What I've heard about Iraq

jpinMilwaukee opines:

Quote:

God, do I get sick of hearing about oil, Hitler and seeing that stupid picture.

Then why don't you try this neoconservative method for shutting out the truth:

http://milkfactory.typepad.com/milkfactory/see_no_evil.jpg

0 Replies

I just think most of the liberals that use those arguments are hypocrites. They complain about war for oil and buy a hummer that gets 12mpg. Then they complain about paying $2 a gallon for gas while the rest of the world is paying double that. They compare Bush to Hitler every chance they get then complain about fear tactics the Repubs use. Shutting out the truth... no... more like garbage in garbage out.

0 Replies

"The Truth" -- according to "Dookie logic":

*Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein back in the early 1980s. Therefore, current US foreign policy is flawed.

*The US invaded Iraq, which was an oppressive regime. Therefore, the US should invade North Korea, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Sudan immediately, because they are oppressive regimes.

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/bs.gif

0 Replies

Um, that was Baldimo's logic, not mine, Ticomaya. Try reading through the thread again. Rolling Eyes

Any "liberal" who buys a gass guzzling Hummer is indeed a hypocrite. But it's corporate America and the big car companies who are making these things in the first place. Why? Is it because "liberals" want them? Laughing

0 Replies

So because of the contradiction, the correct line of reasoning becomes incorrect?

Whether the liberals 'do' the right thing all the time or not has nothing to do with the fact that the Iraq war was unbased.

Show me how I'm wrong.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Um, that was Baldimo's logic, not mine, Ticomaya. Try reading through the thread again.

Any "liberal" who buys a gass guzzling Hummer is indeed a hypocrite. But it's corporate America and the big car companies who are making these things in the first place. Why? Is it because "liberals" want them?

Anybody who drives any car and complains about oil is a hypocrite.

0 Replies

Quote:

Anybody who drives any car and complains about oil is a hypocrite.

Oh, my, the complexities of the world just fly through your head, huh?

So very sad...

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Um, that was Baldimo's logic, not mine, Ticomaya. Try reading through the thread again.

Which "thread" should I be looking through to find where Baldimo has adopted "Dookie Logic"? Rolling Eyes

Dookie wrote:

Any "liberal" who buys a gass guzzling Hummer is indeed a hypocrite. But it's corporate America and the big car companies who are making these things in the first place. Why? Is it because "liberals" want them?

Because there's a market for them. Duh.

That market just happens to include hypocritical liberals. :wink:

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

1. The invasion was not necessary. Did you even read the links?

2. I repeat: did you even read the links?

What links? I read as much of Cycloptichorn's article as I could stand before answering him.

Dookiestix wrote:

3. Then let's invade North Korea, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Sudan immediately. Or at least divest ourselves completely from these oppressive governments.

Can't invade North Korea. They have the bomb and could kill a million people in the first hour of the war. Preventing Hussein from gaining this type of near invulnerability was a reason for invasion of Iraq.

Can't invade China, they have the bomb, and invasion would likely bring about Armageddon. Furthermore, although evil, they are, unlike Hussein, reasonably responsible in military matters in the specific sense of generally following risk averse policies. I never advocated insisting that everyone disarm, just the ultra-high-risk cases like Hussein. You liberals consistently misrepresent my position as saying that everyone must be forced to abandon WMD, when all I have ever said is that a few entities all the way to one end of the spectrum may not have them.

Can't invade Paskistan. They already have the bomb and are something of an ally anyway. Musharaff is probably not in the category of human monsters who may never be allowed to develop nukes like Hussein was, although I'd like to see Pakistan disarm.

No reason to invade the others since they don't have WMD and we certainly don't have years of fruitless efforts to get them to destroy their WMD. This is all so totally obvious it is kind of annoying that I have to spoonfeed it to you.

0 Replies

Here are some things others have "heard" about Iraq.
_______________________________________________________________

In one of the grandest events in the history of the world, millions of Iraqis risked death on Sunday to vote in a free, democratic election. There were more than 100 attacks on polling stations by the "insurgents" (or "Islamic fascists," as authentic Americans call them). But the Iraqis voted - Shia, Sunnis, women and an estimated 2,000 dead felons in Washington state.

Democrats haven't been this depressed since we captured Saddam Hussein.

On "Meet the Press," the Democrats' erstwhile presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, questioned the legitimacy of the election, saying, "t's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote."

