Rewind: Gore Blasts G.H.W. Bush for Ignoring Iraq Terror Ties
- Thread starter schuerm26
- Start date
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
[quote name='evanft']Look, another awesome schuerm post!!![/quote]Look, another evanft post in which he bitches about someone elses posts! You're almost up to like, 100 of these aren't you?
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
well lets go back to 16 years before that when we gave weapons to Osama and Sadaam, whats your point
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']well lets go back to 16 years before that when we gave weapons to Osama and Sadaam, whats your point[/quote]
Point? The fact that the democratic party says that Iraq had no terror connections, yet you only have to go back 10 yrs to find a prominent member of the democratic party stating the exact opposite (in a pretty adamant way). Seems kind of odd that in 92 there were terror connections but within a 10 yr. span they ceased to exist. There is no "war on terror", this is George Bush's war, yet here we have a member of the party that says this strongly declaring Iraq as a terrorist state. That's a pretty big deal, and just shows you how the democrats have no ability to keep this country safe. They turn whichever way the wind blows.
Point? The fact that the democratic party says that Iraq had no terror connections, yet you only have to go back 10 yrs to find a prominent member of the democratic party stating the exact opposite (in a pretty adamant way). Seems kind of odd that in 92 there were terror connections but within a 10 yr. span they ceased to exist. There is no "war on terror", this is George Bush's war, yet here we have a member of the party that says this strongly declaring Iraq as a terrorist state. That's a pretty big deal, and just shows you how the democrats have no ability to keep this country safe. They turn whichever way the wind blows.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='schuerm26']Point? The fact that the democratic party says that Iraq had no terror connections, yet you only have to go back 10 yrs to find a prominent member of the democratic party stating the exact opposite (in a pretty adamant way). Seems kind of odd that in 92 there were terror connections but within a 10 yr. span they ceased to exist. There is no "war on terror", this is George Bush's war, yet here we have a member of the party that says this strongly declaring Iraq as a terrorist state. That's a pretty big deal, and just shows you how the democrats have no ability to keep this country safe. They turn whichever way the wind blows.[/QUOTE]
1992 was 10 years ago? Since when? (I know the answer, by the way: since 2002).
It's disappointing that you have to dig back 15 years ago to find some segment that suggests Democrats ought to support the modern era war on terror. It's even more disappointing that you have to ignore the numerous (and just as frequently denied by the very same people) assertions made that Saddam's state and al qaeda were linked, and that Saddam had a hand in planning/funding/carrying out the 9/11 attacks in order to make your point about Gore seem prescient; after all, the attackes by al qaeda were the catalyst for the war on terror, and if Gore is not talking about al qaeda in 1992 (which he isn't), then what is the relevance to the current war?
None of this changes that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
None of this changes that Iraq has no WMDs that were found, contradicting claims made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell that we knew where they were.
None of this changes the fact that al qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until they joined up with various insurgent groups *after* the overthrow of Saddam.
None of this changes that more and more of our soldiers are dying each month.
None of this changes that this war has had the most embarrassing post-war planning since...well, nothing, really. This takes the case.
None of this changes that a war claimed to cost $1-2 billion is now costing us 50000% more than that.
None of this changes that we've just started year 4 of a war that was supposed to last anywhere from "a few weeks" to "six months" according to the Secretary of Defense.
None of this changes the fact that our government has squandered the sympathy the world had for us post 9/11.
None of this changes that our supreme court, just yesterday, condemned Bush's detaining of an American citizen without due process as a severe violation of the US constitution.
None of this changes that the rationale for war was 100% DEAD WRONG at the *VERY BEST*, and maliciously sculpted by those with vested interests in our being at war, costing us thousands of lives and half a trillion dollars, at the absolute worst.
So, as for one Gore speech chastising Bush for not toppling Saddam in 1992? Small potatoes. Besides, I don't know how old you are or how your memory functions, but I was about 13 in 1992, and (truth be told) a *huge* conservative. By 8th grade I had read both of Limbaugh's books and thought they were phenomenal insights into American individualism, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the free market. I thought the guy was the bee's knees, despite my failure to realize that, as someone who was still 3 years from entering the workforce, I had not yet contributed to society in a meaningful enough way to declare or cordon off financial resources that I thought were "mine" from those I wanted to prevent those nasty "liberals" from confiscating. I had accumulated no capital to protect, yet I thought I deserved to stake a claim on some of it. :lol:
Nevertheless, in 1992 it was just as popular as hypercolor shirts to chastise Bush for failing to topple Saddam's regime. Even Republicans jumped on his shit; after all, in the grand metaphor for sex that war is (and it is, don't you dare try to tell me it isn't), Bush had "pulled out." Literally and figuratively. That pissed off warmongering Republicans and those allied (including myself), who thought Bush should have finished the job. We wanted "So-damned Insane" (and, to be clear, that wasn't a clever joke in 1991, either) dead, and we wanted his head on a platter. On the other side of the aisle, this was a *ripe* political opportunity for Democrats to make Republicans look like wimps militarily.
Most importantly, it was an election year; politicians say things they don't really mean *all the time* during presidential election years. As evidence, let me point you to Bush's claims of "compassionate conservatism" and "transparency in government" that he uttered in 2000. In return, we got legislated homophobia bringing us Jim Crow Part 2, we got shredded documents galore, hundreds of missing emails from Karl Rove, everybody at the justice department has no idea how democrat-leaning attorneys were fired, Cheney's energy task force, Bush and Cheney's off-the-record and untaped/unsworn testimony to the 9/11 commission, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, indeterminate detention without charges, the death of habeas corpus, the "quaint"ness of the Geneva conventions...and that's just off the top of my head.
