11 myths of iraqi war

[SpidermanTuba]

would you rather live in a country ruled by clinton or sadam?

Clinton has never ruled a country, so I wouldn't know what to expect.

 

[manu1959]

Clinton has never ruled a country, so I wouldn't know what to expect.

somehow i knew that question would be too complicated for you and you would get caught up :wank: in the semantics of "rule" and avoid having an opinion.

Edit: opps forgot....they were both elected president of their country by the people so they both "rule" in the same fashion

 

[SpidermanTuba]

somehow i knew that question would be too complicated for you and you would get caught up :wank: in the semantics of "rule" and avoid having an opinion.

You mean the "definition" of rule? I don't live in a country where any one man in ruler. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers or anyone who loves this great Democracy would consider the difference between "ruler" and "President" to be one of semantics.

 

[manu1959]

You mean the "definition" of rule? I don't live in a country where any one man in ruler. I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers or anyone who loves this great Democracy would consider the difference between "ruler" and "President" to be one of semantics.

clarified what rule meant in the conntex of my question....as both sadam and clinton were elected president by a vote of their people

they both rule their country in the same contex of the use of the word

so the question remains: would you rather live in a country ruled by clinton or sadam?

 

[manu1959]

I don't live in a country where any one man in ruler.

damn i could have a blast with this ...... if this is true how can everything be bushies fault

 

[Gunny]

damn i could have a blast with this ...... if this is true how can everything be bushies fault

Just "cuz' ........

 

[Bonnie]

I meant to say that there were no alternatives that could bring even better advancement to the countries that are, apparently, to be invaded.
There was no alternative for the Romans, the French or Spanish posed an alternative to British rule, but their targets were mostly unaware of the other European colonial powers until they had been transformed into a colony.

Nowadays, there is the Internet, and television, and telephone networks, in short: global communication. Mostly thanks to America, truly, appreciated throughout the world. But that means that the nations that are on the lists to be invaded, know of all the other forces in the world. And all the other forces can see how the game is being played. Which makes us far more aware of the dirty business that is global politics and war.

This instills in many a sense we should look for alternatives.
Looking back through history for clues as to what may be a wise choice, I think it is fair to say "regime change" has proved to be a very blunt tool that often resulted in killing the "patient" so to speak.

War should always be a last resort, I think most people are in agreement there, diplomacy first as much as it is possible and constructive.

 

[USMCDevilDog]

damn i could have a blast with this ...... if this is true how can everything be bushies fault

hehehe, good, very good...

I'm waiting for an answer, I bet it'll be interesting.

 

[Bonnie]

Who are you to decide that they shall shed their blood for freedom? Do you think Iraqi's are less of a human than American's? Because if you think all men and women are equal - it stands to reason that if we can decide we want freedom and fight for it and earn it - so to could the Iraqi's have.

LOL Its exactly BECAUSE I think they are human that they deserve to be free as all mankind does. They are earning their freedom everyday that they don't cave in to terrorist fear tactics, they earn it everyday that their men volunteer to be police officers knowing each day might be their last, and they earned it when they voted the last two times in spite of the possibility they may get blown up walking to the voting places.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

He at least lied when he said that was his reason for going.

ahhh, so you are a mind reader eh? Ok, back to the question, regarding the quote I posted, do you think it was a lie spoken about the belief saddam was a WMD threat?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Originally Posted by Harmageddon
If freedom was God's gift to humankind, how come most animals are free, whereas most humans live in dire conditions, suffering from malnutrition and preventable disease. Does God not like Africans?

Most animals arent free, they live in daily fear of being eaten by some other animal.

Most humans dont live in dire conditions or suffer from malnutrition or preventable disease.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Clinton has never ruled a country, so I wouldn't know what to expect.

Liar.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Who are you to decide that they shall shed their blood for freedom? Do you think Iraqi's are less of a human than American's? Because if you think all men and women are equal - it stands to reason that if we can decide we want freedom and fight for it and earn it - so to could the Iraqi's have.

