|
|
|
Dear guest,
Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
|
 |
|
05-07-2008, 05:53 PM
|
#61 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,166
Country: 
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe
You don't seem to be able to comprehend the definition of genocide. For this to be a genocide, the killings would need to be both purposeful and systematic, and genocidal intent would have to be present. It clearly isn't a genocide, and trying to argue that it is is absolutely idiotic. Also, the war is not being fought over oil. You've had this explained to you several times, and have been unable to make a counterargument without citing a completely unreliable left-bent website.
|
I maintain the killing has been both purposeful (otherwise we would have stopped) and systematic (even if it takes "100 years").
I do not accept your premise the war is about anything other than oil, because to accept that the sacrifice of that many Iraqis to 'make them free" is an insane notion. Call this belief idiotic if you want, I have thought the neocons were just greedy. Perhaps they are insane as well.
Peace |
|
|
|
05-07-2008, 06:05 PM
|
#62 (permalink)
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,656
Country:
Country: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by catawba
I maintain the killing has been both purposeful (otherwise we would have stopped)
|
Our killing of insurgents has certainly been purposeful, but our killing of civilians most certainly has not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catawba
and systematic (even if it takes "100 years").
|
Also untrue. If it was "systematic", we'd be going door-to-door killing civilians. Accusing the U.S. of genocide on such precarious grounds is idiotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catawba
I do not accept your premise the war is about anything other than oil,
|
Then you're wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by catawba
because to accept that the sacrifice of that many Iraqis to 'make them free" is an insane notion.
|
I don't think the war was fought to free Iraq. I'm not entirely sure what the true reason for starting the war was, but I can tell you what it wasn't: oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catawba
Call this belief idiotic if you want, I have thought the neocons were just greedy. Perhaps they are insane as well.
|
Perhaps they are. I don't think their mental health is of any consequence at this point, though.
__________________
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.
|
|
|
|
05-07-2008, 06:44 PM
|
#63 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,166
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe
Our killing of insurgents has certainly been purposeful, but our killing of civilians most certainly has not.
I would disagree again here because we did not leave Iraq when we discovered they had no WMD, which was the reason given for the invasion. To continue to stay there after learning we were mistaken, was a purposeful decision that ultimately resulted in the Iraqi casualties.
Also untrue. If it was "systematic", we'd be going door-to-door killing civilians. Accusing the U.S. of genocide on such precarious grounds is idiotic.
We have killed a million Iraqis over a five year period, and the war's supporter's plan to continue our occupation. I believe one candidate even mentioned 100 years.
If one kills innocent bystanders once, it would not be systematic. If they continue to kill innocent bystanders for five years, it would be systematic.
Then you're wrong...
If I am wrong whenever I disagree with a lame premise, I don't see where we can go from here in our discussions.
I don't think the war was fought to free Iraq. I'm not entirely sure what the true reason for starting the war was, but I can tell you what it wasn't: oil.
You seem to be defending the continuation of a war that you are not entirely sure what the true reason was for starting the war. Did I get that right?
Perhaps they are. I don't think their mental health is of any consequence at this point, though.
|
At least one point we have reached agreement on, I guess that is progress. |
|
|
|
|
05-07-2008, 08:41 PM
|
#64 (permalink)
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,656
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
|
I would disagree again here because we did not leave Iraq when we discovered they had no WMD, which was the reason given for the invasion. To continue to stay there after learning we were mistaken, was a purposeful decision that ultimately resulted in the Iraqi casualties.
|
What would you suggest we do after invading Iraq and discovering the absence of WMD? Issue an apology to Saddam and the Ba'ath Party and tell them to keep doing what they were doing? Or perhaps you'd favor leaving the country in a state of anarchy...?
Quote:
|
We have killed a million Iraqis over a five year period, and the war's supporter's plan to continue our occupation. I believe one candidate even mentioned 100 years.
|
1 million is a false statistic. Around 150,000 civilians have died violent deaths in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and most were killed by insurgents and other non-Coalition forces.
Quote:
|
If one kills innocent bystanders once, it would not be systematic. If they continue to kill innocent bystanders for five years, it would be systematic.
|
Innocent civilians are not being targeted. This alone removes any possibility of the killing being "systematic." If you honestly believe the U.S. is purposefully targeting innocent civilians, you are seriously mistaken.
