As i neither claimed that GIs are expert on national security nor appealed to pity on their behalf rather than support my argument, which i have done by pointing out that they are Americans who are attacked because they are Americans, you have no case, as usual.
My last several posts have been brief and to the point. You are the one who is attempting to obscure by deploying verbiage, and it doesn't even approach making sense.
Care to have a stab at a "factual assertion" about why we are safer, and how you know that? Care to defend a proposition that the invasion of Iraq has made us safter?
Setanta, did our entry into WWII to fight Japan and Germany make the U.S. safer?
"If the shrub pardons Libby" is turned into
okie wrote:Setanta, did our entry into WWII to fight Japan and Germany make the U.S. safer?
Verrrry smoothe segue there okie, you're getting better.
Hey Snood, have we run out of Gatorade?? Gotta get some more.
dyslexia wrote:"If the shrub pardons Libby" is turned into
okie wrote:Setanta, did our entry into WWII to fight Japan and Germany make the U.S. safer?
Verrrry smoothe segue there okie, you're getting better.
Well, Setanta claims the U.S. is less safe because American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq. So I am just trying to figure out if he counts soldiers in his safety evaluation, because obviously the guys on the beaches of Normandy were pretty unsafe. Maybe we should have never entered the second world war because it obviously made this country very unsafe according to Setanta.
Dys, I did not start this drift into other subjects, but I simply responded to the charge that the Libby issue relates back to the "war is a lie" charge, which is a house built by Democrats for the last few years. After many of them voted for the war I might add. Joseph Wilson is a crucial building block in their house, and that is what animates all of them to hang Libby, and they are hoping to ultimately hang Cheney and Bush. I think Wilson had this in mind from the very beginning.
less safe because of us getting killed in Iraq? I doubt that's what set said.
okie, the libby issue goes directly to libby having been charged with and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice by a jury of his peers. As Pres Gerald Ford said when he pardoned Nixon, a pardon is an admission of guilt. Noone including Geroge Bush is offering that Libby is not guilty of the charges, only that the sentence by the judge is too severe.
From Wiki:
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. (Despite this statement and subsequent comments by the Bush administration, weapon inspectors were given access to the alleged weapon factories at the time. When the invasion of Iraq by the US forced them out, it made finishing the inspections impossible.)
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." (A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.)
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." (Whether this is a valid casus belli is debatable with the laws of war and prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.)
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" (We now know that the available evidence at the time showed there probably were no WMD's in Iraq.)
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. (Whether this is a valid casus belli is debatable with the laws of war and prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.)
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." (However, we now know this was outside of Saddam Hussein's control and as such this is not a valid casus belliunder the laws of war and with definition of war of aggression in mind.)
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. (A statement we now know is a loose interpretation of the available evidence to validate the initial suggestion Iraq was involved in 9/11.)
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. (We know that the available evidence showed no "working relationship" between Iraq and the people behind 9/11)
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. (Under international law, this point is not a valid casus belli, and as such attacking Iraq would constitute a war of aggression.)
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." UN members commented it is not up to one member state to interpret and enforce UN resolutions. Subsequently Kofi Anan remarked that these arguments do not constitute the legal requirements set forth in the laws of war prohibiting wars of aggression.
littlek wrote:less safe because of us getting killed in Iraq? I doubt that's what set said.
To quote Setanta:
"We" means all Americans, and that includes the GIs in Iraq. They are certainly not safer, and four years after the clown on Pennsylvania declared "mission accomplished," they are still targets precisely because they are Americans--that's a no-brainer, which makes it problematic that even you cannot understand that."
The way I read it, he would also have included the soldiers at Normandy.
okie, Why not the war of 1812?
okie wrote:littlek wrote:less safe because of us getting killed in Iraq? I doubt that's what set said.
To quote Setanta:
"We" means all Americans, and that includes the GIs in Iraq. They are certainly not safer, and four years after the clown on Pennsylvania declared "mission accomplished," they are still targets precisely because they are Americans--that's a no-brainer, which makes it problematic that even you cannot understand that."
The way I read it, he would also have included the soldiers at Normandy.
Seems to be your usual problem.
dyslexia wrote:okie, the libby issue goes directly to libby having been charged with and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice by a jury of his peers. As Pres Gerald Ford said when he pardoned Nixon, a pardon is an admission of guilt. Noone including Geroge Bush is offering that Libby is not guilty of the charges, only that the sentence by the judge is too severe.
I'm not sure of that. Libby and his lawyers still claim innocence, and a pardon simply pardons the sentence as a result of the guilty jury verdict by the court. I don't think Libby ever has to admit any guilt. I could be wrong, as I am no lawyer, thankfully.
dyslexia wrote:okie wrote:littlek wrote:less safe because of us getting killed in Iraq? I doubt that's what set said.
To quote Setanta:
"We" means all Americans, and that includes the GIs in Iraq. They are certainly not safer, and four years after the clown on Pennsylvania declared "mission accomplished," they are still targets precisely because they are Americans--that's a no-brainer, which makes it problematic that even you cannot understand that."
