February 2, 200521 yr Bush never wanted to go Iraq for WMD's Funny, what did he say in that state of the union address to the entire nation? You are drowning in revisionist mentality. Here is the reality. The first successful event has happend in Iraq since our invasion and you want to retroactivley claim this was Bush' plan the entire time so you can praise him to end be all end on this one. Typical conservative "we can do no wrong" BS. Tommorow it will be something else with you. "Iraqi's want US products" Chewbacca: See! Bush wanted to spread US products to Iraq and he was succesful! Bush is God!
February 2, 200521 yr This is the last I am going to post in this thread. Let me ask you, as a human, as a person, did you not feel good or feel happy for those Iraqis dancing in the street, holding their ink stained fingers in the air. They were ALLOWED to vote for the first time in over 50 years. When American forces took over Baghdad did you not feel good or happy for the people when you saw them tearing down all of Saddams murals and statues, and taking their shoes off and smacking the heads of Saddam's statues. You seem to think that America went into a country that loved the way they lived, that enjoyed the torture of Saddam. As a human being did you not feel good for the Iraqi people?
February 2, 200521 yr Bush never wanted to go Iraq for WMD's Funny, what did he say in that state of the union address to the entire nation? You are drowning in revisionist mentality. Here is the reality. The first successful event has happend in Iraq since our invasion 674828[/snapback] What's so unsuccessful about getting rid of a tyrant whole put Shi ite children through shredders and used chemical weapons on his own people? What's so unsuccessful about giving an entire country the freedoms we enjoy here? What would be a success? Doing nothing would be successful in helping Iraq?
February 2, 200521 yr Both of you are blatantly missing the point. Everyone is happy for the Iraqi people. Its a great day in Iraq. But you turned it into "lets praise Bush" day and that wont stand, especially when the guy is a hypocrite on this. Listen, how many conservatives argue FDR doesnt deserve credit for the great depression ending...does that also mean those people are not happy for the end of the great despression?
February 2, 200521 yr Let me ask you, as a human, as a person, did you not feel good or feel happy for those Iraqis dancing in the street, holding their ink stained fingers in the air. They were ALLOWED to vote for the first time in over 50 years. When American forces took over Baghdad did you not feel good or happy for the people when you saw them tearing down all of Saddams murals and statues, and taking their shoes off and smacking the heads of Saddam's statues. You seem to think that America went into a country that loved the way they lived, that enjoyed the torture of Saddam. As a human being did you not feel good for the Iraqi people? 674832[/snapback] It is nice to see images of happy iraqis, but what are they happy about? As many as 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died, and there seems to be reason for that number to stop rising. If Bush went to Iraq to free the people there and spread democracy, and was able to convince me that he should do that, I certainly dont think the road he is taking is the right one. And, if he was going to Iraq for democracy in the first place, the UN and other nations probably wouldnt have minded.
February 2, 200521 yr I am no loyalist of the GOP and I'll say what I've said before again. I'm all for going into all countries where genocide is occuring. One hundred percent. Unfortunately, we lack the ability to do it effectively alone, hence the reason I'm not shouting for invasions across the globe. The United States has taken on the task that the United Nations was intended to have, and it's unfortunate. I wish that other nations across the world would help us eliminate despotism across the globe but it seems like they're too afraid to cross the line from neutrality to impopularity. I might sound a tad altruistic but that's the way I see it. Now, I ask you, if a world leader went around into all the places, Darfur, Sierra Leone, etc, would you, as liberals, oppose it as an act of aggression, or actually stand by what is supposed to be a passion of the left: freeing people and establishing equal rights and opportunities all around the world? 674693[/snapback] This is a very dangerous statement. I know everyone in their hearts hates to see the kind of atrocities that occur in differne tparts of the world, Sudan being the latest one to gain popular interest. However, I am AGAINST the U.S. intervening militarily in sudan. Why? First, knowing what we know now from Iraq, bosnia, Kosovo, we have seen that if we invade a country, we need to plan on staying there for a very long time. This is very expensive in terms of manpower and money. What can we do? First, once a situation is brewing in which genocide is almsot iminent (such as Rwanda when Dallaire was sent in) the U.S or other countries need to use theyre intelligence agencies and/or special ops to try to control the situation, because once the full blown genocide starts not only do we need to sto pthe genocidaire, but we need to stay to ensure safety. Alleviate the problem that may lead to genocide using foregin power if the country cant od it itself. Or another option is to give the U.N. some more muscle so that a group of several natiosn militaries can share the cost in money and manpower. And by the way i like Nixon b/c he was relentless as a politician, he was a very intelligent man, in his handling of vietnam (although many disagree the mess was altready there) and of the cold war in general. And although i do not agree with some of the other things he did, he also brought to light the need for america to step forward in preserving the environment.
