a moral dilemma

I did a PhD in drug delivery and believe me there is (at the moment) not much to fear from bio weapons, more scare mongering I’m afraid!

I cant imagine that the PLO would have held off with them if they were an effective killing agent, or SH for that as he clearly isn’t bothered by ethics as we saw with the Kurdish victims of nerve gas several years ago.

Botulism acts by cleaving the SNARE proteins involved in synaptic transmishion, you have to eat it or have it injected for it to kill you and it is about as much of a worry as ricin, Both are not good for killing a lot of people and difficult to produce even with a microbiological lab. C. botulinum, the one that produces botulism toxin A is killed by oxygen for a start, not your average kitchen / chemistry set experiment

As far as I know the only time BWs have killed a lot of people was when Japan unleashed Y. pestis the agent that causes Bubonic plague during WWII. They killed as many of their own troupes as they did the enemy. Not a success !!!

As for scare mongering well it is everywhere. I saw a headline in the local paper “ The daily cow” or something that was banging on about the risk of a hand held weapon taking out a commercial jet. Even with heat seeking technology, this is a jet plane traveling 600 MPH 6 miles above the ground ! How the hell are you going to hit it, even if it is in range!

It is funny coming from the UK to the USA, I see all sorts of "little manipulative devices" used by people in power to scare everyone else into believing that they are in danger, and need the people in power to protect them. Example; university buildings with "fall out shelter" written on them. It is a drafty old building, no help at all, why is the sign their?

As for the media hear, well I have made this point before and Ill make it again. I’m sick of being lied to by the US Media, it happen so frequently it is just a joke. Accountability is at the heart of a democracy and for that accountability to be effective you have to have an honest media, if one link in the circle is broken the whole process breaks down and you are reverting back to an autocracy, land of the free ?

I like educatedfilms comment about evidence, there is not much of it about these days, why is that ? Playing the rational against the hysterical ?


[Edited by Dr_simon on 02-03-2003 at 06:03 PM]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...The UN (by virtue of making itself powerless and meaningless by not taking action)...

Then why don't you quit the UN,since it's not serving your interests and there's no point in being in an organization that doesn't serve your interests?
And don't tell me it's coz you pay 25% of the UN's budget and it wouldn't survive without you.

Have you ever noticed that the second the US tries to stop "throwing our weight around" we're accused of being "isolationists" and not "pulling our weight in the international community."

Oh,so you go to war so as not to be seen as being isolationist?Get real.
So the world [u]says[/u] you're isolationist?So ****ing what?

Saddam Hussein essentially signed a contract saying "If I don't prove that I've disarmed the Gulf War will resume."

The gulf war was not about Iraq having WMD.It also wasn't about terrorism.It was primarily about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait,the gulf wouldn't have happened.
Stop trying to connect things that are unrelated and make it look like it was the deal all along.
You know I found it a bit funny when some time last year CNN started talking about "The Unfinished war".How come they never talked about any unfinished anything between the time the gulf war ended andlast year.
Cheap propaganda trick that even an international relations novice like me can see through.

Over ten years later he has failed to do so. Shouldn't parole violators be put back in prison?

Same point as above.

Osama bin Laden (as far as anybody knows) never had any WMDs and Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure (thanks to the Soviets and decades of civil war). There was never any reason to use nukes in Afghanistan. Iraq has infrastructure, and therefore nuclear weapons may be an effective deterant. Remember when I said "I don't know how smart an idea this works out to be, but that's probably what Bush is thinking"? That's why. Or are you just skimming and nitpicking where you think you have a leg to stand on?

The point I was trying to counter was your basically trying to imply that nukes will make Saddam wet his pants.
They won't.
What they'll do is hurt the already very hurting Iraqis.And Saddam doesn't care about those.

Maybe you're fine with the idea of a half million Iraqis dead due to sanctions and a negligent murderer as a leader,I am not.

Now that's a below the belt punch you're taking.
I'm not fine with the idea of even one person starving(and aside:the world today is producing enough food to feed everyone.The distribution is the problem.But that's another issue).
Your removing Saddam from power is not a guarantee that the people of Iraqi will be fed and free.How free are the people of Saudi Arabia?