Liar. You dont really believe that. YOU KNOW the circumstances they were in was not the same as the circumstances the revolutionaries of 1776 were in. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Henry, etc etc were the people who were running the colonies.....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You just CONFIRMED IT,

The only reason Iraqi conscripts were trying to kill our boys is because we were there -seems to be a subtlty you glossed over.

You avoided the question as usual, (which means even YOU dont like YOUR answer)

Do you see a difference between killing someone who is trying to kill you, and killing someone because they wont join your army?
(YOU are the one who mentioned that whats the big deal since we are over there killing them anyways, like as though its the same thing)

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If you think that not speaking out against a war you don't agree with is a "reasonable limit" on free speech - like I said, build a time machine, go back to 1939, and join Hitler's SS..

Listen bedwetter TUBA, Im beginning to see the problem here. You are dancing around Manu's question by using a lie, you KNOW full well what to somewhat expect out of a country ruled by Clinton vs Osama or Sadam. If you say otherwise, you are simply a COWARDLY LIAR.
You also LIE, or seem to have a memory problem with what you say, the part I referred to was when you said "pretend to care about the Iraqi people", now the soldiers are over there for many reasons, of which ONE is they want to see the KIDS have a better opportunity, you claim that is a lie, what Im saying is I would love to see you get out from behind your piss ass little hole you keep your pc in, (probably mommies basement), come over to camp pendleton when some of the Marines return, and say that to their face. The question is NOT if you have the right to say it or not. Capiche???? If you ARE not willing to say it to their face, then shut the fuck up you quivering COWARD..

Actually, while I would be charged with verbal assault, you would be charged with assault and battery on me. Soooooo...... what's your point?.

no, its perfectly possilbe to use certain language in a manner that is protected by the COTUS, but whether you would have the guts to say it to her while IM there is another question, THATS THE POINT.

If supporting the soldiers means I need to keep my mouth shut when the President is sending them off to die for his political purposes - well, then perhaps you should build that time machine, head back to 1939..

I never said that, oh, and I wasnt alive in 39.

So do I have a right to speak out against wars I don't agree with or not? Make up your damn mind, you seem to be waffling back and forth. And if I do have that right - why would a Marine who risked his own life fighting for my right to have it beat me up for exercising it?

I have gotten into debates with a couple of Marines about this war. And with both we argued alot and shouted at each other - but neither of them even looked for a second like they were going to assault me. I think you give our Marines less credit than they deserve, they are perfectly capable of tolerating opposing views without being moved to break the law. They aren't the Nazi SS soldiers you wish they were - they are killers in combat and gentlemen outside of combat.

again, I never commented on a marine kicking your ass for being opposed to the war, but for claiming we dont care about the Iraqi people , thats what you said, you are a liar, a coward, and cant even keep words straight in a debate. YOU DO remember saying that dont you???

"and pretend like we care about the Iraqi people"???

You see, I do care about them, and you have no way of knowing if its true or not, yet you assume its not true, so you come to your conclusion based on information you create in your own mind, assumptions on your part.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So, right, like I said, the people didn't pick the President in 2000. Unless of course by "pick" you mean that the 2nd highest vote getter is "picked". Most elections the people's pick corresponds to the electors pick, but not all..

Get a clue. The people "picked" the form of government, that resulted in the method where the people "picked" the president, listen fuckwad, you waste your time thinking about the difference between "picking" and "electing" a president, if thats the best part of my statement you have to "pick" on, then I elect you get a life.

Uhh, so guess what, you said Bush has already appointed two Supreme Court Justices - and that is as of now factually incorrect..

Uhh, so, mr picky unny about words, I said " is appointing..." that means is in the process of, so you are WRONG...eat it buddy, hahahhahahahha, ITS FACTUALLY CORRECT, here, I will save you some time, POST number 62..........read it and weep........

