Debate between Iraqi man vs Little Girl

[epicstruggle]

Saw this link over in the R3D forums.
Listen to this:
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

You have to listen just for this line: "...simplistic Nicklelodian diplomacy". Bad ass clip.

later,

 

[kyleb]

wow, they sure did a good job berating a young woman; i imagine would have been even more empowering to them if they had a few more people on their side to tell her how foolish they think she is. also, i found it sad the way the radio guy at the end said he did not want to go to war but was still defending the cause with such vigor, and more worried how he will be accepted by people down the line than the lives of the people he will most likely wind up killing.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

wow, they sure did a good job berating a young woman;

Naive woman, you mean. She did a good job of dodging the question. So why don't you give it a shot.

"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq"

Discaimer: The purpose of going into Iraq is not to out Sadam. Ousting Sadam is the means to the end, which is disarming Iraq. I don't want this to go off topic about "why we're going into Iraq." Or if we should go into Iraq regardless of disarming...just to get rid of Sadam. I just want to hear the question answered.

 

[kyleb]

no i did not mean niaive at all, i never got a chance to hear her talk long enough to draw such a conclusion for myself.

 

[epicstruggle]

wow, you sound just like her though kyleb. Dodging the question.

later,

 

[Vince]

i found it sad the way the radio guy at the end said he did not want to go to war but was still defending the cause with such vigor

Of course nobody wants war, but he defends the cause with vigor because he believes in it and thinks it's a just cause - which God forbid, is worthy of war if it comes to it.

This is hardly sad, it's quite honorable. If anything you're the sad one.

And more worried how he will be accepted by people down the line than the lives of the people he will most likely wind up killing.

Were you ever the benefactor of any education, seriously? That comment isn't to be taken literally, but rather is a euphemism for how history will decide (eg. handshake) who was right in their polarized ideologies: Military Disarmerment (he's in the Army) or Andrea (Peace-Protester).

I sware, if people weren't so damn dumb....

She did a good job of dodging the question. So why don't you give it a shot.

By "Playing the Ping-Pong" - just like her.

We need more people like this on CNN instead of these "technical analysts" who have no personal interests or personal experiences.

 

[kyleb]

so you are saying something along the lines of; after all, the good guys always win; and have the forces and the weaponry to take on the world without a hitch. so we are obviously the good guys and anyone who gets in the way has a vial and retched love of terror and tyranny, not to mention those hate-mongering, anti-Semitic, and anti-American bastards in Europe who laughingly come off like they can tell us what to do. there is no argument better than than the victory that is investable; might makes right and we damn sure cannot be wrong with logic like that.
is that how you feel Vince?

also epicstruggle, i dodgeing any question, i made it very clear that i do was not given enough information to come to a conclusion. if you do not feel you need the level of information i do to make your own conclusion, i would like to respect that; but you are makeing it very hard with the utter lack of respect your are showing me.

 

[Vince]

is that how you feel Vince?

I take it this is in some way directed at me.

so you are saying something along the lines of; after all, the good guys always win; and have the forces and the weaponry to take on the world without a hitch. so we are obviously the good guys and anyone who gets in the way has a vial and retched love of terror and tyranny, not to mention those hate-mongering, anti-Semitic, and anti-American bastards in Europe who laughingly come off like they can tell us what to do. there is no argument better than than the victory that is investable; might makes right and we damn sure cannot be wrong with logic like that.

I reinstate my previous question of contemplation ability on your part after this.

That has absolutly NOTHING to do with what I said; the beliefs of myself or that radio host. I suggest you reread my post, this time actually reading and comprehending what I said, and then get back to me.


Because, just like in that Radio Dialog, I refuse to be drawn into another argument that has no facual basis other than: (a) Your inability to comprehend what I'm stating and (b) Your need to create harsh language and a polarized situation that puts you diametrcally opposed to me at all costs; including - as you did here - by including things which I've never stated, never supported, never implied.

 

[kyleb]

i got the impression i did based on this:

That comment isn't to be taken literally, but rather is a euphemism for how history will decide (eg. handshake) who was right in their polarized ideologies: Military Disarmerment (he's in the Army) or Andrea (Peace-Protester).

 

[epicstruggle]

Kyleb, I mean no disrepect to you, but to your view point. Its a fine line, but I dont like/dislike people on their view points. Most of my friends are against any war. I abhor the way they think but I am very good friends with them. What I dont like about the anti war movement is that instead of answering simple questions, they have to resort to arguments/reasons that are emotional, and not logical.

