The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: mr.Curmudgeon on January 12, 2005, 12:59:12 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html
Official: U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq
The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and may have hidden weapons stockpiles.
All those who supported the war are now officially wrong. Having had a fervent anti-war stance since the run-up, I take no pleasure in being right in this instance. Rather, I am deeply saddened by the destruction this country has wrought in Iraq, I am furiously angry at this administration for misleading the country on this disastrous conquest, I am disheartened by the lack of intellectual honesty and moral fortitude of those who refuse to admit the folly of this war, and I'm sorrowful over the loss of so many thousands of our sons, daughters, mothers, brothers, husbands, wives, friends and family who bravely fought, we're injured and/or killed in Bush's unjust war.
I have no idea how to correct the quagmire, as I believe it'd be a mistake to cut and run at this point. I do know, however, that we cannot win given the current direction this endeavor is heading. The elections will more than likely be a sham, and any official who wins will most likely be killed soon after. We needed the world at our side, we needed a strong post-war plan, and most of all, we needed the cause to be just and the war to be justified. None of this happened and we are now stuck w/ Bush staring, dumbfounded, into Pandora's box.
When going to war, we, as a country, are only as good as our excuse for doing so. We now have none...and I regret to say, I believe we'll pay for this mistake for years and years to come, in so many mirade ways.
-
Saddam Hussein paid the families of suicide bombers to kill Israelies.
I supported the war, and guess what. I am not officially wrong.
Killing jews has always been a sore spot with me.
-
Now the soldiers who were searching can get on to other things, like killing the insurgents who attack the good people in Iraq. Good news.
Art
-
Don't worry mr.Curmudgeon in two years you'll forget all about the war.
-
Oh, I thought it was cause of the WMDs, the 45 minute strike capabilty and the links to bin laden. What? That was all BS?? Weli then it was to free the peple of eye-raq from a tyrant, even though sanctions which the US refused to allow be lifted killed more people than Saddam ever did, plus the fact that he used to be an ally until he bit the hand that fed him. Lets not forget the 100,000+ innocents killed by the 'good guys'. But lets forget the opression and torture by the saudis, and the 'friendly' dictator in pakistan. American double standards, best in the world ;)
-
Oh, I thought it was cause of the WMDs, the 45 minute strike capabilty and the links to bin laden.
Was that all you heard before the war? Honestly?
I mean, it is one thing to not be educated enough to follow debates on
the Iraqi destabalization effect on the middle-east, but it is another thing to to just CLAIM you never heard it.
He was funding attacks against a nuclear power. You didn't hear anything about that?
There was a measurable effect in the region. Libya rolled over at once.
Weli then it was to free the peple of eye-raq from a tyrant, even though sanctions which the US refused to allow be lifted killed more people than Saddam ever did, plus the fact that he used to be an ally until he bit the hand that fed him.
Actually, the sanctions made a French President (and other U.N. diplomats) richer by stealing food we paid for out of the mouthes of the children of Iraq.
Also, yes he was our lap dog ...that's how we know there are WMD's that are unaccounted for. ... We sold them to him.
-
When we went to war in Iraq the majority of those who supported the war did so because of the reasons Dexter cited, not because of "the Iraqi destabalization effect". Do you really think the majority of Americans care about that? Only if it effects the price of gas. Even if they did, how was Iraq destabilizing anything? They were penned in by no-fly zones and constant supervision.
Funding attacks against nuclear power...don't care, unless that power is the U.S. I'll presume you are talking about Israel. Why is being an alleged nuclear power at all significant? If he were funding attacks against a conventional power you wouldn't care?
Your mention of the Mujahideen does more to support Dexter's argument than your own.
-
When we went to war in Iraq the majority of those who supported the war did so because of the reasons Dexter cited, not because of "the Iraqi destabalization effect".
-
My point was not that other reasons to go to war didn't exist, but rather that going to war had popular support only for the reasons cited by Dexter. Which by the way was not solely WMD. Without popular support I don't believe this war happens.
I don't care that Iraq was bombing Israel. Well, I care, I just don't see it as a reason for the U.S. to go to war. Unless you are suggesting that Israel can't be trusted to handle their own affairs responsibly and I think you are (if terms like "nuclear power = unstable" and "fallout" are any indication). Frankly, I have a little more faith in Israel than that.
As for radical Islam being on the verge of nukes, I don't know what we can do about it. After all we were the ones who opened that Pandora's box. The best we can hope is to delay this inevitability.
But we'd better spend some of the time we've bought trying to understand why they are so opposed to the U.S. in the first place. Perhaps it has something to do with us shoring up oppressive dictatorships and monarchies throughout the region?
-
My point was not that other reasons to go to war didn't exist, but rather that going to war had popular support only for the reasons cited by Dexter.
-
I wish I could capture the simplistic world view of "black" and "white"...
...
The region is reeping stability as we speak. Libya ends their WMD programs and comes clean on Pan Am Flight 103, among other things.
Looks like your wish has come true. The amount of attacks in Iraq have steadily increased since Bush's declaration of "Mission Accomplished". Libya was already in the process of ending thier WMD program long before Bush's War in Iraq. One had *nothing* to do with the other. The Israeli/Palestinian issue is in a state of flux, who knows where Abbas/Sharon will take it. Bush has done nothing to further peace talks between the two entities. He has mentioned support again, for a Palestinian state, but has made no effort whatsoever to bring about an end to the most hostile conflict in the middle east, outside of Iraq.
So is the right answer regime change for 3 countries, or regime change for the country in breech of U.N. sanctions for 10 years, to buy us time to negotiate with the two other powers? What is the lesser "evil" here? These are not my ideas by the way. These ideas were discussed in Congress, and broadcast on CSpan.
Iraq was the most secular country in the Muslim world, yet now we've opened it up to numerous outside forces who will more than likely exert influence over any governing authority installed after the coming "elections". For example, Bush's #1 go-to guy at the beginning of the war, Ahmed Chalabi, ended up being an Iranian spy. The U.S. forces can't even secure the Green Zone against insurgent attacks. How can we even begin to imagine negotiations with other regional players?
This war was an important first step toward securing the life of this planet beyond this generation. I didn't make this mess, but I support cleaning it up.
If the American media focused on "Saddam bad, he have big guns" to get the message in between bites of McDonald's, then so be it.
If that would have been the initial reasoning for the war, it would *never* have happened. Why is that? Why is it valid now?
But this never happened:
George Bush:"Well, I just want to go in there because of all them there WMD's"
Congress:"Let's get this straight, there are WMD's there?!? Okay GO!"
"Each passing day could be one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally," Bush said.
...
Bush, however, urged speed: "The danger to our country is grave." He said Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and is building the facilities necessary to increase those stockpiles.
- George W. Bush, in direct response to democratic debate in Congress on passing a resolution to go to war w/ Iraq. (9/26/2002)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/JoshK/Photo20Bush20and20Chirac.jpg)
-
But this never happened:
George Bush:"Well, I just want to go in there because of all them there WMD's"
Congress:"Let's get this straight, there are WMD's there?!? Okay GO!"
More for your reading enjoyment:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
-Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
-George W. Bush September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
-Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
-Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
-George W. Bush January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
-Colin Powell February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
-George Bush February 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
-Colin Powell March 8, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-George Bush March 18, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
-Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
-Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
-Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
-Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
-Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
-Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
-Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
-Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
-Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
-George Bush April 24, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
-Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
-Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
-George Bush May 3, 2003
I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
-Colin Powell May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
-George W. Bush May 6, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
-Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
-Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003
-
By the way Locash,
Bravo for debating instead of name-calling.
I may not agree with what you are saying, but I revel in your saying it!
Thanks, I am enjoying this debate as well. Too many times these thread degrade into an exchange of insults which only discourages people from participating and makes the participants less likely to try to understand the others point of view.
I think what you are saying is you are for this war because of the stability it gives to the region and slow the development of nuclear arms in the region and not for the reasons popularized by the press.
I on the other hand oppose this war, not just because I never believed the popular reasons, but because I believe that the stability gained will be short lived and counterproductive in the long term. I don't believe that stability can be installed it must be built by the people of the region. I believe there will be long term resentment toward the U.S. for the attempt.
I think it would be unfair to blame the press for popularizing the "Saddam bad, he have big guns" message for going to war. If you read the 2003 State of the Union Address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html, you will find it to be nearly 5500 words long nearly 1/4 of it is "Saddam bad, he have big guns". There are no other reasons given to support the call to arms. Now I realize that there were other reasons given at other venues, but on the eve of war this was the largest audience the president was going to speak to and this was the message he wanted delivered.
-
But this never happened:
George Bush:"Well, I just want to go in there because of all them there WMD's"
Congress:"Let's get this straight, there are WMD's there?!? Okay GO!"
More for your reading enjoyment:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
-Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
-George W. Bush September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
-Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
-Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
-George W. Bush January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
-Colin Powell February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
-George Bush February 8, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
-Colin Powell March 8, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-George Bush March 18, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
-Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
-Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
-Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
-Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
-Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
-Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
-Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
-Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003
I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
-Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
-George Bush April 24, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
-Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
-Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
-George Bush May 3, 2003
I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
-Colin Powell May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
-George W. Bush May 6, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
-Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
-Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003
And I repeat, if that is all you heard before the war, you were uneducated on the full scope of the discussion. And that's okay. It would seem most people were.
War over only WMD never happened. Fiction.
The truth remains however, that we have records of WMD's that we sold them, that they don't have records of destroying.
You can keep saying, "Yeah...but...but....there were no WMD's" and if that is the only thing you can say...and you say it over and over, then I think you are the one with the simplistic view of the world, with tight blinders on. Cling to that "No WMD in Iraq" teddy bear when Syria and Iran have nukes...it will make you feel much safer at night.
Also the region IS more stable today. You take my use of region then interpret that to mean a single state "Iraq" then talk about foreign insurgents.
This is less than misdirection.
Now that is not to say I wouldn't have done this different were it up to me.
1) Regime change for Afghanistan
2) Regime change for Korea.
3) Regime change for Iraq
In all instances I would have hired the old army/police to be the new army/police with proper screening of course.
Would your answer be, to just leave them alone, to do as they will and build what they will, and deploy where they will, for ever and ever amen?
-
By the way Locash,
Bravo for debating instead of name-calling.
I may not agree with what you are saying, but I revel in your saying it!
Thanks, I am enjoying this debate as well.
-
Almost immediately after the end of the first Gulf War, Hussein starting breaking the terms of the first surrender agreement. We let the human rights violations slide, but one of those terms was to UN weapons inspections.
If he didn't have weapons, PRETENDING to have them was a pretty foolish mistake, wasn't it? Hussein had a grudge against the US, reported terrorist ties, and was refusing terms he agreed to.
Hind sight may be 20/20, and Iraq is certainly a quagmire, but we still haven't seen the promised attacks on US soil. We did the right thing.
-
And I repeat, if that is all you heard before the war, you were uneducated on the full scope of the discussion. And that's okay. It would seem most people were.
War over only WMD never happened. Fiction.
Uh. You're are completely missing the point. I am simply providing you the answer for *why* most people believed that WMD was the reasoning for war. Because that is WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. You're arguing with the benefit of having re-written history. It doesn't matter why *you* think we went to war, nor how "educated" you are. The general public was sold a misrepresented bill of goods. Are you arguing that misleading the public in order to further this administrations perceived altruistic goals is OK?
Cling to that "No WMD in Iraq" teddy bear when Syria and Iran have nukes...
Funny you should mention that. You forgot North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. Your whole argument is predicated on the stabilization/democratization of Iraq. So far, your argument isn't looking so good.
Also the region IS more stable today.
Stability in the middle east is relative. The region is certainly more unified in it's hatred of the U.S., so if having them stop the infighting by providing them more reason to loath an already hated single enemy, then yes....it's more stable.
Now that is not to say I wouldn't have done this different were it up to me.
1) Regime change for Afghanistan
2) Regime change for Korea.
3) Regime change for Iraq
We couldn't defeat NK without nukes, and if we used nukes, China would start a global-thermal nuclear war. Nice plan.
In all instances I would have hired the old army/police to be the new army/police with proper screening of course.
It's all so easy...why couldn't I see it before.
Would your answer be, to just leave them alone, to do as they will and build what they will, and deploy where they will, for ever and ever amen?
No. I'm an atheist so I don't live on prayer. There *are* other ways to influence global developments solely than at the barrel of a gun. You think the rest of the world would just sit idly by as we stomp through regions quashing "evildoers"?
-
MrC, you just refuse to see the real reason for the instability in the reigon.
-
That is, if you believe in the whole notion of the promised land or the accuracy of predictions in a ~2000 year old book. The whole problem is not solely relgious. Alot of it has to do more with the fundamental problem of too many people, too small a space of land. Those people crammed into there have many differences that are not religious in nature. Looking back on it, it was foolish for the UN to place Israel in the middle of an already crowded area, surrounded by cultures so very different from their's.
-
MrC, you just refuse to see the real reason for the instability in the reigon. RELIGION.
Actually, I fully understand that religion is the root of the problem in the middle east. That is exactly why I refuse to accept that it is somehow OK for Bush to have gotten the U.S. fully entrenched in a 2000 year old war.
