Love that binary logic.

Post #92,216 by Brandioch 3/27/03 1:27:29 PM Reply	Love that binary logic. Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom. That's right. If you oppose the war.... That means you're supporting Saddam. It may be propoganda but it is thought provoking. Yeah. To anyone with a double digit IQ or less. This has been covered before. No one is supporting Saddam. It is possible to oppose Saddam and still oppose the war to "get" Saddam.
Post #92,238 by screamer 3/27/03 4:23:21 PM Reply	How, I must of missed the "logic" behind the statement: "It is possible to oppose Saddam and still oppose the war to "get" Saddam." Just how, how, do you get rid of him? Sanctions... didn't work. UN mandates, proclamations, gesticulations? Didn't work. World isolation? Somebody else's military? I'm reminded of an old Woodstood notion, "Hey, maybe if we think really hard, man, maybe we can stop this rain... no rain! no rain!" They were drenched for hours (days) after that. I supplied the link to the org simply because I wanted to point out that there is another side to this story. It is not binary. It is actually possible that many of the people in Iraq truly do support our actions there. As far as the IQ dig, I understand your position. I simply think it is naive... at best. As far as IQ's, I wouldn't say I've seen many triple digits out on the street protesting the war (supporting many of the positions you've posited). I've seen a bunch of kids, by and large, skipping school that couldn't point out Iraq on a map, let alone the history of the region or the short term history of Hussein's regieme. I haven't seen very much "logic" applied to this highly emotional issue either. I respect your intellect, but I think you may have categorically dismissed many items of this war which are not black or white. You, not just me. Not binary, but attempts to pursuade by the pathos and ethos. I actually admire your passion for defending your beliefs. I just happen to disagree once again. Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #92,242 by Simon_Jester 3/27/03 4:35:26 PM Reply	Off the top of m' head... "It is possible to oppose Saddam and still oppose the war to "get" Saddam." Just how, how, do you get rid of him? Sanctions... didn't work. UN mandates, proclamations, gesticulations? Didn't work. World isolation? Somebody else's military? I'm reminded of an old Woodstood notion, "Hey, maybe if we think really hard, man, maybe we can stop this rain... no rain! no rain!" They were drenched for hours (days) after that. Well, to be honest, the cruise missile trying to take him out were a good idea. I'm honestly sorry that they missed. (It's not easy hitting someone with a cruise missile...regardless of what Clinton-haters say). Other methods include assassination and supporting a revolution/uprising of his own people. (Of course to due the latter, it helps if the US didn't ignore previous revolutions). Finally, it's possible to support military action as an option while recognizing that our current military action leaves a lot to be desired. Just a few thoughts.
Post #92,244 by screamer 3/27/03 5:11:41 PM Reply	In other words... you don't know. My guess is as good as yours. It's just that what we are doing is absoloutely wrong. That we know (?). I wonder if that makes us armchair quarterbacks or chickenhawks or some other mindless blather? I wish the cruise missile would have hit too. No, really, if I had my druthers, I wish the son of bitch would just die of a heart attack right after killing both his sons. But guess what? Easy answers don't usually fall from the sky like rain. Even when we chant for it to like at Woodstock. Do you acknowledge that there may be some validity to the notion that maybe a small (maybe large) percentage of the Iraqi people really do want their President gone, but are too afraid to speak up? And following that logic, opposing the war indeed does suggest supporting Hussein? At least from the Iraqi civilian perspective? I screwed up by pointing to only the last paragraph in my secondary post. I cite quoted the last two paragraphs, the first gave context, the last contained the inflamatory statement. In context, the naive "human shield" realized that by opposing the war, they were indeed (unwittingly) supporting Hussein. The logic is not twisted. Want to twist it? Anticipating your next move in advance, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #92,246 by jake123 3/27/03 5:19:07 PM Reply	I think the real question is What do Iraqis find preferable? Saddam Hussein, or a US invasion? I have the feeling the answer to that is "Saddam Hussein" for most of them. Another way to put it is "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." As Jester said, it would have helped if the US hadn't hung regime changers out to dry in the past; this is well within living memory for the people in Basra, and they know exactly why it happened: in the judgement of the USA in '91, Saddam Hussein was better than a religious Shia government. They probably think that's still the case from the US point of view, and they would simply be changing oppressors from one of the locals (who is at least muslim, if not Shia) to the crusaders from across the sea. There certainly hasn't been any indication that the US plans on respecting their wishes in governance; to the contrary, the US is making it clear they plan on turning Iraq into a clone of the US. --\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 #92,255 by Brandioch 3/27/03 6:16:04 PM Reply	Give that man a cigar! Why are we there? Because Saddam has nukes? None found and none use, even when his life is threatened. Because Saddam has bio weapons? None found and none use, even when his life is threatened. Because Saddam has chem weapons? None found and none use, even when his life is threatened. Because Saddam has ties to terrorists? The only "ties" found are the flimsiest we could manufacture. Meanwhile, other regimes there have DEFINATE ties to terrorists. Because we want to "Free" the Iraqis? They seem to prefer Saddam over a US invasion. And so on and so on and so on. Until we end at: Because Saddam has not, technically, complied with all of the rules on disarming. Saddam was no threat to the US or any of his neighbors. This war has shown that.
