Fallen Soldier's Mom Arrested Outside Laura Bush Event!

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
Please tell me how you contain someone who may still have WMD, or may have them again, and having them could smuggle them into your country and kill a huge number of your citizens.

Don't ask me, Brandon9000, ask Powell and Rice. They're the ones who said it was quite possible back in March of 2001.

You seemed to suggest that containment was possible. Tell me how. Can't you think for yourself?

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
Another is that Iran is what I might call a flawed democracy, and we should be much more reluctant to take out even partially democratic governments.

So, then, we SHOULDN'T have encouraged Venzuelans to oust their Democratically elected President (Chavez) with a potential coup? Or we SHOULDN'T have allowed Aristide to be exiled from his country, despite the fact that he ALSO was democratically elected?

I'm just looking for some consistency here, because it's increasingly hard to find it with neoconservatives these days...

What do you mean consistency? When did I say these things about Venezuela or Aristide??? Moreover, I am debating the legitimacy of invading Iraq and our response to WMD, not every US action in history.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
We were not wrong. We asserted that there was a significant probability that Hussein still had WMD or WMD programs and that the risk posed was grave enough to justify ending the game with him, and this was precisely correct.

No, we asserted that Saddam HAD WMD. Not a probability. HAD.

There's a big difference in the voter's minds, and that was an important factor in the case for the war.

Cycloptichorn

Well, I do not have all the quotations from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell et al handy to look at, but we should have asserted that he probably still had WMD and then invaded.

0 Replies

McGentrix:

Perhaps YOU should refrain from insinuating the "childishness" intent in these posts and perhaps actually address the issue, because quite frankly, there is nobody more qualified to look at foreign policy in a childlike manner than the uncurious George. There is also nothing childish about protesting a war and calling it for what it is (and, unfortunately, be proven right on every count).

There is also NOTHING childish about the freedom of speech and calling this war for what it is. Shall I just assume that you cannot answer as to why we would attack Iraq when there are other countries which pose a greater threat. That was the intent behind the comparisons. Nothing childish about that (except perhaps to an ill-informed neoconservative).

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What is this childishness about "we should attack them! They have WMD's too! Nyah, nyah, nyah?"

Foriegn policy is an adult matter. Please keep the childlike thoughts to yourself.

I have a feeling this is going to be a quotable quote.

0 Replies

Quote:

You seemed to suggest that containment was possible. Tell me how. Can't you think for yourself?

Actually, I can quite well. It seems to be you who are completing missing the point here.

When are we supposed to believe our leaders and then when are we NOT supposed to believe them?

http://www.bi30archive.org/extras/Powell-Rice-Iraq_no_threat.asx

What part of the inconsistency in the U.S. government policy toward rogue nations boggles that mind of yours, brandon?

Quote:

Another is that Iran is what I might call a flawed democracy, and we should be much more reluctant to take out even partially democratic governments.

Quote:

What do you mean consistency? When did I say these things about Venezuela or Aristide??? Moreover, I am debating the legitimacy of invading Iraq and our response to WMD, not every US action in history.

You need to pay more attention to your statements, Brandon. The debate becomes diluted in tangents and ill-informed opinions when one strays from the subject matter.

If we are to be reluctant to take out even partially democratic governments, then why did we encourage the overthrow of the Chavez Presidency and encourage the coup in Haiti that displace the democratically elected Aristide?

Consistency, brandon. When America seems rather INCONSISTENT to her neighbors, the hatred around the world towards the U.S. only grows.

0 Replies

Oh, we're consistent. We're going to do whatever is in the US' best intrests, at all times, regardless of the cost to human life in other countries.

Consistently.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
You seemed to suggest that containment was possible. Tell me how. Can't you think for yourself?

Actually, I can quite well. It seems to be you who are completing missing the point here.

When are we supposed to believe our leaders and then when are we NOT supposed to believe them?

http://www.bi30archive.org/extras/Powell-Rice-Iraq_no_threat.asx

What part of the inconsistency in the U.S. government policy toward rogue nations boggles that mind of yours, brandon?

I cannot view this file, since I refuse to do a download on my work PC, if at all. However, my argument is that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, whether or not it is consistent with other policies.

Quote:

Another is that Iran is what I might call a flawed democracy, and we should be much more reluctant to take out even partially democratic governments.

Quote:

What do you mean consistency? When did I say these things about Venezuela or Aristide??? Moreover, I am debating the legitimacy of invading Iraq and our response to WMD, not every US action in history.

Dookiestix wrote:

[You need to pay more attention to your statements, Brandon. The debate becomes diluted in tangents and ill-informed opinions when one strays from the subject matter.

If we are to be reluctant to take out even partially democratic governments, then why did we encourage the overthrow of the Chavez Presidency and encourage the coup in Haiti that displace the democratically elected Aristide?

Consistency, brandon. When America seems rather INCONSISTENT to her neighbors, the hatred around the world towards the U.S. only grows.

How can I make this really clear? In my opinion (not someone else's), one reason to hesitate in invading Iran is that their government is at least partially democratic. That is one of several reasons why I would hesitate to invade them at present. If you think that we have acted against this principle in the past, we could discuss it in a different thread, but it doesn't change my reasoning with respect to Iran.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, we're consistent. We're going to do whatever is in the US' best intrests, at all times, regardless of the cost to human life in other countries.

Consistently.

Cycloptichorn

No, not at all, and, by the way, I never said that. Sad that you think putting words in someone else's mouth is a valid method of debating. However, sometimes wars are justified, and WMD of any magnitude in Hussein's hands would be a danger to the world.

0 Replies

that you think putting words in someone else's mouth is a valid method of debating. <--- Brandon

Hmm. Let's read what was posted. The last line of Dookiestix' post reads

Quote:

Consistency, brandon. When America seems rather INCONSISTENT to her neighbors, the hatred around the world towards the U.S. only grows.

To which I responded

Quote:

Oh, we're consistent. We're going to do whatever is in the US' best intrests, at all times, regardless of the cost to human life in other countries.

Consistently.

No mention was made of you, nothing was attributed to you. So calm down.

Any WMD in ANYONE'S hands (including the US and other G8 countries) is a danger to the world. We live under the hypocritcal system that we do, however, because some of us got ahold of nukes before anyone else could stop us....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Any WMD in ANYONE'S hands (including the US and other G8 countries) is a danger to the world. We live under the hypocritcal system that we do, however, because some of us got ahold of nukes before anyone else could stop us....

Although proliferation of WMD among any nations puts the world at risk of the their use, I only adovocate forcibly denying them to the worst of the worst dictators, with ties to terrorism, etc., etc. - just that one group. There is a lot of difference in the danger level of putting WMD in the hands of a reasonably responsible democracy, which pursues a risk averse policy in its ownership of the WMD, and putting them in Hussein's hands.

0 Replies

Brandon:

Quote:

I only adovocate forcibly denying them to the worst of the worst dictators, with ties to terrorism, etc., etc. - just that one group.

Hmmm.... Too bad Rumsfeld didn't pay heed to that kind of advice.

And please, where are Saddam's extensive ties to terrorism you seem to allude to in the aforementioned quote?

0 Replies

Now dookie, you know those ties to terrorism don't have to extensive in order for some folks here to claim they are important. When you can't focus on more the one thing at a time, (must only think about invading Iraq--ignore all other world conditions..) you bring a certain mindset to the table. Iraq needs invading and by gum no one else in the world is going to tell us to slow down about that, so off we go.

Oh, and thanks for bringing this up:

Quote:

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why both Powell and Rice back in March of 2001 were telling us that Saddam was contained, that there was NO evidence of his expanding weapons program, and that there was no need to start a war in Iraq. Then perhaps you can tell us why both Bush Sr. and Former Admiral Scowcroft were staunchly against a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

That was back in those heady days when Rice thought that Russia was still the big threat to US interests. (Talk about not changing your mindset, she was still thinking it was 1985) And Powell was revealing the truth, something that has put him on the outside of this administration from day one. Both of these persons have announced they are leaving at the end of this first term, no matter what the outcome of the election. I shall not miss Rice, I think she should have been fired long ago. I think we will miss Powell's limited, but effective, influence on people like Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Saddam was contained. Everyone in early 2001 agreed. Two no-flys zone over his country. UN inspectors sniffing on a daily basis. Sanctions had the country hogtied and whipped. What changed? 9-11. Suddenly, Saddam was this terrific danger. And the neos went looking for some, what they thought, easy target, forgetting that those sanctions and no-flys had built an anger against the US in Iraq so deep that it didn't matter that Saddam was in power, it was the US that was the cause of Iraq's misery.

So now, we arrived. Saddam is in jail. And the Iraqis can finally get at those they see as their real oppressors. They're wrong, but we have to wait till they stop shooting before we can talk to them about it.

Joe

0 Replies

Brandon wrote

Quote:

When it comes to the defense of our interests and safety, no other county will be as likely to have our interests at heart. Lots of the countries in the UN would love to see us fail or get hurt. See?

Yes I see. Its a sad fact of life that America under Bush's leadership is widely detested. And its not surprising when you were told to leave Iraq alone that some countries take pleasure at your failure there. But it is entirely your own fault. And this afternoon, Bush goes to the UN to beg for help. We will see if he gets any.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

And this afternoon, Bush goes to the UN to beg for help. We will see if he gets any.

I don't think he will beg, and I doubt very much that the UN is even capable of helping in a meaningful way or that the Administration expects or wants it to. It can, however shut up and get out of the way.

0 Replies

Joe Nation Wrote:

Quote:

And Powell was revealing the truth, something that has put him on the outside of this administration from day one.

You're dead on with that. You never hear Colin Powell's name mentioned much these days, because he's been cut out of the loop by the other neocons.

I've noticed that while many will defend Bush and his actions, few will step up to defend Ashcroft, Rice, Rummy, or Wolfowitz; the focus is on Bush even though his staff is making all the decisions.

Do people not realize that if you re-elect the pres, you re-elect his staff as well?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I only adovocate forcibly denying them to the worst of the worst dictators, with ties to terrorism, etc., etc. - just that one group.

Hmmm.... Too bad Rumsfeld didn't pay heed to that kind of advice.

Are you constitutionally incapable of sticking to the point? My statement above pertains to what we ought to do about WMD in the future. Even assuming some argument about US behavior in the past were correct, what in the world would that have to do with the truth or falsehood of my statement above?

Dookiestix wrote:

And please, where are Saddam's extensive ties to terrorism you seem to allude to in the aforementioned quote?

All over the public domain. For instance:

From: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19996.htm

Quote:

Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Mud'ab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama Bin Ladin and his Al-Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons.

When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

0 Replies

Pardon me, Brandon, but I don't believe your source.

At all. These are the same people who told us there were a bunch of WMD that weren't there. Their credibility is zero.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Saddam was contained. Everyone in early 2001 agreed. Two no-flys zone over his country. UN inspectors sniffing on a daily basis. Sanctions had the country hogtied and whipped.

Incorrect. At the time of invasion, many people believed that Hussein might have failed to destroy his WMD and/or his WMD programs. There was some probability that he had and a complementary probability that he had not. How do you contain someone who might have WMD, when he can send agents into your country with WMD components, re-assemble them, and set them off? Such a WMD event in an American city could make 9/11 look very tiny by comparison. Tell me please how containment works under these circumstances.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
And this afternoon, Bush goes to the UN to beg for help. We will see if he gets any.

I don't think he will beg...

No...he won't beg. He's not even interested in what the United Nations can do to help in this matter.

Bush is campaigning for re-election; today...he happens to be campaining for re-election at the United Nations. He simply is too stupid to realize that this "go it alone" attitude is causing our country grief in ways that many future presidents will have to contend with.

This administration is a disaster for our country.

It is incredible that some people intend to vote to continue it in power.

Quote:

... and I doubt very much that the UN is even capable of helping in a meaningful way...

Argue for your limitations...and they are yours. Argue for the limitations of the UN...and it is limited. If this John Wayne wanna-be president of ours knew how to negotiate...the UN would have been involved from the beginning.

Quote:

...or that the Administration expects or wants it to. It can, however shut up and get out of the way.

How oh, how have conservatives possibly gained the power they have considering the intelligence level of the people who comprise it?????

0 Replies

Iraq ties to terror:

"President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000," Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, declared at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported two days later."

From: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

0 Replies

Fallen Soldier's Mom Arrested Outside Laura Bush Event!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know