How many times are we going to have what is essentially the exact same thread on the topic of Iraq?
Unfortunately, there is a disconnect in all of this claptrap you wrote.
The disconnect is that the experts are routinely ignored by Bush, on just about any topic you can choose. Instead, we have a policy of cherry picking evidence or even altering scientific reports to support an agenda.
Hardly a situation that makes me feel comfortable with the level of expertise in washington and the quality of decision making that will be resultant.
I’m going to hijack this thread now. Or maybe that already happened…
Have any of you lost anyone you love, or care about, to this “War in Iraq”? I have. And you know what I learned about commitment? Would I go back to Iraq?
Hell yea!!! I already have… 3 times before!!! What’s a 4th time? To all those criticizing the current war effort of coalition troops:
Evaluate your own courage. Evaluate your opinions. Evaluate your accusations. And evaluate what you have. Evaluate yourself.
Don’t hide behind a “Wall of Swords”. Don’t use someone else’s cannon fodder. Try using your own words on how you really feel about your soldiers dying in Iraq.
Would you tell them on their death bed that I do not appreciate what you’re doing for the persecuted masses and your death was meaningless? Or would you take their hand and comfort them in their time-in-need? And tell them, “Your wife is proud of you… And you’re kids love you and look up to you. I will tell them how much they mean to you. I will tell them that you love them…”
Sincerely,
OD
Vroom,
“Unfortunately, there is a disconnect in all of this claptrap you wrote.”
Hmm. I’ll reserve comment.
“The disconnect is that the experts are routinely ignored by Bush, on just about any topic you can choose.”
Well, Vroom - which experts? The ones you like? Truth is, there are experts on all sides of this issue. Think tanks are humming, writing papers, examining the issues - both sides.
The Bush administration certainly has a policy preference with whose ideas they agree with. But your simplistic fantasy - that all the wise folk are warning “no! no! no!” and the reckless numbskulls are just ignoring them - is pure fiction. That is what you prefer, rather than what is. It’s wrong.
But let’s play : so who did Bush ignore exactly? The Senate? France? The UNSC? All of which put, in print, that they feared Saddam still had WMDs?
Presidential candidates moving left because of Howard Dean? MoveOn.org? Corrupt Arab regimes?
Who are all these wise gurus - acting under pure selflessness - advising the US that action in Iraq is bad policy?
Do tell. Rub your chin and consult your Book of Unoriginal Conventional Wisdom Passed Off As Profound Statements until you can get an answer. However, I should warn you - if it is your usual plain vanilla tripe about everyone getting along coupled with a “sigh” in parentheses, I’ll be sorely disappointed.
“Instead, we have a policy of cherry picking evidence or even altering scientific reports to support an agenda.”
No, we have an administration - like any administration before it - that must make decisions based on imperfect information. The evidence for the Iraq war was not ‘cherrypicked’ - unless you think a bipartisan Senate is ‘cherrypicking’ along with Bush.
“Hardly a situation that makes me feel comfortable with the level of expertise in washington and the quality of decision making that will be resultant.”
No? Sorry to hear your delicate sensibilities have been upset. Fair enough, though - you don’t have to like the policy or agree with it. But the so-called “expertise” - by which I don’t think you have any credible measure - is quite high, and if it is not, you haven’t explained why.
Thunder,
Did you not hear about the guy that was editing scientific releases concerning environmental issues… so that they would line up better with the administrations viewpoint?
Anyway, the most serious error in your rebuttal is thinking that I’m some “can’t we all get along” type. You miss the mark badly with that comment.
Finally, it is pointless to say that everybody decided to approve the war. There was no ability for anyone to say anything else, the country was in a state of nationalistic and patriotic ferver.
Let’s get some real discussion of real issues… instead of simply saying, everyone voted this or everyone voted that.
It appears, and maybe it is not so, that the Bush administration came into office with a strategy for dealing with Iraq, and then chose which facts to present to ensure that their strategy was put into place.
Maybe that isn’t that case. Maybe it is the case.
Maybe instead of cheerleading and telling us how great the administration is, you should think about what it would mean if the cherry picking really did happen.
I don’t claim to have all the answers with respect to fighting terrorism, but I do know that Iraq was not the hotbed of WMD’s, nor the focal point of Al Queda activity, nor related to 9/11 in any capacity as the general public believed it to be when the war was initiated.
Why is that? How could the public have been led to believe that?
The first issue could certainly be an honest mistake, the other two are much more suspect.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Vroom,
“Unfortunately, there is a disconnect in all of this claptrap you wrote.”
