Let's face it. There is no singular reason...

[Troll]

Reasons for confrontation with Iraq:


Finishing what daddy should have done but decided not to under advisement of some of the now hawkish folks in the son's administration.

Hussein openly finances terror. He's televised a support of financial aid to suicide bombers families. We know he has had and has failed to show or prove the destruction of what the UN, not the US, the UN, that includes a bunch of countries folks, even your own, has said he can no longer have. Thus these weapons could easily be given to terrorists that want to predominately destroy the US and remotely want to destroy others that have backed the UN resolutions. In short, the US wants to makesure he doesn't have the chance to give them to others to screw us over and in a small sense we sorta hope it doesn't get to you either. Personally I don't care. I'm curious as to how you'd feel and what you'd post when you get nailed. But I'd hate to see ya lose a few thousand lives in order to wake you up.

Bush has this weird vision of democracy. He thinks others, not just the US should have freedom and liberty. Again, not my concern if ya don't want it yourself then live with it and don't try to fight for it. Surely some idiot will do the work for ya later at the cost of their own nation's lives.

Oil? A little. It's like the big bonus. It opens up the market a little more. But the fact remains that it will still be Iraq's oil to sell as they please. Maybe they'll just be more pleased about some other countries that got them out from under the thumb.

I eagerly await AUP's and UCE's twists, turns, and other bizzare forms of retort

Oh yeah, what's evil in any of these reasons? The fact that some may die or the fact that not doing anything means that many will continue to die?

[hammegk]

Sorry, troll. Your post contains too much truth for most of this bunch. :(

Nicely presented, BTW. ;)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Troll
Reasons for confrontation with Iraq:

Finishing what daddy should have done but decided not to under advisement of some of the now hawkish folks in the son's administration.



Agreed that daddy didnt do it. Why? I dunno.

Originally posted by Troll
Hussein openly finances terror. He's televised a support of financial aid to suicide bombers families.

But invading Iraq will increase the number of middle eastern terrorists.

Originally posted by Troll
We know he has had and has failed to show or prove the destruction of what the UN, not the US, the UN, that includes a bunch of countries folks, even your own, has said he can no longer have.

We dont know- but can extrapolate from his obstructionist tactics in the past (present-maybe?). Saddam has neither expressed remorse nor a willingness to change his standpoint/disarm etc..

Originally posted by Troll
Thus these weapons could easily be given to terrorists that want to predominately destroy the US and remotely want to destroy others that have backed the UN resolutions. In short, the US wants to makesure he doesn't have the chance to give them to others to screw us over and in a small sense we sorta hope it doesn't get to you either. Personally I don't care. I'm curious as to how you'd feel and what you'd post when you get nailed. But I'd hate to see ya lose a few thousand lives in order to wake you up.


Weapons from any of a dozen or more states could find their way into terrorist hands- plus 9/11 showed that terrorists dont even need WMDto do great damage. Why focus on Iraq? why not North Korea? We know that NK has directly threatened the US but Iraq has not. So why Iraq instead of NK? These are just some of the questions people are asking today. AND BTW- over here, we have had more than a century of terrorism so dont insult me and mine by implying that the US are the only ones to suffer from terrorism.

Originally posted by Troll

Bush has this weird vision of democracy. He thinks others, not just the US should have freedom and liberty. Again, not my concern if ya don't want it yourself then live with it and don't try to fight for it. Surely some idiot will do the work for ya later at the cost of their own nation's lives.


Does he? Does he indeed? I think that remains to be proven.

Originally posted by Troll
Oil? A little. It's like the big bonus. It opens up the market a little more. But the fact remains that it will still be Iraq's oil to sell as they please. Maybe they'll just be more pleased about some other countries that got them out from under the thumb.


