Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Whose really to blame

  1. #61
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 09:58 AM
    [b] 5ever im not answering your question until you answer mine

    what is gonna replace Saddam and how is that better? [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti -

    You don't think Saddam was 'bad.' You don't think he was a threat, so of course you won't think any replacement will be "better." Christ, you didn't even think the Soviet Union was a threat.

    This is just pointless. All we do is go around in circles....

  2. #62
    [b]5ever[/b] i snagged this prior to your edit...

    [quote][b]Explain to me a situation that is worse with Saddam gone. We know he was bad (if you deny this, yo are simply too far gone to even take seriously[/b][/quote]

    :D funny how you edited it out... cause you KNOW VERY WELL There are MANY situations that could be worse than Saddam

    1) a taliban style theocracy led by the shi-ites

    2) out and out civil war between:
    a) the Kurds and the Shi-ite Muslims
    B) the Shi-ites and the Sunni
    c) the Kurds and everyone (+ Turkey)
    d) all of the above

    haha i caught you man! :lol: trying to edit yer post... you know damn well there are worse things in the world than a strong dictator running Iraq

    the real bottom line that no pro-war person is willing to consider or admit is that the Iraqi people aren't ready for democracy... and while they will gripe and wail about human rights violations without a centralized gov't BASED ON FEAR (not respect, not freedom) you will have CHAOS and ANARCHY

    with some exceptions these people are mentally 2000 years behind the rest of the world... they neither deserve nor will know what to do with a liberal democracy. Lets be real the majority of Iraqis whip themselves with chains once or twice a year as a sign of religious expression. This is not a place where civil rights will flourish.

    Also they lack the nationwide distribution of wealth that often accompanies such a gov't. You can't have people living in mud huts voting in general elections... "democracy" employed in 2nd or 3rd world theaters more often then not becomes a sham gov't.

  3. #63
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bitonti -

    I edited that post becuase I thought it was probably too harsh towards you, especially coupled with my 'Soviet Union' dig at you.

    My stupid feud with Tailgators has me in a bad mood and I didn't want to be harsh to a friend.

    I disagree that it will be worse without Saddam. Also, by your logic, we should stay in Iraq long enough until we can make sure those things [i]don't [/i]happen, which is the opposite of what you seem to always advocate.

    I don't really have the energy to get ultra-specific right now....Toonces has pissed me off to no end. I honestly just can't stand that guy (like most posters here, apparently)

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 12:14 PM
    [b] My stupid feud with Tailgators has me in a bad mood.

    [/b][/quote]
    Then let's end the fued.

    Ok?

  5. #65
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Fine Tailgators. We should just ignore each other's posts. If we don't, we'll just end up feuding again in a while and I don't have the energy. I'll stop calling you Toonces.....

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 12:20 PM
    [b] I'll stop calling you Toonces. [/b][/quote]
    What does that mean anyway?

    I've never heard that term before.

    Perhaps 5-ever, if you stopped referring to everyone that disagrees with you as ignorant you'll have less fueds.

  7. #67
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Toonces is from that SNL skit, "Toonces the Driving Cat" from the Phil Hartman/Victoria Jackson years.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 12:29 PM
    [b] Toonces is from that SNL skit, "Toonces the Driving Cat" from the Phil Hartman/Victoria Jackson years. [/b][/quote]
    Oh ok. I haven't really been an SNL watcher since the original cast left.

  9. #69
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 12:29 PM
    [b] Toonces is from that SNL skit, "Toonces the Driving Cat" from the Phil Hartman/Victoria Jackson years. [/b][/quote]
    How can anyone not know who Toonces is??? :( What's next...who's Mr. Bill??

  10. #70
    [b]tail[/b] Toonces was a driving cat circa early 1990's saturday night live. Not sure what the connection is but he crashed alot.

    [b]5ever[/b] we are in Iraq now we can't just leave it to rot. But the larger point is still valid. We could theoretically be there for 50 years and it still not be any closer to a liberal democracy than the day we arrived. unlike Germany, Japan and other places where democracy flourished post-war the Islamic people seem to lack the capitalist consumerism "gene" (really an inclination more than a genetic expression) that allows the "de-culturing" process to set in and these places to be more modern, more democratic. remember the stories how the first GI's in tokyo gave out HERSHEY bars to wide-eyed children? that's not the way it is in the middle east. They hate us for a variety of reasons, some of which date back to the middle ages. Levi's jeans and MTV aren't gonna act as a balm...even though im sure Cheney and Wolfy believe it to be so.

    oh and for what its worth i don't take insults seriously its all in the spirit of lively debate

  11. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 12:33 PM
    [b] How can anyone not know who Toonces is? What's next...who's Mr. Bill?? [/b][/quote]
    What can I say, I just never was a regular viewer of the show since the original cast left. I just didn't think it was all that funny.

    On the other hand Mr. Bill was a scream.

    Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

  12. #72
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 09:57 AM
    [b] Boozer76, Bitonti -


    Think about it logically. There are several possibilities.

    1) Saddam never had WMD stockpiles. So removing him or leaving doesn't affect our security.
    2) Saddam didn't have stockpiles, but retained the componentry, know-how and will to make them in the future...therefore removing him possibly makes us safer in the long run since he and his son were poised to rule Iraq for many decades to come.

    3) Saddam did had stockpiles that we simply haven't found yet. Thus, we are safer to have removed Saddam since he cannot use them.

