that is, if you intend your participation in this discussion to be more than rocking back and forth on an anti-US hobby horse. All you offer here, in short, is a vague generalization in favor of the UN handling Saddam by some unspecified means - except, all we know about your preferred policy is that, apparently, you're against the UN sanctions regime. You proceed in your post to try to change the subject to the Powell presentation or the latest headlines regarding an Iraqi scientist under interrogation by US forces. Obviously aware that you have shown yourself incapable of rising to the challenge, you then plead for understanding: Any proposed solution - and any actually attempted solution all the more - can be criticized, and found wanting against some imaginary, unstated model of perfection, some fantasy of a costless solution. Since there is no other solution you will defend, then you have no way of showing that the solution chosen by the US Administration wasnât at least as good as any other avaible, if not, in fact, the best option. Maybe letting Saddam alone, or pursuing an inhuman containment policy until it finally fell apart, would eventually have cost millions, tens of millions of lives. Maybe it would have set international relations in the 21st Century on a course of chaos and conflict as bad as or worse than what we underwent in the 20th Century. Maybe we would have had Yugoslavia on a world scale, with weapons of mass destruction. This scenario may sound extreme to you, especially now that the particular problem of Saddam has been handled at a relatively low cost, but I think it's arguably a real threat. A withdrawal from the world by a weakened US - accompanied by the advancement into the power vacuum by competing regional powers and stateless organizations, many possessing weapons of mass destruction, many led by individuals with illimitable lust for power, with no demonstrably effective international force to oppose them - could lead to something much like that. And imagine what the worldâs other nuclear powers, including the failed âhyperpower,â might feel themselves driven to do if confronted with two, three, ten 9/11s, or just one nuclear 9/11? Yet we donât need to go that far. All we need to do is to acknowledge that any solution â or non-solution - would have unique human costs. There is no perfection in the real world, where all of us dwell, and some of us think. Merely attacking any particular solution without proposing one of your own is to engage in pure posturing. Why should anyone care what you are "pretty sure" of? After all, you're just a student, lest we forget, a student who has no solution of his own. Iâm pretty sure that you have demonstrated that you can have no credibility in this discussion. Iâm pretty sure that you furthermore appear to be incapable of formulating and even of understanding a cogent argument. Iâm pretty sure that all you seem to know how to do is to attack United States policy - in further exploration of your avowed feelings of hatred. If you wish to be treated as a grown-up in these discussions, you would do well to show some humility and modesty. You might begin by admitting your ignorance and uncertainty, at least to yourself, rather than forcing us to wring the confession out of you.
Jeezus.... You guys are either unbelievably stupid (but it's becoming more and more believable all the time), or you're just doing this to irritate me. Do you honestly, for one freaking minute, think that if the US didn't want sanctions for Iraq they would still have been instituted?
Kymar, if you're just going to babble BS, then do us all a favor and keep your posts short. The question, my dear chap, is not Saddam's inhumanity. That's just something you've invented on the fly to try in a desperate attempt to bundle me with some kind of fantasy burden of proof. At the end of the day, you either grow up and face the fact that your government is not, I repeat, NOT, acting out of any humanitarian concern about Saddam; neither now nor in the past. You might very well justify the invasion on humanitarian grounds, but it's not a question of why you think Iraq was invaded, it's a question of why it really was; and there is, it seems, a gulf between the two. I'll admit that it seems like Saddam's regime was indeed quite inhumane; that's what the evidence points to. Of course, I'm simply not prepared to swallow whole (like you are) the story the US government or the US media gives me. After the wholesale mischaracterization and demonization -- the extent of which borders on criminal negligence, if not outright fraud -- of an entire people, the Serbs, and a president, Slobodan Milosevic, I'm very wary indeed of what the US claims. But, let's imagine it's true, Saddam is indeed the monster he's been made out to be. Ok. Then what? We just have the right to invade and overthrow governments on a whim, do we? Is that what you're suggesting? America doesn't like you, so BAM, that's it, you're outta there son! Is that what I'm supposed to agree to? What the fuck did you think I (or any normal person, for that matter) would suggest except taking the matter through the UN? You call it a joke of an organization (or at least Hapaboy does, but it just betrays his mountainous ignorance), but what better, fairer, more legal (or legal, at all -- to the extent international relatinons can be), more acceptable way of dealing with these issues than through the UN? I really do see it just that simply. Like I said, what other option do we really have? Do we just give the US free reign to decide on everything? That's essentially what you seem to be suggesting. Kymar, if you can't see the problems with that then, geez, what can I tell you.. And I see you've pulled a hapaboy on me by calling the sanctions against Iraq, UN sanctions. That's something I addressed when I first brought up this topic. I said, "unless you plan to plead naivete" we could just assume that they were US sanctions. I'll ask you, do you disagree that had the US opposed the sanctions there wouldn't have been any? As for my "vague generalization" for dealing with Saddam. Dude, the only authority anyone in world had for "dealing" with him was regarding WMD. That's all. You can keep making more of it than that, but you'd just be dodging the issue. I wasn't changing the subject with the Powell presentation, it was just to show that your government completely failed (laughably failed) to make a case for invading Iraq. That dog and pony show was a complete fucking joke. And what of the alleged Al Qaeda links (proof, you even called it, if I recall)? Disapperead into thin air have they? Just so much bullshit. Since you have no other solution, then you have no way of showing that the solution chosen by the US Administration wasnât, in fact, the best available. Maybe letting Saddam alone, or pursuing an inhuman containment policy until it finally fell apart, would eventually have cost millions, tens of millions of lives. Maybe it would have set international relations in the 21st Century on a course of chaos and conflict as bad as or worse than what we underwent in the 20th Century. Maybe we would have had Yugoslavia on a world scale, with weapons of mass destruction. Maybe. Maybe this, maybe that. Maybe I'll be the next fuckign tyrant to threaten the world and the US -- you wanna come and smoke me out and give me justice too? But ok, sometimes the threats are that obvious that we probably should act. Well, do you really think you even came close to making a case for this? With your secret "proofs", which, for some weird reason, you still can't tell us about -- even though you've overrun Iraq, so presumably you could now protect whatever sources you allegedly had (that you couldn't protect before). I see you jumped at the chance to condemn me for not having a complete, i's dotted and t's crossed, solution of my own. LOL. You don't think that's just a tad unreasonable? I said I would have preferred the UN process to continue. Remember, this was about DISARMING Iraq, not about "regime change" or the "inhumane Saddam regime" (I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just that, at this stage, it wasn't) or any other feel good slogan you can come up with. Iâm pretty sure that you have demonstrated that you can have no credibility in this discussion. Iâm pretty sure that you furthermore appear to be incapable of formulating and even of understanding a cogent argument. Yeah, yeah. As usual, the feeling is quite mutual.
