1
   

Not As Important As Terri Schiavo But....

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 07:23 am
When you guys come up with a way to have war with no deaths, you will win a medal. Until that time, death is part part of war. Innocent and guilty. At no time will any country not go to war because people might die.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 07:27 am
Doh!!!!!! - yeah - thing is is the war "justified" or not.


So - the reason gibven turns out to be the total fiction at least half of us thought - but still you justify it.

Shrugs.

Wonder what it might take to make you think America UNJUSTIFIED in attacking another country?

Nothing you say?


Hmmmmm - SUCH a surprise....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 07:43 am
The mistake you make is thinking that America just goes around attacking other countries.

America will never be unjustified in attacking another country because we won't be attacking other countries without justification. See how that works?

Please stop confusing the justifications the media has given with those that the government give. They are seldom the same.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 07:57 am
*Sigh* and I thought St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas worked out the Just War thing years ago. I need to get cable again so I can get educated by Fox News on all this stuff.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 07:57 am
Yes, McG, that's the mistake I make. I think America just goes around attacking other countries. But then - it does, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 08:00 am
You must be privvy to some sort os secret European information, OE. Care to share what you mean?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 08:05 am
I like it when people attack me because I'm European...! Mhmmmm! Makes me feel important! We Europeans need that! We don't get it enough these days...

McG, what I mean is: the US attacked Iraq, didn't they? I think that qualifies for "going around attacking other countries". What do you think I meant?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 08:38 am
Ya'll seem to have missed the most omportant part of the whole article:

The commission called for dramatic change to prevent future failures. It outlined more than 70 recommendations, saying that Bush must give John Negroponte, nominated to the new post of national intelligence director, broader powers for overseeing the nation's 15 spy agencies.

Now, that's a convenient conclusion to draw!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:00 am
old europe wrote:
I like it when people attack me because I'm European...! Mhmmmm! Makes me feel important! We Europeans need that! We don't get it enough these days...

McG, what I mean is: the US attacked Iraq, didn't they? I think that qualifies for "going around attacking other countries". What do you think I meant?


I hardly attacked you for being European. You seem to have information which I am not privvy to about what America has done. I figure it must have been a European source because I hadn't heard or read any thing resembling what you said.

Now, you have said that America attacked Iraq. That's hardly new. We knew about that. Is that what you were alluding to when you said "I think America just goes around attacking other countries."?

America and the coalition of countries that invaded and liberated Iraq from Hussein gave their justifications. I think that many merely disagree with the justifications given and therefore believe the war to be "illegal" or "immoral" much like they believe patchoulli oil smells good and hemp is comfortable.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:07 am
Yeah, it's probably a question of your POV. Nevertheless, even in your "coalition of the willing" (that's how Bush called them, right?) views differ vastly. You say "At no time will any country not go to war because people might die." I don't believe that. Take Costa Rica, for example. They don't even have an army. Why? I don't know. Because they don't want to go to war because people might die? Maybe. I admire them for their moral support they gave the US for the invasion, though.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:08 am
McGentrix wrote:
America will never be unjustified in attacking another country because we won't be attacking other countries without justification. See how that works?

Yeah I see how that works. Its called a circular argument.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:12 am
The we were justified/we weren't argument is based so subjectively on feelings rather than facts at this point because the White House (purposely) and the media (out of sloth and only caring for what sells) have muddied the water so much that, like Terri Schiavo we will never really know. So we draw our lines in the sand and remain polarized. Shame really. Because while we yap at each other, men (perhaps I should say people) of power pick our pockets.

I do find it interesting that the group of people most vocally finding Terri Schiavos death unacceptable are able to switch tact so easily and become philosophical and pragmatic about the death of thousands in war.

MgGentrix my friend I am not talking about you. I have noted your opinion on the Schiavo case. Wanted to say that particularly, because so many here seem hyper sensitive.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:12 am
First off, Old Europe: you're rambling. Make sense if you're going to post.

Second: you're off topic. This thread has nothing to do with the war.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:17 am
Hey, Slappy:

How am I rambling? How do you want me to make sense?

Second: We can agree that the non-existant WMD, the failures of the intelligence community and the war in Iraq are not connected whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:18 am
I tried to pull it back on course Slap but nothing happened. I sort of see how it happened. The premise of the thread is that people are ignoring news of this type because they can't stop rubbernecking Terri Schiavo.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:18 am
McGentrix wrote:
Please stop confusing the justifications the media has given with those that the government give. They are seldom the same.

The media didn't make up the WMD justification, Bush did that all by himself. Let's go back, once more, to that momentous day when President Bush declared in an address to the nation that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours left to leave Iraq. What did he say - how did he phrase his appeal to the nation to prepare for war?

Quote:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. [..]

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. [..] Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.


Fuller review of his speech in this post.

Full speech here.

You'll notice that in all of the first thirteen paragraphs of his address to the nation, he mentions no other justification for the imminent war than WMD.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:22 am
Based upon the commissions findings it is apparent that the invasion of Iraq was all the fault of the intel agencies . Bush says the "Intel made me do it". I knew nothing. Doesn't that sound a lot like what the Nazi's said at the Neurenberg trials.
Anyone interested in buying a bridge?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:24 am
au1929 wrote:
Based upon the commissions findings it is apparent that the invasion of Iraq was all the fault of the intel agencies . Bush says the "Intel made me do it". I knew nothing. Doesn't that sound a lot like what the Nazi's said at the Neurenberg trials.
Anyone interested in buying a bridge?


I don't know about the bridge but I'll give you five bucks for a crack at that Pochohantas babe.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:28 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
I tried to pull it back on course Slap but nothing happened. I sort of see how it happened. The premise of the thread is that people are ignoring news of this type because they can't stop rubbernecking Terri Schiavo.


The whole Schiavo thing was a terrible tragedy. I still don't know which 'side' to take. Are there 'sides'? What would be my perspective had it been my daughter? Or had it been me? Or my wife. I don't know.

I really want to find the time to make up my mind about that. I have my opinions. But to think it through, kind of....

Having said this, back to the issue at hand:

Quote:
The commission's report said the principal cause of the intelligence failures was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence."


Great, isn't it? So now we know that Iraq was invaded on the base of "assumptions rather than good evidence". Now, would that change people's minds about how 'justified' the war was? I doubt it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 09:35 am
nimh wrote:
The media didn't make up the WMD justification, Bush did that all by himself. Let's go back, once more, to that momentous day when President Bush declared in an address to the nation that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours left to leave Iraq. What did he say - how did he phrase his appeal to the nation to prepare for war?

Don't waste your time, nimh. The Bush apologists can't be convinced that their great leader has ever made a mistake. We never went to war over weapons of mass destruction. The invasion was always about freeing the Iraqi people. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 03:11:54