The argument that is worth least of all is that innocent people will die. Did you ever think that if sadam didnt park his weapons near civilians, or areas for civilian purposes, that we could minimize deaths to a couple hundred. But the man your defending (Sadam) by not forcebly removing him will do anything to stay in power. Thats why I wish that you (anti war movement) would answer the question posed by the Iraqi man in the mp3:

"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

I do hope kyleb (or anyone else against the war) would please take the time to answer the above mentioned question. Thank you.

later,

 

[kyleb]

the problem is that we, or at least i, belive there is only one logical reason to kill; in direct defense of life, and you can call it emotional if you want but i consider it very rational. besides all sorts of arguments can be thrown together to claim that killing will be done in the name of a greater good and in the long run we will see that it was truly for the best. however, i see those arguments and reasons as the ones that i see as emotional and not logical; my logic prevents me from believing that any of us can divine the future. it seems that this is why our opinions conflict.

 

[epicstruggle]

I can understand the arguement where you would only kill to defend your life. However, I think in that situation saddam wins. Why should the US bother helping out any country until it was in direct threat. I take it then kyleb that you were not for the first gulf war. Since the US was not in direct threat. Had we not stoped him then what would have stopped him from taking over another one or two Middle East countries giving him control over most of the oil in the world. Plus he would more than likely killed many many civilians who would have opposed him.

later,

 

[pax]

I dont know any anti war activist who thinks peace and prosperity will be promoted by leaving saddam in power... that is just beside the point...

The 3 main points why war in Iraq is not a good idea:

1- He might have wmds we dont know about that may be unleashed by a war to remove his regime. Millions may die...

2- The war may expand regionally and involve nuclear Israel and topple friendly regimes in oil powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and other regimes with wmds like Pakistan. Many pro western regimes in the area are not in strong positions of power. This assumes a bad campaign in Iraq... if it lasts months insetad of weeeks and kills hundreds of thousands or millions instead of just a few hundred or few thousands... A very possible scenario.

3- The war may expand into a clash of civilizations between muslim and western christian\secular worlds... this would be a disaster with possibly no end in sight. God only knows what might happen if things get this bad.

War in Iraq is a bad intervention in a bad place at a bad time by a bad president...

Frances' idea (and Russia and China's ect...) of war under 1441 as a last resort (once the diplomatic and inspection process is complete on a schedule established by UN inspectors) would probably see, after a non-compliance result, an enhanced common front in the UN on Iraq and possibly include virtually all the muslim world and if executed in a gradual escalation could topple the Iraqi regime with far less risk than now...

I dont agree with France though. Recent bios of Saddam seem to indicate a bit of a martyr complex. His long sought fantasy of uniting the arab world could be had by dying in Baghdad but only after causing a wider war to occur is scary. If he has even modest wmds he could drag Israel in if he can cause enough harm there. Does anyone think a war involving Israel nuking Iraq wont be seen by many muslims there as justification for some kind of renewed jihad? I just hope Israel doesn't feel it should trade a few hundred or couple thousand of Israelis for a nuke killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of muslims... I also hope Saddam doesn't have worse than what he bothered to declare he has...

 

[epicstruggle]

I dont know any anti war activist who thinks peace and prosperity will be promoted by leaving saddam in power... that is just beside the point...

The 3 main points why war in Iraq is not a good idea:

1- He might have wmds we dont know about that may be unleashed by a war to remove his regime. Millions may die...

He might also try to resume his conquest of the middle east and use his wmds killing milliions, ontop of the millions he has already killed. If I had to choose which of these 2 bad options to deal with, I would rather take him out, with the possibility of massive casualties, than have him dictate the terms of where and when to use his wmds.

2- The war may expand regionally and involve nuclear Israel and topple friendly regimes in oil powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and other regimes with wmds like Pakistan. Many pro western regimes in the area are not in strong positions of power. This assumes a bad campaign in Iraq... if it lasts months insetad of weeeks and kills hundreds of thousands or millions instead of just a few hundred or few thousands... A very possible scenario.

No offence but Israel will not get into this fight. I think Pres. Bush has made it very clear that if saddam uses his wmd the US keeps the option open to use wmds on him. No use for Israel to get pulled in without any gain for them.

3- The war may expand into a clash of civilizations between muslim and western christian\secular worlds... this would be a disaster with possibly no end in sight. God only knows what might happen if things get this bad.

Actually Iraq has a secular govermnent. Only lately has Saddam embraced the Islamic religion. So should not be much of a clash of civilization. There seems to be rumors that a woman might be in charge of Iraq, now that might rufel some feathers. Hope that gives the women of Iraq some backbone to stand up for themselves.

War in Iraq is a bad intervention in a bad place at a bad time by a bad president...

Actually I think Bush might turn out to be one of this countries best president. And currently 2nd only to Blair in regards to current leaders around the world. Pax within weeks if not days you will be proven wrong.

