America the Liberator

[Billdemart]

Today at 05:52 PM Tau said this in Post #11



That was the impression I got from the article in the original post - that this war was about liberating Iraq. I guess not. Since you most likely know more about it than I do, would you mind telling me what the reason is? Because I'm having some trouble figuring it out.

Sorry, I think this is a miscommunication of issues/reasons/beliefs.  My point was to the people who used their MAIN excuse for the anti-war stance of innocent Iraqis dying.  It had nothing to do with what reasons the American govt. has given.

 

[Billdemart]

Today at 06:12 PM Brimshack said this in Post #13

A different argument altogether. Not the one made in this thread. But of course, the notion that the U.S. is actually defending itself in this instance is really quite bizarre.

Not really when you consider the plane hijacking terrorist camp in Iraq, the extreme hatred of the US by Saddam, the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the subsequent 17 resolutions that were not followed through by Saddam, and the ties to terrorism he openly shows the world.

Put 2 and 2 together and Saddam could easily and would easily with the chance, attack US civilians through terrorists without a doubt.

 

[chickenman]

I think you actually have to be attacked by someone to be "defending" yourself

attacking them before they attack you is a pre-emptive strike

 

[Billdemart]

Today at 06:25 PM Doctrine1st said this in Post #16

Well, I think that it's all those Arab countries overseas that the Administration needs to convice that this is being done for there behalf, but the promblem with our and the Brits pattern via foreign policy over there, that is going to be one tough sale no matter how brutal or hateful the leader may be. Ane as one can see, that's a tough sale even over here.

So absolutely true.

 

[Billdemart]

Today at 10:49 PM chickenman said this in Post #23

I think you actually have to be attacked by someone to be "defending" yourself

attacking them before they attack you is a pre-emptive strike

It's all in the terminology.  A pre-emptive strike in order to defend against future terror attacks is still defense of the country.

 

[Memory's Flame]

I don't see how people can be against this war anyway.

However I do see the worry that we will be expected to help liberate other countries...

 

[chickenman]

judge, I shot my neighbour to prevent future attacks against me, it was self defense

 

[chickenman]

I don't see how people can be against this war anyway.

However I do see the worry that we will be expected to help liberate other countries...

like zimbabwe, and they don't have any oil or anti-american sentiment, so they can just liberate themselves

 

[Billdemart]

Today at 12:20 AM chickenman said this in Post #28



like zimbabwe, and they don't have any oil or anti-american sentiment, so they can just liberate themselves

Yeah its exactly the same right?  Wrong.

Do they train and pay terrorists?  Do they produce nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?  No.

Don't compare apples to oranges. 

 

[Billdemart]

Today at 12:18 AM chickenman said this in Post #27

judge, I shot my neighbour to prevent future attacks against me, it was self defense

Another bad analogy.

Perhaps something like this.  Judge, this man raped my daughter, tortured my wife, and killed my son.  I shot him. 

 

[Blindfaith]

/me would have a hard time not applauding if she were the judge.

That doesn't make me feel very good or proud of myself, but hey!  At least I'm honest.

 

[Tau]

Today at 04:39 AM Billdemart said this in Post #21
Sorry, I think this is a miscommunication of issues/reasons/beliefs.  My point was to the people who used their MAIN excuse for the anti-war stance of innocent Iraqis dying.  It had nothing to do with what reasons the American govt. has given.

Okay. Please forget about my earlier comments.

And the article and your post have a very good point. Things will be far uglier if we simply leave Hussein alone.

 

[chickenman]

except that the man hasn't actually done any of those things

he's raped his own daughter, and his own wife, he hasn't done anything to you yet

 

[Brimshack]

"quote:
Today at 05:49 PM Brimshack said this in Post #10

Is this a general principle that we are advocating now in this thread? I'd hate to think this was an ad hoc rationalization or anything like that.




Ksen:

"This article wasn't a rationalization for anything._ It was an attack against those who would find some moral equivalency between this government under George W. Bush and the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, between the coalition forces and the Iraqi army.

Anyone honest enough to look at all the facts will see that saying our forces or government is just as bad as their forces or government is just inane.

Our forces are doing good, theirs are doing evil."

The article wasn't the object of my comment, your specific spin was. And I did not say that our government was just as bad as theirs. If that is the position you are attacking, then have fun with your whipping boy.

As for this: "Anyone who can say that Iraq didn't pose a threat to our interests either hasn't been following this story or isn't being rational."

I'm very glad that you know how to insult people, but that is no substitute for an argument. Feel free to insult me some more, but while you are at it why don't you actually field an argument.

And Bildemart:

"Well I would like to say we could take out every oppressive terroristic dictator but that just isn't feasible._ There have to be other issues I'm afraid, to justify said aggression (ie. WMD, terrorist camps, etc., in addition to human rights atrocities on a horrific scale)."

You've hit the nail right on the head, the same conservative strategists and pundits who now push this war have always maintained that American troops are not to be used to rescue foreigners from dictators like S.H. Humanitarian concerns have been explicitly rejected as a basis for military intervention by one Republican leader after another. Add to that the fact that we supported S.H. when he was "gassing his own people" and it makes it pretty plain that the attrocities you and Ksen are tauting here as the obvious reason for the war are actually quite irrelevant to the war itself.

 

[Brimshack]

"Not really when you consider the plane hijacking terrorist camp in Iraq, the extreme hatred of the US by Saddam, the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the subsequent 17 resolutions that were not followed through by Saddam, and the ties to terrorism he openly shows the world.

Put 2 and 2 together and Saddam could easily and would easily with the chance, attack US civilians through terrorists without a doubt."

