1
   

Can't the USA live without (cold) war?

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 07:16 am
... & oh, a person does not have to be "obviously drunk" to hold the views that anton expressed in his post. Many people all over the planet have sympathy with those views. It's just that they're different to yours. I think you owe him an apology.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:23 am
msolga wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
You mean if I lived in a country that had been in various states of war for 30+ years, had a dictator that ruled by death squads and had raped and pillaged my fellow country men and women and resources, that had no real freedoms of any kind and I was dirt poor like everyone else?

I would probably be one of those guys that greeted the invading army as liberators.

Anton was obvioulsy drunk when he wrote that, thus my reply.


No, you were asked how you'd respond if someone invaded your country, but never mind ....

Ya know, McGentrix, it makes me weary the way some folk have to reminded again & again & again .... the US did not invade Iraq to bring democracy to the poor, downtrodden people. The excuse at the time was WMDs. Remember?


Considering the fact that no nation, or group of nations has the fire power to invade and occupy the US, it's a stupid question.

I did not say that the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy, it's just a nice side-effect of the invasion. Why do you, and others, not want the Iraqi's to live free? Do you think that they are somehow undeserving of living in a free, democratic country?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:26 am
anton wrote:
McGentrix is in the minority and as one of the tenets of democracy is the will of the majority his opinion is just a damp squib, it's just an opinion.
The true American patriots stood up in the recent US elections and told the Bush regime what they wanted; this was further reinforced in the anti-war demonstrations on the weekend. Today the regime is claiming to have killed 250 plus insurgents, the truth cannot be hidden, how many of those killed are innocent Iraqi civilians?


You should read up on "war weariness". That's all that is going on now. It allows the peace-niks to have a louder voice then usual.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:26 am
Quote:
Why do you, and others, not want the Iraqi's to live free? Do you think that they are somehow undeserving of living in a free, democratic country?


Strangely enough, when anyone else acts as if they 'deserve' something, they are roundly criticized by the various Republicans on this board for being lazy no-goods who just don't want to do the work themselves. What makes Iraq different?

If the Iraqi people desire an end to this violence, they could make it happen, but they don't. There is too much at stake for various groups, and they all know that whoever makes it out on top now will keep power for a while. The details won't matter afterwards. That's how things have always worked there.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 05:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:
msolga wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
You mean if I lived in a country that had been in various states of war for 30+ years, had a dictator that ruled by death squads and had raped and pillaged my fellow country men and women and resources, that had no real freedoms of any kind and I was dirt poor like everyone else?

I would probably be one of those guys that greeted the invading army as liberators.

Anton was obvioulsy drunk when he wrote that, thus my reply.


No, you were asked how you'd respond if someone invaded your country, but never mind ....

Ya know, McGentrix, it makes me weary the way some folk have to reminded again & again & again .... the US did not invade Iraq to bring democracy to the poor, downtrodden people. The excuse at the time was WMDs. Remember?


Considering the fact that no nation, or group of nations has the fire power to invade and occupy the US, it's a stupid question.

I did not say that the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy, it's just a nice side-effect of the invasion. Why do you, and others, not want the Iraqi's to live free? Do you think that they are somehow undeserving of living in a free, democratic country?


Oh Right. You've got to be either drunk or stupid to ask such questions! :wink:

And it is inconceivable that the US would ever be attacked because they have superior "fire power"? Question answered.

I think the question related to any empathy you might feel with the Iraqi victims of the US invasion. How would you feel if it happened to you? Folk like yourself, of a particular political persuasion, seem to over-look or excuse the horrendous impact on the lives of ordinary people (just like you!) directly as a result of the invasion. You will just continue to defend your government's action, no matter what. Rabitting on about "bringing democracy to Iraq" does not in any way excuse the harm done to that country & its people.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:43 pm
Again, Arthur nails it. Read his entire argument, follow, as he requests, the necessary links. He demolishes the dismal arguments advanced by the ticos and the timbers for this war of naked agression.


Quote:


Yes, I Want the United States to Lose

by Arthur Silber

...