Hmm. I’ll reserve comment.
“The disconnect is that the experts are routinely ignored by Bush, on just about any topic you can choose.”
Well, Vroom - which experts? The ones you like? Truth is, there are experts on all sides of this issue. Think tanks are humming, writing papers, examining the issues - both sides.
The Bush administration certainly has a policy preference with whose ideas they agree with. But your simplistic fantasy - that all the wise folk are warning “no! no! no!” and the reckless numbskulls are just ignoring them - is pure fiction. That is what you prefer, rather than what is. It’s wrong.
But let’s play : so who did Bush ignore exactly? The Senate? France? The UNSC? All of which put, in print, that they feared Saddam still had WMDs?
Presidential candidates moving left because of Howard Dean? MoveOn.org? Corrupt Arab regimes?
Who are all these wise gurus - acting under pure selflessness - advising the US that action in Iraq is bad policy?
Do tell. Rub your chin and consult your Book of Unoriginal Conventional Wisdom Passed Off As Profound Statements until you can get an answer. However, I should warn you - if it is your usual plain vanilla tripe about everyone getting along coupled with a “sigh” in parentheses, I’ll be sorely disappointed.
“Instead, we have a policy of cherry picking evidence or even altering scientific reports to support an agenda.”
No, we have an administration - like any administration before it - that must make decisions based on imperfect information. The evidence for the Iraq war was not ‘cherrypicked’ - unless you think a bipartisan Senate is ‘cherrypicking’ along with Bush.
“Hardly a situation that makes me feel comfortable with the level of expertise in washington and the quality of decision making that will be resultant.”
No? Sorry to hear your delicate sensibilities have been upset. Fair enough, though - you don’t have to like the policy or agree with it. But the so-called “expertise” - by which I don’t think you have any credible measure - is quite high, and if it is not, you haven’t explained why. [/quote]
Seriously, are you and jerffy plants from the Bush administration?
[quote]Original_Demon wrote:
I’m going to hijack this thread now. Or maybe that already happened…
Have any of you lost anyone you love, or care about, to this “War in Iraq”? I have. And you know what I learned about commitment? Would I go back to Iraq?
Hell yea!!! I already have… 3 times before!!! What’s a 4th time? To all those criticizing the current war effort of coalition troops:
Evaluate your own courage. Evaluate your opinions. Evaluate your accusations. And evaluate what you have. Evaluate yourself.
Don’t hide behind a “Wall of Swords”. Don’t use someone else’s cannon fodder. Try using your own words on how you really feel about your soldiers dying in Iraq.
Would you tell them on their death bed that I do not appreciate what you’re doing for the persecuted masses and your death was meaningless? Or would you take their hand and comfort them in their time-in-need? And tell them, “Your wife is proud of you… And you’re kids love you and look up to you. I will tell them how much they mean to you. I will tell them that you love them…”
Sincerely,
OD
[/quote]
I feel for people who have to fight for something that they may not believe in.
I feel worse for those people that convince themselves they believe in it when they do not.
I feel still worse for those that never stopped to think if they believe in it or not.
A Florida paper recently printed the photos of all of the troops from Florida who’ve died. When I saw that, I searched through the photos for a friend of mine who signed up for the Air Force on 9/10/01. I’m sure he’s seen some action and I – for some reason – was sure I was going to see his face in the paper. Fortunately, I didn’t. If I did though, I would have felt just terrible. I would have felt bad mostly because I would have felt that he died for an unnecessary cause…
It’s too bad FDR didn’t wait until 1945 to get involved in WWII; if he did, we could have fought the Germans and Japanese right here in America.
[quote]Champ24 wrote:
Frankly, I think Americans have taken too much for granted lately. Just because the last few times we have taken military action have not needed any significant ground troops and could mainly be fought from the air or sea we have gotten into a comfort zone and now think that in ALL wars we should only lose a few servicemen. You make it sound like it’s a bad thing that we are helping out a supressed people. If you do recall our own Revolutionary War the only reason we had a hope or prayer of winning against the British was because of the French.
At the time, the U. S. had no naval power to speak of, but the French sure did and their hatred of the British made them a great ally in the war. Well, our hatred of terrorism and Saddam has made us a great ally to the people of Iraq. [/quote]
Haha! Somebody has gotten it! Very nice, Champ24. Very nice!
Please continue flamewar, gentlemen, I apologize for the interruption… I just had to interject for a second and pat Champ on the internet back there.
