View Single Post
Old 06-12-2007, 02:01 AM   #100
English spoken in What
Totenkopf's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,790
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member  The Walking Carpets Guild Member  Forum Veteran 
Dictators have been deposed by their own people in the past, this has WORKED in the past, there is no reason to believe it would NOT have worked in Iraq...
Mere conjecture on your part.......END OF STORY.

YOU are the one who has to demonstrate that less damaging means were SO unlikely to have worked that they weren't worth trying, in order to support your frankly weak position. Those who advocate extreme violence in preference to other methods ALWAYS carry the burden of proof.
You are confused. You have to prove that it would've worked, not that it "could've worked" (gee, the sun COULD blow up tomorrow/it worked in the lab ). The other statement is just a conceit on your part and thus meaningless.

And frankly... what you're saying boils down to illogical nonsense.
Your statements are fanciful nonsense, al. They, the people of Iraq, had an opportunity in '91 and either didn't or couldn't take it. Sanctions hadn't seriously weakened them at that point. That you think a harsh dictator like SH (or even KJI) would stand aside as you and your misguided companions pumped money and activists into his country while doing nothing is testimony as to how deluded you are on this topic. He didn't get where he was by sitting idly by while people plotted his downfall.

Also, as your childishly condescending rant demonstrates, it wasn't sanctions that stopped anything. It was ill advised policy that resulted in SH being able to take advantage of western ambivalence to prevent himself from being toppled from within. The same kind of brute force that would have been turned on naive people like yourself had you sought to interject yourselves into the political equation. And don't be disingenuous, those "pesky sanctions" you refer to weren't merely between the summer of 1990 and SH's defeat in march '91, but the cumulative effect of several years to over a decade.

Childish.......I've never made incorrect inferences regarding your posts. Sadly the reverse is not true....I've never misrepresented you. I wish the reverse were true.
Honestly, al, that you could make such statements with a straight face is illuminating. You consistently engage in misrepresentation and then cry foul that others have done it to you. It's extrememly hypocritical of you to cry wolf about other people's treatment of you when you have been quite prolific at throwing out a slew of ad hominems yourself. My observation about your style was spot on.

It's also obvious that you have a blindspot when it comes to facts that don't fit easily into your paradigm. You're completely oblivious to the fact that were the US/GB not supporting SH, then the French and Soviets would have filled that gap. Fact. The real reasons that the Russians and french were not on board with either conflict in the first place was b/c of their business ties. So, before you go off into left field, as is often your MO, this means (as I pointed out earlier) that SH was extremely unlikely--to the point of not at all--to have been removed through the methods you obsess about in your replies. Whether it was US/GB support or from the French/USSR, SH was VERY unlikely to have been toppled in either (or any other)case.

All I have to do is prove that it can work, Tot. And history shows that it can.
History doesn't exist in a vacuum, al.

Many people in the Middle East are oppressed by their amoral governments/rulers..... But what's your point....
The point is that you don't have any proof that sanctions are the cause of the inability of anyone in that region to remove their despots. The rest of your statement is your usual self serving rant.

Tish and posh, it's DEMONSTRABLE that at several points in the past few decades, Saddam relied on US/UK support in order that he might commit his atrocities in quelling rebellion. A couple of examples have been cited above.

Plus, Tot... history is full of courageous people who are willing to stand up to intimidation rather than fold, and there are still many. Just because protest is difficult doesn't mean people aren't doing it. And there have always been revolutionary organisations even in the harshest conditions. So I don't think your contention holds water.
Not really sure how this relates to your point that SH could have been toppled though "peaceful means" (it doesn't, to be blunt). Also, you make the obvious glaring mistake here of assuming that I take the position that "peaceful protest" can NEVER work, which is not something I've ever said. I just don't share your obvious delusions about how effective it WILL be.
... Who has said anything of this sort?
Here you strain credulity to the breaking point. Your position can FAIRLY be summed up as "given the opportunity, peaceful activism WILL work (apparently no matter what the case) b/c it has worked in the past."

Earth to nevermind, you're in your own little universe, billions and billions of LYs away.

No, humorous and spot on to boot.

Furthermore, I fail to see ........
Sadly, that's true.

To be honest, al, your arguments about whether SH could have been removed peacefully rest on "what ifs", so you can assert anything you want, but that won't make it true. Just delusional.

Also, your other consistent mistake is to assert a moral stance to any of my arguments (other than of your own making). You may think that I've been amoral in my approach to the situation, but can't actually cite any examples of my saying "going into Iraq was moral b/c..." (hence my extremely appropos comment about your need to assert your sense of morality re. everyone's comments). But frankly, if you wish to assert that the US/GB created the frankenstein monster called Saddam, it CAN BE argued that it was their moral responsibility to remove him. I assert that it was merely pragmatic in the end. Regardless of what you think about the legality of the first Gulf War, the second was merely a resumption of hostilities that were only halted by a cease fire agreement. Frankly, if a war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, it would be a resumption of hostilities, not technically a "new war". But as to the current conflict in the region, I actually don't disagree with the notion that it has been botched.

Quote: attempt to equate those who desire peace and justice with appeasers and cowards. It doesn't wash....
I'm sure Neville Chamberlain felt the same..... .

As a wise man said, don't go away angry......just go away.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: