Listen you Moron, We do not blow are asses up to get them, These guys are killing there own country men. IS THAT TO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE? IF WE WHERE BLOWING THE SHIT OUT OF ARE OWN SOLDIERS ON A DAILY BASIS(OH AND DON’T USE THE FEW FRIENDLY FIRE THESE ARE RARE AND DON’T HAPPEN ON A DAILY BASIS).
you sir need to learn when to shut the fuck up.[/quote]
Well they have a different strategy, therefore they have different targets.
Terrorism is aimed at the civilian population, therefore killing civilians is strategically sound.
Are you complaining that they do not play
fair and just get shot by a Marine? What are they grazy? They use what they have and they are winning.
No. It provides context to the way politicians justify their wars.
Yes. They stoop THAT low, just to get idiots like yourself to sign them blank checks.[/quote]
So, you still have no evidence that there was a pretext here? Just say so.
Continuing to try and find abstract justifications for your thin viewpoints merely expose you for what you really are.
I have evidence that the US believed Saddam to be a legitimate threat - and those facts are supported by a UNSC Resolution. You can’t overcome that.
I never said you couldn’t be critical of the war - of course you can - but your thesis, that there were “deceptive pretexts” keep getting its legs taken out by irrefutable facts.
Keep flailing, Lixy.
Sure it does - imagine if we found stockpiles upon stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq how Chimpy McHitler could leverage that into even more conquests! That would have been a keen plan to secure the expansive domination you claim to exist - yet none of it happened. That plain defies common sense.
Now we see what really motivates you - juvenile hatred of ‘the Man’, lashing out behind tears of sniveling animus. Nice. A clearer picture emerges of the child Lixy, the wannabe angry radical.
Then why does Bush have such low ratings right now? Why do Americans have such a low opinion of the war right now?
You merely want to insult Americans out of a deep-seated rage you have at the Big Meanie. Relax. Every college-age armchair radical grows out of it when they get a dose of the real world.
Saddam has WMDs - how hard would it be in that lawless land to get those WMDs into the hands of those who would hurt his enemies? He continued to make money on selling oil behind the UN’s back - what makes you think he couldn’t pull off that deal?
And, interestingly, when it comes to erring on the side of who you think is actng in “good faith” - you would choose Saddam over the US. Telling.
Sure - and no one had to buy it. You still haven’t refuted the idea that there was reason to believe there was a threat. And why would the nations of the UNSC roll over for the US? When have they done that in the past?
Do you even know who the permanent members are that signed off on the Resolution saying Saddam was a legitimate threat? Why would they agree with the US just to agree with the US?
Questions mounting, Lixy!
Well, as to the first part - utter nonsense. There was plenty of terrorism prior to the Iraq war (see 9/11) - what makes you think they would have stopped?
There were lots of them. Were they better solutions? That is where the debate is. And you haven’t done much to win your end of it.
Note to idiot - sanctions? Let the inspections go forward? Attack immediately?
All of those options start with the premise that “we think he is a threat” - but what should we do?
Are you saying that attacking was the only solution once we determined that Saddam was a threat? Because you just said above that “there were alternatives”…?
You are showing a level of stupidity I didn’t expect.
Hahaha - laughable. Israel has to fight for its life to merely exist. Israel wants to start conquering like the USSR?
Your comparison is pathetic. Say no more.
Yes, and why do we help them? Because they are a liberal democracy, interested in 21st century values, and we think they have a right to defend those virtues against your barbarian brethren who want to return “apes and pigs” to a 7th century caliphate.
Huh? Does that prove or disprove your point? Nope.
Hogwash - and given the nature of the societies there, relying on that would have been a ridiculous notion.
But the decision is that working with them won’t help - Syria helps arm terrorist groups. Time to start looking beyind short-term solutions.
Clearly - I don’t believe everything I read.
Already has.
Yes, and I quote “a radical is someone who sticks to their guns…whether they are loaded are not.”
A perfect definition of Lixy.
And my list of criticisms of Bush is about as long as your bookshelf on Noam Chomsky garbage - so don’t try that ad hominmen approach.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
dems (even though some are ridiculous) are still Americans. I don’t automatically start with the premise that they are trying to hurt the United States. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Much like you would for a family member.
