Slow down Smash. The spin is getting a bit crazy.
Go back and read what I said. The war was not about: "finding WMD".
My point is fourfold:
1. The inability of the US military to find WMD does not mean that the war was unjustified.
2. The legitimate issues surrounding WMD in Iraq were in the context of what future problems Iraq would pose. The wording by Congress "Continuing Threat" is a pretty solid indication that it was not about what WMD were currently in Iraq.
3. Congress established a whole list of reasons for war with Iraq. Only 9 out of 23 had anything to do with WMD. They included humanitarian abuses, previous invasions of other nations, multiple UN resolutions that were never followed, a cease-fire agreement that was not abided to, and an attemped assassination of a former US president
4. Congress authorized the president to go to war with Iraq to remove that threat. Not to find WMD in the country.
My reason is that I'm getting tired of people arguing that since we didn't find WMD in Iraq, somehow the war was unjustified. I'm even more annoyed by many posters insistence that somehow Kerry would have done things differently if he'd been president. Ok. Maybe he would have, but his name is there in the Yea collumn on the Senate resolution. It is that resolution that establishes Iraq as a threat worth going to war with to defeat, not the President's speaches.
I'm just injecting a bit of fact into the debate. You can try to spin it all you want. The fact is that it was an act of Congress that declared Iraq to be a continuing threat to the US and it was an act of Congress that authorized the President to use the entire might of the US military to deal with that threat.
Unless you are suggesting that our Congress voted based on what they learned by watching Fox News, then what was reported in the media has zero bearing on why our elected officials voted for us to go to war. Given the wording of the resolution, I think it's clear that they were looking at more then just what the average citizen heard about on the news. Trying to blame the President for a decision made by Congress because that decision doesn't jive with what you saw on TV is silly to the extreme.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Why we went to war
Why we went to warFollow
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
See... This is what's amazing about you Smash. You just ignore every fact that doesn't fit your argument.
I'll say, for the second time:
Yes. You are correct. The technical wording of the resolution does not say we went to war to "find" WMD.
There is however specific wording in the resolution declaring Iraq to be a threat:
That's the third time I've quoted that statement Smash. Please stop pretending that it doesn't exist.
Um... Sure. And Korea hasn't actually invaded anyone in almost 50 years, and they're reigned in pretty well by China, and they haven't tried to assassinate any former US presidents lately.
We are technically in a cease-fire agreement with them, but I don't think they are actively violating the terms of the agreement (ok, a few tunnels aside anyway).
There are totally different political situations. There's a very reasonable expectation that we can resolve Korea diplomatically. There was about zero chance of resolving the Iraq problem without using military force.
That's the whole point.
However, if tomorrow Congress passed a resolution with the same wording in it with N. Korea replacing Iraq, then it would also be a legitimate war. Why is that hard for you to understand? I would also expect that Congres had a good reason for doing so, and that their reasons went beyond what Fox news reported.
Get it? It's not about whether we should or should not attack others. I'm primarily addressing those who argue that the Iraq war wasn't justified because we haven't found any WMD. That's just such a supreme oversimplification of the reason why we attacked that it's not even funny.
I'll say, for the second time:
gbaji wrote:
Huh? Did you read the Resolution?
What part of "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" did you not understand?
What part of "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" did you not understand?
Smasharoo wrote:
Arguing that the technicalities apply to your side of the argument, but silly arm waving generalizations apply to the other side is moronic and pointless. Thusfar on this thread that's all you've done.
1. We didn't go into Iraq over WMD even though Bush implied it 100 times because it's not in the technical language of the resolution passed by Congress.
1a. The fact that there's no technical language in the resolution resulting in congress stating Iraq posed an imediate threat is silly and irrelevant and "we all knnow they knew it meant something other than it litterally said"
1. We didn't go into Iraq over WMD even though Bush implied it 100 times because it's not in the technical language of the resolution passed by Congress.
