babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » What will happen if we don't go to war with Iraq?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What will happen if we don't go to war with Iraq?
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 03 March 2003 11:19 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a lot of debate over the consequences of the United States going to war with Iraq. But I want you now to consider the consequences of not going to war with Iraq.

In the event that the US pulls out of the area, I beleive the following things would happen:

1) Left-wing politicians, "rabble-rousers", and Hollywood celebrities will celebrate this "victory for peace". Meanwhile, Saddam will celebrate by killing a few Shiite muslims just for fun.

2) International relations WILL NOT improve. Anti-war protesters in general are opposed th the US on almost anything, so if there is indeed no war, world opinion will not sway in favor of the United States as some claim.

3) Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and other America-friendly states will feel betrayed, and be left vulnerable to an attack.

4) It would make the United States look like weak cowards- this plays directly into the hands of Hussein, binLaden, and Hezbollah. Their propaganda would be bolstered by the American retreat, and recruitment and fundraising for terrorism in the middle east will show huge gains.

5) Hussein will cream his pants because there will be no effective limit to what he can do. You think he is bad now? God forbid he get the kind of opening that a US retreat would provide. He would make his genocide of the Kurds look like friendly treatment compared to what he could then do.

From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 04 March 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is today satire day?
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 04 March 2003 01:34 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I want you now to consider the consequences of not going to war with Iraq.

It's lunchtime and it's quiet, so I'll pretend you're serious and respond.

quote:
1) Left-wing politicians, "rabble-rousers", and Hollywood celebrities will celebrate this "victory for peace".

You haven't been paying attention. There is opposition to an invasion of Iraq from all sides of the political spectrum. I suspect that 94% of the population of Turkey would be surprised to find out they're rabble-rousers. Or are they Hollywood celebrities?

quote:
Meanwhile, Saddam will celebrate by killing a few Shiite muslims just for fun.

Hypothetical twaddle.

quote:

2) International relations WILL NOT improve. Anti-war protesters in general are opposed th the US on almost anything, so if there is indeed no war, world opinion will not sway in favor of the United States as some claim.

Anti-invasion does not equal anti-American. Your argument here is a straw man, but you probably know that already.

quote:

3) Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and other America-friendly states will feel betrayed, and be left vulnerable to an attack.

Vulnerable to attack from whom? Saddam hasn't threatened anybody outside of Iraq in 12 years.

quote:

4) It would make the United States look like weak cowards- this plays directly into the hands of Hussein, binLaden, and Hezbollah. Their propaganda would be bolstered by the American retreat, and recruitment and fundraising for terrorism in the middle east will show huge gains.

I think Bush is a coward. But if cooler heads prevail I think the world's opinion of the US would improve. Right now they're pissing almost everybody off. Even the members of the "coalition of the willing" are mostly on side because they've been bribed, bullied or blackmailed.

As for an increase in the recruitment of terrorists, the biggest shot in the arm I can imagine for that would be for the US to unilaterally invade and occupy a Muslim country.

quote:

5) Hussein will cream his pants because there will be no effective limit to what he can do. You think he is bad now? God forbid he get the kind of opening that a US retreat would provide. He would make his genocide of the Kurds look like friendly treatment compared to what he could then do.

And here's the real straw man argument - the assumption that the only alternative to invasion is to do nothing. It's a false dilemma. Most of the people I know who oppose invasion are in favour of increased inspections backed up with UN peacekeepers - in other words a continuation and even an increase in efforts to contain Saddam.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 04 March 2003 01:53 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's this hilarious insinuation going around that "the left" has been eerily silent on Saddam's human rights abuses since the 70's - apparently we like him because he's a Stalin fan - and that only the steely eyed American government has the courage to do something about him. Makes me chuckle every time I run into it.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 04 March 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a lot like how we all were silent on the Taliban until September 11th.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 04 March 2003 02:48 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes indeedy.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 March 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to mention East Timor.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 04 March 2003 03:00 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
GD, I'm going to assume that you are sincere in your desire to discuss this question. If I may be so bold as to post a link to what I think is the best summary of the situation in Saddam's Iraq in relation to his neighbours and the US. I think that if you read and appreciate the logic in this little monograph, your answer may change
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 04 March 2003 04:25 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An interesting and well reasoned monograph, but fatally flawed. Current events have transcended many of the authors' points, even though their piece is only a few months old. It is quite possible to shoot down many of his arguments. For example:

