OK Time to Clean up this Mess

[Drooper]

Alright, so the War in Iraq was "illegal" as I have heard it said lately. That it never should have happened.


OK. So if that is the case what she we do now. Well we must reinstate Saddam and help him to put back in place his system of ..err.... government and security and then leave as quickly as possible. Surely that is the best way to right this wrong, is it not?

[fishbob]

Well we must reinstate Saddam and help him to put back in place his system of ..err.... government and security and then leave as quickly as possible. I would expect this kind of silliness from Fleegle, but I am so disappointed to hear it from you.

2 minor points:

You can't go back in time.
You can't predict the future.

[a_unique_person]

From what I read, Saddam's old secret service and police are exactly what is being put back into power right now.

Apart from that, if you have any good suggestions, I bet Dubya would like to hear about them right now.

[bignickel]

Actually, the war was legal. It was authrorized by Congress back in '90.

Then there was a cease-fire. Thus: the war never really ended.

So W decided to end the cease-fire, and start the shooting again. Which is certainly within his purview. WMD or no. He could just as easily have claimed that Saddam was hoarding storehouses of Slinkys ("what rolls down stairs, alone or in pairs..?")

If we had wanted to, we could have just demanded that the gov conclude a peace treaty with the Iraqis back in the 90s. But no one bothered. Too busy d/ling porn off the internet? Who knows.

[clk]

Originally posted by bignickel
Too busy d/ling porn off the internet?

Why, yes, I am! Oh wait, that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it? Sh*t!

[Bottle or the Gun]

'Slinky's of Mass Distraction'

What would happen if we just said...."Well, you are free. Here's some cash to rebuild. Bye! You're welcome!"

Would the place find some kind equilibrium or go to hell very very fast?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
'Slinky's of Mass Distraction'

What would happen if we just said...."Well, you are free. Here's some cash to rebuild. Bye! You're welcome!"

Would the place find some kind equilibrium or go to hell very very fast?

Depends on who would end up with the cash.

[patnray]

I have refrained from discussions about the legality of the war because, once it starts it isn't very relevant. It's true: you can't go back in time. I spoke out passionately against the war before it started. But it started, and we can't change it.

All we can do now is commit the resources needed to build a stable government as rapidly as possible. I suspect that it will take a lot more resources than presently committed. Recent American history suggests we will commit the fewest possible resources, especially in an election year, rather than making a maximum commitment up front. The danger in under committing is that it could take a lot longer to create stability and consume a lot more resources in the long run. Pity that we didn't have a broader coalition going in so we'd have more help picking up the pieces now.

So, whether the war was right or wrong, the only proper course now is to work diligently to create conditions that will allow us to leave.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by bignickel
He could just as easily have claimed that Saddam was hoarding storehouses of Slinkys ("what rolls down stairs, alone or in pairs..?")


but what if he actually had perfectly legal stockpile of The Log, from Blammo, that also rolls down stairs , alone or in pairs, but with the extra benefit of rolling over your neighbor's dog and being good for a snack? what a conundrum!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


but what if he actually had perfectly legal stockpile of The Log, from Blammo, that also rolls down stairs , alone or in pairs, but with the extra benefit of rolling over your neighbor's dog and being good for a snack? what a conundrum!

It's better than bad; it's good!

[Drooper]

I am suprised nobody has yet grasped the central point of my ironic post.


Should not those people who claim that the invasion and ousting of Saddam was such a travesty be campaigning for a return of Saddam.

After all, the were no WMDs right? So the war was not justified, right?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Drooper
I am suprised nobody has yet grasped the central point of my ironic post.


Should not those people who claim that the invasion and ousting of Saddam was such a travesty be campaigning for a return of Saddam.

After all, the were no WMDs right? So the war was not justified, right?

And shouldn't those people who were for the war be campaigning to have Pol Pot brought back from the dead and put in power?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


And shouldn't those people who were for the war be campaigning to have Pol Pot brought back from the dead and put in power?


Sorry, you'll have to join the dots for me on that one.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Drooper
I am suprised nobody has yet grasped the central point of my ironic post.


Should not those people who claim that the invasion and ousting of Saddam was such a travesty be campaigning for a return of Saddam.

After all, the were no WMDs right? So the war was not justified, right?