1a. The fact that there's no technical language in the resolution resulting in congress stating Iraq posed an imediate threat is silly and irrelevant and "we all knnow they knew it meant something other than it litterally said"
Yes. You are correct. The technical wording of the resolution does not say we went to war to "find" WMD.
There is however specific wording in the resolution declaring Iraq to be a threat:
Quote:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1)defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(1)defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
That's the third time I've quoted that statement Smash. Please stop pretending that it doesn't exist.
Smasharoo wrote:
2. Iraq is dangerous because Saddam threatened the Us.
2a. N Korea isn't dangerous when they threaten the US because "we know they're all talk."
2a. N Korea isn't dangerous when they threaten the US because "we know they're all talk."
Um... Sure. And Korea hasn't actually invaded anyone in almost 50 years, and they're reigned in pretty well by China, and they haven't tried to assassinate any former US presidents lately.
We are technically in a cease-fire agreement with them, but I don't think they are actively violating the terms of the agreement (ok, a few tunnels aside anyway).
There are totally different political situations. There's a very reasonable expectation that we can resolve Korea diplomatically. There was about zero chance of resolving the Iraq problem without using military force.
That's the whole point.
However, if tomorrow Congress passed a resolution with the same wording in it with N. Korea replacing Iraq, then it would also be a legitimate war. Why is that hard for you to understand? I would also expect that Congres had a good reason for doing so, and that their reasons went beyond what Fox news reported.
Get it? It's not about whether we should or should not attack others. I'm primarily addressing those who argue that the Iraq war wasn't justified because we haven't found any WMD. That's just such a supreme oversimplification of the reason why we attacked that it's not even funny.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Look, I thought there were WMD in Iraq. Not becuase the President told us so, but because the best available intelligence indicated it. I didn't think Iraq was even vaguely a threat to the US, but I thought it would be particularly clear that it wasn't much of a threat if no WMD turned up. In fact I posted a topic shortly after the war started titled "If we don't find WMD in Iraq would you plant some? I would." And I would have.
There was nothing wrong with making the case for Iraq using WMD, it just turned out to be inaccurate. That happens sometimes. I realize that you, and this administration, are unable to ever say "whoops, that was a mistake", but for the rest of the population of the planet it's not that big of a deal.
1. The inability of the US military to find WMD does not mean that the war was unjustified.
Of course it does. What it doesn't mean is that the decision to go war was unjustified.
Would you agree that if we knew the WMD situation was what it is today that we wouldn't have gone to war? The lack of WMD absolutely makes the war itself unjstified, but not the decision to go to war.
If our best intel showed that Cuba had an ICBM and was about to launch it at Washington so we invaded and it turned out they had a grain silo that looked like an ICBM the invasion wouldn't be justfied. The decision to invade would have been though.
2. The legitimate issues surrounding WMD in Iraq were in the context of what future problems Iraq would pose. The wording by Congress "Continuing Threat" is a pretty solid indication that it was not about what WMD were currently in Iraq.
Of course it was. How else was Iraq a threat to the US if not through WMD? Harsh language?
3. Congress established a whole list of reasons for war with Iraq. Only 9 out of 23 had anything to do with WMD. They included humanitarian abuses, previous invasions of other nations, multiple UN resolutions that were never followed, a cease-fire agreement that was not abided to, and an attemped assassination of a former US president
Indeed. They also established very specefic language about the use of force and the use of diplomatic options. I would argue that there did not exist a sufficent threat to the US that required invading. To use the offical language there was no CPD posed by Iraq that warranted invading. Particulalry if you remove WMD from the argument.
4. Congress authorized the president to go to war with Iraq to remove that threat. Not to find WMD in the country.
They did no such thing. They authorized him to use force *if the threat became such that there was no other option*.
I disagree with you that when we invaded that was the case.
There was nothing wrong with making the case for Iraq using WMD, it just turned out to be inaccurate. That happens sometimes. I realize that you, and this administration, are unable to ever say "whoops, that was a mistake", but for the rest of the population of the planet it's not that big of a deal.
Quote:
1. The inability of the US military to find WMD does not mean that the war was unjustified.
Of course it does. What it doesn't mean is that the decision to go war was unjustified.
Would you agree that if we knew the WMD situation was what it is today that we wouldn't have gone to war? The lack of WMD absolutely makes the war itself unjstified, but not the decision to go to war.
If our best intel showed that Cuba had an ICBM and was about to launch it at Washington so we invaded and it turned out they had a grain silo that looked like an ICBM the invasion wouldn't be justfied. The decision to invade would have been though.
Quote:
2. The legitimate issues surrounding WMD in Iraq were in the context of what future problems Iraq would pose. The wording by Congress "Continuing Threat" is a pretty solid indication that it was not about what WMD were currently in Iraq.
Of course it was. How else was Iraq a threat to the US if not through WMD? Harsh language?
Quote:
3. Congress established a whole list of reasons for war with Iraq. Only 9 out of 23 had anything to do with WMD. They included humanitarian abuses, previous invasions of other nations, multiple UN resolutions that were never followed, a cease-fire agreement that was not abided to, and an attemped assassination of a former US president
Indeed. They also established very specefic language about the use of force and the use of diplomatic options. I would argue that there did not exist a sufficent threat to the US that required invading. To use the offical language there was no CPD posed by Iraq that warranted invading. Particulalry if you remove WMD from the argument.
Quote:
4. Congress authorized the president to go to war with Iraq to remove that threat. Not to find WMD in the country.
They did no such thing. They authorized him to use force *if the threat became such that there was no other option*.
I disagree with you that when we invaded that was the case.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Quote from the President:
If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
This is the second time I have posted this.
This is pretty clearly a justification for going to war!
"and we do" Prove it, President George W Bush!
GWB could not prove it, and thus, this reason for going to war is unjustified, it is that easy.
Quote:
3. Congress established a whole list of reasons for war with Iraq. Only 9 out of 23 had anything to do with WMD. They included humanitarian abuses, previous invasions of other nations, multiple UN resolutions that were never followed, a cease-fire agreement that was not abided to, and an attemped assassination of a former US president
This stuff is all fluff, of course congresss is going to include any reason they can think of to justify their actions. Why don't they invade Cuba tomorrow, I am sure they could come up with an equally impresive list, but people aren't going to buy the WMD thing twice in a row are they.
The justification of the whole war originally was based on the fact that Iraq had WMD and would most likely use them. Now we know that Iraq didn't have the WMD, so how can we be sure that they would have used them.
Question: If the president didn't have the WMD justification, would they still have invaded?
There are a lot more Muderous tyrants in the world with the capabilities to get there hands on WMD, and a real dislike of America, why isn't GWB invading them too.
Smasharoo wrote:
They did no such thing. They authorized him to use force *if the threat became such that there was no other option*.
I disagree with you that when we invaded that was the case.
I disagree with you that when we invaded that was the case.
Hmmm... that's a bit of a twist on the wording:
Quote:
(a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
...
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
...
There's no wording saying the president must exhaust all other options then war. There's no requirement that he prove to Congress, or a comittee, or anyone that he has no other option but to go to war.
Given the wording of the resolution, and the multiple statements by the resolution establishing both that Iraq was a "continuing threat", and that previous diplomatic attempts had all failed, and given the climate and *obvious* desire of the President to use the military to remove Saddam from power at the time this resolution was drawn up, I think it's abundantly obvious that Congress was not expecting a diplomatic resolution to be reached.
This really is just window dressing. It's giving the president the option of using a diplomatic solution, but does not require it. By default, they've given the president permission to go to war.