So, what was it about Gore again? Oh, that's right: you couldn't possibly be more wrong, so stop searching for that one "zinger" that's going to prove your case right. As I've shown above, your arguments will ALWAYS lack the sheer numbers to hold itself up.
1992 was 10 years ago? Since when? (I know the answer, by the way: since 2002).
It's disappointing that you have to dig back 15 years ago to find some segment that suggests Democrats ought to support the modern era war on terror. It's even more disappointing that you have to ignore the numerous (and just as frequently denied by the very same people) assertions made that Saddam's state and al qaeda were linked, and that Saddam had a hand in planning/funding/carrying out the 9/11 attacks in order to make your point about Gore seem prescient; after all, the attackes by al qaeda were the catalyst for the war on terror, and if Gore is not talking about al qaeda in 1992 (which he isn't), then what is the relevance to the current war?
None of this changes that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
None of this changes that Iraq has no WMDs that were found, contradicting claims made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell that we knew where they were.
None of this changes the fact that al qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until they joined up with various insurgent groups *after* the overthrow of Saddam.
None of this changes that more and more of our soldiers are dying each month.
None of this changes that this war has had the most embarrassing post-war planning since...well, nothing, really. This takes the case.
None of this changes that a war claimed to cost $1-2 billion is now costing us 50000% more than that.
None of this changes that we've just started year 4 of a war that was supposed to last anywhere from "a few weeks" to "six months" according to the Secretary of Defense.
None of this changes the fact that our government has squandered the sympathy the world had for us post 9/11.
None of this changes that our supreme court, just yesterday, condemned Bush's detaining of an American citizen without due process as a severe violation of the US constitution.
None of this changes that the rationale for war was 100% DEAD WRONG at the *VERY BEST*, and maliciously sculpted by those with vested interests in our being at war, costing us thousands of lives and half a trillion dollars, at the absolute worst.
So, as for one Gore speech chastising Bush for not toppling Saddam in 1992? Small potatoes. Besides, I don't know how old you are or how your memory functions, but I was about 13 in 1992, and (truth be told) a *huge* conservative. By 8th grade I had read both of Limbaugh's books and thought they were phenomenal insights into American individualism, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the free market. I thought the guy was the bee's knees, despite my failure to realize that, as someone who was still 3 years from entering the workforce, I had not yet contributed to society in a meaningful enough way to declare or cordon off financial resources that I thought were "mine" from those I wanted to prevent those nasty "liberals" from confiscating. I had accumulated no capital to protect, yet I thought I deserved to stake a claim on some of it. :lol:
Nevertheless, in 1992 it was just as popular as hypercolor shirts to chastise Bush for failing to topple Saddam's regime. Even Republicans jumped on his shit; after all, in the grand metaphor for sex that war is (and it is, don't you dare try to tell me it isn't), Bush had "pulled out." Literally and figuratively. That pissed off warmongering Republicans and those allied (including myself), who thought Bush should have finished the job. We wanted "So-damned Insane" (and, to be clear, that wasn't a clever joke in 1991, either) dead, and we wanted his head on a platter. On the other side of the aisle, this was a *ripe* political opportunity for Democrats to make Republicans look like wimps militarily.
Most importantly, it was an election year; politicians say things they don't really mean *all the time* during presidential election years. As evidence, let me point you to Bush's claims of "compassionate conservatism" and "transparency in government" that he uttered in 2000. In return, we got legislated homophobia bringing us Jim Crow Part 2, we got shredded documents galore, hundreds of missing emails from Karl Rove, everybody at the justice department has no idea how democrat-leaning attorneys were fired, Cheney's energy task force, Bush and Cheney's off-the-record and untaped/unsworn testimony to the 9/11 commission, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, indeterminate detention without charges, the death of habeas corpus, the "quaint"ness of the Geneva conventions...and that's just off the top of my head.
So, what was it about Gore again? Oh, that's right: you couldn't possibly be more wrong, so stop searching for that one "zinger" that's going to prove your case right. As I've shown above, your arguments will ALWAYS lack the sheer numbers to hold itself up.
You found out Gore is a politician?
Honestly, I side with Democrats much more often than Republicans, but I wouldn't go to these lengths to defend their mistakes. All politicians side with what's popular and easy to gain support for. I don't always like it, but I won't say that Democrats don't do it while Republicans do (or vice versa as you do) because that would be a lie.
Just because you like what Republicans do doesn't mean they're not acting in the same manner.
Honestly, I side with Democrats much more often than Republicans, but I wouldn't go to these lengths to defend their mistakes. All politicians side with what's popular and easy to gain support for. I don't always like it, but I won't say that Democrats don't do it while Republicans do (or vice versa as you do) because that would be a lie.
Just because you like what Republicans do doesn't mean they're not acting in the same manner.
Myke:
After posting all that you did, you still completely miss the point of this.
Iraq WAS a terrorist state. Yes they had nothing to do with 9/11. That isn't why we went there. As stated all along, this war was about taking the war TO the terrorists instead of waiting until they come here.
Clearly Al Gore thought Iraq was a terrorist state in 92, so what exactly changed in his viewpoint in 10 yrs to make the democratic party go out and try to undermine our operation now?
It is 100% blowing in the wind. Yes I know politicians do this, but on serious matters like this it is unacceptable.