It's nice to think that they all unite in their hatred of the US, but the truth is that they only hate us because they honestly believe we are united with Isreal. They are united in their hatred of Isreal.
Yes. Same result.
If you are so inclined, you could read what the book of Revelation has to say about this. It all points to the end times.
Read religious texts to solve bloody religous conflicts???? No thanks. End times are a self-fulling prophecy, ya' know.
-
There isn't really any solution to the dilemma.
Maybe the solution is to do away with religion altogether. Yeah, I know...never happen.
Sorry if this offends, I didn't really want to turn this into a debate about religion as that has a tendency to end up in bus bombs and suicide pacts, but....
This sorta mentality reminds me of what I dislike most about religion. It requires an absolute fatalistic view of the world. Their is a frickin' solution to the problem, it'll just take work and perseverance to figure it out. Babies are dying fer' cryin' out loud. Baby jesus hates that.
To carry it a little further (and I'm being a bit facetious here), how can any religious person be angry about the deaths that occured on 9-11. Obviously God wanted those people dead, his will be done, right?. Weren't the terrorists actually carrying out God's will? I don't get the logic. Don't say it was the devils work either, 'cuz no proper bible-thumpin' Christian believes that darn Devil is more powerful than God. If God wants you dead, you're dead. The Devil's gotta go through him first, eh?
Another thing, why would a God give freewill to humankind, yet ask them to sit on their hands and DO NOTHING UNTIL THE END TIMES?!?!?!? Does he like to watch the chaos? I mean, doesn't he get cable up there?
I digress...as usual.
-
Fortunately, rewriting history won't affect the people who REMEMBER the reasons given for the pre-emptive strike on Iraq, REMEMBER them turning out to be deliberate lies, REMEMBER the shift in excuses for going to war. Want to talk about a country ignoring UN directives, Israel have been doing it for 40 years. Want to talk about WMDs in the middle east, Israel have an estimated 300 warheads. Once again, american double standards. You can't claim to be the custodians of liberty and play favourites at the same time.
There were over 130 countries with active al-quaida cells before the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not one of them.
No matter which way you try to sugar coat it, the invasion of Iraq was waged on fabricated evidence, lies, and it's association with the war on terror desecrates the memories of the victims of 9/11. The real reasons for the biggest balls up in foreign policy in history was common knowledge to the rest of the world prior to the invasion. Anyone who stands on their soapbox now claiming 'we did the right thing' looks like a bad joke.
-
There were over 130 countries with active al-quaida cells before the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not one of them.
The things you choose to believe. You have no problem believing the possibility of Iraq not being one of them, but wonder why we think you're nuts for believing the conspiracy theories of everything but the direction the water spins when you flush point to Bush rigging or stealing an election.
Anyone who stands on their soapbox now claiming 'we did the right thing' looks like a bad joke.
I've got no problems "looking like a bad joke" to you and your ilk. If I concerned myself with what your opinion was, I'd soon be wracked with a misguided notion of what my country stands for and what steps we should take to defend it. Instead, I'm comfortable with knowing that history has and will bear out the rightness of our actions, regardless of how you wish it would be written.
We did the right thing.
-
Your own politicians have confirmed that there was no link between saddam and OBL, they have confirmed no WMDs. It is a known fact there were no cells in Iraq pre invasion. Iraqs invasion had nothing to do with Americas defence. These are all facts.
Nobody expects you to let the facts interfer with your notion that bombing a third world country into smaller bits of rubble makes america safer, or that claiming you did the right thing might in some miraculous way make it so. Your president doesn't so nobody will expect you to.
The rest of the world knows the facts and have seen the real story. While we're tossing the 'ilk' word around, wrapping genocide in a flag and calling it patriotism/freedom may fool your 'ilk', but civilised society is watching the parallels between 21 century america and 1930s germany unfold. Whos got the real freedom??
-
The things you choose to believe. You have no problem believing the possibility of Iraq not being one of them...
Again, based on the facts on the ground...Iraq was *not* one of them. There has been *no* substantiated evidence, 2-3yrs down the line. There *is*, however, evidence that Al Qaeda has ties w/ Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc... The Iraq+Al Qaeda link was a fabrication. It has nothing to do with choosing to believe anything, it has much more to do with what you choose to ignore.
I've got no problems "looking like a bad joke" to you and your ilk.
First off, anyone who uses the work "ilk" shouldn't be allowed to debate anything. It's disrespectful and ignorant. It's a lame attempt at debasing a persons argument by refusing to acknowledge their valid point of view. It also unfairly paints a broad brush stroke that moves discussion away from thoughtful commentary and perpetuates an unheathly "Us" vs. "Them" simple-minded metality. Drew, you're smarter than that. Just so you know, one of my New Years resolutions work to avoid doing this myself. I hope you can do the same.
If I concerned myself with what your opinion was, I'd soon be wracked with a misguided notion of what my country stands for and what steps we should take to defend it. Instead, I'm comfortable with knowing that history has and will bear out the rightness of our actions, regardless of how you wish it would be written.
Once again, another member of the right demonstrates their remarkable ability to reach across the aisle and support unity. I find it funny that you, Drew, have always been the first one to bag on me for being divisive in the past...Do me a favor, please re-read your above statement. Just admit you're a hypocrite sometimes and I'll do the same.
We did the right thing.
If it were about mass graves, you would have been for Bosnia, Rwanda, and we would be in Sudan as we speak. America does not premptively strike unless there is an imminent threat. That is the very basis for the Bush Doctrine. There was no such threat.
We did the wrong thing.
-
I don't see that anyone was tying together the unjustness/justness of this war with conspiracies of W stealing the election.
Assuming that there was a link between Iraq and Al queda, and I am willing to concede the possibility, there are still
-
Why then was Iraq first on the list and who's next?
Becaus it was top of the list before 9/11, as the world now knows top officials were told by the Bush cabinet to 'find' a link between saddam and 9/11. Regieme change in Iraq was on the table from the time Bush snook in the back door of the Whitehouse.
History is not written by the righteous it is written by the victorious.
-
I suppose our "opressing terrorism" excuse isn't quite as good as their "religion" excuses or their "we hate America" excuses, but it's all we have! :-\
-
First off, anyone who uses the work "ilk" shouldn't be allowed to debate anything. It's disrespectful and ignorant. It's a lame attempt at debasing someones argument by refusing to acknowledge anothers valid point of view. Drew, you're smarter than that.
"Valid point of view"? Is this somehow supposed to be the easy to swallow version of "my opinion is right".
We sit here speaking of "fact" and "it's a given" - all these things are notions based on what either side presupposes to be true and how it will suit their argument. Several of Dex's points have been argued to be strictly fiction, yet he states them as "facts - don't let them get in the way". Somehow I am supposed to acknowledge his/your "valid point of view", and accept the "fact" when they are continually said to be truthful. Simply saying it over and over and over and over and over and over....you get the point.....doesn't make it true, as you've often warned ME about MY views.
The view that Bush continually lied to the American public is something you clearly would label "a valid point of view". You continue to ignore the intelligence WORLD wide that pointed to the exact same thing Bush believed to be true, and what he PARTLY based his decision to go to war on. I say partly, because ignoring the reasons given doesn't make the rest of them go away, it only serves you to focus on one of the reasons given that hasn't come to fruition as a reason to damn the entire operation. Somehow, the fact that Bush gave many reasons and that WMD's were but one of many ISN'T a "valid point of view" to you.
There will never be a winning option for either of you, as you don't agree with the war, period. If there is a way to back your "valid point of view", you use it. Same as I do to back MY "valid points of view". Somehow, my point of view is never considered "valid", yet I'm supposed to swallow your claptrap, hook, line, and sinker.
Are you two SERIOUS in your indignation at the use of the word "ilk"? Perhaps you both should invest in an actual session of research. The word not only fits for you, it fits for me and my "ilk"....you would prefer I used instead "all your buddies I think are nutjobs"? Do your homework before you complain about that which is correct.
locash, it's not tying the two events together, it is pointing out the willingness to believe something requiring several reaches above and beyond reason (according to MY "valid point of view") when it suits his argument while demonstrating vehement opposition to making those same contortions when it DOESN'T suit his argument.
As for my "remarkable ability to reach across the aisle"....please ::) Again, locash, not trying to tie the two together, just pointing out the ABSOLUTE hypocrisy MrC is displaying. MrC, you can go back and read my actual words pointing out problems with BOTH sides of the party. I happen to agree more often with the conservative stance, but I've at least got something to point to about wanting to stop the problems BOTH sides are causing to the American public. Your continued work to showcase one side of the issue and your belief in the absolute truth you see there is anything BUT "working to bring the parties together".
In case you mis-read my statement you pointed me back to, my words were directed towards a non-American who disagrees with my position based on his "valid point of view" (formerly referred to as "opinion"). I'm quite sure we agree on MANY MANY MANY MANY points of what we think our country stands for. Where we differ are the steps we believe we need to take. Dexter (interpreting many of his comments referring to our country) believes our country to stand for something completely different. That is what I referred to. Perhaps you should take notice of who I was speaking to. To state the exact same thing about YOU would lead to cries of "you're calling me unpatriotic", and I prefer to believe that, indeed, we DO share many ideas about our country. Please go back and re-read the comments. You've read far too much into the words aimed for Dexter.
To sum it up, I'm conservative in my views, MrC, you are not, and agree with Dexter's views. It doesn't make you anti-American to believe as he does on policy. It simply means you are NOT conservative in your views. That DOES mean that you are part of his "ilk".
We won't be changing each others' minds anytime soon, but it IS fun to try to decipher what planet the other comes from.
-
I thought this was appropriate, and it helps keep things in perspective about the myth of the "Liberal Media":
(http://www.oliverwillis.com/img/sc050111.gif)
-
I suppose our "opressing terrorism" excuse isn't quite as good as their "religion" excuses or their "we hate America" excuses, but it's all we have!
-
You could replace the "Iraq" placard with "Won it again" and it'd be funny
Or you could change the lie of "retired" on Mr Blather to "reassigned to a different division" and it'd be truthful on that side of the comic.
I also noticed that they haven't included Michael Moore or F911 on there.....not enough room on the page, I guess.
-
I also noticed that they haven't included Michael Moore or F911 on there.....not enough room on the page, I guess.
F/911 had more truths in it than Bush's pre-war intel. *snap*
-
Like I said, who has the real freedom?
Somewhere you seem to have gotten the idea that because I believe a certain way, I'm somehow lacking in freedom.
MrC, do you believe that in America you do not have freedom? I'm asking, because I believe we both believe we are free in America, but I don't know if you do or don't.
-
F/911 had more truths in it than Bush's pre-war intel. *snap*
I agree, FarenHype 911 did have more truths.
-
The 'freedom' that you seem to enjoy is very different than that conceived by our forefathers. You are not free simply because you have chosen to do without certain freedoms.
...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Goethe
-
I agree, FarenHype 911 did have more truths.
FarenHype is just sloppy seconds. Moore's film has more truth than anything this administration has put out since 2000.
-
Somewhere you seem to have gotten the idea that because I believe a certain way, I'm somehow lacking in freedom.
MrC, do you believe that in America you do not have freedom? I'm asking, because I believe we both believe we are free in America, but I don't know if you do or don't.
I'm not sure if you think the above quote is from me, but I'll address your point anyhow.
I believe that, in America, we have a lot more freedoms than most other countries. I also believe that those freedoms are being taken for granted when we allow political obfuscation and fear-mongering to exist as a viable form of government. With these freedoms, comes an enormous responsibility for our citizenry. They are ours, not our governments. Our freedoms mean nothing if we continually live in fear and cannot trust our leaders.
For as how much freedom you are lacking...I'd say you're free to hold your leaders accountable whenever you'd like, it just seems you don't want to when they are *clearly wrong* and are from your side.
-
We did the right thing.
If that means sending Iraq into potential civil war, then yeah...we're right on track.
(This week in Iraq)
"Two aides to Iraq's top Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani have been killed in separate attacks apparently aimed at inflaming sectarian conflict among Iraqis already divided on whether Jan. 30 polls should go ahead.
A Sistani representative said on Thursday that gunmen killed cleric Mahmoud al-Madaen along with his son and four bodyguards. Madaen, Sistani's representative in the ancient town of Salman Pak south of Baghdad, was killed on Wednesday.
Another aide, Halim al-Mohaqeq, a cleric working in Sistani's office in Najaf, was also found dead on Wednesday.
"Sheikh Halim was found drowned in his own blood. Investigations are under way," leading Sistani representative Hamed al-Khafaf said."
Mission Accomplished.
mrC
-
Our freedoms mean nothing if we continually live in fear and cannot trust our leaders.
The sheep of the world think we can live in a place where there is nothing to fear, and you can blindly trust your leaders.
-
There is no place on earth where you can live without fear, and no one should ever trust their leaders.
Not as long as "your man" keeps winning elections no.
-
Not as long as "your man" keeps winning elections no.
My point exactly, the people of Norway lived without fear, and they blindly trusted their leaders.
Then Germany invaded and their leaders gave up with out a fight.
You can't reason with sheep.
