106 replies to this topic

[kismet]

You also seem to be continuing to mix up what I do and don't support. (you approve(d) of "the war")

Stop playing the who-said-what-game. You know exactly what I mean and I couldn't care less how you put it, but the statement "We completed our mission with efficiency and flawless execution. What happened after that is another story entirely." cleary endorses and supports a war, invasion of a foreign country; "the mission" was to invade Iraq and to prosecute and kill Saddam Hussein or to disarm Iraq! Ok, so tell me again why I'm wrong saying: "I do not approve of your support for war and invasion of other countries [because historically the lossess always outweigh the benefits]"
How in dog's name is having armed forces kill people in someone's else sovereign territory and without prior permission not an act of aggressive war?!

?? I haven't seen any figures but I would be pretty surprised to see that the US has been killing tons of civilians in Iraq. Generally the civilian deaths were caused by enemy attacks, suicide bombings, etc.

So you did not happen to drop US-American bombs on Iraqi territory which - as a matter of statistics do not always hit the target and - happen to kill civilians? There were no accidents? There was no abuse of power? (your soldiers are infallible?) Either way the war, your war, caused immense direct and/or indirect suffering (are you generally aware of this fact?)
Even if you were right and most deaths were caused by enemy attacks; isn't it your war that incited those attacks? Personally, I don't see much of a difference. I'm sure you do, hence your support for the war (yes, you will say that you screwed up and it's just "the mission" that you supported; but you still supported the invasion, an aggressive act of violence).

I have no idea what you mean that invading Iraq being an act of self defense was a big fat lie. Who claimed this and was lying?

It is said your government was lying and I'm asking if you have heard of it? Obviously there were those alleged weapons, which happened never to materialise: "Although some remnants of pre-1991 production were found after the end of the war, US government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US went to war."
“Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”
As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"
I've read pretty often that they knew there never was any such thing in Iraq. That is best descirbed as a big fat lie if true.

Edited by kismet, 15 October 2009 - 05:38 PM.

[rwac]

It is said your government was lying and I'm asking if you have heard of it? Obviously there were those alleged weapons, which happened never to materialise: "Although some remnants of pre-1991 production were found after the end of the war, US government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US went to war."
“Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”
As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"
I've read pretty often that they knew there never was any such thing in Iraq. That is best descirbed as a big fat lie if true.

It wasn't a lie. Our intelligence agencies screwed up big time with that one.

[david ellis]

It is said your government was lying and I'm asking if you have heard of it? Obviously there were those alleged weapons, which happened never to materialise: "Although some remnants of pre-1991 production were found after the end of the war, US government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US went to war."
“Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”
As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"
I've read pretty often that they knew there never was any such thing in Iraq. That is best descirbed as a big fat lie if true.

It wasn't a lie. Our intelligence agencies screwed up big time with that one.

There were two intelligence agencies. It was a schizophrenic moment, reading the New York Times, Judith Miller, was quoting the Cheney intelligence agency, and the rest of the New York Times carried the non-comfirmatory story from CIA sources. Cheney's team twisted Powell's arm and put him in front of the UN with an amateurish explanation. It looked especially amateurish, after President Bush's act at the annual press dinner. He looked under tables, couldn't find the WMD anywhere. Very funny, except tens of thousands died, I can't image the sang froid it would to take to joke about the deaths of thousands. Honor the fallen. The Cheney team thought little of burning the deep cover of a spy in a fit of spite about a truthful rebuttal of their foolish Nigerian uranium speculations. Sorry, I still burn when I think of what has happened.

[RighteousReason]

How in dog's name is having armed forces kill people in someone's else sovereign territory and without prior permission not an act of aggressive war?!

isn't it your war that incited those attacks?

cleary endorses and supports a war

We were attacked by some radical Muslims on 9/11, and we took action to defend ourselves.

We didn't "incite" suicide bombings and enemy attacks on civilians. We've actually been there for many years pouring billions of dollars to try and stop those. That's the opposite of "incite".

I've said it over and over again now- I have plenty of criticism of the actions we took. I don't endorse and support every action taken every moment by every person in the United States that was involved with this whole thing. I do endorse and support the United States having a very strong self defense.

Edited by RighteousReason, 15 October 2009 - 09:18 PM.

[.fonclea.]

I was surprised as you are all but Mandela or many other politicians are not that honest and they received it. So why not ?
This prize is also to encourage actions afterall.

They could also reconsider the arguments for the next selection.




Righteous you wrote "We were attacked by some radical Muslims on 9/11, and we took action to defend ourselves."

The more i live and the less i believe in your gouvernement and his illegal actions.
And the actual situation in Irak just prove once again america doens't listen to other countries: millions of people in tokyo, berlin or sidney against...

Nothing justify a war! Especially when you are the country who sells the more weapons in this world.
Even your 9/11 might be another excuse to destabilize regions to have access to oil.

[eternaltraveler]

We were attacked by some radical Muslims on 9/11, and we took action to defend ourselves.

We were supremely justified in going to war in Afghanistan for the reason you cite above. Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was a colossal blunder on behalf of our intelligence agencies that Iraq had anything to do with WMDs, and we are responsible for the deaths there, and it was and continues to be an enormous waste of money.

[eternaltraveler]

Nothing justify a war!

well thats just silly. One has a right to defend one's self. One can certainly argue (and I agree with) that the Iraq war was not justified, but it is foolish to say that no war is justified.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 15 October 2009 - 09:49 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

There was a big problem, at least an issue, with the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban were not our enemy Al Queda was, the Taliban just housed them. Btw the Taliban themselves were greatly backed by Pakistan in a number of ways. Once the areal bombardment of Afghanistan began, the Taliban quickly told the Bush administration that if stopped the bombings they would unconditionally surrender Osama, the entire Al Queda leadership and expose their entire network to us. However Bush in one of his brilliant speeches said that not only do we not negotiate with terrorists but that the time for negotiating was over (even though it never began). A video can be found somewhere on youtube I think.

We had the chance to capture Osama and demolish his entire network in one fell swoop, but we didn't in order to gain control of an entire country and thus permanently placing our presence between Pakistan and Iran. Don't get me wrong the Afghan war was a lot more justified than the Iraq war, and I believe we should finish the job now ... but both wars were started for reasons beyond WMD's and terrorism imo, what those reasons are I don't know.

[RighteousReason]

Once the areal bombardment of Afghanistan began, the Taliban quickly told the Bush administration that if stopped the bombings they would unconditionally surrender Osama, the entire Al Queda leadership and expose their entire network to us.

Do you have any justification for this statement? Sounds like BS

[eternaltraveler]

he Taliban were not our enemy Al Queda was

The list of demands we made for the Taliban was both reasonable and necessary, and at no point was anything like it met

Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda;
Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

The taliban provided full support to Al Qaeda. They were a state sponsor of terrorism, Al Qaeda fighters and taliban military were heavily intermingled and they were just crazy (remember when they smashed those 2000 year old gigantic buddha statues, not to mention they kill you if you were a muslim that converts to any other religion). Their offers to turn over bin laden were only so he could be tried under shiara law in a muslim country and only if we provided whatever they would consider was sufficient proof that he was guilty first (which may well have been impossible). And they did nothing about offering to help us dismantle the entire Al Qaeda network. These offers on their part were probably almost entirely meaningless as previous extradition requests for Bin Laden for the US embassy bombing in Africa were always met with similar responses of "we can't find him"(which was accurate, they couldn't have handed him over if they wanted to, they were barely in control of even the parts of their country they were in control of), or you can't prove it. And they weren't about to let us dismantle their Al Qaeda training camps or help dismantle the entire Al Qaeda network.

I'm sorry but any tiny gestures some members of the Taliban might have made at the end were too little too late. There are consequences to attacking the united states.

None of this mind you gives any justification for the US invasion of Iraq by any stretch of the imagination. That was just stupidity (no conspiracy theories, just idiots).

Edited by eternaltraveler, 15 October 2009 - 11:04 PM.

[RighteousReason]

We were attacked by some radical Muslims on 9/11, and we took action to defend ourselves.