Quote:
|
If I am wrong whenever I disagree with a lame premise, I don't see where we can go from here in our discussions.
|
You're not wrong whenever you disagree with a lame premise, you're wrong when you believe something that is incorrect (ie: we invaded Iraq for their oil.)
Quote:
|
You seem to be defending the continuation of a war that you are not entirely sure what the true reason was for starting the war. Did I get that right?
|
Well, I'm not foolish enough to think that things will get better over there if we leave. For whatever reason, we invaded their country and toppled their government. Because of this, we have an obligation to return Iraq to a relatively peaceful state before we pack up and leave. You don't mess something up and walk away from it, you stay and fix it before leaving. It's simply the right thing to do.
__________________
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2008, 09:46 PM
|
#65 (permalink)
|
|
Squire
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 122
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
|
I would disagree again here because we did not leave Iraq when we discovered they had no WMD, which was the reason given for the invasion. To continue to stay there after learning we were mistaken, was a purposeful decision that ultimately resulted in the Iraqi casualties.
|
No WMDs? It's true that we did not find components for them, however, there are a few thousand bodies buried in the desert that can attest to the fact that Saddam had them and he used them. WMDs are not just nuclear weapons. It includes poison gas as well, and we know for a fact that he was gassing Kurds and Iranians. Gassing is a war crime. The sick thing about Saddam is that he wasn't at war when he used it. He commit genocide, and it would have continued if we hadn't gone in and stopped it. It was the same as Darfur, except on a slightly smaller scale.
There are also theories that Saddam may have shipped his WMD components over the border to the friendly nation of Syria, which would explain why five years later, the Israeli's were able to find a nuclear reactor to bomb. That's just a theory, though, there isn't a lot of evidence to back it up.
__________________
Proud Libertarian. www.lp.org
Bob Barr for President 2008!
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
-Plato
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2008, 09:54 PM
|
#66 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,166
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe
What would you suggest we do after invading Iraq and discovering the absence of WMD? Issue an apology to Saddam and the Ba'ath Party and tell them to keep doing what they were doing? Or perhaps you'd favor leaving the country in a state of anarchy...?
If we had indeed invaded Iraq due to their threat of WMD, when we discovered they did not, your are exactly right, we should have pulled out our military immediately and provided money for the repair of their infrastructure we destroyed. That would have been the logical and humane thing to do. Staying there and continue to kill and be kill to defend our mistake would again seem to be insane.
As far as Saddam, we made Saddam as powerful as he became. When he was at his murderous worst, W's Dad was president and he was so upset by Saddam's behaviour, he almost missed a golf game once. It wasn't until our oil interest there was at risk that we became concerned about Saddams removal.
1 million is a false statistic. Around 150,000 civilians have died violent deaths in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and most were killed by insurgents and other non-Coalition forces.
You are quite a few years behind in your casualty statistics.
The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."
CNN puts the number at 655,000.
Innocent civilians are not being targeted. This alone removes any possibility of the killing being "systematic." If you honestly believe the U.S. is purposefully targeting innocent civilians, you are seriously mistaken.
Its more accurate to say I believe loss of civilian lives was not a consideration of those who planned the war.
You're not wrong whenever you disagree with a lame premise, you're wrong when you believe something that is incorrect (ie: we invaded Iraq for their oil.)
I am not incorrect, you are misinformed. Not only has McCain himself let this slip, Even conservatives are coming out of the closet with this realization. This is an excerpt from a cover story by Robert Price in the American Conservative, hardly a liberal source:
"Since World War II, America has held fast to the idea that controlling the oil flow out of the Persian Gulf must be assured at the point of a M-16 rifle. But the cost of that approach has been crippling. As the U.S. military pursues its occupation of Iraq—with the fuel costs approaching $1 billion per week—it’s obvious that the U.S. needs to rethink the assumption that secure energy sources depend on militarism. The emerging theme of the 21st-century energy business is the increasing power of markets. The U.S. can either adapt or continue hurtling down the road to bankruptcy. "
Well, I'm not foolish enough to think that things will get better over there if we leave. For whatever reason, we invaded their country and toppled their government. Because of this, we have an obligation to return Iraq to a relatively peaceful state before we pack up and leave. You don't mess something up and walk away from it, you stay and fix it before leaving. It's simply the right thing to do.
|
Thing were better before we got there. We made things much worse. To continue to stay is immoral. We can continue to provide non-military assistance and deal with the fact that we screwed up!
