Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread V

mysteryman wrote:

blatham wrote:

There isn't a Bush supporter on this site who will brave the reading of these soldiers' accounts of the Iraq war. Reality isn't very important. Reality of this nature is important to stay ignorant of.

I dont have to read the accounts, I was there.

There isnt a single lefty on this site that has the courage of their convictions either.

If you think the war is so wrong and if you think the Iraqi's are the victims, why arent you over there trying to help them?
Why arent you over there setting up clinics, helping rebuild the infrastructure, helping feed and clothe the Iraqi population, etc?

You can sit behind your computer and bitch, but you arent willing to get off your ass and go over there and help.

Why not?

You were there and that makes you exempt from my charge. Even if you aren't much of a Bush supporter any longer.

I support him when I think he is right and oppose him when I think he is wrong.
You on the other hand oppose him just for the sake of opposing him, without caring if he is right or wrong.


I can't go for reasons of family and health. But if those two factors were different, I likely still wouldn't go as I never joined any of the many volunteer organizations which help out in, say, third world countries when I was younger and had the opportunity. So your complaint has validity.

So your excuse is that you never joined any of the various aid organizations.
Thats a crock of BS and you know it.
You can still join them or you can go to Iraq and volunteer there.
As for your excuse about "family and health", thats pure BS!
If you thought the cause was important enough,your family would understand and possibly go with you or pay for your trip.
There are several airlines that fly into Baghdad and other major cities in Iraq.
If you like I will provide you with a list of those airlines and their schedules.

But you pose a false dichotomy. It is not the case that only those individuals who make such a commitment can validly speak regarding the morality or lack of it of one's nation's acts (or another nation's acts). Obviously, if someone criticizing what the US has done in Iraq has no valid moral voice if he/she hasn't gone there, then too, anyone supporting what the US has done in Iraq has equally no valid moral voice.

I'll let you pay for the tickets. Get one for myself and for every Bush supporter on this thread. We'll all stop being hypocrites. And there seems to be no reason why you can't return.

Get unretired. I trust you can still walk. And get those other tickets too. Further, to carry through on the courage of your convictions, I want you to convince your president and vice president that they hold far greater moral duty to carry through with the courage of their convictions than either you or I or any of the war-lovers kicking about here.

Get it all done and I'm yours.

Ticomaya wrote:

Your hope for the photographs is to drive your anti-war agenda. Photos of Saddam's tortures/killings don't fuel that agenda, thus you aren't interested in those being hung as stark reminders of his atrocities.

If you are for truth, you ought to be for the entire truth.

Anti-war agenda? Yes, I definitely don't like war. Possibly you have a pro-war agenda, tico? Possibly you like war?

Please refrain from the silly binary cliches, they only serve to make you dull.

By all means, entire truth. Let's include Saddam's atrocities. Let's include the briefings that Cheney and the energy/oil industry reps had before the war. Let's have Greenspan give full expression to his comment that "this war was about oil". Let's get full information on the ties between Blackwater and the Pentagon. Let's bring crushed childrens' guts into our living rooms too. Let's go for truth in its entirety. Good for you?

What Saddam did to fellow Iraqis is not the blame of any US citizen. What Hitler did to Jews is also not our fault. What Mao did to the Chinese is also not our fault. The violence now perpetrated in Africa is also not our fault. SURPRISE!

Showing photos of atrocities of other's acts of violence doesn't benefit anyone. What's the point?

And you think it was peaches and cream after Bush's illegal start of that war?

I'm focused enough to know Bush started his war based on Saddam's WMDs, then changed his justification when none were found.

After WMDs, it was to remove a tyrant from power, and now it's to bring democracy to the Middle East. Only the most ignorant still believes we can bring democracy to the Middle East, or that the war in Iraq is for "our" security. Unfortunately, most Americans were still impressed with Bush's leadership of keeping America safe while his administration screwed up everything they touched - including the mismanagement of billions of reconstruction money for Iraq. Billions were misplaced/lost, and Bush keeps asking for more while our congress approves to enlarge our federal deficit.

Since Bush's illegal war was initiated, many revelations have come out that shows Bush and company had planned the invasion of Iraq before 9-11; that makes it illegal. Iraq was never a threat to our country; they didn't have the weapons or the means to deliver them to the US.

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm focused enough to know Bush started his war based on Saddam's WMDs, then changed his justification when none were found.

After WMDs, it was to remove a tyrant from power, and now it's to bring democracy to the Middle East. Only the most ignorant still believes we can bring democracy to the Middle East, or that the war in Iraq is for "our" security. Unfortunately, most Americans were still impressed with Bush's leadership of keeping America safe while his administration screwed up everything they touched - including the mismanagement of billions of reconstruction money for Iraq. Billions were misplaced/lost, and Bush keeps asking for more while our congress approves to enlarge our federal deficit.

No, you were obviously smoking the same stuff when parados tried to raise this nonsense a couple of years ago ------> "Did Bush change the reasons for Invasion after the fact?"

c.i. wrote:

Since Bush's illegal war was initiated, many revelations have come out that shows Bush and company had planned the invasion of Iraq before 9-11; that makes it illegal. Iraq was never a threat to our country; they didn't have the weapons or the means to deliver them to the US.

One of these days you might actually read this document ----------> AUMF


Regarding regime change in Iraq, need I remind you of -----------> Public Law 105-338

... which wrote:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

... and which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1998?

Surely a lawyer like yourself can understand the difference between 'promoting,' 'supporting,' and 'effecting?'

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely a lawyer like yourself can understand the difference between 'promoting,' 'supporting,' and 'effecting?'

Cycloptichorn

I do ... and that goes a long way toward explaining why I'm a bigger support of Mr. Bush and his policies with regard to Iraq, than I was of Mr. Clinton and his policies with regard to Iraq.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely a lawyer like yourself can understand the difference between 'promoting,' 'supporting,' and 'effecting?'

Cycloptichorn

I do ... and that goes a long way toward explaining why I'm a bigger support of Mr. Bush and his policies with regard to Iraq, than I was of Mr. Clinton and his policies with regard to Iraq.

That's a valid position, so long as you realize that Public Law 105-338 that you referenced in no way points towards a policy of effecting regime change, and doesn't support your earlier argument much.

Cycloptichorn