Saddam has killed more innocent people than the US ever will in this war no matter how long it lasts. He will continue to do so unless something is done. If you truely valued human life, you would support a regime change in Iraq. The only way that is going to happen is by force. Negotiating with Saddam is an exercise in futility.
Posts by Adam
-
10Time for a Negotiated Settlement?
by ISP insurely it is?.
the coalition has the entire country overun...with just a few principal cities in the control of iraqis.
the coalition should be able to determine what wmd exist.
-
-
-
62
Opposing war = passive support?
by expatbrit in.
before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.
simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.
-
-
Adam
H S,
Not at all an attack on your points made above. I simply did not want Trauma Hound to go off about why we're not liberating other opressed people or about how it's not the US's job to liberate them or any other anti-US, anti-Bush, or anti-war issue. I wanted him to stick very specificly to my quesiton and used your response as an example of what I was hoping not to get from him.
Not interested in a discussion about alternatives to war in Iraq at the moment as the war is already on and the discussion moot, but thank you for the invitation.
-
62
Opposing war = passive support?
by expatbrit in.
before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.
simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.
-
-
Adam
Trauma Hound,
Please use the example of Hillary Step of how NOT to respond to the question. Using irrelevant rhetoric to divert from the subject of question will only make you look lame and unable to defend your position. I seriously would like to hear your views on how to solve the humanitarian problem without the use of force.
-
62
Opposing war = passive support?
by expatbrit in.
before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.
simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.
-
-
Adam
Trauma Hound,
Obviously you are concerned about the people in Iraq. More than once I have heard you mention the harm that depleted uranium shells are causing. I must assume then that you are also appalled by the children who have been orphaned when their fathers have been killed as suspected enemies of the paranoid dictator. You must weep at the starvation and malnutrition brought on by misappropriated funds and by the sanctions from the world community that the current regime has brought on its self. The thousands and thousands of soldiers that have died in agressive wars against neighbors must break your heart. Since you care so greatly about the welfare of the citizens of Iraq, you must desperatly want to put an immediate end to the death and misery. I would like to know what your solution to the problem is? Sanctions have not worked. Popular, internal uprisings have not worked. Begging, asking, requesting, and demanding all have not worked. What is the answer? If you could please refrain from listing all of the things that America has done wrong in it's dealings with Iraq and keep to answering the question I would appreciate it.
-
62
Opposing war = passive support?
by expatbrit in.
before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.
simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.
-
-
Adam
Cut and paste sucks on this board. To continue my truncated thought...
On the flip side, there are those who will protest any military action by anyone anywhere. That means they were against the military action of Iraq against Kuwait that touched off Gulf One as well as the military action of the U.S. against Iraq to reverse the situation. Not terribly practical but it didn't mean that they were for Iraq's invasion just because they were against the U.S. liberation. They were just against war.
-
62
Opposing war = passive support?
by expatbrit in.
before everyone gets all huffy about another war thread, i tried to reply in the original thread, but it buggered up.
simon, if you want to move it there and get rid of this thread, please do.
-
-
Adam
It is true that the only way Saddam will give up power is if we wrest it from his cold, dead hand and that further attempts at political solutions to the issue will serve to prolong his reign. But I don’t believe that by opposing the war, one is necessarily supporting Saddam. When voicing an opinion, the speaker should not automatically be considered to be a backer of all possible affects resultant of the implementation of that opinion. For example:
For reasons I will not get into now in the interests of staying on topic, I support the military action now going on. I fully realize that during this action, some of our boys and girls over there will be captured and tortured. Anyone who tells me that I am in any way supportive, passive or otherwise, of having American troops tortured is asking for a fat lip and a black eye.
On the flip side, there are those out there who will protest any action by any military force anywhere. That means that they were against the military action of
When someone champions a cause or supports a course of action, the effects of that course of action should be up for scrutiny and discussion, but I think it unfair to attribute the support of that person to any negative repercussions.
-
12
Dangerous escalation
by Satanus ini was going to call the thread wwiii, but that's a bit sensational, isn't it?
the escalation pattern is in these headlines on a newsite i read sometimes.. china readies for future us war .
15,000 indonesian 'holy warriors' to fight for iraq .
-
-
Adam
SloBoy,
The Watchtower of course! But seriously if you're looking for truth in the news, unfettered by profit incentives or political influence, good luck.
-
25
Origins of SHOCK AND AWE
by chachasmum inthe basis of hitler's blitzkrieg, march 14, 2003 .
reviewer: a reader from langley, va, united states shock and awe were the foundational concepts put forth by hitler's military leaders as a new and lethal way of rapidly overwhelming opponents.
setting aside considerations of the violence visited on civilians and non-combatants or the damage done to infrastructure, hitler suggested that inducing "shock and awe" through his "lightning war" system would lead to rapid military victories.
-
-
Adam
I heard on NPR that the guy who came up with "Shock and Awe" drew his inspiration from Sun Tsu's "Art of War." But does it matter? If Mengele would have found the cure for cancer, would we not use it? The quicker this war is over, the sooner the poor people of Iraq can begin a new and bright future. If shock and awe is what it takes, so be it.
-
12
Dangerous escalation
by Satanus ini was going to call the thread wwiii, but that's a bit sensational, isn't it?
the escalation pattern is in these headlines on a newsite i read sometimes.. china readies for future us war .
15,000 indonesian 'holy warriors' to fight for iraq .
-
-
Adam
Media sensationalism plain and simple. Headlines like that are meant to sell copy, not to convey truth.
-
58
Fluff Thread - What's your favorite old movie?
by El Kabong injust wanna take a little diversion from the current events happening.
i'm watching my favorite old movie of all time right now.
"on the waterfront" with marlon brando.
-
-
Adam
12 Angry Men. Excellent drama, riviting dialogue, no reliance whatsoever on set or effects. Just good writing.