Kerry warned Americans not to "overhype this election" - and if there's one guy who's good at calming down excited voters, it's John Kerry. Apparently, word didn't get out to the Iraqis, who were dancing and singing in the streets. (Isn't it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?)

Kerry's main advice to Bush was to reach out to the French. Curiously, this is also the Democrats' plan for fixing Social Security, dealing with North Korea and controlling the budget deficit: Reach out to the French!

Most amusingly, Kerry repeatedly quoted himself, as if he had called this one ball, shot and pocket: "You may recall that back in - well, there's no reason you would --but back in Fulton, Mo., during the campaign, I laid out four steps ..." (at that point the cameraman nodded off and NBC abruptly cut to color bars).

I remember what Kerry said during the campaign! What he and his fellow Democratic towel-biters said was that this election wasn't going to happen.

Kerry specifically addressed the scheduled Iraqi elections in his closing statement at the first presidential debate, saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done." (Kerry's a genius! He won the debate!)

A few weeks later, his campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, said: "It's not safe enough to have elections, which are scheduled in January. There is no way that people could go to the polls in that country right now."

In order to have free elections, apparently we would have to ... reach out to the French! "The Kerry plan," Cahill said, "would be to have an international consensus, not to go it alone, to get other countries into Iraq with us, so that we could carry out elections and we could move Iraq to be a free nation."

And yet we somehow managed to have a free election in Iraq without the French.

In September, former president and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter said on NBC's "Today": "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there."

Democrat moneyman George Soros said in a speech to the National Press Club last fall: "All my experience ... has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means." (But see: Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and El Salvador.) Of course Soros' "experience" consists mostly of liberating billions of dollars from the captivity of other people's bank accounts. He's a regular Douglas MacArthur, that Soros guy.

Expressing his faith in the Iraqi people, Soros continued: "Iraq would be the last place I would choose for an experiment in introducing democracy." All those blue-inked fingers were the Iraqi people giving Soros the finger.

Also taking his cue on world politics from Janeane Garofalo, last September U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" - although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

Robert Fisk of the Independent (U.K.) told an audience in October 2004: "The chances of [January] elections are fading faster than water running into the desert." He said it was a "lie" that the allies were creating "an oasis of democracy with its center in Iraq." Remind me not to ask Fisk who he likes in the Super Bowl.

The Economist magazine said that until security in Iraq improves, "reconstruction will stall - and the hopes of Messrs. Allawi and Bush for a decent election, enabling a strong and legitimate government to take over, will continue to look uncertain to be fulfilled."

In October, Nicholas Lemann was a whirlwind of bad news about Iraq, writing in the New Yorker: "The U.S. military in Iraq has started trying to take back areas of the country now controlled by insurgents, and it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January." Somehow he failed to add, "Also, by mid-March live rhesus monkeys may be flying out of my butt."

Amid his litany of bad news, Lemann said: "It is difficult to find anybody in Washington, in either party, who will seriously defend Bush's management of Iraq." Fortunately, last Sunday, President Bush found 8 million people - outside of Washington - to seriously defend his management of Iraq.

0 Replies

What I have heard and seen about Iraq is this:
Voices of Iraq
I humbly suggest that between your searches for Oil and Hitler (may his name be obliterated), you go to the above website and see what average Iraqis think about Iraq and the United States and the war.
Of course, that would require some desire to actually know the truth...

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

What I have heard and seen about Iraq is this:
Voices of Iraq
I humbly suggest that between your searches for Oil and Hitler (may his name be obliterated), you go to the above website and see what average Iraqis think about Iraq and the United States and the war.
Of course, that would require some desire to actually know the truth...

I think we've addressed how "average" these clips are in other threads.

Are you one of the folks who rails against the propaganda of Michael Moore?

This is just as fair and unbiased as F9/11.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:
Um, that was Baldimo's logic, not mine, Ticomaya. Try reading through the thread again.

Which "thread" should I be looking through to find where Baldimo has adopted "Dookie Logic"?

Dookie wrote:
Any "liberal" who buys a gass guzzling Hummer is indeed a hypocrite. But it's corporate America and the big car companies who are making these things in the first place. Why? Is it because "liberals" want them?

Because there's a market for them. Duh.

That market just happens to include hypocritical liberals. :wink:

...but not all liberals are hypocritcal. Not even all conservatives are hypocritical. But this administration is. IMO.

