Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Optional · 06-13-2003, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laci
Reply to What Would I have Done?

Probably waited for the UN to do some more inspections; have diplomatic talks with the countries who were against the US going in, bla bla bla. I would have taken the Clinton path--so to speak.

So--nothing would have been done. Al Queda would be feeling quite superior at this point. Getting away with the 911 tradgedy. Saddam would still be in power. No one outside of Iraq would have found all the weapons he hid in the schools and churches and hospitals. And what about those mass burial sites?

So we could have hidden our head in the sand OR take action, like Bush did. It's not a win-win situation. Lives will be lost either way. But the Saddam Regime would have been even less humane to its people probably if left there. And we wouldn't have our presents in the Mideast.

Sometimes you have to choose!

Laci...

Do you understand that al Qa'eda has nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

Second, do you understand that there have been no weapons found hidden 'in the schools and churches and hospitals'?

-me

Godless Dave · 06-13-2003, 08:18 AM

There is also the larger foreign policy question of whether it is in our interests to have a military presence in the Middle East. I would argue that it is not.

auto-da-fe · 06-13-2003, 08:20 AM

Optional, do you understand that you are incorrect? From

this site:

Quote:

-marines trying to help neighborhoods get police and hospital services back up and running find themselves helping Iraqis to clear their schools, hospitals, and even their backyards of weapons left there by Iraqi troops.

this is only the first thing that I found after a very brief search. weapons were most certainly held in schools, civilian houses, hospitals, along the side of the road, nothing was off limits.

Optional · 06-13-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MegaDave
Optional, do you understand that you are incorrect? From

this site:

this is only the first thing that I found after a very brief search. weapons were most certainly held in schools, civilian houses, hospitals, along the side of the road, nothing was off limits.

Ok... I was mistaken then. By her tone of such utter moral outrage, I assumed by 'weapons' she meant WMDs.

So... What exactly is wrong with storing guns and stuff in these places in a nation actually at war?

I mean, yes I can see the ethical problem involved, but it seems a mighty strange thing to focus on when there was so much else and worse that Saddam did...

-me

MortalWombat · 06-13-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optional
Laci...

Do you understand that al Qa'eda has nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

This has been pointed out to Laci in this thread as well, and he/she never responded to it. So either Laci doesn't read replies to his/her posts, or deliberately ignores them.

auto-da-fe · 06-13-2003, 10:53 AM

I will agree that al Queada has nothing to do with Iraq, but IIRC, I think it was just pure conjecture when someone in the Bush admin said something about it.

auto-da-fe · 06-13-2003, 10:57 AM

And Optional, I am glad that you at least see the ethical problems with putting weapons in hospitals/schools/churches and other civilian venues. I don't think it was really focused on so much as commented on. I think it was deplorable that the Iraqi army did that.

Godless Dave · 06-13-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MegaDave
I will agree that al Queada has nothing to do with Iraq, but IIRC, I think it was just pure conjecture when someone in the Bush admin said something about it.

I disagree. I think it the conjectures made by the Bush admin were calculated to get Americans to associate 9/11 with Iraq, without ever saying it explicitly. Do not underestimate this team's understanding of psychology and the power of propaganda.

MortalWombat · 06-13-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MegaDave
I will agree that al Queada has nothing to do with Iraq, but IIRC, I think it was just pure conjecture when someone in the Bush admin said something about it.

Colin Powell, in his February speech to the UN security council, claimed that there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network." This is the Secretary of State of the United States making a claim to the UN in order to sway them to act against Iraq, not merely someone in the Bush admin making conjecture.

The text of his speech can be found here.

LymanLover · 06-13-2003, 01:44 PM

The fact that he was trying to sway them should give you a hint about the nature of the argument. There is no rule in international relations that says representatives of a state have to be honest in their pursuit of national goals.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2003, 08:18 AM	#62
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	There is also the larger foreign policy question of whether it is in our interests to have a military presence in the Middle East. I would argue that it is not.

06-13-2003, 10:53 AM	#66
auto-da-fe Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: edge of insanity Posts: 1,609	I will agree that al Queada has nothing to do with Iraq, but IIRC, I think it was just pure conjecture when someone in the Bush admin said something about it.

06-13-2003, 10:57 AM	#67
auto-da-fe Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: edge of insanity Posts: 1,609	And Optional, I am glad that you at least see the ethical problems with putting weapons in hospitals/schools/churches and other civilian venues. I don't think it was really focused on so much as commented on. I think it was deplorable that the Iraqi army did that.

06-13-2003, 01:44 PM	#70
LymanLover Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,982	The fact that he was trying to sway them should give you a hint about the nature of the argument. There is no rule in international relations that says representatives of a state have to be honest in their pursuit of national goals.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.