Since you don’t read, I’ll retype that that loyalty has it’s limits.
JeffR
[/quote]
Hey JeffR…I am not retired…I am smarter than that. I got out while I still had a fighting chance to make a REAL life for myself. Besides this, what does my poiltical/economic philosophy have to do with what I wrote about loyalty?
What do dems have to do with anything? Its people like you who polarize every issue that hurt real political agendas. The issues facing this country are not democratic nor are they republican. I think you can agree with that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Lixy is a troll.
Watch your mouth.
He is not the only one here and these trolls bring down the level of discussion on this board.
Let me get this straight. When you were bashing Islam and blaming ALL Muslims for every thing wrong in the world, the level of discussion was somehow higher? …[/quote]
I am not going to read any further than this. You are a liar and a troll. I have NEVER made any such claims.
I have some serious issues with Islam not fixing its own problems but I have never pinned that on all Muslims.
Listen you Moron, We do not blow are asses up to get them, These guys are killing there own country men. IS THAT TO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE? IF WE WHERE BLOWING THE SHIT OUT OF ARE OWN SOLDIERS ON A DAILY BASIS(OH AND DON’T USE THE FEW FRIENDLY FIRE THESE ARE RARE AND DON’T HAPPEN ON A DAILY BASIS).
you sir need to learn when to shut the fuck up.
Well they have a different strategy, therefore they have different targets.
Terrorism is aimed at the civilian population, therefore killing civilians is strategically sound.
Are you complaining that they do not play
fair and just get shot by a Marine? What are they grazy? They use what they have and they are winning.
[/quote]
You dont blow your ass up, and if you believe they are winning, then you sir are retarded and have no idea the progress that has been made by the Iraqi Government?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
I don’t think lixy is the biggest troll. I actually don’t think he’s a troll at all. I think he is wrong most of the time.
I think he is an anti-Semite despite his lame attempts to dispel it or thinly veil it, but I don’t think he is a troll. He has the balls to go toe to toe with folks and argue his points. Also, you gave his view way to mush power and credence by starting this here thread to which I a contributing to.
I consider the biggest troll to be wreckless. He crawls out from under his rock, spews his venom and hate, and crawls back under his rock. He does not have the balls to craft an argument or go toe to toe with anybody.
He drops by, bashes people, America, Israel, etc. and leaves with out so much a smidgen of logic or even an attempt at an argument. He simply hopes his arrogance will feign intelligence.
I for one, like lixy, even though the first time he ever addressed me was with an unholy slew of insults. He brings an interesting view on the world.
[/quote]
I agree. He is a fairly bright Muslim with an interesting take on things. It is interesting to see such a different perspective.
Listen you Moron, We do not blow are asses up to get them, These guys are killing there own country men. IS THAT TO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE? IF WE WHERE BLOWING THE SHIT OUT OF ARE OWN SOLDIERS ON A DAILY BASIS(OH AND DON’T USE THE FEW FRIENDLY FIRE THESE ARE RARE AND DON’T HAPPEN ON A DAILY BASIS).
you sir need to learn when to shut the fuck up.
Well they have a different strategy, therefore they have different targets.
Terrorism is aimed at the civilian population, therefore killing civilians is strategically sound.
Are you complaining that they do not play
fair and just get shot by a Marine? What are they grazy? They use what they have and they are winning.
You dont blow your ass up, and if you believe they are winning, then you sir are retarded and have no idea the progress that has been made by the Iraqi Government?[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
John S. wrote:
Listen you Moron, We do not blow are asses up to get them, These guys are killing there own country men. IS THAT TO FUCKING HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND? ARE YOU THAT FUCKING STUPID TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERANCE? IF WE WHERE BLOWING THE SHIT OUT OF ARE OWN SOLDIERS ON A DAILY BASIS(OH AND DON’T USE THE FEW FRIENDLY FIRE THESE ARE RARE AND DON’T HAPPEN ON A DAILY BASIS).
you sir need to learn when to shut the fuck up.
Well they have a different strategy, therefore they have different targets.
Terrorism is aimed at the civilian population, therefore killing civilians is strategically sound.
Are you complaining that they do not play
fair and just get shot by a Marine? What are they grazy? They use what they have and they are winning.
