Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

shakran · 06-05-2005, 07:19 PM

Their problem, pac, is that they've chosen the side that's built on lies, deceipt, and logical fallacies. The war WAS started based on lies, and whether Iraq becomes stable and peaceful (I'm not holding my breath) or not has no bearing on the fact that the United States was in the wrong.

Iraq is a quagmire. It's not going to be stable and peaceful any more than Vietnam was stable and peaceful.

There's no excuse for what this country did. We invaded a country that was no threat, could be no threat, and hadn't done anything to deserve our attack.

And we did it by lying about WMDs, insinuating Iraq and 9/11 were linked, and basically scaring the people into supporting the war.

Now that the lies are being exposed, the pro-war side is forced to use diversionary tactics to try and draw our attention away from that ugly fact. So they start whining about how the media covers bad things happening in Iraq - as though 20+ American soldiers getting killed by an insurgent bomb is a story that should be dropped in favor of one about an iraqi kid petting a puppy.

And then when someone like you or I steps up to the plate and calls attention to the diversionary tactic, they start calling us names, and accuse us of wanting the mission in Iraq to fail, and in some cases they even accuse us of wanting the soldiers to be killed so we can be proven right.

Well in the first place that's bullshit, and unless they can substantiate that with quotes from you or me in which we said we wanted the Iraq mission to fail or that we want soldiers to get killed, they should refrain from the baseless, slandarous (and incidentally, more diversionary) accusations.

Furthermore, the Iraq mission as originally pitched HAS failed.

It was pitched as an invasion that would make the US safer, and it hasn't. We're in every bit as much danger now as we ever were. And in fact we're probably in more danger - after all, we've just pissed off a whole passel of Iraq/Saddam supporters.

So yes. The Iraq mission is a failure. Changing it midstream from "keep us safe and eliminate imaginary WMDs" to "democratize iraq by forcing a government on them" (no one sees the irony there?) does not erase the original failure.

06-05-2005, 07:19 PM	#28 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Their problem, pac, is that they've chosen the side that's built on lies, deceipt, and logical fallacies. The war WAS started based on lies, and whether Iraq becomes stable and peaceful (I'm not holding my breath) or not has no bearing on the fact that the United States was in the wrong. Iraq is a quagmire. It's not going to be stable and peaceful any more than Vietnam was stable and peaceful. There's no excuse for what this country did. We invaded a country that was no threat, could be no threat, and hadn't done anything to deserve our attack. And we did it by lying about WMDs, insinuating Iraq and 9/11 were linked, and basically scaring the people into supporting the war. Now that the lies are being exposed, the pro-war side is forced to use diversionary tactics to try and draw our attention away from that ugly fact. So they start whining about how the media covers bad things happening in Iraq - as though 20+ American soldiers getting killed by an insurgent bomb is a story that should be dropped in favor of one about an iraqi kid petting a puppy. And then when someone like you or I steps up to the plate and calls attention to the diversionary tactic, they start calling us names, and accuse us of wanting the mission in Iraq to fail, and in some cases they even accuse us of wanting the soldiers to be killed so we can be proven right. Well in the first place that's bullshit, and unless they can substantiate that with quotes from you or me in which we said we wanted the Iraq mission to fail or that we want soldiers to get killed, they should refrain from the baseless, slandarous (and incidentally, more diversionary) accusations. Furthermore, the Iraq mission as originally pitched HAS failed. It was pitched as an invasion that would make the US safer, and it hasn't. We're in every bit as much danger now as we ever were. And in fact we're probably in more danger - after all, we've just pissed off a whole passel of Iraq/Saddam supporters. So yes. The Iraq mission is a failure. Changing it midstream from "keep us safe and eliminate imaginary WMDs" to "democratize iraq by forcing a government on them" (no one sees the irony there?) does not erase the original failure. Last edited by shakran; 06-05-2005 at 07:23 PM..