BBC Poll in Iraq

[patnray]

So you contest the fact that Saddam Hussien was a brutal dictator?

Not at all. I contest the logic that that alone constitutes justification for invading a sovereign nation. I contest the judgement that this is wise use of the limited resources we have to combat terrorism.

Now I admit it is possible that history will show that invading Iraq was a wise move that made the world a safer place. I suspect, however, that that is not the case. And I know it is far too early to answer that question.

In engineering we use somthing called FEMA (Failure Effects and Mode Analysis) when trying to improve a process or product. Briefly, you identify all possible defects and rate them according to the severity. Then you first tackle the defects which have the greatest impact on the process. You don't spend all your resources improving a car's paint when the engines are failing, for example. I submit that in combatting terrorism, Iraq was near the bottom of the list of causes and effects, but we have committed the bulk of our resources to it...

 

[aerocontrols]

Sorry, but I think you're getting confused. Let's say, purely hypothetically, that there are three things which can make a war legal, A, B and C. It might be that another 20 wars have been legal due to B or C applying, but in the case of this war, B and C didn't apply so A had to. If A is a UN resolution, then the view you outline above would be both correct and entirely consistent with other wars being legal despite no UN resolution.[/I]

Why don't you just say what A, B, and C are, and then try to find wars that fit the description? It appears to me that there have only been 2 (international, not civil) legal wars according to the UN charter, and all others were illegal. If your 'B' excuse is 'we were attacked', then in that case, the attackers (whoever they were) started an illegal war.

All wars (even defensive ones) are illegal according to the Kellogg-Briand pact, a pact that was signed onto by all of the world's great powers, and never repealed. So even the two UN-approved wars are illegal by your standard of applying binding international law.

Apologies, but I won't be posting for the next day or two, by which time I imagine this thread will be ancient history - I think I've said all I want to anyway

I can understand that.

 

[Tony]

Not at all.

Then why the false analogy?

The rest of your post, while thought provoking, was irrelevant to the original point.

 

[Tmy]

I checked out the stats. They don't seem to say either of the things that you are claiming.

How are things going today, compared to a year ago, before the war?

56% Better now
23% Same now
19% Worse now


US-led invasion

48% was right
39% was wrong

Which stat are you reading?

Iguess I was looking at the "right to invade" and "coalition presence" Q's. Damn high % of "difficult to say" people throwing things off. I hate them. Make up your damn mind!!

I find these polling q's to be odd and misleading. For example you state 48% think the invasion was right. But the "absolutly right"s were only 19.6% vs the "Absolutly wrongs" at 26.2%.

From what we heard from our govt, I would expect the Iraqi people to alot more excited about the invasion.

 

[crackmonkey]

Well, damn. Just when we were getting somewhere, Iain ups and leaves.
What are the criteria for determining whether a war is leagal or not? UN sanction apprently isn't the deciding factor.
Please elucidate.

 

[Drooper]

The only useful idiots around here are those who think the war in Iraq was about anything other than simple greed.

I can't believe some people are still peddling this nonsense. Surely this can now be seen to be complete krap.

 

[The Fool]

Incredible.

I hereby nominate this to "Most blatantly hypocritical statement made on this forum, EVER".

Good morning "skeptic" I see you and rikzilla are wrestling for the title of the biggest idiot in the thread again.....


lets review my statement that you have a problem with....

"Damn good news. These people have The knowledge, skills and resources to be a great nation. We owe them the oportunity to try to make it happen."

I'm guessing here that you feel I should want Iraqis to be miserable, that I want to stand in the way of improvements to thier situation...This is on the basis of your tired old lie that anyone who does not support Americas solution must support Saddam...

Or are you challanging the statement that Iraqis have the knowledge, skills and resources? We all know about your love of arabs....

or are you suggesting we don't owe them the oportunity to try and make it happen...?

In the end, you tiresome idiot, I would suggest you consider another approach to these problems than alternately installing tinpot dictators and then blowing them away....It tends to hurt innocent bystanders....but hey, when has the fate of bystanders ever concerned you....


My statement of hope was directed to the Iraqi people, remember them skeppers? They are all those arabs running around in Iraq, It was not directed at previous or future US installed and/or supported puppet governments, they deserve a chance to try another approach.

 

[The Fool]

Damn good news. These people have The knowledge, skills and resources to be a great nation. We owe them the oportunity to try to make it happen.

I can't stop thinking what would happen if "The Fool" went to Iraq to "help make it a great nation"--"we" must do so, after all--and mistakenly met with a crowd of Iraqis who had internet access to his previous, "so-what-if-he-killed-millions?" pro-Saddam posts on this forum.

It's pretty easy to imagine their reaction. The result of the brief, yet intense, exchange of opinions between "the Fool" and the Iraqis would probably justify adding "The Lynched Australian Idiot" to the undoubtably limited choice of pub names in Baghdad (if there are any).