quote:
But if the blackmailer and the target state both have nuclear weapons, the blackmailer’s threat to use those weapons if he does not get his way is an empty one. The reason is simple: so long as the target state can retaliate in kind, the blackmailer cannot carry out the threat without triggering his own destruction.

Saddam has repeatedly shown that he has no regard whatever for the welfare of his own people. As recently as last week, he said that he had no intention of leaving Iraq, even though it would spare his country much grief. He has repeatedly threatened to 'fight to the last drop of blood', or words to that effect.

The authors claim that Saddam has only attacked two other countries (Kuwait and Iran). I guess they are ignoring SCUD attacks on Saudi Arabia and Israel.

They contradict themselves:

quote:
The war party also contends that Saddam is either irrational or prone to serious miscalculation, which means that he may not be deterred by even credible threats to retaliate. The facts, however, tell a different story.

and later on, in complete contradiction of this point:

quote:
There is no question that Saddam miscalculated when he attacked Kuwait, but the history of warfare is full of cases where leaders have misjudged the prospects for war.

I'm not saying that the authours don't have many logical and reasonable points, but they're not very good at justifying their total position.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 04 March 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Vulnerable to attack from whom? Saddam hasn't threatened anybody outside of Iraq in 12 years.
(Slim)

Not so. Within the last year, Saddam has threatened to re-invade Kuwait (how crazy is that?), and he has repeatedly threatened to attack Israel (although he keeps claiming he doesn't have the weapons to do so).


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 04 March 2003 04:36 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
schizm:

So now we have to ask ourselves if the threat is credible. That's what weapons inspections are supposed to find out. So far, they've shown that while Saddamm isn't the most trustworthy person, which we knew, he hasn't gotten too far in becoming a credible threat to his neighbours. In that sense at least, he's been contained.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 04 March 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Saddam has repeatedly shown that he has no regard whatever for the welfare of his own people. As recently as last week, he said that he had no intention of leaving Iraq, even though it would spare his country much grief.

By no means a given. Saddam has repeatedly shown that he shows no regard for the welfare, or even the humanity, of his opponents, but your statement is so sweeping that it is meaningless. Your supporting point makes the mistake of assuming Saddam's public pronouncements are even remotely related to his intentions, and hell even Dubya knows better than to do that.

quote:
The authors claim that Saddam has only attacked two other countries (Kuwait and Iran). I guess they are ignoring SCUD attacks on Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Yes they are. For good reason. They happened in a context that has some pretty obvious bearing on their relevence.

quote:
and later on, in complete contradiction of this point

Obviously you missed the word "serious" in the first passage you cited.

You're reaching at straws.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 04 March 2003 05:12 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
schizm, I'm glad you want to debate the article reasonably. Before I take issue with a couple of your statements, can we take it as understood that I am NOT defending Saddam Hussein as a leader and that I think his record of torture and mass murder speaks for itself? Also, that when I show that he has done quite a lot for "his" people, I'm not suggesting that he has done it for any reasons other than that he feels it benefits him personally in some way? If not, I'm gonna not play and I'm takin' my marbles home .
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 04 March 2003 06:08 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Before I take issue with a couple of your statements, can we take it as understood that I am NOT defending Saddam Hussein as a leader and that I think his record of torture and mass murder speaks for itself?