-
You can't reason with sheep.
Which is how I believe Bush "won" the election. :angel:
-
no one should ever trust their leaders.
Yet, you seemingly blindly trust Bush. Go figure.
-
Lest we forget the price of this folly, here is a series of images of a soldier being wounded trying to save his (unbeknownst to him) dead buddy. These boys are being used to "draw fire" from the enemy in a land with no WMD, in a country that posed no direct threat to the U.S.
I think it's all too easy for the "101st Fighting Keyboarders" to forget what we're asking of our troops. They are not playing things to be used on a whim. They shouldn't have been deployed based on a "best guess". They should not have been asked to lay down there lives without fully knowing *exactly* why they were doing it. War, until Bush, was always a last resort.
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Rescue1.jpg)
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Rescue2.jpg)
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Rescue3.jpg)
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Rescue4.jpg)
mrC
-
no one should ever trust their leaders.
Yet, you seemingly blindly trust Bush. Go figure.
When I said "no one should ever trust their leaders" I meant, no one should ever trust their leaders.
I could see how some people might mistake "no one should ever trust their leaders" as, I trust my leader blindly.
But there are about 3 million more people that understand why that's not what I meant.
-
War is hell.
Making Peace with madmen is insane.
-
<rant removed>
<provocative pictures removed>
mrC
Is this my cue to have a hissy fit about you exploiting the dead to forward your anti-war agenda?
-
Is this my cue to have a hissy fit about you exploiting the dead to forward your anti-war agenda?
Bush is exploiting them, not me. Direct your hissy fit accordingly.
P.S. I understand it's hypocritical of me to post them after my objection to your 9/11 photos. However, couple of minor differences, my agenda is obvious and these are not civilians. Furthermore, those of you who supported this war *ASKED* our men/women to go there and be killed.....shouldn't you at least be subjected to the reality of the task?
We've all seen footage of and dealt with 9/11 in our own ways, these soldiers' plight will never make the 11 o'clock news and this occurs on a *daily* basis.
I wouldn't have posted them, if I felt the american media was doing it's job rathering than cow-towing to Bush's sycophantic agenda.
If it bothers you, write your congressmen and express your anger. Call on them to hold Bush accountable for sending troops to die for his intelligence failures.
-
War is hell.
Making Peace with madmen is insane.
...and attempting to use war to create peace makes us all madmen.
-
This sorta mentality reminds me of what I dislike most about religion. It requires an absolute fatalistic view of the world. Their is a frickin' solution to the problem, it'll just take work and perseverance to figure it out. Babies are dying fer' cryin' out loud. Baby jesus hates that.
I'll agree with you, let's not turn this into a religous debate.
-
I'm not sure if you think the above quote is from me, but I'll address your point anyhow.
No, I am crystal clear that Dexter was the originator of the quoted text. The question addressed to you was only to see what your view was, as I believe you and I to think the same things of our country, that's why the question I asked. When you say
I believe that, in America, we have a lot more freedoms than most other countries. I also believe that those freedoms are being taken for granted when we allow political obfuscation and fear-mongering to exist as a viable form of government. With these freedoms, comes an enormous responsibility for our citizenry. They are ours, not our governments. Our freedoms mean nothing if we continually live in fear and cannot trust our leaders.
We are largely in agreement on this, which was what I was pointing out when referring to Dexter, and not lumping you in with him on issues such as this. I lump you in with him on policy, such as this
For as how much freedom you are lacking...I'd say you're free to hold your leaders accountable whenever you'd like, it just seems you don't want to when they are *clearly wrong* and are from your side.
The 'freedom' that you seem to enjoy is very different than that conceived by our forefathers.
The piece you quote speaks to freedoms I believe we strive to maintain. The level of perfection at attaining these goals is what we all debate about. Obviously your view of freedom as you put it depends on how well you feel we are meeting those goals. You say it is a very different freedom, yet those who fight to give back monies not required by the government would point to "wise and frugal". The level of wisdom or penny-pinching will be determined by each individual and their beliefs. Restraining men from injuring one another? Perhaps you live in a community where there is no police presence, but I do not, and those folks are the very definition of that spoken of. If you believe they are referring to war against another country, I'm of the opinion that you are making one of those "reaches" I spoke earlier of. Free to regulate their own pursuits and not punish labor.....again, depending on the side you are from, that freedom will take vastly different forms based on each individual's view of what "freedom" is. In all these instances, America not only has people who believe they are free, but realize the freedom of their opposition to voice their ideas of what "freedom" should be, and the ability to fight to realize their idea of "freedom".
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Goethe
That's a nice sentiment. Unfortunately, there is no place in this world where "freedom" won't "enslave" some person. You're referring to "freedom" as something absolute. That's a nice philosophical point, but even while putting that idea to paper, he didn't enjoy freedom himself...and yet he was free.
FarenHype was sloppy seconds. More of your "valid point of view" no doubt. And further proof of my point. Your assessment of the keyboard soldiers here assumes a lot, but at least your acknowledgement of what our soldiers are going through is yet one more thing we can agree about. We disagree on what our solders should "exactly" know, but again, it's the policy we disagree on, and the main point where we agree. Will you ever see my point, and I yours? HIGHLY unlikely, as we have differing levls of trust based on who is making the decision, and our views will simply be based on what we want to believe. I've got the freedom to believe we have/are/will do the right thing, and you have the freedom to crow from the highest mountain "You're wrong, you're headed down the road to destruction".
That's NOT freedom?
-
I'll agree with you, let's not turn this into a religous debate. Let me try and illustrate this a different way.
Agreed.
Everything you've said about the reality of the animosity in that region has been spot on. I've never claimed to have the answer. But I'm confident there is one other than, "Let's wait and hitch a ride with the four horsemen!"
I take issue with the misrepresentation of facts in the lead-up to the war in Iraq simply because the vast majority of people in the United States are *not* aware of these issues and we *not* informed as to how these issues would compound the hazards inherent in any military action in the region.
The American public were not trusted, by the Bush administration, to make their own informed decision, nor make one condusive to furthering the admins agenda, so they were spoonfed the WMD/imminent threat story.
I believe the american public, knowing the full, long-term costs, both financially and geopolitically, would *never* have supported a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
What does this mean going forward? Well, a couple of things:
1) We're stuck in it now. We can no longer ignore the larger, underlying problems causing strife in the middle east, we are direct players now. These issues are not going to solve themselves, nor be solved through military action.
2) Bush needs to be held accountable, so that future leaders heed the warning of history. You'd think Vietnam would have taught us a lesson, but it's obviously going to take much more.
mrC
-
I'm in agreement with Mr.C on this one. Its now a given that invasion of Iraq was on the table pre 9/11. Plus, the world aren't idiots. Saddam was contained, there were worse atrocities happening, and still happening worldwide, than Saddams treatment of his own people. The evidence, even though intelligence was hand picked to support the invasion rather than looking at the full picture, didn't persuade the UN.
If the Bush admin had been straight with the American people, this war wouldn't have happened. The idea that you can force a democracy on a country with the complicated religious and ethnic structure of Iraq by levelling it was typical of the right wing arrogance that dominates this administration- "We're gonna tell you what you want, give you liberty or give you death, whether you like it or not".
Anybody that thinks the Iraq invasion was about liberation has been brainwashed by the media bombardment of what they want you to see. Over 100,000 dead, blanket unemployment, infrastructure destroyed, their main natural resource and future source of income plundered. Give more warning of who you're liberating next time America, so they have ample time to leave while they still have all of their limbs.
-
The 'freedom' that you seem to enjoy is very different than that conceived by our forefathers.
The piece you quote speaks to freedoms I believe we strive to maintain. The level of perfection at attaining these goals is what we all debate about. Obviously your view of freedom as you put it depends on how well you feel we are meeting those goals. You say it is a very different freedom, yet those who fight to give back monies not required by the government would point to "wise and frugal". The level of wisdom or penny-pinching will be determined by each individual and their beliefs. Restraining men from injuring one another? Perhaps you live in a community where there is no police presence, but I do not, and those folks are the very definition of that spoken of. If you believe they are referring to war against another country, I'm of the opinion that you are making one of those "reaches" I spoke earlier of. Free to regulate their own pursuits and not punish labor.....again, depending on the side you are from, that freedom will take vastly different forms based on each individual's view of what "freedom" is. In all these instances, America not only has people who believe they are free, but realize the freedom of their opposition to voice their ideas of what "freedom" should be, and the ability to fight to realize their idea of "freedom".
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-- Goethe
That's a nice sentiment. Unfortunately, there is no place in this world where "freedom" won't "enslave" some person. You're referring to "freedom" as something absolute. That's a nice philosophical point, but even while putting that idea to paper, he didn't enjoy freedom himself...and yet he was free.
I have to respond to your last comment first, because the notion that freedom somehow requires slavery is incomprehensible to me. I believe that the only limits on freedom should be to prevent people from recklessly endangering others or encroaching on the freedoms of others. Goethe's ability to put words on paper didn't make him free if he was lacking in freedom in other areas.
As far as the Jefferson quote, I offered it because it speaks to limiting government to protect freedom. Our government has vastly exceeded the limits envisioned by our forefathers and has become a sort of surrogate parent for the people; eg. seatbelt/helmet laws, recreational drug prohibition, hemp, Plan B (morning after pill), gay marriage, and using income tax monies inappropriately(I can elaborate on what I mean by this, but I think we could all come up with examples).
My point is that we cannot claim to be a free nation just because as individuals we may be tolerable to the freedoms we do without. We can only accurately claim to be a free nation if everyone is free.
-
While we're doing the quote thing boys and girls..
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."
-
To top it all off, not only was there never any WMD stockpiles, or direct threat to the U.S... but Iraq has now become the *new* terrorist training ground. We're giving these scum live targets to shoot at and on-the-ground training so they can explore/refine tactics. George W. Bush = Aiding Terror Worldwide
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A7460-2005Jan13%20¬Found=true
"In a major new study, the CIA
-
Here's a good one:
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom."
-- John Quincy Adams (1821)
-
Nice quote. Pity we're not talking about a war here or it might in some perverse way be apt. We're talking about a pre-emptive invasion against a nation who has NEVER attacked the US. That was NO threat and had NO tactical significance on the supposed real objective, the war on terror. Thats the important thing to remember here.
There was no Iraq war. A handful of a third world countries indigineous people fighting back a superpower invader is not a war, its a massacare. And every supporter of the invasion has the blood of 10s of thousands of women and children on their hands.
-
I have to respond to your last comment first, because the notion that freedom somehow requires slavery is incomprehensible to me. I believe that the only limits on freedom should be to prevent people from recklessly endangering others or encroaching on the freedoms of others. Goethe's ability to put words on paper didn't make him free if he was lacking in freedom in other areas.
Somewhere you read into my comments that freedom somehow requires slavery. Poppycock. Never said. Your second sentence is in basic agreement with me. That third sentence misses the point you made in your second sentence. His words, freely spoken, speak to some level of freedom. Perhaps a freedom you and I wouldn't wish for, but free. I say again, a nice philosophical statement.
As far as the Jefferson quote, I offered it because it speaks to limiting government to protect freedom. Our government has vastly exceeded the limits envisioned by our forefathers and has become a sort of surrogate parent for the people; eg. seatbelt/helmet laws, recreational drug prohibition, hemp, Plan B (morning after pill), gay marriage, and using income tax monies inappropriately(I can elaborate on what I mean by this, but I think we could all come up with examples).
My point is that we cannot claim to be a free nation just because as individuals we may be tolerable to the freedoms we do without. We can only accurately claim to be a free nation if everyone is free.
There is no country in the world that can "accurately" claim to be a free nation, as in each and every case, SOMEONE will not be free. As you say, we could all come up with examples. The limits you speak of were put there by representatives elected for and by the people. Those limits can be altered / removed by representatives elected for and by the people. Of all the instances you refer to, the only one I can see that may not be changed is the seatbelt/helmet laws. All the rest of your examples can be shown to be either in the works to alter / remove the law, or is currently coming up for discussion. The one I wholeheartedly agree with you on is the use of income tax monies inappropriately. However, the realization that the tax rate was too punitive and the subsequent refund of those monies makes one free based on the amounts they pay, or gives a larger AMOUNT of freedom based on the taxation comparable to another nation, in which case they are free to GO to those countries, or free to work FROM those countries in our nation.
Thankfully, accoring to Dexter, I enjoy the freedom to be brainwashed in my country. The difference between his views and mine are that he wishes to pin his rage on the man he disagrees with, whereas I am not free to do so, as "numerous" doesn't begin to describe the examples of belief in the same notion Dexter's rage target believed in, and I'm forced to see that I voted for the person who decided it's time to stop talking about potential problems, and deal with them. It was where the rubber met the road.
locash, you and I are free to disagree (not the case in some other countries), free to investigate that which we disagree with (definitely not the case elsewhere), free to voice our opinion should we disagree with our representative government (I have a few places I'd like others to give that a whirl), and free to lead our households according to our beliefs in things (I had friends who would have told you of other places, sadly, now they cannot). You may wish to state America is not a free nation, but it simply is not true. Different from the founding fathers' ideas of it, sure. But still free.
