If you're on the fence about the war, listen to this...

[User #2735]

Originally posted by John Galt
Just like O'Reilly, pick a weak spokesperson, browbeat them, and then believe that ant-war advocates have nothing to say.

Originally posted by John Galt
The caller and a host gang up on what sounds like a teenage girl who is against the war. She obviously can't answer the challenges and doesn't know much and is not given much of a chance to speak.

Originally posted by EagleFan
Also, as for the girl representing the anti-war movement. That's a joke.

Just for clarification, the person who "sounds like a teenage girl" was Andrea Buffa, Co-Chair of United for Peace & Justice. The Same United for Peace and Justice which has organized mulitple anti-war rallies in New York City and San Francisco (among others). She was a guest on KOMO 1000 in Seattle and had been on the program for over an hour before the Iraqi fellow called in.

I find it very humorous that without knowing who she is, many people automatically categorize her as a "weak spokesperson".

[Iceberg]

John why do you think the Iraqi people starve? Is it because their country has no money and infertile farmland and without sanctions they can't get the food they need? No, the land around the tigris and the Euphretes is some of the most fertile farmland in the world and they still sell tons of oil overseas including to the US indirectly through international suppliers. Why do they starve? Because the country is mismanaged and saddam employs all the resources building more palace and weapons. If sanctions are lifted it is still doubtful a middle class will be created. What is more likely is that saddam will remain dictator till he dies and one of his sons takes over. Even if a middle class were to arise do you think they would be able to overthrow saddam or would they all be gassed like the kurds at first sign of agggitation? Please tell me a realistic way to get saddam out other than war.

*sigh*

Why do we waste so much damn time debating things that none of us can ever change?

We are going to war. No scratch that, we are already in war.

Saddam should be removed from power. Wait, we need to scratch that too. Saddam will be removed from power... if it hasn't already happened.

The long and short of this is we are in a war and we are going to remove Saddam from power. This issue is no longer debatable.

Those of you who spend hours trying to debate how and why we should not be going to war are drastically increasing your chances of developing Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, raising your blood pressure, and becoming a potential burden to the tax payers who must pay for your excessive and avoidable medical care.

HornsManiac

[Easy Mac]

MAybe if Saddam acted a little more cocky and funny, we could just forgive him

[Radii]

Other than the occasional "here is my real life situation how do you guys think I can handle it" post, all we do here is debate things we have no control over.

Whether Randy Moss is an asshole or not, and whether Emmitt Smith or Barry Sanders is a better running back may not be world changing events, but we have absolutely no control over it and still sit around here for hours talking about it

[Bee]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
MAybe if Saddam acted a little more cocky and funny, we could just forgive him

We could always edit his ratings and make him a good guy.

[CamEdwards]

I think Horns needs to do something to take our minds off the war.

What do you say Horns, try and chat up an 18 year old supermodel on the internet for us. Do it for the troops, man!

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I think Horns needs to do something to take our minds off the war.

Can we set up an online chat between Horns and Easy Mac's roommate's ex-girlfriend? I think we'd hit 500 posts in the first hour alone.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I think Horns needs to do something to take our minds off the war.

What do you say Horns, try and chat up an 18 year old supermodel on the internet for us. Do it for the troops, man!

Sorry. Cam. I can't stir up anything right now because I am on probation. Also, because everyone else has been feuding so much Ole SkyDog probably has a short fuse.

Just use your imagination and picture a really nasty HornsManiac versus The HM Haters flame war.

HornsManiac

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Can we set up an online chat between Horns and Easy Mac's roommate's ex-girlfriend? I think we'd hit 500 posts in the first hour alone.

That is an awesome idea. We need Easy Mac to PM me her user name. I could get her trained for him.

HornsManiac

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by HornsManiac
I can't stir up anything right now because I am on probation.

...and from now on, he's on "Double-Secret Probation"

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by User #2735
Just for clarification, the person who "sounds like a teenage girl" was Andrea Buffa, Co-Chair of United for Peace & Justice. The Same United for Peace and Justice which has organized mulitple anti-war rallies in New York City and San Francisco (among others). She was a guest on KOMO 1000 in Seattle and had been on the program for over an hour before the Iraqi fellow called in.