I like to state that the foregoing goes without saying, but from some of the posts I've read here, nothing goes without saying. Intelligent discourse has often been replaced with unsupported opinion. Having said that, let's agree to your statement.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 04 March 2003 06:18 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Saddam has repeatedly shown that he shows no regard for the welfare, or even the humanity, of his opponents, but your statement is so sweeping that it is meaningless. Your supporting point makes the mistake of assuming Saddam's public pronouncements are even remotely related to his intentions, and hell even Dubya knows better than to do that.
(ronb)

So you're saying that he DOES intend to leave Iraq, and spare his people the agony of a war?

quote:
Yes they are. For good reason. They happened in a context that has some pretty obvious bearing on their relevence.

I posted that Iraq has indeed attacked more countries than just Kuwait and Iran. How are the attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia not relevant to the point?

quote:
Obviously you missed the word "serious" in the first passage you cited.
You're reaching at straws.

Are you saying that Kuwait was NOT a serious miscalculation on Saddam's part? I have some 'serious' quibbles with the authours of the piece. Many of their points are neither factual nor relevant. I fail to see how my criticisms merit 'grasping at straws'. I have at least half a dozen further criticisms of the article based on historical inaccuracy, and fallacious projections and baseless assumptions.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 04 March 2003 07:19 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"as many as 576,000 children have died as a result of sanctions imposed against Iraq by the United Nations Security Council, according to a report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)." (New York Times, 12/1/95).

I do not know how many children in total have died as a result of the UN/US sanctions on Iraq, but just so we have at least a floor number to refer to I have included the above quote.

U.S. and Britain have made it clear that they will not allow the UN to lift the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq on August of 1990 until Saddam is out of power. So what we do know is that the sanctions will continue with the unfortunate deaths of more Iraqis and let it be a reminder that the number above excludes the amount of adult male and females who have died due to the sanctions and pertains to 1995. From another source a charity working to lift the sanctions this was said "1.5 million people in Iraq, over half of them children under five, have died as a direct result of the sanctions".

We know more Iraqis will die due to the sanctions because Saddam has no intentions of leaving Iraq. The League of Arab Nations have asked him to leave into exile however he is not going to do so.
Aside from that we can expect that things for the Iraqi people will get worse, horribly worse. I assume that there is little time to divert the war but even without the consideration of the war, the infrastructure of Iraq is horrible and decaying. But let just look at some of the expectations of the UN of a post war Iraq.

quote:
Accordingly, in assessing the likely humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people during the post conflict situation, the following assumptions would appear to be justified:
a. The electricity network will be seriously degraded because of damage to generating plants and the transmission and distribution networks. The damage to the electricity network will also result in collateral reductions in capacity in all sectors, particularly water and sanitation as well as health.
b. The port of Umm Qasr will be largely unavailable as it will in all probability either be blockaded or suffer significant damage in the preliminary stages of any hostilities. Accordingly, it cannot reliably be predicted whether any capacity in the port will be available for humanitarian activities.
c. The railway system will be significantly degraded as a result of damage to bridges, culverts and tracks.
d. Road transportation vehicles and depots will suffer considerable damage and, as a consequence, there will be a significant degradation of the already poor transportation system.
e. As Iraq is trisected by two major river systems which flow north-south and as most, if not all, major bridges will be destroyed or damaged, east-west movement of goods and people will be on a restricted basis. Furthermore, the rivers are of such a depth that fording is not possible and there is an almost total absence of lighters, ferries and the like.
f. Damage to the electricity network will result in collateral reductions in capacity in all sectors, particularly water and sanitation as well as health.
g. There could be significant damage to existing Government stocks of all commodities.
h. The production and export of crude oil as well as production of petroleum products mostly for domestic consumption will have ceased, and the facilities holding existing reserve stocks will have been significantly damaged. (taken from UN document)

