What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/151/nick2na.jpg

0 Replies

*thud*

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Wilso wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Well, I doubt that any of you really want to discuss the topic. You probably want to talk to other people who agree with you to maintain your false sense that you're correct.

Didn't Bush say like a bazillion times that we invaded Iraq to insure that all of its WMD and programs had been destroyed? Why do you say that the president won't tell you why he sent these soldiers to war when he actually stated his reasons repeatedly?

No, he said it was to RID Iraq of WMD's. There is a subtle but real difference. The difference is the lie that you refuse to acknowledge. When it became apparent that there were no weapons, the war magically metaporphasised into the "War of Terror". But don't let the truth intefere with your view of the world.

This seems to be the "mantra" of the anti war group...."BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD".

Simple yes or no questions.

Do you believe, that based upon all the intelligence data gathered, AT THAT TIME, worldwide which indicated the potential presence of WMD, that GW KNEW the information was faulty, but used it as a reason to invade?

Do you feel that given all the violations of UN Resolutions condeming Iraq and it continued ingoring of the terms of surrender from Gulf 1 was NOT a additional reason to invade?

You have that typical conservative way of asking questions which amounts to placing a person either with you or against you. I don't believe there WAS any actual data indicating that Iraq either possessed or had the ability to produce WMD's. I believe it was a complete fabrication.

Do you really want to talk about nations violating UN resolutions? The US (under both conservative and liberal governments) ignores the UN when it suits them, and points to their resolutions when it's convenient. The Shrub attempted to get a new UN resolution in order to legalise his invasion. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to get, he just redefined existing ones and stated he didn't need another one. Like most conservatives, you've got a short memory and even shorter attention span. And you're stupid enough to swallow any tripe that stuttering halfwit spews up.

0 Replies

Had the UN done it's job in the first place, then there would have been no need to build a case for war with Iraq.
Still, if freeing a repressed society and showing them what freedom tastes like, and reaching an end state that ultimately pumps Iraqi oil into my truck, makes for a noble cause worth fighting for.
Even for a third go-around...

0 Replies

No_shit_Sherlock wrote:

Had the UN done it's job in the first place, then there would have been no need to build a case for war with Iraq.

It seems the UN has done its job in the first place. It seems that Hans Blix has said that there were no WMD in Iraq. It seems that there was no need to build a case for a war with Iraq.

No_shit_Sherlock wrote:

Still, if freeing a repressed society and showing them what freedom tastes like, and reaching an end state that ultimately pumps Iraqi oil into my truck, makes for a noble cause worth fighting for.
Even for a third go-around...

Well, that's better, NSS. At least you're honest. But just to get your message across, you should maybe leave out the middle part, and go like "Still, reaching an end state that ultimately pumps Iraqi oil into my truck, makes for a noble cause worth fighting for.".

0 Replies

Again...

One might answer this question a thousand different ways, but unless one's answer conforms with the opinion of Chrissee and her ilk, one will be confronted with the challenge that the question has not been answered.

Is there an anti-war zealot who can argue his or her position in an intelligent, reasoned, and sophisticated manner? (Chrisee, Clypto, and so many other need not apply).

0 Replies

What happened Finn? This is a marketplace of ideas. Did you get smacked in the back of the head by an invisible hand?

0 Replies

Sometimes you really crack me up, GF . . .

0 Replies

No_shit_Sherlock wrote:

Had the UN done it's job in the first place, then there would have been no need to build a case for war with Iraq.
Still, if freeing a repressed society and showing them what freedom tastes like, and reaching an end state that ultimately pumps Iraqi oil into my truck, makes for a noble cause worth fighting for.
Even for a third go-around...

And if G. Bush Snr had done the job properly back in the early 90's, killing another several thousand Iraqi's wouldn't have been necessary.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

No_shit_Sherlock wrote:
Had the UN done it's job in the first place, then there would have been no need to build a case for war with Iraq.
Still, if freeing a repressed society and showing them what freedom tastes like, and reaching an end state that ultimately pumps Iraqi oil into my truck, makes for a noble cause worth fighting for.
Even for a third go-around...

And if G. Bush Snr had done the job properly back in the early 90's, killing another several thousand Iraqi's wouldn't have been necessary.

"Done the job properly"? Does that mean you think the US should have invaded Iraq to Baghdad and removed Saddam back in 1991? And if so, please explain how that would have been better, in your view. You would have supported military action against Iraq then, but not now?

0 Replies

checkmate

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Wilso wrote:
No_shit_Sherlock wrote:
Had the UN done it's job in the first place, then there would have been no need to build a case for war with Iraq.
Still, if freeing a repressed society and showing them what freedom tastes like, and reaching an end state that ultimately pumps Iraqi oil into my truck, makes for a noble cause worth fighting for.
Even for a third go-around...

And if G. Bush Snr had done the job properly back in the early 90's, killing another several thousand Iraqi's wouldn't have been necessary.

"Done the job properly"? Does that mean you think the US should have invaded Iraq to Baghdad and removed Saddam back in 1991? And if so, please explain how that would have been better, in your view. You would have supported military action against Iraq then, but not now?

They would have been against that as well. It would have gone against what their ever so honorable UN said to do. It would have been the same story as then as now just a decade earlier.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

What happened Finn? This is a marketplace of ideas. Did you get smacked in the back of the head by an invisible hand?

somebody call the paramedics. Finn's been struck by a thought......

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
What happened Finn? This is a marketplace of ideas. Did you get smacked in the back of the head by an invisible hand?

somebody call the paramedics. Finn's been struck by a thought......

Finn wants an intellectual argument LOL

0 Replies

If you cannot explain the reason for a war in a single, fairly simple sentence, you can't justify waging it.

So far, all we have gotten are convoluted excuses.

0 Replies

You stick your head in the dirt when you get answers, but you should be aware; we've seen them.

0 Replies

It would have been just as hard and maybe just as hopeless to have invaded Iraq the last time which is why the first George Bush didn't do it.

But at least if we did it then we would have had current reasons to do it.

What we had in 2003 was a lot of what ifs and maybes down the road. Reasons for war should be a lot more substantial than that.

There was no urgent threat that out did other urgent threats in the world which would have justified our invasion of Iraq. We had inspections going on and the report even before the war was that they could find no signs of WMD. We should have continued the inspections and worked out peaceable solutions to any other problems with Iraq the same as we do the rest of the world's problem today like North Korea as one big example.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

If you cannot explain the reason for a war in a single, fairly simple sentence, you can't justify waging it.

So far, all we have gotten are convoluted excuses.

OK,lets put this to the test...

Can you explain the reasons for WW2 in a single,fairly simple sentence?

0 Replies

The Japanese Empire attacked the United States, after which Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.

Your turn . . .

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
If you cannot explain the reason for a war in a single, fairly simple sentence, you can't justify waging it.

So far, all we have gotten are convoluted excuses.

OK,lets put this to the test...

Can you explain the reasons for WW2 in a single,fairly simple sentence?

I gotta see this.

0 Replies

What Noble Cause Did Casey Sheehan Die For?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know