You dont blow your ass up, and if you believe they are winning, then you sir are retarded and have no idea the progress that has been made by the Iraqi Government?
May I revisit that point in a year or so?[/quote]
By all means go ahead and revist it, you will see nothing but progress.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, you still have no evidence that there was a pretext here? Just say so.
Continuing to try and find abstract justifications for your thin viewpoints merely expose you for what you really are. [/quote]
If what you want is a smoking gun, I can’t give you that. If I did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
What I provided is accumulating evidence that the US made up pretexts to start wars throughout history. I have smoking guns on those because of the declassified documents.
Anyway, when you know the history and look at the mission statement of the PNAC, you start seeing patterns unfolding. Add to that the fact that many officials from within the administration show up claiming that Bush is just looking for pretexts to start wars, you end up with enough info to make up your mind.
You’re not serious, now are you? Aren’t you still in Iraq? Aren’t you looking for ways to pick a fight with Iran? The missing WMDs just confirmed the prevailing sentiment that it was a pretext. A full year into the war, most Americans still believed Saddam had ties to AlQaeda and that he did have WMDs.
You’re underestimating how people are.
Hard to remain civil when you call me names. But I sure felt better after that “squirrels” line.
Irrelevant! He already dragged you into the war. What are you gonna do about it? It’s not like he’s gonna run for office again. You people aren’t a direct democracy and Bush knows that. He got the troops to Iraq, put you in a catch-22 and is now laughing his ass off with his buddies in a cigar-smoke-filled dark room.
Absolutely nothing. It’s just that between taking that risk or killing hundreds of thousands people, I’ll pick the former. Feel free to disagree.
C’mon, that was uncalled for.
I choose the side of peace over the side of war.
Once again, he came out of two devastating wars and had an embargo imposed on him for more than a decade.
It’s like saying Castro is a threat.
Mexican diplomats complained that talks with American officials had been “hostile in tone”, and had shown little concern for the Mexican government’s need to accommodate the overwhelmingly antiwar sentiment of its people. One Mexican diplomat reported that the US told them that “any country that doesn’t go along with us will be paying a very heavy price.”
The US attitude towards other countries has been described as “arm-twisting offensive”.
According to the linked report below, most nations supporting Bush “were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery.” If you didn’t read it already, please do. You’ll very likely learn new things.
And we shouldn’t forget the leaked memo taht exposed the secret surveillance of the UNSC diplomats
I say that the evidence is mounting. Now, study it carefully before getting back to me.
Buddy. I have SEEN the Arab youth getting drawn to extremism. I can’t quantify it, but the Iraq war was the best thing that could have happened to Al-Qaeda and Islamists. It was like handing them new recruits on a silver plate. So, no BS. I saw acquaintances get drawn to bad side with my own eyes.
Well, I for one, don’t see how you could have chosen the road that caused the death of hundreds of thousands and displacing millions without SOLID proof that there was a DIRECT threat.
Note to stupid - When you have a gun pointed at you, you don’t discuss what reaction you should have.
We have apparently different definitions for “threat” in the context of international politics. When you have people massing their troops on your shores, that is a threat. When you are CERTAIN someone is about to attack you, that is a threat. When all you have are maybe’s, that is not a threat; It’s one you made up in your head.
Last I checked, Israel was expropriating land and Gaza and the West Bank were still occupied territories.
Ohhh…You are SOOOOOO wrong here.
You arm and help Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Are they liberal democracies with 21st century values? Didn’t think so.
Now, hush!
It blows up your argument that Saddam wanted to kill Bush. That’s what it was intended for.
Keep up.
The nature of societies there? Do you know what you’re saying? Are they somehow less human than you? Do they not value life and the pursuit of happiness?
HH has literally condemned the entire religion of Islam as being evil, and has requested that we bomb the hell out of them and kill them all, while trying to say he supports there freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Thats hypocritical. Very, very hypocritical.
While I can honestly say I’ve learned and agreed with at times the three of you (JeffR, Zap and TB), I cannot say the same for HH. 90% of everything he says has no substantial backing. He makes little to no truly admissible argument (everything he says has fallacies). He’s a closed minded hack.
So, same question back to you… and no, the “He’s still better than Lixy” is not a real answer
Bombing the hell out of them worked in Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan. Do you think those regimes were LESS bloodthirsty than the terrorist nations and groups we fight now? Ask the people of Warsaw or Nanking.