We were supremely justified in going to war in Afghanistan for the reason you cite above. Iraq had nothing to do with it. It was a colossal blunder on behalf of our intelligence agencies that Iraq had anything to do with WMDs, and we are responsible for the deaths there, and it was and continues to be an enormous waste of money.

Meh, I don't take too much issue with this stance, I frown a little bit at saying "we are responsible for the deaths there", that's a little vague and thus overly accusing.

The amount of death we caused in Iraq is way overblown by borderline treasonous politicians like John "We are terrorizing women and children in the dark of night" Kerry and Jack "We are killing innocent civilians in cold blood" Murtha. There were also a lot of cases for example the Haditha Marines were we had the same sorts of lawyers going after the troops, and so on.

Edited by RighteousReason, 15 October 2009 - 11:06 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

I frown a little bit at saying "we are responsible for the deaths there", that's a little vague and thus overly accusing.

it isn't vague. Just because most of the civilian deaths were not caused by our military shooting people doesn't mean that deaths caused by massively destabilizing a region are not directly our fault. We know that destabilizing a region results in death of lots of people there. We have known this for thousands of years. We also knew that what we did would have this effect.

We can't make excuses like "well we weren't paying the people that did most of the killing so it wasn't our fault". We payed the people that kicked over the first few dominos. Everything after that was entirely predictable (and was entirely predicted)

[maxwatt]

I frown a little bit at saying "we are responsible for the deaths there", that's a little vague and thus overly accusing.

it isn't vague. Just because most of the civilian deaths were not caused by our military shooting people doesn't mean that deaths caused by massively destabilizing a region are not directly our fault. We know that destabilizing a region results in death of lots of people there. We have known this for thousands of years. We also knew that what we did would have this effect.

We can't make excuses like "well we weren't paying the people that did most of the killing so it wasn't our fault". We payed the people that kicked over the first few dominos. Everything after that was entirely predictable (and was entirely predicted)

So where do we go from here? How confident is anyone that Pakistan can keep their nuclear weapons out of the hands of their Taliban, given as their intellignece agencies and army faction have been supporting them for over a decade? I hope the CIA has figured out where the things are stored, and knows how to neutralize them better than their performance at the Bay of Pigs.

[RighteousReason]

I frown a little bit at saying "we are responsible for the deaths there", that's a little vague and thus overly accusing.

it isn't vague. Just because most of the civilian deaths were not caused by our military shooting people doesn't mean that deaths caused by massively destabilizing a region are not directly our fault. We know that destabilizing a region results in death of lots of people there. We have known this for thousands of years. We also knew that what we did would have this effect.

We can't make excuses like "well we weren't paying the people that did most of the killing so it wasn't our fault". We payed the people that kicked over the first few dominos. Everything after that was entirely predictable (and was entirely predicted)

Along the lines I was talking about before,

A lot of the problem with radical Islam is that the ordinary Muslims around the world are not willing or able to stand up to them. The reason Iraq is so much more secure today is because the Iraqis are able to stand together against the aggressors instead of appeasing them (something they couldn't have done without a lot of help from the US military power because they would have been slaughtered). Instead of arming the majority of the Muslim population against the violent minorities like we did in Iraq, much of the Middle East and now much of Europe is beholden to the radical Islamists because those are the only guys carrying a stick. The longer we let them go on unopposed, the more power they are going to seize, and the more of a threat to the free world they are going to be.

We came in and ended an aggressive, genocidal dictatorship, freed the people, and if we put together a government and a military in their country that can defend itself from the radical Muslim terrorists and other enemies of freedom, I think through the lens of history we will see that this ultimately was something that made the United States and the rest of the world safer and more peaceful in the long run.

Again, I'm not excusing our poor strategy which cost a lot of life and money; the cost we and the Iraqi's have suffered is insanely high,

Yes I think it should have been done differently- we should have used far more troops and military power straight from the start to limit the casualties from the enemies' attacks (instead of finally getting around to this "surge" idea 5 years after the fact or whatever). We also should have done it in a more financially sustainable way, for example we should be compensated for our efforts in Iraq- I don't see why we aren't getting a healthy discount on their oil, etc.

