posted on Sep, 11 2002 @ 05:37 AM
"Your point about America with nuclear weapons, and having used them, is still lame, quiet one. The fact still remains that hundreds of thousands of
lives were saved by the use of the nuclear weapons, and by the fact that we had them afterwards."
your point that saddam should not be allowed to have nukes is still a lame one, by the same reason. we cannot say what iraq would do with nukes if
they had any. its entirely impossible. and since you have just neatly expressed your opinion that its possible to use nukes in a positive way (one i
am highly sceptical, but not entirely dismissive of) you therefore can't argue against saddam having them.
"Saddam's past shows his future. Chamberlainian blindness to the facts won't help the future."
not so. if a person's past dictates there future then there can be no concept of rehabilitation. criminals would be locked up for life without
chance of peroll, or simply put to death, as they could not possibly change, and would be a danger to the community if released. the same goes for
saddam. he's done terrible things in the past, and needs to be watched and dealt with if necessary, but you cannot pre-emptively judge a man for
something he hasn't done.
"Democracy isn't a point with Iraq at this time, as it has no democracy."
no, but it is a point with america and the west. we stand here and say that dictatorship and tyranny is evil, and democracy is good. at that same
time we are looking to forceably removal a head of state. is that a democratic process? no it is not. a war on iraq contradicts every basic
principle of the free, 'enlightened' west.
"It has a thug dictator that invades and rapes neighbors, gasses entire communities of his own country, and is calling for homocide attacks against
my country now."
he is? i've head no such calls. anyone else? rally neighbouring countries for support against a u.s.-led invasion doesn't count as that is a
defensive measure, just like NATO.
"... He would do more than that if he had the weapons and the delivery systems."
once again, you can't prove that. saddam has never even attempted to lauch an attack at the u.s. he simply wouldn't have the capability if he
wanted to. more importantly, what does it get him? saddam, like hitler, is despicable, but not mad.
"Quiet One, you feel pretty secure in Ireland, now, huh?"
firstly, i'm not in ireland. never have been.
"... I'm curious how you'd feel if another nation was calling for your death. And they call for your death because you are a democarcy with a
free market economy."
once again, saddam is not doing so. and don't kid yourself that america has a free market economy. free market economies do not have economic
taxes, embargoes, etc. they do not subsidise industries. there isn't a country in the world with a free market economy, and its certainly not the
reason that a lot of groups are pissed off with the west.
"I'm surprised that any liberal would stand with Hussein, since he commited the worst crime against the enviroment ever, and he did it on
i don't stand with him - and i'm not a liberal - and as i've said above, i'd love to see saddam out of power. i just can't condone a war to that