Lets face it. While America doesnt want to 'colonise' Iraq's oil supply, if Iraq had no oil, do you think we would be talking war right now. We are mobilising for war because oil is desperately important to our economies. This may not be PC, but I'd like to see someone that marched on saturday going without any oil for the rest of their lives.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Troll

Oh yeah, what's evil in any of these reasons? The fact that some may die or the fact that not doing anything means that many will continue to die? [/QUOTE]

Whats wrong? hypocrisy. The use of the PC 'human rights' excuse when we know there are other regimes around the world that are just as nasty if not more. I accept that war in the middle east may be neccesary to stabilise the oil supply (which is essential to our economies, which are essential to me because I want a job so I can put a roof over my head and food on the table).

However, I strongly disagree that an invasion of Iraq will either (1) stop terrorism- au contraire
(2) Stabilise the Middle east -au contraire

It may be that more lives are saved by war than by not war but I think this is at best, debateable.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Troll
Oh yeah, what's evil in any of these reasons? The fact that some may die or the fact that not doing anything means that many will continue to die?

My objection to the imminent war with Iraq is this: no matter what justification you use for attacking Iraq, there are better targets elsewhere in the world.

Worried about security? Iraq is no threat to the security of the United States, or anyone else. Saddam knows that if he tries any expansionist crap again, he's going to get his ass kicked. North Korea, on the other hand, actually has a significant military, and they're basically flipping us the bird. Doesn't it make more sense, from a security standpoint, to deal with threats in decreasing order of significance?

Worried about terrorism? First, what is the link between Iraq and terrorism? Even the U.S. government said there wasn't one until we needed someone to bomb. Second, attacking Iraq will destabilize the entire region. Talk of "U.S. imperialism" is always growing, and the threat of a U.S. invasion is the only thing that has succeeded in getting Iraq and al Qaeda on the same side, as evidenced by bin Laden's recent audio tape. We'll see a large increase in terrorism, in both Israel and the U.S., if we invade.

Worried about U.N. resolutions? Shouldn't all countries which ignore U.N. resolutions face the same "serious consequences?" Where are the "serious consequences" for the U.S. and Israel for their systematic and constant disregard for the United Nations?

Worried about the people of Iraq? Now, this might be a legitimate point. However, sad as it is, there are a lot of people in the world that are suffering much more than those in Iraq. If we're going to be invading a country for the benefit of its people, we should think about North Korea again, or Zimbabwe, or a half-dozen other African countries which are much worse off. Or forget invasion, and throw those billions of dollars into HIV research, and potentially save a hundred million lives.

No matter how you look at it, Iraq is simply a poor choice of targets.

Jeremy

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

But invading Iraq will increase the number of middle eastern terrorists.



Why is this statement accepted as an objective given??

Reality check;

1. Muslim extremists ALREADY hate the US - it has little to do w/ Iraq.
2. This same line of reasoning was trotted out as an excuse for not attacking the Taliban - those who espoused it were wrong.
3. The Iraqi people WANT a regime change - that's right you heard me.

This is just a convienent excuse for inaction - right up there w/ other favorites;

a. War in Iraq is a distraction from the war against bin Laden - Yea? How?
b. Innocent people will be killed - SH kills innocent people EVERY day.
c. The inspector's should be given the time to do their job - this sounds suspiciuously like, "the sanctions should be given more time to work". Well the sanctions were not working - which is why there are inspector's - and the inspectors have already uncovered case after case of non-compliance. But...
d. There is no "smoking gun" - well according to Tony Blair, "There is no intelligence agency of any government around this table that does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." Don't expect SH to erect a nuclear tipped SCUD in downtown Iraq.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[gnome]

I'll play devil's advocate here for once and comment that though any of these reasons singly may not be enough to justify a war, it could be argued that considered together they make Iraq a priority.

In other words, if you sort of assign points to each of the problems we're addressing, Iraq's "total" could be higher than another nation that has a worse problem for any one issue.

I'm not convinced that it does add up so high, but it's worth discussing. Heh, maybe we could even come up with a rudimentary point system.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


SH kills innocent people EVERY day.
.

