quote:
You have essentially committed the "stock dilemma" fallacy, a form of the fallacy of false alternatives. You must support war, or you must support Saddam. Wrong. There are alternatives short of going to war, which still allow one to be against Saddam.
What are those alternatives, what is the the probability of success, and how long would it take?
If you remember, we tried alternatives to war. Twelve years ago sanctions were imposed. Saddam flourished while the people fell even further into poverty. Months ago Saddam was offered asylum. He refused. Bush gave him a 48 hour deadline. He still refused.
Alternatives failed. War succeeded.
By the way, I never saw any protestors on TV with signs presenting alternatives. They all said things like "no war" and "no blood for oil". The party line was that the point of the war was to obtain cheap oil, not to topple Saddam's regime. Therefore alternatives were not presented--the closest they came to actual alternatives were UN WMD inspections, which do nothing for human rights. The protestors were clearly happy just to let Saddam continue in power.
By the way, I believe the US tried for years to get rid of Castro without a full scale assault by American armed forces. Guess who's still running things down there?
quote:
First of all I was against Saddam (for his removal) as well as the Taliban and Al-Queda, according to your own statements, well before you or Bush.
Actually Holmes, I wanted Saddam gone in 1991, and in 1998.
I wanted the Taliban ousted when they began destroying artifacts (which is when I first heard of them) and I think we should have declared war against al-Qaeda immediately following the bombing of the Cole.
I was pro-war before Bush came into office.
quote:
In fact, according to your own admission, Bush would likely not have removed the Taliban if they had turned over BinLaden.
Probably not. I know Clinton would not have. But Clinton's bin Laden blunders are a topic for another time.
quote:
Remember this is your logic, not wanting war right now, so leaving someone or something in power, is tantamount to full support.
No actually that's not my definition. People who don't agree with Bush but don't try to persuade others aren't necessarily pro-Saddam. They're just not doing as much as they should to get rid of him (And I openly agree that neither Bush did enough nor did Clinton).
The people who make signs and go march, and worse block traffic, were actively supporting Saddam Hussein, just as the US once did.
quote:
Without them, Saddam's actions were as justified as our own.
Bush didn't make his opponets sit on glass bottles until their intestines were slashed into bleeding rags, holmes. You will never be able to compare a republic with a bill of rights and constitutional limits to Saddam's regime. To even try would be offensive but I'm not surprised that would do so.
quote:
Bush Sr did not take it out of a respect for world opinion and international law... making him "pro-Saddam"?
Perhaps so. Or maybe just a weak ruler who bowed to international pressure when he should not have. We don't know what he actually would have liked to have done.
Which makes this an interesting point. Do you admit that the primary reason Saddam was still in power is because of the UN?
quote:
One would think on a site heavily dominated by Xtian theology people
ROTFLMAO. I've been on this board a heck of a lot longer than you (are you even a member yet?) and it is not "dominated" by Christian theology. It has evolved into a big, continuous, anti-Christian smear. Last week somebody mentioned they were starting a prayer circle and there were two pages of personal abuse and good old fashioned religious hatred in response.
quote:
Hasn't anyone heard of the Amish?
I haven't heard of any Amish protests. They may not agree with war even in principle but they are not actively supporting dictators by opposing liberation.
quote:
How about Christ?
You speak for Christ?
quote:
Are you people really saying these people would have been pro-Saddam for not wanting to kill many innocent people, just to get Saddam?
No for the Amish because they aren't bothering anyone. No for Christ because he is not necessarily anti-war. (Lots of non-Christian members of the Left like to call him a warmonger, now you are trying
to make him a hippie? He was a liberal for his time but I *think* he would be a moderate who would want to liberate Iraq.)
By the way, I think if Saddam were allowed to stay in power, he would kill a heck of a lot more Iraqis deliberately than we did accidentally during the campaign.
quote:
Many anti-war people, like me, were against Bush's original arguments because war obviously would not solve the WMD or terrorist problem.
What? Surely you're kidding. You think that if American troops are in Iraq and there is a fledgling Iraqi democracy in power, Saddam is somehow going to keep his WMD program running full throttle there? And you think the terrorist camps would continue running? Please!
quote:
That is a simple fact of war. Thus some say to be for any war is to be for the killing of innocents, so pro-war always means pro-murder.
Actually I think that would be pro-manslaughter as it would not be deliberate.
Now tell me, do you think that Lincoln should not have fought against the Southern States? Do you think we should have signed a peace treaty with Hitler?
quote:
Why, according to your own logic, was it necessary to go after Iraq, and in doing so support these other regimes? Most importantly the very organizations which planned 9-11?
Actually, last I heard, we were still at war with al-Qaeda, rather than "supporting" them.
™ Version 4.2
