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

[Alistar7]

Fact based on the evidence you trust, 300,000 killed.

"a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot?s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

The most important thing about Iraq is that, and that it has ended. I honestly don't care if Bush sexed up commonly believed but still murky intel, or certain govts opposed the efforts to remove Saddam, or anything else, the "cocentration camps have been closed." That IMO is the most important issue here, and the most worthwhile and final effect of our war.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Fact based on the evidence you trust, 300,000 killed.

"a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot?s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

The most important thing about Iraq is that, and that it has ended. I honestly don't care if Bush sexed up commonly believed but still murky intel, or certain govts opposed the efforts to remove Saddam, or anything else, the "cocentration camps have been closed." That IMO is the most important issue here, and the most worthwhile and final effect of our war.

So why arent you pushing for the invasion of the Sudan?

 

[crooked22]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

the US is the most moral nation that's ever existed, so doing what serves our interests is by default the moral thing to do.

This is a most whacked out idea, and perhaps very far from the truth. You only get served the victor's side of the history, because everyone else is immoral.

Perhaps it was founded to be, but that soonly went all to hell with the age of imperialism heading to an end near the late 1880's... Hell read a bit about the Spanish-American war, and in depth you'll see all the dirty tricks that pale down Iraq's food for oil fiasco.

The most moral nation is that one which helps another regardles of whom national interests it served, but for the humans whom live in that nation. I have not seen such a nation (much less a superpower) ever exists.
EDIT: Actually, maybe the liberation of Europe and all aid provided to it afterwards might count towards morality points.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: crooked22

Originally posted by: cwjerome

the US is the most moral nation that's ever existed, so doing what serves our interests is by default the moral thing to do.

This is a most whacked out idea, and perhaps very far from the truth. You only get served the victor's side of the history, because everyone else is immoral.

Perhaps it was founded to be, but that soonly went all to hell with the age of imperialism heading to an end near the late 1880's... Hell read a bit about the Spanish-American war, and in depth you'll see all the dirty tricks that pale down Iraq's food for oil fiasco.

The most moral nation is that one which helps another regardles of whom national interests it served, but for the humans whom live in that nation. I have not seen such a nation (much less a superpower) ever exists.

We had the moral authority to wipe the native american people off the face of the earth and let the few that are left build their own casinos.

we had the moral authority to enslave people by skin color as long as we needed the cheap labor.

 

[Alistar7]

Sigh, ya just don't get it. Imagine you were being held hostage by another man and MYSELF. We decide to KILL you so my buddy stands behind you and holds you still. I fire a shot at your head in an attempt to kill you. I miss, the bullet kills my buddy, richocets, and kills me. Is the end result the most positive outcome? Was it the intended or stated consequence of the actions that led to it being that way?

Bush lied, the UN objectors protested out of greed, whatever your opinion or the facts the end result is still the same. The genocide is over.

 

[Alistar7]

smashp, crooked22 is 100%.


"The most moral nation is that one which helps another regardles of whom national interests it served, but for the humans whom live in that nation. I have not seen such a nation (much less a superpower) ever exists.
EDIT: Actually, maybe the liberation of Europe and all aid provided to it afterwards might count towards morality points. "

Even the US is responsible for genocide in our past. We still need to constantly move forward on the moral path until it never happens again, anywhere.

I would have no problems with the US military being used to topple brutal oppressive regimes, especially if the majority of their citizens would welcome our assistance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD, there is no shame in admitting that you are wrong or that you have been had by the Bush administration. Maybe you think your internet "status" will be diminished by doing so, but I assure you by continuing to repeat your failed argument your doing yourself no good in that regard.

That's funny - I was thinking the same about conjur. There is nothing wrong with admitting WMD was the "sole" justification for removing Saddam - but for some reason conjur's rage against Bush has blinded him and only serves to showcase the decay within the left.

Now again - those of you who believe conjur - take a look at the Joint Resolution again and then come back here and claim WMD was the "sole" justification.
Incase others have lost their dictionary marbles like conjur - "sole" means singular, one, only.

CsG

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

At this point, fsck making peace with the world. Let's pull the fsck out of the Middle East and let them kill each other. I don't see our world coming together until after the next major world war.

 

[Alistar7]

I am willing to bet I agree with conjur in regards to Bush on EVERY other issue toom, except the Iraq war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
CAD, there is no shame in admitting that you are wrong or that you have been had by the Bush administration. Maybe you think your internet "status" will be diminished by doing so, but I assure you by continuing to repeat your failed argument your doing yourself no good in that regard.

That's funny - I was thinking the same about conjur. There is nothing wrong with admitting WMD was the "sole" justification for removing Saddam - but for some reason conjur's rage against Bush has blinded him and only serves to showcase the decay within the left.

Now again - those of you who believe conjur - take a look at the Joint Resolution again and then come back here and claim WMD was the "sole" justification.
Incase others have lost their dictionary marbles like conjur - "sole" means singular, one, only.

CsG

Which, after dissecting the Joint Resolution, as I have done and shown you up here, WMDs are the sole justification that was sold to the Senate for the need to use force, potentially.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

CAD, you take away the WMD claim, we are not in Iraq. You cannot dispute this. All of your other "justifications" which were made post-war are not sufficient cause to have gone to war with Iraq. Anyone with half an IQ can see this, why are you purposefully being so dense? Conjur hasn't gone blind with rage, his rage stems from the fact that you are in complete denial of the obvious facts staring you in the face. CAD, you used to be a man of reason and intellect but after watching you debate the same tired talking points ad nauseum I'm beginning to have my doubts.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Well let's start with this, then, shall we:

1. Iraq was previously a dictatorship run by a tyrant and his gang of thugs who violated peoples' rights any damn time they felt like it.
2. America is a Sovereign nation with a government founded on the principle that government's job is to PROTECT the rights of individuals.
3. Dictatorships have NO claim to sovereignty under Lockean political theory
4. by LAW, only the PRESIDENT of the United States can decide what nations we recognize as Sovereign

As a FREE nation, we ALWAYS have the moral right to protect our own rights and to intercede on the behalf of a 3rd party whose rights are being violated. In the case of the Iraq war, BOTH situations happened to be the case. Whether you agree with Bush's handling of the war or not (I don't), the fact is that we ABSOLUTELY have the moral right to destroy dictators like Saddam Hussein at ANY time. That's not to say we have an OBLIGATION to do so, but that's another argument.

Jason

Originally posted by: Infohawk

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

but I'm confident history will prove them wrong.

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

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Well let's start with this, then, shall we:

1. Iraq was previously a dictatorship run by a tyrant and his gang of thugs who violated peoples' rights any damn time they felt like it.
2. America is a Sovereign nation with a government founded on the principle that government's job is to PROTECT the rights of individuals.
3. Dictatorships have NO claim to sovereignty under Lockean political theory
4. by LAW, only the PRESIDENT of the United States can decide what nations we recognize as Sovereign

As a FREE nation, we ALWAYS have the moral right to protect our own rights and to intercede on the behalf of a 3rd party whose rights are being violated. In the case of the Iraq war, BOTH situations happened to be the case. Whether you agree with Bush's handling of the war or not (I don't), the fact is that we ABSOLUTELY have the moral right to destroy dictators like Saddam Hussein at ANY time. That's not to say we have an OBLIGATION to do so, but that's another argument.

Jason

WTF are YOU talking ABOUT?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Iraq was a DICTATORSHIP which attacked a *legitimate* sovereign power. We are a *LEGITIMATE* sovereign power that deposed a dictatorship. These are two ENTIRELY different issues.

Jason

Originally posted by: her209

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

Did Iraq have a moral right to invade Kuwait?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: skyking
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?

Actually Saddam was only in power for 22 years, but who's counting, right?

The IRONY in this situation is that she was killed BY THE PEOPLE SHE WAS TRYING TO HELP.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Iraq was a DICTATORSHIP which attacked a *legitimate* sovereign power. We are a *LEGITIMATE* sovereign power that deposed a dictatorship. These are two ENTIRELY different issues.

Jason

Originally posted by: her209

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

Did Iraq have a moral right to invade Kuwait?

What's *WITH* all of the TOP *posting* in your QUOTES?


BTW, a bit of news for you re:Kuwait:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8268.htm

Kuwait is a constitutional, hereditary amirate ruled by princes (Amirs) drawn from the Al-Sabah family. The Al-Sabahs have governed in consultation with prominent commercial families and other community leaders for over 200 years. The 1962 Constitution provides for an elected National Assembly and details the powers of the Government and the rights of citizens, although the Constitution also permits the Amir to suspend any or all of its provisions by decree. Only 14.8 percent of citizens (males over the age of 21) have the right to vote. The most recent general election, held in July 1999, was conducted as provided in the Constitution after the Amir dissolved a gridlocked National Assembly. A by-election was held in December 2000 to fill the seat of a deceased MP. In both cases, the election campaigns were generally considered to be free and fair; however, there were some problems.

Citizens do not have the right to change their Government. Under the Constitution the National Assembly has a limited role in approving the Amir's choice of Crown Prince (that is, the future Amir). If the National Assembly rejects his nominee, the Amir then submits three names, from which the assembly must choose the new Crown Prince. The Amir traditionally has appointed the Crown Prince to be Prime Minister, although this is not mandatory; the Crown Prince appoints the members of the Government. However, the elected National Assembly has demonstrated the ability at times to influence or overturn decisions of the Government. Members regularly require ministers to appear before the full Assembly for formal question sessions when they are dissatisfied with the Government's performance. On occasion, pressure exerted by the National Assembly, including through votes of no confidence, has led to the resignation or removal of ministers. In February Assembly members called for formal questioning procedures against seven Cabinet members; partially as a result, the Government resigned. In accordance with the Constitution, the Amir then asked the Prime Minister to form a new Government, which he did with significant changes at key ministries.

The Government bans formal political parties, and women do not have the right to vote or seek election to the National Assembly. A law promulgated in 1998 bans primaries previously conducted by religious sects and tribes. The Constitution and law provide for a degree of judicial independence; however, the Amir appoints all judges, and renewal of most judicial appointments is subject to government approval.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Actually, Bow, that WAS one of the reasons. Nice of you to try and revise history before our very eyes. I agree that it wasn't touted as THE primary reason, but it WAS discussed and listed as a reason IN MANY SPEECHES by the President and others.

You're not going to win any points against "lies" by lying yourself.

Jason

Originally posted by: 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.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: skyking
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?

Actually Saddam was only in power for 22 years, but who's counting, right?

The IRONY in this situation is that she was killed BY THE PEOPLE SHE WAS TRYING TO HELP.

24 years, technically, but who's counting? Besides, he was the power behind Bakr for years before that but, who's counting, right?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

1. Since our government is founded on the idea that individuals have RIGHTS and that the government exists to PROTECT those rights, I'm afraid that no, you can't make any argument that we are a "rogue state".

2. Your statement on this matter is clouded by the fraudulent notion that only acts WITHOUT regard for your self interest are moral. That's a common enough Platonist platitude, but really, grow up. Such a code isn't fit for a human being, and you should be ashamed of yourself for accepting such nonsense without an examination of what it even MEANS to be moral. Having the RIGHT to do something is VERY different from having a DUTY to do something.

Jason

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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?"

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.

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

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

No, it isn't. While it would certainly be RIGHT to liberate all countries from dictators, it really isn't PRACTICAL (which is to say, we couldn't pull it off: there are more of them than there is of us.) The SMART thing to do is to choose your battles strategically and fight where you have the best chance of doing the most good. There is NO SUCH THING as a simple, overnight "free the world" solution. You have too many dictators, too many weapons and too much entrenched "I'm used to dictatorship" psychology and philosophy to overcome with mere physical force.

Part of taking moral action REQUIRES the consideration of our own best interests.

Jason

Originally posted by: Gaard

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

So the next time someone shouts "We're there for the oppressed Iraqis, I should raise my finger and say "Yeah, but..."?

Liberating Country 'X' is moral. Liberating Country 'Y' is moral. Yet, we'll only bother to help the one that suits our interests. I think the word 'morality' is somewhat diminished in this context, don't you?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
1. Since our government is founded on the idea that individuals have RIGHTS and that the government exists to PROTECT those rights, I'm afraid that no, you can't make any argument that we are a "rogue state".

A much better definition of a rogue state is one which flouts international laws and conventions regularly. In this respect, the USA has at least partially fit that definition since early 2003.

What your statement supports is not that the USA isn't a rogue state, but that it isn't a repressive one. For the most part i agree, the PATRIOT Act notwithstanding.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

WOW, you really ARE good at reading meaning that people didn't even remotely IMPLY into their words! I'd love to listen to your interpretation of the Qu'ran or the Bible! WOW!

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

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

As long as you believe that this is true, in the imperative sense (i.e. that whatever America thinks MUST be right, which is ridiculous) and that giving King George carte blanche to use force in Iraq however he sees fit... then you are a hopeless ideologue, but at least we can all save time by not arguing with you anymore.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Democracy ISN'T what makes America moral. What makes America moral is the proposition that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness". And here's the clincher: "...that to SECURE THESE RIGHTS, Governmetns are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED."

The people of Iraq gave NO CONSENT to Saddam Hussein and his thugs. They voted 99% for him, yes; why? Because if they didn't they would be persecuted, jailed, tortured, raped, murdered. Is that what you call a better state of affairs? Is that what you call FREEDOM?

Democracy is a mechanism for electing our government's officers, no more, no less. What makes us moral is NOT our Democracy but our principles that INDIVIDUALS have RIGHTS that the government exists to PROTECT.

Jason

Originally posted by: Kibbo
What happens if you replace democracy with Socialist state? Or Christiandom? Or Kaliphate? Or Vaterland? Or Civilization?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

While I applaud your efforts, CWJ, I fear that you are, like me, preaching to a crowd that believes a Slave-State is on equal moral ground with a Free-State.

Jason

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Kibbo: "Those things were not threatened by Iraq."

Well that's pretty debatable. I, along with millions of others, think we were.

I don't really understand the rest of your post. Let me just repeat that a dictatorship can claim no national rights and no such recognition of such "rights" by civilized countries. Dictatorship states are outlaws, and any free nation has the RIGHT -though not the DUTY- to destroy it. Whether it is destroyed would depend on the context, ie, the threat to one's interests (which are morally superior to the interests of a slave-state).

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

WOW, another dishonest person planting meanings into other peoples' posts! Neato!

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You can't argue that you have a moral imperative to attack another nation, while simultaneously arguing that other nations have a similar moral imperative.

You have the ABILITY to attack a nation; which is not remotely the same thing.

Thousands of Iraqis have died in the alleged attempt to liberate them, including many before the first hint of 'insurgency' so, in fact the US is indeed killing people in order to liberate them. It's not sloppy reasoning, it's a legitimate question that needs a serious answer.

And 'western universals'???? Now you believe that the western world has a historical monopoly on being morally perfect and complete?

Wow.