What will the appeaseniks do if Saddam uses WMDs against our troops?

[Socrates]

Will these so-called peaceniks rail against GWB for sending our troops to be killed by these weapons of mass destruction?

Or will they crawl on their knees and apologize for doubting that Saddam had the WMDs? And then agree that the resumption of hostilities was just because Saddam really was violating the conditions of the UN ceasefire?

I can't imagine the latter -- even after Communism fell in Eastern Europe and the atrocities were exposed for all the world to see, the lefty useful idiot allies of the Soviet Bloc would not repent of their decades of support.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Uh, I hate to tell you this Socrates, but it isn't the "peaceniks" who sent the troops over there. If they end up having to face WMD, it won't be the fault of the peaceniks, it'll be the fault of idiots like you, idiots who said, "We want war now! We don't want peace, we don't want sanctions, we don't want blockades, we don't want embargos, we wanna blow things up!"

You made your own bed, and if it comes down to it, I'll happily let you lie in it all by yourself.

[Solly]

Today @ 07:16 AM
Socrates:

Will these so-called peaceniks rail against GWB for sending our troops to be killed by these weapons of mass destruction?

Or will they crawl on their knees and apologize for doubting that Saddam had the WMDs? And then agree that the resumption of hostilities was just because Saddam really was violating the conditions of the UN ceasefire?

I can't imagine the latter -- even after Communism fell in Eastern Europe and the atrocities were exposed for all the world to see, the lefty useful idiot allies of the Soviet Bloc would not repent of their decades of support.

1. They aren't appeaseniks, Socrates, they just happen to think the process can go on for some more time. We all know Saddam is a slippery customer though.

2. While it will be tough for out troops, yet that is what they are trained for, and they know the risks, and frankly (having been military myself) it makes little difference whether it is gas, a bullet, a shell, or something else. Death is the same. Spare a thought for the Iraqi citizens who are about to be blasted to kingdom Come by stray cruise missiles, and some of the other hi tech hardware that is being paraded before us as the answer to all our problems.

3. Yes, we will rail against our leaders, and esp Dubya, who wanted this war all along, and only reluctantly went to the UN.

4. What has been Saddam's biggest motivation for producing WMD at this time? the threat from armed forces massed on his border while his own armed forces have never regained the strength they had in 1991. Are you saying Saddam doesn't have the right to defend his country from invasion?

5. Despite the fact that you get smarty points for managing to use the phrase "useful idiots" in a post, yet you have missed the point if you think that everyone who opposes this war is a hard line lefty. The opposition is much more broad based than that.

6. A question for you. What will the warmongers do if this all goes horribly wrong?

[Socrates]

Eirann:

• Uh, I hate to tell you this Socrates, but it isn't the "peaceniks" who sent the troops over there.

It's the peaceniks who were partly responsible for not finishing that despot off the first time.

• If they end up having to face WMD, it won't be the fault of the peaceniks,

Oh but they won't will they, because according to you appeaseniks there aren't any. And if they are, then the appeaseniks were gullible Chamberlainite fools who allowed their anti-Western bigotry to let Saddam fool them that he had disarmed.

• it'll be the fault of idiots like you, idiots who said, "We want war now! We don't want peace, we don't want sanctions, we don't want blockades, we don't want embargos, we wanna blow things up!"

Better to get it over with by targeting the military, than follow the brutal methods of the appeaseniks like sanctions and blockades that target innocent civilians.

And if you appeaseniks had your way, the US would withdraw from the northeast where they protect the semi-autonomous Kurdish republic, and let Saddam's butchers in to slaughter more Kurds.

[Socrates]

• 1. They aren't appeaseniks, Socrates, they just happen to think the process can go on for some more time. We all know Saddam is a slippery customer though.

Yeah, and he's already given the weak UN the runaround for 12 years. If the appeaseniks had their way, it would be 12 more years.

• 2. While it will be tough for out troops, yet that is what they are trained for, and they know the risks, and frankly (having been military myself) it makes little difference whether it is gas, a bullet, a shell, or something else. Death is the same. Spare a thought for the Iraqi citizens who are about to be blasted to kingdom Come by stray cruise missiles, and some of the other hi tech hardware that is being paraded before us as the answer to all our problems.

I do spare a thought for them, as I do for the Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam. I also spare a thought for innocents hurt by the appeasenik-imposed sanctions.

• 3. Yes, we will rail against our leaders, and esp Dubya, who wanted this war all along, and only reluctantly went to the UN.

And he wanted a war because he knew that the Butcher of Baghdad was building WMDs against the terms of the ceasefire. And he knew that the UN was full of corrupt, murderous despots so was a pathetic and expensive waste of space (hah -- Libya as head of the Human Rights Commission -- like Dracula in charge of the blood bank!).