Now allow us to consider this, “there are some 60 per cent of the population -- 16 million people -- highly dependent on the monthly food basket” given to them by Saddam. Now because I have chosen not to assume things in the case of a war, I am going to suggest that its is going to be difficult and maybe impossible or failure ridden for anyone, be it the UN, US and NGOs working together to feed 16 million people during a war. Could this lead to massive casualties by means of starvation and humanitarian crisis? Most probably. Unless we expect the war to be fought over two days, and the States to find Saddam within those two days to. Very unlikely, just for ignorance sakes cause I really don’t know what to expect from this war lets say that at a best scenario it takes two weeks to fight. Two weeks in which the infrastructure of Iraq is RUINED to BITS and the UN, US and NGOs need to find so means of feeding 16 MILLION PEOPLE!
This is not at all a plea to stop the war or the sanctions on Iraq or is it in support them. This is a plea concerning the next mass rally against the WAR. I believe it to be March 8th 2003.

ON MARCH 8th 2003 COME AND RALLY AGAINST THE WAR.
ON MARCH 8th 2003 COME IN HOPES OF STOPPING THE WAR.
ON MARCH 8th 2003 COME OUT AND MARCH UNITED, BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT, PEOPLE FOR AND AGAINST THE WAR!
ON MARCH 8th 2003 COME OUT AND MARCH AGAINST SADDAM!

THIS IS THE ONLY REAL VIABLE MEANS OF AVOIDING THE WAR!!!
SADDAMS LEAVES, WAR LEAVES!!!

MARCH SO SADDAM LEAVES!!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 04 March 2003 11:20 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
SADDAMS LEAVES, WAR LEAVES!!!

MARCH SO SADDAM LEAVES!!!


At last, some common sense. How many tens of millions on the march would it take to convince the sonofabitch to get out of Iraq and leave those poor suffering people alone. Question is, will millions march to send a message to Saddam, as they did to Bush?


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 04 March 2003 11:46 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
From another source a charity working to lift the sanctions this was said "1.5 million people in Iraq, over half of them children under five, have died as a direct result of the sanctions".

Wrong. They died as a result of the corruption, selfishness, and neglect by their 'elected' leader. In the latest issue of Forbes magazine, rating the richest men in the world, Saddam comes in third. He's been skimming off enough money from funds that should have been earmarked for humanitarian relief to become a multi-billionaire. That bastard stole enough money to have single-handedly solved most of the problems of malnutrition and disease plaguing his people. Nobody can be naive enough to believe that he got all of those billions legitimately.

To blame U.N sanctions is ingenuous and perverse. Those who decry right wing propaganda turn out to be gullible enough to fall for the very same kind of thing from other special interests.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 05 March 2003 01:33 AM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Question is, will millions march to send a message to Saddam, as they did to Bush?

I sure hope they do! Its their last chance to avoid war. Anyhow these anti-american sentiments have really disturbed me personally simply because people are being engulfed in this whole orra of "Bush is EVIL" while Saddam continues to sell humanitarian aid to other Arab nations and reeps 48 palace profits. At least Bush had the decency to sell of any of his shares in possible conflicting intrests viable firms.

However Schizm I could paint Saddam as the monster he is but that still would disregard the real concern of most people, the Iraqi people and what their fate will be? We'll I tried to show that the Iraqi people were suffering because Saddam is unwilling to Leave. I posted this post in direct attack of the selfishness of most activists. I feel that many of them are negligent of their actions and have been high on a movment heavily based on anti-americanism which for me serves as hardly relevent as to why we should not go to war. Startegically international outcry for Saddam's exile would have greater chances of avoiding a war. And I really have no problem with attedning a rally for his exile.
As the movement has been in some parts of the world Toronto one of them, hypocritical, to me un-inviting as a Pro-peace beliver in the Middle East. Screaming out "Victory to the Intafada" which kills innocent Israelis is contradictory to the protestors plea for Peace considering they are giving direct consent for Palestinains to use violence against Israel. Makes me wonder what people at these rallies are protesting against? Are they for Saddam? Are they for a continuation of violence in the Middle East?