-
We worked to remove that which needed to be removed, and in the process, our CIA, the people who gave "the false information the President used to justify this war", now say they've effectively concentrated them into this area.
You say bad...bad things....now they'll take it all home with them. I say good...good things.....now they're coming to us, instead of us having to use tens of thousands of troops to hunt down a few hundred in their native land where they have an advantage. I say "Toh-may-toh", you say "Kwag-myre".
Dexter, your endless caterwauling is growing ever easier to stomach, yet viewing your words is growing ever harder to read when having to roll my eyes every other sentence. Don't forget the blood of the innocent men. I know it doesn't fit your purpose, but somehow, when it comes to accepting the "innocent killing of tens of thousands of innocent PEOPLE" you seem to wish to parse the "people". It'd be more intellectually honest of you to speak of the people, but I understand your need to parse facts when making your points. Oh, just wait, gang. I can hear the reply already ;D "And when you parse blah blah from blah blah somehow blah blah BLAH blah blah BLAH".
It's what makes you easier to read each day ;D
Your level of delusion requires special care in dealing with.....the pretty white coat that buckles up the back.....the needle full of "sleepy-time juice"..... ::)
*edited for additional rhetoric* ;D
-
remind me never to argue against DrewKaree, he just pwned you
(http://www.muvico.com/posters/1369_B.jpg)
sorry i had to do that, anyway back to the politics
-
remind me never to argue against DrewKaree, he just pwned you
sorry i had to do that, anyway back to the politics
Hmm, one person presents facts and debates them, the other responds with the usual personal comments. I love it when Drew does this, it speaks volumes. Lets have a debate..response - Bush won/we did the right thing/go USA/yeehaw/terrorism/get over it/your responses are ********' . Who's owning who really at the end of the day??? With all this intolerance for differences of opinion and debate you should consider running for persident on the republican ticket.
In response: 'Consider yourself served' and all that street talk shite that belongs in the playground alongside 'whassuppppp' etc.
Dexter
-
You said this:
Unfortunately, there is no place in this world where "freedom" won't "enslave" some person.
I am not sure that this is significantly different than what I paraphrased, but at its heart this phrase seems to say that freedom cannot exist without slavery. I am not suggesting that you think their link is desireable, but nonetheless you're claiming a link.
As far as the U.S. being free, is it:
There is no country in the world that can "accurately" claim to be a free nation, as in each and every case, SOMEONE will not be free.
OR
You may wish to state America is not a free nation, but it simply is not true. Different from the founding fathers' ideas of it, sure. But still free.
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
We have certain freedoms, but we lack considerable others that our government had no business taking away from us.
We worked to remove that which needed to be removed.
Who gave us this right? God? Are we the chosen people here to spread righteous goodness around the globe? Most Americans are so convinced of our superiority they never think to ask this question, but who put us in charge? Might does not make right.
-
I love it when Drew does this, it speaks volumes. Lets have a debate..response - Bush won/we did the right thing/go USA/yeehaw/terrorism/get over it/your responses are ********' .
Those look like my responses. Except Bush won is written like this:
BUSH WON!!!
They may not be as long winded as your responses, but I put just as much thought in them.
And my responses make more sense.
Thank you for giving me the oportunity to type BUSH WON!!!
-
I just found this article (http://www.reason.com/links/links011305.shtml) that discusses the current buzz in D.C., regarding bailing out of this war. Some of the more telling statements come from Stratfor (a pro-war intelligence analyst group). These include:
When discussing why they were for the war in the first place, they recall its purpose:
"[reshape] the behavior of surrounding regimes, particularly of the Saudis."
when discussing the current goals they state:
"[t]he internal governance
-
Hmm, one person presents facts and debates them
See, stuff like that, that's what I'm talking about. The gospel truth is all that ever passes your lips (or fingers, in this case) which you gain from all you wish to look at, while my views are always wrong. Didn't you say something about intolerance? Kettle, thy name is black.
Who's owning who really at the end of the day??? With all this intolerance for differences of opinion and debate you should consider running for persident on the republican ticket.
I could care less who is "owning" who, as it's strictly in the eye of the beholder. As for intolerance for differences of opinion, I'll have to ask you to point out for everyone what you view as "intolerance", as I'm fairly certain you have a feeble grasp of what the word means.
alongside 'whassuppppp' etc.
whassuuuuuuppp is the height of advertising excellence. You sir, are off your rocker (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30417.0;id=8898;image)
-
locash,
It's all well and good that you can quote Jefferson, Adams, et al and use that to show us how we are not running our country as the founding forefathers intended.
-
Thank you for giving me the oportunity to type BUSH WON!!!
TWICE! ;D
-
I'll end this argument right here by just laying out the plain and utter truth.
Bush lied... he lied about the wmd, he lied about the links to osama and he basically made up and excuse to go to war.
Guess what though...ALL politicians lie, even the good ones. They lie through their teeth. So the fact that he lied isn't disturbing at all as it is expected of him. What is disturbing is why he lied.
He didn't lie to cover his own butt, he didn't lie for the "greater good" as some republican lap-dogs claimed, he lied:
1. Because he screwed up by saying on national tv shortly after 9/11 that he would find those responsible and kill them. Unfortunately he forgot how laxed and incompetant the military has gotten over the past years or so and how there's no way they could actually track an enemy without their fancy 2 billion dollar do-dads. (Osama doesn't use electronic devices, so soldiers have to rely on actual tracking talent... thus why he's still at large.)
2. Bush has a vested interest in the oil industry as does half of his cabinet and most of the people that funded his campain. Having foreign oil under american control was best for all partys involved. So as usual, it was a war about money. Look in your history books.... again, like the lying, this is expected and shouldn't shock or offend anyone. It's a capitalist world, deal with it.
3. Bush is a little on the slow side. Saddam was his daddy's enemy and several attempted assasination attempts by him directed at his father has made the young son develop a personal grudge. This is human nature and we shouldn't be angry towards him, however this is why he should be ineligable to run for any office. A president should never be elected because one of his relatives was a popular president. Unfortunately, people are stupid and still have that "senior prom king and queen" popularity contest mentality when they walk into the voting booth. No better example could be made than ronald regan. Mind you he was a decent president, but the poor guy was half crazy and had one foot in the grave before he evne ran. But he was an old-time movie star, so all the old people got out and voted for him. Did I mention old people shouldn't be allowed to vote? I mean what's the point? They'll be dead before any of thier choice's effect the nation long-term anyway.
With all of that being said. The results of the war are a different matter. Getting rid of a dictator is always a good thing and giving a poor besmirched nation a change at a fair goverment is always a good idea. Also this b.s. about Irak being better off before we got there is just that, b.s. Mind you it's still screwed up, and we haven't made any real progress, but at least the people dying now are dying for a cause, instead of just dying because they had a dick for a leader. The groundwork is there and any idiot should be able to eventually aid those people towards a stable, free goverment. But then again this is Bush we are talking about, so only time will tell.
And one other thing... this may sound harsh, but American soldiers dying... get over it. They are soldiers, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. Civilians dying is a tragedy, soldiers dying is the norm. Of course if the armed forces weren't portrayed as some romantic adventure that'll help you pay for college and never, ever mention the obvious fact that you may die, people wouldn't be so shocked when it actually happens. But that involves how all militarys are inheriantly evil, the command structure is abusive and strips proud heroes of their individuality and capacity to be a free thinker, leaving them as souless killing machines ready to run to the slaughter. Simply put... my hands would fall off typing about how wrong war and lethal violence is regardless of the reason.
It also fascinates me how "good christians" who are supposed to turn the other cheek, not judge people, and leave punishment for crimes toward god up to god so openly and visciously support a president that goes against all of those principals.
I mean he went after Osama and Saddam for revenge. You aren't supposed to do that if you are a good christain, god will take care of that. The bible says to be tolerant of other religions and life styles and again, yet god sort it out and yet a good deal of people re-elected bush simply because they were afraid of two dudes living together. I mean come on people.... people are dying, we were tricked into going into war for the wrong reasons and the economy has been totally ruined... I think Bob and Stefen living together and having a piece fo paper to prove it should be a bit lower on our priority list. Oh and on a final note I'm pretty sure that the bible says to obey the law of the land, for those of you who aren't to bright that means that the "law of the land" is not god's law, wasn't god's law and never will be god's law. That's basically the bible saying to be respectful of your goverment and t let it do it's job. Again, this stuff is all about being a "good christian" I wouldn't quote it if 90% of the bush supporters didn't say that his good moral values were their reason for electing him.
Did I mention that it should be illegal for a candiate for office to ever mention their religious offiliation or use it as leverage in their campaigning? We are the only democracy in the world that is still too stupid to realize that religion and goverment don't mix. I happen to believe that religon is a healthy and necessary thing, however, I'm not stupid enough to ever want to pass a law based on scripture. Why? Because simply put, white christians aren't the only people living in America, and I believe in liberty and justice for all, not liberty and justice for all good, white, christian, males. And besides, take a lesson from my favorite long-haired, hippy tree hugger. He broke laws left and right even god's law because he realized that there are always exceptions. Maybe you guys have heard of him, his name was Jesus. He who is wihout sin can cast the first stone. With that being said I'm sure as hell not going to run around throwing stones and the poor gay people or anyone who doesn't have a velvet painting of the crucifixion hanging in their living room.
When you vote a person in office you should only consider two things.
1. Can this person help the economy. (For everyone, not just your particular income bracket.)
2. Can this person keep us out of war and cooperate with other nations working towards a unified, diverse, peaceful, global, nation.
And here's a hint for you guys... morality, religion, popularity... none of these things have ANYTHING to do with these two points. What you do is you get out records and see hwo well said politician has ran his or her offices in the past. "I don't care if your an ---uvula---, as long as you do your job" It's good advice for a general business, and like it or not, running the usa is just like running any other business. We don't need a saint, we need a good businessman.
The sooner the American people figure this out and flat out ignore any other issues, the sooner this great nation can get back on it's feet and do what it does best, set a proud example for all free lands.
So in closing... dont' blame me, I voted for Kerry.
sincerely,
the most conservative "liberal" you'll ever meet
(p.s. some of my comments are intentional jokes... if you don't get em, don't blame me)
-
I'll end this argument right here by just laying out the plain and utter truth.
Thank goodness we have you around Howard. I think I speak for everyone else here when I say "thank GOODNESS Mr Casto is here to set us straight. Why....why.....he's a legend in his own mind....er...time".
I haven't even read your post, so I don't know if I agree with you or not, but NONE of us here are so far gone as to think "I'm gonna end this argument by laying out (my) truth." It may work for other more static debates you enter into, but to presuppose you're somehow the be all, end all.....makes me (and probably a few others here) wonder if you have to have all of your hats custom made. ::)
If, after reading your post, I find that I agree with you, please do me a favor and don't pretend to speak for me. EVER.
If, on the other hand, I disagree with you, thank you EVER so much for deigning to talk down to us....it always helps shape and change opinions by being condescending, and I'm learning SO much from you that Dexter is sure to come to love me so we can skip arm in arm down the street whistling a happy tune due to our newfound mutual agreements ::)
Careful you don't break your ankle when dismounting :)
that outta cover all my bases
-
I'm learning SO much from you that Dexter is sure to come to love me so we can skip arm in arm down the street whistling a happy tune due to our newfound mutual agreements
-
It also fascinates me how "good christians" who are supposed to turn the other cheek, not judge people, and leave punishment for crimes toward god up to god so openly and visciously support a president that goes against all of those principals.
I mean he went after Osama and Saddam for revenge. You aren't supposed to do that if you are a good christain, god will take care of that. The bible says to be tolerant of other religions and life styles and again, yet god sort it out and yet a good deal of people re-elected bush simply because they were afraid of two dudes living together.
As you speak of "not judging people", it's funny that you do just that in labeling people "good christians". My wife has this problem too. You and I have absolutely no idea if someone is a "good christian" or not, the difference is that you'd prolly wanna label ME a "good christian", while I have no such preconcieved notions of christians.
As for the Bible saying to be tolerant of other religions of life styles, I'm quite sure you're not reading from the "good christians" bible format. I'm sure Jesus only "tripped and fell" in his haste to speak of his acceptance of the "life style" the money-changers in the temple chose. I'm sure God was merely "redecorating" Sodom & Gomorrah in "a more refreshing salt-white theme that goes with the landscape". You're confusing love for your fellow man with tolerance (formerly known as acceptance). The two are capable of co-existing, but they're like oil and water - they just don't mix.
Also, this is one "good christian" whose vote for Bush had absolutely NOTHING to do with gay marriage, and I find it a bit myopic to assume that "a good number" of us thought this was the deciding factor in casting our vote thusly. If it helps you rest easier, fine, but branding "a good number" of voters like this is why there is a growing divide amongst us. (go ahead, MrC, give us the tired "Bush is dividing the country, not us" spiel ::) )
Oh and on a final note I'm pretty sure that the bible says to obey the law of the land, for those of you who aren't to bright that means that the "law of the land" is not god's law, wasn't god's law and never will be god's law. That's basically the bible saying to be respectful of your goverment and t let it do it's job. Again, this stuff is all about being a "good christian" I wouldn't quote it if 90% of the bush supporters didn't say that his good moral values were their reason for electing him.