It is amazing to me what the American public is willing to swallow when they are made to be afraid by the chickenhawk neocons. That is how Hitler made his move to the top. We need to wake the hell up! |
|
|
|
|
05-07-2008, 09:58 PM
|
#67 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,166
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
No WMDs? It's true that we did not find components for them, however, there are a few thousand bodies buried in the desert that can attest to the fact that Saddam had them and he used them. WMDs are not just nuclear weapons. It includes poison gas as well, and we know for a fact that he was gassing Kurds and Iranians. Gassing is a war crime. The sick thing about Saddam is that he wasn't at war when he used it. He commit genocide, and it would have continued if we hadn't gone in and stopped it. It was the same as Darfur, except on a slightly smaller scale.
There are also theories that Saddam may have shipped his WMD components over the border to the friendly nation of Syria, which would explain why five years later, the Israeli's were able to find a nuclear reactor to bomb. That's just a theory, though, there isn't a lot of evidence to back it up.
|
If you are still buying the WMD lie there is nothing I can do to help you except refer you to what I explained to ice above. |
|
|
|
|
05-07-2008, 11:53 PM
|
#68 (permalink)
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,656
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
|
If we had indeed invaded Iraq due to their threat of WMD, when we discovered they did not, your are exactly right, we should have pulled out our military immediately and provided money for the repair of their infrastructure we destroyed. That would have been the logical and humane thing to do. Staying there and continue to kill and be kill to defend our mistake would again seem to be insane.
|
You believe that after invading a country, toppling its government, and destroying ts infrastructure, we should simply leave it in shambles and send money to a fledgling government we don't even know we can trust? Yeah, real humane suggestion there. "Well gosh, we thought you guys had WMD! Oh well, sucks to be you! Hey, here's some money for you to embezzle."
Quote:
|
As far as Saddam, we made Saddam as powerful as he became. When he was at his murderous worst, W's Dad was president and he was so upset by Saddam's behaviour, he almost missed a golf game once. It wasn't until our oil interest there was at risk that we became concerned about Saddams removal.
|
Please, unless you can show actual proof (from a reputable and credible source) that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, you should drop the oil argument. We own a grand total of zero wells over there. Iraq is in control of its own oil and can do whatever it wants with it. If that involves allowing American companies to have access to the oil so money can be pumped into the Iraqi economy, that's fine by me.
Quote:
|
You are quite a few years behind in your casualty statistics.
|
Actually, I'm not. I'll explain below.
Quote:
|
The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."
|
Yes, I'm familiar with this survey. It is flawed in multiple ways. First, it's based entirely on the responses of a handful of people (a few thousand out of a population of 30 million), and has no way of verifying the factuality of these claims. Second, the ORB surveyed violent deaths of all Iraqis. I'm only concerned about innocent civilians, who I'm sure make up a small proportion of that already overinflated statistic. Iraq's own Health Ministry reports 104,000 - 223,000 violent Iraqi deaths.
Quote:
|
Its more accurate to say I believe loss of civilian lives was not a consideration of those who planned the war.
|
Well, that's different from what you said earlier when you labeled the conflict a genocide. Perhaps the planners don't care very much about the number of civilian deaths... what mat ters is that innocents aren't being targeted, and that measures are being taken to improve security for all Iraqis.
Quote:
|
Not only has McCain himself let this slip, Even conservatives are coming out of the closet with this realization. This is an excerpt from a cover story by Robert Price in the American Conservative, hardly a liberal source:
|
lol... the American "Conservative" has an openly anti-war stance. Go to its website and read its mission statement in the "About Us" section ( The American Conservative / About Us). One of the co-founders was a columnist for antiwar.com. 
