Bush's Lunacy?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@22 June 2004 - 00:54
Well nobody replied

Vid-

What, exactly, is this supposed to indicate?

Well, let's see:

Nixon had the highest IQ of any Republican, and he was a scoundrel; he resigned his office before he was impeached.

Clinton had the highest IQ of any Democrat, and he, too, was/is a scoundrel, but he also managed to be impeached, and stay in office.

I would say Clinton had what might be called VIQ: Variable Intelligence Quotient; that is to say, it might have actually approached 182, but only when his very survival was at stake.

I think, for example, when he told Hillary of his peccadilloes, he must have been at his very best, IQ-wise, to escape with his life, especially considering she herself is (it is generally conceded) the smartest woman on the face of the earth.

In any case, the uselessness of the whole exercise is surely indicated by Carter's having the second-highest IQ (175), isn't it?

What a resoundingly successful presidency he had!

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@26 June 2004 - 01:47
And so how can we remove Saddam other than how we did?

You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by clocker@26 June 2004 - 11:43
You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?

Are you serious? You really think Saddam should have been left in power? Someone who murders millions of his own people, someone who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, someone who posed a threat to the security of the world really should have been given more time to stay in power.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+26 June 2004 - 08:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 26 June 2004 - 08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ruthie@26 June 2004 - 06:35
Are you saying that because of Saddam&#39;s violence against his countrymen, our violence in Iraq is irrelevant?

Never said it, never implied it. You are flailing.

I was saying that innocents will die to remove him, but in doing so, those killed will be a small number compared to those that would have died had he remained.

The sanctions came from the UN. Oh right, the US controls the UN. But then why did the UN oppose the war.?

As a liberal, who never voted for Bush, I never dreamed that I would be posting as I do. But, I just hate listening to bullshit. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes

Therein lies the dilemma with such equations. At what point will the carnage and violence unleashed in Iraq tip the scales into the red. The innocents we kill are our responsibility no one elses. Their tears and blood cast a shadow on us.

I am not advocating the return of Saddam - we are responsible for the mess we clean it up. However, we went in because we said he was a threat to us - not because we wanted to be nice to Iraqis. Given that he now appears to have been a toothless paper tiger we are only left with the "being nice to Iraqis" justification. This is actually a bind. It means that we have to see the job through and pay through the nose in order to do so. If he had been sitting on huge stock piles of weapons on the verge of attack we could have justified his removal and subsequently left the Iraqis to get on with things. The lack of resources after the initial conflict would suggest that we had little idea as to what the Iraqis would subsequently do.

Although the first couple of weeks of Shock and Awe targeted Ministry buildings the power grid was brought down by the end. We are still paying for its reconstruction, in both the lives of contractors and money. Soldiers I have spoken to that have returned from Iraq say the place is a shambles. Furthermore, as soon as something is fixed the insurgents blow it up again. The British positions in Basra are much quieter than further north but the feeling is that things are getting more edgy not less.

GW cannot have an IQ of 91 surely? That is very close to below average intelligence (which is putting it nicely) Having said that, I consider IQ ratings little more than a parlour game.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@26 June 2004 - 12:13

....I consider IQ ratings little more than a parlour game.

I believe you&#39;ve put your finger on it, Biggles.

To those who worship Clinton&#39;s "intelligence":

Clinton&#39;s potential for utter idiocy was revealed just a few days ago during the Dimbleby interview, wherein he sputtered incoherently at a particularly inopportune juncture.

Intelligence, and stupidity likewise, most always suffer involuntary and/or selective application, and, to be perfectly accurate, this phenomenon applies to everyone.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 16:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 26 June 2004 - 16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@26 June 2004 - 11:43
You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?

Are you serious? You really think Saddam should have been left in power? Someone who murders millions of his own people, someone who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, someone who posed a threat to the security of the world really should have been given more time to stay in power. [/b][/quote]

So, i assume your now proposing the Invasion of all the countries that were, and still are more vicious that Iraq ever was?

Sudan, for example...?