Also, if the philosophy or religion of a group of people permits some of them to express their faith by killing innocent people who’re doing them no harm, what can we conclude about said philosophy or religion? (Note: I use philosophy as meaning a worldview. Philosophy itself is too noble to have anything to do with the terrorist scum.)
[/quote]
The problem is, terrorists are not nations.
Oh, and the whole bombing the hell out of them thing? That was an international war, where the peace of all of Europe was threatened. This is a bunch of guys in caves with explosives who really, really don’t like us.
Iran threatens to bomb us, or declares war against us, bomb the hell away.
Otherwise, preemptive bombing is disgusting, and wrong.
Christianity allows killing too. Should we kill all Christians? Of course not.
Should we kill terrorists? Yes. Should we kill Islamic terrorists? Yes. Should we kill people because they are islamic, and therefore may be terrorists? Hell Fucking No.
HH has literally condemned the entire religion of Islam as being evil, and has requested that we bomb the hell out of them and kill them all, while trying to say he supports there freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Thats hypocritical. Very, very hypocritical.
While I can honestly say I’ve learned and agreed with at times the three of you (JeffR, Zap and TB), I cannot say the same for HH. 90% of everything he says has no substantial backing. He makes little to no truly admissible argument (everything he says has fallacies). He’s a closed minded hack.
So, same question back to you… and no, the “He’s still better than Lixy” is not a real answer
Bombing the hell out of them worked in Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan. Do you think those regimes were LESS bloodthirsty than the terrorist nations and groups we fight now? Ask the people of Warsaw or Nanking.
Also, if the philosophy or religion of a group of people permits some of them to express their faith by killing innocent people who’re doing them no harm, what can we conclude about said philosophy or religion? (Note: I use philosophy as meaning a worldview. Philosophy itself is too noble to have anything to do with the terrorist scum.)
The problem is, terrorists are not nations.
Oh, and the whole bombing the hell out of them thing? That was an international war, where the peace of all of Europe was threatened. This is a bunch of guys in caves with explosives who really, really don’t like us.
Iran threatens to bomb us, or declares war against us, bomb the hell away.
Otherwise, preemptive bombing is disgusting, and wrong.
Christianity allows killing too. Should we kill all Christians? Of course not.
Should we kill terrorists? Yes. Should we kill Islamic terrorists? Yes. Should we kill people because they are islamic, and therefore may be terrorists? Hell Fucking No.[/quote]
Should we be killing Hamas?
Perhaps…I consider them a terrorist outfit. Can’t understand why these lovely folks don’t have their own state…
"Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans “to the very Last One”. Following are excerpts from the sermon that took place last month, courtesy of MEMRI.
Ahmad Bahr began: “You will be victorious” on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] “you will be victorious,” but only “if you are believers.” Allah willing, “you will be victorious,” while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America’s nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere."
Deserved a blurb.
I’ve said all along that this is a kill-or-be-killed conflict.
If what you want is a smoking gun, I can’t give you that. If I did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
What I provided is accumulating evidence that the US made up pretexts to start wars throughout history. I have smoking guns on those because of the declassified documents.
[/quote]
Its all the Illuminati’s fault. Its all planned out at the Bilderberger Conferences, then Bush gets the final go-ahead from his reptilian masters.
And the documents are declassified because they are bait — anyone who reads them gets 78 virgins, but they are all pimply-faced horny boys.
My reply to you is this, as far as a circular arguement goes: We are in a no win situation. Nothing we have done in the past, are doing in the present or will do in the future will ever be right to some people, so there’s no sense in talking.
How many car bombs would it take to equal 7000, let’s see, they are killing from 50 to 150 people a day, do the math. I would give al-qaeda and the shite miltia a month to get their death toll up to 7000. (in other words, if we start the daily tally counting civilian casualties due to assassinations, car bombs, secular violence ect…)
If what you want is a smoking gun, I can’t give you that. If I did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
What I provided is accumulating evidence that the US made up pretexts to start wars throughout history. I have smoking guns on those because of the declassified documents. [/quote]
Hmm - so you base your conclusions on “patterns” of the past, despite the fact that cold hard information of right now undermine all the conclusions you came to.