The only requirement is that he notify Congress 48 hours ahead of time. C'mon Smash. No one is naive enough to think that when they voted Yea on this, that there wasn't going to be a war...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
7 posts
Does the pretext for the war make any difference now? In the Middle East, anything beyond the removal of an unfavorable regime, has, is, and will always be a fool's errand. History repeats itself. The European powers learned their lessons the hard way; now we are. Unfortunately, it's the poor (of Iraq and the U.S. - namely our soldiers, of which I am one) who are paying the price for Bush and Cheney's folly. These two men (and I use the term 'men'loosely) are well-educated and well-advised. As such, they should know that an attempt to unify and democratize Iraq is ultimately doomed to failure (refer to your world history books...pick a nation in the Middle East, any nation, and you'll soon see this has almost universally been the case). Why then, knowing this, would they insist on such a suicidal course of action? Are they merely fools, or are they (as reason dictates) the willing accomplices of corporate rapists? Our lives, their money.
Quote:
If our best intel showed that Cuba had an ICBM and was about to launch it at Washington so we invaded and it turned out they had a grain silo that looked like an ICBM the invasion wouldn't be justfied. The decision to invade would have been though.
America is a very scary country indeed. I hope you are getting good intel! Canada has a ton of grain silos.
elevenbravo wrote:
Does the pretext for the war make any difference now? In the Middle East, anything beyond the removal of an unfavorable regime, has, is, and will always be a fool's errand. History repeats itself. The European powers learned their lessons the hard way; now we are.
Heh. I'm inclined to agree with this statement actually. For those who remember waaaaay back in 2002, when all of this was developing, my major issue was the matter of what to do when Saddam was removed from power.
My issue is that inevitably, when the topic of the current problems in Iraq comes up, someone pops up with the "We shouldn't have been there in the first place since we never found any WMD". That's really what I'm addressing here.
I would like to point out, however, that historically the middle east has actually been a region very susceptible to government changes, with the populace having little or no say in the matter. You are referring to Imperialism, which is something a bit different. So yeah. We'll have a lot of trouble trying to set up Iraq as a protectorate or something similar. However, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the US has gone to great lengths to make the selection and creation of a new government as much a choice of the Iraqi's as possible. While we had a hand in selecting the interrim commitee members, we have no direct control over who ends up in power, or the specifics of the government itself. This is an approach that the Europeans never thought to attempt, so it's not really history repeating itself at all.
Um... Not that I think that means it's all roses. I'm just point out that there are differences.
Quote:
Unfortunately, it's the poor (of Iraq and the U.S. - namely our soldiers, of which I am one) who are paying the price for Bush and Cheney's folly.
Ah.. yes. "The poor". That's a nice rallying cry, but how is that relevant? It was "the poor" who suffered under Saddam's regime. It is "the poor" who always suffer when something happens. I have a feeling that if we succeed, "the poor" will be vastly better off in 10 or 20 years then they would have if we'd not made the attempt.
I'm not sure what your point is about being a US soldier. You signed up for military service. Were you not aware that you might end up fighting at some point?
Quote:
These two men (and I use the term 'men'loosely) are well-educated and well-advised. As such, they should know that an attempt to unify and democratize Iraq is ultimately doomed to failure (refer to your world history books...pick a nation in the Middle East, any nation, and you'll soon see this has almost universally been the case). Why then, knowing this, would they insist on such a suicidal course of action? Are they merely fools, or are they (as reason dictates) the willing accomplices of corporate rapists? Our lives, their money.
First off. Iraq has been "unified" for quite some time now. Secondly. Ottoman Empire. Look it up. Thirdly, no one's ever attemped to "democratize" Iraq, or any other middle eastern nation, so how exactly does history relate?
The historical issue in the middle east (and by historical, I'm talking about the last century really) is that while nations were formed pretty much ad-hoc, most of the people in the middle east associated themselves with their original tribal affilitations rather then the arbitrary borders they suddenly found themselves bound to. The fight really has been between those rulers who used the idea of nationalism to control all within their borders, and those who didn't agree with the notion and thought that they should just be able to roam wherever they wanted (nomadic tribes primarily). This has resulted in ruthless control of those formerly nomadic populations. Those who were more settled have continued to fight along tribal/religious lines for control of the territories within the borders.