February 2, 200521 yr Both of you are blatantly missing the point. Everyone is happy for the Iraqi people. Its a great day in Iraq. But you turned it into "lets praise Bush" day and that wont stand, especially when the guy is a hypocrite on this. Listen, how many conservatives argue FDR doesnt deserve credit for the great depression ending...does that also mean those people are not happy for the end of the great despression? 674842[/snapback] i'll question your analogy. I say WWII is why the depression ended, not b/c of FDR. So whats your reasoning as to why Iraq if it does stabilize or achieves democracy should not be credited to bush? He obviosuly didnt lie about WMD's he received bad intelligence, so lets say we went into Iraq by mistake but accomplsihed somehting good anyway, does the mistake take away the afct that something good was accomplished. If Im driving and i hit the accelrator instea dof the brake by accident and in the process i end up runnign over some guy who was robbing someone at gunpoint, is the good deed nullified b/c it was a mistake?
February 2, 200521 yr Author Bush never wanted to go Iraq for WMD's Funny, what did he say in that state of the union address to the entire nation? You are drowning in revisionist mentality. Here is the reality. The first successful event has happend in Iraq since our invasion and you want to retroactivley claim this was Bush' plan the entire time so you can praise him to end be all end on this one. Typical conservative "we can do no wrong" BS. Tommorow it will be something else with you. "Iraqi's want US products" Chewbacca: See! Bush wanted to spread US products to Iraq and he was succesful! Bush is God! 674828[/snapback] Hey now First of all, you quoted me, and second of all, that is a very misleading fragment of my statement and you know it.
February 2, 200521 yr If Im driving and i hit the accelrator instea dof the brake by accident and in the process i end up runnign over some guy who was robbing someone at gunpoint, is the good deed nullified b/c it was a mistake? 674960[/snapback] But you forgot to leave out the part where you killed the victim's baby and dog, both very nice tire ornaments at this point. The US Economy, for now and in the future, and all the innocent Iraqis killed in bombings and the troops that have lost their lives.
February 2, 200521 yr Author Flying_mollusk, you said Amnesty International is a liberal group. Do you mean they are just comprised of mainly liberal members? If so, I'd like to join. If they actually endorse the Democratic party and platform, I'll send my money somewhere else.
February 2, 200521 yr i'll question your analogy. I say WWII is why the depression ended, not b/c of FDR. So whats your reasoning as to why Iraq if it does stabilize or achieves democracy should not be credited to bush? The thrust of my analogy was to critisize chewbacca and fish tank frenzy for saying those who wont give Bush credit for Iraq election(like those who wont give FDR credit) are somehow against the beneficiaries(the Iraqis/people of 1930) of the two good events. He obviosuly didnt lie about WMD's he received bad intelligence, so lets say we went into Iraq by mistake but accomplsihed somehting good anyway, does the mistake take away the afct that something good was accomplished. If Im driving and i hit the accelrator instea dof the brake by accident and in the process i end up runnign over some guy who was robbing someone at gunpoint, is the good deed nullified b/c it was a mistake You ever see the episode of the Simpsons where Homer accidently saves the entire city from nuclear meltdown via the eni meeni minie moe technique? He is praised as a hero until everyone found out how he did it and he is then ridiculed as a sham? Very similiar here. Bush should not be praised for being some great spreader of democracy(apart from the rhetoric) when that isnt his intention. Some argue Hitler saved the German ecomony and helped with the modern one..but he shouldnt get that credit either.
February 2, 200521 yr Hey now First of all, you quoted me, and second of all, that is a very misleading fragment of my statement and you know it. Actually that was all referring to what chewbacca was saying. Flying_mollusk, you said Amnesty International is a liberal group. Do you mean they are just comprised of mainly liberal members? If so, I'd like to join. They are liberal in the sense that the NRA is conservatve. They are a group specializing in one particular political facet..that of human rights. Just like the NRA doesnt endorse the entire Republican platform, AI wont endorse the entire democratic platform. Id say many of their members are liberal though. Perhaps a good example would be the ACLU which has the sole belief that they must defend civil liberties, whether others agree or not. One can be a conservative and still have the same enthusiasm for civil liberties that the ACLU has right? But the trend is for liberals to focus more on defending civil liberties even though it isnt something exclusive to liberals. Amnesty focuses heavily on human rights and in fact were critical of Clinton.
February 2, 200521 yr Author Thanks for the explanation. I think I'll join tommorrow after my precal class. :cool
February 2, 200521 yr Thanks for the explanation. I think I'll join tommorrow after my precal class. :cool 675018[/snapback] No problem. :hat
February 2, 200521 yr If Im driving and i hit the accelrator instea dof the brake by accident and in the process i end up runnign over some guy who was robbing someone at gunpoint, is the good deed nullified b/c it was a mistake? 674960[/snapback] But you forgot to leave out the part where you killed the victim's baby and dog, both very nice tire ornaments at this point. The US Economy, for now and in the future, and all the innocent Iraqis killed in bombings and the troops that have lost their lives. 674968[/snapback] nice try but your analogy fails. The correct analogy would be if i myself die in the process. I would be the equivalent of a US soldier. And if you want the baby and dog dead as well then it needs to be changed to read that i saved 10 people being held hostage but in the process killed myself a baby and a dog. More people in Iraq will enjoy democracy if it succeeds than the amount of people that have died. So there thats the corrected analogy Actually conservatives are very adamant about preserving civil liberties. Civil rights is a different story. The conservative beef with the ACLU is about which civil liberties they choose to defend and which they dont. And heres the big one A true conservative should be agaisnt at least 50% of the patriot act
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.