The 10 years between the 2 Gulf Wars saw more deaths of Iraqi&#39;s indirectly from the UN sanctions, and directly from UK/USA bombing, than Hussain ever managed at his worst.... including his Chemical attack on the Kurds.

Deaths due to our bombing of Water Treatment Plants (against the Geneva Convention) for example.... (and Chlorine to clean the Water without the treatment plants was "Dual Use" so could not be imported)..

Deaths due to dust from Depleted Uranium shells used in the 1st war...and US troops themselves are now being diagnosed with symptoms of this, however I suppose they&#39;ll be alright as treatment is available for them

Deaths due to lack of Medical Supplies.... did you know that "Syringes", were even classed as "Dual Use"? And basic Painkillers and anti-biotics?


These matters go outside Political Party Politics, as during that decade both UK and USA had both main political parties of their countries in charge at some point.

However, no matter which way you cut it...there is no Moral High Ground for us.


Saddam did support Terrorism....he helped finance Palestinian Terorists.

However he hasnt given them half as much as Saudi Arabia, as an example.....as he really didnt give a shit for them, it was just a means of keeping the fundamentalists of his own Country happy and causing less trouble.



As to the assasination of Bush Snr.

They were linked to a car bomb by Kuwaiti Intelligence..... hardly an unbiased Agency in 1993.

I believe that 23 Cruise Missiles were fired at Iraqi Intelligence HQ for that..

23 Cruise Missiles at one building.... I wonder how much co-lateral damage that caused?

Compared to the co-lateral Damage of a Car Bomb, that may or may not have belonged to Iraqi Intelligence that is.

How many Assasinations have the CIA been involved in?..........in countries not actively bombing the crap out of them, like the USA/UK were to Iraq?


This whole argument, to me, stinks of:

Do as we say; not as we do... Its OK for us to kill who the fuck we want, but its not OK for you to defend yourselves in the only way&#39;s possible, or to fight back...

"Gods on our Side".... well, if Gods on our side, what makes us any different from the Terrorists, except a Uniform?



Quite frankly, I think im better than that.

I also believe the vast Majority of Americans and British are better than that...and in fact most people everywhere.

Its just a shame that shit floats to the top of politics... in every country.


All that we as voters in Democracies can do, is try and minimise the damage by voting in the lessor of the evils on offer...coz no matter WHICH Party they are in, make no mistake...If they can get away with it, they will stab you through the heart for a buck or more power.

[BigBank_Hank]

Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 18:21
Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.

Did you know that Iraq was so unco-operative that they were suggesting and offering to pay for the technologies to confirm amounts of Chemical Weapons they had destroyed at certain sites?

They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

The US/UK blocked these Technologies being used in the Inspection Process.

Very co-operative of us, huh?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 18:21
Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.

:helpsmile:


An interesting use of the word help.


The imperative for war was never made clear and failed to convince most of the world (i.e. 80%). By imperative, I mean what would have happened if we had not gone to war? Why was war the only solution? Saddam was not backing Al Qaeda nor was he involved in international terrorism. His support for the Palestinians was no more than most Arab leaders and less than some.

It is true that he was a dictator. However, it would appear that every time his name is mentioned the numbers of dead increases exponentially. Approximately 1m Iraqis and Iranians died in the Iran/Iraq war - a war we approved of.

Following the abortive Kuwaiti invasion and UN sanctions it is estimated that annually about 40,000 Iraqis died prematurely do to lack of proper medical facilities - many of them children. Despite numerous suggestions that the sanctions list should be refined there was an unwillingness to take the action that could have saved these lives. Saddam did kill political opponents - probably many tens of thousands of such opponents over the 25 years of his reign of terror. However, he is not in the Hitler or Stalin league. He was just another nasty local dictator with a fondness for palaces and gold taps.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:34
They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

Look they had 12 years to comply and they didn’t. If everything had destroyed the Saddam wouldn’t have kicked out the inspectors and would have let them look whenever and where ever they wanted. That wasn’t the case though. The inspectors were allowed to search when Saddam said and where he said.