Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:

I have explained all this before.

Good pictures (pictures showing human kindness, positive aspects) are newsworthy.
Bad pictures (showing atrocities, injuries) are newsworthy.

The problem lies when a person like McG, or you, who has a record of supporting the policy of using military firepower against civilians (or where civilians are bound to die) and has shown himself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population (even showing enthusiasm), selecting for display a picture like that.

The army is there to suppress the country, by force if it will not submit. It will not. And so the army does what armies do.
It is sophistry to pretend it is there to run hospitals or boys' camps (McG's latest offering).

It is propaganda.

If it's propaganda, so are the photos that support your cause. It's ALL propaganda. If you fail to see that much it's clear to me you are hopelessly wallowed in your bias, and your position here is hypocritical (in addition to being wrong).

Now, speaking for myself, I have not shown myself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population of Iraq. That is simply your erroneous sense impression. But I do not believe a necessary and justified war should not be undertaken because of the reality that there will be innocent casualties. The reason this war started was entirely because of Saddam Hussein. But the war is undertaken, and the majority of the American forces are endeavoring to do battle with the enemy -- a cowardly enemy that hides itself in and among the civilian population -- and minimize civilian casualties. That is a daunting task, and it is impossible to do perfectly. Your bias will not allow you to consider that view, for you view it completely repugnant that the American forces are doing battle in the first place, and that places you in the position of believing the American forces are more evil than the enemy they face, who are actually the proximate cause of the civilian casualties by virtue of their tactics.

Now, I believe I fully understand your position, and I could not disagree with it any more strongly.

You could call the muslim fighters many things, but not, I think, cowards.

You may as well conclude that the US forces are cowards, because they habitually call in airstrikes, which often go wrong at a deadly cost to the civilian population, rather than risk infantry casualties.

And yes, you are right in this respect, I do not believe the American (and British) position has any higher moral standing, given the history to this and their conduct here, than their adversaries.
Clearly, they have not.

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:

I have explained all this before.

Good pictures (pictures showing human kindness, positive aspects) are newsworthy.
Bad pictures (showing atrocities, injuries) are newsworthy.

The problem lies when a person like McG, or you, who has a record of supporting the policy of using military firepower against civilians (or where civilians are bound to die) and has shown himself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population (even showing enthusiasm), selecting for display a picture like that.

The army is there to suppress the country, by force if it will not submit. It will not. And so the army does what armies do.
It is sophistry to pretend it is there to run hospitals or boys' camps (McG's latest offering).

It is propaganda.

If it's propaganda, so are the photos that support your cause. It's ALL propaganda. If you fail to see that much it's clear to me you are hopelessly wallowed in your bias, and your position here is hypocritical (in addition to being wrong).

Now, speaking for myself, I have not shown myself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population of Iraq. That is simply your erroneous sense impression. But I do not believe a necessary and justified war should not be undertaken because of the reality that there will be innocent casualties. The reason this war started was entirely because of Saddam Hussein. But the war is undertaken, and the majority of the American forces are endeavoring to do battle with the enemy -- a cowardly enemy that hides itself in and among the civilian population -- and minimize civilian casualties. That is a daunting task, and it is impossible to do perfectly. Your bias will not allow you to consider that view, for you view it completely repugnant that the American forces are doing battle in the first place, and that places you in the position of believing the American forces are more evil than the enemy they face, who are actually the proximate cause of the civilian casualties by virtue of their tactics.

Now, I believe I fully understand your position, and I could not disagree with it any more strongly.

You could call the muslim fighters many things, but not, I think, cowards.

You may as well conclude that the US forces are cowards, because they habitually call in airstrikes, which often go wrong at a deadly cost to the civilian population, rather than risk infantry casualties.

And yes, you are right in this respect, I do not believe the American (and British) position has any higher moral standing, given the history to this and their conduct here, than their adversaries.
Clearly, they have not.

You bristled when I indicated you had not taken any "terrorist apologists" to task, and yet you now come to the defense of the "muslim fighters"? Are you seriously now extolling the virtues of those that would hide themselves among women and children, and proclaim them courageous? That kind of talk will get your comedy show cancelled.

