President Bush is going to start!!

[rtwngAvngr]

There's a world of difference between saying the Dems believe the war was a bad idea, and saying the Dems believe that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein in power.

No. Not really, considering saddam being out of power is a direct consequence of the war.

The length of your post doesn't undo the laws of basic logic.

 

[Nightwish]

No. Not really, considering saddam being out of power is a direct consequence of the war.

The length of your post doesn't undo the laws of basic logic.

No, I stand by my statement, there is a world of difference between those two assertions. That you consider them equal betrays your ignorance of the concepts behind the opposition to the war.

The war in Iraq was a bad idea -- in terms of the cost of American lives, the cost in American money, the cost in international relations, the abuse of our military in policing a situation we had little business policing (because solving other nations' problems isn't the job of our military). These are just a few of the reasons why one might oppose the war in Iraq, all having nothing to do with Saddam Hussein himself or the plight of the Iraqi people.

See, only a handful of peacenik nutjobs think that Iraq would have been better off if Saddam had been left in power. What most of the anti-war crowd believe is that Saddam was not a serious enough threat to our nation or interests to warrant sending hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women into harms way to get him out of power. The problems of Iraq were the Iraqis' problems, not ours, to solve. The problems of the Israelis, Iranians, Syrians, Kuwaitis, and any other middle eastern nation he threatened were their problems to solve, not ours.

Another straw man the hawks often erect is the fallacious notion that "the war was a bad idea" and "Saddam should have been left in power" are equal statements. They're not. I know a great many people who oppose the war, and have from the start. I'm one of them. I don't know a single person among those people who believe that Saddam Hussein was good for anyone or that he should have been left in power. The prevailing notion among the anti-war crowd (note that I'm not saying "the left," because anti-war sentiments are hardly limited to the left) is that Saddam should have been taken out (in fact, should have been taken out by Bush I the first time around, then Clinton, and some might even argue that Reagan should have taken him out, since he was gassing thousands of Kurds with their knowledge, while he was our ally), but that a full-scale war was not the best way to do that.

In this thread, though, I'm not saying that one opinion on the matter is better or more right than the opposite opinion. I'm just pointing out that there are germane differences between those assertions, and that Newsmax intentionally misled its readers by making false claims about the beliefs of their oppositional camp.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, I stand by my statement, there is a world of difference between those two assertions. .

Nope. If dems had their way, Saddam would still be in power. It IS just that simple, regardless of you "nuanced" position. Your strident assertions to the contrary only indicate your inability to think critically.

 

[Emmett]

Prosecutor: Mr. Hussein, exactly how many of your own people did you kill with the mustard gas?

SH: That was all a big mistake. I had ordered the Republican Guard to escort those fine Kurdish people to Bagdad. I was going to present each family with their very own palace like the modest one I was living in. The mustard gas leaked from a faulty container. My information minister had a habit of getting a detail or two incorrect at times. It was all his fault. I didn't hurt anyone! I swear!!

SH: I am the Presidente of Iraq, I promise that if the Americans will just go home I'll do better this time! I won't allow the first Al-Quedi member to enter this country thinking it would be a haven for terroists, I Swear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nightwish]

Nope. If dems had their way, Saddam would still be in power. It IS just that simple, regardless of you "nuanced" position. Your strident assertions to the contrary only indicate your inability to think critically.

I'll let the readers of the board decide who is having trouble thinking critically. Who is refusing to see that not everyone from the other side of the line are robots mindlessly aping a mantra assigned to them by opposing pundits and talking heads? I think you need to pull your head out of your favorite pundit's ass, and start thinking for yourself. You might find it refreshing. Yes, the air really does smell of things other than Republican feces!

By the way, I'll give you at least a tiny bit of credit, if you can provide even one example of a Democrat or a liberal who has said Saddam Hussein should have been left in power. Happy hunting!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll let the readers of the board decide who is having trouble thinking critically. Who is refusing to see that not everyone from the other side of the line are robots mindlessly aping a mantra assigned to them by opposing pundits and talking heads? I think you need to pull your head out of your favorite pundit's ass, and start thinking for yourself. You might find it refreshing. Yes, the air really does smell of things other than Republican feces!

By the way, I'll give you at least a tiny bit of credit, if you can provide even one example of a Democrat or a liberal who has said Saddam Hussein should have been left in power. Happy hunting!

The error you're making, intentionally are not, is separating the ouster of Saddam from the war. The war was the vehicle for achieving the ouster. If you're against the war, you're against it's effects, positive and negative. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you think the UN and inspectors just needed more time? And saddam would have snapped right in line? You're living in a dreamworld.

 

[Nightwish]

The error you're making, intentionally are not, is separating the ouster of Saddam from the war. The war was the vehicle for achieving the ouster. If you're against the war, you're against it's effects, positive and negative. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

No, actually that would be your error. It is entirely possible to be against the war, especially on the grounds given, yet still be in favor of some of the positive outcomes of the war. What you're espousing is Utilitarianism ("the ends justify the means"), which is a really bad philosophical system. During WWII, the atrocities of Josef Mengele were unspeakable. I'm sure you wouldn't dare to speak in support of his actions. But those actions also paved the way for some significant positive medical knowledge. Would you then disparage those medical advances as bad, because the means of reaching them was so bad? If you're consistent in your arguments, then you'd have to concede that you believe the Nazi "Angel of Death" was doing the right thing, because apparently, to you, the ends justify the means.