I understand putting the responsibility of fucking up its implementation so badly on those who did. It wasn't inevitable that we would fuck up that badly. It's important to specify what exactly went wrong and why; just casting this whole historical glaze over the situation and waving your hands around vaguely claiming "war is bad" isn't going to get you anywhere but into the hands of the man who campaigns on the same sort of vague inanities like "Change"

Edited by RighteousReason, 15 October 2009 - 11:43 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

The Taliban were never on friendly terms with the US, and I would have supported an over throw of them even with out 9/11. But they were willing to negotiate over Osama: http://www.guardian....stan.terrorism5

We had a chance to capture him, albeit a small one. Now he's still out there. That's all that troubles me. Heck we could have pretended to negotiate and once we got Osama we could have continued with the invasion.

As for Iraq, it was totally unjustified and now Iraq is the most unstable country in the middle east, on the brink of civil war with suicide attacks killing dozens of people almost every week. I'm glad Saddam is gone, but now we have a huge mess on our hands and 85,000 dead civilians.

[eternaltraveler]

Cyberbrain,

That article you link too says nothing about handing over bin laden unconditionally or dismantling al qaeda. It says they may definitely be ready to start thinking about perhaps handing him over to a Pakistani court if we present them with the proper evidence (the day before the second highest leader said there was no way that would ever happen). I understand your point regarding going along with them even just for a temporary show to get bin laden, but given the situation at the time I don't think that would have been wise strategy even now. What would have been wise would be putting our troops there and not iraq.

[TheFountain]

It is said your government was lying and I'm asking if you have heard of it? Obviously there were those alleged weapons, which happened never to materialise: "Although some remnants of pre-1991 production were found after the end of the war, US government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the US went to war."
"Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…"
As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"
I've read pretty often that they knew there never was any such thing in Iraq. That is best descirbed as a big fat lie if true.

It wasn't a lie. Our intelligence agencies screwed up big time with that one.

Yea they screwed up by fabricating evidence, thus essentially lying.....Stop defending the monsters, enough is enough..

[TheFountain]

I frown a little bit at saying "we are responsible for the deaths there", that's a little vague and thus overly accusing.

it isn't vague. Just because most of the civilian deaths were not caused by our military shooting people doesn't mean that deaths caused by massively destabilizing a region are not directly our fault. We know that destabilizing a region results in death of lots of people there. We have known this for thousands of years. We also knew that what we did would have this effect.

We can't make excuses like "well we weren't paying the people that did most of the killing so it wasn't our fault". We payed the people that kicked over the first few dominos. Everything after that was entirely predictable (and was entirely predicted)

So where do we go from here? How confident is anyone that Pakistan can keep their nuclear weapons out of the hands of their Taliban, given as their intellignece agencies and army faction have been supporting them for over a decade? I hope the CIA has figured out where the things are stored, and knows how to neutralize them better than their performance at the Bay of Pigs.

Am I the only one sick of the 'who can have nukes' debate? I honestly couldn't give a fuck less who has nukes because, when it comes right down to it, the facts speak for themselves. Think, what is the one nation in human history to have ever used nuclear weapons in an act of aggression against another nation? Case closed. We have no fuckin right to dictate who can have what, especially after the whole disgusting Iraq mess and the amount of civilian death it has caused. We have no moral high ground here and it is time people stop pretending we do.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 October 2009 - 01:16 PM.

[TheFountain]

As for Iraq, it was totally unjustified and now Iraq is the most unstable country in the middle east, on the brink of civil war with suicide attacks killing dozens of people almost every week.

Exactly what they counted on when they invaded it.

[TheFountain]

Oh and IMO it is totally pointless for any sane human being to attempt a conversation with people like Righteousreason. Utterly pointless, but waste your energy if you wish...

[RighteousReason]

I really just want these vicious, crazy statements stand alone, but anyway just a couple of comments...

Yea they screwed up by fabricating evidence, thus essentially lying.....Stop defending the monsters, enough is enough..

So... what sort of conspiracy theory do you buy into about the "TRUE" motive... ? I don't really want to know (that would be like asking a 9/11 truther what really happened on 9/11), just pointing out that you are crazy.

