| Author | Message | ||
     J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2626 Registered: 3-2003 |
"...[O]pponents of the Iraq war ... said that the threat Ken Pollack described (and that Colin Powell and the Chimp described) was bsst managed by containment in Iraq..." Kathleen, in the first place, what Ken Pollack described was rather more complex and -- even absent an imminent nuclear threat -- remains far more persuasive than what the Chimp put forth (and Powell was duped into promulgating) for mass consumption. Yes, one would have wished for less dodgy, more intellectually satisfying fare from the leader of the free world. But I'm not sure there's much point in becoming enraged over it. All governments lie constantly, or at least frequently; this does not mean that any given action they manipulate their publics into backing is necessarily wrong, or a failure of self-interest. In the second place, what you and most everyone else who damns Bush (and only Bush, never a European contingent which, had it stood behind the US's military threat to Iraq early on, might just have forced sufficient concessions from Baghdad to prevent the Sherrif from tackling this job on his own) perpetually fail to take into account is whether the US's long-term position in the mideast, or at home vis-a-vis al Qaeda, would in fact have been better had we not invaded Iraq. War opponents are certain that it's axiomatic; and yes, you can point to all sorts of consequences of our invasion as evidence of the assertion that "invasion was a bad idea." But what you can't point to is consequential evidence of actions not taken, and so you can't conclude (at this point anyway) that the assertion 'invasion was a worse idea than continued containment' is true. Frankly, aside from the rather fraught possibility that, had we not invaded, we'd have been in a position to play a proto-nuclear Iran off of (we now know) a not-so-nuclear Iraq, I don't think you could convince a reasonable skeptic that invasion did more than hasten the inevitable. The war's aftermath might have been considerably more competently addressed than it was; my quarrel therefore is with the quality of leadership on that issue, not the fact of having gone to war per se. I might change my mind about the neoconservative adventure one day, once historians have had a shot at sorting out all the things that went on in secret that none of us know about at the moment. But for now, and for the forseeable future, there's little certainty to be had. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 617 Registered: 3-2005 |
Be sure to write when you change your mind. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5682 Registered: 10-1999  |
Just a little look back at the facts: The U.N. did stand behind the demands made in the fall of 2002, that Iraq had to re-admit the arms inspectors. And, Iraq did re-admit the inspectors. In March of 2003, without any further authorization from the U.N., President Bush told the inspectors that they better get out, because our military was moving in. At that time, other governments said that might not be such a good idea. As it turns out, our own government has concluded that there were no WMDs to be found. It's hard to absolve the Administration with the claim that the international community could have offered more support. Europe and the rest of the U.N. did provide support, but our government decided that invasion was the only acceptable course of action. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2284 Registered: 8-2003  |
Nice try at another misdirection, but your Jedi mind tricks won't work. The fact remains that the Bush administration launched a military invasion without justification and worse, without certainty that the invasion would make things in Iraq (or anywhere else) better. There are NO good options for the U.S. at this point, but giving the Iraqis a deadline for their forces to "stand up" is probably the only thing that will allow us to extricate ourselves from this disaster. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3130 Registered: 12-2001  |
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4085007.html Difficult indeed. A four-square disaster in the making. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1978 Registered: 6-2003  |
The consequences have been exactly what I and many other opponents of the war predicted at the outset: internal disorder, partition of the country along ethnic/sectarian lines and a strengthening of Iran's hand in the region. It's an unwinnable war - supported mainly by losers. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 126 Registered: 5-2006  |
I can’t believe that I’m getting roped into this completely counterproductive debate again but here are just four articles explaining why we are in Iraq, how it’s connected to the Global War Against Terrorism, and why we must win. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson093005.html http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/bg1904.cfm http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm To reiterate – you may disagree with every word of this. You may have a better plan for defeating terrorism. I have no problem with that – lets hear it. What I reject it the pacifist belief that our response to 9-11 should have been one of hand wringing, self-flagellating, introspection, to determine what we did to them, that caused this attack, and how we should change, to make them happy, so that they leave us alone. Which brings me to Mr. Surovell. Again - Please - do not quote me out of context. The full quotes are: “But when I see those idiotic Age of Aquarius signs, insinuating that all we have to do is “Be About Peace” and these monsters will go away, I’m angered, particularly considering our proximity to Ground Zero.” "These enemies of civilization are emboldened by indecisiveness, divisiveness, and peace overtures, which they perceive as nothing more than weaknesses to exploit and evidence that their barbaric tactics are succeeding. They do not want to negotiate, compromise, or debate. They want to establish a worldwide Islamonazi state and will use any means at their disposal, including genocide, the likes of which the world has never imagined, to achieve their goals. Now is the time to press our offensive against those who would gleefully, without a hint of our moral contemplation or hesitation, exterminate our entire civilization if given the chance. To “Be About Peace” at this particular juncture of history is asinine." "It is due to them in large part that the people behind 9-11 thought they could get away with it. They didn’t believe, in fact they still don’t believe, that we have the stomach to do was has to be done." _________________________________________________________________ In the first two statements, I was clearly referring to the signs themselves and a concept, not any particular individual. Furthermore, as I’ve written my argument is not against “Be About Peace” per se, it’s against “Be About Peace” in the face of maniacal mass murderers who are trying to exterminate us. This is a belief that the vast majority of Americans would agree with. As far as the third goes, read what our enemies have said: After a little resistance, the American troops left (Somila) after achieving nothing …If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return. Osama Bin Laden – 1997 interview America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. Osama Bin Laden - 1998 interview Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy. From captured letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi Do not be deluded by your power and modern weapons. Although they win some battles, they lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are better than them. What is important is the outcome. Osama Bin Laden tape - early 2006 In a 1995 Wall Street Journal interview, former North Vietnamese Army Colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam in 1975 said that the American Anti-War movement “…. was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.” He further stated that “Tet was designed to influence American public opinion…… Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election.” Other former Vietnamese leaders have admitted that when Cronkite stated in the wake of Tet that the war could not be won, they were completely incredulous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Sounds to me like our enemies have our number and it ain’t our military in the field. Finally, I did answer your question which was: How many American soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to achieve "victory" in the Iraq war which was based on falsehoods, which has been prosecuted under incompetent and corrupt leadership, and which has undermined American security? With: Based on your characterization of the war in Iraq – zero. I then asked you a question: However, if you use my characterization, that it is a just war, connected to the fight against Islamonazism, and a victory would give impetus to the spread of Democratic reform throughout the Middle-East that would lessen the attraction of terrorism and make our nation safer, how many would you be willing to sacrifice? I’m still waiting for your answer. Don’t bother though because I suspect I know where you stand. Since you put victory in quotes, I assume you believe that there is no such thing. No victors and vanquished, no winners and losers, just the survivors to count the dead and clean up – right? How many soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to achieve victory against international terrorism? How many soldiers would you have sacrificed to defeat our enemies in any of our past wars? I’ll wager that you believe the atomic bombing of Japan was wrong. How many tens of thousands of soldiers would you have sacrificed in an invasion of mainland Japan? In one day at Antietam, 26,000 American’s were killed. Were they worth the sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice any soldiers to defeat any of our enemies or is there always another debate, another negotiation, another resolution, and another accommodation? Paul – you guys were wrong in the 1930s and WWII and the holocaust resulted, you were wrong in the 1970s and the Khmer Rouge slaughtered 1/5 the population of Cambodia, you were wrong in the 1980s when you fought tooth and nail against all attempts to stand up to the Soviet Union and if you had your way, the USSR quite possibly may have survived and there would still be millions behind the Iron Curtain, and you are wrong again today. Many historians agree that May 1940, was the most crucial period of WWII. There had been nothing but continuing Allied military defeat, the fall of Holland and Belgium, the imminent fall of France, and the siege of the British Army at Dunkirk. A great majority of Americans opposed entry of the war. The resolution of the British War Cabinet to continue to fight on alone in spite of crushing military defeat, was crucial. On May 13, 1940, in a speech to the House of Commons, Churchill stated: “You ask what is our aim? Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." I guess he was a loser also. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2285 Registered: 8-2003 |