Skeptic you are a poor excuse for a human being...

Much as I hate to admit it I have no answer to your behavior on this forum. How can rational debate be conducted when blatant liars are simply able to infest each thread with this sort of garbage.

I'll do you a deal...If you can find one example of a post of mine that is pro saddam or one post of mine that contains "so-what-if he-killed-millions" I will leave this forum for good.... There is little point in staying here If I have to put up with lying idiots who feel they can post any amount of made up garbage they feel like...

so what about it brave guy...are you willing to show one single example or are you going to disappear again?

 

[Skeptic]

I'm guessing here that you feel I should want Iraqis to be miserable,

You do. Every time there is a suicide bombing, or rumors of civil war, or any sort of bad news from Iraq, you are triumphant, posting it in this forum as "proof of the folly of the Iraqi invasion", etc.

The more they suffer, the more ammo you have to criticize Bush in particular and the USA in general--and that's all you really care about in this forum.

You pretending to suddenly "care" about the Iraqis is the height of hypocracy. Your posting history makes it crystal clear that you don't give a damn about them, and, in fact, would want as many Iraqis as possible to get killed--as long as their deaths could, somehow, be blamed on the US.

My statement of hope was directed to the Iraqi people, remember them skeppers?

I'm sure the Iraqi people are waiting with baited breath for your every word. Especially those who were suffering under Saddam's secret police, the Mukhabarath, while you were posting your "No war! Keep Saddam in Power!" in this forum last year.

Why don't you go to Iraq and explain your unbounded love and support for them in person, now that they're out of Saddam's jails?

Explain to them patiently why the fact that they "deserved better" was the "real reason" you opposed the war.

Show them in full detail why the unfortunate fact that that meant Saddam would still be torturing them is merely a technical manner, and not to be misinterpreted as lack of love and respect for the Iraqi people.

Berate them only gently if they seem not to undertstand why your position shows REAL love to the Iraqi people "who deserve better", while the warmongering American troops who freed them from Saddam's jails were "really just interested in oil" and actually don't like them at all.

I'm sure "The Lynched Australian Idiot Corner" would make a catchy title for some intersection in Baghdad...

 

[Skeptic]

There is little point in staying here If I have to put up with lying idiots who feel they can post any amount of made up garbage they feel like...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, "Fool".

 

[The Fool]

I'm guessing here that you feel I should want Iraqis to be miserable,

You do. Every time there is a suicide bombing, or rumors of civil war, or any sort of bad news from Iraq, you are triumphant, posting it in this forum as "proof of the folly of the Iraqi invasion", etc.

The more they suffer, the more ammo you have to criticize Bush in particular and the USA in general--and that's all you really care about in this forum.

You pretending to suddenly "care" about the Iraqis is the height of hypocracy. Your posting history makes it crystal clear that you don't give a damn about them, and, in fact, would want as many Iraqis as possible to get killed--as long as their deaths could, somehow, be blamed on the US.

My statement of hope was directed to the Iraqi people, remember them skeppers?

I'm sure the Iraqi people are waiting with baited breath for your every word. Especially those who were suffering under Saddam's secret police, the Mukhabarath, while you were posting your "No war! Keep Saddam in Power!" in this forum last year.

Why don't you go to Iraq and explain your unbounded love and support for them in person, now that they're out of Saddam's jails?

Explain to them patiently why the fact that they "deserved better" was the "real reason" you opposed the war.

Show them in full detail why the unfortunate fact that that meant Saddam would still be torturing them is merely a technical manner, and not to be misinterpreted as lack of love and respect for the Iraqi people.

Berate them only gently if they seem not to undertstand why your position shows REAL love to the Iraqi people "who deserve better", while the warmongering American troops who freed them from Saddam's jails were "really just interested in oil" and actually don't like them at all.

I'm sure "The Lynched Australian Idiot Corner" would make a catchy title for some intersection in Baghdad...

you are a compulsive liar...
you now say that I have made claims that american troops were "really just interested in oil"

you are out of control skeptic....on a liars rantathon.

Simple request.
Show me one pro saddam post, show me one post containing ""so-what-if he-killed-millions" or even anything like it or any post of mine that contains anything from this latest libel.

going to put up skeppers? I know you are not going to shut up....

whats next skeppers? maybe I am a child molester? Why not throw that one in too...

 

[The Fool]

There is little point in staying here If I have to put up with lying idiots who feel they can post any amount of made up garbage they feel like...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, "Fool".

Not much chance of that skeppers....
In order for that to happen you would have to provide one single example to support one of your lies....Is that likely to happen any time soon?

Lol...what jerk.

 

[The Fool]

you don't give a damn about them, and, in fact, would want as many Iraqis as possible to get killed--as long as their deaths could, somehow, be blamed on the US.

withdraw this immediately.

 

[Skeptic]

withdraw this immediately.

Or you'll leave the forum?

OK.