But you don't see those people starving out your window, so I guess it's a matter of "out of site, out of mind."

Like I said,cheap shot.

Originally posted by kingdavid
War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.

Welcome to the ranks of the dominated.

And I'm very proud to be like that.
Just like Gandhi.
And Mandela.

[Edited by kingdavid on 02-03-2003 at 02:49 AM]

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Then why are they acting like they are hiding something?

Human beings see whatever the f*** they want to see,not what is really there.
Now,Rask,honestly speaking,you wan't to tell me that if cops came to your house telling you that they have a warrant to search your house,you wouldn't stay and watch what they're doing?
You would!!
And now,your staying to watch them will imply that you're "hiding something"?
Maann!!

Originally posted by kingdavid

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...The UN (by virtue of making itself powerless and meaningless by not taking action)...

Then why don't you quit the UN,since it's not serving your interests and there's no point in being in an organization that doesn't serve your interests?
And don't tell me it's coz you pay 25% of the UN's budget and it wouldn't survive without you.

I don't advocate leaving the UN, but a powerless world body serves nobody at all. If Iraq is allowed to ignore the UN, than anybody is allowed to ignore the UN by default as the UN has destroyed it's own authority.

[b]Have you ever noticed that the second the US tries to stop "throwing our weight around" we're accused of being "isolationists" and not "pulling our weight in the international community."

Oh,so you go to war so as not to be seen as being isolationist?Get real.
So the world [u]says[/u] you're isolationist?So ****ing what?

The point is that you can't make everybody happy, no matter what. For that reason, one (or a nation) should always do what one feels is right.

Saddam Hussein essentially signed a contract saying "If I don't prove that I've disarmed the Gulf War will resume."

The gulf war was not about Iraq having WMD.It also wasn't about terrorism.It was primarily about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait,the gulf wouldn't have happened.
Stop trying to connect things that are unrelated and make it look like it was the deal all along.

They are completely connected. Listen; the terms ending the Gulf War were that Iraq had to disarm itself of Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons and weapons programs, submit unconditionally to weapons inspections, and PROVE that it has no such weapons. How has Iraq come even close to this? It hasn't. Hans Blix, a UN apointed, non-American, has said as much.

You know I found it a bit funny when some time last year CNN started talking about "The Unfinished war".How come they never talked about any unfinished anything between the time the gulf war ended andlast year.
Cheap propaganda trick that even an international relations novice like me can see through.

A). CNN's main focus is selling advertising. To do this they have to get ratings, and to get ratings you have to show programming that people are interested in. If you see that as sinister, then so is virtually all television and radio programming.
B). They've been reporting on Iraq steadily since Iraq invaded Kuwait, I've been skimming the TV channels for quite a while now, I know.

Osama bin Laden (as far as anybody knows) never had any WMDs and Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure (thanks to the Soviets and decades of civil war). There was never any reason to use nukes in Afghanistan. Iraq has infrastructure, and therefore nuclear weapons may be an effective deterant. Remember when I said "I don't know how smart an idea this works out to be, but that's probably what Bush is thinking"? That's why. Or are you just skimming and nitpicking where you think you have a leg to stand on?

The point I was trying to counter was your basically trying to imply that nukes will make Saddam wet his pants.
They won't.

I didn't say they would, I said that's what Bush hopes.
[qote]What they'll do is hurt the already very hurting Iraqis.And Saddam doesn't care about those.[/quote]
So tell me again why you're defending him?

Maybe you're fine with the idea of a half million Iraqis dead due to sanctions and a negligent murderer as a leader,I am not.

Now that's a below the belt punch you're taking.
I'm not fine with the idea of even one person starving(and aside:the world today is producing enough food to feed everyone.The distribution is the problem.But that's another issue).

Without Saddam and without sanctions Iraq would have plenty of oil wealth with which to buy food. The point is that while the international community does nothing to remove him people suffer and die. In this instance, inaction is murder.

Your removing Saddam from power is not a guarantee that the people of Iraqi will be fed and free.How free are the people of Saudi Arabia?