Is there proof of this? Who is he killing anyway. IS the assumtion that cause he's a dictator he must murder to stay in power.


Do we want Iraq to be democratic? Will they elect muslim extremsists which could be worse advesaries than Saddam?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by gnome
I'll play devil's advocate here for once and comment that though any of these reasons singly may not be enough to justify a war, it could be argued that considered together they make Iraq a priority.
You know, that's the point I try to make when I debate about Iraq... No single thing makes Iraq a target for invasion, it is a combination of several things.

- Saddam oppresses his people. Yes, there are other, even more brutal dictatorships. Doesn't necessarily mean Saddam is a nice guy
- Saddam probably has WMD. Yes, other countries (like North Korea and China) do too, but it doesn't mean Saddam doesn't have them
- Saddam supports terrorists (mostly palistinian suicide bombers). Yes, places like Saudi Arabia do more to support terrorism, but they don't have the WMD like Iraq has
- There is a legality to invading Iraq. They are in violation of UN resolutions. (Other countries may be bad, but they don't have supposed UN action against them)
- Iraq does have expansionist goals. They've been kept in check by the U.S./UK for the past decade, but they did attempt to annex Kuwait

Yes, each point on its own may not justify an invasion. (In fact, if you consider each point separately, you can probably find other countries that deserve invasion much more.) It is the fact that Iraq meets ALL of these criteria that makes it a primary target.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Jeremy:

basically you are commiting yourself to a false dillema: Either we the US takes care of other human rights violators.....or ignores Iraq. Either we do a perfect/optimal job, or we don't act at all. I admit there are better targets, but I take what I can get. The US is simply not going to go after such other groups at the moment. Just because Saddam may not be the worst of the worst does not mean he's not worth going for. If you are really concerned for human rights, you would present this argument as an excuse to have the US overthrow other regimes; not as a reason against going to war with Iraq. I mean what's wrong with improve the quality of life in Iraq just because you aren't able to elsewhere?

You point concerning North Korea would be a good one......IF the US could actually do something about North Korea without getting itself Nuked or in a terrible war of attrition. The fact is North Korea is much, MUCH stronger then Iraq and more costly to fight. You even mentioned INVADING North Korea? I'm sure China would love that. Nevermind North Korea has about 3 million dedicated troops willing to meet us. A nation must pick and choose its battles, Iraq is easy, Korea is suicide.

So yeah North Korea can give us the bird and all we can do is likewise. The alternative is we try to play superhero and recieve a harsh beating.

As for other complaints, saying that invading Iraq would create more terrorism seems like unfounded speculation.

Likewise simply saying "well other countries are bad/a threat too...why don't we attack them instead?" Is to commit the perfectionist fallacy. You are saying basically it's all or none. Likewise I fail to see how these other countries are worse then Iraq in terms of human rights violations or more of a threat.

One person who said attacking Iraq would increase terrorism even suggested we attack NK. That ignores the fact that there are marxist-lenninist terrorist and militant groups in the world who would possibly retaliate if we acted against north korea. Likewise this would probably lead to the US having to deal with an uncooperative population and guerillas after the fact. Unlike Iraquis, North Korean believe in their nations principle very strongly.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Tmy


Is there proof of this?



Yea, a ton - he has a history of murdering his politcal opponents - and the Kurdish minority in Iraq - do a Google search

Who is he killing anyway.
See above.

IS the assumtion that cause he's a dictator he must murder to stay in power.

Err...that IS essentially how dictator's stay in power.


Do we want Iraq to be democratic?
That's a laudible goal yes.

Will they elect muslim extremsists which could be worse advesaries than Saddam?

Don't know - but this shouldn't become an excuse for inaction - like, "But invading Iraq will increase the number of middle eastern terrorists."

Barkhorn.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Is there proof of this? Who is he killing anyway. IS the assumtion that cause he's a dictator he must murder to stay in powe

This is one of the most ridiculous questions I have ever been asked. But here you go: http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_02/alia/a2020814.htm

Do we want Iraq to be democratic? Will they elect muslim extremsists which could be worse advesaries than Saddam?

