Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-25-2003, 10:26 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
HarmlessRabbit's Avatar
 
Location: San Jose, CA
It's this simple: come clean on WMD, or leave Iraq

Easterbook of recent-ESPN-firing fame comes up with a clear and succinct statement about WMD in Iraq:

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=894

Quote:
IT'S THIS SIMPLE: COME CLEAN ON WMD, OR LEAVE IRAQ: I'd like to propose a simplification of the entire Iraq/WMD debate. It's this: If the reason we went into Iraq really, truly was that the Bush administration really, truly believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, then there is nothing of which the administration need feel shamed --but the United States must immediately leave Iraq.

We now know there is no significant banned-weapons program in Iraq. Any serious manufacturing facilities for banned weapons would have been detected by this point. If we went in to stop a banned-weapons program genuinely believing one existed, and now know one did not exist, then our military must depart immediately. This is the only honorable course.

Alternative: The administration admits that other reasons, possibly valid, were the real reasons all along.
I couldn't have said it better myself! It's not often that I agree with a conservative columnist in the National Review.
HarmlessRabbit is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 10:33 AM   #2 (permalink)
Apocalypse Nerd
 
Astrocloud's Avatar
 
This would save the US tons of money a day. Just leave, no more useless expendatures.
Astrocloud is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 10:36 AM   #3 (permalink)
God-Hating Liberal
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Thanks for the post! It's refreshing to see that some Conservative idealogues aren't fueled by blind patriotism and hatred for all things Islamic.
__________________
Nizzle
Nizzle is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 10:36 AM   #4 (permalink)
The GrandDaddy of them all!
 
The_Dude's Avatar
 
Location: Austin, TX
we'll never find wmds cuz they dont freakin exist.

bush will never admit this and we will keep searchin forever.
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal
The_Dude is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 11:19 AM   #5 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
We won't leave anytime soon. Having another ally/pawn in that region is too important for us the pass up, and is very much in our best interest, even if we lose a soldier a day to do so.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 12:10 PM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Thats right, lets leave Iraq to Saddam so he can come back in power and torture and murder all those that cheered when America came in. Or leave it to Al Queda, so they can make billions on the oil and make even more threating weapons to kill US ALL. Or we can leave the nation of Iraq to an Iranian style theocracy that will ensure a race war between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Great Idea, Harmless Rabbit. You make me believe more and more that Coulter was correct when she said liberals always go against America's best interests.
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 12:19 PM   #7 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Great Idea, Harmless Rabbit. You make me believe more and more that Coulter was correct when she said liberals always go against America's best interests.
By the way, you may want to mix it up a little -- you've said the last line verbatim in about six threads now.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 12:51 PM   #8 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
What a dumb idea.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 01:11 PM   #9 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Tampa
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Thats right, lets leave Iraq to Saddam so he can come back in power and torture and murder all those that cheered when America came in. Or leave it to Al Queda, so they can make billions on the oil and make even more threating weapons to kill US ALL. Or we can leave the nation of Iraq to an Iranian style theocracy that will ensure a race war between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Great Idea, Harmless Rabbit. You make me believe more and more that Coulter was correct when she said liberals always go against America's best interests.
I agree with what you say, but not because saddam would come back into power or the taliban would supposedly take control, but because of many different reasons...

First let me say that I hate war, the only difference between you and the people you're fighting against is the geography they were born in. Now that being said, President Bush might have dragged the American image through the mud with this war, but imagine how we would look if all the peace keeping forces we have in Iraq were suddenly wisked away without leaving any sort of government structure behind after we nearly destroyed every bit of their old way of life. Do you think the Iraqis would be any better off now?

Whether we want it or not, Bush has left us a mess to clean up that will take more than 10 years to fix. If we pull out now we will only hurt Iraq more and even further damage our credibility and our percieved abilty to follow through with our goals.