Think, what is the one nation in human history to have ever used nuclear weapons in an act of aggression against another nation? Case closed. We have no fuckin right to dictate who can have what

Look, we already know that your opinion is essentially that you would rather die and commit suicide than defend yourself, so what you are saying here is entirely consistent with that. There is really no need for you to even bring it up, we already fully understand your position.

Oh and IMO it is totally pointless for any sane human being to attempt a conversation with people like Righteousreason. Utterly pointless, but waste your energy if you wish...

This is an unfair attack, point out where I am being unreasonable, not responding thoughtfully, or otherwise screwing this sort of argumentative conversation. If you can find something I'll be glad to work on it. Say something specific instead of throwing out this vague general attack against me personally.

Edited by RighteousReason, 17 October 2009 - 02:51 PM.

[david ellis]

Oh and IMO it is totally pointless for any sane human being to attempt a conversation with people like Righteousreason. Utterly pointless, but waste your energy if you wish...

This is an unfair attack, point out where I am being unreasonable, not responding thoughtfully, or otherwise screwing this sort of argumentative conversation. If you can find something I'll be glad to work on it. Say something specific instead of throwing out this vague general attack against me personally.

I am hearing that a poll last year showed 60 percent of Europeans want to see a weaker United States. I'm still trying to find it.

You asked for me to point out something about you "otherwise screwing" this sort of conversation. It wasn't hard because -
I am still waiting for you to find that poll that supported your view of some facts. Did you give up.?

[kismet]

I really just want these vicious, crazy statements stand alone, but anyway just a couple of comments...

Yea they screwed up by fabricating evidence, thus essentially lying.....Stop defending the monsters, enough is enough..

So... what sort of conspiracy theory do you buy into about the "TRUE" motive... ? I don't really want to know (that would be like asking a 9/11 truther what really happened on 9/11), just pointing out that you are crazy.

I'm wondering why no one noticed and you did not yet accuse wikipedia of lying. I'm assuming everyone on this board can read dates. So if IAEA found no evidence of WMD (or at least a nuclear programme) in February, how come the offensive that started in March, you say, was justified at that time?

Look, we already know that your opinion is essentially that you would rather die and commit suicide than defend yourself, so what you are saying here is entirely consistent with that. There is really no need for you to even bring it up, we already fully understand your position.

Whether true or not, it doesn't matter what fountain thinks because we're discussing Iraq which was clearly an aggressive war.

This is an unfair attack, point out where I am being unreasonable, not responding thoughtfully, or otherwise screwing this sort of argumentative conversation. If you can find something I'll be glad to work on it. Say something specific instead of throwing out this vague general attack against me personally.

Ok. 

Edited by kismet, 18 October 2009 - 01:00 PM.

[RighteousReason]

I really just want these vicious, crazy statements stand alone, but anyway just a couple of comments...

Yea they screwed up by fabricating evidence, thus essentially lying.....Stop defending the monsters, enough is enough..

So... what sort of conspiracy theory do you buy into about the "TRUE" motive... ? I don't really want to know (that would be like asking a 9/11 truther what really happened on 9/11), just pointing out that you are crazy.

I'm wondering why no one noticed and you did not yet accuse wikipedia of lying. I'm assuming everyone on this board can read dates. So if IAEA found no evidence of WMD (or at least a nuclear programme) in February, how come the offensive that started in March, you say, was justified at that time?

Look, we already know that your opinion is essentially that you would rather die and commit suicide than defend yourself, so what you are saying here is entirely consistent with that. There is really no need for you to even bring it up, we already fully understand your position.

Whether true or not, it doesn't matter what fountain thinks because we're discussing Iraq which was clearly an aggressive war.

How was it "clearly an aggressive war"? I keep making the case that it was done in self defense (not that it was the best idea in the world). I haven't heard any argument from you guys to the contrary, only this nonsensical claim that somebody was lying about something. I'll ask it again, same as before:

So... what sort of conspiracy theory do you buy into about the "TRUE" motive... ? I don't really want to know (that would be like asking a 9/11 truther what really happened on 9/11), just pointing out that you are crazy.