You idea concerning a muslim extremist being elected is pure speculation. Besides I'm fairly certain there will be constitutional checks against this sort of thing. Also I doubt that a Muslim extremist would even be worse then Saddam.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
basically you are commiting yourself to a false dillema: Either we the US takes care of other human rights violators.....or ignores Iraq. Either we do a perfect/optimal job, or we don't act at all.

No, I am pushing for action against other repressive states. I'm not a pacifist; in fact, I think it could do a lot of good for the U.S. to put its significant military strength to use for a noble purpose. If we're going to be the world's policeman, as appears to be the case, I think it's about time we started being more proactive. I simply think it makes more sense to choose the target where the most can be accomplished first.

I also question the benefits this war will have for the people of Iraq. Bush and company have backed away from their earlier statements about establishing a representative government. If all we do is replace one U.S.-installed dictator for another, I don't consider that an improvement for Joe Baghdad.

I admit there are better targets, but I take what I can get. The US is simply not going to go after such other groups at the moment.

I salute your pragmatism, but, to me, "this is the best we can get right now" isn't reason to stop pushing for better. And, like I said, I wonder if this really is going to be any good for the Iraqi people.

You point concerning North Korea would be a good one......IF the US could actually do something about North Korea without getting itself Nuked or in a terrible war of attrition.

We could be doing more than we are now. I'm not just talking about military action.

However, consider this: North Korea may (or may not) currently have nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to use them against the U.S. If we wait too long, they certainly will. The alternative then will be good ol' Cold War-style grinding into the ground, in which we just wait until their economy self-destructs. Who knows how long that will take, or what the cost will be to people in the area -- not to mention people in the areas they attack or attempt to annex. It might be worth taking a military risk now in order to prevent that while we have a chance.

You even mentioned INVADING North Korea?

Er, yes, I did. Oops! :) I went back and added North Korea to that sentence after writing the rest of the post, and didn't pay attention to my words as much as I should've. Naturally, I didn't mean an actual invasion.

As for other complaints, saying that invading Iraq would create more terrorism seems like unfounded speculation.

Well, insofar as any prediction is speculation, of course it is. But remember that bin Laden's primary justification for his terrorism is the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. It's a very heated issue to those who view the U.S. as an imperialist, and establishing a puppet government over there sure isn't going to help our reputation. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that we should expect more of the same.

Likewise simply saying "well other countries are bad/a threat too...why don't we attack them instead?" Is to commit the perfectionist fallacy. You are saying basically it's all or none.

No, I'm just saying we should start with the ones that will stand to provide the most benefit.

Likewise I fail to see how these other countries are worse then Iraq in terms of human rights violations or more of a threat.

Well, first, I'm still not sure why people consider Iraq such a threat. Hussein isn't dumb, and he knows that if he makes any offensive move now, he's through. He wants to stay in power at any cost.

As for human rights violations, the U.S. could walk through most of Africa just as easily as Iraq, and there are a hell of a lot more people there. Also, I think we should really be focusing on HIV at least as much as petty dictators. More people are going to die from AIDS in the next 30 years than were killed in WWII if we don't do something soon. The U.S. is in a position to help.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


This is one of the most ridiculous questions I have ever been asked. But here you go: http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_02/alia/a2020814.htm


Hey! Dictatorships arent bad, there are just bad dictators! Whould General Whatz his name from Pakistan be considered a dictator? Didnt he seize full power a little while back???


Im thinking that your right, there isnt ONE reason for going to war. We've evolved to this point cause the reasons keep changing! Thats whats annoyed me about the whole thing.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by toddjh


....Also, I think we should really be focusing on HIV at least as much as petty dictators. More people are going to die from AIDS in the next 30 years than were killed in WWII if we don't do something soon. The U.S. is in a position to help.

