In Reply to: Re: Check into a few facts posted by Still not impressed on April 05, 2003 at 18:53:35:
What I mean about telling more of the story:
"He regularly gives the families of Palestinians that are blown up in suicide bombs $50,000."
The sum is $32,000, not $50,000. Look it up!
Do I mean that giving $32,000 to suicide bombers is less evil than $50,000? No. But that's the kind of thing that will be thrown at me, even though I didn't say it.
I agree in general with what people write, until they distort facts or push things to extremes for argument's sake. I can be convinced without distortion of facts and extremist rhetoric. When I see distorions and extremist rhetoric, I get convinced someone's not telling the truth.
In your case, with your general statements, I agree that action has to be taken. Having lived in war zones I prefer peace any day, but not at any price. Not when a madman like Saddam is around, doing what he does.
I have problems with statements like "The same protesters were out on the streets even then, but the world didn't get as involved because no one really cared about Afghanistan."
First of all they were, in all probablity, not the same protesters, that's just rhetoric. And there was a huge outcry against even the war in Afghanistan. There were protests that even the case for bombing Afghanistan wasn't fully made. When I said "A more convincing case was made for Afghanistan, a less convincing one for Iraq" I said it in passive. I did not say whether it was more convincing for me, just that the world is/was not convinced this time, as much as the US is.
About "it was Saddam that got together with several Arab states and tried to take them out militarily, including with Palestine" There was no Palestine as in a Palestinian state. There was the PLO. And it wasn't just Saddam who wanted to destroy Israel. Practically the whole Arab neighborhood got together on it. But if I bring that up, does it mean I am saying Saddam is less anti-Israel, and less of a threat to his neighbors? No. But that's the kind of thing you might very well throw at me, just because I dispute the details in your statement.
I never said you have to have a perfect air-tight case for going to war. There are many historical facts which show that it was the "right" thing to do, even when all the facts weren't straight. Or is that a case of might becomes right, when possesion is 99% ownership, when hindsight is 20/20? Afterall, before Bush junior declared war, fewer Americans supported him, and once he started up 70% supported him, and you can bet if he wins the war his ratings will hit an all time high. Then again, any skeptic will readily point out that war has always been the easiest way to get votes and even unite a divided Congress.
What is my solution? I am not Miss Universe, so I don't have a fool-proof plan for world peace prepared for you. Now that Bush has started, I say may Saddam get kicked out as quickly as possible, may as few people die and get maimed as possible, may God bless the brave soldiers who are fighting for "us" and may they be fighting the right reasons.
The stuff you threw at me in your second paragraph is ridiculous. It's just a lot of stuff I didn't say. I'll just consider it rhetoric and over-kill and I won't bother to answer line by line.
"So much for the UN's and the Euorpean idea of diplomacy and pressure."
Again, it was the US pushing for those sanctions that nobody else wanted. Please look into it, you shouldn't take my word for it.
May I finish with: I joined cult which took away my thinking. I now treasure clear thinking and sound reasoning. When people throw mindless rhetoric and get things all wrong, I don't get convinced. I get convinced with reason, not rhetoric. I can support a cause wholeheartedly, even war, without the rhetoric to control my mind. When people push things I say in a corner to make it sound like I said things I didn't say, I don't get more convinced by their arguments. Different strokes for different folks. Some people buy into the mass-consumption stuff Bush throws out. I don't. And that doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with everything he is doing.