The epitome of childishness is to act like a 5 year old because you think your opponent is acting like a 5 year old..

hmmm, so you are admitting you are acting like a five year old, good !

I'll pray for them.

Please dont, two are adults now and doing just fine, much better than their peers who were raised by anti war liberal types, my sons peer is already in prison for stealing cars,,, yea, his parents believed in letting him make his own decisions, even at a very young age, oh, he wants to get tats, fine,,dont want to stifle his creativity....now on the other hands both my adult kids are doing wonderfully well,,,,

 

[theim]

Wow. Maybe you should get some rest. It does appear this "conversation" has gotten you tired out, judging by the sheer amount of Talking Points contained therein. How much did you have to pay the DNC for permission to (re)print this?

Well if you're using the Roman's as your standard of what is civilized, I suppose you agree with slavery and religious persecution.

Yep, you're right. I just can't wait till I can own my very own Negro and eat popcorn while atheists are burned alive.

A heaping helping of "context" would do you some good here. As the alternative to the Romans at the time was the barbarians, who, if you care to recall, were not the most "civilized" people either.

They tried and Shrub Sr. stood by and offered no assistance. This is part of why I doubt the right wingers have the best interest of the Iraqi people at heart.

I have refuted this at LEAST three times, so if you want an honest answer (and I suspect you don't) you can take the time to wade through the previous posts and find it.

Of course, you know why Shrub Sr. didn't help the Shiites, right? Because the Shiites are as radical and fundamentalist as you can get.

Funny how they're not the ones blowing everyone up though. Of course, to liberals, anybody honestly practicing a religion is a whacked out fundamentalists. Just saying "Be nice to people" is about as religious as "reasonable" people should be.

Government only rules over people because the people decide to allow it. I could cite numerous examples of the people deciding they no longer wanted to be ruled by their government - but I'll cite just one. The people of the British Colonies. Only about half even supported breaking away from Britain - and that was enough to get the job done. If the Iraqi people wanted to get rid of Hussein they could have done it, provided they paid a price in blood. Instead it is the blood of American soldiers that is being paid for their freedom. In the end they may have needed our help like we needed the help of the French to boot out England - but offering assistance to a people who are currently involved in paying blood for freedom is profoundly different from deciding yourself that they, and you, will pay blood for their freedom.

And the 200 year time difference--from soldiers taking a minute to fire one shot, to being able to gas a village in an instant--is just an unimportant detail, right?

What is your point? Since when is the job of the U.S. military to enforce God's will? I don't see that written anywhere in the Constitution, do you?

Forgive me, find it hard to put myself in the mindset of a supported of dictatorships. And make no mistake, that is what you are. It's called doing the right thing. But seeing as how warped the leftist mind is, it is logical that you would not understand.

Wow - there's an exception to a rule, that never happens.

Your brilliant logic has left me utterly stupefied.

(Because you never can tell in writing, that was sarcasm)

Unlike Mr. I'm not for Nation Building wait yes I am President.

There's this little thing that happened between 2000 and the Iraq invasion. 9/11. Perhaps you heard of it? I know lefties like to think of terror acts like hurricanes--just one of those things that happen every now and again, but still, this one was pretty major.

Well then I guess that's what makes us different. You like violence, I don't.

A gross oversimplification. Violence is like Change--it has no inherent good or evil quality. It is entirely dependent on the given situation.

The idea that it is the reponsbility of the United States to deal with the world's dictators is even more ridiculous - especially considering how many of them we've propped up over the years.

Yet that is what being a Great Power requires. And the "propping up" of dictators carried a specific purpose that served the greated good, as you well know. Now that that good has been done, it is time to rectify the situation fully.