I find it very humorous that without knowing who she is, many people automatically categorize her as a "weak spokesperson".

That is great. Any comments John? Others?

Tarkus

[Fritz]

Originally posted by SkyDog
...and from now on, he's on "Double-Secret Probation"

No togas in the forum please.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Tarkus
That is great. Any comments John? Others?

Tarkus

George Bush.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Tarkus
That is great. Any comments John? Others?

Tarkus

The fact that she has achieved status doesn't change a thing - she has no idea what she is talking about. It is sad that she plays the role she does - perhaps she is just an administrator. I'm sure she means well, but she was just clueless. Of course, maybe I'm being a little judgmental because she never had much of chance to speak in the exert we heard.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Obviously you're never going to answer the question.

Sanctions were place on Iraq FOR A REASON. Saddam doesn't care about his people. Saddam is never going to care about his people, sanctions or not. Saddam is Saddam, with or without sanctions. There is no "developing" when you have a murderous tyrant at the helm.

Get a drip.

I don't why you think I'm not answering "the question." You say, sanctions are there for a reason. I say they actually accomplish the opposite of that reason.

My point is if you want a democratic Iraq, sanctions and war are two methods likely to fail. Engagement and trade are likely to succeed.

War won't work because democracy will fail to take hold without a middle class (something that won't exist in a war-torn society), history shows the US isn't good at setting up democratic governments since WWII, and because another leader will probably be just as bad as Saddam.

Further, the threats we create through resentment and bad alliances with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey more than offset any gains in Iraq.

And while it is easy to dismiss Saddam as a murderous tyrant, he has, like Castro, to maintain power because of the sanctions, not despite them. Sanctions haven't worked and why we continue to pretend that they do is beyond me.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Iceberg
John why do you think the Iraqi people starve? Is it because their country has no money and infertile farmland and without sanctions they can't get the food they need? No, the land around the tigris and the Euphretes is some of the most fertile farmland in the world and they still sell tons of oil overseas including to the US indirectly through international suppliers. Why do they starve? Because the country is mismanaged and saddam employs all the resources building more palace and weapons. If sanctions are lifted it is still doubtful a middle class will be created. What is more likely is that saddam will remain dictator till he dies and one of his sons takes over. Even if a middle class were to arise do you think they would be able to overthrow saddam or would they all be gassed like the kurds at first sign of agggitation? Please tell me a realistic way to get saddam out other than war.

Saddam is clearly the cause of mismanaged resources in Iraq. Nonetheless, sanctions make that situation much worse because there is no capital in the country. A similar situation has arisen in North Korea because the absence of fertile land is usually not the reason for starvation.

And I'm not talking overthrow (although that would be nice) - I'm talking loss of power - dictators have trouble when there borders are open to foreign influence. They have to surrender power and ultimately they have to change or become irrelevant. Saddam isn't worse than many other oppressive leaders in China, South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe who have been pushed aside through a strategy of engagement and trade. War on the other hand usually removes a "name" only, but the conditions don't improve. How are things in Afghanistan these days (Grenada?, Nicaragua?, Columbia?)?

[heybrad]

Originally posted by John Galt
How are things in Afghanistan these days (Grenada?, Nicaragua?, Columbia?)

For what its worth...

As someone who lived in Grenada for a year I can tell you that for the most part, the people of Grenada were extremely happy and very thankful for US intervention. Many Grenadians felt the US press did not convey that image in their reports.

[CamEdwards]

shhhh Brad, people don't want to hear about what the citizens of the country actually have to say.

hey brad!


** the first time I have ever done that **

HornsManiac

[John Galt]

Originally posted by heybrad
For what its worth...

As someone who lived in Grenada for a year I can tell you that for the most part, the people of Grenada were extremely happy and very thankful for US intervention. Many Grenadians felt the US press did not convey that image in their reports.

You are right - Grenada was not a good example. It probably shouldn't be used either way because it was such a unique invasion situation. Looking around though, I see your conclusion seems pretty good from the articles on the web. I should have used other examples, though, like Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Vietnam, Cuba, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan, or Nigeria where we have tried hardline strategies (either sanctions, war, or forced regime change) that have impeded the growth of democracy. Grenada was a bad example, but there are many others.

