@old europe,
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:Read Advocate's post, oe, LOL.
I did. I agree, in parts, with his post.
okie wrote:Whether there were or were not al Qaeda in Iraq or not, is beside the point, oe, that makes no difference in your argument.
Only if you're incapable of understanding the argument.
I understood your argument and told you it was beside the point, which it is.
Quote:The open support for al Qaeda by the Taliban was an argument for a military intervention in Afghanistan. Nothing comparable can be claimed for Iraq. Quite to the contrary, Saddam's secular regime had adopted an antagonistic stance to the radical brand of Wahhabism that bin Laden and al Qaeda stand for.
I do not think the arguments about creating more terrorists have to depend upon the chosen causes of entering a war, oe, as I have pointed out, it hinges upon whether the populace there perceives the actions of war to be taken against innocent people, or not even innocent people necessarily, it hinges upon the idea that waging war makes those people more angry, and the people that support them more angry.
Quote:okie wrote:The reasoning used by liberals that we create more terrorists is that we kill innocent people in our attempts to do it, and we only make the terrorists madder and the people that sympathize with them, it makes them more angry, and that happens lots of places besides Iraq, such as Pakistan. Pakistan did not attack us, nor were the Taliban based out of Pakistan during 911 if I have it right, they were in Afghanistan. Therefore, to attack villages in Pakistan where the Taliban or OBL may be holed up will kill innocent civilians from time to time, including children. And the people that sympathize with them that now harbor them, but may not have helped them during 911, they may now volunteer in more numbers to join their ranks, that has been the liberal argument. Own up to the argument, after all, its yours.
It's a bit of a simplistic argument, at least in the way you're presenting it here. I'm also not sure you have your facts straight - the Taliban are Sunni Islamists, predominately Pashtuns, which in turn have origins in the South of Afghanistan and in the North West of Pakistan. Arguably, the Taliban were as much based out of Pakistan as they were out of Afghanistan, even though they were nominally in power in Kabul. Additionally, if your yardstick is that Pakistan didn't attack the United States, then the same argument would obviously be true for Iraq and Afghanistan.
True, and do not mistake me for agreeing with the left, I am simply using their past arguments of logic against their own positions, which includes you.
Quote:On the other hand, if your yardstick for a military intervention is based on the support of a specific group for al Qaeda, then the military intervention in Afghanistan and incursions into Pakistan make a lot more sense than the invasion of Iraq.
There are alot of issues besides al Qaeda, obviously, especially for Iraq, there was the advice from the CIA that Hussein had WMD, and Hussein had slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people. If you go back and read what Bush said about this, it was a package of reasons, not one single reason. And Congress agreed with him by the way, and sanctioned the war that we are apparently winning now.
Quote:However, there is certainly something to be said for the argument you're trying to present here: excessive use of force that leads to many civilian victims may rather have the opposite effect to what you're trying to achieve, namely diminishing the terrorist threat or the number of terrorists. I don't see anything wrong with that argument, and it would be true, no matter which political party the President of the United States was belonging to.
That is the point, and it creates more terrorists, that according to your side's argument against Bush, and I repeat, I am simply turning the same reasoning onto Obama. I am encouraging lefties to be consistent.
Quote:okie wrote:Whether Obama continues as he has started, and whether he will actually expand our presence in Afghanistan and unilaterally attack Pakistan as he has indicated, who knows, the man is a contradiction,
You'll certainly be able to point out which contradiction you're referring to. So far, I haven't seen you even trying to make that case.
That is a subject in itself, but just a couple for starters. Transparent and honest administration, but he is anything but transparent in dealing with the Blago case, and pushing obviously flawed people for the administration, a tax evader to oversee the IRS, that is a joke. And no more earmark pork, but its all smoke and mirrors, the same sort of crap will be done with his stimulus public works programs, but just alot more of it, all pork, and don't try to tell me it isn't going to have political strings being pulled with it. These are obvious contradictions, big ones.
Quote:okie wrote:but the same thing you lefties have been calling Bush a war criminal for, Obama has already got blood on his hands according to your yardstick of judgement.
Not really. Again, you fail to understand why people actually opposed the invasion of Iraq propagated by the Bush administration.
I understand it perfectly. It was political, it was because they did not want Bush to succeed. They did not like the man, and they began to build a case against Bush from the time he was elected in his first term.
Quote:okie wrote:You will of course never admit your own hypocrisy, but it is staring you in the face.
It would be hypocrisy of you were arguing with someone who held the opinion that any kind of military intervention, no matter for what reason, is always wrong.
It is hypocrisy when the criticisms leveled against Bush are not used against Obama for doing the very same thing. I think Obama himself criticized Bush for innocent people dying in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and he is going to pretend that drones are not going to have collateral damage. The man is a joke, and always has been, but people fail to see the phoniness.
Quote:ven't made that argument, you're merely knocking down a strawman that you have erected yourself.
I can't know all the posts you have made, but I think you largely come down on the left pretty consistently.
Quote:okie wrote:It takes people like me and fellow conservatives to point out all of this stuff, because the mainstream media will "sanitize" the news in favor of their boy, Obama.
It takes people like you to become a victim of conspiracy theories that claim that the "mainstream media" will "sanitize" the news in favour of a Democrat in the White House.
I have never claimed a conspiracy. It is just what they do because the vast majority are liberal minded, more so than the general population, and this is supported by the data.