For perspective, I think someone who commits suicide is a coward. Sure, I suppose it takes "guts" to off yourself, shoot yourself in the head, jump off a bridge, whatever, but I still consider it a cowardly move. But hiding yourself behind a woman or child for self-protection is the quintessential coward's ploy, and it is the m.o. of the terrorists/insurgents, those you romantically refer to as "muslim fighters."

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:

I have explained all this before.

Good pictures (pictures showing human kindness, positive aspects) are newsworthy.
Bad pictures (showing atrocities, injuries) are newsworthy.

The problem lies when a person like McG, or you, who has a record of supporting the policy of using military firepower against civilians (or where civilians are bound to die) and has shown himself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population (even showing enthusiasm), selecting for display a picture like that.

The army is there to suppress the country, by force if it will not submit. It will not. And so the army does what armies do.
It is sophistry to pretend it is there to run hospitals or boys' camps (McG's latest offering).

It is propaganda.

If it's propaganda, so are the photos that support your cause. It's ALL propaganda. If you fail to see that much it's clear to me you are hopelessly wallowed in your bias, and your position here is hypocritical (in addition to being wrong).

Now, speaking for myself, I have not shown myself to be completely unconcerned about injuries and fatalities among the indigenous population of Iraq. That is simply your erroneous sense impression. But I do not believe a necessary and justified war should not be undertaken because of the reality that there will be innocent casualties. The reason this war started was entirely because of Saddam Hussein. But the war is undertaken, and the majority of the American forces are endeavoring to do battle with the enemy -- a cowardly enemy that hides itself in and among the civilian population -- and minimize civilian casualties. That is a daunting task, and it is impossible to do perfectly. Your bias will not allow you to consider that view, for you view it completely repugnant that the American forces are doing battle in the first place, and that places you in the position of believing the American forces are more evil than the enemy they face, who are actually the proximate cause of the civilian casualties by virtue of their tactics.

Now, I believe I fully understand your position, and I could not disagree with it any more strongly.

You could call the muslim fighters many things, but not, I think, cowards.

You may as well conclude that the US forces are cowards, because they habitually call in airstrikes, which often go wrong at a deadly cost to the civilian population, rather than risk infantry casualties.

And yes, you are right in this respect, I do not believe the American (and British) position has any higher moral standing, given the history to this and their conduct here, than their adversaries.
Clearly, they have not.

You bristled when I indicated you had not taken any "terrorist apologists" to task, and yet you now come to the defense of the "muslim fighters"? Are you seriously now extolling the virtues of those that would hide themselves among women and children, and proclaim them courageous? That kind of talk will get your comedy show cancelled.

For perspective, I think someone who commits suicide is a coward. Sure, I suppose it takes "guts" to off yourself, shoot yourself in the head, jump off a bridge, whatever, but I still consider it a cowardly move. But hiding yourself behind a woman or child for self-protection is the quintessential coward's ploy, and it is the m.o. of the terrorists/insurgents, those you romantically refer to as "muslim fighters."

So, are all those who refuse to fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules considered 'cowards?'

Standing up to fight the US toe-to-toe is suicide. We are a vastly superior force with overwhelming air superiority. You are basically saying that anyone who chooses to engage us, and doesn't play by the rules we like, are cowards.

You would have gone over great during the revolutionary war, Tory. The other side could make the same argument that our soldiers are cowards, because they are too afraid to charge in and fight people face-to-face, instead relying upon the tactics which are known to work with the least chance of casualties. The enemy acts little different.

Cycloptichron

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The reason this war started was entirely because of Saddam Hussein

*snort*

Are you looking to invest in some river-spanning technology, Tico? I have a sweet deal for ya...

Cycloptichorn

It's a true statement to everyone except those devoted to placing blame on Bush 43, Cyclops. Read the AUMF.

Don't be mendacious. We all know that 'official' documents have to say one thing or another, but the war didn't start because Saddam took any sort of action whatsoever; so to say that the war started 'because of Saddam' is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.

Cycloptichorn

Your theory is that when a cop shoots and kills a gun-waving criminal, the cop is the cause of the death. While any rational person would realize the blame lies primarily with the actions of the bad guy. Yes, the cop pulled the trigger, but the proximate cause of the death were the actions of the criminal.