At least this is an argument. That's more than we normally get on this subject. The terrorist camp is the best of the reasons you stated, though I have yet to read any proof that it's trainees have ever been directed our direction. Compared to the active assistance that Saudis have provided terrorists, it seems a weak reason. As for hating America, that is circular, he hates us now because we have thwarted his plans and faught him. As far as U.S.-haters though, his sentiments are rather common-place, and there is no evidence that he has acted substantially to do much about it. The U.S. resolutions are ironic at best. It's not like the U.S. feels an obligation to follow UN resolutions either, and of course that would be world government, so it's a bad thing anyway, unless it's convenient. As to "ties to terrorism" , a vague assertion, too meaningless to debate.

 

[ksen]

Today at 03:15 AM Brimshack said this in Post #34

"quote:
Today at 05:49 PM Brimshack said this in Post #10

Is this a general principle that we are advocating now in this thread? I'd hate to think this was an ad hoc rationalization or anything like that.

Ksen:

"This article wasn't a rationalization for anything._ It was an attack against those who would find some moral equivalency between this government under George W. Bush and the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, between the coalition forces and the Iraqi army.

Anyone honest enough to look at all the facts will see that saying our forces or government is just as bad as their forces or government is just inane.

Our forces are doing good, theirs are doing evil."

The article wasn't the object of my comment, your specific spin was. And I did not say that our government was just as bad as theirs. If that is the position you are attacking, then have fun with your whipping boy.

What was my specific spin again?

As for this: "Anyone who can say that Iraq didn't pose a threat to our interests either hasn't been following this story or isn't being rational."

I'm very glad that you know how to insult people, but that is no substitute for an argument. Feel free to insult me some more, but while you are at it why don't you actually field an argument.

I don't believe you were the object of my comments in that post.  I'm sorry if you took them personally, they weren't meant that way to you.

Do you believe that Iraq, before the war, presented no threat to our interests?

And Bildemart:

"Well I would like to say we could take out every oppressive terroristic dictator but that just isn't feasible._ There have to be other issues I'm afraid, to justify said aggression (ie. WMD, terrorist camps, etc., in addition to human rights atrocities on a horrific scale)."

You've hit the nail right on the head, the same conservative strategists and pundits who now push this war have always maintained that American troops are not to be used to rescue foreigners from dictators like S.H. Humanitarian concerns have been explicitly rejected as a basis for military intervention by one Republican leader after another. Add to that the fact that we supported S.H. when he was "gassing his own people" and it makes it pretty plain that the attrocities you and Ksen are tauting here as the obvious reason for the war are actually quite irrelevant to the war itself.

I have not been "tauting" the atrocities as the obvious reason for the war.  The article at the top was not "tauting" the atrocities as the obvious reason for the war.

The article was saying, and I agreed, that those anti-war protesters who believe there is some sort of moral equivalency between our forces and Saddam's forces or our government and Saddam's government are wrong.  There is a stark difference between the coalition side and the Iraqi government side.

I didn't think you fell in that camp. 

 

[ksen]

Today at 03:24 AM Brimshack said this in Post #35

"Not really when you consider the plane hijacking terrorist camp in Iraq, the extreme hatred of the US by Saddam, the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the subsequent 17 resolutions that were not followed through by Saddam, and the ties to terrorism he openly shows the world.

Put 2 and 2 together and Saddam could easily and would easily with the chance, attack US civilians through terrorists without a doubt."

At least this is an argument. That's more than we normally get on this subject. The terrorist camp is the best of the reasons you stated, though I have yet to read any proof that it's trainees have ever been directed our direction.

Do they have to have been pointed in our direction before we do anything?  I think the mere existence of a terrorist training camp is enough of a potential threat to warrant us taking it out.

Compared to the active assistance that Saudis have provided terrorists, it seems a weak reason.

Yeah, I wish President Bush would do something about the Saudis but as far as I know he may have something on the drawing table for after Iraq.  I don't know, but I hope so.

As for hating America, that is circular, he hates us now because we have thwarted his plans and faught him. As far as U.S.-haters though, his sentiments are rather common-place, and there is no evidence that he has acted substantially to do much about it.

I think you're wrong here, but I don't have anything now to prove it.  I'll poke around a bit later and see what I can find.

As to "ties to terrorism" , a vague assertion, too meaningless to debate.

What ties to terrorism would you accept as not being just "vague assertions?"

Saddam has been documented paying the family members of Palestinian homicide bombers.  A senior member of a Palestinian terrorist group(Hamas?) was taken out on the first night in our attack on Saddam's meeting place.  It is being reported that Al-Qaeda members are fighting alongside Iraqi army units right now.  You yourself mentioned a terrorist training camp in Iraq.

Do any of those rise above "vague assertion" for you?

 

[pace]

Yesterday at 07:34 PM ksen said this in Post #1

AMERICA THE LIBERATOR

 

AMERICA THE country-who-can't-solve-anything-without-the-use-of-guns.

 

[Wolseley]

AMERICA THE country-who-can't-solve-anything-without-the-use-of-guns.

Well.....I suppose we could try to disarm Saddam Hussein by attacking him with a combination of daisy petals, scented baby powder, and French ticklers, but somehow I suspect it wouldn't have as much effect on him as guns.

 

[ksen]

Today at 04:30 AM Wolseley said this in Post #39
Well.....I suppose we could try to disarm Saddam Hussein by attacking him with a combination of daisy petals, scented baby powder, and French ticklers, but somehow I suspect it wouldn't have as much effect on him as guns.

LOL!