Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Views on the war, Onion-style
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 9 (35580)
03-28-2003 9:01 AM


Kinja
Point-Counterpoint: The War On Iraq
By Nathan Eckert
"This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism"
George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.
This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher. It will not end the threat of weapons of mass destruction; it will make possible their further proliferation. And it will not lay the groundwork for the flourishing of democracy throughout the Mideast; it will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence.
If you thought Osama bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents? In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom.
And what exactly is our endgame here? Do we really believe that we can install Gen. Tommy Franks as the ruler of Iraq? Is our arrogance and hubris so great that we actually believe that a U.S. provisional military regime will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people? Democracy cannot possibly thrive under coercion. To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy. And it is doomed to fail.
A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster.
-------------------------
"No It Won't"
By Bob Sheffer
No it won't.
It just won't. None of that will happen.
You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.
"This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?
It won't.
"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?
Not really.
"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?
Sorry, no, I disagree.
"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?
You are completely wrong.
Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.
Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.
Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already.
Be quiet, okay? Everything's fine.
You're wrong.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 03-30-2003 1:58 PM nator has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 2 of 9 (35821)
03-30-2003 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
03-28-2003 9:01 AM


I actually got to check my email this afternoon and found this in it. Original attribution unknown, but it's all over the web:
------------------------------------------------------------------
With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.
These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.
3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.
6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.
7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.
8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.
We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.
Lesson over, class dismissed.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-30-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 03-28-2003 9:01 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-30-2003 2:06 PM gene90 has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 9 (35823)
03-30-2003 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
03-30-2003 1:58 PM


quote:
With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11,
I doubt that you will find many Americans who are against the effort to find Osama bin Laden.
Too bad we aren't putting 80 billion dollars into finding him. I'll bet we would if we did.
Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with Sept 11, although the Bush regime has done some excellent spin to make the majority of Americans think he is responsible.
quote:
2001, and those who support terror.
WE have supported terrorists, including Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, for decades.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 03-30-2003 1:58 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 04-30-2003 9:14 PM nator has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 4 of 9 (35851)
03-30-2003 4:38 PM


my big question...
... is when did this turn into the war to "liberate Iraq"?
When all the dabte in the UN was going on, I was under the impression that the war was to disarm Hussein.
Then, the day the war begins, it is called Operation Iraqi Freedom and all the right wing spinsters are talking about "freeing Iraq" and "liberating Iraq".
I was watching the propaganda wing of the Republican party on TV today - most folks call it Fox News - and Brit Hume let it slip that those that are critical of Bush and his administraton's activities are "anti American". He then made it look like he goofed and corrected himself - "unPatriotic" he meant to say...
Amazing how gullible the American voters are... Or at least the right hopes they are....

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 04-30-2003 9:17 PM derwood has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 9 (38488)
04-30-2003 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nator
03-30-2003 2:06 PM


quote:
I'll bet we would if we did.
Oh really? I know! We can line up US soldiers arm-to-arm, and WALK them from one side of Afghanistan to another.
quote:
Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with Sept 11
He was harboring and supporting terrorists, developing WMD, and flaunting international law. You remember when he last expelled the inspectors? He suddenly opened back up when Bush demonstrated he was a bit more serious than Clinton. But why should we have had to keep hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed in the Middle East until Uday dies of old age? It's unreasonable. And why did we oust Milosevic for "ethnic cleansing" and do nothing about Saddam when he was doing worse?
You liberals love to talk about human rights -- but are vehemently opposed to actually doing anything about their violations. Before this war started, if I had shouted "Free Tibet!" into a crowd of liberals before this war started, they would have cheered, but had I yelled "Free Iraq!" I probably would have gotten roughed up. It is hypocrisy of the highest order, and it is also the unrealistic belief that people can be free without the occasional war. War is sometimes necessary, as it was in this case. Saddam was invited to leave and he didn't. So the troops paid him a visit.
Interesting point about supporting Saddam. I feel that the fact that we did back Saddam places the moral responsibility of removing him all the more on the US.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 03-30-2003 2:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 05-04-2003 9:46 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 6 of 9 (38489)
04-30-2003 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by derwood
03-30-2003 4:38 PM