People almost always die when any major progress is involved and some extremists are resistant to it.
yellowgowild is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 01:36 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
LOL, yeah let's just pull out that would solve everything. Quite a strategy. The Iraqis would be SO much better off if left without an army or any security, you know how friendly Iran is, I'm sure they'll offer a helping hand.

Although I am tempted to say we should just pull out because that would screw over France, Germany, and Russia since Iraq owes them a ton of money and they would never get it then.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 02:31 PM   #11 (permalink)
Right Now
 
Location: Home
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Dude
we'll never find wmds cuz they dont freakin exist.
By your logic, we haven't found Saddam yet, so he must not exist either.
Peetster is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 02:40 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Saddam has to exist, who else did we ally ourselves with out of convenience and complete disregard for human rights? Oh yeah, the names pinochet, and the contras come to mind. Was donald rumsfeld hugging a ghost in those infamous pictures? Besides, i never saw no damn WMDs on TV shooting that rifle into the air in front of screaming loyal iraqis.
filtherton is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 02:48 PM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
By the way, you may want to mix it up a little -- you've said the last line verbatim in about six threads now.
This is the second time, and if shoe fits.... Look at Everyone Of Harmless Rabbit's posts. I think the guy is really some Frenchmen who hates america trying to weaken us.
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 02:55 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
HarmlessRabbit's Avatar
 
Location: San Jose, CA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
LOL, yeah let's just pull out that would solve everything. Quite a strategy. The Iraqis would be SO much better off if left without an army or any security, you know how friendly Iran is, I'm sure they'll offer a helping hand.

Although I am tempted to say we should just pull out because that would screw over France, Germany, and Russia since Iraq owes them a ton of money and they would never get it then.
Actually, I suggest we pull out now and let a UN coalition run by Germany, Russia, and France jointly help the region transition to orderly self-government. I certainly never suggested that we *just* leave.

Also, this wasn't my idea, it was the idea of a conservative columnist at the New Republic. Feel free to attack my "liberal" ideas though, it makes me smile.
HarmlessRabbit is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 02:55 PM   #15 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
FEL: Whoa there, mighty Flame Warrior of Doom! For thine hast forgotten that the laws of war do not permit such activity in this here arena....

I don't think immediate departure is a good thing....leaving a power vacuum is the only thing we could do to make things worse it seems...giving it over to hte UN if they would take it would be the moral thing to do. Now that the damage is pretty well all done, staying to help fix it is the best thing i can think to do. but frankly, the fact that his father is now making motions of support for Ted Kennedy in public, is probalby a sign that Dubya has farked himself beyond beleif on this.
chavos is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 02:58 PM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
The un messes up most everything it touches. For each East Timor, there are hundreds of failures. Giving Iraq to the UN will do about as much help as the UN does to Africa. The UN's track record on nation building is abysmal.
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 02:59 PM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
FEL: Whoa there, mighty Flame Warrior of Doom! For thine hast forgotten that the laws of war do not permit such activity in this here arena....

I don't think immediate departure is a good thing....leaving a power vacuum is the only thing we could do to make things worse it seems...giving it over to hte UN if they would take it would be the moral thing to do. Now that the damage is pretty well all done, staying to help fix it is the best thing i can think to do. but frankly, the fact that his father is now making motions of support for Ted Kennedy in public, is probalby a sign that Dubya has farked himself beyond beleif on this.
Who ever said the UN was moral? Remember this is the organisation made up by dictators and repressors. They have Libya sitting as head of the Human Rights commission. UN and Moral in the same sentence is the craziest thing I ever heard.
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 03:02 PM   #18 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
I am satisfied with our policy even if the threat of WMD was needed to galvanize public and world opinion so that those who would have kept us from doing what was and is the right thing to do - given the geopolitics of the region and the need for security and stability in the world - were and are rendered sufficiently powerless to subvert the effort.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 03:07 PM   #19 (permalink)
Winner
 
Moving our troops out is the wrong thing to do, whether you supported this war or not. Easterbrook and his ilk seem to think we can just remove our troops, pretend the whole thing never happened, and just go on to the next war. Like it or not, we have made this commitment to the Iraqi people and we must follow through or risk destroying our credibility even further.