I've had it with what appears to be the most popular latest smear being used by the warmongers -- although now that I think about it, this smear has been widely used ever since our latest war of aggression began. That smear, uttered by Limbaugh, every other rightwing hack you can name, and every defender of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, runs along these lines, and is now hurled at anyone who dares to oppose the latest insanity, the troop "surge" in Iraq:

Why won't you even give it a chance? Don't you want us to win -- or do you actually want us to lose? Is that how much you hate Bush, and how much you hate America? Or don't you think the Iraqis deserve freedom? Do you think they're lesser human beings than we are? Are you really just a racist?

Hmm. That's a whole bunch of smears, isn't it?

Let's put the most important issue first. In the end, this is the only one that matters:

Iraq did not attack us.

Iraq did not constitute a serious threat to the United States.

Both points were unequivocally and indisputably clear before the first American soldier set foot in Iraq.


There is only one conclusion: this was a war of blatant aggression, launched against what our leaders knew to be a third- or fourth-rate power. It had nothing to do with national defense, and it has exponentially increased the threats to our country. Moreover, it is entirely clear that our leaders lied about their reasons for going to war.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/01/yes-i-want-united-states-to-lose.html

0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:05 pm
Without doubt the US is currently the only super power in the world and no other country could attack it with impunity, however because of that the Americans should be demonstrating leadership and not nurturing their paranoia by attacking sovereign nations and creating terror in the world. Since the end of the Second World War the US has instigated and been involved in most of the conflict around the world, there is an old cliché that says. "Every dog has his day," it would serve the US well to remember that.

The Bush regime recently signed an agreement with India to exchange nuclear technology and India has just entered a cooperation treaty with China, it is also common knowledge that Chinese and Indian economies are growing at a rapid rate with the Chinese economy expected to be greater than that of the US within ten years; make no mistake this US administration has made the US the most despised country in the global community, they have created all the terror in the world and all of it is aimed at the US and the countries who support them, fortunately the majority of decent American's have recognized that fact and are looking for a more responsible America that will regain its voice in the world community.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:36 pm
msolga wrote:
Ya know, McGentrix, it makes me weary the way some folk have to reminded again & again & again .... the US did not invade Iraq to bring democracy to the poor, downtrodden people. The excuse at the time was WMDs. Remember?
I read this same nonsense, day after day.

[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html]Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq[/url] wrote:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Perhaps you don't like the policy; but that in no way makes it any more honest to pretend it wasn't part of the policy from the get go.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 12:46 am
I'm not clear on what you're referring to as "nonsense" in your comment (quoting me) above, Bill.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 01:25 am
WMD was one among many reasons we went to war. Read the list at the link I provided.
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 02:07 am
Democracy cannot be introduced at the point of a gun, it is something that comes from within and any responsible government would know that. Iraq is not a democratic society now and won't be when this death and destruction is finished; in all likelihood it will be a theocracy with elements of Sharia law unlike the secular society it was under Saddam Hussein, who we all agree was a despot but he was the despot of the Iraqis. Since his overthrow, according to some estimates, six hundred thousand innocent Iraqis have been killed and the country reduced to rubble, is that what, "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)" was all about?
An undeniable truth is, "The chaos that is Iraq is a direct result of US aggression and can be laid fairly at the feet of the Bush regime".
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 02:26 am
- Testing -

I have tried to post the same message abot 4 times, with no success.
Let's see if it works this time (after re-starting my computer)
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 03:42 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
WMD was one among many reasons we went to war. Read the list at the link I provided.


It was the sole stated reason at the time, Bill! (Many of us were paying very close attention.)

No link you might provide can change that.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 06:35 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
msolga wrote:
Ya know, McGentrix, it makes me weary the way some folk have to reminded again & again & again .... the US did not invade Iraq to bring democracy to the poor, downtrodden people. The excuse at the time was WMDs. Remember?
I read this same nonsense, day after day.

[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html]Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq[/url] wrote:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Perhaps you don't like the policy; but that in no way makes it any more honest to pretend it wasn't part of the policy from the get go.


Sure.

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

And of course the public is well informed about the content of every Joint Resolution, right, OB? Because people care about those bureaucratic proceedings so much, right, OB? Usually, people all around the world make an effort to get their hands on the text of every Joint Resolution passed in the United States, right, OB?


