zom-zom wrote:

galanter wrote: my primary argument was that the hugely popular elections show that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy, and nothing in your all-too-easy cut'n'paste refutes that.

Wouldn't it have been more polite if we had asked the people if they actually wanted these "elections" before we forced them upon the people?

You can't force an election on people. They either show up or they don't. The Iraqi's showed up in greater numbers per capita than American elections.

The majority of the people who voted (more like 60% is what I read from non-US news sources) thought they would be voting for a National Assembly that would end the US occupation.

The end result still remains a miserable failure.

galanter wrote:Briefly some of the reasons that contribute to the tally include (1) past crimes (e.g. attacking 3 countries, using chemical weapons inside Iraq and out, the murder of more Moslems than anyone in all of history)

We gave him those weapons and we supported his attack of Iran and caused his attacking Israel (I presume that's the third you're talking about?)

galanter wrote:(2) ongoing threat to the region

Do you honestly think anyone in the region feels more threatened by anyone other than America?

galanter wrote:(3) breaking the terms of the end of the previous war

Let's not get into the breaking of treaties and the terms of treaties. America and Israel would not come off well in such a slanging match.

galanter wrote:(4) ongoing warfare against his own people

Bad, no doubt.
How does using your security services to illegally listen in to your private calls, messages, accounts fit in to this?
Not to mention the robbery of two elections? (oops, I just mentioned it)

galanter wrote:(5) support of terrorists (e.g. his support of Hammas is beyond dispute)

Support and training of South American Military Contras who have used and continue to use terrorist style tactics to overthrow democratically elected regimes (like Hamas is democratically elected).
Exactly how far is your head up your arse?

galanter wrote:(6) refusal to demonstrate the destruction of his WMD's and related programs, and the related probability his WMD efforts could continue,

The head of the UN team said more time was needed to establish the truth of the WMD claims. He was ignored.
His WMD programs arguably were not capable of continuing without the support of his previous suppliers of WMDs. Who was that again?

galanter wrote:(7) nearly daily firing upon the overflights preventing him from killing more Kurds in the north and Shiites in the sourth.

Possibly a legit argument but also possibly propoganda. If you were in charge of a country and foreign planes kept bombing it you'd fire on those planes.
If you were a country bombing another one without democratic support you'd make up a reason why you were doing it to legitimise your actions.

Anyway, i said to Clocker B a short while ago that I thought you would be reasonable enough to see the absurdity of your position.

I must accept it seems - I was wrong about that.

zom-zom wrote:The majority of the people who voted (more like 60% is what I read from non-US news sources) thought they would be voting for a National Assembly that would end the US occupation.

The end result still remains a miserable failure.

Who said we've reached the end?

To revive a previous analogy...

Your pal has a toothache and you give him a lift to the Dentist. At some point you return to give him a ride home, and you find him in the dentist's chair in mid-procedure.

"Oh my God what have you done! Look at the blood! You've ground a couple of his teeth down to a nub. And just look at the expresson on his face...you've drilled right into his root canal destroying his nerve cells...he's clearly in terrible terrible pain! Let him out of that chair! I'm taking him home right now.

It was a mistake ever bringing him here in the first place!"

galanter wrote:FWIW I'd like to be on record as saying what was done to the indigenous population of the Americas was a horrific genocide that cannot be justified in any way.

I see no contradiction in believing this and supporting a war to remove Saddam.

What?!

Can't it be justified by the fact that in America now you have a democratic system of government (that doesn't work but that's beside the point) and that that system is the beacon by which all fledgling civilisations must guide their rudders.

Was the sacrifice not worth it?

If not then - why now?

galanter wrote:Who said we've reached the end?

To revive a previous analogy...

Your pal has a toothache and you give him a lift to the Dentist. At some point you return to give him a ride home, and you find him in the dentist's chair in mid-procedure.

"Oh my God what have you done! Look at the blood! You've ground a couple of his teeth down to a nub. And just look at the expresson on his face...you've drilled right into his root canal destroying his nerve cells...he's clearly in terrible terrible pain! Let him out of that chair! I'm taking him home right now.

It was a mistake ever bringing him here in the first place!"

I believe that the elections, which is what we were derailing this thread to talk about here, are over with. The elections have ended with a shit-tastic outcome.

Nice story about dental surgery, I've had two root canals.

To add to your little tale, let's say my pal was having a one-hour root canal procedure, but due to the dentist's incompetence and poor planning, it's taken three days already and it's just getting worse.

I would take him home right now.

Earwicker, you are just playing back, again, a form of fallacy the "leave Saddam alone" side seems to fancy.

It's related to the notion that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

So the US made the mistake of supporting Saddam at one time. Why should the Iraqi people suffer further under Saddam for that?

Even if you are right about the Americans and Israel (what the heck do they have to do with this?) breaking treaties...Why should the Iraqi people suffer further under Saddam for that?

Assuming Bush stole an election and the US backed all kinds of immoral goings one in South America...Why should the Iraqi people suffer further under Saddam for that?

Your kind of thinking makes the perfect the enemy of the good. Another million should die under Saddam because "we" are are not always angels?

Earwicker wrote:

galanter wrote:FWIW I'd like to be on record as saying what was done to the indigenous population of the Americas was a horrific genocide that cannot be justified in any way.

I see no contradiction in believing this and supporting a war to remove Saddam.

What?!

Can't it be justified by the fact that in America now you have a democratic system of government (that doesn't work but that's beside the point) and that that system is the beacon by which all fledgling civilisations must guide their rudders.

Was the sacrifice not worth it?

If not then - why now?

Earwicker...I think you need a pot of coffee...this analogy would hold if we landed in Iraq, killed off virtually all the Iraqis, and then replaced them with a population of Europeans. This is not what is happening.

zom-zom wrote:

galanter wrote:Who said we've reached the end?

To revive a previous analogy...

Your pal has a toothache and you give him a lift to the Dentist. At some point you return to give him a ride home, and you find him in the dentist's chair in mid-procedure.

"Oh my God what have you done! Look at the blood! You've ground a couple of his teeth down to a nub. And just look at the expresson on his face...you've drilled right into his root canal destroying his nerve cells...he's clearly in terrible terrible pain! Let him out of that chair! I'm taking him home right now.

It was a mistake ever bringing him here in the first place!"

I believe that the elections, which is what we were derailing this thread to talk about here, are over with. The elections have ended with a shit-tastic outcome.

Nice story about dental surgery, I've had two root canals.

To add to your little tale, let's say my pal was having a one-hour root canal procedure, but due to the dentist's incompetence and poor planning, it's taken three days already and it's just getting worse.

I would take him home right now.

This is the problem with analogies...they can be morphed to help any side.

But I hope my point is clear. Short term pain can lead to long term health. And all Saddam had to offer was long term pain anyway.

I have to find a way to taper off from this discussion...it's a lot of repetition at this point.

galanter wrote:But I hope my point is clear. Short term pain can lead to long term health.

How many years will make this pain "long-term" in your definition?