We can get into an argument about how effective the war has been somewhere else, but this is CLEARLY blowing in the wind when in 92 it is stated that Iraq is a terrorist state and now because popular opinion in the democratic party is against the war, he goes out and changes. That is the point of all this. This is a main reason (another being Harry Reid saying attacking Iran will destabilize the region. This region has never been stable. Anyone who thinks so is fooling themselves. Let's not forget John Edwards calling the War on Terror a catchphrase and that there isn't one) why no democrat is going to be able to protect this country like President Bush has.
After posting all that you did, you still completely miss the point of this.
Iraq WAS a terrorist state. Yes they had nothing to do with 9/11. That isn't why we went there. As stated all along, this war was about taking the war TO the terrorists instead of waiting until they come here.
Clearly Al Gore thought Iraq was a terrorist state in 92, so what exactly changed in his viewpoint in 10 yrs to make the democratic party go out and try to undermine our operation now?
It is 100% blowing in the wind. Yes I know politicians do this, but on serious matters like this it is unacceptable.
We can get into an argument about how effective the war has been somewhere else, but this is CLEARLY blowing in the wind when in 92 it is stated that Iraq is a terrorist state and now because popular opinion in the democratic party is against the war, he goes out and changes. That is the point of all this. This is a main reason (another being Harry Reid saying attacking Iran will destabilize the region. This region has never been stable. Anyone who thinks so is fooling themselves. Let's not forget John Edwards calling the War on Terror a catchphrase and that there isn't one) why no democrat is going to be able to protect this country like President Bush has.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='schuerm26']Clearly Al Gore thought Iraq was a terrorist state in 92, so what exactly changed in his viewpoint in 10 yrs to make the democratic party go out and try to undermine our operation now?[/QUOTE]
15 years. Not 10. I shouldn't need to say that again.
And, as for what happened in the 15 years since then, well, let me put it to you this way: if you and yours are allowed to cite the lack of attacks on American soil to suggest that the Bush administration has done a good job protecting this country, then the lack of terrorist activity ovr ***15 YEARS*** and the lack of WMD should very goddamned jolly well satisfy you that the Saddam regime was not a threat to the United States.
After all, using "nothing" (that is, the lack of attacks on US soil or, in this case, the lack of terrorist activity) to prove "something" (that Bush is protecting us well, or, in this case, that Saddam was not a threat) should be equally applicable, and not only when it conveniently fits your existing political ideology.
5 and a half years after 9/11, hombre. I'm still waiting for that "slam dunk" George Tenet promised us. Clearly, your scattering to justify this bullshit suggests to me that you're still waiting too.
EDIT: As for "blowing in the wind," go back to 1992 and find me someone not named George Herbert Walker Bush that thought it was a good idea that we pulled out before toppling Saddam. Dan Qualye doesn't count, either, as he's a moron.
15 years. Not 10. I shouldn't need to say that again.
And, as for what happened in the 15 years since then, well, let me put it to you this way: if you and yours are allowed to cite the lack of attacks on American soil to suggest that the Bush administration has done a good job protecting this country, then the lack of terrorist activity ovr ***15 YEARS*** and the lack of WMD should very goddamned jolly well satisfy you that the Saddam regime was not a threat to the United States.
After all, using "nothing" (that is, the lack of attacks on US soil or, in this case, the lack of terrorist activity) to prove "something" (that Bush is protecting us well, or, in this case, that Saddam was not a threat) should be equally applicable, and not only when it conveniently fits your existing political ideology.
5 and a half years after 9/11, hombre. I'm still waiting for that "slam dunk" George Tenet promised us. Clearly, your scattering to justify this bullshit suggests to me that you're still waiting too.
EDIT: As for "blowing in the wind," go back to 1992 and find me someone not named George Herbert Walker Bush that thought it was a good idea that we pulled out before toppling Saddam. Dan Qualye doesn't count, either, as he's a moron.
Mykevermin,
I agree with you. And for the most part I try to avoid politics. I find most politicans are slighty retarded.....
Anyways if the original Bush had done things right Iraq would be a big glass parking lot...and yea.
As for an operation, we will be in Iraq until god knows when
I agree with you. And for the most part I try to avoid politics. I find most politicans are slighty retarded.....
Anyways if the original Bush had done things right Iraq would be a big glass parking lot...and yea.
As for an operation, we will be in Iraq until god knows when
usickenme
CAGiversary!
schuerm buddy, did you even watch the video or just get the 15 sec recap from Rush?
This is really an indictment of the Reagan Bush/ Bush Quayle administrations attitudes towards Iraq. Not really "see even the Dems thought Iraq was bad". I find it curious you hold Gore's words to a higher standard than either Bush's ACTIONS.
If Rush is throwing this shit on the air, he must be losing it.
This is really an indictment of the Reagan Bush/ Bush Quayle administrations attitudes towards Iraq. Not really "see even the Dems thought Iraq was bad". I find it curious you hold Gore's words to a higher standard than either Bush's ACTIONS.
If Rush is throwing this shit on the air, he must be losing it.
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Look, another evanft post in which he bitches about someone elses posts! You're almost up to like, 100 of these aren't you?[/QUOTE]
Dude, it's way more than 100. :lol: No offense to evanft.
Dude, it's way more than 100. :lol: No offense to evanft.
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Dude, it's way more than 100. :lol: No offense to evanft.[/QUOTE]
None taken. I prefer to simply dismiss these clearly awful posts rather than actually address them, as anyone with any modicum of intelligence knows why the OP is absolutely awful, so there's no real point in really explaining. Simply affirming the post's awfullness is sufficient.
None taken. I prefer to simply dismiss these clearly awful posts rather than actually address them, as anyone with any modicum of intelligence knows why the OP is absolutely awful, so there's no real point in really explaining. Simply affirming the post's awfullness is sufficient.