We actually have a better chance of success in Iraq then we'd have in any other nation in the middle east. The reason, surprisingly enough (or not, if you'd read any history of the region) is Saddam himself. Since he so ruthlessly restricted the nomads (Kurds), and agressively chased a westernized, modernized, and relatively non-religious focused national infrastructure, most Iraqi's think of themselves as Iraqi's, at least to some degree. There's a huge difference between having a population of Sunnis who happen to live within the borders of Iraq, and a group of Iraqi's who happen to also be Sunni. The former is how most of the populations of most of the nations of the middle east think of themselves. The latter is how most of the population of Iraq thinks of themselves.
That's certainly no guarantee that they'll be able to set aside their old tribal differences and work together for a common good. However, Iraq is absolutely the most likely nation for that to work in. No question about it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Ah.. yes. "The poor". That's a nice rallying cry, but how is that relevant? It was "the poor" who suffered under Saddam's regime. It is "the poor" who always suffer when something happens. I have a feeling that if we succeed, "the poor" will be vastly better off in 10 or 20 years then they would have if we'd not made the attempt.
You really are a bit of an *** Gbaji. In fact, why don't we just commit genocide in most of western Africa, then we can start American colonies in these locations, in 10-20 years we are sure to have a thriving civilizations instead of the starvation, war, and disease that is currently engulfing much of this region. Problem solved.
I also want to make a further clarification of this for you Smash, since you seem to keep reinterpreting it incorrectly. I'm gonna bold the important bits for clarity:
Now. I'm no English professor, but I'm relatively certain that the use of an "either, or" means that *either* condition satisfies the requirement.
So. Bush must determine that a diplomatic solution alone will either not ensure the security of the US, or be not likely to enforce the relevant UN resolutions.
First point. The wording does not question whether Iraq is a "continuing threat" (how many times do I have to say this). It only mentions that diplomatic means must be insufficient to protect us from the threat. At no point does Congress question that Iraq is in fact a threat.
Secondly: Not to be obvious or anything, but the wording doesn't even require that Bush determine that the US security is threatened by Iraq. He only has to determine that we're unlikely to enforce the UN resolutions without military action. Either of the conditions is sufficient for war.
Let's see... Didn't we spend 10+ years trying the diplomatic solution to get Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions? Didn't that fail? Heck. Half of the UN resolutions we were trying to get them to comply with were resolutions stateing that they must comply with the previous resolutions that they never complied with. At what point do you decide that they're never going to comply?
Congress signed an authorization of military force, but put conditions on it that had already been met. Those conditions are therefore meaningless to the document. Everyone in Congress knew it. Everyone with a slightly above average reading ability knows it. They signed an Act of War. They may have used different wording, but they did. They knew on the day that they voted for this resolution that it was going to result in war with Iraq.
I'm serious here. You can't possibly tell me that anyone in Congress voted for that resolution thinking that Bush would continue for another 10 years or so trying to get Iraq to agree to the UN resolutions. Nobody is that dumb. Not even members of Congress... ;)
Quote:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;
Now. I'm no English professor, but I'm relatively certain that the use of an "either, or" means that *either* condition satisfies the requirement.
So. Bush must determine that a diplomatic solution alone will either not ensure the security of the US, or be not likely to enforce the relevant UN resolutions.
First point. The wording does not question whether Iraq is a "continuing threat" (how many times do I have to say this). It only mentions that diplomatic means must be insufficient to protect us from the threat. At no point does Congress question that Iraq is in fact a threat.
Secondly: Not to be obvious or anything, but the wording doesn't even require that Bush determine that the US security is threatened by Iraq. He only has to determine that we're unlikely to enforce the UN resolutions without military action. Either of the conditions is sufficient for war.
Let's see... Didn't we spend 10+ years trying the diplomatic solution to get Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions? Didn't that fail? Heck. Half of the UN resolutions we were trying to get them to comply with were resolutions stateing that they must comply with the previous resolutions that they never complied with. At what point do you decide that they're never going to comply?
Congress signed an authorization of military force, but put conditions on it that had already been met. Those conditions are therefore meaningless to the document. Everyone in Congress knew it. Everyone with a slightly above average reading ability knows it. They signed an Act of War. They may have used different wording, but they did. They knew on the day that they voted for this resolution that it was going to result in war with Iraq.