Jeremy

Why don't you, personally, step up the effort if HIV-Africa is high on your list of "things to do". I see many better uses for my tax dollars. BTW, will *you* pay any taxes for 2002?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Why don't you, personally, step up the effort if HIV-Africa is high on your list of "things to do".

Unfortunately, most of the current emphasis seems to be on treatment rather than research for a vaccine or cure. It will take large-scale action to see results on that front.

And I do step up the effort -- with my dollars and my vote.

I see many better uses for my tax dollars. BTW, will *you* pay any taxes for 2002?

What is that supposed to mean?

Jeremy

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by toddjh
Also, I think we should really be focusing on HIV at least as much as petty dictators. More people are going to die from AIDS in the next 30 years than were killed in WWII if we don't do something soon. The U.S. is in a position to help.

Umm... OK, I'll bite.... Just HOW are they supposed to use the military to stop AIDS?

Are you suggesting that money given to the armed forces should just be diverted to medical research?

Science sometimes takes time to find cures for disease. Thats just the nature of progress. However, a few things should be noted:
- In North America, other diseases (such as cancer) cause more deaths than AIDS. The dangers have been greatly exagerated. The danger is, funding for AIDS research is taking money away from diseases that cause more deaths per year (See: http://www.fumento.com/shrinking.html)
- AIDS can be reduced in Africa by better education. But, that requires a change in society, not a military invasion

[hammegk]

Originally posted by toddjh

What is that supposed to mean?

Jeremy

Just what it asked. Did you pay any taxes in 2002? You seem anxious to send mine around the world.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Just what it asked. DId you pay any taxes in 2002?

Actually, you asked if I will pay any taxes in 2002. But, to answer your question, yes, of course I did. Why would you think I didn't?

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Umm... OK, I'll bite.... Just HOW are they supposed to use the military to stop AIDS?

Er, I don't think I ever said that.

Are you suggesting that money given to the armed forces should just be diverted to medical research?

To an extent, yes.

Science sometimes takes time to find cures for disease. Thats just the nature of progress.

Yes, but sufficient funding increases the likelihood that it will happen sooner. I think it's worth the risk.

However, a few things should be noted:
- In North America, other diseases (such as cancer) cause more deaths than AIDS. The dangers have been greatly exagerated. The danger is, funding for AIDS research is taking money away from diseases that cause more deaths per year (See: http://www.fumento.com/shrinking.html)

I'm not too concerned about North America.

- AIDS can be reduced in Africa by better education. But, that requires a change in society, not a military invasion

I was never talking about a military invasion in regards to HIV, just funding for research (and more research emphasis on prevention and a cure rather than just treatment).

As you say, it's unlikely that African societies will adapt in time to stop tens of millions of people from being infected over the next decade. Therefore, the best way to stop the disaster is, in my opinion, more emphasis on a vaccine and, if possible, a cure. Something that even power-mad dictators wouldn't pass up.

Jeremy

[DialecticMaterialist]

No, I am pushing for action against other repressive states. I'm not a pacifist; in fact, I think it could do a lot of good for the U.S. to put its significant military strength to use for a noble purpose. If we're going to be the world's policeman, as appears to be the case, I think it's about time we started being more proactive. I simply think it makes more sense to choose the target where the most can be accomplished first.

Okay, but you can do that and not oppose the war with Iraq. Also on what basis should we prefer these other states?

Would you not settle for taking out Iraq if the US will not attack the states you prefer?

I also question the benefits this war will have for the people of Iraq.

If you are going to reason this way, I can do the same for any state you propose as well.


Bush and company have backed away from their earlier statements about establishing a representative government. If all we do is replace one U.S.-installed dictator for another, I don't consider that an improvement for Joe Baghdad.

Pure BS.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/4220432.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021006-70566054.htm


I salute your pragmatism, but, to me, "this is the best we can get right now" isn't reason to stop pushing for better. And, like I said, I wonder if this really is going to be any good for the Iraqi people.

