Slashdot Mirror

You can cook a vegan?

I thought the only people allowed to cook other humans were those "cooperative nations" who boil "terrorist suspects" that the US and British governments "exported" for torture^Wquestioning:
http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/39199/view?view type=best&skip=10

Public discussion with diverse participants (e.g., partisans of both/many sides and many who don't relate to any party: www.e-thePeople.org (you can add the quorum box mentioned in my tag, it's the same thing.)

Or stated otherwise, a cross between slashdot and a blog.

Oh, and for foreign policy I like the DanDrezner.com

I'll debunk each of your argument one by one. With each, I will try to find factual evidence to support the argument:
Listen, it is confirmed that Saddam has killed a plethora of his own people
Very true. But remember, when this was done back in the 1980s, the US supported him with funding and weapons. Saddam was an ally until the 1990s (Persian Gulf War). We did nothing to stop him at the time for using chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds "his own people" (as you say). In fact, we even supplied Iraq with the same chemical weapons that he used back then and the same ones that we're looking for. It is a fact from declassified papers that the CIA sold the weapons to Saddam.

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war. Source: Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Secondly, what is the difference between Saddam murdering his own people versus the lynching of the blacks throughout US history, up to the present day. You may argue that these were done by individual people. However, when the FBI and the federal government look the other way and don't do anything to prevent/prosecute it, they are complacent to the fact. In fact, a number of presidents were members of the KKK (Source: Lynching)

It is confirmed that this same dude has mysteriously not accounted for most of the chemical weapons cataloged during the early 1990's.
This I don't dispute. I don't disagree that he is probably hiding some chemical weapons.

It is also confirmed that this SOB sent out 3 ships floating around the Indian Ocean with most of these "missing" weapons.
Could you provide a source for this info? I couldn't find any such information.

Most of the Peacequeers(Hollywood limosine liberals) talking out against the the war are ones with a political agenda and because of Bush. None of these people lifted a finger whilst Clinton was bombing aspirin factories on Baghdad. Make me sick how two faced these hippocrates are((sic)
First of all, I like how you resort to name calling. Secondly, it's hypocrites. Also, I think you got your facts wrong (unless you're referring to another incident). Clinton bombed pharmaceutical factories in Sudan and Afghanistan, not Iraq (Source: U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan). The target was bin Ladin [remember that guy?] and alQaeda. This was in direct retaliation for the terrorist attack (I believe) on the US bases in Kenya and Tanzania. (Source: History of Terrorist Attacks).

That is why people are speaking out against the war. It sets a bad precedent if we start a trend of attacking nations at will.

As far as France, Germany, and Russia are concerned they have "business" dealings with Iraq worth billions of dollars. Selling arms-turning Mirage jets into anthrax cropdusters. These countries only care for their own economivcs interests. They don't care for the rest of the world.
Quite true. Except that you forgot to add United States and Britain to that list that have and still does sell arms to Iraq. As I stated above, the US provided Iraq with the chemical and biological weapons that we are trying to find today. In recent years, companies like HP, Kodak, Dupont and 23 US companies have sold nuclear capable technology and rocket technology to Iraq (Source: U.S. Complicity in Arming Iraq Complete List).

Now for my argument against war against Iraq. Iraq is currently the lesser of the "evils" (I hate that word) that we should be approaching right now. In this time of fear and safety, we don't need to create another level of instability in the world. Bin Ladin was the one responsible for 9/11. Bin Ladin is the largest terrrorist in the world now a days. Al Qaeda is still in operation worldwide. [Mind you, these are all facts]. He should be the one that we go after.

Secondly, our internal security is like the parable of the king with the invisible fleece. So much of our resources are so focused on Iraq and not enough on the internal security. We do not have enough funding for the first responders (Source: Byrd criticizes Bush over first responder funds). The majority of our police force lack the training they need to deal with another terrorist attack.

Third, once we win the war in Iraq (which I do think we will if we attack, but with a significant number of casualties), we would have created a political vacuum. Will the people be better off with a new regime? A great amount of resources would be needed to maintain the peace and tranquility. And as a country, we are horrible at nation building in another country. Look at Afghanistan, Cuba, and most of the Central American countries.

Lastly, I view Korea as a more clear and present danger than Iraq. We know for sure that Korea has at least two nuclear weapons. He also has the ability to launch the nuclear weapons on Japan, South Korea, and at least to Hawaii (if not the US mainland). His standing army is significantly larger than the number of troops that we have in South Korea. And recently, he has activated his nuclear enrichment program. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, there it is for you. Why is Saddam a greater threat than Kim Jong Il?

In closing, I know there is no way I could change your views. The two sides are already deadset on their viewpoints and now both sides are just talking at each other rather than to. But I just wanted to correct some of your argument.

Here is what we folks over at e-thepeople thought about this almost two years ago. Many of the arguments are good ones, and have a different flavour than the ones I am reading here. I encourage you to check it out, and also the follow-up article I submitted.

Here is what we folks over at e-thepeople thought about this almost two years ago. Many of the arguments are good ones, and have a different flavour than the ones I am reading here. I encourage you to check it out, and also the follow-up article I submitted.