By the way, I found this piece by another conservative, Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, to be a much better summary of the WMD debate:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-21-03.html

Quote:
EXCERPT:
The stark contrast between what was said about WMD before the war and what has since been found certainly appears to be a massive failure of intelligence, despite what CIA Director George Tenet says. For numerous pundits who previously went along with the notion Iraq had a formidable arsenal of vaguely identified exotic weapons, however, failure to discover such weapons is now said to be little more than an insignificant annoyance. The real purpose of the war, they tell us, was a humanitarian crusade to get rid of one of the world's nastiest dictators and turn Iraq into a much nicer place, thanks to many billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers.

Numerous explanations and evasions have been created since June to minimize the uncomfortably wide chasm between WMD "intelligence" and reality. The first was to denigrate WMD skeptics as foolishly impatient. In mid-June, national security writer Jack Kelly thought it "at best wildly premature" to complain the supposedly huge stockpiles of WMD had not yet been found. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations likewise found it most likely Saddam "did have something to hide -- and we'll still find it."

More recently, Notra Trulock from Accuracy in Media wrote that "Kay's team still has much work ahead before a final judgment can be made on Iraq's WMD programs." Unfortunately, asking for more and more time is beginning to sound quite desperate and unconvincing.

A second defensive strategy has been to point out that the Clinton administration also expressed anxiety about WMD in Iraq in the late '90s. The bipartisan nature of the intelligence blunder does help to absolve current administration officials from charges of deliberate deception. But it fails to absolve them from charges of being too easily duped by old misinformation. Two wrong presidents do not make one right.

A third technique has been to simply assert, as Daniel Pipes did recently, that "there was indeed massive and undisputed evidence to indicate that the Iraqi regime was building WMD." If the evidence was "undisputed," then why did stubborn people like me keep disputing it?

In reality, the evidence was always flimsy, consisting largely of hearsay, technological fantasy and old paperwork. Anyone who still believes the evidence was massive and beyond dispute should read the half-baked CIA report released last October and the equally misleading British dossier (both available on the Internet). These reports are full of weasel words about precursors, growth media, dual-use capabilities (castor oil factories could make ricin), and suspicious desires and intentions.

A fourth diversion has been to hint Iraq's mysterious weapons and delivery systems were just packed up and shipped off to some other country such as Syria or Lebanon. That story is no way to make our intelligence look more intelligent. If huge stockpiles of lethal weapons and their required delivery systems (e.g., artillery shells or aircraft sprayers) could be moved from one country to another without U.S. satellites and spy planes even noticing, then the CIA would be far more incompetent than its harshest critics ever claimed.
maximusveritas is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 03:49 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
The un messes up most everything it touches. For each East Timor, there are hundreds of failures. Giving Iraq to the UN will do about as much help as the UN does to Africa. The UN's track record on nation building is abysmal.
Speaking of east timor... Did you know that kissinger was there in indonesia, giving his approval mere days before indonesia invaded? How about all of the weapons that indonesia(btw, the most populous muslim nation in the world) recieved from us even after it was evident that they were commiting massive atrocites on that island.
For every iraq, there are many examples of places where the us has just sat idly by and watched a ruthless dictator commit human rights abuses against his own people. Including, oh, iraq.

That being said, we shit in this bed, now it is time we sleep in it. I'd be fine if the un took over, and we'd, as a country, might be able to work on reducing the national debt instead of cleaning up our messes on the other side of the world.
filtherton is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 03:51 PM   #21 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Just outside the D.C. belt
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Thats right, lets leave Iraq to Saddam so he can come back in power and torture and murder all those that cheered when America came in. Or leave it to Al Queda, so they can make billions on the oil and make even more threating weapons to kill US ALL. Or we can leave the nation of Iraq to an Iranian style theocracy that will ensure a race war between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Great Idea, Harmless Rabbit. You make me believe more and more that Coulter was correct when she said liberals always go against America's best interests.
Would you have felt the same if the United States was invaded in the mid 1800's by some country who objected to the way the U.S. was treating it's native inhabitants?