Who here has stated the invasion was solely for humanitarian reasons? Who? Your ability to make things up would make Frank Abignale, Jr. proud. LOL! Yeah, Saddam's regime seems inhumane! Good grief, so not only do you not believe the US, you don't believe the rest of the world AND the multitude of human rights organizations that have recorded the vast incidents of murder, torture, rape, and imprisonment, etc, etc. You wouldn't believe it unless you were in some dank torture chamber in Basra hanging from meat hooks and having an electric prod stuck up your corn hole; even then, you'd probably delude yourself into believing this was an anomaly, that in fact Saddam's secret services are a friendly bunch who were merely having a bad day and had to blow off some steam. You're a case of Stockholm Syndrome waiting to happen if ever there was one... So let's see here, Alfonso: The U.S., as evidenced by your sanctions argument, basically controls the UN, and yet your solution is to proceed with the UN's decisions?!? ROFL! Yeah, we control the UN so much that we've put Libya in charge of monitoring Human Rights and this entire debate prior to the invasion was all imagination and rumors, like Saddam's alleged brutality!! And good grief, Saddam had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions, the last being 1441, and when the US actually tries to enforce that resolution that countries such as Germany, France, China, and Russia wholeheartedly endorsed, those same countries object. The UN is a joke when it comes to stepping up to the plate and enforcing its litany of resolutions. It's great at declaring this and that, but, oh my, actually having TO DO something? God forbid..... The rest of your post is ridiculous, as usual, save for this sole paragraph: This is undoubtedly the core issue. How wonderful that you can actually see that. Really. All you need do now is understand the following: Admittedly, the Al Qaeda links with Saddam are tenuous. And supposedly they're not the best of friends. Doesn't matter! The simple facts are: 1) Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Their aim is to destroy the US. 2) Saddam has been obsessed with obtaining a nuke. Furthermore, he has had the resources to pursue that obsession. 3) Saddam's a nutcase who has shown his instability via attacking three of his regional neighbors, gassing his own people, LETTING HIS PEOPLE STARVE while he diverts oil for food money, and of course the daily cases of murder/torture/rape/imprisonment that you think are mere conjecture. (And let's be honest - if Saddam really gave a shit about his people, he would have accepted asylum and gotten the hell out of there.) I understand that you're not American and do not live here. But you should at least be able to understand, Alfonso, that my country has enemies that are more than willing to detonate a nuclear weapon on American soil and in a heartbeat kill millions of us, Alfonso. Millions. The main reason for this war, in case you haven't heard, as clearly explained by Bush and his cabinet, is to prevent groups like Al Qaeda from ever being able to get WMD, especially a nuke, from unstable/brutal/narcissistic psychopathic rulers like Saddam Hussein. And in Iraq's case, we have obviously accomplished that. So when you say I say that hell yes, if you're pursuing nukes and there's a chance you'd make them available to terrorists, damn right we're gonna take care of you one way or another. This venture is simply a matter of my country doing what it has to do to defend itself. If you can't understand that, too freakin' bad. And don't even bother with the "oh, if that's the case, then any country remotely threatened by another has cause to invade" line of bull crap. To do so will only reveal you to be even more ignorant than you have thus far displayed.
Milosevic misaligned? Are you a nut case or has he been secretly exonerated? Poor mistreated Slobodan and poor mistreated Saddam. Upon the Normandy invasion, I can imagine you'd be saying, "Poor mistreated Adolph."
Those kind of post is not for discussing between reasonable people but perpetrate propaganda techniques. Pretty sure they tried to use this kind of techniques described in "psyops" manual which is like virus now available to anybody as if they want to spread it: 1984 is very near, you will be soon be spied by your neighbour. Headquarters Army Field Manual 33-1 Department of the Army Washington, DC August 1979 Effective August 1979 FM 33-1 Psychological Operations <a href=http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm33-1/ target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm33-1/</a>