Leave the forum.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There wasn't the slightest mention, before the war, in any of those "anti-war" (pro-Saddam) rallies, that war without the UN might sometimes be justified. It was all "The world says NO to war!" because there was no UN approval, or "The war is illegal!" because there was no UN approval, etc. It was quite clear that the VERY FACT that there is no UN approval makes the war "illegal", and many protestors said as much.

I think our refusal to let the weapons inspectors actually work, our failure to cooperate with the inspectors as we'd promised we would by sharing all pertinent information with them (information that later turned out to be wrong), and our government constantly making claims without providing a bit of evidence to support them might have had something to do with it.

I find it highly ironic that a person whose name is "Skeptic" and who is posting to a forum dedicated to rational thought can believe that the stated justifications for the war were in any way reasonable or even logically valid.

 

[The Fool]

Or you'll leave the forum?

OK.

Leave the forum.

I'll leave the forum on the day you provide a single example to support your lies and libels. Once again I ask you to withdraw this libelous statement.

 

[gnome]

Much as I think Skeptic's statement was clearly untrue and unsubstantiated... I don't believe it counts as libel.

However if Skeptic believes that any of us actually want more death, as long as it gives us more credibility in debate, he is severely in ignorance about our point of view.

I consider it far more likely that he is simply being pointlessly argumentative.

 

[The Fool]

I consider it far more likely that he is simply being pointlessly argumentative.

well, my view is that that is true, he is being pointlessly argumentative...Just as I am also pointlessly argumentative in posts.
What I refuse to accept is that this can and should extend to making up statements, placing them in quotes and attributing them to me. That is what I see as being completely unacceptable.

Also, claims that a poster "would want as many Iraqis as possible to get killed" Is a level of lies and fabrication that is beyond any reasonable standard of acceptability. It is a lie and it is libelous, I would not expect anyone else to put up with it and I refuse to put up with it any longer.

If this forum ignores members who fabricate statements, placing them in quotation marks and attributing them to other members, who make libelous statements claiming another member wants as many people as possible to die, then this forum is simply condoning the libel.

 

[Skeptic]

Also, claims that a poster "would want as many Iraqis as possible to get killed" Is a level of lies and fabrication that is beyond any reasonable standard of acceptability. It is a lie and it is libelous, I would not expect anyone else to put up with it and I refuse to put up with it any longer.

Or you'll huff and you'll puff and you'll...

then this forum is simply condoning the libel.

I doubt very much your oblique "threat" of a lawsuit to try and "scare" the moderators into taking action against me will work, "Fool". Randi and his staff deal with lawsuit threats from kooks all the time, in the usual manner--by ignoring them--which no doubt the moderators will do in this case as well.

At any rate, you (as usual) huff and puff and totally miss the point. It's simple: while you believe yourself to be a "caring" individual who is "concerned with human rights", the reality is very different. Your real concern is with smearing the US and Bush in particular, as a form of therapy; it makes you feel better to pretend you are "fighting racism" by posting on this forum.

You are supremely indifferent to what the result of following your advice for "non-racist behavior" would be in the real world. If israel follows your advise, the result would be a second holocaust--but THAT doesn't matter, it's the "principle" of israel not being "racist" that is important. If the US had followed your advice, Saddam would still be torturing the families of his political opponents in Baghdad--but THAT doesn't matter, it's the "principle" of the US not being "imperialist" that is important.

As for not caring about the Iraqis, let me put it this way: have you ever actually expressed sorrow for their loss when things go badly, say, with a suicide bombing? Or was the main point of all your posts how the suicide bombing "proves" that Bush is wrong? Of course, it's the latter. Had you ever expressed shock at the mass graves found of Saddam victims? No, you were far more concerned with whether or not WMDs were found as well.

This is not the record of someone who now claims to care about the Iraqi people, let alone someone megalomaniacal enough to claim to be "addressing" them in your posts in this forum--as if any of them know or care you even exist. This is the record of someone whose sole interest in Iraq is of the "does X prove Bush wrong?" And "Does X embarras the US?" variety.

You just don't care, "Fool". The Iraqis' fate is of complete indifference to you. All that you care about is feeling good by blaming Bush.

 

[The Fool]

Or you'll huff and you'll puff and you'll...


you obviously feel this is a joke.... Fair enough, I accept that you think you should be able to fabricate quotes and libel other members...

I doubt very much your oblique "threat" of a lawsuit to try and "scare" the moderators into taking action against me will work, "Fool". Randi and his staff deal with lawsuit threats from kooks all the time, in the usual manner--by ignoring them--which no doubt the moderators will do in this case as well.

Lawsuit??? Man you have a vivid imagination...Lol.... Maybe you could knock together a quote where I threaten one eh??. I'm sure JREF are quite capable of ignoring something that does not exist. As for your belief that this forum has no problems with your fabrication of quotes and your libels , lets see eh? Maybe they will, maybe they won't....thats not up to you or me.