Are the people of Germany, Japan, and the Philippines free? Yes. Has the US invaded Saudi Arabia, removed one government and put another in place? Nope. "Apples to oranges."

But you don't see those people starving out your window, so I guess it's a matter of "out of site, out of mind."

Like I said,cheap shot.

To accuse you of being racist or "Anti-American" would have been a cheap shot, I'm trying to remind you that while the world does nothing, people are dieing.

Originally posted by kingdavid
[b]War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.

Welcome to the ranks of the dominated.

And I'm very proud to be like that.
Just like Gandhi.
And Mandela.[/QUOTE]
Gandhi and Mandela faced different power balances and ethical questions. For instance, the Palistinians need to apply these tactics, in the context of Saddam Hussein, inaction plays into his plan perfectly.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I don't advocate leaving the UN, but a powerless world body serves nobody at all. If Iraq is allowed to ignore the UN, than anybody is allowed to ignore the UN by default as the UN has destroyed it's own authority.

Do you mean that Iraq has ignored the UN resolutions ?! That's why the inspectors are going everywhere at anytime in Iraq , right ?

Well since you've mentioned ignoring the UN , what about Isreal ? How many UN resolution Israel has ignored till this day ? Now, the U.S. has learned (thanx to Israel) that ignoring the UN is ok , instead of supporting the UN and make it more effective to achive peace & democracy between all the nations of the world.

Actualy what non-americans feel these days is that the U.S. wants to be a replacement to the UN since the cold-war has ended and the USSR is gone , so the U.S. can do what they want without help from the UN .
i.e. The UN doesn't serve American interests anymore ... Is that it ?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Are the people of Germany, Japan, and the Philippines free? Yes. Has the US invaded Saudi Arabia, removed one government and put another in place? Nope. "Apples to oranges."

The U.S. and the Alies invaded these countries cuz of the WW2 , not cuz they had bad regiems that need to be changed !

Originally posted by educatedfilm
LOL, it's very easy to make them look shifty, it's been done by your media to your own senators/ heads of state over very minor things, the examples are too many to list.. but Watergate is a very good example... To my knowledge they are complying as far as they can...

Watergate is a good example of what that relates to this discussion? The US media burning a sitting president alive? I really don't see how this helps your case.
As for Iraq's compliance, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei have both said that Iraq needs to do more to comply. To use some direct quotes...
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their workplaces.
"On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
and...
"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
"It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, it is a process of verification for the purpose of building confidence."-Hans Blix

"Why is every interview the UN weapons inspectors conducts observed by atleast one but usually more members of Saddam's secret police"
Because they want to make sure (first hand) nothing is planted... It's VERY easy to take a cotton swab with a very low concentration of something like Vx, and just smear it in a basement, then come back and say "LOOK! TRACES OF VX!!!"... they have to be monitered and i dont see why that is an unreasonable thing...

Pah-lease. If it's so reasonable, why didn't the Ukranians or the South Africans (or the North Koreans for Christ's sakes) try it? And why aren't Iraqi citizens allowed to speak their mind to reporters? Maybe some answers can be found here

"You know that if Israel were to pull something like this you'd be all over them"
?? I dont really get this comment... Isreal is a totally different matter, it has nuclear weapons in our midst, has a hard line government that still firmly beleive in the nile to the uphrates doctrine, it has one of the worst human rights records in the region... and what have we done officailly? Nothing... Poeple get so mad and wound up, they join the fanatics and totally go wrong.. But the amount of force they can summon is nothing compared to isreal's army...
Boxing iraq into a corner, and if saddam has WMDs as alledged, they are really risking an exchange with isreal...

My point was that if the UN were demanding Israel to account for some incident (say, deaths in a refugee camp, something potentially very ugly), and allow UN investigators unlimited access to interview people involved, the place(s) "it" allegedly happened, etc but pulled the tricks the Iraqis are using right now, you'd be all over their case. It screams "WE'RE HIDING SOMETHING" and it makes no sense for somebody in a position to have to prove their innosence to use those tactics.