[rwac]

So if IAEA found no evidence of WMD (or at least a nuclear programme) in February, how come the offensive that started in March, you say, was justified at that time?

The IAEA seems to be hiding evidence of Nuclear Weaponisation in Iran. Why would you consider them credible on Iraq ?

http://www.timesonli...amp;attr=797093

France and Israel have led the charge against Dr ElBaradei, saying that his latest report on Iran's nuclear programme omitted evidence that the agency had been given about an alleged covert weaponisation plan. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that the report did not reflect all that the agency knew about Iran's "efforts to continue to pursue its military programme".

France went farther, alleging the existence of an unpublished annexe that addresses the evidence that Iran may be building an atom bomb.

Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, said that France had attended a technical briefing that covered the material, so was surprised to find it missing from the report.

[kismet]

How was it "clearly an aggressive war"? I keep making the case that it was done in self defense (not that it was the best idea in the world). I haven't heard any argument from you guys to the contrary, only this nonsensical claim that somebody was lying about something. I'll ask it again, same as before:

Maybe Fountain was right, it really is very difficult to talk to you. Are you aware that the answer (one of the answers) to your question can be found in my post which you just quoted? I.e.  my statement about IAEA which you failed to answer (or refused to read); thank you rwac, for answering the question for reason. Although, I'm wondering if they screw up now does it mean they screwed up in the past? Can you find a statement that their assessement was wrong 6 years ago (quite some time passed).

RReason, I find your statement about it being an act of self-defense rather non-sensical. The Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks on the WTC and if you believe the reason was to capture and prosecute Saddam, which you vehemently stated, then, yes, it was an aggressive war. He did fuck all to the US; you can't go to war with countries because you don't like their leaders. Why is it so difficult to admit that you supported an aggressive war? 
Your statement about taking the fight away from the US (there never was a fight over there, Iraq was not involved IAC) could be used to justify annihilating almost all of the middle east and it's just an euphemism for preventative, aggressive wars...

Considering how completely and beyond insane Bush et al. was, yes, makes sense that they would be lying. Even if they didn't and it was a CIA blunder, doesn't matter. In the real world consequences count. If a CIA blunder led to an unfair, unjustified war it's about as bad. There does not need to be any clear cut motive. Bush was friggin' insane. Some people came up with many justifications and some of them make sense, superficially at least (e.g. controlling their oil supply [not *stealing* it, just stopping S. Hussein from controlling it]).

Edited by kismet, 18 October 2009 - 07:56 PM.

[RighteousReason]

How was it "clearly an aggressive war"? I keep making the case that it was done in self defense (not that it was the best idea in the world). I haven't heard any argument from you guys to the contrary, only this nonsensical claim that somebody was lying about something. I'll ask it again, same as before:

Maybe Fountain was right, it really is very difficult to talk to you. Are you aware that the answer (one of the answers) to your question can be found in my post which you just quoted? I.e.  my statement about IAEA which you failed to answer (or refused to read); thank you rwac, for answering the question for reason. Although, I'm wondering if they screw up now does it mean they screwed up in the past? Can you find a statement that their assessement was wrong 6 years ago (quite some time passed).

RReason, I find your statement about it being an act of self-defense rather non-sensical. The Iraq was not involved in the terrorist attacks on the WTC and if you believe the reason was to capture and prosecute Saddam, which you vehemently stated, then, yes, it was an aggressive war. He did fuck all to the US; you can't go to war with countries because you don't like their leaders. Why is it so difficult to admit that you supported an aggressive war? 
Your statement about taking the fight away from the US (there never was a fight over there, Iraq was not involved IAC) could be used to justify annihilating almost all of the middle east and it's just an euphemism for preventative, aggressive wars...

Considering how completely and beyond insane Bush et al. was, yes, makes sense that they would be lying. Even if they didn't and it was a CIA blunder, doesn't matter. In the real world consequences count. If a CIA blunder led to an unfair, unjustified war it's about as bad. There does not need to be any clear cut motive. Bush was friggin' insane. Some people came up with many justifications and some of them make sense, superficially at least (e.g. controlling their oil supply [not *stealing* it, just stopping S. Hussein from controlling it]).

How would you respond to what I said before?