Quote:
|
Thing were better before we got there. We made things much worse.
|
Heh... things aren't great now, but before, Saddam Hussein was busy carrying out his genocide of the Kurdish people. Plus, the majority of Iraqis wanted us to invade and topple their government... they believe that any hardships that they may have endured as a result of the invasion were worth getting rid of Saddam.
Quote:
|
To continue to stay is immoral.
|
Perhaps, but to leave would be more immoral.
Quote:
|
We can continue to provide non-military assistance and deal with the fact that we screwed up!
|
In a few years, you'll probably be right. If we focus more on training and improving Iraq's own security forces, and if we attempt to approach hostile leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr diplomatically, we'll be able to leave knowing that we've made up for the wrongs we committed.
Quote:
|
It is amazing to me what the American public is willing to swallow when they are made to be afraid by the chickenhawk neocons. That is how Hitler made his move to the top. We need to wake the hell up!
|
I refuse to dignify this sensationalist fearmongering of yours with a proper response.
__________________
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen… it is declared… The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1794.
Last edited by iTaliAN_ICe; 05-08-2008 at 12:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
05-08-2008, 01:23 AM
|
#69 (permalink)
|
|
Baron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,166
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe
You believe that after invading a country, toppling its government, and destroying ts infrastructure, we should simply leave it in shambles and send money to a fledgling government we don't even know we can trust? Yeah, real humane suggestion there. "Well gosh, we thought you guys had WMD! Oh well, sucks to be you! Hey, here's some money for you to embezzle." Please, unless you can show actual proof (from a reputable and credible source) that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, you should drop the oil argument. We own a grand total of zero wells over there. Iraq is in control of its own oil and can do whatever it wants with it. If that involves allowing American companies to have access to the oil so money can be pumped into the Iraqi economy, that's fine by me. Actually, I'm not. I'll explain below. Yes, I'm familiar with this survey. It is flawed in multiple ways. First, it's based entirely on the responses of a handful of people (a few thousand out of a population of 30 million), and has no way of verifying the factuality of these claims. Second, the ORB surveyed violent deaths of all Iraqis. I'm only concerned about innocent civilians, who I'm sure make up a small proportion of that already overinflated statistic. Iraq's own Health Ministry reports 104,000 - 223,000 violent Iraqi deaths. Well, that's different from what you said earlier when you labeled the conflict a genocide. Perhaps the planners don't care very much about the number of civilian deaths... what mat ters is that innocents aren't being targeted, and that measures are being taken to improve security for all Iraqis. lol... the American "Conservative" has an openly anti-war stance. Go to its website and read its mission statement in the "About Us" section ( The American Conservative / About Us). One of the co-founders was a columnist for antiwar.com. Heh... things aren't great now, but before, Saddam Hussein was busy carrying out his genocide of the Kurdish people. Plus, the majority of Iraqis wanted us to invade and topple their government... they believe that any hardships that they may have endured as a result of the invasion were worth getting rid of Saddam. Perhaps, but to leave would be more immoral. In a few years, you'll probably be right. If we focus more on training and improving Iraq's own security forces, and if we attempt to approach hostile leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr diplomatically, we'll be able to leave knowing that we've made up for the wrongs we committed. I refuse to dignify this sensationalist fearmongering of yours with a proper response. |
Fearmongering of mine you say, because I believe its wrong for the killing to go on indefinitely? It was the neocon fearmongers that got us into this mess we are embroiled in Iraq for five years now and the fearful who let them.
It seems to me, you and I are just going in circles now, we've gone over all these issues at least once or twice now. I don't think I have convinced you of anything, but your points have made me understand why Paying Attention posted the quote below much earlier in this discussion thread.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, Nuremberg, April 1946 |
|
|
|
|
05-15-2008, 03:32 AM
|
#70 (permalink)
|
|
Conscript
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 29
Country:
Country:
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PayingAttention
A fairly held opinion, but it doesn't make much of a debtaing point, does it?
I would genuinely like to know how you judge these things.
|
Why is debate necessary? It is my opinion (that America is the greatest country on Earth), I widely held one, no less. If you disagree, care to disclose the country you would nominate?
__________________
The Dream Ticket 
An idea whose time has come |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
A vBSkinworks Design
 |
|