Well I question if the otehr targets are really that much better. Likewise, you can keep pushing for better while still pushing for what you are likely to get.
Even if ending other regimes would be better, it doesn't seem likely that the US either can or will do this, such a hope is unrealistic such a goal is more long-term.


We could be doing more than we are now. I'm not just talking about military action.

Yes we could but Iraq is a good start and good enough to merit my support. It is at the very least a step in the right direction.

However, consider this: North Korea may (or may not) currently have nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to use them against the U.S. If we wait too long, they certainly will.


North Korea can still use such weapons against our troops.

The alternative then will be good ol' Cold War-style grinding into the ground, in which we just wait until their economy self-destructs. Who knows how long that will take, or what the cost will be to people in the area -- not to mention people in the areas they attack or attempt to annex. It might be worth taking a military risk now in order to prevent that while we have a chance.

We already have that situation with China. North Korea is also not a superpower, so I doubt it'll be another cold war.

And even if North Korea didn't use its Nukes, NK still has an army at least 3 millions strong. A loyal, failry well trained, well armed, dedicated army. Not only that but it's found in jungle/mountainous terrain, which tends to decrease our technological advantage.




Well, insofar as any prediction is speculation, of course it is.


But some predictions are more warranted then others. ;)

But remember that bin Laden's primary justification for his terrorism is the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. It's a very heated issue to those who view the U.S. as an imperialist, and establishing a puppet government over there sure isn't going to help our reputation. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that we should expect more of the same.

We would also be liberating a nation from a dictator most muslim terrorists don't even like. That to me seems like it would give our rep a big boost. Likewise I doubt Laden's only justification came from US troops being in Saudi Arabia, that seems more like a rationalization. I think most of the terrorist support stems from a sort of religious fanaticism and anti-western attitude choking the region, something that may very well be lifted a tad by overthrowing Sadam. I think no matter what Bin Laden and his ilk will find a reason to call the US "imperialist" or label the US the "enemy". Including allowing Israel to exist and exerting cultural influence.


Also though we may prevent the rise of potential terrorists by overthrowing Saddam, we will allow actual terrorists to continue their operations by allowing Saddam to stay in power. . There are real terrorists in Iraq that will be weakened when the Regime changes. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html


No, I'm just saying we should start with the ones that will stand to provide the most benefit.


Perhaps so, but barring that there's no reason why we should not settle for Iraq.


Well, first, I'm still not sure why people consider Iraq such a threat. Hussein isn't dumb, and he knows that if he makes any offensive move now, he's through. He wants to stay in power at any cost.

As for human rights violations, the U.S. could walk through most of Africa just as easily as Iraq, and there are a hell of a lot more people there. Also, I think we should really be focusing on HIV at least as much as petty dictators. More people are going to die from AIDS in the next 30 years than were killed in WWII if we don't do something soon. The U.S. is in a position to help.

The US can't really do much about the AIDS problem in Africa.
Likewise the region ,while having opressive warlords, seems to lack a true totalitarian regime.

Likewise though an AIDS epidemic may be bad:

1) It is not as easily dealt with as a pipsqueek dictator. We have no cure for AIDS, all we can do is advocate safe sex practices and condom use. This may be less effective in war torn regions.

2) It is not systematically opressing people/destroying their freedom etc. I'd have to say though more people may die of disease every year then dictatorship, dictatorships are still more horrific, affect lives beyond mere killing, and do more long-term damage, due to their creating conflicts,making a region poorer,etc.

3) The US is helping with Africa. http://www.usaid.gov/regions/afr/hlthfp.html

Ultimately this seems like a red herring, does going to war with Saddam prevent our helping Africa now or later?
Do we have to wait until AIDS disapears in Africa before we overthrow totalitarian regimes?

I failt to see the conection.

In any event, I personally see the regimes of the Middle East as 1) Worse then those in Africa. 2) A greater threat then those in Africa via terrorism.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'm not too concerned about North America.

Double standard.