RollingSkull
Banned
[quote name='evanft']None taken. I prefer to simply dismiss these clearly awful posts rather than actually address them, as anyone with any modicum of intelligence knows why the OP is absolutely awful, so there's no real point in really explaining. Simply affirming the post's awfullness is sufficient.[/quote]
Indeed. Why debate when you can assert?
Indeed. Why debate when you can assert?
As much as I appreciate Myke's gigundo post, I think it's making a point way over the level of what's needed here.
The issue is this:
[quote name='schuerm26']Point? The fact that the democratic party says that Iraq had no terror connections, yet you only have to go back 10 yrs to find a prominent member of the democratic party stating the exact opposite (in a pretty adamant way). Seems kind of odd that in 92 there were terror connections but within a 10 yr. span they ceased to exist.[/quote]
We had this thing called the First Gulf War, which created something of a difference between 1991-Iraq and 2003-Iraq. Do you also think it's "funny" that we thought Japan was a threat in 1944, but not in 1956?
C'mon now.
The issue is this:
[quote name='schuerm26']Point? The fact that the democratic party says that Iraq had no terror connections, yet you only have to go back 10 yrs to find a prominent member of the democratic party stating the exact opposite (in a pretty adamant way). Seems kind of odd that in 92 there were terror connections but within a 10 yr. span they ceased to exist.[/quote]
We had this thing called the First Gulf War, which created something of a difference between 1991-Iraq and 2003-Iraq. Do you also think it's "funny" that we thought Japan was a threat in 1944, but not in 1956?
C'mon now.
[quote name='mykevermin']if you and yours are allowed to cite the lack of attacks on American soil to suggest that the Bush administration has done a good job protecting this country, then the lack of terrorist activity ovr ***15 YEARS*** and the lack of WMD should very goddamned jolly well satisfy you that the Saddam regime was not a threat to the United States.[/quote]
As the Super Power of the world were supposed to only care about ourselves?
k
Shit I didnt know that.
As the Super Power of the world were supposed to only care about ourselves?
kShit I didnt know that.
MarioColbert
CAGiversary!
[quote name='trq']Do you also think it's "funny" that we thought Japan was a threat in 1944, but not in 1956?[/quote]
See, you and Myke are too damn sensible about this whole thing. If the current administration (+FOX News) have done something well, it'd be their
ing shit-truck of excuses to justify this bullshit, no matter how much we try against it. Japan and Russia (veterans of a cold war - unite!) were "legitimate" enemies, meaning that you can verify their "strategy" in the conflict.
The "terrorist" threat is nebulous enough to pull out of your asshole as soon as it is needed (Bush: "They had weapons of mass destruction related program activities.") which either gives an illusion that a valid argument has been "destroyed" or in any case creating another wave of bullshit to have to argue against.
It's obvious from the post as to who I agree with, but I really do have to question the convictions of the OP and the debaters in this. Unarguable facts are consistently moved aside and speculative propaganda is discussed ad nauseum. Can there be a bottom line to a discussion like this one? (This is a valid question, not a sneaky attempt to insult ambitious individuals with political convictions discussing their opinion.)
See, you and Myke are too damn sensible about this whole thing. If the current administration (+FOX News) have done something well, it'd be their
ing shit-truck of excuses to justify this bullshit, no matter how much we try against it. Japan and Russia (veterans of a cold war - unite!) were "legitimate" enemies, meaning that you can verify their "strategy" in the conflict.The "terrorist" threat is nebulous enough to pull out of your asshole as soon as it is needed (Bush: "They had weapons of mass destruction related program activities.") which either gives an illusion that a valid argument has been "destroyed" or in any case creating another wave of bullshit to have to argue against.
It's obvious from the post as to who I agree with, but I really do have to question the convictions of the OP and the debaters in this. Unarguable facts are consistently moved aside and speculative propaganda is discussed ad nauseum. Can there be a bottom line to a discussion like this one? (This is a valid question, not a sneaky attempt to insult ambitious individuals with political convictions discussing their opinion.)
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='MarioColbert']Unarguable facts are consistently moved aside and speculative propaganda is discussed ad nauseum. Can there be a bottom line to a discussion like this one? (This is a valid question, not a sneaky attempt to insult ambitious individuals with political convictions discussing their opinion.)[/QUOTE]
*sigh* I don't know. I genuinely think that many people on both sides of the political spectrum view things like "Al Gore said something mean about Saddam in 1992!" as biting political commentary. It's certainly a game of "OMG you guys are doing it too!" instead of "here's my ideas, here's why they're valid, and here's why I believe they are superior to yours." The latter has been on life support for some time.
As a society, we prefer soundbites. We want our political ideologies to fit on a bumper sticker ("Buck Fush!" or "I Vote Pro-Life" for examples). We can't deal with ideas because it takes too much time to deconstruct and think about.
That's why Gore saying what he said is so poignant. It's evidence of how weak the Democrats were, how much they supported overthrowing Saddam, and how bad Saddam was. Never mind you that this took place in a political context *FAR* different from 2001 through March 2003, and nevermind that *everyone* in 1992 was criticizing Bush for not following through with overthrowing Saddam. It's easy to take the video at face value, and it's only when individuals ask themselves "what does this mean in the context it took place in?" and "what does it mean relative to today?" and other critical questions ("is there any reason to be suspicious of what this person is saying?" is a favorite of mine) that things come to light that Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge won't tell you.
When we accept things at face value, and we accept the interpretations placed on them by those folks foisting them upon us, then we fail to be individuals.
