« 667: the neighbor of the beast | Main | two favors »

the force is strong with this one

The man whose voice greets me when I dial information is not against this war.

via Insta

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference the force is strong with this one:

» A Celebrity We Can Be Proud Of from insignificant thoughts
A Small Victory: the force is strong with this one When I hear quotes like this from celebrities, I get [Read More]

» I Love Strawmen... from The Church of the Blinding White Light of Stupidity
From a commenter at Michele's, STRAWMAN ALERT! "What would happen if Saddam fully complied with UN inspectors, fully disclosed all [Read More]

Comments

[boom] This is CNN!

This is a just war!

This would have been better suited to the Protest Post below, but 32 comments later.....
anyway, I just have one question.
What would happen if Saddam fully complied with UN inspectors, fully disclosed all the WOMD's, and fully disarmed tomorrow?What if he did everything required of him but step down? Would we still go to war?

Nope. I don't think we would. War is very expensive, costs lives and popularity. Not going to war would give Bush two-fold brownie points. He would say, "We're not going to war" in which many people would have to find another reason to call him Hitler, then he'd say "See, all we needed was real pressure".

However, I still feel the only way we'll remove Saddam from his throne is hopefully with a spatula after we flatten his ass.

Yeah, if Hussein truly did disarm we wouldn't go to war -- but only because we've used his failure to disarm as our main reason for war. We really want him gone because he's a hostile power with terrorist ties, and the USA can't tolerate that sort of thing anymore. I think that if the Bush Administration truly thought that there was the slightest chance in hell Hussein would disarm, they never would have asked him to. They just would have built the case for war around his other crimes, instead.

But -- back on topic -- kudos to James Earl Jones. :)

"What would happen if Saddam fully complied with UN inspectors, fully disclosed all the WOMD's, and fully disarmed tomorrow?What if he did everything required of him but step down? Would we still go to war?"

If all that happened, there is no doubt in my mind that the US would not go to war.

Since Saddam and his sons would still be in power, life would still totally suck for the people in Iraq. But without a war, none of that suffering would be shown on CNN, so the protesters could go back to not giving a shit what happens to Iraqi civilians.

STRAWMAN ALERT!

"What would happen if Saddam fully complied with UN inspectors, fully disclosed all the WOMD's, and fully disarmed tomorrow?What if he did everything required of him but step down? Would we still go to war?"

Well... I don't think we're going to find out. Blix is going to ask Saddam to destroy his illegal rockets and I don't believe that the old boy is going to comply.

... tic tic tic tic tic .... Daddy, are we there yet?

It's obviously not realistic to think it will actually happen--but there was a point to the question, and so far Nu has discovered it I think.
Senator McCain said something like
"If Saddam disarmed tommorrow, he could remain in Baghdad, watch all the tortue movies he wants and eat all the Viagra he wants for as long as he wants."

I've asked this question in many other forums, and the majority says No--if Saddam disarmed we would not go to war with Iraq.
A fully disarmed Iraq would prevent war.

Which, of course, would mean
--no liberation for the Iraqis.

Sylvain, you seem to have missed Dan's reply on how the real reason the admin wants Hussein gone is the fact that he is "a hostile power with terrorist ties." We can't afford to leave him in power until he become another Kim Ill Jong (or whatever his name is). Notice how no one's talking much about North Korea these days? Really, there is not much to say about them now. We can't do anything so long as they have a nuclear missile pointed at Berkely.

You did know that the North Koreans went ahead and built nukes anyway, after they signed that treaty promising they wouldn't, didn't you?

No, I didn't miss it.
You seem to think I am defending Hussein, and I am most certainly not.
I am one who believes he should have been taken care of in Gulf War I.
Never should have been bargained with in the first place.
Never should have gotten WOMD's from Germany, France, the US and all points in between.
My point is about discussing liberation when debating war with Iraq.
If Saddam had never attacked a neighbor, never gassed his own citizens, never pursued the Big Toys, yet was still an oppressive dictator, would we be discussing the liberation of Iraqis?
If bin Laden had been based in Libya instead of Afghanistan, would we, as a political power, be interested in liberating the Afghanis?
I'm cynical, as I highly doubt it.
Please bear in mind this is somewhat of an unfinished opinion. I just find discussion of liberation somewhat innapropriate in debating this war, as I don't think it would be a consideration otherwise.

Sylvain,

We would leave them in power. All of them. Every single opressive dixtator who didn't threaten us--or make us think they're a threat.

All the people who needed liberation would get tiny amounts of support and encouragement from the US--and the people against the war would go back to castigating the US for not liberating them.

And therein lies the problem--an opposition that is determined to remain an opposition ever when their aims collide with those they're opposing.