And I must stress that had these rallies been setup in protest of Saddam rather than Bush a much larger world community would have attended. Had the world community be given the oppurtunity
to voice their desire for Saddam to leave at rallies for the good of his people this war may have been avoided allready. That sort of humanitarian attention would have placed Arab nations in a far more demanding position of Saddam's exile and the neccesity for UN inspections to go PERFECT on Saddam and Iraqi officals. Unfortunate...I mean unfortunate for the Iraqi people who might have to suffer a great more. I hope not.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 05 March 2003 02:09 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
jonathan: I posted this post in direct attack of the selfishness of most activists. I feel that many of them are negligent of their actions and have been high on a movment heavily based on anti-americanism
How about the American activists? They are anti-American, too? Is this your definition of anti-American? Whoever is against your war? These ‘selfish’ people who give up every minute of leisure time to march in freezing cold cities to demonstrate for something they deeply believe in? How many pro-war demonstrations have you gone to? In freezing cold? Giving up all other activities for it? Listen jonathan, I suggest you listen and think a lot before mouthing off on something you know nothing about. And if you find something hard to grasp, I suggest you ask questions. Maybe you will even learn a few things.

From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 05 March 2003 02:52 AM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Zatamon I believe that in my post I slipped in one place. I'm suprised that you didn't catch it, its one o'clock in the mornin' and I should have left this for after I wake up.
quote:
I feel that many of them are negligent of their actions and have been high on a movment heavily based on anti-americanism which for me serves as hardly relevent as to why we should not go to war.

Firstly I have taken an anti-violence stance on this issue and especially on the Middle East, concerning Israel and Palestine. The use of "we" in my statement above, includes me in the WAR, while I condemn the protestors in their support of Palestinian violence. That was where I slipped. And Bad too. I am not for the war. However people must have reasons to oppose war and to be in support of war. I was making the distinction that protestors should protest against Saddam to leave, this would greaten their chances of eschewing a war and would be a plus for Iraqis. I didn't mean that you have to go and support the war nor do I want you to Zatamon and its defenitely not my war. I'm going to sleep but Zatamon, while you argue that protestors stand out in the cold and etc. An american soldier is shipping himself to Iraq to fight a war, he has deeply held convictions too. But that doesn't at all support the protestors plea to stop the war or the soldiers support and participation in one.

I post what I post to learn, I have great humility and wish to learn. BUt you haven't taught me anything. You just asked my emotions to appeal to the cold weather protestors have to stand in. Well how about you appeal to the fact that "baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food prgram has been found in markets throught the GULF, demosntrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profict"(U.S. Department of State)

OR

"that by 1997, 30 percent of hospital beds were out of use, 75 per cent of all hospital equipment did not work and 25 per cent of Iraq's 1,305 health centers were closed" .(Un Document regarding Iraqi Sanctions)

If you believe that aslong as Saddam complies with UN inspections all is well in the world you are mistaken. Firstly the world has no trust in Saddam therefore the sanctions would continue hurting the Iraqi people Secondly No one here I believe would disagree that Saddam leaving power in Iraq would a) diminish cause for America to go to war so greatly that they couldn't and b) Iraqis would actually gain something from all of this peacefully!

So why not Protest Towards that?!?

Goodnight


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 05 March 2003 08:48 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jonathan, I can give you one advice: as nonesuch said in another thread: "start from basic principles and build it up". It is important that everything in your head fits everything else. Your view of the world has to be like a well constructed building: solid foundation, reliable supporting walls, watertight roof, every piece matching the pieces next to it.

Oh, one more thing: The building needs to stand on the ground. Floating buildings may be fascinating, but they are notoriously unreliable.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 March 2003 09:09 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Question is, will millions march to send a message to Saddam, as they did to Bush?