I'm serious here. You can't possibly tell me that anyone in Congress voted for that resolution thinking that Bush would continue for another 10 years or so trying to get Iraq to agree to the UN resolutions. Nobody is that dumb. Not even members of Congress... ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Friar Reinman wrote:
Quote:
Ah.. yes. "The poor". That's a nice rallying cry, but how is that relevant? It was "the poor" who suffered under Saddam's regime. It is "the poor" who always suffer when something happens. I have a feeling that if we succeed, "the poor" will be vastly better off in 10 or 20 years then they would have if we'd not made the attempt.
You really are a bit of an *** Gbaji. In fact, why don't we just commit genocide in most of western Africa, then we can start American colonies in these locations, in 10-20 years we are sure to have a thriving civilizations instead of the starvation, war, and disease that is currently engulfing much of this region. Problem solved.
Huh? I'm an *** for pointing out that "the poor", while a hot button issue here in the US, is really an irrelevant statement in terms of Iraq. It was an obvious attempt to push our domestic ideas into a situation in which they don't apply. The issue of whether one is a Kurd, Shiite, or Sunni has vastly more meaning in Iraq then whether or not one is "poor". I'm sorry if that means I seem like an *** to you, but that statement about the poor really did come from out of left field.
Let me toss out my take on why he used that phrase. Bush is a Republican. It's "common knowlege" that Republicans don't like helping the poor. After all, we like to give tax breaks to the rich, and reduce welfare payments and other entitlements to the poor. Thus, by making a crack about "the poor" in Iraq being hurt the most by the conflict, we get to imply that it's just another example of the Republican party trampling over "the poor" to get their own ends. The fact that he goes on to talk about corporate profits motivating the war just reinforces the point.
He brought it up, not so much to make an argument about the war in Iraq, but to reinforce the assumption that Bush (and Republicans by extention) is about making the rich richer and trampling the poor in the proccess. By extention, anyone who doesnt condemn the war is also a greedy money grubber who'd step on top of a poor homeless man rather then get his shoes dirty walking around him.
It was pure rhetoric. I responded to it as such. If there's one thing I despise in a political argument, it's using rhetoric instead of reason. If that makes me an ***, then so be it.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
I wouldnt say we went to war just over WMD, Terror is the other highlight driven over and over, implying that this would somehow help us from 9/11, like 80% of speech on WMD, Terror and Tyrant, small blurb about humanitarian and who was gonna support us.
I wouldnt say we went to war just over WMD, Terror is the other highlight driven over and over, implying that this would somehow help us from 9/11, like 80% of speech on WMD, Terror and Tyrant, small blurb about humanitarian and who was gonna support us.
Quote:
It was pure rhetoric. I responded to it as such. If there's one thing I despise in a political argument, it's using rhetoric instead of reason. If that makes me an ***, then so be it.
Fair enough, I understand what you are saying, but you cannot say that, in fact, we are helping the future poor of Iraq, at the expense the present poor, but overall it will be worthwhile sacrifice. That is certainly not anyones decision to make! You said it, I checked you on it, that is all.
As far as the whole WMD justifying the war.
Maybe the problem has to do with the original presentation of the reasons the US was going to invade. If GWB had said, "We believe there to be WMD in Iraq and we feel that our Intel is credible, and we need to find out for certain, then everyone would be prepared for not finding any. However, he said "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do", and this is a lie, because he didn't know!
[quote} Bush is a Republican. It's "common knowlege" that Republicans don't like helping the poor. After all, we like to give tax breaks to the rich, and reduce welfare payments and other entitlements to the poor. [/quote]
Guess that elminates the humanitarian part of your arguement.
Guess that elminates the humanitarian part of your arguement.
You have no intrest in arguing the facts, only pushing a certain specefic agenda. I have no intrest in further discussing this with you. I have made my points perfectly clear, you have refuted none of them. You have contradicted yourself repeadetly.