Do you think the UN and inspectors just needed more time? And saddam would have snapped right in line? You're living in a dreamworld.

Are you so incredibly naive as to believe that was the only other option besides full-scale war?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, actually that would be your error. It is entirely possible to be against the war, especially on the grounds given, yet still be in favor of some of the positive outcomes of the war. What you're espousing is Utilitarianism ("the ends justify the means"), which is a really bad philosophical system. During WWII, the atrocities of Josef Mengele were unspeakable. I'm sure you wouldn't dare to speak in support of his actions. But those actions also paved the way for some significant positive medical knowledge. Would you then disparage those medical advances as bad, because the means of reaching them was so bad? If you're consistent in your arguments, then you'd have to concede that you believe the Nazi "Angel of Death" was doing the right thing, because apparently, to you, the ends justify the means.


Are you so incredibly naive as to believe that was the only other option besides full-scale war?

Oh so is that your wish tonight? To have your cake and eat it too? YOu can't have one without the other. Reasonable, rational people see that. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

 

[Nightwish]

Oh so is that your wish tonight? To have your cake and eat it too? YOu can't have one without the other. Reasonable, rational people see that. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

You're confusing "reasonable, rational people," with people who accept your ends justify the means philosophy. As I said, that's a really bad philosophy to follow, as evidenced by several of the people who have championed it in the past -- Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Josef Mengele, Saddam Hussein, just to name a few. Those people all believed that as long as they could rationalize that their goals were somehow good (and they convinced themselves that they were), then the means employed to reach those goals had to be okay, no matter what they did. It would appear that you also believe that. That's sad. I'm just thankful that there aren't more people who think like you in a position to make policy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're confusing "reasonable, rational people," with people who accept your ends justify the means philosophy. As I said, that's a really bad philosophy to follow, as evidenced by several of the people who have championed it in the past -- Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Josef Mengele, Saddam Hussein, just to name a few. Those people all believed that as long as they could rationalize that their goals were somehow good (and they convinced themselves that they were), then the means employed to reach those goals had to be okay, no matter what they did. It would appear that you also believe that. That's sad. I'm just thankful that there aren't more people who think like you in a position to make policy.

Ok, mr morally superior smarty pants, tell us one reasonable way of getting rid of Saddam without war, BESIDES saying "pretty please".

 

[Nightwish]

Ok, mr morally superior smarty pants, tell us one reasonable way of getting rid of Saddam without war, BESIDES saying "pretty please".

There are all kinds of ways that I can think of, some of them farfetched, some of them less so. Our sanctions had already effectively created an atmosphere of unrest among the Iraqi populace. It wouldn't have taken much to tweak that situation and sponsor a full-scale uprising, so that the Iraqi people took him down themselves. And as well-trained as some of our covert ops are, it's not inconceivable that a well-planned assassination plot may have worked. There are dozens, probably hundreds of different things that could have been tried but weren't.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There are all kinds of ways that I can think of, some of them farfetched, some of them less so. Our sanctions had already effectively created an atmosphere of unrest among the Iraqi populace. It wouldn't have taken much to tweak that situation and sponsor a full-scale uprising, so that the Iraqi people took him down themselves. And as well-trained as some of our covert ops are, it's not inconceivable that a well-planned assassination plot may have worked. There are dozens, probably hundreds of different things that could have been tried but weren't.

Sanctions? Those didn't hurt saddam. Dozens, hundreds of ways? You're full of shinola. You got nothing.

 

[Nightwish]

Sanctions? Those didn't hurt saddam.

In context of what I was saying, they didn't have to hurt Saddam. They hurt the Iraqi people, that's what matters. They hurt them enough to make the conditions for a large-scale uprising right. We had the opportunity to tweak public opinion in Iraq, to instigate such a coup, and we didn't take it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In context of what I was saying, they didn't have to hurt Saddam. They hurt the Iraqi people, that's what matters. They hurt them enough to make the conditions for a large-scale uprising right. We had the opportunity to tweak public opinion in Iraq, to instigate such a coup, and we didn't take it.

Saddam had that place so locked up and controlled noone could do anything. Making iraqis suffer more seems a more evil solution to me, honestly. Where does your righteousness come from exactly, when you propose heinous solutions like this. You're an evil bastard.

 

[Nightwish]

Saddam had that place so locked up and controlled noone could do anything.

Bullshit. That's a common excuse I hear often from the right as a diversion from any discussion of possible alternative actions. It's a marginally clever way of avoiding admitting that they might have been a bit hasty. But that excuse isn't well thought out. In truth, there have been numerous successful coups and uprisings throughout history arising from just such conditions as the Iraqis faced. All they needed was someone to get it started.