 

[Vince]

Pax within weeks if not days you will be proven wrong.

Yes, the number of people who will receive a warm, steamy cup of the proverbial STFU will easily exceed the number of casualties by many orders of magnitude.

 

[Fred]

Pax, the vast majority of anti war types I know do not think the way you do. Which is sad, b/c frankly those are the best arguments (debatable as they may be) to be anti war in Iraq at this point.

Most of them believe in weird conspiracy theories usually involving Bush in some sort of weird oil schemes as well as promoting puppet regimes in some form of US global domination plans; others pretty much just for the principle of being anti violence no matter what the cost.

Even others pretty much b/c its bandwagon, and protesting something fills them with rightous indignation, and that feels good.

I can't tell you how many Europeans STILL think Saddam has no WMDs, and that this is some US ploy to get their oil.

I have serious problems with these types (and you can find them on this board), simply b/c logic and reason seem to go way over there head. Instead they have to resort to ad hominums, and endless moralizing.

 

[KimB]

1- He might have wmds we dont know about that may be unleashed by a war to remove his regime. Millions may die...

True. Would most likely be unleashed against Israel. However, just as Saddam assaulted Israel in the Gulf War, I think they'll be smart enough to not move.

At the same time, for long-term peace in the region, an all-out war with Israel vs. her neighbors may provide enough blood to make grief outweigh anger long enough for a more lasting peace than we've seen in the region for decades. I'm not really trying to say that I would encourage this, but that the everyday lives of the survivors of such a terrible war will likely be much better off than if things go on for decades at their present low simmer. So it's a huge tradeoff, and certainly not one I'd like to make a personal decision on.

2- The war may expand regionally and involve nuclear Israel and topple friendly regimes in oil powerhouses like Saudi Arabia and other regimes with wmds like Pakistan. Many pro western regimes in the area are not in strong positions of power. This assumes a bad campaign in Iraq... if it lasts months insetad of weeeks and kills hundreds of thousands or millions instead of just a few hundred or few thousands... A very possible scenario.

I doubt it. Bush has been working very closely with the surrounding nations in order to prevent this. Nobody really likes Iraq in the area, which makes it much easier to get them to turn a blind eye (at least...many are offering support). Given the track record of the US military in the past 15 years, I seriously doubt any nation will decide to go to war against the US. The main points here are even if all nations in the region allied against us (aside from Israel, of course), not one could escape without a significant amount of damage. And certainly not one would want to risk being the only one out (unless there's another insane leader out there, besides Saddam...).

3- The war may expand into a clash of civilizations between muslim and western christian\secular worlds... this would be a disaster with possibly no end in sight. God only knows what might happen if things get this bad.

I somewhat doubt it. The most we'll likely see is an escalation in terrorist activities. The Muslim nations just don't have that much military might.

 

[Goragoth]

I can't see how anybody would suppport the USA going to war without UN approval. I have more faith in the UN making an intelligent decision than the Bush administration (or any other single government for that matter). If the USA does defy a UN resolution I think it should be kicked out of the UN in shame and all UN countries should start boycotting the US as a rogue state because that is exactly how it is behaving. War is a bad thing but sometimes neccessary, I see that. But to go against a direct order by the UN security council (and it looks like this will happen) is plain wrong.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I can't see how anybody would suppport the USA going to war without UN approval. I have more faith in the UN making an intelligent decision than the Bush administration (or any other single government for that matter). If the USA does defy a UN resolution I think it should be kicked out of the UN in shame and all UN countries should start boycotting the US as a rogue state because that is exactly how it is behaving.

As as U.S. citizen, I could give a rats ass if all the UN countries started "boycotting" us or not (whatever that means). We'll adjust. Be careful what you wish for.

FYI, I have less faith in the U.N. in making a prudent decision when it comes to matters of U.S. defense, than the Bush administration. In fact, I have less faith in the U.N. to do much of anything meaningful at all, other than to scratch eath other's backs.

And another FYI...If the U.S. does attack Iraq, then I don't believe they will be violating any "resolution." There just may not be a resolution supporting it.

 

[Vince]

I can't see how anybody would suppport the USA going to war without UN approval.

And I can't see how any Ameican would be willing to give their very sovereignty up to a foreign entity. If your an American, I take it you never studied the Constitution and/or Framers? Which would be a problem.

another FYI...If the U.S. does attack Iraq, then I don't believe they will be violating any "resolution." There just may not be a resolution supporting it.

As I stated once before, we are infact in a state of de facto war with Iraq due to their blatent and multiple violations of the '91 cease-fire accord. UNSC 671 (?) is the relevent one IIRC.