You know, for some reason, I have the feeling the e.g. Powell's speech at the United Nations Security Council had much more of an effect. I watched it, in February 2003. I'm sure many people did so, too. Those who didn't got the key passages delivered via the media.

Now, should we have a look at U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the U.N. Security Council?

I did a quick search for the term "weapons of mass destruction". I'll provide the results here:

Quote:
Last November 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.

My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.

The facts on Iraqis' behavior--Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort--no effort--to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.

This message would have verified to the inspectors that they have been trying to turn over things. They were looking for things. But they don't want that message seen, because they were trying to clean up the area to leave no evidence behind of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And they can claim that nothing was there. And the inspectors can look all they want, and they will find nothing.

Orders were issued to Iraq's security organizations, as well as to Saddam Hussein's own office, to hide all correspondence with the Organization of Military Industrialization. This is the organization that oversees Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. Make sure there are no documents left which could connect you to the OMI.

Numerous human sources tell us that the Iraqis are moving, not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction to keep them from being found by inspectors.

We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.

Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq's list was out of date and contained only about 500 names, despite the fact that UNSCOM had earlier put together a list of about 3,500 names.

In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who'd been sent home. A dozen experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein's guest houses. It goes on and on and on.

The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.

Let me talk now about the systems Iraq is developing to deliver weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq's ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs.

Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction.

Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.

When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.



Then, I did a quick search for the terms "democracy" and "democratic". Here's the result:

Quote:

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 07:28 am
msolga wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
msolga wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
You mean if I lived in a country that had been in various states of war for 30+ years, had a dictator that ruled by death squads and had raped and pillaged my fellow country men and women and resources, that had no real freedoms of any kind and I was dirt poor like everyone else?

I would probably be one of those guys that greeted the invading army as liberators.

Anton was obvioulsy drunk when he wrote that, thus my reply.


No, you were asked how you'd respond if someone invaded your country, but never mind ....

Ya know, McGentrix, it makes me weary the way some folk have to reminded again & again & again .... the US did not invade Iraq to bring democracy to the poor, downtrodden people. The excuse at the time was WMDs. Remember?


Considering the fact that no nation, or group of nations has the fire power to invade and occupy the US, it's a stupid question.

I did not say that the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy, it's just a nice side-effect of the invasion. Why do you, and others, not want the Iraqi's to live free? Do you think that they are somehow undeserving of living in a free, democratic country?


Oh Right. You've got to be either drunk or stupid to ask such questions! :wink:

And it is inconceivable that the US would ever be attacked because they have superior "fire power"? Question answered.

I think the question related to any empathy you might feel with the Iraqi victims of the US invasion. How would you feel if it happened to you? Folk like yourself, of a particular political persuasion, seem to over-look or excuse the horrendous impact on the lives of ordinary people (just like you!) directly as a result of the invasion. You will just continue to defend your government's action, no matter what. Rabitting on about "bringing democracy to Iraq" does not in any way excuse the harm done to that country & its people.


I answered your question, dipshit. That you don't like my answer doesn't really bother me. I know people of your particular mental persuasion believe that if we left Saddam alone that the magic peace fairy would have swooped down and bonked him on the head with his magic fairy candy cane and the world would be a better place and all the Iraqi's would have lived happily ever after. But, we can't all live in your little fantasy world.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 07:34 am
"Dipshit".

Charming manners you have.

Thank you!


That was an answer, you reckon?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 08:38 am
anton wrote:
Democracy cannot be introduced at the point of a gun,
Sure it can. It was in my country. And in a place like Saddam's Iraq; it is increasingly unlikely that it will ever again be introduced in any other way. Axes, shovels and pitchforks just aren't as effective against the forces of tyranny as they once were.

msolga wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
WMD was one among many reasons we went to war. Read the list at the link I provided.


It was the sole stated reason at the time, Bill! (Many of us were paying very close attention.)
That is simply, and completely, untrue (Apparently you weren't paying very close attention or you would know better).

msolga wrote:
No link you might provide can change that.
I don't wish to be offensive, MsOlga... but that is utter nonsense. The link I provided you was to the very document that granted Bush his War powers. One need not read more than a few paragraphs to see the error in you assumption.