We should hand out prizes or something to the folks who can see through the media blitzkreig and understand what the fuck is going on over there.
Vroom,
“Did you not hear about the guy that was editing scientific releases concerning environmental issues… so that they would line up better with the administrations viewpoint?”
I never mentioned that situation - this thread is about Iraq.
“Anyway, the most serious error in your rebuttal is thinking that I’m some “can’t we all get along” type. You miss the mark badly with that comment.”
If it walks like a duck…
“Finally, it is pointless to say that everybody decided to approve the war.”
Who said this? I never did. Secondly, what the hell does it have to do with whether or not Bush and Co. ignored sound “expert” advice in going to war in Iraq?
“There was no ability for anyone to say anything else, the country was in a state of nationalistic and patriotic ferver.”
Hogwash. Plenty of people were saying otherwise. Emotions ran high to be sure, but there was no shortage of opinions on all sides of the issue.
And don’t deconstruct the Senate vote as some poor result of people being controlled by external forces they can’t control - classic victimology. There were Senators who voted for and against - and they did so as of their own free will.
Your not-so-hidden excusemaking for the Senate resolution - that they didn’t really want to vote that way, they just had to because of the times - is pure horseshit.
Because if you buy that as a way of skipping out on responsibility, who else does it apply to? Bush himself? I doubt you would agree to that.
“Let’s get some real discussion of real issues… instead of simply saying, everyone voted this or everyone voted that.”
What? The vote is the ultimate representation of your opinion. It’s a Senator or a nation putting its money where its mouth is. Better question is: how can you not talk about the vote?
“It appears, and maybe it is not so, that the Bush administration came into office with a strategy for dealing with Iraq, and then chose which facts to present to ensure that their strategy was put into place.”
You mean like 9/11? You on that conspiracy bandwagon now? Perhaps the Bush administration had a plan for doing something about Iraq before 9/11 - which I am fine with, as no one else in the world was doing anything about Iraq. No doubt the events of 9/11 heightened the desire to do something about a known international aggressor and trafficker of WMDs. Perfectly rational.
“Maybe instead of cheerleading and telling us how great the administration is, you should think about what it would mean if the cherry picking really did happen.”
Pure cop-out. First, I am not a cheerleader for the administration - if you don’t think so, let’s talk about the environment, corporate criminals, the use of the veto to control pork, and immigration - and you conveniently level that charge when you want to skin out of an argument with your tail between your legs. It’s pure ad hominem. So what if I was a Bush cheerleader - are my arguments wrong merely because I am? If I happen to agree with Bush’s policy choices, does that mean I suddenly have no ability to argue rationally?
Nope. So stop whining.
“I don’t claim to have all the answers with respect to fighting terrorism, but I do know that Iraq was not the hotbed of WMD’s, nor the focal point of Al Queda activity, nor related to 9/11 in any capacity as the general public believed it to be when the war was initiated.”
Yes, and reasons for going into Iraq have been repeated over and over. You don’t have to believe them, but you do well to acknowledge them.
“Why is that? How could the public have been led to believe that?”
Well, because many people generally believe that Iraq is part of a larger problem in the war against Islamism. Does that mean that they think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 directly? Some do, some don’t. I personally don’t. But no matter - the basic idea is that in a post-9/11 world, in a world where the UN is either criminal or incompetent, the enemies of the West can no longer be satisified with a lazy appeasement.
Do some math. Take the 9/11 attack. Add it to a decade long appeasement of Saddam Hussein. Then add the genocide at Darfur. What that equals is an enemy of the West looking at the US with less and less fear. Islamists repeatedly say that America is too gluttonous and spiritually exhausted to hit back. Do you think they think that now?
The US simply started calling in old debts. Iraq was at the top of the list.
Elk,
“Seriously, are you and jerffy plants from the Bush administration?”
Seriously, do you aspire to be anything other than an annoying little anklebiting puppy?
Look out, Elk - heavy lifting going on here in the forum. You may consider getting out from underfoot.
I am no ‘cheerleader’ for the Bush administration, but as I presented to Vroom - if I were, does that somehow make my arguments wrong?
Here’s a chance for review:
Thunder, that was a really weak response. You can do better than that.
ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1 wrote:
“I would have felt bad mostly because I would have felt that he died for an unnecessary cause…”
I’ll bet your friend disagrees with you totally.
JeffR
lincono wrote:
It’s too bad FDR didn’t wait until 1945 to get involved in WWII; if he did, we could have fought the Germans and Japanese right here in America
Beautiful!!!