• 4. What has been Saddam's biggest motivation for producing WMD at this time? the threat from armed forces massed on his border while his own armed forces have never regained the strength they had in 1991.

Oh, poor baby, losing most of his strength after he was thrown out of Kuwait! Or did you protest against throwing Saddam out of Kuwait too?

• Are you saying Saddam doesn't have the right to defend his country from invasion?

You're ****ed right he doesn't. The Allies agreed to a ceasefire in the Gulf War on condition that he removes WMDs. He hasn't, therefore the conditions for the ceasefire are no longer in force. The Allies could easily have finished him off if they wanted to, and should have.

• 5. Despite the fact that you get smarty points for managing to use the phrase "useful idiots" in a post, yet you have missed the point if you think that everyone who opposes this war is a hard line lefty. The opposition is much more broad based than that.

But look at the LEADERS organising the appeasement marches -- a who's who of atheistic communist groups.

• 6. A question for you. What will the warmongers do if this all goes horribly wrong?

Please give a specific example, as I did.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Idiots like Socrates have never been interested in peaceful solutions. There are lots of ways that Saddam could have been ejected from power, but idiots like Socrates have never been interested in any of them. He (and they) sit up on their fake little cloud spouting their fake little platitudes, but it all comes down to, "What makes for more interesting television, and what makes me feel like a badass? War."

Be glad that I don't consider people like you to be an example of a good Christian. If I did I would have to equate "good Christian" with "glories and revels in war, mayhem and murder." I consider people like you to be shining examples of bad Christians and hypocrites.

[Solly]

Today @ 12:36 PM
Socrates:
Please give a specific example, as I did.

The obvious one would be a nuclear device.
Another would be chemo-bio weapons used away from the battlefield, perhaps in the very terrorist style you believe will be undermined by this venture, whereas many believe it will be provoked.

[GrayPilgrim]

2. “Flaming”
We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter.

[$cirisme]

There are lots of ways that Saddam could have been ejected from power

Such as...?

[Ryokan]

is idiot any more flaming than the term peacenik or appeasenik? Socrates meant it with as much venom, and Eireann isn't really a peacenik.

However, Eireann, I think your dreams of a covert assasination of Saddam and his sons are unrealistic at best, as is disarmament without a time table backed by force(and even then its unlikely that would work).

And if Iraq uses chem, we should just ignore it, and prosecute the officers after. No need to sink to their level.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:25 AM
GrayPilgrim:

2. “Flaming”
We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter.

Very well, I retract my comment that he's an idiot. Honestly, I don't know what his intellectual capacity is. His posts on here don't show much, and I think he does a grave disservice to the great name of Socrates. However, I can make no judgements about his overall intellect, thus I retract that part of my statement. I do not retract my statement that I consider him a good example of a bad Christian. I don't think I need to back that up any further; his posts are here for anyone to read, and they speak volumes.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:55 AM
cirisme:



Such as...?

1) covert assassination
2) multinational pressure (that is actually enforced, not dropped as soon as it starts)
3) encouraged rebellion
4) full blockade of all oil exports, which would force Saddam to do one of two things:
a. accept the UN demands
b. act as the agressor. In such a case, if war were unavoidable, at least we wouldn't be the big bully on the block.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:09 PM
Ryokan:

And if Iraq uses chem, we should just ignore it, and prosecute the officers after. No need to sink to their level.

Well, unless you consider preserving the lives of the coalition troops a "need".

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:16 PM
Eireann:

1) covert assassination

I thought that was illegal?

2) multinational pressure (that is actually enforced, not dropped as soon as it starts)

Is that kind of like admitting that it's easier said than done?

3) encouraged rebellion

We've tried that twice, which resulted in the rebels being slaughtered, tortured, and exiled.

4) full blockade of all oil exports, which would force Saddam to do one of two things:
a. accept the UN demands
b. act as the agressor. In such a case, if war were unavoidable, at least we wouldn't be the big bully on the block.

How is Iraq supposed to feed its people without exporting oil? Oh, I get it: Iraq will keep it's oil and we'll feed the people of Iraq for free? Who's going to make sure the food gets to the people?
Or do you intend a sanction pretty much just like the one we've had for the past decade?

Who's going to be the target of Saddam's aggression? Is Kuwait going to be your sacrificial lamb? Saudi Arabia? How many innocents die in your master plan to keep the good guys from being "bullies"?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:32 PM
Captain Ochre:
How many innocents die in your master plan to keep the good guys from being "bullies"?

How many innocents will die in your "makes for good television" master plan?