That doesn't answer your question, but my short answer would be that I'm *very* cynical about our larger societal hopes that a critically-thinking mass will emerge. Technology may help us in ways that 24/7 news and talk radio have failed to do, but it may also become another means of manipulation by those same sources of power.
[quote name='nharmon91']As the Super Power of the world were supposed to only care about ourselves?k
Shit I didnt know that.[/QUOTE]
Until the United States decides that Robert Mugabe needs to be murdered and a government installed in his country (I'll let you look it up since I guarandamntee you have no idea what country he runs and has ruined), then *SPARE* me your humanitarian bullshit. It's all an act.
*sigh* I don't know. I genuinely think that many people on both sides of the political spectrum view things like "Al Gore said something mean about Saddam in 1992!" as biting political commentary. It's certainly a game of "OMG you guys are doing it too!" instead of "here's my ideas, here's why they're valid, and here's why I believe they are superior to yours." The latter has been on life support for some time.
As a society, we prefer soundbites. We want our political ideologies to fit on a bumper sticker ("Buck Fush!" or "I Vote Pro-Life" for examples). We can't deal with ideas because it takes too much time to deconstruct and think about.
That's why Gore saying what he said is so poignant. It's evidence of how weak the Democrats were, how much they supported overthrowing Saddam, and how bad Saddam was. Never mind you that this took place in a political context *FAR* different from 2001 through March 2003, and nevermind that *everyone* in 1992 was criticizing Bush for not following through with overthrowing Saddam. It's easy to take the video at face value, and it's only when individuals ask themselves "what does this mean in the context it took place in?" and "what does it mean relative to today?" and other critical questions ("is there any reason to be suspicious of what this person is saying?" is a favorite of mine) that things come to light that Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge won't tell you.
When we accept things at face value, and we accept the interpretations placed on them by those folks foisting them upon us, then we fail to be individuals.
That doesn't answer your question, but my short answer would be that I'm *very* cynical about our larger societal hopes that a critically-thinking mass will emerge. Technology may help us in ways that 24/7 news and talk radio have failed to do, but it may also become another means of manipulation by those same sources of power.
[quote name='nharmon91']As the Super Power of the world were supposed to only care about ourselves?
kShit I didnt know that.[/QUOTE]
Until the United States decides that Robert Mugabe needs to be murdered and a government installed in his country (I'll let you look it up since I guarandamntee you have no idea what country he runs and has ruined), then *SPARE* me your humanitarian bullshit. It's all an act.
MarioColbert
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']That doesn't answer your question, but my short answer would be that I'm *very* cynical about our larger societal hopes that a critically-thinking mass will emerge. Technology may help us in ways that 24/7 news and talk radio have failed to do, but it may also become another means of manipulation by those same sources of power.[/quote]
Well done.
[quote name='mykevermin'] Until the United States decides that Robert Mugabe needs to be murdered and a government installed in his country (I'll let you look it up since I guarandamntee you have no idea what country he runs and has ruined), then *SPARE* me your humanitarian bullshit. It's all an act.[/quote]
This is most curious. Do you think that it would be ethical for the United States to police Zimbabwe? We definitely have sanctioned the government in 2003 (Zimbabwe Democracy Act). Don't get me wrong, his crimes are well documented and his reputation is frightening. But does this imply warrant to kill and re-police the country? How effective do you think such a plan will be? (I'm really not claiming to be worldly on this. My sister left for Ghana less than a week ago, so I happened to know just who you're talking about by a completeing accident, and still had to consult Wikipedia to find out some details.)
I want to know how one can assume that the United States is able (empowered) to do anything but mind its own business. Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as "more money = absolute good," for instance when you are dealing with a country of morons who are unable to properly integrate capitalism due to extreme corruption within the government. I'm talking, of course, about Russia, whose pitiful attempt to integrate "American capitalism" into a society unable to cope with free enterprise and separation of state and money (yes, socialist Russia with Communist ideals was always a whored-out money-grubbing state, which is why the old party members are currently plenty rich) ensured bad things for a while. Sorry, I guess that's not exactly the same as the topic discussed, but that's what I grew up with, and that's one of the few things I have my homework done for.
Well done.[quote name='mykevermin'] Until the United States decides that Robert Mugabe needs to be murdered and a government installed in his country (I'll let you look it up since I guarandamntee you have no idea what country he runs and has ruined), then *SPARE* me your humanitarian bullshit. It's all an act.[/quote]
This is most curious. Do you think that it would be ethical for the United States to police Zimbabwe? We definitely have sanctioned the government in 2003 (Zimbabwe Democracy Act). Don't get me wrong, his crimes are well documented and his reputation is frightening. But does this imply warrant to kill and re-police the country? How effective do you think such a plan will be? (I'm really not claiming to be worldly on this. My sister left for Ghana less than a week ago, so I happened to know just who you're talking about by a complete
ing accident, and still had to consult Wikipedia to find out some details.)I want to know how one can assume that the United States is able (empowered) to do anything but mind its own business. Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as "more money = absolute good," for instance when you are dealing with a country of morons who are unable to properly integrate capitalism due to extreme corruption within the government. I'm talking, of course, about Russia, whose pitiful attempt to integrate "American capitalism" into a society unable to cope with free enterprise and separation of state and money (yes, socialist Russia with Communist ideals was always a whored-out money-grubbing state, which is why the old party members are currently plenty rich) ensured bad things for a while. Sorry, I guess that's not exactly the same as the topic discussed, but that's what I grew up with, and that's one of the few things I have my homework done for.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I think globalization has made the United States a very wealthy nation, but also a very dependent nation. We depend on foreign nations to manufacture cheap things for us to buy, and we depend on the wealthy in foreign nations to bail us out after we've overspent our tax dollars for the year.