Given the historical record of our government tolerating, even supporting, vile individuals who gave a wink and a nod to anticommunistic dictators this sudden grasping of the human rights straw makes for only straw men arguments.

2Wolves
2wolves is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 03:54 PM   #22 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Just outside the D.C. belt
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I think the guy is really some Frenchmen who hates america trying to weaken us.
If it were not for the French this country would not exist. Stillborn to be precise. That should cut them some slack and does with conservatives with any knowledge of history beyond the past 30 years.

2Wolves
2wolves is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 03:57 PM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
So you are saying in the 1800's terrorists wanted to take over the nation so they could wage war globally and rid of the world of the infidel? That a nation wanted to save the US from factions that would kill each other?


And your forgetting that communists have killed well over 100 million people, I am glad that we supported the lesser of the two evils. It sucks, as you agree, but how much worse would the world be with MORE communist nations being supported by a still in existance Soviet Union?
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 04:48 PM   #24 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Just outside the D.C. belt
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
So you are saying in the 1800's terrorists wanted to take over the nation so they could wage war globally and rid of the world of the infidel? That a nation wanted to save the US from factions that would kill each other?


And your forgetting that communists have killed well over 100 million people, I am glad that we supported the lesser of the two evils. It sucks, as you agree, but how much worse would the world be with MORE communist nations being supported by a still in existance Soviet Union?
Nice attempt at spin. Your justification, as previous stated, had to do with how Saddam was treating his citizens not how terrorists were even involved in anyone's imagination. There is no proven link between the secular former Iraqi government and bin Laden. None. Zero. Bupkis.

Not forgetting the millions killed by pseudo-socialism, but you've appear to have forgotten the dead nations of the American continent.

As I stated many of those dictators had only a passing glimmer of anti-socialism in thier programs; extracting maximum power and self agrandiziment (sp?) was much more important. Don't confuse the lable with the reality.

And don't try to spin what I write as I don't walk away from bushwa.

Now, how about giving me an answer to my question?

2Wolves
__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.
2wolves is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 04:52 PM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by 2wolves
If it were not for the French this country would not exist. Stillborn to be precise. That should cut them some slack and does with conservatives with any knowledge of history beyond the past 30 years.

2Wolves
I am talking about now, you know HERE and NOW.
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 05:00 PM   #26 (permalink)
Banned
 
In the 1800's the world was treating people much worse. We have become a better place than it is now. That is why I am against Israel's treatment of Palastinians, and Saddam's treatment of his people. Had their been a nation like the US is now, and fought on indian rights, and won, the world would have been different. And its is a moot point as there was no such nation. The sad truth is only a few people cared about them at the time.
Why are you so mired in the past? My Romany family was slaughted by Germans. Do I hate them? Do I blame them? My uncle was killed in a concentration camp. My mother remembers him ( I dont obviously, he was dead before I was born). So I guess I should scream and talk about what if, or I should look at what his happening right now and say "People are getting killed in Iraq, and Saddam has the resouces to stymie the UN untill he is in a postion of powe to wage war on his terms, or we can stop it now with a minimum of loss to life."
THat is what I choose to do. I cant change the past, nor can you. But you can realise that we saved the most lives with our course of action in Iraq, but to do so you would have to drop your blind hatred of Bush, and some of you would rather hold on to hate than realse that we saved lives. Its rather sad.