[Bee]

Originally posted by John Galt
You are right - Grenada was not a good example. It probably shouldn't be used either way because it was such a unique invasion situation. Looking around though, I see your conclusion seems pretty good from the articles on the web. I should have used other examples, though, like Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Vietnam, Cuba, El Salvador, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan, or Nigeria where we have tried hardline strategies (either sanctions, war, or forced regime change) that have impeded the growth of democracy. Grenada was a bad example, but there are many others.

What you don't think 1 outta 12 is a good ratio?

[RendeR]

Having been in and around this situation for the past 15 years (I served in Desert shield and Desert Storm) I have a few things to say here:

#1 Lifting sanctions would have accomplished absolutely nothing. Saddam would have been hoarding anything he could in this scenario and been free to import just about anything he wanted or needed to build his arsenal. The sanctions were put in place to force his regime to capitulate to the cease fire mandates from the war in 1991. He has never NEVER met one of those mandates. He's made a show of offering to, but has never fully done so.
Please end the argument that lifting sanctions would make any difference in this situation. Its not valid.

#2 The UN security council was suppusedly the "guardians" of the world wide trust. They were empowered to set down giudelines for all nations (member nations of course) to follow to maintain peace in the world as a whole. Hussein's government LITERALLY spat on the resolutions requiring them to disarm after 1991. THey have not followed any of the UN's resolutions to date. If a member nation of the UN refuses to follow its resolutions, why are they still members?

#3 Based on the evidenc e found by the inspectors while they were in the country, it is painfully obvious that there are more weapons there that were not allowed under the UN resolutions of the past. Hussein's leadership has led the inspectors around, controlled who and when they talk to people and of course what they were "allowed" to find (allowed being a term used on iraqi radio broadcasts during the inspectors visits.)

Now I'm sorry to say, I don't see much that the world governments DIDN'T do to avoid this situation. Hussein and his sons almost openly dared anyone to come into and arab nation and remove them. THEY left the world little choice. Sitting back and waiting (which the UN basically did for 12 years) accomplished ZERO. nada, zip, zilch. In fact Hussein had become bolder in that time.

Please, answer THIS question, directly.

If not war, then what? HOW does the world leadership in whole or in part (since there are obviously nations who don't want to take part) remove this regime from power and begin to try and stabilize the middle east?

I would LOVE to hear a viable response.


Ren

[Fritz]

I submit that mass hypnosis would have done the job. First we would get them to disarm, then we would make them cluck like chickens.

[Butter]

Responding to what Ren, and others, have wrote...

I keep hearing this:
War is the only way to get Saddam out of power, considering sanctions didn't work. What are viable options?

John Galt provided another viable option, which would take a long amount of time, likely, in lifting sanctions and attempting to bring about fundamental societal change in Iraq that would make the ruling regime more and more irrelevant to a new, more free Iraqi culture.

If you want IMMEDIATE answers and immediate regime change, war is probably the only way to go. If you want true, fundamental change that won't foster resentment and possibly even worse backlash than there is now, then you go with the lifting of sanctions and "cultural revolution". It is a true mark of a leader to take the path with the long road which has a golden pot at the end that they may not even be around to see.

Plus, you keep asking the same questions over and over. I believe that any answer given aside from war would be met with either "won't work" or "war is better and more immediate". I don't think you want honest answers, you just want John Galt and other "anti-war" types to say, "OK, you're right, I'm an idiot for being against the war!" That's not going to happen. There are good arguments on either side, but there are just as many reasons that war is a bad way to force a regime change as there are reasons that not going to war is a bad way to force a regime change.

War may be the answer, but if it is not, the answer is a long way off, and requires great patience. How long did the Vietnam war take? 10 years? Then we pulled out... and lo and behold, Vietnam is now slowly becoming more and more liberated, economically and politically. Totally different circumstances, yes, but an example of cultural revolution vs. armed revolution.

[Bee]

Good post Butter.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Bee
Good post Butter.

Agreed - good post. You explained things better than I had been doing.

[Maple Leafs]

Butter makes a fair point. However, I think some on the left (not necessarily those here) are trying to argue out of both sides of their mouth. If you want to lift sanctions and wait for ten years for democracy to take effect in Iraq, OK. But understand that in the meantime, you've left Saddam in power and sentenced hundred of thousands, maybe millions of Iraqis to death/torture/kidnapping, etc.