We came in and ended an aggressive, genocidal dictatorship, freed the people, and if we put together a government and a military in their country that can defend itself from the radical Muslim terrorists and other enemies of freedom, I think through the lens of history we will see that this ultimately was something that made the United States and the rest of the world safer and more peaceful in the long run.

I think the war in Iraq is far more consistent with the motive of self-defense, along the lines of the reasoning above, than any sort of conspiratorial aggressive motive you can come up with.

[david ellis]

Oh and IMO it is totally pointless for any sane human being to attempt a conversation with people like Righteousreason. Utterly pointless, but waste your energy if you wish...

This is an unfair attack, point out where I am being unreasonable, not responding thoughtfully, or otherwise screwing this sort of argumentative conversation. If you can find something I'll be glad to work on it. Say something specific instead of throwing out this vague general attack against me personally.

I am hearing that a poll last year showed 60 percent of Europeans want to see a weaker United States. I'm still trying to find it.

You asked for me to point out something about you "otherwise screwing" this sort of conversation. It wasn't hard because -
I am still waiting for you to find that poll that supported your view of some facts. Did you give up.?

No reply, are you still looking? Have you given up yet? I wouldn't be bugging you, but you asked for examples of not responding thoughtfully.

[RighteousReason]

Oh and IMO it is totally pointless for any sane human being to attempt a conversation with people like Righteousreason. Utterly pointless, but waste your energy if you wish...

This is an unfair attack, point out where I am being unreasonable, not responding thoughtfully, or otherwise screwing this sort of argumentative conversation. If you can find something I'll be glad to work on it. Say something specific instead of throwing out this vague general attack against me personally.

I am hearing that a poll last year showed 60 percent of Europeans want to see a weaker United States. I'm still trying to find it.

You asked for me to point out something about you "otherwise screwing" this sort of conversation. It wasn't hard because -
I am still waiting for you to find that poll that supported your view of some facts. Did you give up.?

No reply, are you still looking? Have you given up yet? I wouldn't be bugging you, but you asked for examples of not responding thoughtfully.

You dick if you go back to my original post you will see that I have dropped this point long ago. Whether or not this is true is only a side point.

And no, I haven't been desperately searching for this poll. I have heard it referred to in multiple places independently so I do think there might be something out there like this, I will have to look and try to find it.

I think you make a great point going to show just how incredibly misguided the idea of this particular peace prize was from the very beginning.

As I said, peace is not the absence of conflict, but having the ability to defend yourself. The abolition or reduction of standing armies is literally the destruction of peace.

Well that's not my experience of peace and what you seem to be describing as "defense" seems to me like economic and military subjugation. Being from Ireland what I've seen peace to mean was fraternity and cross border co-operation, thanks in a large part to the US which the Irish are greatfull for, all without violence, a violence which plagued Northern Ireland for 30 years. I think what you forget is that the otherside of your "defense" is real people getting killed and oppressed. Being defensive only serves to isolate the US and make more enemies, for example the agressive policies of the Bush administration have caused a huge amount damage and death to countless individuals and only strenghtens the fanatics. Think about that, individual and unique human beings die never to come back which seems to be the anthesis of what this organisation is about or else I've paid to be in the wrong place :/

Good god man, the statement stands for itself- "Having the ability to defend yourself". That does not equate to economic and military subjugation, that does not equate with acting violently, that does not mean "being defensive" in a such a way that is isolationist or violent or at all aggressive against others- EXCEPT in such circumstances when violence is required for literally defending one's self. I can't imagine you would come out against defending yourself. It reminds of a quote by Jeffrey Kuhner, "The modern liberal would rather die and commit suicide than defend themselves from radical Islam".

That is unadulterated bull crap, Ireland is heavily dependant on US foreign direct investment, the last thing we want to see is a weak US. Please show me your polls sir!?!?

Oop, looks like I goofed a bit there. After researching this, it looks like this was the line of reasoning: Europeans have a much more favorable view of Obama's policies than of Bush's. So in essence the argument is that they are more favorable of a weakened United States because they are more favorable of the sort of weakening policies of Obama. This is a weaker line of reasoning than if I had had a direct poll showing they favored a weaker United States. Suppose it is as you say, and polls would show they did not truly want a weaker United States, then my last point stands, they truly do not understand the nature of evil or lasting peace and freedom (among other things).