There's no point in my continuing.
Can't wait to discuss this in December when Bush is a lame duck trying to ring out as much profit as he can for Haliburton. The corruption should be brazen by then I'd imagine.
There's no point in my continuing.
Can't wait to discuss this in December when Bush is a lame duck trying to ring out as much profit as he can for Haliburton. The corruption should be brazen by then I'd imagine.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
The corruption should be brazen by then I'd imagine.
Not paying attention to whats going on in Iraq then I guess, besides the deaths I mean.
7 posts
gbaji,
Where to start. Your cup of naivete runneth over.
What kills me is the number of middle-class (and even poor)that think they benefit from the Republican machinery (and I'm not saying that the Democrats are any better, their evil machinations just aren't as cynical or sophisticated). When you get drafted (and you better hope Bush doesn't win...hey it could happen, ask a Vietnam vet) and sent to die on a fool's errand we'll see what you have to say. When you retire and they take away your hard-earned benefits we'll see what you have to say. And so on...
We did a good and just thing for the poor - read as the common people - of Iraq by removing Hussein (the true motivation for doing so is immaterial). But, what we are doing now is at best foolish - not to mention incompetently executed. And, at worst, corrupt. Probably both.
Sadly there are many people that think the way you do. Those that are unable to empathize with those less fortunate than themselves. They possess the brash confidence of the untested, inexperienced, and intensely self-absorbed.
Your ridiculous characterization of my commentary on the relevance of the poor as "out of leftfield," illustrates my point (about people that think the way you seem to) more eloquently than I ever could. All wars pit the poor v. the poor. How out of touch with reality are you? And the rich always make a profit on it. You can bank on that.
If you aren't a soldier, how can you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that there are women out there doing more to implement your ideology than you are. Put your fat a$$ where your mouth is. Odds are, you've never done one damn thing to protect your own family or ensure the continued existence of the civil rights that you exercise daily.
And one more thing, you soft-bellied, cherry-a$$, educated-beyond-your-intellect, broke-d*ck: you keep swimming in that small pond. Stay in that gated community. Keep sending those kids to private school. Keep tinkering with the rules of the game to give your weak-willed and weak-minded children a cushion to fall on. Because if you or they ever come out here in in our ocean, we're going to eat you alive. You can bank on that too.
Edited, Tue May 11 12:37:00 2004 by elevenbravo
Where to start. Your cup of naivete runneth over.
What kills me is the number of middle-class (and even poor)that think they benefit from the Republican machinery (and I'm not saying that the Democrats are any better, their evil machinations just aren't as cynical or sophisticated). When you get drafted (and you better hope Bush doesn't win...hey it could happen, ask a Vietnam vet) and sent to die on a fool's errand we'll see what you have to say. When you retire and they take away your hard-earned benefits we'll see what you have to say. And so on...
We did a good and just thing for the poor - read as the common people - of Iraq by removing Hussein (the true motivation for doing so is immaterial). But, what we are doing now is at best foolish - not to mention incompetently executed. And, at worst, corrupt. Probably both.
Sadly there are many people that think the way you do. Those that are unable to empathize with those less fortunate than themselves. They possess the brash confidence of the untested, inexperienced, and intensely self-absorbed.
Your ridiculous characterization of my commentary on the relevance of the poor as "out of leftfield," illustrates my point (about people that think the way you seem to) more eloquently than I ever could. All wars pit the poor v. the poor. How out of touch with reality are you? And the rich always make a profit on it. You can bank on that.
If you aren't a soldier, how can you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that there are women out there doing more to implement your ideology than you are. Put your fat a$$ where your mouth is. Odds are, you've never done one damn thing to protect your own family or ensure the continued existence of the civil rights that you exercise daily.
And one more thing, you soft-bellied, cherry-a$$, educated-beyond-your-intellect, broke-d*ck: you keep swimming in that small pond. Stay in that gated community. Keep sending those kids to private school. Keep tinkering with the rules of the game to give your weak-willed and weak-minded children a cushion to fall on. Because if you or they ever come out here in in our ocean, we're going to eat you alive. You can bank on that too.
