THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "This country is actively involved in helping others secure freedom and hope for their future, while others criticize and snipe, and my intuition is that the anti-war people here could care less about the Iraqis, except to project suffering on them and use this as a club against Bush."

Wrong premise. The Bush administration attacked Iraq on the grounds that Saddam had WMDs and connections to terrorists. We DID NOT GO INTO IRAQ TO SECURE THEIR FREEDOM. That was an afterethought after it was proven Saddam didn't have WMDs. Bush said he did it for the American People. As a matter fact, the American People are paying dearly for this administration's missteps, errors and omissions.

JW didn't say the purpose for the US going to Iraq was to secure freedom for the Iraqis, now did she, CI?

0 Replies

"This country is actively involved in helping others secure freedom and hope for their future"

So - who said the bit above????

0 Replies

Revel,

Great post!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

"This country is actively involved in helping others secure freedom and hope for their future"

So - who said the bit above????

JW did. True statement.

0 Replies

So the country is 'actively involved in helping others secure freedom and hope for their future,' just not in Iraq, then?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lol - I think the good intentions are thought to have come AFTER the invasion - especially since there are no WMD, and there was no imminent threat to justify it.

There was a flurried change to "We came to rid you of the evil dictator, and bring you truth, justice and the American way".

I hope it goddamn well works - however evilly it came about.

0 Replies

Did I miss something? What is it with you people thinking she said the reason we went to Iraq was to secure freedoms for the Iraqi people? She didn't say that.

0 Replies

I was actually supporting your quibble, Tico.

I think it a fatuous one - and I suspect she meant exactly what CI says she did - but I am attempting to explicate your quibble.

0 Replies

Well have at it. Please explicate my quibble all you want. Very Happy

0 Replies

In general, I find that the pro-Iraq folk here have managed completely to convince themselves that a primary justification for the invasion was ALWAYS "to rid you of the evil dictator, and bring you truth, justice and the American way", rather than this being a post-hoc face-saving move.

You are, I think, unusually honest in this respect.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Well have at it. Please explicate my quibble all you want.

I already have.

I assume you meant that while you did not invade to bring utopia to the Iranian people, that, since you had already killed a whole lot of them, and taken over the country and such, with no justification in terms of WMD and imminent threat, and all that, that you had best to your damndest to put to gether something better than what you broke? And that you ARE doing that?

0 Replies

Was there another quibble you had?

I do hate to misrepresent a man's fatuous quibble.

Especially on a Sunday, when I am hungover.

0 Replies

Whoa. I better rope you in a bit. No, you assume incorrectly. My "quibble" was with the incorrect statement made by CI in his response to JW's post. That was the end of my quibble.

Now, as far as my views on the subject, IMO the invasion of Iraq was fully justified based upon the actions of Iraq in failing to fully cooperate with UN weapons inspectors and to account for the whereabouts of WMD. The fact that the WMD have not been found does not act to remove that justification post facto. The WMD was the primary reason and justification. Existing at the same time was the secondary added bonus of extricating Saddam from power in the region, and all of the benefits that brings to the Iraqi people in terms of freedoms, etc.

0 Replies

So - what exactly DO you think JW was saying, and why have you chosen to make such a to do over it?

Except, perhaps, to draw attention away from her words to Beth???? Which are probably better buried in obscurity, for all concerned, but still...

0 Replies

I know what she didn't say, and that is what CI identified as her "wrong premise." I pointed that out to CI. You asked a question about it, to which I replied. Why do you consider that making a big "to do over it"?

0 Replies

I just read the second part of your post ...

Quote:

Except, perhaps, to draw attention away from her words to Beth???? Which are probably better buried in obscurity, for all concerned, but still...

That doesn't even make any sense. If you want to accuse somebody of drawing "attention away from her words to Beth," you best be looking at CI, since he was the one who did that. I only responded to his inaccurate statement. As far as JW's words about Beth, she has attributed same to her sense of intuition. I have no such sense, and do not rely on same.

0 Replies

Well, for starters, I think you are very likely wrong about what she meant. I suspect she DOES think that the US attacked in order to bring peace or whatever to the Iraqi people. Only JW can say for sure.

Secondly, why on earth is is so important? JW thinks it was a "bonus" - like you do - or she thinks it was a reason for invading.

So?

The important part of her argument was how wonderful the US is, and how awful are those who dare to disagree with this war - (or whatever else the US feels like doing - I am not sure from what she says how general she wants it to be).

She goes on to infer that some, or all of us (not sure which) - certainly one of us - loves Iraqi misery.

These were the important points - one of which was a very gratuitously insulting one.

I think you are going on about a very unimportant point. That's all.

But feel free and all.....

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I just read the second part of your post ...

Quote:
Except, perhaps, to draw attention away from her words to Beth???? Which are probably better buried in obscurity, for all concerned, but still...

That doesn't even make any sense. If you want to accuse somebody of drawing "attention away from her words to Beth," you best be looking at CI, since he was the one who did that. I only responded to his inaccurate statement. As far as JW's words about Beth, she has attributed same to her sense of intuition. I have no such sense, and do not rely on same.

Not even after your sensitivity training?

I am prostrate with disappointment. Laughing

But point taken, re "drawing attention away" - withdrawn!!!!

0 Replies

dlowan, Well put and on the mark.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Not even after your sensitivity training?

I am prostrate with disappointment.

They didn't mention intuition at all. It was a total waste of time. I'm still coarse and uncouth. Laughing

You may think it a very unimportant point, but it was one made by CI, not me. I merely commented on the unambiguous written words that she used. If you and CI wish to try and read JW's mind and assume you know what she meant, explain to me how that is any better than her thinking she knows what Beth thinks?

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know