"Small Pox is incredibly easy to spread, ask anybody of Native American descent. Just a few blankets that had been used in a Brittish hospital was enough to virtually wipe out entire tribes. In an unprotected population, Small Pox can and will spread rapidly"
Are you sure your not talking about the plauge? Cos small pox is contagous, but not like that... Small pox is also very potent in spreading fear, because it causes boils, and disfiguration...
Still, IMHO, there's no way in hell small pox could be made in the conditions iraq are under at the mo..

It was Small Pox, and it did wipe out vast numbers of Native Americans very quickly. Also, virii and bacteria aren't paticuarly difficult to grow. Especially bacteria.

"The policy change absolutely should have been made four years ago."
Why? the iraq's haven't done anything new in more than four years... we're told to just accept at face value, that there is something happening, and we must as citizen of democratic nations (US+UK) simply believe and follow with out question.. (tony blair has had a right bitch at "cynics")

Four years ago Iraq expelled UN inspectors from the country leaving the inspection process incomplete (as it is still incomplete today. US and UK forces launched air strikes in retaliation (Operation Desert Fox), but never went the extra step of removing Saddam from power as I beleive they should of under the terms ending the Gulf War. However, I've pointed out many times why Clinton didn't do it.

"1). Some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power are Iraqi refugees."
oh you surprise me there... I thought you could see that these refugees are potential new leaders of iraq! :) does it make sense now?

Don't you want a say in the affairs of your own country?

"2). What statute under international law would allow US oil companies to seize Iraqi wells? To quote one British guy I've been debating this with on another board, "I do actually have to commend the US government for not striking exploration deals with Iraq.""
Lol, there's a reason for that, the poeple that are in power at the mo, are going out in a few weeks... hmmm, I wonder why this is? INTERNATIONAL LAW?! THE HELL WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, just like as it's ever been... And we'll probably come back to this point in 6 months... Mark my words, Iraq will be just like Saudi... with a pretenous puppet leader, that looks docile and pleasant, selling oil cheap to "freinds", while butchering their own poeple.

The Saudis sell oil at the market price (just like everybody else) and as a member of OPEC see to it that oil prices stay profitable.

"3). Weren't you pointing out a few months ago that Iraqis are starving because of the sanctions neccessary to keep Saddam contained? Are you saying they should starve now that an American president is willing to remove the reason they're in their current delema?"
Yep, i was, and you'll also remember i had a good ol' fashioned bitch at the fact that the sanctions weren't benifiting the iraq's and needed some changing. I didn't say the US should carpet bomb bagdad in the name of freedom...
The reason the iraq's are starving is not because of suddam but because of the poeple who put the sanctions. Basically Keep saddam contained, but for the love of good let food and medicine in! Either that or lift sanctions all together... Saddam is effectively neutered, he cant do sh*t. I'd be more worried about resentment of the Saudi regime and the US's backing to said regime in Saudi (remember sept 11? what's been done about that? oh just blanket blackout of the subject.) What i'm saying is get the US admin to take a more humanitarain side to thier foriegn policies, and not just cold hearted pragmatism, whith some idealised public releases...

If Saddam hadn't of invaded Kuwait, the sanctions would never have been put in place. If he had cooperated with the Weapons Inspectors the sanctions could have been lifted a decade ago. I consider him fully responsible for his people's plight. Next, the reason why sanctions are tight is that the looser the constraints, the easier it is to smuggle things into the country that aren't supposed to be in the country. As it is, several nations are reported to have been selling weapons and weapons related materials to Iraq despite the sanctions.
Next, you accuse the US media of distorting the truth when you specifically use the words " carpet bomb bagdad in the name of freedom" is a blatant distortion of US military doctrine. Not even in World War II did the US use carpet bombing (the British did though), and since then has persued "precision bombing" with great fervor. It makes more sense for many reasons, mostly in overall efficiency and to minimize civillian casualties (because frankly, it helps nobody to kill any more civillians than neccessary). In the Gulf War, Iraqi civillian casualties were relatively light, even in spite of Saddam placing civillians in military targets for propoganda purposes.