"Pretty sure" is a pretty good CYA tactic. It may help you to read a book and understand it before making blanket statements that demonstrate you --haven't-- done so.
When you vote a person in office you should only consider two things.
1. Can this person help the economy. (For everyone, not just your particular income bracket.)
Sure can, and thank goodness I voted correctly
2. Can this person keep us out of war and cooperate with other nations working towards a unified, diverse, peaceful, global, nation.
Thank goodness you'll never become President. Simplistic sentiment put forth to form a ridiculous statement. Well done.
(p.s. some of my comments are intentional jokes... if you don't get em, don't blame me)
Well, at least you always have THAT to fall back on ::)
-
I'm learning SO much from you that Dexter is sure to come to love me so we can skip arm in arm down the street whistling a happy tune due to our newfound mutual agreements ::)
Sounds great Drew, we'll meet at the inauguration and we can sing 'I get by with a little help from my friends...........diebold' to Junior ;)
I've got a better one....we can do the Hippy Hippy Shake ;)
I look forward to it ;D
-
And one other thing... this may sound harsh, but American soldiers dying... get over it. They are soldiers, they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. Civilians dying is a tragedy, soldiers dying is the norm. Of course if the armed forces weren't portrayed as some romantic adventure that'll help you pay for college and never, ever mention the obvious fact that you may die, people wouldn't be so shocked when it actually happens. But that involves how all militarys are inheriantly evil, the command structure is abusive and strips proud heroes of their individuality and capacity to be a free thinker, leaving them as souless killing machines ready to run to the slaughter. Simply put... my hands would fall off typing about how wrong war and lethal violence is regardless of the reason.
This is an odd (trying my best to take the high road here) comment, maybe a bit less jarring because we have an enlisted army. What is your take on drafted soldiers dying in Viet Nam?
-
I've got a better one....we can do the Hippy Hippy Shake
-
You say bad...bad things....now they'll take it all home with them. I say good...good things.....now they're coming to us, instead of us having to use tens of thousands of troops to hunt down a few hundred in their native land where they have an advantage.
How easily you forget that 19 civilians armed w/ box cutters killed 3000 people, destroyed two of the largest buildings in New York, attacked U.S. military headquarters, crippled the airline industry, and cost this nation billions of dollars. "Good things" indeed, if you're a terrorist sympathizer like Bush.
You're smug belief that bringing more of this on somehow gives us an "advantage" is truly priceless. What will you say after the next devastating attack?
Even your Dear Leader Bush has recently stated he was an idiot for saying "Bring it on!"...Seriously you don't think you're smarter than HIM, do you??? Not Dear Leader?
-
Just the other day, Bush explained why we're unable to find Bin Laden:
"Because he's hiding."
DD, Drew, Bush Supporters: This is *your* man...have you no shame?
Edit: Don't answer...it's a rhetorical question.
-
They may not be as long winded as your responses, but I put just as much thought in them.
And my responses make more sense.
President Bush says there is no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for what has happened in Iraq because the voters have already spoken.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post for Sunday's editions. "
In effect he's saying, "I WON!!" so who cares.
How sad and sick is it when Dartful's lame defense of the president is actually used by the lame president himself to *totally* shirk responsibility for the countless deaths caused by his misguided war?
Call me crazy, but doesn't "winning" an election actually make him *more* responsible for the decisions he made? It's not like Iraq attacked *us*.
There is a special place in hell for this weasel and history will judge him accordingly.
-
Edit: Don't answer...it's a rhetorical question.
What's that?
Edit: Don't answer....it's a comical question.
-
They may not be as long winded as your responses, but I put just as much thought in them.
And my responses make more sense.
President Bush says there is no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for what has happened in Iraq because the voters have already spoken.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post for Sunday's editions. "
In effect he's saying, "I WON!!" so who cares.
How sad and sick is it when Dartful's lame defense of the president is actually used by the lame president himself to *totally* shirk responsibility for the countless deaths caused by his misguided war?
Call me crazy, but doesn't "winning" an election actually make him *more* responsible for the decisions he made? It's not like Iraq attacked *us*.
There is a special place in hell for this weasel and history will judge him accordingly.
You forgot that he "gave us back our guns". Otherwise how would we be able to go into our backyards at happy times such as this, or at weddings, or whatnot and fire our assault weapons into the air in glee at such foolproof defenses of our actions as "nener nener boo boo wash yer face in doo doo".
Sorry, you've happened to catch me at at EVER SO MUCH DON'T CARE moment today. I'll return you to your regularly scheduled insane programming tomorrow.....football's on today, and I'm off to enjoy all that is right in the world on this day. (thus far)
Go Iggles!
-
It should be getting harder to justify this war every single day. One by one, the excuses crumble. The last gasp of self-righteous breath just got knocked out of this administration. Criminals, every last one of them.
U.S. found no evidence WMD moved from Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6834079/)
"As the hunt for weapons of mass destruction dragged on unsuccessfully in Iraq, top Bush administration officials speculated publicly that the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.
Whether Saddam Hussein moved the WMD
-
There is no longer *ANY* justification for this war. Welcome to Vietnam 2.0.
Uninstalling NaziGermany2.0
...90% complete... 91% complete... 92% complete...
Hitting the cancel button now would mess up my hard drive.
-
He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war. In his mind, it was WMD's, ONLY WMD's and always WILL BE WMD'S. Period, exclamation point, ampersand, ampersand, percentage, asterisk. End of story.
Dartful, those people didn't fit into any "purpose" to help them, therefore we should have left them to their own devices. We should have spread our military out all over the face of the earth to help oppressed people EVERYWHERE. Except Iraq. It worked for Bill Clinton. HE showed us how to "save the world" without all the problems Bush has been having with troops dying Black Hawk down, Black Hawk down and people "never forgetting". And remember, the Bush administration lied about the intelligence they recieved by reading Bill Clinton's own words.
It's like you don't remember history and how well Bill Clinton was at working the world and using our intelligence agency for "good", Dartful. I'm shocked at you! ::)
waits for the "when will you be honest and admit they're war criminals response
-
He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war.
-
IF WMD were the only reason we went to war, then I guess we should just back out and let Saddam back huh?
Your piece from MSNBC has no named sources in it, did you notice that? Not one. Not a single one. It quotes what the intelligence was before the war.
I often wonder what we would be talking about now if we didn't go to war. Because the intelligence would be building up, wrong intel, that Bush should have gone to war and didn't.
Huh. Guess we'll never know. To Bad.
-
Without having read the thread, since that would actually make me informed as to whatever doofy statements have been made here...
Why does everyone seem to consider the lack of found WMDs solid proof that they never existed? Since when does lack of evidence prove anything? They have no proof at all that the weapons were never there and were not simply hiddden/moved.
Anyone remember the fact that he USED MUSTARD GAS on people in Iraq? That seems fairly conclusive evidence that at least chemical weapons existed. It's hard to use something you never had.
-
Without having read the thread, since that would actually make me informed as to whatever doofy statements have been made here...
*click* IGNORE
-
I understand why they're mad. They believed the pentagon when it said that we were going to war over WMD, that's why they agreed to go to war.
Finally DD is being honest. Here he admits to supporting a domestic policy of governance through obfuscation and outright lies. Fine. He can *no longer* mention the Clenis again, or Bubba's lying under oath. DD freely admits that it's OK to lie to further one's own agenda. I'll sure miss all the Clinton bashing, but damn if it isn't nice to see the leopards true spots.
Don't worry Drew, even if the rest of the world thinks the USA is wrong, they'll give us another chance. Either that, or we'll lay low for 6 months and the rest of the world will just forget.
DD's foreign policy is even more simple...wishful thinking!!! Next we can start electing imaginary friends and other make believe characters to the office of the president. That'll really show the world (and those damned Hollywood Libruls!!!) who's boss.
I nominate Mister Diggles! My magical childhood friend. He's great and wants world peace! Who do you nominate?
-
Actually, I've seen Mr Diggles in action, and I always thought his name was Diggler. Dirk Diggler.
I'd vote for that guy. I second the nomination. ;D
Wait a minute....Dartful Dodger......Dirk Diggler.....DD....DD.....you don't suppose.....naaahhhhhh, couldn't be. Could it? ???
-
DD freely admits that it's OK to lie to further one's own agenda.
Using a lie to prove your point about using lies.
All I can say to that is ...BUSH WON!!!
-
He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war. In his mind, it was WMD's, ONLY WMD's and always WILL BE WMD'S. Period, exclamation point, ampersand, ampersand, percentage, asterisk. End of story.
Nice try. You must be really be running out of steam. You can even address the issues at hand anymore.
It's obvious you haven't been reading anything I've been writing. Which is your perogative, but it's not going to stop me from tearing your arguments to pieces. The facts as they were presented suggest that the American public, CONGRESS and the rest of the WORLD, were being sold an IMMINENT THREAT/WMD justification for the invasion of Iraq. That has been shown to be wrong, and from what you and DD are saying, never the true reasoning of this administration. If there *true* reasoning is so righteous and good for America why didn't they present that to the public?
I (me, mr.C) *KNOW* full well that it was never about the WMD's...I *KNOW* the real agenda behind the invasion of Iraq was/is the Bush's administration's wet-dream of Pax Americana.
What I *HAVE* been arguing (if you took 2 secs to listen) is that if the American public was fully aware of the cost of going into this war and the true reasoning of the chickenhawks in power...This war would *never* have happened. You seem to think it's OK that a vast majority of uninformed Americans and brave soldiers were sorely misled and that it is OK for a government to misrepresent their agenda to the public. Nice to see you have absolutely no faith in the American people making their own informed decisions. A true patriot.
If you start getting paid for this kind of misguided nationalism and absolute blind Bush support make sure you only accept payments through the Armstrong Williams fund, not from Rove directly. Wouldn't want to point to the man behind the curtain.
mrC
-
All I can say to that is ...BUSH WON!!!
Damn DD, does Bush like to be on top or on the bottom?
If he doesn't hold you afterward, you're just being used and you need to move on.
-
He'll never get it unless he wants to be honest with himself and search for the reasons given for going to war. In his mind, it was WMD's, ONLY WMD's and always WILL BE WMD'S. Period, exclamation point, ampersand, ampersand, percentage, asterisk. End of story.
Nice try. You must be really be running out of steam. You can even address the issues at hand anymore.
It's not a matter of "steam". You show just as clearly as I do your partisanship - for us to continue to argue matters that we've hashed over YET AGAIN....you would rather I just link you to story after story orback to the threads where we've gone over this before?
I can't believe you don't get that I'm saying you and I will never change each others' minds and that somehow you think this is new territory and that this "evidence" from "countless unnamed sources" is the lynchpin that's about to bring our defense crashing down around us. Is it really constructive to CONTINUE to argue these same points as if you haven't heard them before?
I know it doesn't help you to see it as this, but this is what "getting along" is. Agreeing to disagree when you see no new way to get the other side to understand your point. You'll never see my point, because you have no interest in what was actually said, as evidenced by your wailing and tearing of sackcloth over this and other stories like it, but if you HONESTLY think it's gonna help, I'll lay out the position SEVERAL of us have told you. WMD'S were WAY down on the list of reasons we supported the war. To clear it up so there can be no confusion:
IT WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY REASONS BUSH GAVE FOR GOING TO WAR.
You've laid out your points pretty well too. Bush lied about WMD's. You view WMD's as the ONLYreason Bush gave for going to war. He misled us in order to make war against his dad's nemesis. He's a war criminal because of it.
Does that about sum it up?
We both think the other is misguided at BEST. I've laid out my position, and done so clearly. You've laid out your position, and done so clearly. We'll simply never agree. If you find it useful to bang your gong, then seriously, more power to you. Just stop with the drivel about "bringing the parties together". Our stances haven't changed, but our abilities to www.moveon.org sure as heck have. The roles are reversing and you're becoming that which you claim to dislike. I can't open your eyes for you, it's a choice you've got to make yourself.
-
Oh, and Armstrong Williams should be punished to the fullest extent of whatever laws apply to him, and I hope to see him not only lose everything his fame and notoriety got him, but that he's forced to take some "burger-flipping" job to support himself so that he never forgets the betrayal of the trust of American people in him.
It doesn't make the program wrong, it simply makes Williams a ---tallywhacker--- and an idiot for doing what he did.
Are you capable of uttering the same sentiments re: liberals?
-
IT WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY REASONS BUSH GAVE FOR GOING TO WAR.
Notice I was talking about "pre-invasion" justifications. All the jerry-rigging of excuses "post-invasion" DOES NOT COUNT. You know full well, Drew, that this administration pushed the WMD/Nuclear Threat angle against any other justification, by a factor of 100 to 1, AT LEAST.
Show me any Bush administration offical, PRE-INVASION, offering any other reasoning, in a legitmate* public format, with the same fervor and immediacy as the WMD argument, and maybe you'd have an argument. Until then, you, like this administration, are blowing smoke up everyone's toosh.