Let me play a Devil's advocate for a moment here. The issue is not black and white and just because the war might have been fought for a questionable reason does not mean he should be reinstated.

Having said that, most people who protested the war did so because they did not want innocent people to die. If that is so, why did they not campaign the UN to go in and oust Saddam?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Drooper



Sorry, you'll have to join the dots for me on that one.

When you join the dots for me on your argument.

Grammy: A lot of us did want the UN to try to oust Saddam, and one suggestion was smarter sanctions. Ironically, this is exactly what George W had in mind before 9/11.

[Luke T.]

I would give every Iraqi a copy of Democracy In America, if I could. No kidding.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


When you join the dots for me on your argument.

Grammy: A lot of us did want the UN to try to oust Saddam, and one suggestion was smarter sanctions. Ironically, this is exactly what George W had in mind before 9/11.

I don't think it would have worked, have sanctions ever worked (seriously I have no idea)? Also if you have been following the news (http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/14/wiraq14.xml) you would note a corruption scandal in the essential part of the sanctions

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Drooper
I am suprised nobody has yet grasped the central point of my ironic post.

Should not those people who claim that the invasion and ousting of Saddam was such a travesty be campaigning for a return of Saddam.

After all, the were no WMDs right? So the war was not justified, right?
I'm not sure if you were in the boards a year ago when the war started or if you simply forgot, but I don't think a single person here thought that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea. Many, like myself, thought this was a bad way to do it, leading to the loss of many innocent lives and the damaging of our (the US's) interests worldwide, for example, the alienation of our allies.

Like others here, I want Iraq to become a stable, democratic government, but I cannot see that the invasion will accomplish this. I predict that as soon as US troops leave, the coalition government will dissolve into partisan squabbling until another warlord gets enough power to become a dictator. I also predict that the form of government will quickly become an Islamic theocracy, much like in Iran. I hope I'm wrong.

So you can see, your little strawman of what anti-war people should want is very poorly stuffed.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't think it would have worked, have sanctions ever worked (seriously I have no idea)? Also if you have been following the news (http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/14/wiraq14.xml) you would note a corruption scandal in the essential part of the sanctions

I don't have a hard-and-fast link for it, but my understanding is that Libya started putting their hand up to terrorist attacks and cooperating with the UN, US, etc, in order to get sanctions lifted. I'm sure there are other examples.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I don't have a hard-and-fast link for it, but my understanding is that Libya started putting their hand up to terrorist attacks and cooperating with the UN, US, etc, in order to get sanctions lifted. I'm sure there are other examples.

Well I believe Moammar Kadafi (I don't have the quote so I won't state it as fact) said that part of the reason for cooperation was the fact they went into Iraq and got Saddam.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Drooper
I am suprised nobody has yet grasped the central point of my ironic post.

Should not those people who claim that the invasion and ousting of Saddam was such a travesty be campaigning for a return of Saddam.

After all, the were no WMDs right? So the war was not justified, right?

"Nobody grasped?!?!"

Did you really think that nobody grasped that?

I grasped it all right. Grasped it, found it beneath contempt, and flung it away. I would think many others did the same.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm not sure if you were in the boards a year ago when the war started or if you simply forgot, but I don't think a single person here thought that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea. Many, like myself, thought this was a bad way to do it, leading to the loss of many innocent lives and the damaging of our (the US's) interests worldwide, for example, the alienation of our allies.

Like others here, I want Iraq to become a stable, democratic government, but I cannot see that the invasion will accomplish this. I predict that as soon as US troops leave, the coalition government will dissolve into partisan squabbling until another warlord gets enough power to become a dictator. I also predict that the form of government will quickly become an Islamic theocracy, much like in Iran. I hope I'm wrong.

So you can see, your little strawman of what anti-war people should want is very poorly stuffed.


This is far from being a straw man. In fact this is my thread, I framed the point of debate and the point is: is there some inconsistency in the position of the more vociferous anti-war campaigners. So how can this be a Straw Man, unless you are saying I didn't want to debate the thing I implied I wanted to debate?


Anyway, the point stands. This may not cover everyone's point of view, but there is a significant swell of opinion that believes that the war was "wrong" in absolute terms. That it should never have happened; that if we could go back in time we should have let the situation with and in Iraq trundle on.

Well, what has changed? It may not be practical to try and put things bacl together, but that is an argument that needs to be made in defence of such an anti-war position.