The fact is, it's better for virtually everbody (except Saddam a few Ba'ath party members) for Saddam and his government to be out of power. I can see no justification for allowing him to stay in power and every time I've tried to do so, I've felt like I was justifying murder.

And, I've held this opinion a lot longer than GW Bush has been the president.

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-03-2003 at 07:10 PM]

Originally posted by kingdavid

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Then why are they acting like they are hiding something?

Human beings see whatever the f*** they want to see,not what is really there.
Now,Rask,honestly speaking,you wan't to tell me that if cops came to your house telling you that they have a warrant to search your house,you wouldn't stay and watch what they're doing?
You would!!
And now,your staying to watch them will imply that you're "hiding something"?
Maann!!

Of course I'd stay and watch, but I wouldn't attempt to intimidate the police or potential witnesses, to slow them down, or to hide things that they're looking for in my neigbor's place. I would try to help them out because I really do have nothing to hide, and frankly, the faster they're done, the faster I can go back to living my life.

Let's put this all in context, Iraq, or rather, Saddam Hussein's government has a history of torturing and executing political prisoners, their families, and anybody seen as a potential threat to Saddam's authority. Government monitors observing an interview would have very ominous implications to the person being interviewed as they know that disagreeing with the offical story means that they and/or their family will suffer and/or die as a consequence. And this isn't from CNN, this is from Anesty International - an organization often critical of the United States.

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Are the people of Germany, Japan, and the Philippines free? Yes. Has the US invaded Saudi Arabia, removed one government and put another in place? Nope. "Apples to oranges."

The U.S. and the Alies invaded these countries cuz of the WW2 , not cuz they had bad regiems that need to be changed !

So you're saying the Nazi's shouldn't neccessarily have been removed from power? Or that the Japanese Empire wasn't responsible for horrendous 'crimes against humanity?'

The difference here is that today we're hoping to remove the cancer before it consumes millions of lifes, not after.

Originally posted by SLY
The U.S. and the Alies invaded these countries cuz of the WW2 , not cuz they had bad regiems that need to be changed !

You can't possibly mean that the regimes in Germany and Japan had no part in causing WW2!?!?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I didn't say they would, I said that's what Bush hopes.
So you agree with me that nukes don't scare Saddam.
Now,you want to tell me that Bush can't see that,which is why he "hopes" nukes will scare Saddam into complying?(Remember your saying "trigger from someone he knows will pull it",or something to that effect?).
I maintain that Bush knows that nukes don't scare Saddam.And that the threat to use them is not a mere threat.He's implying it's just a threat to quell the people's nerves.But he intends to use them.
Because unlike me,he doesn't realise that nukes aren't the frisbees his dog plays with.
And rask and co.,in regard to nukes,you guys talk about pression and selective hits against military targets as though nukes are precise like femtosecond lasers or something.
We all know how nukes behave when they land,don't we?
[quote]So tell me again why you're defending him?

I'm not defending Saddam.
I'm defending the notion that,especially in this day and age,nation should have a very very very strong case to go to war.And notice it's not just a plain war;nuclear weapons are being mentioned in the same sentence that war is mentioned.
I'm also reassertting the fact that America has no moral grounds to remove Saddam.
And it's this moral ground you seem to seek to claim when you mention the suffering of the people of Iraq.
How many people are homeless and suffering in your country?
Thousands,I'm told.
What you doing about it?
Again,I'm told,pretty much nothing.So feeling the pain of Iraqis is not the issue here.Buy the way,during the Iraqi/Iran war,which Iraq won,on whose side was America?
You talk about sanctions preventing the smuggling of weapons and stuff to Iraq.In the above mentioned war,who supplied them with weapons?
Who buys the diamonds that fuelled the civil war in Sierra Leone?Or the oil that comes from Angola?Which oil company was involved in the polution in Nigeria which led to the hanging of Ken Saro Wiwa?
If you look around,you'll see you guys have no moral ground on which to go to war.

Without Saddam and without sanctions Iraq would have plenty of oil wealth with which to buy food.