Edited, Tue May 11 12:37:00 2004 by elevenbravo
Quote:
If you aren't a soldier, how can you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that there are women out there doing more to implement your ideology than you are. Put your fat a$$ where your mouth is. Odds are, you've never done one damn thing to protect your own family or ensure the continued existence of the civil rights that you exercise daily.
Really, most people in Iraq aren't there because they believe in protecting civil rights or freedom or whatever. They're there because they're lower or middle class kids without much money and they bought into twenty years worth of commercials saying that they can serve on the occassional weekend and the Army will pay for their college. However, instead of stacking sandbags along the Mississippi when it floods, they got roped into Bush's war of WM-- erm, protect-- erm, liberati-- well, whatever his war was about.
Don't get me wrong, I respect the job they're doing and respect them for doing what they have to do, given the circumstances. But the "OMG you never served so you're a coward and a fraud and can't comment on anything!" bit is pretty weak.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
7 posts
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that people should realize the limitations of their own experiences and respect the fact that others may have earned the right to speak about something in a manner that you have not. In other words, don't be cavalier when discussing a subject of which you have no REAL experience. How legitimate is the opinion of somebody who has no true realization of what the word WAR truly means (beyond that it is a bad thing)? Or whether or not it is worth it? Only a someone who knew even less than them would care to listen. If someone is really interested in such things, and is not simply a dilletante, maybe they should seek out some true knowledge: enlist, or grab your camera or notepad, or maybe a stretcher (plenty of aid organizations out there taking volunteers), and hit the sand. Military experience is by no means the only measure of manhood. But, these days it does make one somewhat of an authority on whether the war, or any war, was worth it. If I'm harsh on Gbaji, it's because people with opinions (but no real knowledge) like his, are the reason our brothers and sisters continue to get killed every day.
BTW: I know why people enlist...remember I'm one of 'em.
Edited, Tue May 11 13:52:31 2004 by elevenbravo
Edited, Tue May 11 15:05:23 2004 by elevenbravo
Edited, Tue May 11 15:06:50 2004 by elevenbravo
BTW: I know why people enlist...remember I'm one of 'em.
Edited, Tue May 11 13:52:31 2004 by elevenbravo
Edited, Tue May 11 15:05:23 2004 by elevenbravo
Edited, Tue May 11 15:06:50 2004 by elevenbravo
Gbaji lost a leg in 'Nam you ignorant motherfuc[b][/b]ker. We don't mention it because it brings back painful memories for him. You'll notice he stopped posting?
Probably on another Nyquil binge.
Probably on another Nyquil binge.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
We went to war because of the administration's oppinion that Iraq was too much of a DIRECT THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE US THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION.
1. They developed Intercontinental Ballistic Nuclear weapons.
2. If the Tin pot dictator of the country who was reviled by most of the middle east including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and most importantly Al Queada was over thrown and was replaced by a figure more popular with fundamentalist muslims.
Well the chances of 1 was zero.
The chances of 2 have increased 100 fold in the last 12 months, well done GWB.
How do you know Iraq didn't have nuclear capable ICBMs, huh? It's a country the size of California! There could be millions of ICBMs full of nuclear anthrax pointed at us right now!
Damn liberals.
Damn liberals.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Joph makes a good point. Can you PROVE that there aren't ICBMs hidden in Saddam's secret volcano lair gaurded by friken sharks with friken "laser" beams tied to their heads?
HMM,you can't DISPROVE it now, can you!!
So it's equally likely that it's true or false.
I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to take the risk of a 50/50 chance we're going to die from ICBM attack.
HMM,you can't DISPROVE it now, can you!!
So it's equally likely that it's true or false.
I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to take the risk of a 50/50 chance we're going to die from ICBM attack.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
The laser sharks were smuggled into Syria. That's the only reason we haven't found them yet.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 263
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Why we went to war
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC