10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-24-2005, 10:46 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Bot,
It's KY jelly, my friend. At least I advise him to grease up beforehand. Unlike some souless politicians.

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204
elau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-24-2005, 10:49 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Stereo Kentucky jelly.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #23 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 01:25 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM

10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bull****

1. VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO SAW THE INTELLIGENCE BELIEVED SADDAM HAD WMD, THEREFORE BUSH IS BEING UNFAIRLY SINGLED OUT FOR CRITICISM

The typical framing is: "Democrats got the same intelligence and reached the same conclusion, so blaming Bush for misleading America is purely political." The argument is also presented in 'gotcha' form by people like Sean Hannity, who use a lengthy blind quote about the threat posed by Saddam that turns out to be from Bill Clinton, John Kerry or some other Democrat. The conclusion is that if Bush was lying, they must have been lying too.

There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't),


So, President Clinton didn't have access to the same Intel as President Bush?
Hopefully and in all likelihood, no. Bush came after Clinton so hopefully they didn't just recycle old data. But to the point, Clinton responded to Saddam in accordance with an international coalition called the UN, and Clinton never actually viewed the Saddam WMD arsenal as an imminent threat to the United States that justified a unilateral invasion. That, while possibly a distasteful detail, is a critically important fact. Overlooking it as you bleat in dispair about Bush being revealed for the liar he is, is dishonest.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:

but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man:

a) The issue is not whether people believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or whether there was any evidence that he had WMD (there was), it's the fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to, the knowing exaggeration of the case for war (whether by cherry-picking intel or using defunct intel or by speaking about ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes). There we were, more than a decade after the first gulf war, two years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. And then suddenly, he was the biggest threat to America. A threat that required a massive invasion. A bigger threat than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin Laden. A HUGE, IMMEDIATE threat. It simply defied belief.


The straw man here is that you are completely ignoring the following:

1 Iraq had broken the cease-fire multiple times, and was already at war with us.
2 The President gave a number of reasons for operations against Iraq. WMDs were only one of them.
3 We were and are continuing operations against Al Queda and searching for Bin Laden's body.
First: Iraq, contrary to your statements to the contrary, was not at war with the United States. We were enforcing the UN mandated no-fly zones, and he was, stupidly, expending resources trying to figure out where the limits of our capabilities were. It was probably more for show to keep the Iranians and his other generally hostile neighbors at bay by showing he was still willing to tweak the nose of the United States.
Second: The President's justification for the war, and the only set of circumstances he got, via the Congressional Resolution, the authority to use United States Armed Forces on Iraqi soil, was to relieve Saddam of the WMD. There were lots of conditions which it is now apparent Mr. Bush did not live up to in that Resolution, that Congress deserves to be roasted for, but the point is, your contention holds no water. WMD was the one and only reason considered valid by the means this country uses to decide matters. Bush, no matter how much you adore him is not King.
Third: We all know we are still in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden. I think it would be great if we were looking for his body. But, as with many of your other unsupported contentions, I think this is also sadly not true. But, if we drag this out long enough he will die of old age, or some other natural cause. Maybe if we shoot up his body we can claim we finally got him though, eh?

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
b) In addition to the fear-mongering described above, the contention that Bush 'misled' the public is not simply about Saddam's WMD, but about the way the administration stormed ahead with their plans and invaded Iraq in the way they did, at the time they did, with the Pollyannaish visions they fed the world, all the while demonizing dissent and smearing their critics.


Does that paragraph actually have any facts or point to it?
It is plain you have difficulty with your compilation of facts when they are presented in whole sentences. It is a fact that the Bush administration suggested the UN weapons inspectors were either not trying to find the WMD, or they were just stupid and being duped on a regular (daily) basis.
It is true his administration set out to make the concept of a diplomatic solution to the WMD crisis he fabricated, futile, so he could go ahead with his war. Just in case it is not clear, THERE WAS NO IMMINENT WMD DANGER FROM SADDAM, so a diplomatic solution, like letting the UN inspectors continue their mission, would not have been futile or dangerous to the United States.
Also, lets not forget how the American public was told the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, forever grateful for liberating them from Saddam. That fits a "Pollyannaish vision" in my book. So there were facts in there. You just need to have your fact detector recalibrated.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
In both (a) and (b), the crux of the issue is proportionality. Whether or not Bill Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam was a threat, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic actions (preemptively invading a sovereign nation) were decidedly out of proportion to the level and immediacy of the threat. THAT is the issue.