As far as the terrorists part, I was talking about leaving the nation now, as the thread was talking about. If we leave now, Al Qaida would have a decent change to take over, or at least set up shop. So in that context, I talked about it in the 1800's. If I was not clear, i am sorry.
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 06:26 PM   #27 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Just outside the D.C. belt
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
In the 1800's the world was treating people much worse. We have become a better place than it is now. That is why I am against Israel's treatment of Palastinians, and Saddam's treatment of his people. Had their been a nation like the US is now, and fought on indian rights, and won, the world would have been different. And its is a moot point as there was no such nation. The sad truth is only a few people cared about them at the time.
Why are you so mired in the past? My Romany family was slaughted by Germans. Do I hate them? Do I blame them? My uncle was killed in a concentration camp. My mother remembers him ( I dont obviously, he was dead before I was born). So I guess I should scream and talk about what if, or I should look at what his happening right now and say "People are getting killed in Iraq, and Saddam has the resouces to stymie the UN untill he is in a postion of powe to wage war on his terms, or we can stop it now with a minimum of loss to life."
THat is what I choose to do. I cant change the past, nor can you. But you can realise that we saved the most lives with our course of action in Iraq, but to do so you would have to drop your blind hatred of Bush, and some of you would rather hold on to hate than realse that we saved lives. Its rather sad.

As far as the terrorists part, I was talking about leaving the nation now, as the thread was talking about. If we leave now, Al Qaida would have a decent change to take over, or at least set up shop. So in that context, I talked about it in the 1800's. If I was not clear, i am sorry.
Ok, one at a time:

1. Still dodging the original question. I asked how you'd feel about that possibility as that is what
the United States did to Iraq. You ran from the premise.

2. "Mired in the past"? Yeah, yesterday was a real iron clad bitch. Tomorrow looks like more of the same.

3. Germans.... Nuremberg.... Tell me, when was the last time a caucasian stood in the dock for killing an American native
or taking away their language, or ..... you've probably stopped reading already.

4. Wage war on his terms" The Republicans didn't seem bothered by this when the Iran / Iraq war was going on. What changed?

5. Saved whose lives? Not citizens of the United States. I worked with an Iraqi in the 80's, who's job it was
during the aforementioned conflict, to crawl into the desert at night with a one meter metal rod to find Iranian
land mines. His personal view? Vote against any and all Republicans he could find after getting citizenship.

6. Al Quida is not a governmental organization. They did not attempt a coup in the 'stan. They have not tried
to overthrow the Saud family. What G-2 do you possess that is not available to the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc, etc, etc?

2Wolves
2wolves is offline  
Old 10-25-2003, 11:56 PM   #28 (permalink)
The Northern Ward
 
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Quote:
Originally posted by Peetster
By your logic, we haven't found Saddam yet, so he must not exist either.
But sir, we clearly have records and statements proving that he does in fact exist.

That's good logic, one of my favorites, not the only logic working for pro-war either. Everyone has heard it though I'm sure.
__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy
Phaenx is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 12:39 AM   #29 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Tampa
I guess people have forgotten that the reason Rumsfeld is so sure Saddam had WMD is because he sold them to him in the first place.
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UQAAAMIZ3EKRIDyEmjJuC1bFNf9RT7s93NXt90quQD*cMrJMERdIE5qk*wOp0AXs56qRJN0yXkUHxDTLRvz1wiWMzmqQroCvUE8aMpQZvPNCThckBNC6bQZxhpAWTYQb/Rumsfeld-vs-Saddam.gif?dc=4675444508116214680[/IMG]
yellowgowild is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 02:36 AM   #30 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
No way, the US smashed the system and destroyed the goverment. Now it is their duty to establish an new one. Sorry but you have to pay the bill.
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 03:53 AM   #31 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by yellowgowild
I guess people have forgotten that the reason Rumsfeld is so sure Saddam had WMD is because he sold them to him in the first place.
Precisely. Saddam was our mess, and we need to clean it up.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 08:26 AM   #32 (permalink)
Conspiracy Realist
 
Sun Tzu's Avatar
 
Location: The Event Horizon
I remember being glued to my television when the skirmish started. At one point (I was watching FOX news) a group of soldiers came across hundreds of steel barrels. I thought "wow that was fast; they found them". Nothing was stated. It almost as if the just brushed of the barrels as harmless products. I didnt hear anything more about that find until weeks later.