This is why it is difficult to understand you - you claim to be rational, but when I ask for an explanation on inconvenient information that undermines your claims, you give no answer at all, instead ignoring said inconvenient information in favor of an ideology you prefer.
I have facts. You have presupposed “theories and patterns”. Oh well, I gave you a chance.
The Bush administration didn’t invoke the war powers and rush off to war - he got Congressional approval first. Are all these liberal Democrats in on the pretext you keep concocting?
Had Bush traipsed off into Iraq without getting Congressional authorization, your argument would be stronger - but a bipartisan Congress came to the same conclusions Bush did.
Your argument gets shallower and shallower.
As for “making up your mind”, let’s be perfectly candid with one another: you made up your mind before you weighed any evidence. You start with a presumption that Bush had ulterior motives to get to war (you always do in your oppressor-oppressee model) - and no amount of information or application of common sense will change the fact that you start with that conclusion and work backwards.
You do the opposite of Reason, Lixy.
You don’t think Bush’s hand would be stronger if he found thousands of stockpiles of WMDs? See again, you are defying common sense.
This is completely and irrefutably backwards - it proves there was no pretext.
How many times must I explain it? An evil Bush would not invade Iraq only to prove all of his pretextual claims wrong. That wouldn’t make sense.
I am shocked.
Uh yeah, go back and read how you attempted to be snarky regarding my use of “subsets”. Can’t take? Don’t dish.
No problem, but the point was Saddam was a threat because he had WMDs he could have given to terrorist elements. You just think the risk of killing thousands was too high - that is fine, but stop pretending there was no reason to think he was a threat when you have now agreed with me.
See, I don’t doubt this, not at all - the problem is, you think every war is done in bad faith. That is your biggest flaw.
See above - you already agreed with me he presented a threat via handing of WMDs.
[quote]The US attitude towards other countries has been described as “arm-twisting offensive”.
According to the linked report below, most nations supporting Bush “were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery.” If you didn’t read it already, please do. You’ll very likely learn new things.[/quote]
Hilarious - how exactly do we coerce China and Russia? They would disagree with us at the UNSC for the sole reason to spite us. Yet they signed up.
You are making dubious claims ? with no substantiation.
As for your other bits about Mexico, etc. ? once again, you fall into the same mindless schema: no one voted for the Resolution on their own, they all voted because some big oppressor bullied them into it. Do you have another form of analysis? Must it be the same, tired philosophy in every single act discussed?
Mexico is the ?victim?, along with ? laughably ? all the other members of the UNSC, and the US is the ?victimizer?. Please. You must do better that this one-dimensional college-radical stuff. Adults can get past it in no time flat.
They think that war against the West is a worthwhile endeavor, else they wouldn?t join up. They don?t need an Iraq, or an Afghanistan. They are already desiring to lash out against someone for their self-inflicted misery. Problem is, at some point, we teach them that the choice of war is a grave mistake.
Despite your exaggerations of casualties (you can never be counted on to give an honest answer in that area), ?solid proof? is too late. Even your hero Kofi Annan said that self-defense didn?t require ?procedural classicism? under Article 51.
But see, you are making a fine argument ? you are saying there simply wasn?t enough proof. No problem. Fair point to debate. But this presumes ?proof? was in play and that decisions had to be made on the level of it, not ?the war was cooked up under false pretenses?. You are trying to argue both sides at the same time. It?s a mess.
Huh? We were talking about options once you decide there is a threat at the international level. You are losing it.
See above for Kofi Annan. Also see the NATO action in the Balkans. Rigidity to Article 51 makes no sense in a world where violent elements don?t fight a symmetric war or use conventional armies. They rely on rigidity to the old procedure to hide and then execute a sneak attack. Article 51 procedure, Lixy, is not a suicide pact.
Is that like how Israel backed out of disputed territories, only to have terror elements move in from those territories and attack?
[quote]Ohhh…You are SOOOOOO wrong here.
You arm and help Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Are they liberal democracies with 21st century values? Didn’t think so. [/quote]
You keep making basic errors in logic. The reasons listed are why we help Israel ? that isn?t the determinant of how we dole out help on the whole.
We are unapologetic allies with Israel ? and we help them for precisely the reasons I listed. We help other countries for other reasons.