Context is everything. The "Be About Peace" signs appeared as the U.S. was entering its disastrous invasion of Iraq. With that context in mind, they should be interpreted as a protest against the Iraq invasion (and not a statement on Vietnam, WWII, or the Spanish-American War). You'll notice they didn't go up when the U.S. went after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Certainly the wording is not specific, and you are free to interpret the signs as a sign of pacificism. But you can bet most of the signs are meant specifically as a show of protest against the Iraq war, particularly at a time when the Bush Administration was trying to make like the entire country was behind their ill-fated military adventure. At that time the signs were a literal sign to others that not everyone had signed on to the Bushies unjustified invasion. So for those of you who think the signs are pointless, just think back three and a half years ago. Now, with 2/3 of Americans against the war, the signs seem like a glib bit of piling on our beleagured leaders. But a few years ago, the signs were an assertion that some people still believed attacking another country was not something to be undertaken on a wing and a prayer. Too bad no one listened to the "wackos" until it was too late. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5683 Registered: 10-1999 |
The sources cited above justify the Iraq war by saying "9-11". The following is from a 2003 publication from the Army War College: Link: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207 | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 678 Registered: 2-2003 |
Spinal Tap, The full quotes that you provided are no less insulting than the excerpts I cited. I'm not a pacifist so I don't take personal offense at the insulting remark in your last post: but I'm curious -- can you cite any posts on this board that fit that description? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1743 Registered: 10-2004  |
Spinal Tap - Conflating Iraq with 9-11 is a false assertion. Saying we are fighting in Iraq to defend ourselves against terrorism is a false assertion. Bush has admitted publicly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and therefore the assertion that the invasion of Iraq is just because we were attacked by others does not ring true. So Podhoretz' essay was false as soon as he conflated those two events. Likewise the National Review conflates 911 with Iraq. If we were going after Al Qaeda no one would be protesting. We are not. We are doing everything we can not to really go after them. Enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan uprooting the Al Qaeda network and capturing its full leadership would be one way. Going after the Saudis to put an official end to their support of wahabists education would be another. So once again a false essay. I dont read fantasy so I ignored the victor hanson story. Scanning the heritage org article I noticed that they are sticking to their original story. They refuse to acknowledge the very real civil war going on and they continue to promote the GOP line. No surprise there but the things they say they refute, they have not. As far as the UN resolutions go, Iraq was no threat, Saddam was contained and there was no reason to invade. Please rethink your position. No one on this board protested the invasion of Afghanistan to kill bin Laden and root out the terrorists where they lived. Dr. OB said it all. Context is everything. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 811 Registered: 5-2001  |
Spinal; The only thing you have proven to me is you can find a lot of rhetoric without being able to state your own opinion. You have got to be kidding. We were sold a bunch of crap for reasons to go to Iraq, none of which were in your articals, and they changed, and continue to change as the administration tries to cover up its mistakes as they happen. They only attacked because they felt it was an weak target to flex muscle and show the world how mighty we are. They needed a scapegoat and Saddam was perfect. What a goof up. As a pacifist I sure hope we have defences against North Korea and Irans 'nucular' arsenals. They sure are getting their money's worth seeing us wrangle up the terrorists and making it a safer world with our depleted and insufficient military power. We have more enemies because of this than ever for generations to come thanks to the Bush Adminstrations ignorance and incompetance. But as a pacifist, why should I care? See how silly you are! Please don't even bother to dig yourself in any deeper. It's not necessary. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2627 Registered: 3-2003 |
Dear Nohero, who thinks MEMRI exists merely to emphasize the unpleasant aspects of Muslim rhetoric, I did not say one word about weapons inspections. Here is my remark again, with the relevant material emphasized: "In the second place, what you and most everyone else who damns Bush (and only Bush, never a European contingent which, had it stood behind the US's military threat to Iraq early on..." France and Russia played the spoilers from the git-go, sending out every conceivable signal that they would do all they could to restrain the US in a conflict with Iraq. Only Saddam's possession of nukes--and nothing else--would have changed that equation, and our major European allies were content to wait for a smoking gun. Saddam had no nuclear program, but he himself thought he did, and unless the US had been able to ensure sanctions continued indefinitely (sanctions which, along with the food for oil program, were a disaster and a political liability the US was unlikely to able to sustain, and which