Moreover, we're in a precarious spot because we need to protect those resources - both in maintaining them as allies (Asian investors that cover up our governmental deficit spending) and protecting them from enemies.
It's overly simplistic to say Iraq is a "war for oil," but there is a modicum of truth to that. We have a vested financial interest in the middle east and its stability. We don't want to rely on Venezuelan oil b/c of Chavez, and we want allies in the middle east for the same reasons (why we're good buddies with UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia). Iran, seeing as how they can some shit up without nuclear weapons capacities (and would become a substantial threat if they did develop them fully), is in our interests to overthrow more than Zimbabwe. We don't stand to gain or lose anything from eliminating Mugabe, which is why he's off the radar. Zimbabwe and Darfur are two examples of a rule of the world nobody wants to admit is true: human rights violations are just fine as long as you keep them to yourselves.
Do I *think* we should overthrow Mugabe? At this point I don't know. If our military resources weren't overspent and overstretched, I'd be much more in favor of it - if only for the benefit of the people of that country (try to find out some data on their inflation the past year or so - it's like nothing I've ever seen before).
I do not, no matter the state of the US Armed Forces, think that overthrowing Mugabe is something the US should tackle alone. Although he was largely laughed at for saying such a thing (the pitfalls of American arrogance), I think Kerry was *deading on* in 2004 when he said that many US military actions should "pass the global test" before taken upon. It's twofold, really: (1) international support includes resources and finances, something we're sorely lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan, and (2) international support provides a global context that support the change - oppositional alliances between states will be harder to come by when many larger nations agree that said change should take place.
In the current military climate, however, it's a fool's errand.
Moreover, we're in a precarious spot because we need to protect those resources - both in maintaining them as allies (Asian investors that cover up our governmental deficit spending) and protecting them from enemies.
It's overly simplistic to say Iraq is a "war for oil," but there is a modicum of truth to that. We have a vested financial interest in the middle east and its stability. We don't want to rely on Venezuelan oil b/c of Chavez, and we want allies in the middle east for the same reasons (why we're good buddies with UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia). Iran, seeing as how they can
some shit up without nuclear weapons capacities (and would become a substantial threat if they did develop them fully), is in our interests to overthrow more than Zimbabwe. We don't stand to gain or lose anything from eliminating Mugabe, which is why he's off the radar. Zimbabwe and Darfur are two examples of a rule of the world nobody wants to admit is true: human rights violations are just fine as long as you keep them to yourselves.Do I *think* we should overthrow Mugabe? At this point I don't know. If our military resources weren't overspent and overstretched, I'd be much more in favor of it - if only for the benefit of the people of that country (try to find out some data on their inflation the past year or so - it's like nothing I've ever seen before).
I do not, no matter the state of the US Armed Forces, think that overthrowing Mugabe is something the US should tackle alone. Although he was largely laughed at for saying such a thing (the pitfalls of American arrogance), I think Kerry was *dead
ing on* in 2004 when he said that many US military actions should "pass the global test" before taken upon. It's twofold, really: (1) international support includes resources and finances, something we're sorely lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan, and (2) international support provides a global context that support the change - oppositional alliances between states will be harder to come by when many larger nations agree that said change should take place.In the current military climate, however, it's a fool's errand.
MarioColbert
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin'](try to find out some data on their inflation the past year or so - it's like nothing I've ever seen before).[/quote]
I did, before I read your post. For interested parties:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article1990401.ece
Life expectancy figures were enough. The rest of the numbers (bottom of the article) truly are nothing I've ever seen before.
I did, before I read your post. For interested parties:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article1990401.ece
Life expectancy figures were enough. The rest of the numbers (bottom of the article) truly are nothing I've ever seen before.
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
--Madeline Albright on 60 Minutes (5/12/96) after hearing that 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of UN sanctions against Iraq.
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
-Albright in a Town Hall meeting in Ohio 1998 on the administrations campaign to garner support for an Iraw war.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Nancy Pelosi December 16, 1998
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
- Nancy Pelosi Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
-President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.
-The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
--Madeline Albright on 60 Minutes (5/12/96) after hearing that 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of UN sanctions against Iraq.
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
-Albright in a Town Hall meeting in Ohio 1998 on the administrations campaign to garner support for an Iraw war.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Nancy Pelosi December 16, 1998
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
- Nancy Pelosi Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
-President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.
-The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='evanft']And bmulligan tries to out-jackass schuerm. Tough job, but I think he's on to something.[/QUOTE]
You are getting even worse than usual lately. Are you ever going to respond to the substance of any post? If not, why are you even here?
You are getting even worse than usual lately. Are you ever going to respond to the substance of any post? If not, why are you even here?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I thought everyone pretty much knew the WMD's were moved out of Iraq before the war started? At least there are satellite photos showing huge Russian military convoys in Iraq (who sold them the weapons in the first place) just 2 or 3 weeks before the invasion.
Everyone I know that's been to Iraq speaks of this as matter-of-fact. Just like they know that they are there fighting Iran, nothing more.
Those two facts just are never brought up officially because it would be a very bad idea to publically accuse Russia of helping Iraq sweep their naughties under the rug. Or to publically admit we are at war with Iran. The real people in charge (above bush) believe it's ultimately better to let Americans cry and bicker over reasons for being there than tell them the truth. Because the truth could create some much larger international incidents.
But I guess if the above was common knowledge and seen on your precious so-called "legit" media outlets, we wouldn't have as many reasons to hate bush and the republicans and talk about how Democrats will save us.
Everyone I know that's been to Iraq speaks of this as matter-of-fact. Just like they know that they are there fighting Iran, nothing more.
Those two facts just are never brought up officially because it would be a very bad idea to publically accuse Russia of helping Iraq sweep their naughties under the rug. Or to publically admit we are at war with Iran. The real people in charge (above bush) believe it's ultimately better to let Americans cry and bicker over reasons for being there than tell them the truth. Because the truth could create some much larger international incidents.
But I guess if the above was common knowledge and seen on your precious so-called "legit" media outlets, we wouldn't have as many reasons to hate bush and the republicans and talk about how Democrats will save us.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I thought everyone pretty much knew the WMD's were moved out of Iraq before the war started? At least there are satellite photos showing huge Russian military convoys in Iraq (who sold them the weapons in the first place) just 2 or 3 weeks before the invasion.
Everyone I know that's been to Iraq speaks of this as matter-of-fact. Just like they know that they are there fighting Iran, nothing more.
Those two facts just are never brought up officially because it would be a very bad idea to publically accuse Russia of helping Iraq sweep their naughties under the rug. Or to publically admit we are at war with Iran. The real people in charge (above bush) believe it's ultimately better to let Americans cry and bicker over reasons for being there than tell them the truth. Because the truth could create some much larger international incidents.
But I guess if the above was common knowledge and seen on your precious so-called "legit" media outlets, we wouldn't have as many reasons to hate bush and the republicans and talk about how Democrats will save us.[/QUOTE]
It is very fitting that you have an alien for an avatar, you sound like an Area 51
conspiracy nutbar.
Everyone I know that's been to Iraq speaks of this as matter-of-fact. Just like they know that they are there fighting Iran, nothing more.
Those two facts just are never brought up officially because it would be a very bad idea to publically accuse Russia of helping Iraq sweep their naughties under the rug. Or to publically admit we are at war with Iran. The real people in charge (above bush) believe it's ultimately better to let Americans cry and bicker over reasons for being there than tell them the truth. Because the truth could create some much larger international incidents.
But I guess if the above was common knowledge and seen on your precious so-called "legit" media outlets, we wouldn't have as many reasons to hate bush and the republicans and talk about how Democrats will save us.[/QUOTE]
It is very fitting that you have an alien for an avatar, you sound like an Area 51
conspiracy nutbar.
[quote name='mykevermin']Until the United States decides that Robert Mugabe needs to be murdered and a government installed in his country (I'll let you look it up since I guarandamntee you have no idea what country he runs and has ruined), then *SPARE* me your humanitarian bullshit. It's all an act.[/quote] Of course I know who Mugabe is, Jebus. I guess Saddam killing the Kurds doesn't matter though.
[quote name='bmulligan']"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
--Madeline Albright on 60 Minutes (5/12/96) after hearing that 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of UN sanctions against Iraq.
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
-Albright in a Town Hall meeting in Ohio 1998 on the administrations campaign to garner support for an Iraw war.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Nancy Pelosi December 16, 1998
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
- Nancy Pelosi Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
-President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.
-The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002[/quote]
--Madeline Albright on 60 Minutes (5/12/96) after hearing that 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of UN sanctions against Iraq.
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
-Albright in a Town Hall meeting in Ohio 1998 on the administrations campaign to garner support for an Iraw war.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Nancy Pelosi December 16, 1998
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
- Nancy Pelosi Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
-President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.
What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
-President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein.
-The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002[/quote]
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='nharmon91']Of course I know who Mugabe is, Jebus. I guess Saddam killing the Kurds doesn't matter though.[/QUOTE]
Don't give me that nonsense. Like I said, spare me the humanitarian angle because, by inconsistently applying it (e.g., not supporting regime change in the dozens of countries that commit similar atrocities on their own people), you completely disarm any sort of "humanitarian cred" you try to claim.
It's like saying "we need to stop the spread of AIDS n Africa...but only in Ethiopia. the rest of 'em; we're not the world police, after all."
Don't give me that nonsense. Like I said, spare me the humanitarian angle because, by inconsistently applying it (e.g., not supporting regime change in the dozens of countries that commit similar atrocities on their own people), you completely disarm any sort of "humanitarian cred" you try to claim.
It's like saying "we need to stop the spread of AIDS n Africa...but only in Ethiopia.
the rest of 'em; we're not the world police, after all."
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='nharmon91']There is no way to consistantly apply it. I just think it should be considered as a reason for entering in Iraq, since it rarly is.[/QUOTE]
It's a better reason than "they have WMDs," or Cheney's take on it: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." After all, those prophecies turned out to be fabulously false.
It would only be a viable reason if the number of annual deaths in Iraq decrease after the overthrow of the Saddam regime. They have not.
It's a better reason than "they have WMDs," or Cheney's take on it: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." After all, those prophecies turned out to be fabulously false.
It would only be a viable reason if the number of annual deaths in Iraq decrease after the overthrow of the Saddam regime. They have not.
[quote name='mykevermin']It's a better reason than "they have WMDs," or Cheney's take on it: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." After all, those prophecies turned out to be fabulously false.
It would only be a viable reason if the number of annual deaths in Iraq decrease after the overthrow of the Saddam regime. They have not.[/quote]
But they will.
And just to say it, I'm for this war, but this administration has handled it beyond terribly.
It would only be a viable reason if the number of annual deaths in Iraq decrease after the overthrow of the Saddam regime. They have not.[/quote]
But they will.