If that were the question, then marching for Saddam to leave would be easy.

But since marches of millions would have, far as I can tell, absolutely no effect on Saddam -- as they, of course, have minimal effect on Bush and co. -- then what is the point?

To me, the purpose of building the protest marches is longer-term, and much like the anti-war protests of the sixties. No one is going to change George W. Bush's mind, but we can hope, over time, to change the political landscape.

And to change the political landscape in any way that matters, we all have to begin at home.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
-jonathan-
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3806

posted 05 March 2003 01:00 PM      Profile for -jonathan-     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The elevator doesn't go quiet to the top for that guy!

Zatamon definitely good advice...but your allegations that i should

quote:
listen and think a lot before mouthing off on something you(I) know nothing about
remains unfulfilled. So it's "freezing cold"(Zata) and "floating buildings may be fascinating, but they are notoriously unreliable."(Zata)

Well I have a foundation and building and due to linguistics it might not have a perfect "watertight roof" but I have clearly presented my arguments citing sources such as UN, and tried to justify to others my reasons for my beliefs. Well Zatamon you told me to listen and ask questions. I think it only fair for me to ask where is your building? You have fundemntal foundation (opposition to the war) but you have no building. Zatamon I want to see you throw bricks out your windows (from the top floor), where’s your architecture? Maybe you have a previous post in another thread that outlines your arguments in opposition to the war, post it here. This thread asks what will happen if we do not go to war? Come on Zatamon shine, what will happen? Why would what you believe happen? Understand that I am not at all appeased by your argument that if it is cold a war is unjustified. The protestor outside is cold thus a war is unjustified.

And if I hadn't had a foundation to place my building on, than I would have never recognised the inconsistency in my earlier post, we'll I took it upon myself to point it out to other people and apologized for it. I hope that for those in opposition to the war(myself included) that the weather stays cold, if not your argument is bust and building collapses.

Zatamon I am not for war but I am here to learn why others aren't too, as you see my reasons for opposition of the war and slight support for the war is different from most peoples and my opposition to the Rallies is too.

[ 05 March 2003: Message edited by: -jonathan- ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 05 March 2003 01:31 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So you're saying that he DOES intend to leave Iraq, and spare his people the agony of a war?

I can’t say with any certainty what he intends, but I’m not the one claiming to be able to read Saddam’s mind here. There are quite a few possibilities: Saddam could be negotiating the best possible terms of his exile, he may plan to ride the storm out for as long as possible in the very conceivable event that an invasion becomes too much of a political liability for Bush to attempt. There are WAY too many variables here for you to be arguing that Saddam is insane because he hasn’t already accepted exile and is therefore suddenly immune to the containment that has held him in check for the last 12 years.

quote:
How are the attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia not relevant to the point?

Well, first off, Walt and Mearsheimer didn’t contend that Saddam had only attacked two countries. They did say…

quote:
Saddam has dominated Iraqi politics for about thirty years. During that period, he has started only two wars against his neighbors. He invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990.

That’s two wars, during the second of which he lobbed those scuds. No factual problem there, those attacks – heinous, illegal, awful etc etc - were politically motivated and occurred in the broader context of the Gulf War. But beyond that, you seem to be implying that these attacks were further proof of his lunacy and thus un-containability. At the time, I remember this being pretty much acknowledged as a shrewd, if desperate tactic.

quote:
Are you saying that Kuwait was NOT a serious miscalculation on Saddam's part?

That’s what the article maintains, in fact supports at some lengths, and I must say I’m inclined to agree with it. There is a highly recommended piece by Malcolm Galdwell in this week’s New Yorker that describes Israel's intelligence failures and miscalculations that led to Israel’s military defeat in 1973. His contention: hindsight is not necessarily the fairest way to judge these types of decisions. You disagree. But your disagreement is in no way evidence of some fatal logical flaw or contradiction in the article.

quote:
I have some 'serious' quibbles with the authours of the piece. Many of their points are neither factual nor relevant. I fail to see how my criticisms merit 'grasping at straws'. I have at least half a dozen further criticisms of the article based on historical inaccuracy, and fallacious projections and baseless assumptions.