Nobody has even tried to do that yet.


And yes, I was around :rolleyes: before, during and after the war. No charge for the condescension I presume? If this doesn't cover your position, then you don't need to debate the point (or even try to construct a Straw Man in order to make a different anti-war point ;) ).

[epepke]

Originally posted by Drooper
Anyway, the point stands. This may not cover everyone's point of view, but there is a significant swell of opinion that believes that the war was "wrong" in absolute terms. That it should never have happened; that if we could go back in time we should have let the situation with and in Iraq trundle on.

I agree with your observation. I wasn't on this board back then, but I was on plenty of others, and I heard quite a lot that seemed to me inconsistent.

Actually, though, it's a little bit more complex than you mentioned: it's a 3-way contradiction, not a 2-way contradiction. A big chunk of the people who were strongly against the war held three notions:

A) War is bad.
B) Saddam is a murderous dictator, hence bad.
C) Sanctions killed 5000 Iraqi babies a month, hence bad.

Once you add C, it's more obvious that it was a lose-lose-lose set of beliefs. However, it's easier to avoid seeing a contradiction in a position about it and easier to debate that there is no contradiction, simply because there are three elements, and it's so easy to stage a debate as if there were only two. You can keep shifting the one you omit, and it will confuse most people.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by bignickel
Too busy d/ling porn off the internet? Who knows.
do you have evidence to support this claim? URL's ??

[Drooper]

Originally posted by VicDaring


"Nobody grasped?!?!"

Did you really think that nobody grasped that?

I grasped it all right. Grasped it, found it beneath contempt, and flung it away. I would think many others did the same.

Tosser.

Methinks that you need to either:

a) start you own thread, rather than hijack this one if it offends you somehow.

or

b) address the question, even if it does cause you discomfort at having to confront your own hyprocracy.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


When you join the dots for me on your argument.



Christ, is it full moon tonight?:rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Drooper
Alright, so the War in Iraq was "illegal" as I have heard it said lately. That it never should have happened.


OK. So if that is the case what she we do now. Well we must reinstate Saddam and help him to put back in place his system of ..err.... government and security and then leave as quickly as possible. Surely that is the best way to right this wrong, is it not?

Two wrongs, not one right!
Three wrongs do not make right, too.
Saddamn won't go back.

Saddamn won't go back.
Why? He'd be afraid to go.
His fear, justified.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Drooper


Tosser.

Methinks that you need to either:

a) start you own thread, rather than hijack this one if it offends you somehow.

or

b) address the question, even if it does cause you discomfort at having to confront your own hyprocracy.

a) Start my own thread? About what? "Droopers ridiculous, pointless assertion?" Also, answering your question = hijacking this thread? I don't get that either.

b) You have ascribed a set of positions to me that I don't hold. I will, again, assume this is true of many (most...all?) who were opposed to this ghastly debacle of a military exercise. Why would I, or anyone else, take that seriously?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Alright, so Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall was "bad" as I have heard it said lately. That it never should have happened.

(Hmm, something is wrong with that paragraph. Oh well).

OK. So if that is the case what should we do now. Well we must send all the King's Horses and all the King's Men to put him back together again. Surely that is the best way to right this wrong, is it not?

Anyone who thinks it was a bad thing that Humpty fell off the wall must, logically, think that this is the only way forward. Thus they are all idiots, and it's a good thing that Humpty fell off the wall.

QED.







_

[shanek]

Originally posted by Drooper
Alright, so the War in Iraq was "illegal" as I have heard it said lately. That it never should have happened.

OK. So if that is the case what she we do now. Well we must reinstate Saddam and help him to put back in place his system of ..err.... government and security and then leave as quickly as possible. Surely that is the best way to right this wrong, is it not?

Let's say that one day you tell me you're going to take up smoking. I say, "No! Don't do that! You'll have all sorts of health problems such as lung cancer!" You don't believe me and start smoking.

Several times over the course of the coming years, I reiterate my warning about smoking and its adverse health effects. You continue to ignore me.

Then, one day, you come to me and say, "Well, my doctor says that I've got lung cancer now, and I'm going to be dead within two years. Okay, Mr. Smart Guy, what should I do now?"

Beats me. My solution was not to start smoking in the first place.

How can people really answer this question?