The way I read it, he would also have included the soldiers at Normandy.
Seems to be your usual problem.
Mmmm.... ok, then, see ya!
okie wrote:Setanta, did our entry into WWII to fight Japan and Germany make the U.S. safer?
Not necessarily, obviously the soldiers and sailors were not safer, and some civilians, such merchant seamen were not safr--but the situation with Iraq is not analogous. After the Germans and Japanese signed instruments of surrender, after the National Socialist German Workers Party and the Imperial Rule Assistance Association were disbanded--there was no longer any danger of an attack on American civilians in the United States, and there was no longer a danger to American service personnel in Germany and Japan.
However, we have defeated the organized military of Iraq, we have dismantled the government of Iraq, we have killed or captured the principle members of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party and disbanded that political organization--but Americans, civilians and soldiers, as well as nearly every other westerner in Iraq, remains a potential target. So, you cannot compare the situation to the Second World War, because the analogy fails at the point at which the Shrub declared "mission accomplished." When the war ended in Germany and then in Japan, the killing ended. It's now four years since we took the Iraqi military and government apart like a cheap watch--but the killing has not stopped.
okie wrote:Well, Setanta claims the U.S. is less safe because American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq.
That is a false statement, which turns what i wrote on its head. I am saying that the fact that Americans are still being killed in Iraq is on the face of it evidence that America
ns are not more safe than before the invasion. I won't even grace that silly remark about Normany with a reply--read my last post.
okie wrote:dyslexia wrote:okie wrote:littlek wrote:less safe because of us getting killed in Iraq? I doubt that's what set said.
To quote Setanta:
"We" means all Americans, and that includes the GIs in Iraq. They are certainly not safer, and four years after the clown on Pennsylvania declared "mission accomplished," they are still targets precisely because they are Americans--that's a no-brainer, which makes it problematic that even you cannot understand that."
The way I read it, he would also have included the soldiers at Normandy.
Seems to be your usual problem.
Can you read, Dys?
Well, I did graduate the 8th grade. Perhaps if you had done as well in your education you wouldn't need to question mine.
okie wrote:littlek wrote:less safe because of us getting killed in Iraq? I doubt that's what set said.
To quote Setanta:
"We" means all Americans, and that includes the GIs in Iraq. They are certainly not safer, and four years after the clown on Pennsylvania declared "mission accomplished," they are still targets precisely because they are Americans--that's a no-brainer, which makes it problematic that even you cannot understand that."
The way I read it, he would also have included the soldiers at Normandy.
Then you don't read very well. You are ignoring, or incapable of understanding the significance of the "mission accomplished" claim. The war, in terms of the Iraqi army and government, is over. But Americans are still being killed--so they are not safer than they were before the invasion. Normandy doesn't count because that was 11 months before the European war ended, that was 11 moths before "mission accomplished."
I am not responsible for your poor reading skills . . . Do us a favor. I know it's difficult for you, but please, try not to write anything . . . stupid.
Okie, this is really only directed to you. there are many on a2k that I have learned from, they have been very conservative, moderate, liberal and otherwise. The thing is people like georgeob/Thomas/setanta/ and many others offer opinions and then explain the basis of their opinions in a manner in which I may pursue futher information that often changes my understanding (not always for sure) but in your case you seem so locked into defining every single statement by anyone as being (liberal) or (conservative) and then automatically accepted or rejected based on your initial definition (totally without rational analysis). You make a judgement and then whatever proceeds is a forgone conclusion on your part. Sad I think that that is your choice to make for the world you chose to live in.
Dyslexia, thanks for your honest appraisal. I realize I cut to the chase and offer abrupt answers that may grate on people, as I see the issue. I simply give my honest views here.
Setanta made a statement that I thought was rather stupid, and I said so. His equating the safety of soldiers in Iraq to the safety of the nation is really not very bright, and I am sorry to offend people, but I used an illustration of WWII to illustrate that point. I also understand that he is falling back onto the idea that we supposedly have won the war, and Bush opponents love to point out Bush's proclamation on the aircraft carrier. Yes, I understand that. And Bush and Setanta are correct, we overthrew Hussein, and that part of the war is over, but the overall war is not, and everyone knows it.
If we had not gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, everyone has a different opinion as to whether this country would be safer now. As I pointed out earlier, Hillary thinks we are. I think we are. Perhaps you think we are not. To be fair to Hillary, she said we are safer, but I don't know if she would claim the wars made us safer or not. I have no clue what she thinks from day to day, and actually think she made statements in the debate that conflict with other statements she has made, which is what happens when you simply play to the audience. In any case, just because soldiers are in higher danger in Iraq does not prove we are more unsafe here, and to claim it as Setanta did is utter nonsense in my opinion. Sorry to offend you with my opinion, but I thought that was what this forum was for.
As far as polarizing every statement as liberal or conservative, I will try to take note of that weakness, if it is. Note, I changed the word, "lib" above to "Bush opponents."