I was listening to a political talk radio show one morning and a journalist commented on the barrels stating the reason that that paricular find was'nt publicized is because of whose name was on the barrels.

There'e no doubt that in the past decade; the US along with many other countries supplied Iraq with technology and supplies for WMD. Perhaps the reason the confidence was so high in the adminstration is because of that fact.

Either way; whatever the reason for or for not going to war is secondary at this point. Perhaps if Bush would have made it a humanitarian cause by promoting the rape, murder, and probable secret preparations for attacks on the US or the country the US is protecting.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking
Sun Tzu is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 08:53 AM   #33 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by 2wolves
Ok, one at a time:

1. Still dodging the original question. I asked how you'd feel about that possibility as that is what
the United States did to Iraq. You ran from the premise.

I accepted your premise, but there is nothign to say, as no nation would have done that, and if they did, then the world wold be a truly fucked up place as no nation would have been able to stand up to the communists and you problably wouldnt have the freedom to complain about what ever nation would have conqured north America for a glorious communist regime.
2. "Mired in the past"? Yeah, yesterday was a real iron clad bitch. Tomorrow looks like more of the same.
Nice bitter attitude you got.

3. Germans.... Nuremberg.... Tell me, when was the last time a caucasian stood in the dock for killing an American native
or taking away their language, or ..... you've probably stopped reading already.
What about the Natives that waged war, killed, raped and tortured other natives? You are making it sound like America was utopia before Europeans came. Dont forget, the the tribes that were slaughtered to extinction BEFORE white man showed up. Are you complaining about that too, or just the white man? Why did so many tribes join with the settles AGAINST other tribes? Whites were acting JUST like the natives and vice versa. Does it make it right? Not at all, and today we know better.

4. Wage war on his terms" The Republicans didn't seem bothered by this when the Iran / Iraq war was going on. What changed?
The world is complex. We also didnt seem to concered with Stalin when we were fighting the nazis, does this make America evil?


5. Saved whose lives? Not citizens of the United States. I worked with an Iraqi in the 80's, who's job it was
during the aforementioned conflict, to crawl into the desert at night with a one meter metal rod to find Iranian
land mines. His personal view? Vote against any and all Republicans he could find after getting citizenship.

Save Iraqi lives. Saddam killed on average 100.000 people per year of his reign. The year the big bad Americans waged war less then 5000 people were killed. So why was the year that there was a war the safest in recent Iraqi history? And thats wonderful your friend gets to vote agains who he doesnt like. Pretty soon that right will be extended to Iraqis. And even if they doent like Rebublicans, they can thank them for that right.

6. Al Quida is not a governmental organization. They did not attempt a coup in the 'stan. They have not tried
to overthrow the Saud family. What G-2 do you possess that is not available to the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc, etc, etc?
You dont think Al Queda is in Iraq now? You dont think they would love it if America pulled out? You dont think they will take advantage? They dont take over Afganistan or Saudi cause the military, abandon Iraq, and that another story.


2Wolves
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 08:58 AM   #34 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Tampa
Ghad! Red letters on a blue background! My eyes are bleeding now....
yellowgowild is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 09:11 AM   #35 (permalink)
Banned
 
Sorry
Food Eater Lad is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 12:33 PM   #36 (permalink)
God-Hating Liberal
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Quote:
Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Great Idea, Harmless Rabbit. You make me believe more and more that Coulter was correct when she said liberals always go against America's best interests.
What amuses me so much about this response is what it says about you.

The author of that blog is the conservative columnist who previously was employed by ESPN. The point of Harmless Rabbit's post was clearly to demonstrate that not only "liberals" disagree with the current administration's handling of Iraq.

You are so mired in your battle of ideology that you have reduced yourself to a state where everything is black and white. There is no point in debating the issues with you because you will fight for your right-wing agenda on principle. Everyone who disagrees with you is anti-American. Which, ironically, is the most un-American thing I've seen in this forum to date.