As you say, it's unlikely that African societies will adapt in time to stop tens of millions of people from being infected over the next decade. Therefore, the best way to stop the disaster is, in my opinion, more emphasis on a vaccine and, if possible, a cure. Something that even power-mad dictators wouldn't pass up.

Unrealistic. A cure for AIDS is not coming anytime soon no matter how big the budget is. That is unless we go to ridiculous lengths to maybe get it a little faster.
http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/health/cancer_sidebar.html

There simply is not much we can do about it, though the US is trying.

There is something we can do about Sadam though. Not in the far future but right now.

High light of the article:

A cure for AIDS by the year 2025 is not inconceivable. But constrained by economic reality, these therapeutic advances will have only limited benefit outside the U.S. and Western Europe.




That means even with best efforts, a cure will not come until a predicted 2025, with the vaccine still not being widely available.
Highlight

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll
Reasons for confrontation with Iraq:


Finishing what daddy should have done but decided not to under advisement of some of the now hawkish folks in the son's administration.



if that's a reason, it's a bad one.



Hussein openly finances terror. He's televised a support of financial aid to suicide bombers families. We know he has had and has failed to show or prove the destruction of what the UN, not the US, the UN, that includes a bunch of countries folks, even your own, has said he can no longer have. Thus these weapons could easily be given to terrorists that want to predominately destroy the US and remotely want to destroy others that have backed the UN resolutions. In short, the US wants to makesure he doesn't have the chance to give them to others to screw us over and in a small sense we sorta hope it doesn't get to you either. Personally I don't care. I'm curious as to how you'd feel and what you'd post when you get nailed. But I'd hate to see ya lose a few thousand lives in order to wake you up.



have you heard of the bali bombing? the proportion of people lost in that was bigger.



Bush has this weird vision of democracy. He thinks others, not just the US should have freedom and liberty. Again, not my concern if ya don't want it yourself then live with it and don't try to fight for it. Surely some idiot will do the work for ya later at the cost of their own nation's lives.



pull the other one, it's got bells on



Oil? A little. It's like the big bonus. It opens up the market a little more. But the fact remains that it will still be Iraq's oil to sell as they please. Maybe they'll just be more pleased about some other countries that got them out from under the thumb.



A little? The world runs on oil.



I eagerly await AUP's and UCE's twists, turns, and other bizzare forms of retort

Oh yeah, what's evil in any of these reasons? The fact that some may die or the fact that not doing anything means that many will continue to die?

How about 'the industrial/military complex'. GWB lost an election due to the Gulf War and the economic consequences. The DOW is going up and down at present depending on how likely the coming war is. Airlines are preparing to lay off workers.

The big winners are the complex, who get to, once again, 'justify' their existence.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Okay, but you can do that and not oppose the war with Iraq. Also on what basis should we prefer these other states?

I admit it's subjective, but I suggest a combination of quality of life for the average citizen, and population size.

Would you not settle for taking out Iraq if the US will not attack the states you prefer?

Er...how am I going to stop it, exactly? And why should I "settle" for anything? Why not continue to push for what you believe is the best course of action?

Pure BS.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/4220432.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021006-70566054.htm

Both of those links are from October of last year.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB21Ak03.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Double standard.

How so? HIV is North America is largely under control. Our mainstream society has reduced its indulgence in risky sexual behavior and adopted safer sex techniques. We also have access to effective protection, the means to obtain it, and the social and personal ability to use it. The two situations are not at all similar

Unrealistic. A cure for AIDS is not coming anytime soon no matter how big the budget is.

What makes you qualified to make that determination? I don't trust an article in a non-scientific journal to make predictions of that kind. Even experts are very often mistaken about the timescales of such things.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Just what it asked. Did you pay any taxes in 2002? You seem anxious to send mine around the world.

*shrug* You don't have a problem sending mine to Iraq. What's your point?

Jeremy

[DialecticMaterialist]

Er...how am I going to stop it, exactly? And why should I "settle" for anything? Why not continue to push for what you believe is the best course of action?