Considering that "sovereign nation" had been at war with us for twelve years, I don't consider it out of proportion at all.
As noted earlier this is a misleading presentation of the situation to suit your argument. Iraq was not at war with us for 12 years. They were struggling and suffering mightily under the terms of the surrender after the first Gulf War, and they routinely prompted us to bomb some of their facilities, but try to be honest, we were there under UN authority, enforcing the terms of the surrender by Saddam. We were not at war.


Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
2. AFTER 9/11, WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE THREAT TO MATERIALIZE BEFORE TAKING ACTION

This is often used as a counterpoint to the notion that Bush overhyped the rationale for war. It's a vacuous argument whose logic implies we should invade a half-dozen African countries as well as North Korea, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Every day that goes by that Bush allows these threats to "materialize," he is failing in his duties to protect the American public and should be impeached. And if the pushback is that North Korea and others are being dealt with diplomatically, isn't that exactly the approach this argument purports to refute?


Mind pointing out to me where North Korea has used weapons of mass destruction? How about China? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
Well the criteria for pre-emptively invading a threatening kooky dictator has a new facet. The whacko has to have used the WMD somewhere already? That would make life easy. We just make sure no one has them and we don't have to invade anymore, right. Jeez, that might make life tougher though. It will probably be harder to convince Congress to invade people to take away their WMD if they haven't used them yet, eh?

Well, I viewed the idea of using two airliners to kill thousands of Americans as the most severe WMD attack on Americans inside American borders in our history. Regardless of your allegiance to Bush and the Saudi royal family, I attribute that attack to Saudi Arabia. They funded the teachings that led to Islamic extremist views being promulgated throughout the Middle East. They funded, directly, Al-Qaeda's activities. And the vast majority of suicide teams on those planes were Saudi citizens. No Iraqis, remember?

Saddam may have used WMD in the past. We now know he didn't have anymore. God only knows what Al-Qaeda has garnered with their Saudi funds. How anyone could have shifted their attention from Afghanistan and Ossamma to Saddam to further the United States' response to 9-11 is inexplicable using facts.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
Furthermore, the war's opponents never claimed they'd prefer to "wait" for threats to materialize. This is another straw man. Nobody wants to wait for threats to materialize; they just want to deal with them differently.


Yeah, like Clinton did. Fire a few missiles up a camel's rear-end and bury their head in the sand. That worked real well, didn't it?
No, a more elaborate discharge of long range weapons would likely have been a better response. One that killed Ossamma before 9-11. But damn, bitching about that is a lot like bitching about the fact that my Lotto numbers did not come in.

The point is we have fucked up, plain and simple. We are running low on manpower to defend ourselves against a true threat. Our men in Iraq are having their tours extended multiple times. And, no matter how you present their role there, it is really to try to fix the fuck up of having sent them there to begin with.

We could debate the right response after 9-11. I would have supported nuking the area where Ossamma was known to be after giving the Taliban a few hours to cough him and his key leaders up. Or just firebombing the area until we established a minimum temperature that would vaporize all life for several miles around. Or some other instantly effective way to end his existence. That might have been unpopular for a long time, but it would have been a deterrent to the rest of his kind. Anyway, the point is, becoming diverted by Iraq and engaging in warfare we absolutely suck at, on the enemy's turf and under conditions he dictates for reasons or a mission that cannot be described the same for more than a few months is just not the right response.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
3. DEMOCRATS "VOTED FOR" AND THUS "SUPPORTED" THE WAR

The Iraq War Resolution (IWR) debate has been flogged to death, so there's no need to fully resurrect it here. Suffice it to say that:

a) Many elected Democrats did NOT vote in favor of the resolution. Not to mention the millions of rank and filers who marched down the streets of our cities and were largely ignored by the press and brushed off by Bush. So to say, generically, that Democrats "supported the war" or to imply that there was tepid resistance to it, is false.

b) No matter how many people contest this point, a vote to give Bush authority WAS NOT a vote "for war." Bush also had the authority NOT to invade. Since Republicans are so fond of quoting John Kerry in support of the case for WMD, here are his words on the floor of the Senate the day of the Iraq War Resolution vote.

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

"Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

Not exactly an endorsement of Bush's approach or a vote "for war." And a good retort to those who argue that Democrats are "rewriting history."


Exactly how many in that "many"? Oh, and while you are at it... mind explaining this?

Iraq Liberation Act http://www.library.cornell.edu/colld...ast/libera.htm
Here is a point I will concede to you. Not nearly enough of the congressmen from either party questioned the President sufficiently. He got a free ride, and none of those guys should be proud of their failure to perform their Constitutional duty. However, they all debated the wording in the Resolution the signed, and agreed very specifically on them. Kerry's quote clearly establishes the perspective of all of those who signed the document, unless some of them speak up and tell us they really didn't care about any of those conditions (unlikely at this juncture).

I think you should click on your link and read it. It clearly says the limit of the committment is $8 million, to be used to promote an internal to Iraq opposition to Saddam. A parallel Congressional Resolution which I have posted in the past, was issued to support the document you cited, and specifically limit the support to providing aid in terms of cash, weapons and training to an opposition to Saddam inside Iraq. No US soldiers were to set foot in Iraq to support such efforts though.

The link makes clear there is a long standing desire to depose Saddam. It also makes clear how one takes a measured response to a fully assessed threat. It absolutely makes clear Saddam was not a threat worth a unilateral invasion.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
4. TALK OF WITHDRAWAL "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE" AND "EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY"

To borrow Samuel Johnson's immortal words, this argument, like (false) patriotism, is the "last refuge of scoundrels." Implying that opposing views are treasonous is the surest way to stifle dissent.

And it's a cheap way to avoid confronting hard questions. Such as: Does anyone seriously believe that Bush's course of action in Iraq has intimidated or deterred the enemy?


Yep.
Is that the sound of another dose of Kool-Aide going down?

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
Doesn't the fact that the insurgency is as strong as ever "embolden" the enemy?


Lies like that might.
Tell us more about this lie. How do you assess the strength of the insurgency? They seem to be as active as ever, killing Americans and Iraqis at about the same clip they have been, for some time. What is the sign of weakness you detect? Or did I just misunderstand and that utterance was no more than a burp after that dose of Kool-Aide?

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
The sobering truth is that there are dozens of recent events and actions that 'embolden the enemy' far more than advocating a disciplined, phased redeployment. Torture of detainees, the use of white phosphorus as an offensive weapon, the curtailing of civil liberties at home, the shameful abandonment of American citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, the cynical outing of CIA agents, the smearing of war critics as traitors, these are far more encouraging to America's enemies. If we are truly engaged in a clash of civilizations, an epic battle against "Islamofascism," then our enemies are far more interested in the destruction of those things that are quintessentially American and that give us the moral high ground (freedom of speech, adherence to international law, upholding ethical norms and standards, respect for human rights, etc.) than strategic redeployment in Iraq.


Well, I will say this for you. You have no clue of how other cultures look at the world, no clue as to how Arabs view the world, and most especially, no clue on how terrorism or unconventional warfare works. It must be hard work to be so clueless.
I thought elau's assessment of the dangers of this war on terror and how these dangers are amplified by the ways in which it is being mishandled were pretty accurate. But, if you disagree, and apparently you do, I would genuinely like to hear your, apparently learned point of view on how other cultures view the world, and how terrorism or unconventional warfare works. This seems like an area you feel you have some unique qualifications to base your opinions on, so please, enlighten us - take the opportunity to post something other than that you think we who oppose the invasion of Iraq are clueless.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
5. A WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WOULD HAVE CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES

If I learned anything from the past, it's that predicting the outcome of sectarian divisions in the Middle East is a fool's game. The shifting alliances, the internal pressures, the regional influences, make it next to impossible to say whether or not the removal of American forces would further destabilize Iraq.


Same thing used to be said about Europe. Hmmmm....
So, what is your point? You think Europe needs several hundred thousand American troops? You want to send them back?

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
For every foreign policy expert who says that Iraq will be worse off without U.S. troops, there's another who will tell you the exact opposite is true. In the absence of any sound predictive capabilities, the endgame should be based on the opening: i.e. the sooner you end something that started out wrong and has had terrible consequences, the better.


Or we could listen to the people on the ground. Oops... can't do that, can we? They don't agree with you.
Depends. You talking about Iraqis or American soldiers who are pretty much prohibited from commenting in a critical manner? I think the Iraqis are of a mind to send us home. You have data that says they want us there for any reason other than to shield them from insurgents?

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
For those who counter with the Pottery Barn rule (we broke it we should fix it), the question is: What's the statute of limitations on that rule? What if we can't fix what's broken in Iraq? Is there a point at which we acknowledge we can't fix it and stop trying? Is our attempt to 'fix' Iraq breaking it even further? Also, are there other things we've broken that we're obliged to fix before we try to fix Iraq? Is there a reason our limited resources should go to fixing Iraq and not saving poor, sick, and hungry children in America?


What poor, sick and hungry children are those?

You know of American children who are suffering like this? [img]http://[/img]
Link didn't work, but thats ok. I don't need to see pictures of suffering or mutilated kids.

Yes, America has its share of neglected kids. If you don't see them, then you are likely making enough money to pay enough taxes to keep them out of your sight. But, there are many internal American problems that need fixing, desperately. Iraq is an elective waste of resources that prevents us from addressing American infrastructure problems, which, if you travel the roads or live in hot, humid areas of the country, you will encounter even if you are wealthy enough to see over the plight of America's lower classes.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
6. WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ IS TANTAMOUNT TO "CUTTING & RUNNING"

Any talk of withdrawal, redeployment or a change in course is characterized as "cutting and running." This word-play is so disingenuous that it hardly merits a rebuttal, but the best response to the notion that a war hero like John Kerry or John Murtha wants to "cut and run" is Murtha's response to Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

A phased withdrawal is just that, a phased withdrawal. And a timetable is just that, a timetable. Using politically-charged buzzwords won't change the fact that the present course of action is untenable. It is the height of folly to continue on a tragic and deadly path just to save face. And as I pointed out in #3, enough has been done to "embolden the enemy" that leaving Iraq will have little effect in that regard.

For those who think continuing with the current policy in Iraq is a mark of courage and changing direction the mark of cowardice, they should bear in mind that courage tempered by wisdom is noble, courage in defiance of wisdom is foolhardy.


And to run from victory because you don't have the guts to see it through is cowardice.
Those are empty words. Define "victory" and your plan to get there, then get Congress to authorize the adventure, and fund it. Sending Americans to Iraq to have Islamic misfits shipped in to train in the Al-Qaeda methods of killing them will go on forever. Explain how this ends and makes us stronger. Bush has yet to identify what the hell the mission is, and how he intends to accomplish the mission in any detail. The slogans are not a plan.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
7. WE'RE FIGHTING THEM 'THERE' SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE

No matter how many times reality intrudes on this fantasy, it's still one of the favored arguments by the war's supporters. And it was repeated more than once in the House debate.

This is yet another straw man: we all agree that it's better to fight our enemies somewhere other than on the streets of America. The problem with the "fight them there" approach is that:

a) Iraq wasn't "there" until AFTER the invasion. (In spite of the mental contortions of Bush apologists who insist there was a substantive Saddam-Qaeda connection.)


Iraq wasn't there, huh? Huh, amazing how things appear on the map, isn't it? Guess the Safwan cease-fire wasn't there either. Or the support for a variety of terrorist organizations.
Your attention span is waning. When someone puts a word inside quotation marks, its meaning is supposed to be taken out of the normal context. In this case, the word "there" is supposed to be the "there" from "fight them there approach" clause. But you knew that. And there you go tossing up Saddam's meaningless transgressions of the terms of his surrender, the cease-fire agreement. Who did he kill when he fired those shots? Did he kill 3,000 Americans? And which terror organizations exactly and specifically did Saddam aid, and how, and did any of them attack America and when?

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
b) Our policy in Iraq is creating more of "them."


That explains why they seem to be having difficulty recruiting, huh?
You know of the insurgents having difficulty recruiting? Seems when whole families are found to be actively involved in suicide attacks we should take note. But, please enlighten us because if you have any facts (are there any facts in this and the other one liners or clauses you offered?)

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
c) "There" is where "them" (Bin Laden and his cohorts) are. And it ain't Iraq.


Bin Laden is dead. A number of his cohorts are in Iraq. Others have been captured in places as far apart as England, Australia, Thailand, Pakistan and Jordan. Our fight is with not just Al Queda, but with all terrorists. Global War on Terrorism. Not War on Al Queda. And anyone who has completed UW 101 knows that Iraq is a strategic piece of that puzzle.
So, is it a fact that Bin Laden is dead? I would think Bush and Cheney would be telling us all about that if it were true. But, please give us the evidence for his death that you have. Iraq, under Saddam, was not an Islamic sect free for all the way it is now. So, equating the role of Iraq in world terror organizations before we invaded to the role Iraq plays today is dishonest.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
A corollary to this argument is that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" and we can't defeat the terrorists if we don't fight them there. That's like walking into someone's house, breaking an expensive vase, and claiming you have to move in because your job is to clean up broken vases and as long as vases are being broken, you have to be there to clean up the mess. Arguments don't get more circular than this...


Please, don't demonstrate your lack of understanding of UW or a strategic ground anymore than you already have. It's embarassing.
Actually your responses are embarassing. They are so condescending, yet so empty of content, they shout out the depth of your understanding of anything is based soley on the Kool-Aide you have consumed.

If our role in Iraq is to attract the world's bad guys there to confront them in essentially hand to hand, house to house combat and essentially level the place to protect us from terror, then why are we telling everyone we are there to bring Iraq democracy? If it is to win the world wide war on terror by soaking the Iraqi soil with the blood of every available Islamic or other terrorist, down to the last one, what is the plan to accomplish this? Are we going to debate this publicly, in Congress and authorize it because America agrees it is the right thing to do? Or, are we supposed to just believe bullshitters like you who lay out these condescending lines to spoof people into believing they have some superior knowledge they just never get around to sharing? In the America I know and love guys who advocate that approach and implement it without proper public debate and authorization get shot for treason.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
And if remaining in Iraq is really about Bush's resolve to defend America against our enemies by keeping them away from the mainland, let's not forget what Katrina's aftermath tells us about how well this administration is preparing for domestic threats. Imagine the holes in domestic security that could be plugged with the toil and treasure being spent in Iraq.


Familiar with the 10th Amendment? Why don't you take the time to read it?
Yes, I am. And it is the rightful role of the federal government, duly authorized by the Constitution, to protect the United States from internal and external enemies. I fail to see why an example cited of the abject failure of the federal government and the government of several states to coordinate their response to a natural disaster should be excused by your oblique reference to the 10th Amendment. In any attack of terrorists on the United States, the effect will be realized on the state level because in all likelihood they will attack one or more states, not some fictitious entity that is the United States but not any state in particular. The response of the federal government, and the state and local government organizations, can be expected to be the same or worse than the response of these same actual personnel in each of the affected states, and the federal government, that was shown in the immediate aftermath of Katrina. There are no special other emergency personnel for terrorist attacks, at least not in any state I have been.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
8. DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR IRAQ, THEY'RE JUST ATTACKING BUSH TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS

Democrats deserve legitimate criticism for their approach to Iraq, but when the Republican Party controls all branches of government, attacking Dems for conflicting positions and a confused message shouldn't be a catch-all excuse for Republican mistakes and lies.

Saying Democrats are muddled on Iraq is a favorite media distraction. But the response is simple: if Bush's policy is to "stay the course," the Democratic policy - whether we accept Murtha's approach or Feingold's or Kerry's - is to "change the course." Simple enough. Changing positions in light of new evidence and new circumstances is the sign of a mature and rational mind. Stubbornly clinging to a failed course of action is not.

It's fascinating how Democrats are always the ones held to account for their Iraq vote, but not Republicans. The question constantly put to Dems, "you voted for it, now you're against it," has a straightforward answer, as phrased by a Democratic senator: "we authorized Bush to put the bullet in the gun, not to shoot us in the foot." We've been shot in the foot by the administration's Iraq policy. Democrats are rightfully reacting to that. The real question - to Republicans - is this: "You voted for this war based on Saddam's threat to America. The threat never materialized. Was your decision wrong? And does your lockstep allegiance to Bush's failed policy make you personally responsible for further deaths beyond the 2000+ American troops who have already given their lives?"


Guess you better read the stuff above again.
Which stuff? elau's "stuff" was well presented. Are you suggesting your "stuff" should be read again? Why? Were there any facts in your "stuff?" I am still very interested in how you know Ossamma is dead.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
9. HISTORY WILL VINDICATE BUSH

The infinite time horizon is an easy cop out for supporters of the Iraq war. The problem with the Bush apologists' reasoning is that using an infinite time horizon - which they are so fond of - virtually any action, no matter how egregious, can be shown to lead to some positive results. It’s the bastardization of utilitarianism; asserting a causal relationship between a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation and all future good developments in Iraq and the Middle East may swell the hawks' breasts with pride, but it's a dubious and dangerous way to conduct foreign policy. Which is precisely why we need to adhere so strictly to the rule of law, to basic moral precepts, and to established principles of international relations, something that this administration has failed to do, and that the administration's supporters can dance around but can't justify.

Democrats said the same kind of stuff about Abraham Lincoln. That worked out OK. They also said the same kind of stuff about Ronald Reagan. But Ronnie was right. I think I'll take my chances with GW Bush.
From the accounts of the Jim Jones episodes with Kool-Aide we gather once you drink it you are done.

Quote:
guage - 11/24/2005 12:14 PM
quote:
10. ISN'T IT A GOOD THING THAT SADDAM IS GONE?

This is the ultimate fall-back for supporters of this disastrous war. Somber references to mass graves, Saddam gassing his people, liberating the Iraqis from a dictator, spreading freedom, etc., are second only to flag-waving and bumper-sticker "support" for the troops when it comes to feel-good justifications for the fiasco in Iraq.

To human rights activists, this faux-bleeding heart conservatism rings hollow. Considering the unremitting suffering and killing and violence and abuse of innocents that takes place on this planet, it is intellectually dishonest to resort to a retroactive humanitarian rationalization for a war that was ostensibly defensive in nature. Especially when we callously ignore the plight of so many others who suffer in silence.

If the trump card question is "don’t you think it's good that Saddam is gone?" then one rhetorical question can be met with another:

Isn't it terrible that we've done nothing to stop the slaughter in Darfur?
Isn't it terrible that Iraq is still a killing field and now a terrorist breeding ground?
Isn't it terrible that a nuclear armed Kim Jong Il is still in power?
Isn't it terrible that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have saved millions of starving children instead of killing tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis?

And so on...


Weren't you the one advocating a selfish approach just a few paragraphs above? Which is it? Or doesn't it really matter as long as it's an argument against President Bush and the Republicans?
Have a cup of Java and relax, and read this stuff a little more carefully. These were arguments ginned up to identify other, potentially more compelling causes to appeal to people who support Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, more than the illegal invasion of Iraq. Come on, get with it. That attention span thing seems to be common to a lot of people with your outlook. Jim

JimSmith is offline  
post #24 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 08:03 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

It was a legal invasion. Congress voted on it. By so doing, it became law. The president executed the law. It was challeneged in court and failed. Thus, all three branches were involved and have passed on it.

That's as legal as it gets in a representative constitutional republic.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #25 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 10:06 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Quote:
Botnst - 11/25/2005 10:03 AM

It was a legal invasion. Congress voted on it. By so doing, it became law. The president executed the law. It was challeneged in court and failed. Thus, all three branches were involved and have passed on it.

That's as legal as it gets in a representative constitutional republic.

Bot
Well, if it were that cut and dried, I think Bush would not be aging so fast. I would agree that if you base all your decision making on the Karl Rove sloganeering, from 10,000 feet or more the whole thing looks nice and neatly legal. On the ground level the whole story is much less nice and neat. And if you allow yourself an attention span longer than a typical Karl Rove ten word or less slogan, you can see there are a lot of loose, ragged edges, becoming looser and more ragged upon more detailed inspection. The international opinion of what we did, and the evidence we based our decisions on already do not support the contention the invasion was legal. Yeah, to hell with them, right? Except the rest of the world practically owns us now, so we cannot afford to ignore their opinions.

If the basis was WMD, and it was, and it is proven there was purposeful exageration of the threat to steam roller opposition and bypass all the conditions of the Congressional Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq to protect America from the Saddam WMD cache, and I think it will, I also think we will come to a subtantively different conclusion than you Bot. Maybe to avoid the damage of eating our own flesh in the process of prosecuting this crime, if it is proven, the illegal, or at least criminally negligent nature of the specific actions of George W. Bush, Dick "Yellow" Cheney and Condoleeza Rice "Cake" will be brushed under the carpet, or pardoned. That is another issue. But it won't make the actions of our Government legal.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #26 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 10:14 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
chiphomme's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: 2008 CLK63 Black Series, 2008 Cayenne GTS
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Quote:
JimSmith - 11/25/2005 12:06 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 11/25/2005 10:03 AM

It was a legal invasion. Congress voted on it. By so doing, it became law. The president executed the law. It was challeneged in court and failed. Thus, all three branches were involved and have passed on it.

That's as legal as it gets in a representative constitutional republic.

Bot
Well, if it were that cut and dried, I think Bush would not be aging so fast. I would agree that if you base all your decision making on the Karl Rove sloganeering, from 10,000 feet or more the whole thing looks nice and neatly legal. On the ground level the whole story is much less nice and neat. And if you allow yourself an attention span longer than a typical Karl Rove ten word or less slogan, you can see there are a lot of loose, ragged edges, becoming looser and more ragged upon more detailed inspection. The international opinion of what we did, and the evidence we based our decisions on already do not support the contention the invasion was legal. Yeah, to hell with them, right? Except the rest of the world practically owns us now, so we cannot afford to ignore their opinions.

If the basis was WMD, and it was, and it is proven there was purposeful exageration of the threat to steam roller opposition and bypass all the conditions of the Congressional Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq to protect America from the Saddam WMD cache, and I think it will, I also think we will come to a subtantively different conclusion than you Bot. Maybe to avoid the damage of eating our own flesh in the process of prosecuting this crime, if it is proven, the illegal, or at least criminally negligent nature of the specific actions of George W. Bush, Dick "Yellow" Cheney and Condoleeza Rice "Cake" will be brushed under the carpet, or pardoned. That is another issue. But it won't make the actions of our Government legal.

