What if George Bush were to use the most powerful weapon?

[Lancecastor]

Six months ago I said to send Billy Graham over there, but they didn't get it.

Ever notice that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton still have genuine smiles? (almost no killing while President)

The American neo-conservatives here will ignore this thread or call you names...but good stuff, well said!

The USA used to be a country people everywhere were proud of and wanted to affiliate with.

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Thanks Lancecastor!

I'm not sure about Clinton. He did bomb an asprin factory in the Sudan. And he bombed Kosovo. (And his record on the environment was pretty poor for a guy whose Vice President had written a book on the subject.)

But he does seem to have a genuine smile, and I can't help but like the guy in a weird sort of way.

But Carter was definitely one of the best.

 

[katelync]

But he does seem to have a genuine smile, and I can't help but like the guy in a weird sort of way.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: Re: What if George Bush were to use the most powerful weapon?

You are free to tell Saddam Hussein to stop slaughtering and torturing people. Will he listen to you? I don't think so. In fact he would probably go out and torture a few more just to piss you off even more.

I'd be quite happy for you to stop him by force as well, as long as you could do it without harming anyone else. Remember that the Iraqi people did not vote for him. And if you were an Iraqi and Saddam wanted you in his army you would not have the option of saying "No." (Well, you could. You could even try shooting a few of the officers when they handed you your gun, but you'd be dead or worse in short order.)

If you could prove to me that less people would suffer from an American invasion of Iraq than from leaving Saddam Hussein in power, I would stop arguing against war. But no-one can prove something like that, and the reverse is likely to be the case. No matter how dire a situation is, it is better to do nothing than to do something which will definitely make the situation worse.

As for Jesus and the money changers, I agree one could claim he used violence in that situation. It is a matter of interpretation. If you are drunk and disorderly in a bar, the bouncer may "throw you out". In the broadest definition of the term you could call that violence, but it is not the same as killing someone or seriously injuring them. The effect that Jesus had on the world came from his uncompromising truthfulness not from physical force. (Though it is true that many acts of attrocious violence were later carried out in his name.)

Interesting thread Ozzie. A couple points; the Iraqi people DID vote for him, 100% of the population and 100% for Saddam! Oh, I think there was one person who refused to vote for him, but he was taken out and shot immediately to retain the required level of support. You say you would "stop arguing against war" if proof were given that the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam. That is probably a false statement because you will accept no such proof, as stated by you. A few statistics might help. I've heard estimates that Saddam's "regime" has been the cause of an estimated two million Iraqi deaths since he assumed power in 1979. That's 225 people each day killed in his purgings, gassing of Kurds, bombing of Basra and the South and support of people who revel in feeding living humans into wood chippers!

You argue to do nothing is good. To kill many less to end the killing is bad.

Please, use your knowledge of Christ's teachings to support your stand...use ANY teachings (except Neville Chamberlain) to support your stand!

Rhumb

 

[Aussiescribbler]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What if George Bush were to use the most powerful weapon?

Interesting thread Ozzie. A couple points; the Iraqi people DID vote for him, 100% of the population and 100% for Saddam! Oh, I think there was one person who refused to vote for him, but he was taken out and shot immediately to retain the required level of support. You say you would "stop arguing against war" if proof were given that the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam.

I don't doubt that the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam. The question is whether the war will cause more suffering than Saddam would have in the last few years of his life or until such time as he may have been bumped off by his own people. It is no good adding the past suffering of the Iraqi people at Saddam's hands into the equation since the war will not change the past. (Also, it is always worth pointing out that America armed and supported Hussein during much of the time he was torturing and killing his own people and the Iranians.)

That is probably a false statement because you will accept no such proof, as stated by you. A few statistics might help. I've heard estimates that Saddam's "regime" has been the cause of an estimated two million Iraqi deaths since he assumed power in 1979. That's 225 people each day killed in his purgings, gassing of Kurds, bombing of Basra and the South and support of people who revel in feeding living humans into wood chippers!

Rhumb

Some of these figures are questionable.

There is some doubt as to whether it was Iraqi or Iranian poison gas that killed the Kurds at Halabja :

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0301-06.htm

Many, including Tony Blair, like to include deaths attributable to international sanctions against Iraq to the death toll for which Saddam Hussein is responsible, ignoring the fact that many have pointed out that these sanctions have only strengthened his hold over his people and have not harmed him at all.

John Pilger, who has spent a long time documenting the suffering of the people of Iraq and was protesting against Saddam's attrocities at a time when the British government was making excuses for him, doesn't believe this war is justified. And he would know if anyone would :

http://pilger.carlton.com/print

“The scorecard reads as follows: From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalists movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the U.S. causes the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.” William Blum Rogue State

With a record like that, sure, let's keep going with business as usual.

 

[Somme]

I'm debating with myself if the most powerful weapon to be used was the truth?

 

[LukkyKnight]

rumint

In the wake of revelations by senior (and former) U.S. Intelligence professionals about the manner in which "intelligence" was interpreted and distributed by various members of the Bush administration, one has to at least ponder that while the truth can obviously be a powerful weapon perhaps the most powerful one used was trust. I'm not here to argue that Bush and/or Blair were lying, I'm not in a position to say they ever knew the facts - some argue Bush is merely a puppet figurehead, even, and that Powell's role has more to do with appearances of embracing diversity than anything else.

Truth can be a powerful tool, but when one uses one's personal influence or the trust the media places in them as a source of untainted, accurate information as a means to "spin" the situation, truth is taken off the bargaining table. Anyone who thinks the Iraqi Information Minister was the only one engaging in spinning facts has woefully underestimated politicians in every other country on the globe.

 

[Somme]

By George!.....I think you may be on to sommething there!