JeffR
elk,
Last night, I showed a few friends your posts on this thread. One is my lifting partner. The other is the acknowledged “toughest guy” in the precinct.
My concern was that I was being overly sensitive. I wanted to find out if they had the same take on your words.
They had the same reaction as I have. If anything, they were even more angry.
They asked to see what you looked like. I showed them your avatar and discussed what you had said regarding your current size.
We all feel that you have challenged our manhood, bravery, and committment to public service.
We thought of a few scenarios for you.
If you are squeamish about talking to a cop on your front door (to use your words “police brutality”), we suggest you go on down to the local station. Walk around for a while. Meet some people (be on your best behavior). Find out who the toughest local guys on the force are. Depending on the size of your Colorado precinct, there should be a minimum of 4-5 meatheads. We want you to pick out the guys with the shaved head and no neck. Like I said, there are usually some sort of physical roughnecks in each precinct.
Get to know a few of the toughest. Find out where and when they party. When they are out of uniform, give them your speech.
Please give the speech to your friends who are cops.
You could also attend a funeral for a fallen brother/sister of the Force. At the wake, give them your speech.
Finally, you could attend an event honoring police/firemen. Make sure you stand up and deliver your speech immediately after the music dies down.
Your speech is as follows:
"Hello, I’m elk. I plotted targets in Gulf War I. For anyone in the Force or their relations, who support the War in Iraq and the troops in Iraq,
don’t you think it would be honorable and the straight up behavior of a man who says out of one side of his mouth that this was totally essential to man up and go when people are needed.
I don’t respect someone who is vocally loud in their support, but they let others do the dying if their is nothing but a job and family keeping them from signing up.
If you don’t go, then you are a hypocrite."
Please tell me how that goes. If you have any guts, you will follow through.
Good luck,
JeffR
It always resorts to physical intimidation with you huh? Well, obviously what, I said hit in nerve with your poor self esteem. If you are indeed a cop are one of the “Walking Small” variety? I would say yes! Guys who join the force because they need the power and respect no one gave them before in their life.
The fact that you had to stew over this and like another person I know reference “friends or others” to show that you have support is a glaring indication of your weakness! “I showed others your pictures and told them you plotted targets,”. Really how weak, can you stand on your own two feet? Are as many of us have guessed from your juvenile posting, are you spoiled little baby?
I’m gonna hafta hear another "well the boys down at the precint agree with huge, strong,under fire everyday me, that your weak and joke. You are the definition of a fucking joke.
You care to come to Colorado ever I’ll meet you for a cup of joe.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elk,
“Seriously, are you and jerffy plants from the Bush administration?”
Seriously, do you aspire to be anything other than an annoying little anklebiting puppy?
Look out, Elk - heavy lifting going on here in the forum. You may consider getting out from underfoot.
I am no ‘cheerleader’ for the Bush administration, but as I presented to Vroom - if I were, does that somehow make my arguments wrong?
Here’s a chance for review:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html[/quote]
Thunder, you’re not half the intellectual powerhouse or strategic war planner you think you are. Real good at regurgitating neocon talking points that’s about it I’d say.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
lincono wrote:
It’s too bad FDR didn’t wait until 1945 to get involved in WWII; if he did, we could have fought the Germans and Japanese right here in America
Beautiful!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
Beautifully dumb! Our military spending exceeds what the next 5 countries combined? If we hadn’t gotten Iraq surely they would’ve gotten to us—with the unmanned drones that travel 6000 miles with biological weapons (another lie). He dared to make the comparison and Jeff was glad he did, hilarious.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
I pass my judgment on those that are waving the war flag high and mighty and could easily sign up for duty if they cared to! IMO that is the height of hypocrisy! [/quote]
So how do you judge the able bodied anti-war people that sit on the sidelines and don’t write their congressman asking for an end to the war, organize anti-war protest, or in general take no action other than to complain. Is this not hypocrisy also?
[quote]CDM wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
I pass my judgment on those that are waving the war flag high and mighty and could easily sign up for duty if they cared to! IMO that is the height of hypocrisy!
So how do you judge the able bodied anti-war people that sit on the sidelines and don’t write their congressman asking for an end to the war, organize anti-war protest, or in general take no action other than to complain. Is this not hypocrisy also? [/quote]
Not nearly the same thing. I don’t see them as responsible for it or as hypocrites. The burden of responsibility doesn’t fall on them in my view it falls on you.