*By legimate, I mean, in venues conducive to informing the general public, news program appearances, press conferences, mail campaigns, state of the union. Not b.s. talking points on Rush Limbaugh.
We both think the other is misguided at BEST. I've laid out my position, and done so clearly. You've laid out your position, and done so clearly. We'll simply never agree.
That's what I'm saying, I don't think you've laid out any substantial facts supporting your argument. You say you have, but it's all red-herring. I'd shut my mouth if had the facts to back up any of what you're saying. See my above challenge in red.
mrC
-
Oh, and Armstrong Williams should be punished to the fullest extent of whatever laws apply to him, and I hope to see him not only lose everything his fame and notoriety got him, but that he's forced to take some "burger-flipping" job to support himself so that he never forgets the betrayal of the trust of American people in him.
It doesn't make the program wrong, it simply makes Williams a ---tallywhacker--- and an idiot for doing what he did.
Two part question:
1) What about the people who used our tax dollars to pay him? Same standards there? Or no?
2) Please tell me what you'd say if we found out that the Kerry camp paid Rather for Memogate?
Are you capable of uttering the same sentiments re: liberals?
Yes. Show me one Liberal working today that has knowingly taken "pay for play" and I'll agree to the very same sentiments regarding them. I was recently peeved over the recent Dean/Blogger story, and fully ready to unleash a sh!tstorm on Kos/myDD, but the reality is that it turned out to be falsely overblown. Kos dislosed his relationship w/ the Dean camp, myDD was shutdown while Jerome worked as a consultant. Also, they weren't paid with *our* tax dollars.
mrC
-
He misled us in order to make war against his dad's nemesis. He's a war criminal because of it.
Does that about sum it up?
No. You forgot Draft-dodgin'-blue-blood-panty-waist-mealy-mouthed-bootlicking-sycophant. But you were close.
-
What were the reasons for the invasion?
1- WMD's (nope)
2- Terrorist connections (nope)
3- Crimes against Humanity ie: the Kurds (yep)
4- ?
Now compare them to 50 other Nations (including us)...
Then stop and think about how the world reacted for the tsunami victims (A natural disaster). Compare that number to how many civilians our bombs have killed in Iraq (our own doing) and you'll see why people around the world are appaled at our actions. You'll also see why so many of them are picking up guns against us. It's a snake eating it's tail over there.
CT - "Since when does lack of evidence prove anything?" It doesn't. It's supposed to work the other way around. You need evidence to prove something. So says the Judicial system. "Innocent until proven guilty." NOT "Guilty until proven innocent." Unless Bush has professed that as antiquated as the Geneva Conventions...
-
All the jerry-rigging of excuses "post-invasion" DOES NOT COUNT. You know full well, Drew, that this administration pushed the WMD/Nuclear Threat angle against any other justification, by a factor of 100 to 1, AT LEAST.
Show me any Bush administration offical, PRE-INVASION, offering any other reasoning, in a legitmate* public format, with the same fervor and immediacy as the WMD argument, and maybe you'd have an argument. Until then, you, like this administration, are blowing smoke up everyone's toosh.
*By legimate, I mean, in venues conducive to informing the general public, news program appearances, press conferences, mail campaigns, state of the union. Not b.s. talking points on Rush Limbaugh.
And I was speaking pre-invasion, as given by Bush himself. If necessary, you can even go to the White House's web site to get transcripts, but I"m MORE than positive that when you lay out your "disclaimer" re: a "legitimate public format", you're also including the actual words spoken by the man in public, as you'd have read them when this subject was previously brought up.
I know you "STATE" that you'd like to include those things, but your actions in the past show your willingness to disbelieve. It was showed to you before, you were directed to it before, and it's intellectually dishonest to act as if it WASN'T. You weren't interested in what was actually said back then, if you're HONESTLY interested in it now, go back and do the homework.
As for "pushing an angle", if you mean responding to the predominant questions brought up, then sure, it's an angle. Not one pushed by the Bush administration, but simply responding to the predominant question constantly brought up. I can't help that you couldn't stomach reading the entire article to see the other things left to fine print, if they were printed at all. To view it as "pushing an angle" is simply more of your willingness to throw as much as possible against the wall and see what sticks. Pushing an angle? Aks Mr Rather about that - he's more qualified than either of us.
As for posting b.s. talking points,
- "unnamed sources" make a story valid if it agrees with your outlook
- "unnamed sources" don't make a story valid if we use that story's info for war
- Clinton said Sadaam possessed WMD's
- Bush said the same thing
- Clinton didn't act on his identical info - "good" for him ::)
- Bush did act on his indentical info - "he's a "war criminal" ::)
- Bush didn't act until the info CLINTON HAD was run past Congress, including Clinton's own wife
- Info given by NUMEROUS sources all the way back to Clinton is a blatant lie by Bush - Texas governor at the time ::)
- We are to believe given all these points, you're NOW willing to listen (although you couldn't be bothered with facts back then) to reason and acknowledge that the words Bush spoke tell a different story than you wish to acknowledge?
That's what I'm saying, I don't think you've laid out any substantial facts supporting your argument. You say you have, but it's all red-herring. I'd shut my mouth if had the facts to back up any of what you're saying. See my above challenge in red.
See, I UNDERSTAND what you're saying. I also believe the same regarding your "facts" supporting your argument. There's not a chance in Texas that you'd shut your mouth if you had the facts to back up what I was saying, because you're STILL prattling on about this. It's not my concern that you view all the "unsubstantial facts" as red-herrings. Sadaam would have to have had weapons made on the scale of what we use to defend the U.S.A and you'd still be sitting here telling us "yeah, but they're not any good because they don't have the firing caps on them".
Your axe will be sharpened in another four years.....keep grinding.
-
Late to the show, I know. But where were all the Democrat peaceniks when BJ Clinton was bombing the Serbs into submission? The war has been over for years, how come the Democrats in Congress aren't demanding that our boys be sent home from that war? I know that the numbers of US killed and injured don't add up to the Iraq war, but still, my cousin got his Purple Heart there last year when his Humvee hit a booby trap. No one in the press is quick to show proof of mass graves, or genocide that BJ used to get us into that one. I just hate to see how the politicians have stooped to playing politics in the midst of a war. I know that the argument can be made that the UN approves of it's peacekeeping in Eastern Europe, but, I make the argument that there seems to be plenty of proof around that Koffi Anan, the Germans and the French had significant monetary reasons for not approving of the war in Iraq. I also remember seeing with my own eyes the video clips of the Kurds after Saddam used Weapons of Mass Destruction on them.
Geo
-
What were the reasons for the invasion?
1- WMD's (nope)
2- Terrorist connections (nope)
3- Crimes against Humanity ie: the Kurds (yep)
4- ?
I'll give you a few more. If you'd have kept digging, you'd have found them....next time, don't stop when you've gotten what "works" for ya. If you look around, you'll find even more than the few more that I'll give ya here.
- violation of resolution. Take your pick of one. There's several. DOZENS, in fact.
- Use of biological/chemical weapons
Those two alone SHOULD be enough to demonstrate his willingness to ignore the sacred U.N.'s wishes (you know, the people we "should have talked to"? Hey, why'd they ever come up with those dozens of resolutions? Were they acting like cowboys? Couldn't be that we "talked with 'em" ::) ) and the wishes of the world for him to stop what he was thought AND known to be doing, to demonstrate that he was decidedly working to do so, and to allow unfettered access to the inspectors in order to suss out just exactly what, if anything, was being done.
Somehow this is constantly ignored....well, not somehow....it's "conveniently forgotten" in the rush to pin blame - see Dan Rather.
...stop and think about how the world reacted for the tsunami victims (A natural disaster). Compare that number to how many civilians our bombs have killed in Iraq (our own doing) and you'll see why people around the world are appaled at our actions. You'll also see why so many of them are picking up guns against us. It's a snake eating it's tail over there.
You're comparing apples to timing belts.
Just as we felt a responsibility to use more of our resources than any other nation in the world to solve the problems the tidal wave brought, so too did we do the same thing when dealing with Sadaam. The world had a choice to make in both instances. In one, their citizens felt a need to send money. I sent money too. It --WASN'T-- a giant sacrifice. In another, they would have had to sacrifice people. That --WAS-- a giant sacrifice. Those that weren't comfortable going to those lengths sent money.
Comparing a choice to send money for something they weren't responsible for is a drop in the bucket compared to doing something they would have to accept responsibility for throughout history. That they demonstrated unremarkable cowardice in Iraq in no way compares to the tidal wave.
-
I make the argument that there seems to be plenty of proof around that Koffi Anan, the Germans and the French had significant monetary reasons for not approving of the war in Iraq.
You're wasting your breath. Since they aren't fighting in Iraq, they are to be put up on a pedestal as a model of virtue and the way we all should be working for peace ::)
It's only newsworthy when it's an American company in hot water. Unless someone thinks Haliburton is a French, German, (and you forgot Russia and Syria) or relative-of-Kofi's company. The proof is in the pudding, and the only pudding being shouted from the rooftops is about Haliburton (who told on themselves.....load the gun for them because obviously they're unable to dig up facts like this themselves ::) )
-
Late to the show, I know.
-
CT - "Since when does lack of evidence prove anything?"
-
The crime was possession of banned weapons.
-
There is no longer *ANY* justification for this war. Welcome to Vietnam 2.0.
I think it is worrying that a country can have such power. ie America. They can do whatever they want unquestioned, even contravening UN and such if they feel like it. Even more worrying when you see the chimp in charge. Add to this the fact that other world leaders such as our clown of a PM seem to kiss his behind all day long and all in all I weep for the future.
-
Relax.
It's all good!
-
Clinton didn't act on his identical info - "good" for him
Yes. Because he possessed enough wisdom and qualities of leadership to determine that the evidence, as compelling at he thought it may have been, was not cause enough to "preemptively" attack a sovereign nation that presented no direct and/or imminent threat. That particular, short-sighted and ill-conceived act is brought to us by the Bush Doctrine alone.
Also, Clinton's decision was good for US as he has since been proven to have been right.
-
Sadaam would have to have had weapons made on the scale of what we use to defend the U.S.A and you'd still be sitting here telling us "yeah, but they're not any good because they don't have the firing caps on them".
So we use WMD to defend the U.S.A.? Does this give China/France/Iran/North Korea/UK/Etc the right to preemptively attack us? If not, why not?
Clear this up for me...
-
And finally, you bagged on Rather again, but you never responded to my above 2-part question regarding "PayolaGate", or if you did I didn't see it.
-
Relax.
It's all good!
Perhaps seen form your side. Look at it from our side and you see a lunatic attacking countries at will. The US already threatened to attack the Netherlands under Clintons rule (if a US war criminal would be convicted in international court he/she would be freed by force if neccesary) let alone what might happen with the Bush regime in power.
-
Barbara Boxer gloriously beat the hell out of Condi today, during her SoS confirmation hearing. This exchange represents how our congress is suppose to hold our leaders to account. This is a job interview of the highest order and Condi has shown a level of incompetence that surely makes her unworthy to fill the position again.
Boxer used this administrations OWN WORDS to paint a realistic portrait of a war unjustly sold to the American public.
Whole transcript here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-011805boxertext_wr,0,7859017.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Boxer:
Now, the war was sold to the American people, as Chief of Staff to President Bush Andy Card said, like a "new product." Those were his words. Remember, he said, "You don't roll out a new product in the summer." Now, you rolled out the idea and then you had to convince the people, as you made your case with the president.
And I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth. And I don't say it lightly, and I'm going to go into the documents that show your statements and the facts at the time.
Now, I don't want the families of those 1,366 troops that were killed or the 10,372 that were wounded to believe for a minute that their lives and their bodies were given in vain, because when your commander-in-chief asks you to sacrifice yourself for your country, it is the most noble thing you can do to answer that call.
I am giving their families, as we all are here, all the support they want and need. But I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth.
Now, perhaps the most well-known statement you've made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of, quote, quoting you, "a mushroom cloud." That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts.
As the nominee for secretary of State, you must answer to the American people, and you are doing that now through this confirmation process. And I continue to stand in awe of our founders, who understood that ultimately those of us in the highest positions of our government must be held accountable to the people we serve.
So I want to show you some statements that you made regarding the nuclear threat and the ability of Saddam to attack us. Now, September 5th -- let me get to the right package here. On July 30th, 2003, you were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war.
In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear-weapons scare tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year." So that's what you said to the American people on television -- "Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."
Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
So the president tells the people there could be a weapon. Nine months later you said no one ever said he could have a weapon in a year, when in fact the president said it.
More evidence showing the unmitigated gall of this blatantly dishonest administration. Sad.
mrC
-
SEN. BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.
Drew, you're just wrong. This isn't a "difference of opinion" or a circumstance where we should just "agree to disagree". The fact is the Bush admin sold congress, the people of the United States, and the world a bill of goods that they never intended on delivering.
I'm no longer going to provide you further evidence of just how wrong you are, since I gather you just don't care. Which in the face of having our men and women dying there on a daily basis, I find remarkably sad.