0 Replies

I guess this is as good a thread to say this as any other. If we went to war to secure the oil supply, it's not likely that the motivaiton was to ensure American SUV drivers cheap gas. It's more likely that it was to ensure military humvees, planes, helicopters and ships would have enough fuel to fight wars successfully for as far into the future as possible.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
What I have heard and seen about Iraq is this:
Voices of Iraq
I humbly suggest that between your searches for Oil and Hitler (may his name be obliterated), you go to the above website and see what average Iraqis think about Iraq and the United States and the war.
Of course, that would require some desire to actually know the truth...

I think we've addressed how "average" these clips are in other threads.

Are you one of the folks who rails against the propaganda of Michael Moore?

This is just as fair and unbiased as F9/11.

Interesting.
Obviously, you haven't seen the clips and have no idea of how they were made.
I suggest that there may perhaps be a world that exists beyond Michael Moore.
I have never denigrated Mr. Moore's artistry nor his film, 9/11. I have found some of his other comments regarding the United States and people in general, appalling, buy hey, I guess I'm just senstive.
I find it odd that you should compare average Iraqi opinions, which include those antithetical to the United States and those friendly to Saddam, to an agitprop film by Moore who, according to Moore, has a serious agenda against the US.
You really ought to try another flavor. It might actually change your mind.

0 Replies

There are a wide range of Iraqi opinions, just as there are a wide range of opinions everywhere.

I don't even understand what your point is, Moishe; the premise of the thread is to point out the vast number of lies, deceits, and downright UnAmerican activities that have led to this war in the first place.

The fact that most Iraqis are happy Saddam is gone is a good one; it doesn't change a thing about the illegal and immoral nature of this war.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The fact that most Iraqis are happy Saddam is gone is a good one; it doesn't change a thing about the illegal and immoral nature of this war.

Cycloptichorn

Immoral: Since the war was designed to insure that a huge number of people would not die some day soon as a consequence of Hussein having retained WMD, it's not invading that would have been immoral.

Illegal: Well first of all, wars have been extralegal and simply assumed to be such for almost all of recorded history. We should never put our defense in the hands of any non-American legislative body. But the invasion probably was "legal" anyway, since it was designed to enforce Hussein's surrender in Gulf War One, and there were UN resolutions preceding it which could be interpreted as authorizing it.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are a wide range of Iraqi opinions, just as there are a wide range of opinions everywhere.

I don't even understand what your point is, Moishe; the premise of the thread is to point out the vast number of lies, deceits, and downright UnAmerican activities that have led to this war in the first place.

The fact that most Iraqis are happy Saddam is gone is a good one; it doesn't change a thing about the illegal and immoral nature of this war.

Cycloptichorn

The "title" of this thread is "What I've heard about Iraq." Moishe pointed out an alternate source for what others are saying about Iraq, which you could absorb if you were interested. It appears you clearly are not, as you apparently only expected this thread to be a vehicle for your anti-Bush venom.

0 Replies

Quote:

Immoral: Since the war was designed to insure that a huge number of people would not die some day soon as a consequence of Hussein having retained WMD, it's not invading that would have been immoral.

No, it's immoral to invade and kill dozens, if not over a hundred thousand people just 'in case' someone had a WMD. We basically killed a WMD worth of people to ensure something of which there was significant doubt. Your 'defense by offense' philosophy is sickening.

Quote:

Illegal: Well first of all, wars have been extralegal and simply assumed to be such for almost all of recorded history. We should never put our defense in the hands of any non-American legislative body. But the invasion probably was "legal" anyway, since it was designed to enforce Hussein's surrender in Gulf War One, and there were UN resolutions preceding it which could be interpreted as authorizing it.

We made an agreement with the UN. We broke that agreement by ignoring their rules. We couldn't wait for other countries to find out information. It was illegal by any means you want to judge wars by. We should be held just as accountable as other gov'ts forced to pay reparations to the populaces they destroy under illegal premises.

Even you, in your delusional world, can see how weak your last line was.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Obviously, you haven't seen the clips and have no idea of how they were made.

Actually, while I have only viewed a few of the clips, I have read about how the clips were made. Obviously, you are making assumptions that you should not make.

I maintain that while the clips might be interesting, they are only anecdotal evidence. And I believe them to be slanted.

You are free to disagree.

0 Replies

What I've heard about Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know