Your “criticisms” merited a “grasping at straws” because they really are just quibbles, mostly baseless - none of them challenge the article’s main thrust one iota, let alone provide evidence of “fatal flaws”. Perhaps you should bring on your other six points, because your first 3 certainly were not based on historical inaccuracies, false projections and baseless assumptions.

And from later…

quote:
To blame U.N sanctions is ingenuous and perverse. Those who decry right wing propaganda turn out to be gullible enough to fall for the very same kind of thing from other special interests.

Which “special interests” would those be then? The usual suspects, union bosses and feminists?

[ 05 March 2003: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 05 March 2003 06:14 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...Israel's intelligence failures and miscalculations that led to Israel’’s military defeat in 1973.

I really must take issue with this. There were likely Israeli intelligence failures, but they most certainly did not suffer defeat. If they had, there would be no state of Israel now. They suffered some initial setbacks, but quickly rallied, and pressed on to total victory.

quote:
Your ““criticisms”” merited a ““grasping at straws”” because they really are just quibbles, mostly
baseless - none of them challenge the article’’s main thrust one iota, let alone provide evidence of ““fatal flaws””.

I acknowledged that I agreed with the main thrust of the article, but I still feel that many of their 'facts' are misinterpretations or corruption of historical fact, and their projections of past history as they relate to situations today are illogical, thus 'flawed'

quote:
Which ““special interests”” would those be then? The usual suspects, union bosses and feminists?

Gack!!! 'union bosses and feminists' Don't imagine that I'd dare to mess with those two groups, especially the latter.

I referred to those types who use inflated and misleading 'statistics' to support their own agendas. Many who support the cause of peace (as I do) accept without question anything that furthers their cause. THis may be a human trait, but it does the particular group no credit, and serves only to damage their credibility.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 06 March 2003 06:28 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There were likely Israeli intelligence failures, but they most certainly did not suffer defeat. If they had, there would be no state of Israel now.

By this logic, neither would there be an Egypt, or an Iraq for that matter. Whatever, call the '73 war an Israeli setback if you like, they were trounced militarily in Egypt and Syria's opening gambit, the result of some glaring intel failures and that is Gladwell's point - hindsight she's always 20/20. He's refuting the notion that US intelligence failed to prevent 911, and concludes that the new super terrorism fighting agency is probably less likely to stop a terrorist attack. it's in the book review section, worth reading..

Your original post sounded pretty dismissive - "fatal" flaws to be precise - which is what got me going in the first place. I didn't (and still don't) believe that any of the quibbles you raised are the slightest bit fatal to the article. It remains as concise and direct a refutation of the Bush self-defense canard - Saddam is so unhinged that he somehow poses such a threat to the US or anybody else that invasion, regime change and occupation is justified - that we've seen so far.

quote:
I referred to those types who use inflated and misleading 'statistics' to support their own agendas.

Of course, the hidden agenda types! And it's the stats you decry now, not the meat of the statement that you were objecting to before - that sanctions have deliberately targetted Iraqi civilians with devastating effectiveness.

Let's say the number is 250,000 dead then, if that makes you more comfortable. 250,000 deliberately sanctioned casualties. Saddam's supposed personal wealth has no bearing whatsoever, the sanctions deliberately prevented infrastructure materiel - medical supplies, water filtration, you know the litany by now -from entering Iraq and this has demonstrably caused the deaths of a HUGE number of civilians. All while Iraq was actively complying with the UN inspection regime. Yet somehow Saddam's personal wealth is supposed to be the issue here, or his "failure to disarm" or what have you.

