Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where are the WMD?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 78 (37501)
04-21-2003 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nator
04-21-2003 5:34 PM


I'm no right-winger, but largely I'm for the president vs. the alternatives (I think Gore would have been much worse). And I did vote for him.
WMD or no, I really wish the administration would pony up whatever evidence that they had in the first place about the WMD. I mean, with Iraq about to be the 51st state, surely it'd be no risk to uncover whatever source that info was from, right?
As it stands, they're in major danger of looking like war-mad tyrants if there turns out to be no WMD. Although it may be that Saddam sold them to terrorists or something at the beginning of the war. (Just a theory.)
But ultimately I don't think it will matter if they find the WMD or not. They'll gloss over that point and everyone else in Europe et al will be to afraid to bring it up. Or it may be that Iraq does so well afterwards that everyone will say "Well, it was good they took Saddam out, no matter what the pretense." Certainly, I think the UN won't be able to punish us or anything. They wouldn't stand up to Saddam, why will they stand up to us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 04-21-2003 5:34 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-22-2003 12:05 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 8 by Peter, posted 04-23-2003 10:23 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 78 (37504)
04-22-2003 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mister Pamboli
04-22-2003 12:05 AM


Well, so thanks to this war they hate us in the Middle East - what else is new?
I don't see this being the cause of more terrorism (because they weren't too fond of us anyway, and I doubt we could do anything to change that), but I don't really think we'll have reduced terrorism either.
So long as Israel and Palestine are at odds the middle east will hate us. Anything we do there will be seen as secondary, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-22-2003 12:05 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 78 (38746)
05-02-2003 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Sepiraph
05-02-2003 3:46 AM


And the comparison of the situation with Iraq to that of Nazi Germany is a bad one, and in so many ways.
Probably true. Althogh I think the moral imparative to stop the slaughter of innocent people is similar in quality if not in scope.
Certainly Hitler was gearing up to take over the world. Saddam was no such threat.
Oh, well. I'm glad it's almost over. Ultimately I think this will raise the standard of living in Iraq. Whether that's enough to justify the human cost in lives is something that I don't feel wise enough to argue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Sepiraph, posted 05-02-2003 3:46 AM Sepiraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 05-02-2003 7:57 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 78 (38786)
05-02-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by compmage
05-02-2003 7:57 AM


Yet at what cost (war casualties aside). How many Africans will suffer because of monies being diverted to Iraq? How many additional people will starve because money that would have been used for food aid is now going to be used to rebuild Iraq?
Like I said, I don't feel wise enough to even begin to do that math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 05-02-2003 7:57 AM compmage has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 78 (39041)
05-05-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by gene90
05-05-2003 7:40 PM


You could bring your soapbox and educate them on how our foreign policy killed their loved ones, how we shouldn't be proactive in toppling terrorists and their sympathizers, and how we have no right to go around telling other countries what to do and why we shouldn't wave our flags and support the president in the war in Iraq.
Not to jump into a topic that's clearly beyond my years to speak of but...
As an aside, I thought you might be interested to know that a number of the 9/11 WTC victim's families have expressed exactly these sentiments - that the deaths of their loved ones shouldn't be used as moral capital to support a needless war. A number of them were against the war in Afghanistan, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 05-05-2003 7:40 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 2:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 78 (39042)
05-05-2003 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by gene90
05-05-2003 7:57 PM


The very act of protesting the war is endorsing the regime of Saddam Hussein and prolonging the torture of the Iraqi people.
Do you challenge that view?
I'll challenge that view, because it's not wholly correct (fallacy of false alternatives). The very act of protesting the war, without providing a viable alternative to lower Saddam's threat level, is endorsing the regime of Saddam.
The simple act of opposing war doesn't mean you support Saddam. It simply means that you disagree that war is the best method to get rid of him. What were the alternatives? I never heard any workable ones, which is why I supported the war. Had better alternatives been presented I would have supported those. That wouldn't have made me a Saddam supporter, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gene90, posted 05-05-2003 7:57 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-06-2003 2:47 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 2:51 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 78 (39056)
05-06-2003 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Mister Pamboli
05-06-2003 2:47 AM