You settle for what you get sometimes or you get nothing at all. It's called compromise. Also going to war with Iraq isn't necessarily even a bad thing, so why oppose it? If you don't think it's enough...fine. But opposing it is different.


Both of those links are from October of last year.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB21Ak03.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=379060

Okay my sources are old....doesn't make them wrong. Your sources on the other hand are far from mainstream and stink of bias.


Also if you'd read your sources you'd see that nowhere does Bush mention backing down from the original plan, he is merely accused of doing so.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Our mainstream society has reduced its indulgence in risky sexual behavior and adopted safer sex techniques. We also have access to effective protection, the means to obtain it, and the social and personal ability to use it. The two situations are not at all similar

Not the point. His point was that many die in the US due to cancer...your response was "I don't care about North America". I imagine North America is not as having as much a problem with cancer as africa is AIDS but you could have come up with a better response.

What makes you qualified to make that determination? I don't trust an article in a non-scientific journal to make predictions of that kind. Even experts are very often mistaken about the timescales of such things.

Well the man is a Doctor and though experts *can* make mistakes his word carries more weight then yours at the moment.(Theorectically I could reject any expert testimony on this basis.)

But if that's not good enough I'll bring in the National Instute of Health:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/hivresfact.cfm


From the article:
Because the number of new infections exceeds the number of deaths due to AIDS each year both in the U.S. and worldwide, the annual number of deaths due to AIDS is expected to increase for many years before peaking.

Effective AIDS vaccines are not expected for another decade, and designing a service delivery system will take additional time. Until vaccine-based prevention becomes a reality, behaviorally based prevention strategies remain the only effective means to slow or reverse the epidemic.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Not the point. His point was that many die in the US due to cancer...your response was "I don't care about North America".

No, check again. I said "I'm not too concerned about North America." It says absolutely nothing about how much I care; I simply think our region of the world is in good enough shape that it doesn't warrant much concern about HIV at this time. I wasn't talking about cancer at all.

Jeremy

[hammegk]

Originally posted by toddjh


*shrug* You don't have a problem sending mine to Iraq. What's your point?

Jeremy

Thanks for response; yup, you seem willing to put your money where your mouth is. Although I strongly disagree with any & every position you've mentioned that I've read, I fully agree with your right to be heard.

[DialecticMaterialist]

No, check again. I said "I'm not too concerned about North America." It says absolutely nothing about how much I care; I simply think our region of the world is in good enough shape that it doesn't warrant much concern about HIV at this time. I wasn't talking about cancer at all.


Well sorry I didn't quote you verbatim(I assumed you would understand what I was saying regardless) but you should have given an explanation. Simply saying "I'm not too concerned"(hopefully this won't count as a a grave misquote) without explanation stinks of a double standard. Also the guys point wasn't just about North America:

- In North America, other diseases (such as cancer) cause more deaths than AIDS. The dangers have been greatly exagerated. The danger is, funding for AIDS research is taking money away from diseases that cause more deaths per year (See: http://www.fumento.com/shrinking.html)

Though his link leads to a dubious source imo. I'd prefer a more solid source. Though it does raise a good point, by raising the issue of whether or not other diseases are killing more people world wide. And if so, would our money be better spent researching them?

[a_unique_person]

However, you are correct. There is no single reason, and all the reasons for it will never be known. Such is the nature of history.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by toddjh
I was never talking about a military invasion in regards to HIV, just funding for research (and more research emphasis on prevention and a cure rather than just treatment).

Why do we need to research 'prevention'? We know how to prevent HIV transmission. Don't have unprotected sex.
Originally posted by toddjh
Therefore, the best way to stop the disaster is, in my opinion, more emphasis on a vaccine and, if possible, a cure. Something that even power-mad dictators wouldn't pass up.
Don't be so sure. Remember, Africa is a place that would rather let its people starve than be subject to 'genetically modified' foods. I'm sure dictators would gladly say "We won't let bad American vaccines poison our population".