Besides the ruling Al Saud family in Saudi Arabia,how many oil billionares do you know of from that country.Or even millionares?
America has shown that as long as their basic intersts are served,what really happens to the rest of the people is really none of their business.
So don't tell me about the oil wealth of Iraq going to irdinary citizens as your interest.

The point is that while the international community does nothing to remove him people suffer and die. In this instance, inaction is murder.

Really.
Is this the first time you guys are seeing people suffer under poor regimes?
NO!!
You even helped prop upsuch regimes when doing that was in your best interests.Case in point:Zaire's Mobutu Seseseko during the cold war.
Stop kidding us people!!

Has the US invaded Saudi Arabia, removed one government and put another in place? Nope. "Apples to oranges."

The point you're being drawn to here is that the involvement of America doesn't not guarantee any ordinary citizens.It has been shown.But that seems to be one of your "for" arguments!

Gandhi and Mandela faced different power balances and ethical questions.

They did not.
Mandela was against the principle of bloodshed for freedom.So was Gandhi.
Blood was shed for freedom from colonialists in many other countries.Something that didn't have to happen.
Same thing here.
A war,a nuclear war does not have to happen
Nukes may not wet saddam's pants.
Or Bush's.
Or yours.
But they wet mine.

Our hope for the future is clear understanding,
but you're still afraid that the Martians are landing.
The 'Reds' neath our beds appear far more attractive
than waking up dead in the radioactive debris.
...
Whatever became of would peace and goodwill?
Don't sharpen the blade if you don't mean to kill.
Your knowledge has limits, your folly's unending,
are you insane - or just good at pretending to be?

- Skyclad

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
So you're saying the Nazi's shouldn't neccessarily have been removed from power? Or that the Japanese Empire wasn't responsible for horrendous 'crimes against humanity?'

The difference here is that today we're hoping to remove the cancer before it consumes millions of lifes, not after.

It seems like you guys didn't want to see my real point out of that post .
Japan was invaded cuz they attacked Pearl Harbour , and Germany was invaded cuz they attacked almost every country in europe.

My point was no matter how bad & evil is a regiem ruling a country , you don't have the moral right to attack unless they attack you first , or else you'll be guilty for starting this out.

It's like killing somebody cuz you're afraid that he's dangerous & might kill you... Preemptive strikes , yeah?

Imagine our nice world with this Ideology in every human mind ... Kill everybody before they kill you ... Realy nice , yeah?!!
That's even worst than the wildest animal ideology !


[Edited by SLY on 02-04-2003 at 09:41 AM]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Duds, this thread must be the biggest in the history of guitar tricks.

I thought the same but... look in the music theory section... the discussion on modes of harmonic minor(i think) goes over 160!!!

actually i think that the "fastest guitarist you know" thread in the famous bands in artists section still holds the record. its from a while back, but i believe that's the longest one

Originally posted by kingdavid

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I didn't say they would, I said that's what Bush hopes.
So you agree with me that nukes don't scare Saddam.

I don't know if they do or not. They do have the ability to vaporize most of the infrastructure he's hoping to hold on to making them something he should fear tacticly. Then again, he's pulled "if I can't have it, nobody will" routines before.

And rask and co.,in regard to nukes,you guys talk about pression and selective hits against military targets as though nukes are precise like femtosecond lasers or something.
We all know how nukes behave when they land,don't we?

I've mostly been talking about "smart bombs" in terms of precision. These are the laser and GPS guided bombs that can hit specific windows in buildings. But, in specific regards to nuclear weapons, it's very easy to predict the amount of damage they will do, and the US probably has the most accurate delivery vehicles in the world. But why do you keep bringing up Bush's mention of the possibility of using nuclear weapons as if it's the primary mode of attack while consistantly ommiting the conditionals he used in the very same statement. It distorts a blunt but clear statement into something it's not. That's called "spin."

[quote]So tell me again why you're defending him?