Saddam set off a natural and continuous chain of events that culminated in the invasion of Iraq following the AUMF. Saddam is the real cause of the war.

Bull sh*t. Saddam wasn't 'waving a gun around.' There wasn't even proof that he had a gun. He wasn't actively threatening anyone. Your analogy fails.

You say that Saddam set off a 'natural chain of events' but that's bullsh*t as well. There wasn't anything 'natural' about ten years of bombing his country after GW1 and then using 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. Saddam was an **** and a brutal dictator, but he wasn't why we attacked Iraq, and you know it. Persisting in playing this little historical revisionism game of yours is a waste of time, Tico; neither of us are here to convince (or even score points off of) one another of anything, so why are you bothering with the lies? You know that Iraq was attacked because elements of the Administration saw the opportunity to do so in the post 9/11 world and took their opportunity, straight up f*cking America in the process; which was naturally predicted by many prior to the attack.

Cycloptichorn

Read the AUMF again Cyclops, then analyze again which of us is playing "historical revisionism."

You may not like the AUMF, you may not even agree with it, but THAT is what you are arguing against.

The AUMF was the justification written up after the decision to attack had already been made. It does not neccessarily show root causes for our actions, but excuses used to jusity our actions.

This is not difficult logic, Tico.

Cycloptichorn

This is the case even though you agree with their cause and want them to succeed.

Yes. It would be a very short "war" if all guerrillas just stood out in the middle of a field where they could be easily identified.
Maybe guerrillas or insurgents take the same view as the invading force, that civilian casualties are inevitable and justified in the circumstances.

What would you do, if your country were invaded by a superior force?

And, if tasteless cartoons are the order of the day

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The reason this war started was entirely because of Saddam Hussein

*snort*

Are you looking to invest in some river-spanning technology, Tico? I have a sweet deal for ya...

Cycloptichorn

It's a true statement to everyone except those devoted to placing blame on Bush 43, Cyclops. Read the AUMF.

Don't be mendacious. We all know that 'official' documents have to say one thing or another, but the war didn't start because Saddam took any sort of action whatsoever; so to say that the war started 'because of Saddam' is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.

Cycloptichorn

Your theory is that when a cop shoots and kills a gun-waving criminal, the cop is the cause of the death. While any rational person would realize the blame lies primarily with the actions of the bad guy. Yes, the cop pulled the trigger, but the proximate cause of the death were the actions of the criminal.

Saddam set off a natural and continuous chain of events that culminated in the invasion of Iraq following the AUMF. Saddam is the real cause of the war.

Bull sh*t. Saddam wasn't 'waving a gun around.' There wasn't even proof that he had a gun. He wasn't actively threatening anyone. Your analogy fails.

You say that Saddam set off a 'natural chain of events' but that's bullsh*t as well. There wasn't anything 'natural' about ten years of bombing his country after GW1 and then using 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. Saddam was an **** and a brutal dictator, but he wasn't why we attacked Iraq, and you know it. Persisting in playing this little historical revisionism game of yours is a waste of time, Tico; neither of us are here to convince (or even score points off of) one another of anything, so why are you bothering with the lies? You know that Iraq was attacked because elements of the Administration saw the opportunity to do so in the post 9/11 world and took their opportunity, straight up f*cking America in the process; which was naturally predicted by many prior to the attack.

Cycloptichorn

Read the AUMF again Cyclops, then analyze again which of us is playing "historical revisionism."

You may not like the AUMF, you may not even agree with it, but THAT is what you are arguing against.

The AUMF was the justification written up after the decision to attack had already been made. It does not neccessarily show root causes for our actions, but excuses used to jusity our actions.

This is not difficult logic, Tico.

Cycloptichorn

Whether what you say is true or not (and I submit it is not), that doesn't change the fact that you are arguing against the AUMF, and it is YOU who is attempting to engage in historical revisionism.

I never mentioned nor brought up the AUMF - you did. Therefore it seems to me that I am not in fact arguing against the AUMF.

It's just a piece of paper - meaningless. It is what had to be written to allow the Bushies to do what they wanted to do, post 9/11. It says nothing about true motivations and causes.