no one knew for certain were constraining Iraq anyway), Saddam would eventually have either acquired what he needed and/or, yes, he would have allied with al Qaeda-linked actors to harm the US. The fact of onging inspections ceased to be relvant when the pressure needed to ensure Iraqi cooperation with Inspectors resulted in the steady erosion of transatlantic unity. And so it seems to me that in no small part because of the absence of European military will, regime change was the ONLY thing that would deter Saddam from pursuing WMD. Saddam knew he ultimately had Europe's major players in his pocket against American military intervantion. Had he not known that, there might have been more room for Bush (and Blair) to manouever. Bush might have been presuaded to delay an invasion until his allies were "ready" to fight. But they made it abundantly clear they were never going to be ready, under any circumstances, and that they were content to allow Saddam to play a cat-and-mouse game with inspectors, whose certitude no one could count on--until the invasion finally proved them right. Given that Bush believed, despite not having intelligence of the "smoking gun" variety, that Saddam was on the way to nuclear armament (again, Saddam himself believed this!), what incentive did Bush have to wait? The tide of anti-Americanism swelled long before our invasion of Iraq. France (according to a Frontline documentary I saw a while back) even shielded Yassir Arafat from attempts by Madeleine Albright to bring him back to the negotiating table after he blew off Clinton and Barak at Camp David. Anything to undermine American credibility in the mideast, at every level. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2628 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Be sure to write when you change your mind." Sure, just as soon as I get done laughing my lungs up over your supposedly Libertarian sensibilities. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5684 Registered: 10-1999 |
Look, if people are going to argue that there was no other choice, than to invade Iraq in 2003, there's no point in having a discussion. There are no facts to support that argument. And, have it your way - MEMRI is simply promoting religious tolerance and understanding. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2286 Registered: 8-2003 |
who needs facts when you can base your logic on a faulty premise? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 680 Registered: 2-2003 |
Wise advice from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel: Hagel Floor Statement on the Current Situation in the Middle East, July 31, 2006 http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_i d=219463&Month=7&Year=2006 | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3131 Registered: 12-2001 |
"What I reject it the pacifist belief that our response to 9-11 should have been one of hand wringing, self-flagellating, introspection, to determine what we did to them, that caused this attack, and how we should change, to make them happy, so that they leave us alone. " That's the big lie necessary to the Neo-cons. It's a blood libel. A shameful black lie. It is the kind of lie that makes debate inmpossible. It does make it easy for them to write both sides of the debate, rather than actually refuting cogent arguments. How about the many, many people who were all for routing the Taliban, but thought we should think long and hard about Iraq IN CASE WE LOST and because the WMD claims were shakey at best? Quoting Churchill is crap in this context, unless you are saying we are in a toatal war for our survival, which we are not. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2634 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Look, if people are going to argue that there was no other choice, than to invade Iraq in 2003, there's no point in having a discussion." The entire premise of my post was the paradox that there may indeed have been other choices, had Europe been ready to invade. It was not. Saddam knew France, Germany, and Russia would never stand with the US. And that emboldened him (because it could do nothing else) and so Bush invaded (because it was his inclination to do so). But I suppose you're right, there's no point in having a discussion when one's interlocutor can't conceive of a geopolitics not sanctioned in advance by a philosophy that rules out war in all but extreme circumstances, thereby guaranteeing the development of extreme circumstances. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2635 Registered: 3-2003 |
(That, by the way, is the philosophy behind the "Be About Peace" signs. I wish I could appreciate them, but I can't.) | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1745 Registered: 10-2004 |
We could have avoided war if Europe had been ready for war? I think we could have avoided war by simply not invading. Saddam was not 'emboldened' to do anything other then sit in Bagdhad wishing the USA was not policing the UN sanctioned no fly zones, wishing that the UN inspectors were not looking for any stockpiles of weapons, and wishing he were king of the world. But wishing is all he could have done. I guess you are correct about 1 thing. War should only be used in extreme circumstances anything less is an absolute failure of humanity. However your last premise that this philosophy guarantees extreme circumstances is false. It really does its best to eliminate extreme circumstances by relying on human communications, negotiations and agreements with the resulting counterbalance of the threat of consequences should agreements be breached. Geopolitics unfortunately were not used in the Iraq conflict because our wonderful administration decided to act unilaterally, prematurely and on the momentum of misplaced public sentiment. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3652 Registered: 5-2001  |