Making iraqis suffer more seems a more evil solution to me, honestly.

Who said anything about making them suffer more? I'm talking about tweaking the public opinion in light of the suffering they had already endured, to instigate them to rise up and take control of their own destiny and take an active role in putting an end to their suffering.

Where does your righteousness come from exactly, when you propose heinous solutions like this. You're an evil bastard.

Get your head out of your ass, and quit shilling for the war department. You're starting to sound like some idiot hot-headed college kid eager to stand for the first thing that will make you feel like an adult.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bullshit. That's a common excuse I hear often from the right as a diversion from any discussion of possible alternative actions. It's a marginally clever way of avoiding admitting that they might have been a bit hasty. But that excuse isn't well thought out. In truth, there have been numerous successful coups and uprisings throughout history arising from just such conditions as the Iraqis faced. All they needed was someone to get it started.

Dude. Yellow flowers were illegal. He had it completely locked up.

Who said anything about making them suffer more? I'm talking about tweaking the public opinion in light of the suffering they had already endured, to instigate them to rise up and take control of their own destiny and take an active role in putting an end to their suffering.

Your idea was to continue with sanctions so the people suffer and rise up. That's evil.

Get your head out of your ass, and quit shilling for the war department. You're starting to sound like some idiot hot-headed college kid eager to stand for the first thing that will make you feel like an adult.

Go see the wizard and get a brain. I don't know why some see you as reasonable. You're clearly not.

 

[Nightwish]

Dude. Yellow flowers were illegal. He had it completely locked up.

Dude, I understand that with your head firmly lodged up the GOPs collective ass, you've come to believe that bullshit and truth are one and the same, but honestly, get a clue!

Your idea was to continue with sanctions so the people suffer and rise up. That's evil.

Nice strawman. I challenge you to copy and paste exactly where I said a single word about continuing sanctions so the people suffer and rise up. I spoke about tweaking a situation that was the product of the sanctions we had already applied over the past several years. Here, I'll help you out and post the exact words, since you seem to have trouble scrolling up and looking for yourself: "Our sanctions had already effectively created an atmosphere of unrest among the Iraqi populace. It wouldn't have taken much to tweak that situation and sponsor a full-scale uprising, so that the Iraqi people took him down themselves."

Go see the wizard and get a brain. I don't know why some see you as reasonable. You're clearly not.

Pot, kettle.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Dude, I understand that with your head firmly lodged up the GOPs collective ass, you've come to believe that bullshit and truth are one and the same, but honestly, get a clue!


Nice strawman. I challenge you to copy and paste exactly where I said a single word about continuing sanctions so the people suffer and rise up. I spoke about tweaking a situation that was the product of the sanctions we had already applied over the past several years. Here, I'll help you out and post the exact words, since you seem to have trouble scrolling up and looking for yourself: "Our sanctions had already effectively created an atmosphere of unrest among the Iraqi populace. It wouldn't have taken much to tweak that situation and sponsor a full-scale uprising, so that the Iraqi people took him down themselves."


Pot, kettle.

Just re-explain your tweak. My understanding is you wanted to continue with sanctions, so the people would suffer, and rise up. Apparently you think this would have been easy for them. Make it plain. Tell me where I'm wrong, if you can. Your tweak seems like actively making a bad situation worse with more of the same.

 

[Nightwish]

Just re-explain your tweak. My understanding is you wanted to continue with sanctions, so the people would suffer, and rise up. Apparently you think this would have been easy for them. Make it plain. Tell me where I'm wrong, if you can. Your tweak seems like actively making a bad situation worse with more of the same.

In subsequent posts, I said "tweak public opinion among the Iraqis." That should have told you quite clearly that I wasn't talking about continuing sanctions. You didn't see it, because you didn't want to.

"Tweak" doesn't mean continue or increase, it means manipulate. It means using the atmosphere of unrest that was already there, planting the idea of uprising in their minds, encouraging them to act upon it, and providing them with some necessary aid and resources to achieve that. No matter how evil and brutal a despot may be, he cannot stand against the majority of his nation rising up against him, especially if they are being supplied and supported by a strong ally like the US. If you remember the first days of the war, and how quickly Saddam's already demoralized army surrendered, clearly unwilling fight for Saddam, it's not inconceivable that such a ploy might well have worked.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In subsequent posts, I said "tweak public opinion among the Iraqis." That should have told you quite clearly that I wasn't talking about continuing sanctions. You didn't see it, because you didn't want to.

"Tweak" doesn't mean continue or increase, it means manipulate. It means using the atmosphere of unrest that was already there, planting the idea of uprising in their minds, encouraging them to act upon it, and providing them with some necessary aid and resources to achieve that. No matter how evil and brutal a despot may be, he cannot stand against the majority of his nation rising up against him, especially if they are being supplied and supported by a strong ally like the US. If you remember the first days of the war, and how quickly Saddam's already demoralized army surrendered, clearly unwilling fight for Saddam, it's not inconceivable that such a ploy might well have worked.

Yes. They just needed a crate of pom poms. And a thumbs up poster. Were you for eliminating the sanctions?