[ 06 March 2003: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 March 2003 12:58 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I found it odd, but I've been checking up and it seems that indeed, in Israel, the war of 1973 is not treated as an unalloyed victory, but rather an ignominious repulsion of an invader that went badly wrong due to poor intelligence.

Very odd considering how in the West the Yom Kippur War is presented as though the Israelis practically celebrate the enormous victory.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 07 March 2003 03:32 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"So war now belongs to the realm of postmodern thinking, a world where a grim Pericles must convince not the Athenian assembly, but the slouching guests at Trimalchio's banquet. There is no absolute good or bad, only the suspiciously powerful and the nobly impotent."
Victor Hanson

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 07 March 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ooh, ooh! While we're trotting out pretentious and overblown classical analogies, may I present again my stunning realization that GWB is, indeed, a rhetorical reincarnation of Cato, who ended all of his speeches (no matter what they were about) with "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed).

Sound familiar? (I know this is the second time I've posted this, but I'm just so pleased with myself)


From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 March 2003 05:00 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alix, isn't it amazing that right-wing rags like the National Review (the hanson link) are so often at pains to show their classical educations?

The subliminal message: "You don't learn this at public school, buddy!"

Or as Heraclitus said in his prologlomena to the areopagetic anibasis, "I'm wealthy, so eat dirt."


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 07 March 2003 05:05 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Alix, isn't it amazing that right-wing rags like the National Review (the hanson link) are so often at pains to show their classical educations?

Likely story! My spider-sense tells me they're simply proving wrong that Winston Churchill line to the effect that "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 07 March 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Alix, isn't it amazing that right-wing rags like the National Review (the hanson link) are so often at pains to show their classical educations?

'Tis indeed. They seem to have so few actual points that would make sense in plain language that they have to dress them up in fancy clothes.

As for me, I'm just taking a second-year Roman History class for the sheer joy of it. (And the fact that it keeps my brain awake when so many other things in my life seem designed to render me comatose)


From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2003 06:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Or as Heraclitus said in his prologlomena to the areopagetic anibasis, "I'm wealthy, so eat dirt."

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about showing off classical education, Jeff? Hee hee.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 March 2003 07:06 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for me, I'm just taking a second-year Roman History class for the sheer joy of it.

My first choice for my son's name was "Gracchus".
We compromised on "Patrick".


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 March 2003 07:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You don't know how close your kid would have come to resenting you for the rest of his life.

Kids with lofty names that their parents give them are almost inevitably the butt of jokes by their crueller, less-intelligent classmates.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 07 March 2003 09:09 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank God that your kids were able to luck out and get such geniuses for parents.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3199

posted 08 March 2003 12:13 AM      Profile for John Collins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Or as Heraclitus said in his prologlomena to the areopagetic anibasis, "I'm wealthy, so eat dirt."

Aww, Jeff, I once went through every one of Herakleitos' fragments (in three different translations), and I don't remember this one -- sure you're not paraphrasing a wee bit?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 08 March 2003 12:46 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Aww, Jeff, I once went through every one of Herakleitos' fragments (in three different translations), and I don't remember this one

Did I say this was one of the already-discovered fragments? No I did not.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 March 2003 03:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Haha! I had to do the same thing - read all the Heraclitus fragments in second year ancient philosophy - and I didn't remember it either. But then, I don't remember half of the pre-Socratic fragments I had to read. I just assumed that Jeff had remembered something I had forgotten, since Ancient wasn't one of my favorite courses (I'd make a terrible Classics major). You got me, dude. Hee.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3199

posted 08 March 2003 07:25 PM      Profile for John Collins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An undiscovered fragment -- of course!!

I did the unthinkable: ordered all the existing fragments to attempt a reconstruction of what I took to be his primary message. Lots of fun, but my Prof asked what the hell I thought I was doing: "HELL, John, it's only a paper I wanted!! Don't make me work so hard!"

Best Professor I ever had. [Insert 'fond memory' smilie here.]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca