1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day

[BBond]

Iraq coalition casuality count.

November Ranks 2nd in U.S. Deaths in Iraq.

 

[Infohawk]

How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

 

[cwjerome]

Hmmm.... the American Pacific command declared Iwo Jima "secure" on March 14, 1945. Yet fighting continued for 12 more days... in the "mopping up" of Iwo Jima, 1071 men were killed. This is barely less than the number who have died in the conquest and occupation of 167,000 square miles of territory with 36 million people in Iraq.

Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor.

The Bush-hating blowhards, the one-percenters, the "arrogant elites", will stammer their usual ignorance and hate... but I'm confident history will prove them wrong.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
We had the moral right to invade,/q]

foreign policy isn't a philosophical theory class.

Remember that comment?

but I'm confident history will prove them wrong.

Too bad you don't have any reasons to back your wishful thinking up...

 

[cwjerome]

Foreign policy isn't a philosphical theory class. Cool?

We had the moral right to invade. Cool?

Any questions?

(I have all the reasons I need, thanks)

 

[conjur]

Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
We had the moral right to invade.

Did Iraq have a moral right to invade Kuwait?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Here comes Mr. Obfuscation to rewrite history.

Shall I post the words of Colin Powell before the Senate again? How about the words of Scott McClellan? Perhaps those of Paul Wolfowitz?

1,200 Americans are dead because of the lies fed to the White House by Feith.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

Tell it to Margaret Hasan . It seems the F-ING BEHEADINGS have begun to add up as well. Notice, I referenced Al-Jazeera so you neo-socialist hate mongers would believe it. Lord knows, if it comes from CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news it's all a big lie.
It seems that you leftists would rather we just left Iraq to these same savages, right? That's what you want, isn't it? For the US to just stop the "illegal occupation" and leave, right?
Maybe you all have a better idea? I'd like to hear it.

Spell it out for me, right here, right now.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Thought control seems to be working very well on you sir.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

Tell it to Margaret Hasan . It seems the F-ING BEHEADINGS have begun to add up as well. Notice, I referenced Al-Jazeera so you neo-socialist hate mongers would believe it. Lord knows, if it comes from CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news it's all a big lie.
It seems that you leftists would rather we just left Iraq to these same savages, right? That's what you want, isn't it? For the US to just stop the "illegal occupation" and leave, right?
Maybe you all have a better idea? I'd like to hear it.

Spell it out for me, right here, right now.

Fine.

Y-o-u...a-r-e...a...t-r-o-l-l.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

Tell it to Margaret Hasan . It seems the F-ING BEHEADINGS have begun to add up as well. Notice, I referenced Al-Jazeera so you neo-socialist hate mongers would believe it. Lord knows, if it comes from CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news it's all a big lie.
It seems that you leftists would rather we just left Iraq to these same savages, right? That's what you want, isn't it? For the US to just stop the "illegal occupation" and leave, right?
Maybe you all have a better idea? I'd like to hear it.

Spell it out for me, right here, right now.

Fine.

Y-o-u...a-r-e...a...t-r-o-l-l.

That's precisely what I thought your "answer" would be. It saddens me that I was correct.

 

[cwjerome]

We have the moral right to take out any dictatorship, slave pen, or rogue state there is. But a huge distinction is we don't have the DUTY to take them out. Whether we do or not should depend on our national interests, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers and thugs. Me and many other believe Iraq was in our national interest.

So spare me the dungheap of relativist jargon about "rights" and "soveriegn nation" BS. Ascribing "freedom" to a country that hasn't a clue as what freedom even is obliterates the moral meaning of the term.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

Tell it to Margaret Hasan . It seems the F-ING BEHEADINGS have begun to add up as well. Notice, I referenced Al-Jazeera so you neo-socialist hate mongers would believe it. Lord knows, if it comes from CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news it's all a big lie.
It seems that you leftists would rather we just left Iraq to these same savages, right? That's what you want, isn't it? For the US to just stop the "illegal occupation" and leave, right?
Maybe you all have a better idea? I'd like to hear it.

Spell it out for me, right here, right now.

She had lived there for 30 years with Saddam in power, yet was able to help the people. Saddam is removed, the country is lawless, and she gets killed. Isn't it ironic?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Is that the one where Bush suggests Iraq is tied to the 9/11 attacks? You are correct, they didn't sell it exclusively on the WMD lie. They also sold it on the Iraq-9/11 lie. Then there was the welcome-us-with-flowers lie, the work-with-the-U.N. lie, and the huge-coalition lie. Some of us care about lies, especially when people are dying because of them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
[ ... ]
Many people like me see the value in changing the landscape of the Middle East, and the good that can come of it long-run. We had the moral right to invade, and it's what's best for this country and the world. And many people like me will offer our immense gratitude and respect for our military men and women who are doing a spectacular job in a most noble endeavor. ...

Pity that's not the reason they used to sell the war to America. Any long-term good that may come from our invasion is irreparably tainted by the lies used to justify it. The end does NOT justify the means.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BBond
Iraq coalition casuality count.

November Ranks 2nd in U.S. Deaths in Iraq.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
We have the moral right to take out any dictatorship, slave pen, or rogue state there is. But a huge distinction is we don't have the DUTY to take them out. Whether we do or not should depend on our national interests, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers and thugs. Me and many other believe Iraq was in our national interest.

So spare me the dungheap of relativist jargon about "rights" and "soveriegn nation" BS. Ascribing "freedom" to a country that hasn't a clue as what freedom even is obliterates the moral meaning of the term.

Let me get this straight. We have the moral right to go to war with Iraq. But we wouldn't have bothered had it not been in our best interests. What does that say about our morals?

 

[cwjerome]

Yeah, YOU were lied too, blah blah.... stupid people seem to get "lied to" a lot. Funny how that works.

It's been almost 2 years now, can you guys get a life? Your "LIES" has been hopelessly ignored.

 

[cwjerome]

Gaard, it says our ideals, principles, and beliefs ARE moral... and the security of those things -our country- is a moral imperative.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Moral right to invade? WTF?


Uh....WMDs? Where are they?

Those were the sole justification given for the invasion. Why do you chickenhawks keep forgetting that?

There was nothing to forget. You and others seem to be obsessed with the idea that WMDs were the only justification for acting against Saddam. That would be factually incorrect as shown by legislation passed giving President Bush the authority to use force as he saw fit.

But hey - keep telling yourself whatever you wish...

CsG

Thought control seems to be working very well on you sir.

Wrong - You, conjur, and bowfinger don't seem to have a very good memory if you don't think I'm correct. However, I'll just chalk it up to blind rage from losing...

CsG

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: skyking

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

Tell it to Margaret Hasan . It seems the F-ING BEHEADINGS have begun to add up as well. Notice, I referenced Al-Jazeera so you neo-socialist hate mongers would believe it. Lord knows, if it comes from CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news it's all a big lie.
It seems that you leftists would rather we just left Iraq to these same savages, right? That's what you want, isn't it? For the US to just stop the "illegal occupation" and leave, right?
Maybe you all have a better idea? I'd like to hear it.

Spell it out for me, right here, right now.

She had lived there for 30 years with Saddam in power, yet was able to help the people. Saddam is removed, the country is lawless, and she gets killed. Isn't it ironic?

That answers my question.....how?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
We have the moral right to take out any dictatorship, slave pen, or rogue state there is. But a huge distinction is we don't have the DUTY to take them out. Whether we do or not should depend on our national interests, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers and thugs. Me and many other believe Iraq was in our national interest.

What if someone decides that our government is a "rouge state", which argueably we are. Do they have a moral right to "take us out?"

But a huge distinction is we don't have the DUTY to take them out. Whether we do or not should depend on our national interests, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers and thugs. Me and many other believe Iraq was in our national interest.

HILARIOUS. We only have to do the moral thing if its good for us. Great. Its not really moral then if your doing out of self interest then is it? Your just being a sleezy opportunist.

So spare me the dungheap of relativist jargon about "rights" and "soveriegn nation" BS. Ascribing "freedom" to a country that hasn't a clue as what freedom even is obliterates the moral meaning of the term.

What I said that you don't have a clue what freedom is?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: freakflag

Originally posted by: Infohawk
How convenient that Bush stuffed so many casualties into the period AFTER the election...

Tell it to Margaret Hasan . It seems the F-ING BEHEADINGS have begun to add up as well. Notice, I referenced Al-Jazeera so you neo-socialist hate mongers would believe it. Lord knows, if it comes from CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news it's all a big lie.
It seems that you leftists would rather we just left Iraq to these same savages, right? That's what you want, isn't it? For the US to just stop the "illegal occupation" and leave, right?
Maybe you all have a better idea? I'd like to hear it.

Spell it out for me, right here, right now.

Fine.

Y-o-u...a-r-e...a...t-r-o-l-l.

That's precisely what I thought your "answer" would be. It saddens me that I was correct.

What saddens everyone else is that *I'm* correct.