    4) Saddam did have stockpiles but destroyed them and forgot to tell anyone. Thus, removing Saddam is a wash in terms of safety.

    5) Saddam did have stockpiles and moved them to some second party, possibly Syria. Thus, removing Saddam is a wash since some bad person was going to have them either way...Saddam or Country X. However, since the WMD were all produced in Iraq with Iraqi captial, labor and know-how, the WMD are less likely to increase in amount once moved to Syria since they do not have in infrastructure Saddam had. Had they stayed with Saddam in Iraq, Saddam would have been able to keep producing more of them. Removing Saddam, stopping their production and moving them to Syria most likely makes us safer because the production has stopped and Syria now knows (as Libya does) that the USA will not tolerant Ba'athists who have WMD. And again, Saddam, Syria...in this case some rogue Ba'athist had WMD prior to the war and now one has them after the war, except the most powerful of the leaders is no more. We are no less safe than before. It is important to remember that during the past 13 years we cannot think of Saddam's WMD as a single entity. He could produce what he wanted to. He could have sold some to terrorists or Syria for many years prior to 2003 AND made more for himself. He could have destroyed HIS WMD, yet Syria could retina the ones the previously obtained.)

    All of these possibilities are also based on the assumption that Saddam had not been selling or hiding WMD prior to this recent war. Perhaps inspectors didn't find anything in the 90's because Saddam had [i]already[/i] partnered with Syria to hide his WMD, in exchange for oil (there is a pipeline that runs through Syria).

    Any way you cut it, it is impossible to argue that the threat of Saddam's WMD is worse now that he has been removed. At worst it's a wash, at best (and IMO, most probably) we are much, much safer. Saddam had long pursued WMD, even during the sanctions imposed after 1991 and we know he had large amounts that were (and are still) unaccounted for. Saddam also knew that if he overtly used WMD at any time after 1991 that his ass was grass since the USA would not stand for it. His only present leverage to gain, then, from having WMD would be to partner with some second party (Syria, terrorists) with his WMD. We have since put a stop to that production line, if it existed.

    Yes, it is very important to find out exactly what happened to them. It always has been. It has been for 13 long years. We have not been "safe" from Saddam's WMD for the last 13 years any more than we were "safe" from Osama Bin Laden on September 10, 2001. We are finally addressing the problem head on.

    Finally - let me ask you this. If YOU are Syria and you have Saddam's WMD, what are you going to do with them? The only possible outlet for them would be to sell them to terrorists since using them yourself means that you will end up in a spider hole with lice. The threat of rogue states sharing their WMD with terrorists ALREADY EXISTED prior to this war. We have simply removed the biggest fish in that pond. The argument that we are LESS safe because of it is the height of stupidity and partisanship, IMO.

    This is also outside of the fact that Saddam was a wealthy supporter of terrorism whose country had several terrorist training camps. [/b][/quote]
    5ever,

    I was not and am not against the war in Iraq. I do feel we got rid of a threat and I really don't care to get into the intricacies of what the real reason was that we went there whether some think it is oil or simply political positional was the reason is their right. I do worry that IF they did in fact exist, where the hell are they?? I just feel that alot of major international polititians did feel that Saddam did in fact either have or was manufacturing WMD's, whether nuclear or bio-chemical. They obviously got this info from agencies that have extensive capabilities to spy on individuals as well as other countries. I do allow for the fact that a mistake was made. But what if it wasn't??

    Look at it this way. If I am an[b] expert [/b]and tell you your car will explode if you attempt to start it, you obviously won't start the car. You would obviously take my word as an expert. But afterwards you send a regular auto mechanic to look at it and they say they found nothing, will you get in and turn the key?? That is how I feel about the WMD situation right now. Agencies that have the capabilities to find out info like the CIA and others made claims that it is likely that Iraq had these weapons, yet soldiers who are trained to fight are the ones searching for it. So when the soldiers come back and say they found nothing, do you feel safe in their assesment?

  13. #73
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]Look at it this way. If I am an expert and tell you your car will explode if you attempt to start it, you obviously won't start the car. You would obviously take my word as an expert. But afterwards you send a regular auto mechanic to look at it and they say they found nothing, will you get in and turn the key?? That is how I feel about the WMD situation right now. [/b][/quote]

    I see it more as a mechanic says there could be a problem with your cars tail light. You then tell your family that the car will explode if it is not fixed. Then you come home with new rims, an upgraded sound system, leather sport seats, DVD navigation system, racing spoiler, dice in the mirror, and the same damn headlight. Then you get the bill for $10,000 and pass it off to your kids.

  14. #74
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 6 2004, 01:40 AM
    [b] [quote][b]Look at it this way. If I am an expert and tell you your car will explode if you attempt to start it, you obviously won't start the car. You would obviously take my word as an expert. But afterwards you send a regular auto mechanic to look at it and they say they found nothing, will you get in and turn the key?? That is how I feel about the WMD situation right now. [/b][/quote]

    I see it more as a mechanic says there could be a problem with your cars tail light. You then tell your family that the car will explode if it is not fixed. Then you come home with new rims, an upgraded sound system, leather sport seats, DVD navigation system, racing spoiler, dice in the mirror, and the same damn headlight. Then you get the bill for $10,000 and pass it off to your kids. [/b][/quote]
    hey...that sounds like John Kerry's senatorial history!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us