And just to say it, I'm for this war, but this administration has handled it beyond terribly.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Based on what, Pollyanna? The bang-up job the Iraqi democratic government is doing?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='nharmon91']what?[/QUOTE]
What makes you think things will get better or improve in Iraq? The awesome job the interim government is doing? The increase in the number of troops killed per month? The increase in the number of bombings per month? The "surge"? Or is it just a warm, fuzzy feeling you have inside - that, despite being DEAD WRONG FOR YEARS about the situation improving, if it finally does change, whether it's next month or in two decades, you'll have suddenly been "right" all along?
What makes you think things will get better or improve in Iraq? The awesome job the interim government is doing? The increase in the number of troops killed per month? The increase in the number of bombings per month? The "surge"? Or is it just a warm, fuzzy feeling you have inside - that, despite being DEAD WRONG FOR YEARS about the situation improving, if it finally does change, whether it's next month or in two decades, you'll have suddenly been "right" all along?
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='nharmon91'][/QUOTE]
I can't figure out why you are applauding that shit.
Pulling quotes that the Dems thought Saddam was a bad dude, doesn't suddenly make Bush's war right. No where in those quote do you find those Dems advocating any war, let alone the wholly incompotent war that we now have.
There isn't some straight line between thinking Saddam was bad and the mess in Iraq. There were dozens bad decisions that resulted in the current situation. From choosing war over diplomacy, not letting the inspectors do their job (in 2003), not enought troops, etc and all of those are on Bush.
The biggest tragedy is that Iraq was ripe for a democratic transformation. From it's well educated secular populace eager for change to a plentiful resource to use for funds, Iraq was a best case. And Bush stilled it up.
[/QUOTE]I can't figure out why you are applauding that shit.
Pulling quotes that the Dems thought Saddam was a bad dude, doesn't suddenly make Bush's war right. No where in those quote do you find those Dems advocating any war, let alone the wholly incompotent war that we now have.
There isn't some straight line between thinking Saddam was bad and the mess in Iraq. There were dozens bad decisions that resulted in the current situation. From choosing war over diplomacy, not letting the inspectors do their job (in 2003), not enought troops, etc and all of those are on Bush.
The biggest tragedy is that Iraq was ripe for a democratic transformation. From it's well educated secular populace eager for change to a plentiful resource to use for funds, Iraq was a best case. And Bush still
ed it up.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']No where in those quote do you find those Dems advocating any war, let alone the wholly incompotent war that we now have.[/QUOTE]
We don't need quotes for that. Go look up the way votes were cast on the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war.
We don't need quotes for that. Go look up the way votes were cast on the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']We don't need quotes for that. Go look up the way votes were cast on the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war.[/QUOTE]
You do that and tell me how Al Gore, Pres. Clinton and Albright voted. That's right they didn't. In fact, the only person who could have voted in that list of quotes was Pelosi who voted no.
You do that and tell me how Al Gore, Pres. Clinton and Albright voted. That's right they didn't. In fact, the only person who could have voted in that list of quotes was Pelosi who voted no.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']You do that and tell me how Al Gore, Pres. Clinton and Albright voted. That's right they didn't. In fact, the only person who could have voted in that list of quotes was Pelosi who voted no.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that all those tough-sounding things they were saying about Saddam throughout the 1990s were them just bullshitting? No wonder the Dems have problems with the electorate on national security...
So you're saying that all those tough-sounding things they were saying about Saddam throughout the 1990s were them just bullshitting? No wonder the Dems have problems with the electorate on national security...
usickenme
CAGiversary!
No, I am saying those you claim voted for something, did not. But if presumption is your defense...
I'm not saying they were dishonest. Just because they thought Saddam needed to go doesn't mean they support the manner in which Bush did it. In fact, you would have to be a moron to think Bush's method of regime change is acceptable.
....so are you're saying your a moron?
I'm not saying they were dishonest. Just because they thought Saddam needed to go doesn't mean they support the manner in which Bush did it. In fact, you would have to be a moron to think Bush's method of regime change is acceptable.
....so are you're saying your a moron?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']No, I am saying those you claim voted for something, did not. But if presumption is your defense...
I'm not saying they were dishonest. Just because they thought Saddam needed to go doesn't mean they support the manner in which Bush did it. In fact, you would have to be a moron to think Bush's method of regime change is acceptable.
....so are you're saying your a moron?[/QUOTE]
That was SO clever, the way you did that. Really. You are SO smart.
It is not worth talking to anyone who thinks that a position other than their own is moronic. Why are you here if you think that, to call people who disagree with you morons? How fulfilling.
BTW, I was referring to the votes of people like Hillary Clinton and other Democratic presidential candidates/other Democrats. How convenient to exclude them.
I'm not saying they were dishonest. Just because they thought Saddam needed to go doesn't mean they support the manner in which Bush did it. In fact, you would have to be a moron to think Bush's method of regime change is acceptable.
....so are you're saying your a moron?[/QUOTE]
That was SO clever, the way you did that. Really. You are SO smart.
It is not worth talking to anyone who thinks that a position other than their own is moronic. Why are you here if you think that, to call people who disagree with you morons? How fulfilling.
BTW, I was referring to the votes of people like Hillary Clinton and other Democratic presidential candidates/other Democrats. How convenient to exclude them.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']...
You have my signature blocked, don't you?[/QUOTE]
No, I've seen your signature. Firstly, there is a difference between legitimate disagreement and denial of facts/stupidity. Secondly, I must have been pretty annoyed that day with life because I usually don't go off like that. Sorry about it.
You have my signature blocked, don't you?[/QUOTE]
No, I've seen your signature. Firstly, there is a difference between legitimate disagreement and denial of facts/stupidity. Secondly, I must have been pretty annoyed that day with life because I usually don't go off like that. Sorry about it.
bread's done