Opposing the war because you believe taking human life to be wrong under any and all circumstances is hardly endorsing Saddam.
Well, if Saddam IS taking human life, and one has the power to do something about it and doesn't, isn't that contradictory to a moral stance against taking human life?
I mean, I just don't see how somebody could be a moral person and yet tolerate such a regime. That doesn't equate to war, I know, but I don't see how opposing war without a better idea isn't the same as supporting such a regime. Cuz aren't you basically saying "It may be bad, but it's better than the steps we'd need to take to improve things there."
Now, clearly, you're not fighting for Saddam, so you don't support his regime. But Saddam's regime was a problem. If not war, what was your solution? Just letting it happen? That doesn't seem like a moral alternative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-06-2003 2:47 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-07-2003 2:48 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 78 (39087)
05-06-2003 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
05-06-2003 1:04 PM


One would think on a site heavily dominated by Xtian theology people would understand that it is NOT contradictory to not kill in order to to stop someone else from killing. Hasn't anyone heard of the Amish? How about Christ? Are you people really saying these people would have been pro-Saddam for not wanting to kill many innocent people, just to get Saddam?
I wouldn't imply that the Amish are pro-Saddam, but unless they propose a better alternative than war, they're not really helping. I won't go so far as to say that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem", but it is generally true that if you're not part of the solution, and you don't have a better idea, you're generally in the way.
Out of curiosity, how much violence have the Amish brought an end to? Last I checked, people were still shooting and raping each other in Pennsylvania...
I guess that's the problem I have with pacifism. Ultimately there are people who have committed to violence, and the only way to oppose them is the careful use of violence. That's why policemen carry guns. Does that require murder to stop murder? Sometimes it may have to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 1:04 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 7:01 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 78 (39092)
05-06-2003 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by gene90
05-06-2003 2:51 PM


This is hypocrisy because the Left usually claims to be pro-human rights, and even openly attacked Bush time and again for his support of the death penalty. But somehow they wanted to do anything they could to keep "nice guy" Saddam in power and Bush was the one that actually did something about it.
Yeah, I did think all the signs comparing Bush to Hitler, saying he was the terrorist, etc. were a little excessive (understatement). Last I checked, Bush never lowered anyone into a wood chipper. Has he made policy judgements that were, in my view and the views of others, rash and ill-considered? Sure. Is he still one of the "good guys"? I'd say so. Saddam definately isn't. A bit black-and-white, but some things are. But for a good guy, I wish Bush and his administration weren't so obviously in the pocket of big business (or at least acting like it.) I mean, the first thing they did in office was call the Justice Dept. dogs off Microsoft.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 2:51 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by gene90, posted 05-06-2003 3:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 78 (39190)
05-07-2003 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
05-06-2003 7:01 PM


I don't think they have that much problem with rape and shooting within their own community.
I think there's a certain level of "security by being a sitting duck" at work for the safety of the Amish. I mean, it's so easy to rob or hurt the Amish that it feels bad to. (Not that I know of course!) More seriously, I think the simple fact is that people who would be predisposed to being violent just don't want to live with the Amish. I personally would find them annoying day after day. (I feel safe saying that because I'm pretty sure no Amish will read this.)
Ghandi and MLK Jr removed oppressive regimes with a firm commitment to pacifism.
MLK Jr. didn't change the regime. The regime changed for him. The black civil rights movement was by no means entirely peaceful. And racist violence against black people continues to this day.
Anyway, MLK Jr. held up pacifism because he was struggling against laws, not people. Thus he opposed the law through civil disobediance.
I understand the liberation of India was by no means peaceful. Ghandi may have not advocated violence, but a vast amount of anti-british violence was done in his name.
I'm just saying - pacifism can only protect you against the people it is in your power to educate. People who think differently than you will always have the upper hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 05-06-2003 7:01 PM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 78 (39194)
05-07-2003 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mister Pamboli
05-07-2003 2:48 AM


Nor do I think for one moment that the suffering of the Iraqi people played a part in motivating the recent war.
Well, I certainly agree with this. But I do think it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I'm hoping that's what happened in Iraq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-07-2003 2:48 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 78 (41672)
05-29-2003 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peter
05-11-2003 4:03 AM


Fair enough ... but can you arrest me if you
think I own a gun?
In my country, if you've ever been convicted of domestic assault, I believe so, yes.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peter, posted 05-11-2003 4:03 AM Peter has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 78 (42720)
06-12-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by compmage
06-12-2003 3:53 PM


Here I was thinking that I 'sound' like an uneducated layperson grasping at straws.
You and me both, friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by compmage, posted 06-12-2003 3:53 PM compmage 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