Re: my big question...
It's about both. But in my opinion, the human rights issue is a strong enough case alone to depose Hussein.
You will remember howerver that Fleischer's comments when the war started was, "The disarmament of Iraq has begun..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 03-30-2003 4:38 PM derwood has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 9 (38919)
05-04-2003 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by gene90
04-30-2003 9:14 PM


quote:
Oh really? I know! We can line up US soldiers arm-to-arm, and WALK them from one side of Afghanistan to another.
Look, Gene, I seem to remember some emessaries from Afghanistan coming to speak to congress some time ago, to plead for us to not forget about them because our eyes turned so quickly to Iraq.
quote:
He was harboring and supporting terrorists,
He was? When, who? Are we going to invade Pakistan, Israel, and Ireland now, too?
quote:
developing WMD,
Which Bush says are there but nobody seems to have found yet...
quote:
and flaunting international law.
What do you care about international law? I thought that only what Bush/the US thinks is moral and justified is important. You seem to think that any country that we think MIGHT do something to us in the future should be invaded. See the problem with this?
quote:
You remember when he last expelled the inspectors?
Huh? He never expelled the inspectors. We withdrew the inspectors.
quote:
He suddenly opened back up when Bush demonstrated he was a bit more serious than Clinton.
And that's why I thought, very briefly, that bush might actually be really smart with all of this saber-rattling.
Turns out he is just a war-monger and the inspection stuff was just to try to appease the UN. He was always going to invade Iraq, because the inspectors didn't find any WMD. Just like I don't suspect we will find any WMD now.
quote:
But why should we have had to keep hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed in the Middle East until Uday dies of old age? It's unreasonable.
We will have to keep thousands of troops there for decades now anyway. As many predicted, the fundamentalists are coming out in force, as they are the majority in southern Iraq, after all, and demanding to be allowed to form their own government.
If we don't want another Iran-style theocracy, we will have to be there for decades.
This is a surprise to you? It isn't to me.
quote:
And why did we oust Milosevic for "ethnic cleansing" and do nothing about Saddam when he was doing worse?
We did nothing about Hussein because he wanted to go to war with Iran. We supported his secular government, however brutal, over the fundamentalist muslim government of Iran, and we knew he was gassing Kurds when we gave him support.
quote:
You liberals
I hate that kind of language, Gene. It's really bigoted and really stupid and only meant to be disrespectful and belittling. Grow up.
quote:
love to talk about human rights -- but are vehemently opposed to actually doing anything about their violations. Before this war started, if I had shouted "Free Tibet!" into a crowd of liberals before this war started, they would have cheered, but had I yelled "Free Iraq!" I probably would have gotten roughed up. It is hypocrisy of the highest order, and it is also the unrealistic belief that people can be free without the occasional war. War is sometimes necessary, as it was in this case. Saddam was invited to leave and he didn't. So the troops paid him a visit.
If this war was really about Iraqi "freedom", then why don't we get out and let them elect their own leader, like they are asking us to?
Oh, and about freedom? Why won't the US agree to sign the international ban on land mines, and why does it refuse to stop using cluster bombs?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-04-2003]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-04-2003]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 04-30-2003 9:14 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by gene90, posted 05-04-2003 1:20 PM nator has not replied
 Message 9 by gene90, posted 05-04-2003 1:27 PM nator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 8 of 9 (38926)
05-04-2003 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
05-04-2003 9:46 AM