"there's no point in having a discussion when one's interlocutor can't conceive of a geopolitics not sanctioned in advance by a philosophy that rules out war in all but extreme circumstances, thereby guaranteeing the development of extreme circumstances." How did you arrive at such a bleak and fallacious view? War is, itself, by definition, an extreme circumstance. And by no means does peace at the current time guarantee extreme circumstances in the future. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3133 Registered: 12-2001 |
God help us, from our confortable decadent culture, the "warriors" emerge. Only they see the world with steely eyes and understnad what is necessary. It is the absurd self-flattery that makes them so ridiculous. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 171 Registered: 2-2006  |
 | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3134 Registered: 12-2001 |
The following quote is from the cited Podhoretz article from 2004. It doesn't exactly bolster his position that even the gloomiest estimates of the gloomiest fallback estimates are being surpassed by reality. This is so naive as to be positively quaint: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm "To this, in turn, the counter frequently was that the Bush administration had wildly underestimated the special difficulties of democratizing Iraq and had correlatively misjudged the time so great a transformation would take, even assuming it to be possible at all. Yet talk about a "cakewalk" and the like mainly came from outside the administration; and in any event it had been applied to the future military campaign (which definitely did turn out to be a cakewalk), not to the ensuing reconstruction of Iraq. As to the latter, the administration kept repeating that we would stay in Iraq "for as long as it takes and not a day longer." How long would that be? For those who opposed the Bush Doctrine, a year (or even a month?) after the end of major combat operations was already much too much; for those of us who supported it, "as long as it takes and not a day longer" still seemed, given the stakes, the only satisfactory formula." | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2287 Registered: 8-2003 |
How about a philosophy which rules out war unless there's a good chance it will make circumstances better? If Bush had even followed that simple pragmatic philosophy, the war wouldn't have occurred. This war was premised on the naive and simple-minded idea that the war would result in the good people of Iraq showering our forces in flowers and chocolate, with freedom, democracy and an era of general good feeling following throughout the entire middle east. That child-like wish didn't come to pass, and it remains unbelievable 3 years later that anyone was ever gullible enough to think it would. And doubly astounding that many of those who did were wielding the levers of the most awesome military power known. and unbelievable that there are still people who contend the war was necessary. turns out wishes don't come true, no matter how hard you may wish them (we didn't get flowers, or chocolate, or a pony for that matter either). | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1256 Registered: 4-2006 |
Wow. J. Crohn is really kicking a#% in this thread. Really whipe'n the floors with 'em. So progressives, what benefits are there to the US being in Iraq or the Middle East that maybe justifies our presence there? | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 173 Registered: 2-2006 |
Clunk Clunk Clunk | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1750 Registered: 10-2004 |
 | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4609 Registered: 12-2001  |
FvF, The benefit to us of being in Iraq is akin to the benefit B'rer Rabbit derived from having hands and feet stuck in the tar baby when B'rer Fox and B'rer Bear came upon him. However, if we had uncommitted military resources on hand, they might be useful as an implied or actual threat. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1258 Registered: 4-2006 |
Spinal Tap also has very, very admirable posts. Outside of the incredible lightness of thought and simplistic anti-Bushism which is a chronic feature of MOL political threads, you progressives-extreme liberals-whatevers are making better posts on this issue. Kudos. One of the problems that I find with the progressive point of view, as exemplified by the " be about peace" signs, is the child of the '60s approach to complex world affairs and our present global war with radical islam. Our enemies didn't grow up having their world view shaped by being spoiled little consumerists, watching the "Brady Bunch", or enjoying " love-ins" or Woodstock. They would, by their religious,social, and cultural reference view such goings on as serious deviancy, punishable by... well... what they want to give us anyway. In short, I view "be about peace" as a "babes in the woods" approach to the world, and I hope this virulent strain of baby-boomer " me-ism" and isolationist pablum is purged by that great old and esteemed democratic party. The cynical benefits of our millitary presence in Iraq: 1) Our presence has deterred the Iranians and Syrians from having their agents committing terrorism in this country. 100,000 & troops right next door tends to do that. 2) Stabilized western economies and our own by having forces striking distance the Saudi oilfields. Also keeps the Saudis fighting their own Al Queda residents, which of course their own funding and support created. Keeps their double game in check. 3) Keeps the 12th century types in the Middle Eastern locale there, fighting our armed soldiers, rather than focusing their men,material,and planning on attacks on the US. If you want to tell me that our economy and society could ever sustain what the Israelis have, I will point blank call you a moron. And you will deserve it, because you ignore the reality of our societal unwillingness to sacrafice and suffer. Did I support invading Iraq? No. Do I understand the geopolitical and other implications about what we are doing there? Yes. Now put up a da#n " be about common sense" sign. Many thanks. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 174 Registered: 2-2006 |
