Ticomaya wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote: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.
So, when we look back at various other points in history, the official line at the time is universally regarded as the true and actual motivations for actions taken by various governments?
I think, that if you believe this is true, you have not read much history and certainly don't know how the process of historical research works. Generally historians look for deeper meanings and underlying causes, rather than just relying on a bunch of politicians' excuses.
Cycloptichorn
(One of my majors in college was history, genius.)
(One of my majors in college was history as well, genius. If you are telling the truth, then stop playing such a damn fool when you know better.)
Quote:That doesn't take away from the fact that you will be pointing to the vast archives of commondreams.org, huffingtonpost.com, and truthout.com to support your historically inaccurate representation of what you believe was in the hearts of the politicians at the time.
This has no substantiation. I don't read any of those websites at all and never have pointed to them as support for anything.
No, I think instead that historians will be looking at the actual actions taken by the US, not what they said, when they decide what the true reasons behind the war are. I think they will ask, cui bono? I think that while you are busy pointing to the AUMF as a historically inaccurate representation of what the politicians a the time were thinking (there's no reason to believe that this embodies what they were thinking at all) others will be looking at more concrete things.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:
And it is a patently absurd position for you to call the AUMF a "historically inaccurate representation" of what the politicians were thinking who authorized the war. Do you need a reminder of all the pre-invasion statements of your leftist heroes' concerning Saddam and the threat he posed to the US? Or have you not already purged those from your historically revisionist version of events?
Foolishness.
Do you actually believe that political documents reflect the hopes and desires of politicians, or do they reflect the way that said politicians know things have to be said in order to get them done?
There is no evidence that the AUMF reflects any actual opinion about the War in Iraq at all. It is a political document to provide cover for people's asses later on when situations exactly such as the one we are in right now occur; they can say 'we did it for good reasons.'
Actions are of course far louder and more relevant than words. I believe that historians will look at the actions before and after the start of the Iraq war in order to understand the history of what happened. I highly doubt they will take a look at the AUMF and then just say 'oh, well, that clears that right up, doesn't it?'
Cycloptichorn
The "hopes and desires" of politicians? What kind of history are we talking about here? The AUMF is the best representation I'm aware of of the official motivation and justification for the Iraq War by those in the position to authorize it.All you wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftists realize the error of your ways, which means the US major media stops its anti-war agenda, and the country unifies in a desire to defeat global terrorism. We stay in Iraq till the job is done, until the Iraqis are capable of keeping the peace themselves, then we leave. Under that scenario, I don't need to provide you with a timetable, because we stay until the job is done.
The way we lose is cave in to the wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftists, and we cut-and-run, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.
What do you see as winning? We defeated the organized army of Iraq. The war -- that part of it -- was over in a matter of weeks. We are now dealing with an insurgency, bolstered -- I firmly believe -- by the wishy-washy American left. We could cut-and-run right now, which you would probably advocate, and we would still have "won" the war. It is the peace that would be lost.
I understand you aren't happy the US beat Iraq ... the poor little underdog. Everything you say supports that understanding, and bolsters my belief that you want the US to "lose" ... militarily.
I believe you want it to happen, and everything you say supports that belief.
Ticomaya wrote:All you wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftists realize the error of your ways, which means the US major media stops its anti-war agenda, and the country unifies in a desire to defeat global terrorism. We stay in Iraq till the job is done, until the Iraqis are capable of keeping the peace themselves, then we leave. Under that scenario, I don't need to provide you with a timetable, because we stay until the job is done.
The way we lose is cave in to the wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftists, and we cut-and-run, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.
So, essentially, we will win by 'staying until we win.'
You don't have an actual plan. Noone who is a supporter of this war has an actual plan. All you have is a sort of idea and a stubbornness. That has never won a war, ever. Ridiculous that you would say such a thing and then expect to be taken seriously!
HOW will we finish the job in Iraq? Specifically this time, detail how we are going to solve the various problems with terrorists, insurgents, and Shiite militias. Generalities such as the ones you presented are worthless.
Another question: do you believe that the Liberal Media is the strongest force in the world? More powerful than any other weapon? Because you attribute so much of our problems to it, and they don't have any guns or bombs at all.
Quote:What do you see as winning? We defeated the organized army of Iraq. The war -- that part of it -- was over in a matter of weeks. We are now dealing with an insurgency, bolstered -- I firmly believe -- by the wishy-washy American left. We could cut-and-run right now, which you would probably advocate, and we would still have "won" the war. It is the peace that would be lost.
I understand you aren't happy the US beat Iraq ... the poor little underdog. Everything you say supports that understanding, and bolsters my belief that you want the US to "lose" ... militarily.
Well, I think it was a stupid thing to attack Iraq - break it, bought it and all - but I have never been cheering for the Iraq army to defeat American troops, ever.
You are projecting your desire to attack someone onto me, but you don't understand how hollow it is. You are a coward at heart - you want to fight but don't have the guts to do it yourself, so instead you will fight and insult those who oppose your chosen course of action.
I find it to be pretty funny that the 'wishy-washy' American left, which includes myself, are stronger and more capable than the American Right, better organized, more successful. According to you, we are beating the most powerful army in the world AND the American Right at the same time. Pathetic. In your worldview, a bunch of Euroweenies and Wishy-washy hippies are kicking the sh*t out of the Right
Quote:I believe you want it to happen, and everything you say supports that belief.
Nah, it doesn't. You can't point to anything that supports the idea that I want the US to lose. Nothing. Just a lot of evidence that we will lose.
You want to be taken seriously on foreign policy, but you don't have specifics to back up your stance. Either get some, or be prepared for further ideological trouncings by my fellow Weenie members.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:All you wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftists realize the error of your ways, which means the US major media stops its anti-war agenda, and the country unifies in a desire to defeat global terrorism. We stay in Iraq till the job is done, until the Iraqis are capable of keeping the peace themselves, then we leave. Under that scenario, I don't need to provide you with a timetable, because we stay until the job is done.
The way we lose is cave in to the wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftists, and we cut-and-run, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.
So, essentially, we will win by 'staying until we win.'
Of course. You think we should stay until we lose?
Quote:You don't have an actual plan. Noone who is a supporter of this war has an actual plan. All you have is a sort of idea and a stubbornness. That has never won a war, ever. Ridiculous that you would say such a thing and then expect to be taken seriously!
As opposed to your plan ... cut & run with tail tucked firmly between legs, and beg forgiveness of the international community. That's your actual plan, and you expect to be taken seriously.
Quote:HOW will we finish the job in Iraq? Specifically this time, detail how we are going to solve the various problems with terrorists, insurgents, and Shiite militias. Generalities such as the ones you presented are worthless.
You asked the question, genius. I gave you the answer. If you were expecting a battlefield plan with little X's and O's showing our forces as compared to the terrorists? I think we cover that next week in my West Point correspondence course on military tactics.
Quote:Another question: do you believe that the Liberal Media is the strongest force in the world? More powerful than any other weapon? Because you attribute so much of our problems to it, and they don't have any guns or bombs at all.
Liberal media is a powerful propaganda machine. Has been for decades. Look at it's effects in changing the Vietnam War.
Quote:Quote:What do you see as winning? We defeated the organized army of Iraq. The war -- that part of it -- was over in a matter of weeks. We are now dealing with an insurgency, bolstered -- I firmly believe -- by the wishy-washy American left. We could cut-and-run right now, which you would probably advocate, and we would still have "won" the war. It is the peace that would be lost.
I understand you aren't happy the US beat Iraq ... the poor little underdog. Everything you say supports that understanding, and bolsters my belief that you want the US to "lose" ... militarily.
Well, I think it was a stupid thing to attack Iraq - break it, bought it and all - but I have never been cheering for the Iraq army to defeat American troops, ever.
But you aren't cheering for the American troops either, are you?
Quote:You are projecting your desire to attack someone onto me, but you don't understand how hollow it is. You are a coward at heart - you want to fight but don't have the guts to do it yourself, so instead you will fight and insult those who oppose your chosen course of action.
You are a terrorist lover at heart. You want the US to lose on the battlefield in Iraq because that would satisfy your liberal worldview. You make me puke.
Quote:I find it to be pretty funny that the 'wishy-washy' American left, which includes myself, are stronger and more capable than the American Right, better organized, more successful. According to you, we are beating the most powerful army in the world AND the American Right at the same time. Pathetic. In your worldview, a bunch of Euroweenies and Wishy-washy hippies are kicking the sh*t out of the Right
Congratulations. Perhaps you'll get your wish and the US will actually lose on the battlefield.
Quote:Quote:I believe you want it to happen, and everything you say supports that belief.
Nah, it doesn't. You can't point to anything that supports the idea that I want the US to lose. Nothing. Just a lot of evidence that we will lose.
I point to everything you have said today, and everything you have said on this topic since we started conversing over 2 years ago. You have consistently demonstrated yourself as a terrorist appeaser, despite your protestations to the contrary.
Quote:You want to be taken seriously on foreign policy, but you don't have specifics to back up your stance. Either get some, or be prepared for further ideological trouncings by my fellow Weenie members.
I don't give a rat's ass whether YOU take me seriously or not. I maintain you are nothing more than a terrorist, euroweenie apologist that would like for the US to lose the war in Iraq. Deal with it.
McTag wrote:And I can't decide now whether I'm a terrorist euroweenie apologist or a wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftist.
Either would be appropriate.