Here's a little clue for you - when a dictator is good for the people in Washington - we let him remain a dictator. Doesn't matter what he's doing to his people, doesn't matter how many women and children he has murdered or how many villages he gasses - when that dictator no longer behaves like the people in Washington want him to, then all of a sudden, out of left field, here comes this great outpouring of compassion from Washington for the people being ruled by this dictator.

Happens everytime. We put the Taliban in power - we put them in power knowing how they treated their women, how they dealt with political dissidents - then after 9/11 all of a sudden Washington cared about the people of Afghanistan.

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

Again, to argue that the US propped up dictators just because some politicians got their rocks off by watching people is more than incorrect. It is disengenuous, since you know it to be incorrect. There was this little thing called the Cold War which I do know you have heard of. Read up on it.

You're a sucker if you think the powers in Washington every sent a single American soldier into combat to alleviate the suffering of innocent people.

And you're a hopeless masochist.

You mean the Roman Empire - hmm, not around anymore, are they?

The Roman Empire collapsed because of its over-decadence, weak rulers, bloated beurocracy, and open-door immigration policy. In short, it collapsed because of Proto-Democrats.

Or the Greeks.

The Greeks never had an Empire to speek of. There were a rabble of city states until Alexander (who was a Macedonian) conquered them all. His empire did not survive his death.

In fact - every Great Empire in history has fallen.

Most due to entirely preventable circumstances.

Except Britain is still there - they realized the error of their ways.

The sun set on the British empire over half a century ago. Again--why? Because of self-hating leftists, that's why. Can you take a good honest look at parts of Africa and Southeast Asia and honestly say things are better without the British?

Hey look, France is still there, and they've been around longer than us.

Coincidentaly, French is common synonym for weak, and I'm sure you don't mind if I boject to American holding the same status.

If you think the failure to beat people up when you don't need to beat people up makes you weak, you're wrong. Strength comes in having great power but exercising it only when absolutely neccessary.

And you are an idealist. You fail to recognize the honest, hard reality of the world. Strength is power, make no doubt about that. Nobody looks to France for a leadership position in the world. As a base definition, Power means the ability to force others to do what they normally would not.

If you want to talk about stupid analogies you've just brought one up. Last I checked, Saddam Hussein wasn't in the business of conquering the world.

Make that check payable to Mr. Dean.

Here's a clue - we didn't find any WMD in Iraq. So one of two things happened

A) Saddam Hussein never wanted to make WMD
B) The sanctions and inspections were preventing him from making WMD

Which do you think is more likely?

Make this one out to MoveOn.

So what does that have to do with Iraq?

Reread it. As my history teacher used to say: "Exercise your brain cells."

So you honestly believe we should go on this great crusade of toppling dictators, one by one, starting with Shrub's Pappie's personal enemy?

Yes, I know how repugnant that sounds.

So when George Bush said in 2000 that he wasn't for nation building, what he meant was that he was for a prolonged, multi-decade, period of nation building?

Refer to above.

No WMD.




Neither were the Nazis.

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

All these Talking Points do is make you look intellectually lazy.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Is this gonna become a "post per page" thread? hahah

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Is this gonna become a "post per page" thread? hahah

Looks like it. Pretty interesting read, I have to say. I haven't bothered joining in because it's the same crap as it always is, just from different sources. Pretty much following the "Far Left Wing Politics for Dummies" handbook.

Bush lied.
Revisionist History 101.
Twist facts.
If you can't twist a fact, just ignore it.
When faced with a question you can't answer, find a way not to answer it.
When all else fails, compare them to a Nazi.

 

[Bonnie]

Looks like it. Pretty interesting read, I have to say. I haven't bothered joining in because it's the same crap as it always is, just from different sources. Pretty much following the "Far Left Wing Politics for Dummies" handbook.

Bush lied.
Revisionist History 101.
Twist facts.
If you can't twist a fact, just ignore it.
When faced with a question you can't answer, find a way not to answer it.
When all else fails, compare them to a Nazi.

Right out of the "Little Red Book" huh? I like that lol