Sarcasm aside

Post #89,763

3/20/03 12:26:38 PM

Sarcasm aside

I don't like the idea of living in a world where governments exist only at US suffrance, particularly as I'm not in the US. Your lampoon is an attempt to create a falsely simplistic black and white picture of the positions that one can take about this war.

I don't think Saddam Hussein is a good person; OTOH, it's not my job to impose "democracy" on the Iraqi people. They have to do it themselves, or it's not really democracy.

Scott: a warhead requires a delivery system. That delivery system can be someone with a suitcase. The means of transportation is besides the point, once the ability of transportation exists. The kind of missile used is completely irrelevant to the issue of WMD. Finally, calling up the UN restrictions is false anyway, as the UN has pretty clearly decided (over the objections of the US) that it doesn't think war is necessary for disarming Iraq, at least not yet.

Greg: what the fuck exactly did you think the Iraqi were going to do once there was an attack? Lie down and give up? This is NOT the same as Kuwait; this time they're not defending another country; this time they're defending their homes. It makes all the difference in the world to the kind of reaction you can expect to get from the Iraqi army.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #89,770

by admin

3/20/03 12:43:44 PM

I'm not sure what points you are addressing...

But they aren't mine.

Scott: a warhead requires a delivery system. That delivery system can be someone with a suitcase. The means of transportation is besides the point, once the ability of transportation exists. The kind of missile used is completely irrelevant to the issue of WMD.

Right... which is pretty much exactly what I said.

Finally, calling up the UN restrictions is false anyway, as the UN has pretty clearly decided (over the objections of the US) that it doesn't think war is necessary for disarming Iraq, at least not yet.

Errr.... my point had nothing to do with whether the UN thinks war is necessary or not. It simply addressed the common vague use of "WMD" to cover everything that Iraq isn't supposed to have (including long range missiles), which is the usage that I believe Greg was using.

Regarding the point "the UN has pretty clearly decided", I believe that you are incorrect. The UN's decisions are represented in resolutions. The member states on the Security Council have made their views (that war isn't necessary) known, outside of any UN resolutions. However, the resolution that would have made these views into an official UN decision was never voted upon, so the UN has made no such decision. Yes, this is pedantic, but so is law in general, and this is an important distinction that Bush is relying upon to fight his war. The last UN resolution regarding this issue (1441) stated that serious consequences would occur; the consequences were never determined and their nature is (obviously) up for interpretation. UNR 1441 is a study in how to be selectively blind to interpretations in order to get something passed that all sides can agree with.

Do not confuse the above with me supporting the war; I'm of the opinion that a 30 day period with an ultimatum would have been much better (this is pretty much what France suggested at the last minuted before the war started -- had they been less obstinate in the beginning, and had Bush not been so inflexible concerning time limits, we wouldn't be having a war right now).

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #89,869

by jake123

3/20/03 6:05:50 PM

Sorry, I'm probably coming on a bit strong

This war deeply offends me, and I know that you are not a hawk on this one. However, weaseling about SCUD missiles being WMD is just wrong, UN sanctions or no.

And no, I don't necessarily think that's what you're doing:)

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #89,780

by folkert

3/20/03 12:58:58 PM

But ... SCUDS?

Wait... *** greg takes a few deep breathes and then a few more...

Already we have them laying down their arms and surrendering... before the Deadline ahd even passed.

And NO they are not defending their homes this time... They are defending a cruel, sadistic, dictatorship. We are not going to destroy homes were are destroying the mechanism that keeps the regime in place and we are removing the WMD.

b4k4^2

[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT

[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!]

[link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,857673,00.asp|Writing on wall, Microsoft to develop apps for Linux by 2004]

Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberspace_strategy.pdf|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints.

Post #89,868

by jake123

3/20/03 6:05:13 PM

Re: homes

Um, Greg, home is more than just a building.

The US has told them they intend to drop thousands of bombs on their cities, invade, and put them under a military dicatorship for at least a few years.

The Iraqi have been bombed before; they know what it's like. What do you think they're going to believe... "we blew up your homes ten years ago, but we're not going to do it this time, honest"?

The last time they had a war with the US, at least a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers were killed in the bombing leading up to the retaking of Kuwait. You don't think the fact that over half the population of Iraq is under the age of fourteen just happened, do you? It's because the generation that is my age was largely wiped out in '91.

What's going to be better from their point of view, a military dicatorship run by a country on the other side of the world that has demonstrated major contempt for their faith on many occasions, or a military dictatorship run by someone local?

Finally, the Iraqi people have a completely different comprehension of what a US war on their soil will mean than most US citizens, thanks to the effects of depleted uranium ammunition on the inhabitants in places where it has been used. Instead of southern Iraq living under a cancer plague, it's going to be the whole country that will be living under a cancer plague, with no end in sight as the cancerous effects of DU ammunition lasts for several billion years. This different understanding is driven by direct experience; the average US citizen's understanding of this is driven by what they're told on TV. Which understanding do you think is more accurate?

Keeping all this in mind, if you were an Iraqi soldier, what would you do?

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to IWETHEY!