Jim


Yeah its a crime to remove a tyrant that was responsible for two wars, genocide, illegal WMD procurements, violations of several chapter 7 UN resolutions, etc..
You have some nerve villifying the US.

chiphomme is offline  
post #27 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 10:19 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Quote:
JimSmith - 11/25/2005 12:06 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 11/25/2005 10:03 AM

It was a legal invasion. Congress voted on it. By so doing, it became law. The president executed the law. It was challeneged in court and failed. Thus, all three branches were involved and have passed on it.

That's as legal as it gets in a representative constitutional republic.

Bot
Well, if it were that cut and dried, I think Bush would not be aging so fast. I would agree that if you base all your decision making on the Karl Rove sloganeering, from 10,000 feet or more the whole thing looks nice and neatly legal. On the ground level the whole story is much less nice and neat. And if you allow yourself an attention span longer than a typical Karl Rove ten word or less slogan, you can see there are a lot of loose, ragged edges, becoming looser and more ragged upon more detailed inspection. The international opinion of what we did, and the evidence we based our decisions on already do not support the contention the invasion was legal. Yeah, to hell with them, right? Except the rest of the world practically owns us now, so we cannot afford to ignore their opinions.

If the basis was WMD, and it was, and it is proven there was purposeful exageration of the threat to steam roller opposition and bypass all the conditions of the Congressional Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq to protect America from the Saddam WMD cache, and I think it will, I also think we will come to a subtantively different conclusion than you Bot. Maybe to avoid the damage of eating our own flesh in the process of prosecuting this crime, if it is proven, the illegal, or at least criminally negligent nature of the specific actions of George W. Bush, Dick "Yellow" Cheney and Condoleeza Rice "Cake" will be brushed under the carpet, or pardoned. That is another issue. But it won't make the actions of our Government legal.

Jim
In terms of legality of the war (the term you used) the basis for the resolution doesn't matter, the salesmanship for its passage doesn't matter, and most especially the opinion of Belgium or some other important world body matters not at all. What matters is that the Congress Constitutionally considered and passed a bill signed by the president.

The legality of the process was challenged in federal court. The challenge failed.

Those are the facts. That is the law.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #28 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 10:21 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
lovemyc280's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2003
Vehicle: 2004 Lexus LS 430 Modern Luxury. 2012 Acura TSX (fun fun) Maybe MB again one day...
Location: Provo Spain
Posts: 2,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Quote:
chiphomme - 11/25/2005 12:14 PM

Quote:
JimSmith - 11/25/2005 12:06 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 11/25/2005 10:03 AM

It was a legal invasion. Congress voted on it. By so doing, it became law. The president executed the law. It was challeneged in court and failed. Thus, all three branches were involved and have passed on it.

That's as legal as it gets in a representative constitutional republic.

Bot
Well, if it were that cut and dried, I think Bush would not be aging so fast. I would agree that if you base all your decision making on the Karl Rove sloganeering, from 10,000 feet or more the whole thing looks nice and neatly legal. On the ground level the whole story is much less nice and neat. And if you allow yourself an attention span longer than a typical Karl Rove ten word or less slogan, you can see there are a lot of loose, ragged edges, becoming looser and more ragged upon more detailed inspection. The international opinion of what we did, and the evidence we based our decisions on already do not support the contention the invasion was legal. Yeah, to hell with them, right? Except the rest of the world practically owns us now, so we cannot afford to ignore their opinions.

If the basis was WMD, and it was, and it is proven there was purposeful exageration of the threat to steam roller opposition and bypass all the conditions of the Congressional Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq to protect America from the Saddam WMD cache, and I think it will, I also think we will come to a subtantively different conclusion than you Bot. Maybe to avoid the damage of eating our own flesh in the process of prosecuting this crime, if it is proven, the illegal, or at least criminally negligent nature of the specific actions of George W. Bush, Dick "Yellow" Cheney and Condoleeza Rice "Cake" will be brushed under the carpet, or pardoned. That is another issue. But it won't make the actions of our Government legal.

Jim


Yeah its a crime to remove a tyrant that was responsible for two wars, genocide, illegal WMD procurements, violations of several chapter 7 UN resolutions, etc..
You have some nerve villifying the US.
It was the way in which it was done.