OE, whether or not people chose and continue choose to be ignorant of the facts is a personal choice. Said choice doesn't change the facts. The Joint Resolution by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America is the single most important document regarding America's choice to go to war… and I don't believe for one minute that's the first time you read it. It matters little who chose or chooses to remain ignorant of the FACTs, whether foreign or domestic, the FACTs remain the same. Repetition of Nonsense, by individuals and Newspaper Editors matters not at all. The government of the United States laid out their intentions in no uncertain terms and it has ALWAYS been available for anyone interested in the truth. No matter how much you may disagree with the contents, or even the veracity of same, the contents remain the same.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 08:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
msolga wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
msolga wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
You mean if I lived in a country that had been in various states of war for 30+ years, had a dictator that ruled by death squads and had raped and pillaged my fellow country men and women and resources, that had no real freedoms of any kind and I was dirt poor like everyone else?

I would probably be one of those guys that greeted the invading army as liberators.

Anton was obvioulsy drunk when he wrote that, thus my reply.


No, you were asked how you'd respond if someone invaded your country, but never mind ....

Ya know, McGentrix, it makes me weary the way some folk have to reminded again & again & again .... the US did not invade Iraq to bring democracy to the poor, downtrodden people. The excuse at the time was WMDs. Remember?


Considering the fact that no nation, or group of nations has the fire power to invade and occupy the US, it's a stupid question.

I did not say that the US invaded Iraq to bring democracy, it's just a nice side-effect of the invasion. Why do you, and others, not want the Iraqi's to live free? Do you think that they are somehow undeserving of living in a free, democratic country?


Oh Right. You've got to be either drunk or stupid to ask such questions! :wink:

And it is inconceivable that the US would ever be attacked because they have superior "fire power"? Question answered.

I think the question related to any empathy you might feel with the Iraqi victims of the US invasion. How would you feel if it happened to you? Folk like yourself, of a particular political persuasion, seem to over-look or excuse the horrendous impact on the lives of ordinary people (just like you!) directly as a result of the invasion. You will just continue to defend your government's action, no matter what. Rabitting on about "bringing democracy to Iraq" does not in any way excuse the harm done to that country & its people.


I answered your question, dipshit. That you don't like my answer doesn't really bother me. I know people of your particular mental persuasion believe that if we left Saddam alone that the magic peace fairy would have swooped down and bonked him on the head with his magic fairy candy cane and the world would be a better place and all the Iraqi's would have lived happily ever after. But, we can't all live in your little fantasy world.


Here's a quote from William F. Buckley, Jr. on that very point:

As long ago as June 2004, William F. Buckley Jr., founder of the National Review magazine, was quoted in The New York Times saying, "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration a year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

I extracted this from a thread I started today...from a column in the New York Times by conservative Bruce Bartlett.

Be sure to visit and see what some other conservatives have to say about this issue.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 09:02 am
"Minute hindsight"? Laughing

It's tough having regrets, but the actions were still necessary at the time. I am sure that with "minute hindsight", many things countries have done wrong are regretted and would be changed. I am sure that with "minute hindsight", the Darfur situation could have been fixed, Hitler would never have come to power and Pol Pot could have been stopped from exterminating 1/3 of Cambodia.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 09:18 am
McG…you wrote:

Quote:
I answered your question, dipshit. That you don't like my answer doesn't really bother me. I know people of your particular mental persuasion believe that if we left Saddam alone that the magic peace fairy would have swooped down and bonked him on the head with his magic fairy candy cane and the world would be a better place and all the Iraqi's would have lived happily ever after. But, we can't all live in your little fantasy world.


To which I replied with a quote from Buckley:

""With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration a year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

Now you are attempting to make the "hindsight" the salient feature.

This idiotic, needless war will go down in history as the greatest blunder the United States has ever made. And if the morons who insisted we make the mistake has just allowed reasonable FORESIGHT to prevail…rather than honing intelligence to suit their purposes…kneejerk apologists like you would not be in the position of having to defend this colossal blunder.
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 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:23:22