I'm not defending Saddam.
I'm defending the notion that,especially in this day and age,nation should have a very very very strong case to go to war.And notice it's not just a plain war;nuclear weapons are being mentioned in the same sentence that war is mentioned.
I'm also reassertting the fact that America has no moral grounds to remove Saddam.
And it's this moral ground you seem to seek to claim when you mention the suffering of the people of Iraq.
How many people are homeless and suffering in your country?
Thousands,I'm told.
What you doing about it?
Again,I'm told,pretty much nothing.So feeling the pain of Iraqis is not the issue here.Buy the way,during the Iraqi/Iran war,which Iraq won,on whose side was America?
You talk about sanctions preventing the smuggling of weapons and stuff to Iraq.In the above mentioned war,who supplied them with weapons?
Who buys the diamonds that fuelled the civil war in Sierra Leone?Or the oil that comes from Angola?Which oil company was involved in the polution in Nigeria which led to the hanging of Ken Saro Wiwa?
If you look around,you'll see you guys have no moral ground on which to go to war.

By your critera, I think no nation or coalition of nations have the "moral ground" with which to remove Saddam from power. I say we (you, me, everybody) have a [u]responsibility[/u] to remove him from power. In part because we did support him in the past, in part because he hasn't fufilled the terms ending the Gulf War, and in part because it will probably save more lives in the long run. I think all nations do, but as you can see (though you may choose to omit), they're choosing their oposition based on their own self interest, be it because they're making a lot of money with the Iraqi oil they're exporting or because they're afraid they may one day have to own up to their own human rights abuses.
You bring up homelessness in America and claim that (almost) nothing is being done about it. That's simply untrue. There are all kinds of programs to help homeless people get on their feet as well as shelters and feeding programs to offer them food and shelter. These programs and shelters are both Federally and privately funded. Could more be done? Yeah, but more can always be done, unfortunately to do more means to sacrifice other programs that help other people (like, say, retirees or Turkish earthquake victims). You have also failed to mention that no other nation in the world gives out more foreign aid than the United States and that it receives virtually none in return. Again, "spin."
Who buys the diamonds that fuelled the civil war in Sierra Leone? Everybody. "Blood diamonds" are virtually indestinguishable from any other diamond once they're on the open market, and frankly, every diamond bought comes with a certain percent chance that it's a blood diamond. If more Americans are buying diamonds, than yes, quantitively there will be more of those diamonds in the US, but statisticly, it's the same percentage as anywhere else. You also failed to mention that there are programs to keep those diamonds off the open market and that no American company controls the diamond market. This is a world problem you're discussing. Much the same rebuttal can be made towards the oil you've brought up; that's the nature of open world markets.

Without Saddam and without sanctions Iraq would have plenty of oil wealth with which to buy food.

Besides the ruling Al Saud family in Saudi Arabia,how many oil billionares do you know of from that country.Or even millionares?
America has shown that as long as their basic intersts are served,what really happens to the rest of the people is really none of their business.
So don't tell me about the oil wealth of Iraq going to irdinary citizens as your interest.

Did the US government put the Saudi's into power? No. Has America ever controled Saudi soil? No. Did America establish the Al Saud family's ownership of the Saudi oil industry? No. So how would this related to Iraq? It doesn't. After the event of war, expect to see a "transitional government" made up of ALL of Iraq's ethinic groups to be established to democraticly choose their new government and political system. At this point sanctions will be lifted, and the Iraqi economy will be free to operate at it's level best. Iraq's farmers will be able to get seeds (Iraq has the most water of any nation in the entire Middle East), resumed oil production will mean MORE JOBS, and generally more wealth in the market, Iraq's industry will be free to produce what it will and feely export it. Iraqi entrepeneurs will be free to import anything they damn well please and sell it freely. Expect to see Iraq's economy to improve drasticly within a year of Saddam's removal.
As to the Saudi Government and economic model, talk to the British about that one.

The point is that while the international community does nothing to remove him people suffer and die. In this instance, inaction is murder.

Really.
Is this the first time you guys are seeing people suffer under poor regimes?
NO!!
You even helped prop upsuch regimes when doing that was in your best interests.Case in point:Zaire's Mobutu Seseseko during the cold war.
Stop kidding us people!!