Post #92,281 by dmarker 3/27/03 7:15:49 PM Reply	You nailed it !!! Cheers Doug. Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003 Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
Post #92,326 by Simon_Jester 3/27/03 9:59:40 PM Reply	Chickenhawks, armchair general...concern citizens. It's all the same in the end, isn't it? I wish the cruise missile would have hit too. No, really, if I had my druthers, I wish the son of bitch would just die of a heart attack right after killing both his sons. But guess what? Easy answers don't usually fall from the sky like rain. Even when we chant for it to like at Woodstock. Nope, easy answers don't fall from the sky. And we can chant like we at Woodstock or we can bitch and moan and complain about wasting a couple of dozen cruise missiles on some empty tents in the desert. Personally, I prefer to do neither - glass houses and stones and all that bs. But I'm not going to allow the statement "there was no other way" to go unchallenged. There were other ways, we chose not to do them. That's fine. Grow up and accept the consequences of the decision. Do you acknowledge that there may be some validity to the notion that maybe a small (maybe large) percentage of the Iraqi people really do want their President gone, but are too afraid to speak up? And following that logic, opposing the war indeed does suggest supporting Hussein? At least from the Iraqi civilian perspective? I'll certainly grant that there may be a large group of Iraqies who want to be free from Hussein. Now, why should I care? I'm not Hussein and I'm not Iraq and I don't give a freakin' damn if they're free or not. If they don't like their goverment, let them go free THEMSELVES. Freedom is earned. Our military has spilt their blood for ours. Why do we have to spill it to free THEM? I screwed up by pointing to only the last paragraph in my secondary post. I cite quoted the last two paragraphs, the first gave context, the last contained the inflamatory statement. In context, the naive "human shield" realized that by opposing the war, they were indeed (unwittingly) supporting Hussein. The logic is not twisted. Want to twist it? Sure...I can do that... The logic is only twisted if your initial assertion - that this is the only option available to us - is correct. What if, said "Human Shield" because he is in Iraq, suddenly comes to his senses and realizes that the only way to really help the Iraq people from being bombed and killed is to kill Saddam Hussein - trading one life for many. Since he is "trusted" (for their stupidity) he immediately grab a rifle from a nearby guard and place 3 bullets into Saddam Hussein's brain killing him instantly. He realizes he's done a wonderful service for the people of Iraq as his guards open fire turning him into swiss cheese. Did he oppose war? Or did he unwitting support Saddam Hussein? In any case, I do agree with you (believe it or not). The said "Human Shields" (at least the ones from the US) are allowed to disagree and oppose the war, in my opinion. (And I do not classify that as support Saddam Hussein, YMMV). However, travelling to Iraq and placing themselves in harm's way, they are attempting to oppose the will of the government and are actively (IMO) attempting to subvert the will of the government from being executed. I disagree with their actions. Anticipating your next move in advance, Screamer Good luck.

Welcome to IWETHEY!