That may ultimately be a necessary evil, but don't turn around and shed crocodile tears if a stray US missle takes out two dozen civilians.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Butter makes a fair point. However, I think some on the left (not necessarily those here) are trying to argue out of both sides of their mouth. If you want to lift sanctions and wait for ten years for democracy to take effect in Iraq, OK. But understand that in the meantime, you've left Saddam in power and sentenced hundred of thousands, maybe millions of Iraqis to death/torture/kidnapping, etc.

That may ultimately be a necessary evil, but don't turn around and shed crocodile tears if a stray US missle takes out two dozen civilians.

While the human rights situation in Iraq is absolutely horrible, arguing that Saddam with kill/torture or kidnap millions (or even hundreds of thousands) is a bit of hyperbole. Even the worst accounts of human rights abuses aren't that high. And further, we sentenced many more to death with our misguided sanctions policy.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
While the human rights situation in Iraq is absolutely horrible, arguing that Saddam with kill/torture or kidnap millions (or even hundreds of thousands) is a bit of hyperbole. Even the worst accounts of human rights abuses aren't that high.

Not true... while of course there is no way to know with certainty how many his regime has killed, at least some accounts have absolutely put the number that high. Here's noted lefty Paul Berman, writing in Salon:

One thing he hasn't gotten across is that there is a positive liberal democratic goal and a humanitarian goal here. Iraq is suffering under one of the most grotesque fascist tyrannies there's ever been. Hundreds of thousands, maybe a million people, have been killed by this horrible regime. The weapons programs are not a fiction. There's every reason to think that Saddam, who's used these weapons in the past, would be happy to use them in the future. The suffering of the Iraqi people is intense. The United States is in the position to bring that suffering to an end. Their liberation, the creating of at least the rudiments of a liberal democratic society there, are in the interests of the Iraqi people and are deeply in the interests of liberal society everywhere. There are reasons to go in which are those of not just self-interest or self-defense, but of solidarity of humanitarianism, of a belief in liberal ideals. And Bush has gotten this across not at all.

The article that quote appears in is an interesting read, by the way. It's titled "Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam". It can be found here: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/...man/print.html

[Riggins44]

War won't work because democracy will fail to take hold without a middle class (something that won't exist in a war-torn society), history shows the US isn't good at setting up democratic governments since WWII, and because another leader will probably be just as bad as Saddam.

I'm just glad that we're a Republic instead of a Democracy.

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of a Democracy" - Alexander Hamilton

"Democracy never lasts long, it soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that 'did not commit suicide'" - Samuel Adams

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Not true... while of course there is no way to know with certainty how many his regime has killed, at least some accounts have absolutely put the number that high. Here's noted lefty Paul Berman, writing in Salon:

The article that quote appears in is an interesting read, by the way. It's titled "Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam". It can be found here: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/...man/print.html

The numbers really only reach that high if you count starvation figures. There are also the matters of the wars with Iran under Saddam that are also included. Pure state-sponsored deaths/kidnappings/tortures don't account for millions. It would be almost impossible to orchestrate such high numbers of abuse given the wreck of military in Iraq for the last 12 years. Here is the Human Rights Watch report for last year. It doesn't give total counts, but shows the scale of abuse that is occuring:

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast4.html

[RendeR]

If you honestly believe that leaving hussein in power, lifting sanctions against iraq and sitting back and waiting will bring about the changes that obviously need to be made. Then I accept your argument.

What I cannot accept is the immediate and ongoing peril of A the iraqi people under his rule, B the lives of who knows how many people whom Saddam would/will attack on his own with who knows what weapons, and C the numbers of people who will be killed while we wait by Iraqi backed terrorist groups.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to sit back and wait for him to prove to you all that he really IS this sadistic and dangerous.

We gave him warnings, we gave him time, he told us to bugger off.

Can you come up with ANYTHING viable to avert the deaths and injuries I just listed above that WOULD have come if we did as you suggest?

The world doesn't have time to sit and wait for the new age of peace to come to Iraq, and based on what Both Saddam and his sons have said in statements, I personally do not believe it ever would.

But you have every right to your opinion. I honestly wished I could believe it would work out the way you see it.