Nice try, Lixy ? but the tough guy routine doesn?t come off so well when you make logic errors of that kind.
No, it doesn?t ? Saddam wanted to assassinate Bush I. Period. Nothing else is needed.
You are losing focus. I wrote the above in response to your:
Depends which bad guys we’re talking about. If it’s the REAL threat unleashed by Ben-Laden, then definitely! They would have fought them with all their force.
I don?t trust that those Muslim societies can be reliable to fight Bin Laden. Read better.
Actually, I?m not ? but you want me to.
[quote]Says who? Bush?
The majority of experts around the world differ. [/quote]
Fantastic ? when have ?experts around the world? been reliable to actually solve a real international security problem?
You should. It will come in handy after the college-radical-wannabe years.
Again the “all experts agreee with me” argument from lixy.
Appeal to authority doesen’t make your argument better. It is a logical fallacy
Appeal to majority doesen’t make your argument better. It is a logical fallacy
Doing both 2 and 3 at the same time doesen’t make it better.
The thing is, lixy seems to think that all that oppose him HAVE to love USA and Israel, and that all that oppose him see Israel and USA as perfect. Ofcourse, this if far from the truth.
If you read american and israeli newspapers you’ll quickly realize that they are more critical, on a rational basis, than most left wingers from europe ever will be, with their irrational and demonizing critique.
Rational and truthfull critique in all its modesty is far more effective than propaganda campaigns with a clear and obvious agenda behind it all. When it comes to me, I don’t think that Israel is perfect and without error, I just think that the media coverage the middle eastern problems get in skandinavia is close to a tragedy.
A Norwegian reporter during the first lebanon-israel war was caught doing cross-clipping and making fake footage to put Israel in a bad light (Odd Karsten Tveit was the reporter). A group from the University of Oslo did a report on the skandinavian media coverage, with focus on the norwegian one, during this war.
Their findings was that the high percentage of “youth for palestine”-members and the likes in the crews covering the war did distort the entire media coverage in skandinavia… a few years after, Odd Karstein Tveit is back in the middle east… as an expert.
Another expert on the matter, Lars Gule, got caught on the israeli-lebanese border, with explosives… on his way to help activists with suicide bombs. He is still regarded an objective “expert” by people like lixy. These people have a clear agenda and still… they get to pollute the skandinavian press continuously, I don’t see lixy and his sharp tongue attacking those…
I don’t see lixy attacking muslims in skandinavia wanting sharia laws in sweden and norway… I don’t see lixy attacking imams hat preach hatred aganist homosexuals and jews… in skandinavia… lixy IS a one trick pony, attacking, demonizing everything right/blue, Israel and USA is his only agenda… And he keeps at it, with lies, half-truths and an onesidedness that is… impressive.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that everyone that is going to post on this thread (I’ve ready 2 posts) is a dipshit. that makes me feel doubly retarded for posting knowing this myself.
mike
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hmm - so you base your conclusions on “patterns” of the past, despite the fact that cold hard information of right now undermine all the conclusions you came to. [/quote]
What you claim to be “cold hard evidence” is nothing more than (purposely?) flawed intelligence combined with legalese.
You have squat! You put the burden of proof on me just because the thread started by attacking me. Last I checked, the burden of proof is on the one who uses violence.
Your USA is the one who deployed its troops, bombed the hell out of Iraq, unleashed sectarian violence and at the same time created a terrorist’s haven.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
[quote]The Bush administration didn’t invoke the war powers and rush off to war - he got Congressional approval first. Are all these liberal Democrats in on the pretext you keep concocting?
Had Bush traipsed off into Iraq without getting Congressional authorization, your argument would be stronger - but a bipartisan Congress came to the same conclusions Bush did. [/quote]
As far as I’m concerned, Washington’s both sides of the aisle share similar views on foreign policy. i.e: Israel can never go wrong; the path of war should always be taken provided the adversary is weak; economic interests prevail over human cost in lives…
Kennedy or Clinton just happened to have done it more quietly than Nixon or Reagan. Bush pushed the button too far with his arrogance and “my actions are guided by God” crap.
Look at your history, and show me an episode where the fracture was more pronounced over foreign policy matters and I might consider your argument. Otherwise, it’s moot.