Unfortunately it's a recurring theme among those who would defend the administration's policy under any and all circumstances. Let me ask you a hypothetical question, Food Eater Lad. Answer it honestly. What would the Bush administration have to do for you to disagree with it?
__________________
Nizzle
Nizzle is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 12:34 PM   #37 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Actually, I suggest we pull out now and let a UN coalition run by Germany, Russia, and France jointly help the region transition to orderly self-government. I certainly never suggested that we *just* leave.

Also, this wasn't my idea, it was the idea of a conservative columnist at the New Republic. Feel free to attack my "liberal" ideas though, it makes me smile.
Hey HR, my comments were directed at the idea of the post, not you or your liberal philosophies. Funny how I didn't even mention anything about liberalism yet you still bring it up.

If you meant that it should be taken over by a coalition then you should have said that in your comments instead of just agreeing that we should pull out. As far as the reality of such a coalition occuring, they'd never do it.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 12:48 PM   #38 (permalink)
God-Hating Liberal
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Oh, I guess I should state my opinion on the matter. I don't think the question here is whether we should pull out of Iraq or not. Obviously we cannot do that, nor do I think we should.

The statement that sparked this debate was a rhetorical device. What I would like to see, which was reflected nicely in a conservative's column, is for the administration to come clean on our reasons for being in Iraq.

The entire thing has been handled through a veil of misinformation and manipulation of the public opinion. Non-existant "weapons of mass destruction" (I'm getting so sick of that term), the subtly implied (and also non-existant) link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. People who supported the war befor we went in said nothing about liberating the Iraqi population. The average American thought we should "nuke em all" in fact, not even understanding that Iraqi civilians were being oppressed by a cruel dictatorship. The stated reasons for going to war was that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. We now know this to be patently false, and evidence dictates that the administration knew this and played it up anyway to the public to gain approval for its actions.

The administration has played the general public like a finely tuned instrument. It makes me angry. Do I think there may be good reasons to overthrow an oppressive dictator? Of course! But if we are going to discuss this honestly, the first step is to admit that we didn't go into Iraq to liberate Iraqis. If that were our goal, there are many other countries whose leaders are guilty of human rights violations that far exceed those of Saddam's.
__________________
Nizzle
Nizzle is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 01:31 PM   #39 (permalink)
Conspiracy Realist
 
Sun Tzu's Avatar
 
Location: The Event Horizon
Nizzle this was a strange engagement all the way around. The Nukes in Africa issue, the irony in the questioning of whether he had WMD when the US participated in the development of them. (along with other nations)

The point you make is what I thought as well about the liberation. The most interesting aspect is what the name of the war was. Pyschologically strategic.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking
Sun Tzu is offline  
Old 10-26-2003, 01:48 PM   #40 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Nizzle
What amuses me so much about this response is what it says about you.

The author of that blog is the conservative columnist who previously was employed by ESPN. The point of Harmless Rabbit's post was clearly to demonstrate that not only "liberals" disagree with the current administration's handling of Iraq.

You are so mired in your battle of ideology that you have reduced yourself to a state where everything is black and white. There is no point in debating the issues with you because you will fight for your right-wing agenda on principle. Everyone who disagrees with you is anti-American. Which, ironically, is the most un-American thing I've seen in this forum to date.

Unfortunately it's a recurring theme among those who would defend the administration's policy under any and all circumstances. Let me ask you a hypothetical question, Food Eater Lad. Answer it honestly. What would the Bush administration have to do for you to disagree with it?
I disagree with how Afghanistan was abandonded. I think the best way to show the fundies that the American way of life is not so bad is to make Afghanistan a better pace due to American influnce. The biggest error the Bush Adin did was leaving the job before the quality of life was risen. True its better than under the taliban, but not as good as it could get. Nothing will show the fundies that they are wrong then a damn good lifestyle.
Food Eater Lad is offline  
 

Tags
clean, iraq, leave, simple, wmd

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:59 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360