I respect your freedom to differ, but I just cannot accept your refusal to admit the reality of how misleading Bush and Co. had been before the invasion. You are a sharp individual and I enjoy debating with you, but I can't understand how you don't see the need to hold those you'd support to account. I never expected you to join me on the Kerry campaign, but I wouldn't have to be so hyper-critical, and obsessively vigilant, if I felt people like you (those that support Bush) would fight to keep there leaders on the straight and narrow. You just seem to have given them the keys to the kingdom, when it is the absolute responsibility of our citizenry to question and judge our leaders behavior on a scale of facts, not rhetoric.
I can honestly say, if Kerry would have won, and had he proceeded to mislead this nation, I would have worked just as hard to get him *out* of office, as I did to get him in.
In response to the inevitable, "look where that got you", I say this, I view my individual efforts as having been highly successful. I campaigned in New Hampshire and use contacts in Michigan to work the campaign there. Both states went to Kerry. N.H. is traditionally a very red state. So this effort has, rather than dampen my spirits, served to wet my appetite for success. Rather than leave, I feel there is only more work ahead, in the challenge to win my country back.
mrC
-
But where were all the Democrat peaceniks when BJ Clinton was bombing the Serbs into submission?
Geo
If you'd taken the time to actually read anything in this thread, you'd understand that this isn't a question of War vs. Peace, but rather a question of whether the current war is justified at all. Also, If you took the time to consider the issue, rather than provide useless knee-jerk commentary, you wouldn't come across looking so foolish.
I support the idea of necessary war, I am no peacenik. The current quagmire in Iraq bears no resemblance to Clinton's actions in Bosnia. Learn some history and you are welcome to join us once you're finished.
mrC
-
I wouldn't call it apples & timing belts, more like Washintons & Granny Smiths.
-
Here you go.
It doesn't answer any of your questions, it doesn't address any of your problems, it just states the rightness of the situation, according to my valid point of view.
http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=3153 (http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=3153)
I've listened to what Bush had to say. I believe you listen to his words and hear what you want to hear, as you believe the same of me. Your own words - "blatantly dishonest administration" - hint at an anger, a bias, and an unwillingness to admit the undisputable fact that countries around the world had intelligence agencies saying the same thing he acted upon, that the previous President publicly proclaimed the exact same belief - your refusal to acknowledge that the information used regarding WMD's was a widespread belief doesn't jive with the "he's an idiot" shpiel. One, the other, or both are wrong.
In order for your "blatant lies" comment to be even CLOSE to right, we'd have to believe that the GOVERNOR OF TEXAS had such overwhelming charm and charisma as to get the current (at that time) President of the United States of America to believe the same thing, to get COUNTLESS members of our elected representatives to believe the EXACT same thing WHILE STILL GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, to convince intelligence agencies WORLDWIDE to believe the EXACT same thing, AGAIN, WHILE STILL GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, and then RE-convince the people yet again after becoming President himself.
I further point to your belief that the hiding of WMD's in Iraq would require such a massive cover-up as to defy belief, yet you refuse to see the same requirement on the "blatant lies" regarding the intelligence.
Which is it? He's the smartest man in the world, able to convince anyone of anything, including the President, or he's the "chimp-in-chief"?
Somehow, this "ever so little" ::) bit of bias is to be ignored whenever you wish to inform us, and we are not to look upon your jaded comments without the least bit of prejudice? You seriously don't understand why we are unwilling to believe the "facts" as you lay them out?
I'm no longer going to provide you further evidence of just how wrong you are, since I gather you just don't care. Which in the face of having our men and women dying there on a daily basis, I find remarkably sad.
Please, save the "poor and dying military men each and every day" shlock. It's akin to saying conservatives hate clean air and clean water because of their environmental views. To put it in there is simply intellectual dishonesty, the kind you've railed long and loudly about. This isn't some "if I believe your stance, our soldiers will be saved" debate. That remark serves no purpose. To equate my difference of views as "not caring", followed up by "the troops are dying" is bullsh!t, and so far from honest it's lost its way back. It's time to cry "shame" on yourself.
Your views and your belief in their rightness doesn't make you "care" any less, or any MORE than I do, regardless of how you think. You've reached the point I reached a week ago. I know your stance, as evidenced by your agreement with my assessment, and you know mine. That which I point to as proof is not valid to you, as is the proof you offer up for my enjoyment.
Your myopia regarding the "Bush Lied" is the basic root of disbelief of all that you put forth as "evidence" for your argument. It's quite simple for my ilk to start there, and slowly dismantle everything else from that point, something I have no doubt you view as "airtight". We see you clouded by your views that defy belief, your bias, and your continued irrational argument of the "blatant lies" of this administration. You, and you alone, are your own worst enemy in the effort to win hearts to your way of thinking. Bush sold no one a bill of goods that they hadn't thought themselves, been introduced to by the previous administration, believed by intelligence agencies by large land masses across the globe (formerly called countries), explained to-gone over with-agreed upon- by the man you believe to be smart enough to take the job away from the idiot in there now.........whew.
Your disbelief at my disbelief is equalled by my disbelief at your disbelief. Your shock at my willingness to accept a load of tripe is equalled by my shock at your willingness to accept an equal lod of tripe. In the end, you think you're right beyond a shadow of a doubt. I just start from your view and work my way backward, unzipping it as I go. When I get to the end and there's nothing to hold onto, it's quite easy for me to cast it aside. You haven't proven your case in this instance to me and others.
Just telling us over and over again that we're wrong about everything because our President is a blatant liar and master of deception AND an idiot can only lead to us thinking simply the latter of you, our "town crier". Your attempts continue to fail because of your irrational views they are REQUIRED to be tied to in order for us to start believing.
-
Drew,
They quit listening a long time ago. It's the typical liberal method. If you disagree with any of them they always follow a certain pattern.
1) They insult your intelligence. Like your opinion isn't as learned as theirs.
2) If that doesn't work, they then question your motives and paint you as evil.
3) The truth is always relative. It doesn't matter what actually happened, only their version of what the "facts" are. Their perspective is always more probing and concise, without question.
4) If for some reason you can gain a foot hold, they become unhinged and end up calling names and throw around analogies of Hitler.
It's always the same.
The only way to end this with them is to smile and agree. After all, they know better than we do because they are more intelligent. Just ask them, they will tell you. ::)
But now it's My turn -
Dexter - Why do you even try?
Patrickl - What are you hiding over there? Do you have children in prisons being tortured? Do you murder people daily on a whim? Do you have long term plans to invade other countries? Have you developed a sophisticated WMD system to attack your own Moroccan population? If so, are there 12 years of UN resolutions hanging over your head ?
Mr.C -
Clinton didn't act because of his Monica scandal. He didn't have the political power or "capital" to convice the Republicans he could do it in his Lame duck years.
Clinton supported the war didn't he?
The current quagmire
Ok Mr. History buff, what happened after the fall of the Axis powers and how long did we clean up there? Even in the civil war there were similar acts, "The South shall rise again" sound familiar?
It irritates me that nobody can truly appreciate the absolute brilliance of the Iraq War. We let these governments fester for 30 years and fall into corruption and religious zealots spawn terrorists to kill Israel.
My theory is that Carter started this. He didn't back the Shaw of Iran and showed these Muslims weakness in his failed attempt at rescuing the US ambassadors. Not only that, he gave credibility to Arafat, Bad Mistake.
Next we have Reagan that only made one or two missile drops and actually supported Saddam. He also gave birth to OBL by backing him against the Russians. Bad Mistake.
Next we have Bush 1 that did NOTHING to clear this up. By the time it got to Clinton, these people had twisted their victories into somekind of mission from God. Clinton was so handicapped most of his administration with Whitewater and Monica and Waco and the Cole and the first tower bombing and of course, our own domestic terrorists he couldn't point his attention outward that far. Black hawk down showed how much we could commit.
So we are weak and puny to these guys. We were spoiled and the biggest target they could find to show their might without reprisals.
Bush comes in wanting to adjust Social Security and shore up the economy from a fall, an BAM. OBL and his minions are all over us. We let them build up until they are a force. Our lax attitude to the Middle East has let these people run wild in our country.
Afghanistan is riddled and destroyed because of the lack of US and international action to rebuild it after the Russian Vietnam there. Nobody wants it but OBL finds a safehaven and a place to build his Muslim Utopia.
When we are hit, we are totally pissed. Nobody hits the US like that, nobody. Even Mr.C was with Bush on that war.
Bush wins the war that even the Romans couldn't win. Russia tried for years to subdue that country and we did it in days.
But we still have Saddam. He's across the border. He is getting out of the box by selling oil to everybody that has a vote in the UN. France and Russia are backing him because he's using his countries resources to pay them off. They are into him for Billions, and there is more comming. Soon he'll be out of the UN sanctions and back into power. Bush 1's gamble to let his own people kill him failed miserably.
He's gonna get out, and there is no telling what he will do. Go after Iran and start a nuclear war. Recapture Kuwait. Pakistan is wavering on total anarchy, with atomic bombs pointed at India. They are poor in Pakistan and corrupt. Saddam is sitting on an endless fortune. Plus he has his legacy, his two maniacal sons. It's a recipe for the beginning of Armageddon.
So Bush has the pieces in place to sweep forward. The international community agrees Saddam has WMD, as I recall there were very few naysayers at the time. Bush has a choice, retract and stop the military action like is father did, or wipe him out before he gets to the postion of power he would have by now. Retract and he risks the reported WMD will be transfered to the terrorists via Saddam or delivered personally by Saddam. Advance and he destroys a madman.
If Saddam had bribed enough people and got out of the UN sanctions, he would have bought more and more equipment from France and Russia. As a full partner in the international community he would have retooled his Army, which prior to GW1 was the 4th largest in the world.
Instead W decides to take care of this while has the chance. His advisors are confident that we can and will remove Saddam and the resistance will be small. We'll clean it up and be out of there like we did in Afghanistan.
The best and probably planned outcome - create a stable government in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq. Setup a band of democracies through the middle of the Middle East and isolate Lybia, Syria and Iran.
The gamble stabilizes the political situations there for a generation and removes any Saddam made barriers to peace in Israel and the Palestinians.
Freaking Brilliant boys. He saved the world and you can't see it. You can't appreciate it because the vision is so broad and breathtaking that he should have his face carved on Mount Rushmore.
Instead you think we should have approached the whole thing with negotiation and police actions. Well, Rocky said it best to Bullwinkle:
"ah that trick never works"
So we didn't get out of there unscathed like we have prior to this. Iran and Syria through curves to us by sending in militia to destabalize the area and drive us out. They all had a DVD of "Black Hawk Down" as a guideline (Thank you Mr. Clinton).
We lost a lot of good men. Men I admire and was once one of about 15 and 20 years ago. I know people over there and they are proud to be able to support us.
Bush may have been wrong about the aftermath. The Dems supported him just to give him enough rope to hang himself hoping it would be a "quagmire" so they could win the next election. (Remember Kerry's speaches at the time Mr. C? He supported the war too.) The Republicans had to fall in line.
10 years from now I hope that we will look back and see this as a bold vision that paid off. I hope that you are all wrong and "myopic" in your assesment of the situation.
That's my view of it. Freaking Brilliant. Where am I wrong?
-
Freaking Brilliant boys. He saved the world and you can't see it.
-
Here you go.
It doesn't answer any of your questions, it doesn't address any of your problems, it just states the rightness of the situation, according to my valid point of view.
http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=3153 (http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=3153)
It's an op-ed piece. If you are comfortable supporting your stance w/ an op-ed, that's fine. You're right though, I read through the entire thing, and it certainly doesn't address any of my questions or problems. I've presented you with factual quotations directly from the administration, as well as a factual account from a member of congress, stating that the vote on the authority to use force was based solely on the condition, as Bush/Powell/Rummy/et al. promised, that not only did they know Saddam had WMD, but they knew exactly how much, and exactly where it may be hidden. None of that turned out to be true. Which is why I gather you are only left with an op-ed piece to defend your position.
Which, btw, is also factually incorrect and intellictually dishonest. See below.
The United States has now called off an active physical search of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don
-
Patrickl - What are you hiding over there? Do you have children in prisons being tortured? Do you murder people daily on a whim? Do you have long term plans to invade other countries? Have you developed a sophisticated WMD system to attack your own Moroccan population?
-
Patrickl,
It's a broad vision he has. If he succeeds, then we secure world peace for years to come.
People were dying in Iraq long before we got there.
How do we stop the terrorists? Help them take down Israel and convert us all to Muslims? Where's the endgame there?
Just sit and wait until the governments of the Middle East have all the power they need to rise up?
If they were okay before, why is everybody discussing what Iran can do now? Did we know pre-war for sure that Iraq didn't have WMD? Were we postive he didn't have it?
Bush was acting on Intel from the world over. He had the power and the will to see the war through and remove this man from one of the most critical regions of the world.
You alude to that with this -
terrorists have found out that simply blowing up oil pipes is an easy and very effective way to slowly cripple our economies.
The vision is to keep these people who seek only to destroy away from the rest of is. Keep them weak and unable to group in any force big enough to invade neighbors and destabalize the economies of the world.