It seems to me that since YOU are the one claiming the AUMF is the definative document detailing why we went to war in Iraq, you need to show how there were no other reasons besides Saddam.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

This is the case even though you agree with their cause and want them to succeed.

Are you joking with lines such as this?

Who exactly do you think I want to succeed?

... and want the American military to lose ...
I think you, and McT, and doubtless many, many other anti-war leftists have this view because they perceive the US as the aggressor, perpetrating an unjust and illegal war. And no, I am not joking.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I never mentioned nor brought up the AUMF - you did. Therefore it seems to me that I am not in fact arguing against the AUMF.

It's just a piece of paper - meaningless. It is what had to be written to allow the Bushies to do what they wanted to do, post 9/11. It says nothing about true motivations and causes.

It seems to me that since YOU are the one claiming the AUMF is the definative document detailing why we went to war in Iraq, you need to show how there were no other reasons besides Saddam.

Cycloptichorn

Fast-forward to 20 years from now: The history books will all reflect the true reasons for the Iraq War of 2003 ... all contained in the AUMF, the joint resolution of Congress that authorized the use of military force against Iraq. And then there's Cyclops ... screaming at the top of his lungs that it is just a piece of paper ... a justification that does not reflect the actual reasons for the war.

Me ... I'll be pointing to the official document.

You ... you'll be screaming that you know the real reasons for the war.


Historical revisionism? Yes, indeed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

This is the case even though you agree with their cause and want them to succeed.

Are you joking with lines such as this?

Who exactly do you think I want to succeed?

I think you romanticize the plight of the Iraqi insurgency, and deep down, in places in your heart you don't want to admit exist, you are pulling for them, and want the American military to lose .... that's what I mean. Remember this thread dealing with that topic?

I think you, and McT, and doubtless many, many other anti-war leftists have this view because they perceive the US as the aggressor, perpetrating an unjust and illegal war. And no, I am not joking.

mysteryman wrote:

I am going to comment,but before I do I have to ask OE a question.

You said...

Quote:

So everything else left aside, in March 2003 the United States were attacking and invading a country that had done no harm to them.

In my book, that is not what "the good guys" are supposed to do

Do you hold to that view for ALL wars?
The US invaded and destroyed Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in WW2,but neither country had attacked us or done us any harm.

Were we wrong to do that?

No. You were merely misinformed to make such a statement.

- in May 1941, Germany accused the United States of failing to observe neutrality due to the Lend-Lease Act
- on May 21st 1941, a German U-boat sunk the unarmed American freighter SS Robin Moor 950 miles off the coast of Brazil
- on October 17th 1941, a German submarine torpedoed and damaged the American destroyer USS Kearney, killing 11 sailors
- on October 31st 1941, the German submarine U-552 torpedoed and sunk the Clemson-class destroyer USS Reuben James, killing 115 crew members

All this happened before December 11th 1941, when Germany officially declared war on the United States - which in itself tops all of the above incidents.

So, in summary, I hold to that view for ALL wars. Absolutely.

1987-1988: U.S. sends its navy to the Persian Gulf to protect oil tankers and show support for Iraq. On March 17, 1987, an Iraqi aircraft attacks the USS Stark, killing 37 seamen.

The US invaded and destroyed Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in WW2,but neither country had attacked us or done us any harm.

I can't and won't answer for oe - but what about your response:

mysteryman wrote:

The US invaded and destroyed Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in WW2,but neither country had attacked us or done us any harm.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I can't and won't answer for oe - but what about your response:

mysteryman wrote:

The US invaded and destroyed Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in WW2,but neither country had attacked us or done us any harm.

Apparently I was wrong.

But as I have showed,the claim that Iraq never attacked us has been proven to be false also.

Ticomaya wrote:

... and want the American military to lose ...
I think you, and McT, and doubtless many, many other anti-war leftists have this view because they perceive the US as the aggressor, perpetrating an unjust and illegal war. And no, I am not joking.

What do you think of the conservatives who are and have been against this war? (Not US-conservatives.) The Pope/Catholic Church. Anglican Church. British Conservatives. German Conservatives. ...