Who in there right minds wants war and destruction, we all want freedom and lasting peace but beating and disenfranchising another guy into submission never works!

I have no idea where the hell you are getting this. Do you know anything about the wild ideology of radical Islam? What exactly would propose for defending ourselves against them? I suppose if we had a spare ten trillion dollars we could truly engage in a global police operation, collect evidence against each one, arrest them for whatever international laws, and put them in jail. Frankly even if we had the resources to do something like that, such a process would take far too long and be too ineffective with anything short of fully matured nanotechnology.

And it's not just radical Islam at issue, look how well the policy of "negotiation" and appeasement worked for the Nazis in World War 2, and how well its working for North Korea- they are happily bringing their nuclear facilities back into production now that they see the weakness of the United States.

Not everybody wants freedom and lasting peace. There are always nations and armies in the world that have very much different things on their mind. You are wrong, and you don't understand evil in the world. Sometimes carrying a big stick is the only thing that will ever work, and one's state of freedom and peace is guaranteed to end without being able to defend yourself from the aggressors and enemies of freedom and peace.

Edited by RighteousReason, 19 October 2009 - 12:50 AM.

[maxwatt]

It is known from various former Bush White House officials that Cheney pushed hard for war in Iraq because the US had to "beat up someone bad" in the Mideast to keep the others in line. Had they pushed a little harder, perhaps we could have toppled Saddam without using the military. Afghanistan could have remained a top priority, or maybe Cheney would have wanted to invade Iran, a more difficult adversary. Many government contractors became rich profiting from the war, while the nation has squandered blood and treasure to dubious effect.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9864433/

Did Saddam accept exile offer before invasion?
Arab leaders scuttled deal aimed at avoiding war, UAE officials say

updated 8:38 p.m. ET, Sat., Oct . 29, 2005
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Saddam Hussein accepted an 11th-hour offer to flee into exile weeks ahead of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion, but Arab League officials scuttled the proposal, officials in this Gulf state claimed.

The exile initiative was spearheaded by the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, at an emergency Arab summit held in Egypt in February 2003, Sheik Zayed’s son said in an interview aired by Al-Arabiya TV during a documentary. The U.S.-led coalition invaded on March 19 that year.

A top government official confirmed the offer on Saturday, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Saddam allegedly accepted the offer to try to halt the invasion and bring elections to Iraq within six months, according to the official and Sheik Zayed’s son.

“We had the final acceptance of the various parties ... the main players in the world and the concerned person, Saddam Hussein,” the son, Sheik Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, said during the program aired Thursday to mark the first anniversary of his father’s death.

Saddam promised immunity
Sheik Zayed’s initiative would have given Saddam and his family exile and guarantees against prosecution in return for letting Arab League and U.N. experts run Iraq until elections could be held in six months, the official said.

“We were coming (to the summit in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh resort) to place the facts on the table,” said Sheik Mohammed, who is deputy chief of the Emirates armed forces and crown prince of Abu Dhabi.

“The results would have emerged if the initiative was presented and discussed. This is now history.”

The anonymous Emirates official said Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa did not bring the proposal to the summit’s discussion because Arab foreign ministers had not presented and accepted it as league protocol dictated.

At the time, Arab League leaders said the summit decided not to take up the idea, citing league rules barring interference in members’ domestic affairs.

Unknown whether Saddam accepted deal
It was not immediately possible to verify the Emirates claims that their offer had been accepted by Saddam, who is being held in U.S. military custody in Iraq and his facing trial on charges of crimes against humanity.

Officials from the Egypt-based 22-member Arab League declined to comment.

But at the 2003 summit, the Iraqi delegation rejected the Emirates proposal, while Iraq’s former U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Al-Douri, said Saddam was not going anywhere.

The Al-Arabiya documentary claimed Iraqi officials had dismissed the idea because they did not know Saddam had accepted it.

...

The documentary also included an interview from Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, who said the United States was aware of the proposal.
....