Definitely. But the risks and costs associated with the exposure are too high. There’s no way planting a stock of WMD can be done overnight or without many people knowing about it.
An evil Bush don’t give a damn what happens after he got what he wanted. He got the troops on the ground, has a motive for keeping them there (which was created by the invasion), opened Iraqi oil to private corporations. He put everybody before a fait accompli.
This is idiotic. One way or another, everybody’s a threat. What’s stopping, say Pakistan, from selling WMD’s to terrorists? For all we know, they are many folds more a threat to the world than Iraq ever was. They have PROVEN WMD capabilities (contrast with the maybe that turned out wrong about Saddam). We also have IRREFUTABLE evidence that they harbor terrorists and leaked nuke-making expertise.
So, don’t come back saying you attacked because of the “threat”. It was a pretext. Period.
No. I think you shouldn’t go to war based on nothing more than suppositions and weak evidence.
There is evidence of “arm-twisting”. I didn’t make it up. It’s on the report I linked to.
You’ll have to take my word for this. I have seen regular folks develop extremist thoughts and attitude BECAUSE of the war on Iraq.
Like I said, the people I’m talking about are far from miserable. They were regular people with jobs, aspirations and all things that make you a regular person. They start snapping when witnessing the injustice inflicted upon others by the US.
[quote]Despite your exaggerations of casualties (you can never be counted on to give an honest answer in that area), ?solid proof? is too late.
For the casualties I’ll redirect you here:
That oughta show you the extent of damage the war has caused. If you wanna challenge the statistical methods used, be my guest. But please read the Wiki in detail before doing that.
You don’t seem to get it, now do you?
Blowing a weak hypothesis out of proportion to get the support for the war IS nothing more than cooking up false pretenses.
You don’t kill someone because you think he/she the possibility to inflict damage to you. That’s not how it works. You make sure he has the intention and capability to do that first. None of which has been demonstrated. Meanwhile, dead bodies are pilling up and Iraq is a mess.
Nonsense. Unsubtantiated assumptions and legalese is all you had.
There’s nothing disputed over those territories. There is international consensus about who they belong to. The only ones who support the status-quo are the US and Israel.
Total and utter BS.
Look at the vetoes the US pulled to let Israel perpetuate the violence. You are the ONLY country in the world that keeps supporting it despite crystal clear evidence that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians.
Let me hear the reasons you support a terrorist-financing, human-rights-violating, women-oppressing medieval theocracy like Saudi Arabia.
That oughta be fun.
Wow! You refuse perspective on your one-sided point of view.
I’m impressed by your blunt honesty.
[quote]You are losing focus. I wrote the above in response to your:
Depends which bad guys we’re talking about. If it’s the REAL threat unleashed by Ben-Laden, then definitely! They would have fought them with all their force.
I don?t trust that those Muslim societies can be reliable to fight Bin Laden. Read better.[/quote]
Yeah, but it was implied that they aren’t willing to fight a murderous and criminal ideology.
Since their warnings not being heard inevitably lead to catastrophes.
Since they said there was no conclusive evidence to say Iraq was a threat.
Since they predicted the rise of terrorism in Iraq.
Since they drew attention on WMDs being merely justifications for the invasion.
Since their alternative didn’t have “chaos in Iraq and mountains of bodies” written all over it.
Since what they recommended wouldn’t have led to instability in an already explosive region.
When I said it was “pointless”, I only proved myself right when engaging in a back-and-forth.
Despite claims that you are “rational”, you are far from it - you are perhaps one of the least rational posters here.
No matter what I present to you factually - a National Intelligence Estimate, a UN Resolution - you theorize that the facts are either “doctored” (without basis) or you have zero response to them, instead offering smokescreen with pre-packaged “theories and patterns” of history.
You are immune to reason. I have said it before - it is perfectly rational to disagree with the Iraq war. But your approach is one of presupposed ideology, and you ignore facts and common sense put to you. When reason dictates a different conclusion than the one you want, you whistle past it and go for the preferred outcome.
Fantastic - you have become what you say you despise most: the one who refuses to believe anything outside of what you want to. You often levy this at Americans, but in a tragic twist, you are exactly what you claim to hate.
Your mind is made up before even a first look at objective evidence is in - so, in effect, it is pointless. There is no rational debate to be had.