I'm not going to make excuses for my nation's shortsighted foreign policy in the past. In case you haven't noticed, much of it has come back to bite us in the ass in recent years, and hence our motivation to do our best to set first Afghanistan and now Iraq right. In past years the American government's outlook on the world was "Communism is bad, so everybody who's against it must be good" and that's a very shortsighted outlook on the world. Anybody who doesn't see that now is quite frankly an idiot.

Has the US invaded Saudi Arabia, removed one government and put another in place? Nope. "Apples to oranges."

The point you're being drawn to here is that the involvement of America doesn't not guarantee any ordinary citizens.It has been shown.But that seems to be one of your "for" arguments!

America's involvement with Saudi Arabia is pretty much a business relationship, and since Saddam invaded Kuwait, partially a defensive one. America's involvement with Iraq after a war would be reconstruction and then the facillitation of a new democratic government and is much better compared to America's involvement with Germany and Japan after World War II. "Involvement" is an increadibly broad word and simply fails to describe what's going on with any degree of accuracy.

Gandhi and Mandela faced different power balances and ethical questions.

They did not.

Yes they did:
Gandhi faced the British Empire, that while (officially) quite willing to plunder lands and people of their wealth was composed (unoffically) of British people who tend to get awefully squeamish about strong opinions being expressed, much less open oppression of fellow human beings. Gandhi was able to show the British the inhumanity of the situation, rally internal support towards independance, and break the British will to hold onto the Indian colony because he didn't allow the British people to ignore the injustice of the situation.
Mandela helped bring down the Apartheid system by winning world support. Now the old South African government largely didn't care about black South Africans, but it definately cared about the economic sanctions the world community placed on it and buckled.
Saddam Hussein on the other hand is a completely different ball of wax. He is already ignoring sanctions at the expense of his people and will continue to do so because he never gives in. In the past twelve years he hasn't made a single consession that wasn't in resonse to force or the reputable threat of force. NOT ONE. If you've read the Amnesty International report on the man, you'd also see that he doesn't care about injustice, he cares about his personal ambitions and to hell with anything or anyone who gets in the way. He will not be swayed by nonviolent protest, partially because he doesn't care and partially because it takes less effort to snuff out. ESPECIALLY when the world community is willing to stand by and WATCH.

Still don't get my point? I'll do the rather ghastly calculus pertaining to this situation for you:
TOTAL civilian casualties during the Gulf War was a few hundred to two or three thousand. This number is difficult to establish concretely because of Saddam's propoganda efforts). Compare that to the AVERAGE number of Iraqi civilians to starve under UN sanctions; OVER FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED CIVILIANS PER YEAR (going be ed's figure of 500,000 deaths divided by eleven years - I consider ed's number to be low because it's atleast six months out of date). Using a relatively high-ball figure for civilian Gulf War casualties of 2,000 and the casualty rate is STILL TWENTY TIMES GREATER. TWENTY. If you extrapulate that high-ball Gulf War figure out to a full year, it's still seven times fewer deaths than those caused by economic sanctions.

Inaction now is MURDER.

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-04-2003 at 07:26 PM]

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
[B] So you're saying the Nazi's shouldn't neccessarily have been removed from power? Or that the Japanese Empire wasn't responsible for horrendous 'crimes against humanity?'

The difference here is that today we're hoping to remove the cancer before it consumes millions of lifes, not after.

It seems like you guys didn't want to see my real point out of that post .
Japan was invaded cuz they attacked Pearl Harbour , and Germany was invaded cuz they attacked almost every country in europe.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi army was driven out by an international coalition and ordered by the international community to disarm and [u]PROVE[/u] that it has disarmed. After OVER A DECADE LATER Saddam has proven NOTHING other than that he's still playing games with the arms inspectors.

MEANWHILE 45,000 Iraqis are STARVING to death EVERY YEAR.
Do we have to reach the one million mark before you think "hmmm... Maybe we should do something about this" ???
How about two million? Or three?


Don't get me wrong, the "preemptive strike" statements Bush has made were idiotic at best, but that doesn't change the overall realities of this situation.

Originally posted by Dejan Sajinovic
Duds, this thread must be the biggest in the history of guitar tricks.

Sorry. My bad.