If you don't believe that vision, I can understand. But now if we can piece this thing back together into a workable and reliable region for freedom, then we all win. We win for generations. It takes more than money, it takes the sacrafice of many to topple this culture and rebuild it.
but it sure looks like it will be an even bigger mess than that for years to come.
I hope you are wrong too. But we are all in this together aren't we?
-
It's an op-ed piece. If you are comfortable supporting your stance w/ an op-ed, that's fine.
Support my stance?
It doesn't answer any of your questions, it doesn't address any of your problems, it just states the rightness of the situation, according to my valid point of view.
You're right, it doesn't support my stance. It states the rightness of the situation, according to my valid point of view.
-
Terrorism is at an all time high and it seems to have established a very firm foothold in a much larger part of world than before. Apart from many people dying in Iraq (and other countries) due to the "end" of this war, terrorists have found out that simply blowing up oil pipes is an easy and very effective way to slowly cripple our economies. We really will be suffering for this war for years to come.
They also figured the best way to silence voices they disagree with is to kill them. Even in peaceful countries which offers freedoms galore. Like the Netherlands.
I'd have thought that with as free a society as you enjoy that surely Muslim terrorists would understand that you're not fighting them and that you're more capable of dealing with people they disagree with.
Or maybe they just killed that director because they didn't like the lighting techniques being used.
All we are saaaaaayyyyyyyiiiiiiiing
is give peace a chaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnccccccccceeeeee.
Seems to work out swell when dealing with irrational people, no?
-
How do we stop the terrorists?
That's indeed a difficult question to answer. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to see that starting wars in the region is the wrong answer.
-
maybe they just killed that director because they didn't like the lighting techniques being used.
It would be my guess that they killed him because he called muslims "goat f*ckers" every time he was on TV.
-
maybe they just killed that director because they didn't like the lighting techniques being used.
It would be my guess that they killed him because he called muslims "goat f*ckers" every time he was on TV.
So he just needed killin' then huh?
How do we stop the terrorists?
That's indeed a difficult question to answer. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to see that starting wars in the region is the wrong answer.
Nice No answer. It's easy to critisize, you don't have to have an answer to complain.
-
maybe they just killed that director because they didn't like the lighting techniques being used.
It would be my guess that they killed him because he called muslims "goat f*ckers" every time he was on TV.
So he just needed killin' then huh?
-
Bush's last four years of failure aren't even cold yet, and it looks like the mea culpa's are starting already...
Last week, outgoing Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said:
I'm disappointed that Iraq hasn't turned out better. And that we weren't able to move forward more meaningfully in the Middle East peace process."
Then, after a minute's pause, he adds a third regret: "The biggest regret is that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot."
The blood of thousands of men, women and children is on his hands. I hope he "regrets" that too...
mrC
-
Support my stance?
Yeah, your mental posture, or point of view. Maybe I mistook you for having one. Sorry.
You're right, it doesn't support my stance. It states the rightness of the situation, according to my valid point of view.
Any particular reason you responded to a quote from yourself? (I didn't make the above statement)
You're point of view may be valid, but that doesn't make the situation right. I've pointed to several things wrong with it, you, obviously, can continue to ignore that.
mrC
-
Also, you *STILL* haven't answer my question...
Oh, and Armstrong Williams should be punished to the fullest extent of whatever laws apply to him, and I hope to see him not only lose everything his fame and notoriety got him, but that he's forced to take some "burger-flipping" job to support himself so that he never forgets the betrayal of the trust of American people in him.
It doesn't make the program wrong, it simply makes Williams a ---tallywhacker--- and an idiot for doing what he did.
Two part question:
1) What about the people who used our tax dollars to pay him? Same standards there? Or no?
2) Please tell me what you'd say if we found out that the Kerry camp paid Rather for Memogate?
mrC
-
Saddam Hussein paid the families of suicide bombers to kill Israelies.
I supported the war, and guess what. I am not officially wrong.
Killing jews has always been a sore spot with me.
yep. evil is just evil. and war is just war. well except when democrats wage war overseas as clinton did. it's all about hating bush.
-
yep. evil is just evil. and war is just war. well except when democrats wage war overseas as clinton did. it's all about hating bush.
A Democrat never waged a "preemptive" war based on false allegations and faulty intelligence. A Democrat *did* however win WWII and Clinton later stablized the baltic region. He didn't need to lie to the public about his reasons for doing so either, and the war has been a success. Iraq on the other hand...
Bush's policy of preemption represents a fundamental shift in geopolitical fault-lines and should certainly remain open for debate.
I don't accept your attempt to deflect attention away from the issue, simply by writing it off as a partisan issue. We've gotten past that in this thread...
-
I hate how the Shrub uses God's name to promote his causes. I wouldn't think there is anything godly about getting people killed.
-
[quote author=mr.Curmudgeon link=topic=30389.msg261984#msg261984
I don't accept your attempt to deflect attention away from the issue, simply by writing it off as a partisan issue. We've gotten past that in this thread...
by sticking heads in the sand and ignoring facts as usual. how easy it is for the democrats to forget about serbia. we heard all the same boat load of excuses. democrats use to care about women's rights, environment, ending slavery, democracy, etc but not if a republican uses force.
-
by sticking heads in the sand and ignoring facts as usual.
*cough* Iraq *cough*
-
by sticking heads in the sand and ignoring facts as usual.
*cough* Iraq *cough*
AMEN lol!
If you pre-emptively strike a nation and kill over 100,000 people in the process, and then its discovered that you manipulated intelligence to make that invasion happen in the first place, then you're a scumbag genocidal war criminal. Nothing more, nothing less. And to do so in Gods name is sick and perverted. These people sit in church of a Sunday while their little cash cow phoney war blows women and children to pieces. Vile.
-
then you're a scumbag genocidal war criminal.
Or so the Germans would have you believe, and they should know! ;)
"Donald Rumsfeld had to call off a visit to Germany next month for the Munich Security Conference, because of the very real possiblity that he would be arrested and put on trial for war crimes."
Link: http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=16014&name=Rumsfeld+scraps+Munich+visit+over+war+probe
mrC
-
and then its discovered that you manipulated intelligence to make that invasion happen in the first place,
Please inform the world of the manipulation of British intelligence. Please inform the world of the manipulation of Russian intelligence. Please inform the world of the manipulation of every intelligence agency OTHER than the United States intelligence.
I ask about the other intelligence, because obviously you have problem with U.S. intelligence, even though it was the same as everyone else's. Perhaps your irrational reasoning is solely limited to the U.S., and you'll be able to understand the rest of the world's intelligence.
Please also give your source for the "manipulation" of U.S. intelligence, as your argument is now headed in another direction.
Numerous countries had intelligence that believed the exact (not close to, not maybe's, not "he might have's") same thing you are claiming is being manipulated. What is your source for said "manipulation", and how NOW do you see this as "manipulation"? Before, you were claiming it was a flat-out "LIE", meaning he wasn't even manipulating the intelligence, he was telling them flat-out FALSE information. Now, you're claiming that he took the intelligence they had, twisted it, repackaged it, and sold that load of "manipulated" intelligence back to Congress.
Let me guess.....he did both ::)
-
yep drew. some choose to be ignorant about the intelligence issue and still cling to the belief that bush planned 9-11. of course they find nothing wrong with delivering a baby 99% of the way, sticking scissors into their head, and sucking their brains down a sick. such sick people believe others are just as sick as them and would go to such lengths to push their agenda.
-
yep drew. some choose to be ignorant about the intelligence issue and still cling to the belief that bush planned 9-11. of course they find nothing wrong with delivering a baby 99% of the way, sticking scissors into their head, and sucking their brains down a sick. such sick people believe others are just as sick as them and would go to such lengths to push their agenda.
What the hell is wrong with you Jened? You expect people, other than yourself, to take your arguments seriously? Don't look to Drew for brotherhood support either...he's made a point of trying to get you to tone down as well.
My advice...If your going to rant, try at least sticking to the topic at hand.
-
I know you will refuse to acknowledge it, but there are other reasons for going into Iraq besides WMD.
-
and then its discovered that you manipulated intelligence to make that invasion happen in the first place,
Please inform the world of the manipulation of British intelligence.
-
Mameotron, here's an article that should go along with your post.....well, not within, as it's sure to be pointed out that what you speak of are several thousand, versus what this story speaks of. It's easy to ignore the fact that what you bring up aren't the only problems, and the numbers this story speak of compare pretty equally with Sadaam's, but you didn't give 'em all the info....somehow this story is also either our fault too, or somehow we should overlook what we're already doing, drop it, and go help these folks. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050125/wl_nm/un_holocaust_dc)
We should help these folks out. After the U.N. commits the same number of troops we sent to Iraq. This time, WE'LL be the backup force. How 'bout it, gang? Or did the French military get their arses handed to them on a platter and now they want to surrender watch everyone else fight again?
-
We should help these folks out. After the U.N. commits the same number of troops we sent to Iraq.
-
No seriously, I've got no problems with it......cuz it'll never happen.
It's like one of those things you wish for, but deep down in your heart, you know it'll never happen.....like skipping with you.....because of my "backdoor" policy ;D
I like Iraqnam! That's a new one. Did you think that up, or did you hear it somewhere? Fess up and tell the truth, now! :D
-
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050126-045615-4690r
...the United States, backed by Israel, is deadly earnest about neutralizing Iran's nuclear weapons site. "The administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution," said John Pike, president of the online think-tank globalsecurity.org."
Here we go again ::)
Worth a look. By the way Iraqnam is a word been bandied around for a VERY long time, that aptly describes the repeat performance of a military without an objective or an exit strategy..bogged down and with no end in sight, nam part 2, just as everybody warned.
-
By the way Iraqnam is a word been bandied around for a VERY long time...
Reminds me of my favorite joke,
Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam. :angel:
mrC
-
No seriously, I've got no problems with it......cuz it'll never happen.
I wouldn't be so sure...
Lt Gen James Helmly, chief of the US Army Reserve.
In an internal memorandum, he described "the Army Reserve's inability under current policies, procedures and practices ... to meet mission requirements associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The Army Reserve is additionally in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements and is rapidly degenerating into a broken force".
...
Re-enlistment is collapsing, by 30% last year.
mrC
-
Reminds me of my favorite joke,
-
all this vietnam talk brings back the days of all the libs saying we would be suffering TENS of thousands of deaths in iraq. just wanted to say, 'you were wrong'.
-
Who said "TENS of thousands of deaths"? I remember some who were opposed to the war suggesting that it would a quagmire much like Vietnam, but I don't remember anyone suggesting a specific body count.
What's a 'lib'?
-
I think that started with Kennedy. There were lots of anti-war people predicting large body counts because of the WMD....
They were afraid Saddam would use his nerve gas on our troops, and we shouldn't go in because of that.
-
all this vietnam talk brings back the days of all the libs saying we would be suffering TENS of thousands of deaths in iraq. just wanted to say, 'you were wrong'.
I also remember the architects of the Iraqi war saying we would be greeted with flowers and candy! Just wanted to say, 'they were wrong'.
BTW, has the killing stopped in Iraq jened? 'Cuz last I heard YESTERDAY was the DEADLIEST DAY SINCE THE START OF THE WAR.
Also, by last count, we've 'liberated' at least 100,000 innocent civilians (mostly women and children) of their lives. But they don't count do they?
Peace out,
mrC
-
I heard YESTERDAY was the DEADLIEST DAY SINCE THE START OF THE WAR.
Ya know what's odd? When helicopters and planes have accidents and crash, killing their passengers when there ISN'T a war, I've noticed that they just report that they did such and such which caused this crash and the subsequent accidental deaths of the occupants.
The've never referred to THAT as "The deadliest day since the start of the month".
I wonder if they're trying to sell a certain angle with that quirky little catchphrase?
I wonder why an accident like this on the "deadliest day since the start of the war" wasn't pointed to as the useless deaths of American troops (since they didn't take out a few Iraqi women, children, and cute little puppy dogs), instead of reporting the accident as such.
The audience must be tuning out the insightful "journalism" going on....gotta throw those shiny keys across the room again to get our attention.
-
I wonder if they're trying to sell a certain angle with that quirky little catchphrase?
I see what your getting at, and I'd have to say there definitely is a certain angle since ultimately those troops wouldn't have been in Iraq to crash were it not for Bush's War. I imagine some of the family members of those KIA in the crash don't view it as dumb luck that they just happen to be there at the wrong time. They will squarely lame the blame on Bush for putting them there, although I may be projecting on that last part.
We shall see...
-
MrC, I don't know why I even try....
Yesterday at Camp Lejeune, NC was the BEST day since the war started.
-
all this vietnam talk brings back the days of all the libs saying we would be suffering TENS of thousands of deaths in iraq. just wanted to say, 'you were wrong'.
Anybody who thinks the figures released by the pentagon is an accurate representation of the number of US troops killed is an idiot. In vietnam, casualty reporting ran at 20-30% max-the real figures not being disclosed till well after the conflict ended. Educated calculations from military surgeons in the Ramstein base in Germany for this conflict estimate the US dead at 3-6000, with injured running at 24,000+
Unless you're naieve enough to think that the real casualty numbers would be released running up to an election