Wow Fact. Just finish listening to Rush? Wow……. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1260 Registered: 4-2006 |
ae35unit- Don't listen to Rush, but you apparently do. Guilty pleasure?  | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1751 Registered: 10-2004 |
1) Please provide proof that the Syrians and Iranians were planning terrorist acts against Americans in America. 2) We were already in the region within striking distance as you say. Please explain how our Iraq invasion 'stabilized' our economy. 3) Pure conjecture and personally really underestimates the intelligence of the people that are conspiring to attack America. Why would they stop plans to attack America? Al Qaeda is spread out across the globe, not only in the middle east. They could easily be planning other attacks while still training themselves on our live targets in Iraq. and this bit of information continues to wind its way like a bad Broadway theme song through your threads
truly what is the 60's approach supposed to mean? Is that a subtle put down of the folks who knew this war was wrong and protested it? The GWOT is now the GWORA? I havent seen this acronym yet. Do you think its because saying it in this way might mean that the administration will have to deal with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan differently? The Iraq war as common sense would be an oxymoron. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 175 Registered: 2-2006 |
Here's a true story Fact. I used to listen. Quite a bit. Then I decided to play a game, you know how us me-ist, babes in the woods, like to play games. The game was to turn Limbaugh's show off as soon as I heard a lie. Not twisted opinion, or obfuscation, or misrepresentation by omission, but a real whopper. I realized in his opening sentence, that he usually had two lies going at once. Limbaugh lies like a circus performer spins plates. He can keep several going at once. This helped me form my reasoning that the pro Bush, chicken hawk, war monger, constitution hating, store bought media swillers like, well, whomever, are either lying, crazy, or amazingly stupid. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5390 Registered: 5-2001 |
So much of the right's "reasoning" on issues is built on half-truths and misrepresentations. From the "average tax cuts" we all got, to "saving" social security, the link-yet-no-link between 9/11 and Iraq, federalism-when-it's-convenient, and a host of other issues you've got to wonder: why base public policy decisions on the wrong information? Well the only answer is, the decisions have already been made based on ideological reasons. Any other reasons put forward are simply cover. These ideologies are like religions to them, completely immune to reason or fact. That's why they slide so easily into the creationist camp, and into any other belief that requires faith over evidence -- like the WMDs in Iraq. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5391 Registered: 5-2001 |
Here's a fine example. Rep. Dingell is being interviewed and is discussing the necessity of being an "honest broker" in dealing with the fight between Israel and Hezbollah.
Some fool at Redstate edits it into this, and adds "It’s good to know terrorist groups have at least one supporter in the House. How many others are there and can we afford to find out by letting them take control of the House?”
It's highly unlikely that dishonesty such as this really advances the cause of Middle East peace in any way. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1261 Registered: 4-2006 |
Hoops- If you would indulge me a moment before I reply, would you please answer me: What did you study in college? At what level did your education end? ae35unit- Again, I hate to break it to you but I don't give a s$@% what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Air America , or "Kos" says. What I am concerned about is the fact these people believe they have a real global war going on with us and our "progressives", who have increasingly come to dominate the party, are intellectually incapable of getting it. They don't want "understanding", they want an international caliphate where you are either practicing their brand of religion or room temperature. They live in the 12th century dude. They are not all " touchy-feely", don't drive Volvos,and consume gourmet cheeses from Whole Foods. tom- This war is not a matter of politics.Please wise up. | ||
| llama Citizen Username: Llama Post Number: 812 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oil isn't politics? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1754 Registered: 10-2004 |
no you are not going to be indulged by my educational background. My points stand on their own without regard to which educational level I have achieved. Education never really ends, does it? |
