How to deal with the peacenick ignoramuses

Gutter · 03-13-2003, 10:53 AM

That's it! I'm tired of dealing with these idiots! Since I don't have a therapist, you all get to hear my spiel.

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

Sounds just like every other dimwit I've argued with about the merits of removing Saddam from power. Everytime I hear one of these people, I will ask five questions that have NEVER been answered coherently.

1. If this is a war for oil, why didn't we take over the oil fields in '91? We were already there and Saddam's army was decimated, so that time was as good as any.

2. Saddam has murdered over 1,000,000 people to date. Shouldn't we remove him from power before he kills another 1,000,000?

And the followup to #2 that should be an easy answer.

3. You say war is not the answer. If that's the case, what is the alternative?

And the usual responses:

- More inspections!

So 12 years of ineffective inspections wasn't enough for you?

- Diplomacy!

Like the unanimous approval of Resolution 1441 in the UN to give Saddam a last chance? What about the 16 United Nations Resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm before that? 1441 was not a call for more inspections, but for Saddam to declare his WOMD.

The next one is usually in response to: "We can't invade! There's no proof of WOMD!"

4. In the early '90's, there had been rumors of a huge biological/chemical manufacturing facility in Iraq, but inspectors had found nothing. In 1995 when Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan, he exposed it and it turned out to be worse than anyone had imagined. Besides taking Saddam out of power, how else do you think these facilities will be found and destroyed?

5. In one scenario, we continue to contain Saddam. He continues to build weapons and oppress and murder innocent men, women, and children. In another scenario, we go in and remove Saddam from power. We install a democratic government, lift the economic sanctions, help them rebuild their infrastructure, and free the people from his rule. Are you suggesting that the Iraqi people will be better off if we don't invade?

By this time, they person usually walks away. On the same note, if you were one of the people that attended the "peace" rallies, did you take the time to check out who was organizing and sponsoring it? A group that has supported every one of our enemies (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea) since the 60's. Do a little reading on the Worker's World Party and ask yourself why they would be organizing these rallies to help keep a despot like Saddam in power.

Anyway, if you are in support of keeping Saddam in power to continue developing weapons and killing his people (aka "peacenicks"), I'd like to hear your answers to the above questions.

I sense a long flaming debate about to begin, but I just want you people to think! Containment is not the answer. Diplomacy has failed. Removing Saddam by force is our only option.

phil.45 · 03-13-2003, 11:28 AM

"Removing Saddam by force is our only option." said the president.

"Removing Saddam by force is our only option." - chant his drones.

Thanks, but Id rather not read US war propoganda when I visit here.

bgoodman · 03-13-2003, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phil.45
"Removing Saddam by force is our only option." said the president.

"Removing Saddam by force is our only option." - chant his drones.

Thanks, but Id rather not read US war propoganda when I visit here.

It was pretty obvious what the thread was about by the title... if you didn't want to read war propaganda you didn't have to open the thread.

MP3DUB · 03-13-2003, 12:12 PM

The thing that I don't get is that a lot of people are "Think of the innocents that will be killed!" And its a true sad fact of war, but our policy for quite some time has been to minimze civilian loss, but what about all the people that have died as a dirrect result of Sadam (hint hint: the Kurdish "cleansing" that he performed after Desert Storm, because they tried to oppose him, which would have been a sucessful coup if we had supported them). Im not blindly pro war or blindly anti war, but the thing is, Sadams been pushing the terms of the peace TREATY for how long now? If he really didn't want war, he would have held steadfast to the treaty (which, as he has not abided by, we have every right to strike null and void, thus resuming the war). I don't doubt that oil and big corporations factor into the whole war, ie government contracts to rebuild, better oil leverage, etc, but its not the only reason. But then, thats just my 2 cents.

mikeinsanmarcos · 03-13-2003, 12:52 PM

Isnt this the same guy who opened all the jails and let the scum of Iraq back onto the streets? What does that tell you about his mental state? This guy is big time trouble and MUST be stopped...

ShinkunoNamida · 03-13-2003, 01:12 PM

Just to make sure everyone hates me, I think both extremes of the debate are blind here. If you think that there will be any progress in that area by trying to talk things out with Sadam, you are clueless. If you think that this has nothing to do with oil, you are letting yourself be blinded by a thin veil of morality.

The problem with media is.. they need to sensationalize things in order to keep people interested. The "peacenick" news media blindly turns their eye to the fact that there is bad things going on there, and that these people cannot be reasoned with. The "warmonger" news media likes to through this veil of superficial morality over everything: yes, something needs to be done, but to claim that the US has no other motives in this is pretty much a lie.

FACT: Sadam has been a murder and a tyrant. He will not let go his grip even the slightest bit no matter how many treaties he "signs."
FACT: The leaders of the US published a 92 page document outlining their plan to achieve strategic dominance in the world, and to attain new resources abroad.

That being said, something needs to be done.. but to what end.. I just don't konw. To think there won't be ramifications if we go to war with them is utter ignorance. To think that there won't be ramifications if we DON'T some plan of action is also equally ignorant.

I've got friends and family on both sides of this debate. I know people from the area in question. I have friends in the US military, and those who hang banners stating their opposition to any military action.

In this situation, there will be no winners. Even if we oust Sadam what does that accomplish? That area of the world is forever in disarray. Unless they can find a true leader to raise them from the ashes then they will not progress. A UN inserted leader will not get support. An imposed election wil be criticized and the people will still claim the UN inserted a leader. If they could under go a revolution of their own, it would be ideal. The problem with that, however, is that Sadam has done a fine job of ensuring that doesn't happen anytime soon.

When I try to look into the future I'm not sure what I see. All we can do is hope, wish, and pray that things work out for the better, and that every day there will be another tomorrow to look forward to.

dx84crx · 03-13-2003, 01:23 PM

I'm just going to add my 2 cents to the pot... Gutter, those are some great questions, and that's the problem with anyone who is against using force, they don't have the answers or want us to take a stand on the sidelines approach. I wish people would learn from history, everytime we have just sat back and let the dictators run free, they run free right into the country next to them. I still for the life of me can't understand France's postion, they should have learned from the last two times!!

I do know why their government is against it, it's all about oil and money, the contracts they have with Iraq, are worth billions, if the sanctions are lifted.

I'm not totally for war, I'm in the reserves and am waiting for the call up, but I'll go if called. I personally feel that a two man crew, one with the 50 cal. sniper rifle, and his spotter, be let loose in Iraq with one mission, remove the idiot!!! After we bring democracy to the people of Iraq and they become self governing, only if they vote for it, we leave a small force there and pull the rest of our forces back. Then all of the countries that had a problem with us trying to protect the world from this lunatic, we close our bases in those contries and look for other countries that would love to house our bases and receive the billions of dollars we shell out to support them. Take a look at Turkey, they denied us the use of there airspace and bases and we said fine, we'll pull our bases and money back, their economy collapsed almost completely.

Well enough of my ramblings, I guess my 2 cents just became a nickel!! One last thing, for all of those people that are against this possible war, once the shots start you better support our soldiers, their defending your freedom to oppose what our government does without being exacuted for your views!!

jospfh · 03-13-2003, 01:51 PM

I thought this was an mp3car forum?

smashr2k · 03-13-2003, 01:53 PM

here is a column I wrote about this:

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArtic...=15112&pid=977

ShinkunoNamida · 03-13-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smashr2k
here is a column I wrote about this:

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArtic...=15112&pid=977

I'll admit that I didn't finish reading the article.. hey.. I am at work

I appologize if I missed the point.

One thing I'd like to point out.. the reason that these nations aren't taking action has nothing to do with being "left leaning" it has to do with financial ties with that region. They won't take action in Iraq because they have a large financial interest in their agreements with the current regime.

Basically, to me, all this left =vs= right **** is a load of crap. It's too sides with their own selfish agendas. I could speak at length on this, but that's really another topic all together. left and right might have more meaning for the working man, but as far as the government goes, it's grey and gray. The "left" doesn't want to go to war because war is expensive. The "right" wants to go to war because there are financial interests in going to war. They are both right, and they are both blind to the opposite side. Of course there are moral issues as well. But the financial issues are equal concerns for both sides. Yes, we know that killing people is not the nicest of things, but the left faction of our government is also deeply concerned about the financial ramifications at home. Yes, we know that this man is a tyrant, but the right faction is also concerned with gaining new assets in the global economy and obtaining new and cheap sources of energy.

It would be very nice to solve this peacefully. I don't know if that is really an option though. I wish we could all live in civil world of peace, but we don't. Just like we wish nobody died of cancer, but they do. Tough, deal with it, this is the world we live in. On the other hand, simply going in and whiping out the "bad guys" solves very little with out a plan on how to rebuild the social structure there.

All of this partisan agenda crap really ****es me off. There is an ultimate truth at play here, and no ammount of propaganda is going to change that.

ddt · 03-13-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jospfh
I thought this was an mp3car forum?

Yes... and this one is called off topic. As in off the topic of MP3Car's.

mp3z24 · 03-13-2003, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jospfh
I thought this was an mp3car forum?

yes...

but you dont have to read this topic...

i think this is great. people can come and voice an opinion without being bashed for their particular stand on the issue.

keep it going... this is a very exciting topic, from both sides.

~mike

Gutter · 03-13-2003, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mp3z24
keep it going... this is a very exciting topic, from both sides.

It's pretty one-sided now. I have a feeling that phil.45 is on the other side, but didn't state his case.

Good article, Smashr.

frodobaggins · 03-13-2003, 07:44 PM

I am pro-war. But not blindly pro-war. What bothers me the most is that a lot of the people that are either pro or anti cannot back up any of their views, or try to hide their ignorance by dancing around the questions. In my opinion, you shouldn't even express and polute the world with your opinions unless you have the ******* sense to gain some knowledge on the subject at hand.

Take my brother for example, I love him to death, and he's pro-war just like me. But when I listen to him, I just want to slap him, he's a blundering ******* idiot. I really wish we hadn't spoken at all, even if he does support me, I'd really like some credibility on my side, whatever it may be at the time.

CrazyLittle · 03-14-2003, 02:41 AM

France and Russia both have major european oil prospectors who are vying for massive contracts with Iraq. That's at least -one- reason for them to "promote peace."

Also historically, the last time we monkeyed around with overthrowing governments in the middle east, we installed a puppet government which was quickly overthrown by a dictator. I'm sure Russia is still a little bit sore from our meddling in Russia's interests back then.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password