quote:
Look, Gene, I seem to remember some emessaries from Afghanistan coming to speak to congress some time ago, to plead for us to not forget about them because our eyes turned so quickly to Iraq.
We haven't forgotten about Afghanistan, we still have troops there. Simultaneous to the beginning of the Iraq war we launched the biggest operation in Afghanistan since Operation Anaconda.
quote:
He was? When, who?
You are saying that Saddam is not supporting terrorists?!
What about the $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
Saddam Pays Palestinian Terrorists While Iraqis "Suffer From Sanctions"
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
Please note that it is not my responsibility to educate you on these issues. I expect you to inform yourself before you go around marching your opinions.
Error
http://www.intelmessages.org/...y/wwwboard/messages/832.html
http://www.prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2003/2/27/23322.html
News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph
Page not found – Brookes News
http://www.americans-world.org/...flict_Iraq/linkstoTerr.cfm
Page not found « Iraq Foundation
intelmessages.org - intelmessages Resources and Information.
quote:
And that's why I thought, very briefly, that bush might actually be really smart with all of this saber-rattling.
Schraf, if Saddam did not have WMD, why the hell did we have to have a military buildup in the Middle East before inspections were allowed to resume?
quote:
If we don't want another Iran-style theocracy, we will have to be there for decades.
We can keep peacekeeping forces nearby. But not as many as it took to pressure Saddam. Answer the question above.
quote:
I hate that kind of language, Gene.
If the shoe fits...
quote:
It's really bigoted and really stupid and only meant to be disrespectful and belittling.
It sounds as if you have "issues" with your own ideology. As if you actually realize that it's bad to be liberal and you don't want to come to grips with what you are.
You hate that language? Well learn to deal with it. A liberal is what you are. You tow the liberal party line. You are anti-Republican, anti-Bush, anti-Liberation, anti-defense, and essentially anti-American. You think everything traditional about America is wrong and needs to be changed. In your mind, every problem in the world is America's fault. Why 9/11? Not because Israel is our ally, not because we stationed troops in Saudi in 1991, but because we're bad people who support dictators. You probably think we deserve to be attacked, don't you? I wouldn't be surprised.
quote:
Grow up.
I did grow up, Schraf. I'm a conservative now, and I'm waiting on the rest of you.
quote:
If this war was really about Iraqi "freedom", then why don't we get out and let them elect their own leader, like they are asking us to?
Too early. They don't even *have* a government at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 05-04-2003 9:46 AM nator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 9 of 9 (38927)
05-04-2003 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nator
05-04-2003 9:46 AM


quote:
Look, Gene, I seem to remember some emessaries from Afghanistan coming to speak to congress some time ago, to plead for us to not forget about them because our eyes turned so quickly to Iraq.
We haven't forgotten about Afghanistan, we still have troops there. Simultaneous to the beginning of the Iraq war we launched the biggest operation in Afghanistan since Operation Anaconda.
quote:
He was? When, who?
You are saying that Saddam is not supporting terrorists?!
What about the $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers?
Saddam Pays Palestinian Terrorists While Iraqis "Suffer From Sanctions"
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
Please note that it is not my responsibility to educate you on these issues. I expect you to inform yourself before you go around marching your opinions.
Error
http://www.intelmessages.org/...y/wwwboard/messages/832.html
http://www.prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2003/2/27/23322.html
News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph
Page not found – Brookes News
http://www.americans-world.org/...flict_Iraq/linkstoTerr.cfm
Page not found « Iraq Foundation
http://www.intelmessages.org/...y/wwwboard/messages/810.html
quote:
And that's why I thought, very briefly, that bush might actually be really smart with all of this saber-rattling.
Schraf, if Saddam did not have WMD, why the hell did we have to have a military buildup in the Middle East before inspections were allowed to resume?
quote:
If we don't want another Iran-style theocracy, we will have to be there for decades.
We can keep peacekeeping forces nearby. But not as many as it took to pressure Saddam. Answer the question above.
And even then, inspections would probably not be adequate to assure Saddam wasn't up to something. With Saddam gone, we can be absolutely sure that he doesn't have a weapons program, now can't we.
And as for the WMD, Schraf, I think you're really premature in saying there are none. If they are found, you can rest assured that I will immediately appear on this board and goad everyone that questioned that fact to the point of absurdity, and I will be constantly bringing it up in future discussions as an example of how you were wrong (and I have a long memory). Meanwhile there is always the possibility that WMD are still in Iraq waiting to be found. So you cannot be completely sure that Bush is wrong.
quote:
I hate that kind of language, Gene.
If the shoe fits...
quote:
It's really bigoted and really stupid and only meant to be disrespectful and belittling.
It sounds as if you have "issues" with your own ideology. As if you actually realize that it's bad to be liberal and you don't want to come to grips with what you are.
You hate being a liberal? Well learn to deal with it. A liberal is what you are. You tow the liberal party line. You are anti-Republican, anti-Bush, anti-Liberation, anti-defense, and essentially anti-American. You think everything traditional about America is wrong and needs to be changed. In your mind, every problem in the world is America's fault. Why 9/11? Not because Israel is our ally, not because we stationed troops in Saudi in 1991, but because we're bad people who support dictators. You probably think we deserve to be attacked, don't you? I wouldn't be surprised.
quote:
Grow up.
I did grow up, Schraf. I'm a conservative now, and I'm waiting on the rest of you.
quote:
If this war was really about Iraqi "freedom", then why don't we get out and let them elect their own leader, like they are asking us to?
Too early. They don't even *have* a government at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 05-04-2003 9:46 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024