--- "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 13:03 18-2-2003 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > >1. The people protesting the war don't give a damn > about Iraqi civilians - > >they're just a prop to attack the US with and > >2. In Afghanistan there were well under 1000 > civilian casualties by most > >estimates, but idiot war protesters still go around > talking about more than > >4000 - a made up number based on the Taliban's own > figures. > > Do you have any idea how insulting your statements > are to the peace > movement? The fact that we are protesting a war > against Iraq doesn't mean > we "don't give a damn about Iraqi civilians"; we do > in fact care a lot > about them, because we know that, as in any war, the > civilians will be the > ones who will suffer the most. Contrary to Bush > propaganda, we do not > consider the Iraqi civilians "a prop to attack the > US with". > > War protesters are not idiots; at worst, a few among > us are misinformed > about the number of civilian casualties in > Afghanistan. The only idiots are > those who promote war as if it is some kind of > miracle cure that will bring > peace to the world.
I see. You are so concerned about the people of Iraq that you are willing to do - what, exactly, to help them? Nothing, of course. As is usual with you, Jeroen, you criticize constantly but propose nothing. You're awfully fond of challenges, Jeroen, so here's one to you. What _should_ be done in Iraq? What do you propose? I await your brilliant solution to the problem of a totalitarian sociopath with weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear weapons program, and a proven desire to dominate the world's most important strategic commodity. While doing so, I also eagerly await the evidence of how you were so concerned with the people of Iraq for the last 20 years or so. Also, unless you believe that a million Iraqi civilians will die in the war - and if you believe that, you're a fool, which I think is not true - explain how as many Iraqis will die in the war as will continue to die under Saddam? Awaiting that, I repeat my statement. Those protests were strikingly marked by the lack of _Iraqis_. Since the Iraqis who have managed to flee that country are overwhelmingly in favor of toppling Saddam. The protesters don't care about the Iraqi people, because if they did, they would have been marching in front of the French embassy, burning French flags, and demanding that they stop propping up Saddam Hussein. > >Those of us in favor of freedom should not be > afraid to name freedom's > >enemies as the bigots that they actually are. > > You know, we peace lovers think exactly the same > thing. The only difference > is that we see Bush and those who support him as > bigots and enemies of freedom. You're not a peace lover, Jeroen. You were all gung ho when it affected _you_ in the Balkans. When it affects someone else, hmm, all of a sudden peace becomes really important. Now, a peace that benefits you, on the terms of the dictators, that gives an enemy of freedom in general and the US in particular access to weapons of mass destruction (and eventually nuclear weapons) - _that_ peace you're in favor of. Again, funny how those things work out. If people like you had run Europe in the 1930s - well, we know the answer to that question, right, because people like you _did_. For a continent so obsessed with its history, y'all show an astonishing ability to not learn from it. > I don't think the US will ever leave. Technically > speaking, the occupation > will end once a new (and probably US-puppet) > government has been set up, > but I don't think the US will pass on the > opportunity to set up a huge > military power base in the heart of the Middle East. That puppet German government, the way it always does exactly what we say - that's so convenient, isn't it? Out of curiosity, what happened to the puppet governments we set up in France, Germany, and Italy? My European history is, I guess, weak enough that I can't quite understand how the French and German governments went from US puppets to opposed to our foreign policy at the present moment. > Personally, I can think of only two reasons why the > US wants to attack > Iraq. Not for "fighting terrorism", not because of > Iraq's alleged arsenal > of WMD's, not "to liberate the people of Iraq". IMO, > the only real reasons > are control over a considerable part of the world's > oil reserve, and the > establishment of a power base in the Middle East. Gee, Jeroen, if that's what we wanted, we could have had that in 1991. Actually, we could have had that any time we damn well pleased - it's not as if anyone in the world actually has the capacity to stop us. But explain to me why we didn't establish control over the world's oil in 1991 if that what this is all about? If it helps, something else involving the digits 9 and 1 happened since then.... If the best you can do is "It's all about the ooooiiilllllll" then this gets a lot less amusing. Even most of the serious opponents of the war have given up on an argument that ludicrous. > That depends on how you define "failure". Given the > rhetoric about "freeing > the people of Iraq", I would expect that all Iraqi's > will eventually be a > lot better off, a few years after the war. However, > the US will try to make > Iraq as much a capitalist country as possible, which > means that for a happy > few Iraqis the biggest change will be that they will > become rich and > powerful, while for most of the rest of the > population the biggest change > in their life will be the name of the country's > president. Astonishing, Jeroen. You're actually willing to admit that something good might happen because of an American action. :-) I do believe that's a first in list history - I kind of feel privileged to have brought it about :-) The fact that you think making Iraq capitalist would be a bad thing I leave uncommented on - some things are, well, let's just leave that one alone. > That won't last. As you pointed out yourself, > memories are very much short > term. The image of "British and American soldiers > bringing freedom to Iraq" > (the role of other nations will undoubtedly be > ignored) will be quickly > forgotten if after a few years, much of the Iraqi > people are still living > in poverty. > > > Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk Well, if we _do_ make it a capitalist state, then 50 years from now they might not be poor. In the entire history of the human race, could you point out to me an example of a state that went from poverty to wealth in "a few years"? You are arguing, from what I can tell, that the US intervention will be a failure unless something absolutely unique in all of history happens? Also, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the biggest problem for the Iraqi people - it's not poverty. It's like the Jews in Europe in the 1940s. The problem wasn't that they were _poor_. It was that they were ruled by Hitler. That was kind of the issue back then. See, Iraq's biggest problem isn't that it's poor - it's that Saddam Hussein is running it. We _are_ going to fix that. The rest of it is in the hands of the people of Iraq, at the end of the day. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