You have some nerve to sit here and ignore that.

lovemyc280 is offline  
post #29 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 10:24 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Quote:
lovemyc280 - 11/25/2005 12:21 PM

Quote:
chiphomme - 11/25/2005 12:14 PM

Quote:
JimSmith - 11/25/2005 12:06 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 11/25/2005 10:03 AM

It was a legal invasion. Congress voted on it. By so doing, it became law. The president executed the law. It was challeneged in court and failed. Thus, all three branches were involved and have passed on it.

That's as legal as it gets in a representative constitutional republic.

Bot
Well, if it were that cut and dried, I think Bush would not be aging so fast. I would agree that if you base all your decision making on the Karl Rove sloganeering, from 10,000 feet or more the whole thing looks nice and neatly legal. On the ground level the whole story is much less nice and neat. And if you allow yourself an attention span longer than a typical Karl Rove ten word or less slogan, you can see there are a lot of loose, ragged edges, becoming looser and more ragged upon more detailed inspection. The international opinion of what we did, and the evidence we based our decisions on already do not support the contention the invasion was legal. Yeah, to hell with them, right? Except the rest of the world practically owns us now, so we cannot afford to ignore their opinions.

If the basis was WMD, and it was, and it is proven there was purposeful exageration of the threat to steam roller opposition and bypass all the conditions of the Congressional Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq to protect America from the Saddam WMD cache, and I think it will, I also think we will come to a subtantively different conclusion than you Bot. Maybe to avoid the damage of eating our own flesh in the process of prosecuting this crime, if it is proven, the illegal, or at least criminally negligent nature of the specific actions of George W. Bush, Dick "Yellow" Cheney and Condoleeza Rice "Cake" will be brushed under the carpet, or pardoned. That is another issue. But it won't make the actions of our Government legal.

Jim


Yeah its a crime to remove a tyrant that was responsible for two wars, genocide, illegal WMD procurements, violations of several chapter 7 UN resolutions, etc..
You have some nerve villifying the US.
It was the way in which it was done.

You have some nerve to sit here and ignore that.
No crime committed, dude.

The basis for the resolution doesn't matter, the salesmanship for its passage doesn't matter, and most especially the opinion of Belgium or some other important world body matters not at all. What matters is that the Congress Constitutionally considered and passed a bill signed by the president.

The legality of the process was challenged in federal court. The challenge failed.

Those are the facts. That is the law.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
post #30 of 91 (permalink) Old 11-25-2005, 10:26 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
chiphomme's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2005
Vehicle: 2008 CLK63 Black Series, 2008 Cayenne GTS
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: 10 reasons supporting the war in Iraq is a bunch of bullsh!t

Quote:
lovemyc280 - 11/25/2005 12:21 PM

Quote:
chiphomme - 11/25/2005 12:14 PM

Quote:
JimSmith - 11/25/2005 12:06 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 11/25/2005 10:03 AM

It was a legal invasion. Congress voted on it. By so doing, it became law. The president executed the law. It was challeneged in court and failed. Thus, all three branches were involved and have passed on it.

That's as legal as it gets in a representative constitutional republic.

Bot
Well, if it were that cut and dried, I think Bush would not be aging so fast. I would agree that if you base all your decision making on the Karl Rove sloganeering, from 10,000 feet or more the whole thing looks nice and neatly legal. On the ground level the whole story is much less nice and neat. And if you allow yourself an attention span longer than a typical Karl Rove ten word or less slogan, you can see there are a lot of loose, ragged edges, becoming looser and more ragged upon more detailed inspection. The international opinion of what we did, and the evidence we based our decisions on already do not support the contention the invasion was legal. Yeah, to hell with them, right? Except the rest of the world practically owns us now, so we cannot afford to ignore their opinions.

If the basis was WMD, and it was, and it is proven there was purposeful exageration of the threat to steam roller opposition and bypass all the conditions of the Congressional Resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq to protect America from the Saddam WMD cache, and I think it will, I also think we will come to a subtantively different conclusion than you Bot. Maybe to avoid the damage of eating our own flesh in the process of prosecuting this crime, if it is proven, the illegal, or at least criminally negligent nature of the specific actions of George W. Bush, Dick "Yellow" Cheney and Condoleeza Rice "Cake" will be brushed under the carpet, or pardoned. That is another issue. But it won't make the actions of our Government legal.

Jim


Yeah its a crime to remove a tyrant that was responsible for two wars, genocide, illegal WMD procurements, violations of several chapter 7 UN resolutions, etc..
You have some nerve villifying the US.
It was the way in which it was done.

You have some nerve to sit here and ignore that.

"The way it was done"?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was more involvement by unrelated entities in this military action than I can remember any other conflict having.
Remember Kosovo? We bypassed the UN.

chiphomme is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome