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

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There is no comparison then.

Again, you don't seem to be making the connection. This is about justifications and action taken. Like I said - there were multiple justifications given -some would stand on their own as we've used those justifications to take action before. Bosnia is just one example of it. Granted you can claim the scale is different but it doesn't change the FACT that the justifications have been used to act.

CsG

Yeah, come on, Red Dawn! Don't you know everything is black and white and all comparisons are valid because CsG says so? Wake up and smell the Kool-Aid, Red!

Ah yes - you mean your black/white justification stance? Hmmm....Yeah. You can't accept the fact that WMD was not the "sole" justification. Who's drinking "Kool-Aid"...?

CsG

I Googled for quotes Bush used to justify his unprovoked attack on Iraq. I found an article by John Dean at Findlaw. It contains several quotes from Bush speeches prior to his unnecessary invasion.

If you can find some quotes to support your contention please post them.

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:

Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Dean provides more of his opinions at the link. I am more interested in Bush's quotes which form the bare factual basis that leads the fact based among us to make our claim; Bush misled America to invade Iraq by lying about Saddam's WMD and the grave and gathering threat Saddam projected. Statements which are clearly lies and which were contained the charge Bush told America was the reason we needed to immediately conduct naked aggression against Iraq -- WMD.

Other members of his administration, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney made similar statements as well.

If you have any direct quotes you'd like to share with us, CsG, please do so.

Just pore over the Iraq on the Record database. It's all about fear-mongering of mushroom clouds and such.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Eh, hit the wrong key, and no, I really don't think that it makes the slightest bit of difference to the discussion. You're nitpicking because you have nothing to stand on but childish, defiant rants. You're like a 12 year old refusing to eat his dinner, not because he isn't actually hungry but because he doesn't want to do what his momma told him to.

Sadly, you're representative of MOST of America.

Jason

Originally posted by: 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?

 

[conjur]

<sigh>


What's with the childish trolls of late?

 

[Gaard]

Is a 'justification' and a 'reason' the same thing?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>


What's with the childish trolls of late?

Reality is setting in and they are fighting it with renewed zeal. This produces a state of cognitive dissidence in the childish troll mind manifesting itself as the behavior we are witnessing.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

On the contrary, he hasn't done what you are accusing him of AT ALL. He's simply stated that the PRINCIPLES upon which the American system is founded are MORAL--yes, the MOST moral (and he's accurate in that statement) because of their basis in the PROTECTION of Individual Rights.

That isn't fallacious reasoning, and your accusations won't make it true no matter how many times you repeat them to yourself.

Regarding whether a Person or a state can have its morality judged independently from its actions, just let me say for the record: DUH. Without actions there is nothing to judge! With regard to the morality (or lack thereof) of PRINCIPLES, the past 200+ years of the protection of individual rights (though not with perfect consistency, to be sure) IS the action by which the principles are to be judged. And the only judgment one can rationally make is that these principles ARE moral and proper, as evidenced by the fact that they've led --repeatedly--to the liberation of oppressed groups IN SPITE of the desires of the Majority to the contrary.

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not reading anything into the posts - the American constitution is great; but it's obvious to any observer that actions taken in Iraq are not consistent with a simple reading of the constitution.

To proclaim that a state is 'the most moral' because of its constitution, and that this justifies actions which are not only morally questionnable, but taken for reasons other than moral ones is the part that makes me say 'wow'.

A person, nor a state, can have its morality judged independent of its actions, and that's just what cwj is asking for; he takes the moral status of the US as a given and then concludes that whatever actions they take must be morally justifiable.

This sort of fallacious reasoning won't win an argument in a debate, a court of law, or even an internet forum.

[/quote]

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
On the contrary, he hasn't done what you are accusing him of AT ALL. He's simply stated that the PRINCIPLES upon which the American system is founded are MORAL--yes, the MOST moral (and he's accurate in that statement) because of their basis in the PROTECTION of Individual Rights.

That isn't fallacious reasoning, and your accusations won't make it true no matter how many times you repeat them to yourself.

Regarding whether a Person or a state can have its morality judged independently from its actions, just let me say for the record: DUH. Without actions there is nothing to judge! With regard to the morality (or lack thereof) of PRINCIPLES, the past 200+ years of the protection of individual rights (though not with perfect consistency, to be sure) IS the action by which the principles are to be judged. And the only judgment one can rationally make is that these principles ARE moral and proper, as evidenced by the fact that they've led --repeatedly--to the liberation of oppressed groups IN SPITE of the desires of the Majority to the contrary.

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not reading anything into the posts - the American constitution is great; but it's obvious to any observer that actions taken in Iraq are not consistent with a simple reading of the constitution.

To proclaim that a state is 'the most moral' because of its constitution, and that this justifies actions which are not only morally questionnable, but taken for reasons other than moral ones is the part that makes me say 'wow'.

A person, nor a state, can have its morality judged independent of its actions, and that's just what cwj is asking for; he takes the moral status of the US as a given and then concludes that whatever actions they take must be morally justifiable.

This sort of fallacious reasoning won't win an argument in a debate, a court of law, or even an internet forum.

[/quote]

You haven't answered anything in my post.

In fact. all you've really done is agree with my reasoning, and then ignore the part where I questionned that this reasoning could be applied to America at this time, given actions taken that are inconsistent with America's held principles.

I also didn't state the the USA is, has been, or ever will be the 'most moral' state in the world. I just said I thought the constitution is a great one. I like mine, too. I like a lot of things about Britain's, and a few other places, as well.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

No, no one has the right to take IMMORAL action. Is removing a murderous dictator from power an immoral action? Is working on bringing the idea of liberty to people who have never known it immoral? Granted, these were not the *Primary* reasons, but they WERE reasons from the get-go, and we all heard it in NUMEROUS speeches, radio and television broadcasts, interviews and so on. Your attempt to cling to one piece of information and then PRETEND that you give a damn about the morality of the situation is at best a laughable and bogus proposition.

Bush, like Kerry, like Clinton, like the majority of Congress and manyy MANY other persons and nations, believed openly that Saddam had WMD's. As it stands, we have NO IDEA if he in fact did. It's entirely possible that they were moved out of the country before the attack. But that's not what's important. What's important, what matters, what was RIGHT was that we removed a brutal dictator--whose victims had NO CHOICE in their government or their fate, and eliminated any chance that he or his sons will EVER wreak havoc again.

WMD's or not, this was RIGHT. And while we can argue the semantics all day long, I think it is not unreasonable to say that Saddam, Uday and Qusay were ALL Weapons of Mass destruction, with tens of thousands of armed thugs at their command.

Thank goodness SOMEONE took these b@stards out. Thank goodness YOU aren't in charge of ANYTHING related to anyone's rights, because you obviously don't give a DAMN.

Jason

Originally posted by: BBond
No one has a moral right to take immoral action. Bush flip-flopped from one excuse to another once his WMD lies were exposed. To suggest now that his unprovoked invasion of Iraq was a moral endeavor to 'change the landscape' of the Middle East is in itself a lie. And we all know lies are immoral, don't we?

Well, most of us 'Bush-hating blowhards' do. We 49 percenters. We arrogant elites from Greenwich who all have our places at Andover and Yale saved for us from birth through our family's connections. The affirmative action program for the elite like Bush. We'll stammer our usual ignorance and hate as everything we told you would happen in Bush's immoral attack on Iraq is happening.

I'd like to point out that you're just another guy sitting on your butt in front of your PC. The fact that you prefer to believe Bush's lies, exhibiting your inability to discern Bush's fantasies from reality doesn't give you any more right or credence than the next guy sitting in front of his PC. We're on an internet forum discussing our views. We're all sitting in front of our PCs doing the same. Couldn't you figure that out on your own?

That should answer your ridiculous question, "WHY ARE YOU HERE??", as well.

And there would be no need for anyone to join up if Bush hadn't rushed America into this quagmire in Iraq based on patently false information which he repeated over and over ad infinitum, information which you Bush-loving blowhards are now backpedalling as fast as you can to deny is the sole reason Bush gave to attack, occupy, and destroy Iraq.

Moral indeed. Is it moral to attack a nation unprovoked, all based on lies, killing over 100,000 civilians in the process, destroying the nation's cities and infrastructure as you pass out billions of dollars in contracts to your friends and business associates?

You people are the antithesis of morality.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
On the contrary, he hasn't done what you are accusing him of AT ALL. He's simply stated that the PRINCIPLES upon which the American system is founded are MORAL--yes, the MOST moral (and he's accurate in that statement) because of their basis in the PROTECTION of Individual Rights.

That isn't fallacious reasoning, and your accusations won't make it true no matter how many times you repeat them to yourself.

Regarding whether a Person or a state can have its morality judged independently from its actions, just let me say for the record: DUH. Without actions there is nothing to judge! With regard to the morality (or lack thereof) of PRINCIPLES, the past 200+ years of the protection of individual rights (though not with perfect consistency, to be sure) IS the action by which the principles are to be judged. And the only judgment one can rationally make is that these principles ARE moral and proper, as evidenced by the fact that they've led --repeatedly--to the liberation of oppressed groups IN SPITE of the desires of the Majority to the contrary.

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not reading anything into the posts - the American constitution is great; but it's obvious to any observer that actions taken in Iraq are not consistent with a simple reading of the constitution.

To proclaim that a state is 'the most moral' because of its constitution, and that this justifies actions which are not only morally questionnable, but taken for reasons other than moral ones is the part that makes me say 'wow'.

A person, nor a state, can have its morality judged independent of its actions, and that's just what cwj is asking for; he takes the moral status of the US as a given and then concludes that whatever actions they take must be morally justifiable.

This sort of fallacious reasoning won't win an argument in a debate, a court of law, or even an internet forum.

[/quote]

DMA

When you quote someone I'd ask you to please post your reply below the quotation, the way everyone else does it. Posting your reply ahead of the quote is confusing. It forces the reader to scroll down to the quote you're replying to in order to be sure of what it is you're talking about.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
No, no one has the right to take IMMORAL action. Is removing a murderous dictator from power an immoral action? Is working on bringing the idea of liberty to people who have never known it immoral? Granted, these were not the *Primary* reasons, but they WERE reasons from the get-go, and we all heard it in NUMEROUS speeches, radio and television broadcasts, interviews and so on. Your attempt to cling to one piece of information and then PRETEND that you give a damn about the morality of the situation is at best a laughable and bogus proposition.

Telling America you pre-emptively invade a non-threatening nation unprovoked based on a lie, then changing your reason to 'removing a murderous dictator' is immoral. Has your moral compass gone so far off that you can't see that any longer?

If America was in the business of removing murderous dictators, instead of truly being in the business of installing and supporting them, there were far more threatening nations with far more serious human rights violations that required action before Iraq.

And if you have any proof of Bush's "speeches, radio and television broadcasts, interviews and so on" please do share them with us. Bush sent America to war based on lies of a false threat of WMD. That's immoral. Defending his lies is immoral as well.

Bush, like Kerry, like Clinton, like the majority of Congress and manyy MANY other persons and nations, believed openly that Saddam had WMD's. As it stands, we have NO IDEA if he in fact did. It's entirely possible that they were moved out of the country before the attack. But that's not what's important. What's important, what matters, what was RIGHT was that we removed a brutal dictator--whose victims had NO CHOICE in their government or their fate, and eliminated any chance that he or his sons will EVER wreak havoc again.

Many nations consider Bush a brutal dictator after witnessing what he has set in motion in Iraq. Would they be right in removing him and eliminating any chance that he will ever wreak havoc again?

As it stood we had a very good idea whether Saddam had WMD or not. Former Chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ridder, who spent eight years in Iraq told Bush there were no WMD left after the first Gulf War. Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaredei were in Iraq actively conducting inspections which were coming to the same conclusion as the Iraq Survey Group when Bush told them to get out before the bombs started falling.

WMD's or not, this was RIGHT. And while we can argue the semantics all day long, I think it is not unreasonable to say that Saddam, Uday and Qusay were ALL Weapons of Mass destruction, with tens of thousands of armed thugs at their command.

WMD or not, this was not right. Do you think America would have supported the fiasco Bush has created in Iraq if he had told us we were on a crusade to remove a brutal dictator rather than making up lies about the threat of Saddam and his tons upon tons of WMD?

World leaders from supposed democracies cannot manufacture lies and use them to attack others. To do so is barbarism not civilization. And to suggest Saddam's sons and his weakened military were WMD is one of the most ridiculous suggestions you've made yet. You're simply being absurd. Truly laughable.

Thank goodness SOMEONE took these b@stards out. Thank goodness YOU aren't in charge of ANYTHING related to anyone's rights, because you obviously don't give a DAMN.

Jason

It isn't the role of the United States to decide which foreign leaders to take out. It isn't a president's job to falsify evidence to do so. Doing so has brought a worse fate to the Iraqi people than leaving in power a toothless tiger who was under constant scrutiny. We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was. And we've destroyed our reputation and credibility for taking on that responsibility.

Saddam was a dictator who used a rigged electoral process to maintain an air of legitimacy. Thanks to Bush, America has removed him and taken his place -- only under Bush the situation in Iraq is far worse than it was under Saddam. And now all the lives lost, the wounded civilians, the bombed out cities, are on our heads. And it's our responsibility to fix what we've destroyed.

All based on Bush's lies.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

1,219 -- November 20, 2004 -- 612th day
All due to Bush's lies...

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

And we all know how important YOUR approval is, of course. However, very nice of you to now read meaning into *my* posts. I see no reason to bother with you at this point; you clearly have no interest in reasoning your way through anything at all, merely putting forth your zealous devotion to your moral relativism. Have fun with that.

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
On the contrary, he hasn't done what you are accusing him of AT ALL. He's simply stated that the PRINCIPLES upon which the American system is founded are MORAL--yes, the MOST moral (and he's accurate in that statement) because of their basis in the PROTECTION of Individual Rights.

That isn't fallacious reasoning, and your accusations won't make it true no matter how many times you repeat them to yourself.

Regarding whether a Person or a state can have its morality judged independently from its actions, just let me say for the record: DUH. Without actions there is nothing to judge! With regard to the morality (or lack thereof) of PRINCIPLES, the past 200+ years of the protection of individual rights (though not with perfect consistency, to be sure) IS the action by which the principles are to be judged. And the only judgment one can rationally make is that these principles ARE moral and proper, as evidenced by the fact that they've led --repeatedly--to the liberation of oppressed groups IN SPITE of the desires of the Majority to the contrary.

Jason

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not reading anything into the posts - the American constitution is great; but it's obvious to any observer that actions taken in Iraq are not consistent with a simple reading of the constitution.

To proclaim that a state is 'the most moral' because of its constitution, and that this justifies actions which are not only morally questionnable, but taken for reasons other than moral ones is the part that makes me say 'wow'.

A person, nor a state, can have its morality judged independent of its actions, and that's just what cwj is asking for; he takes the moral status of the US as a given and then concludes that whatever actions they take must be morally justifiable.

This sort of fallacious reasoning won't win an argument in a debate, a court of law, or even an internet forum.

You haven't answered anything in my post.

In fact. all you've really done is agree with my reasoning, and then ignore the part where I questionned that this reasoning could be applied to America at this time, given actions taken that are inconsistent with America's held principles.

I also didn't state the the USA is, has been, or ever will be the 'most moral' state in the world. I just said I thought the constitution is a great one. I like mine, too. I like a lot of things about Britain's, and a few other places, as well.[/quote]

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
DMA

When you quote someone I'd ask you to please post your reply below the quotation, the way everyone else does it. Posting your reply ahead of the quote is confusing. It forces the reader to scroll down to the quote you're replying to in order to be sure of what it is you're talking about.

Well, because you are so polite in asking, I will do as you ask.

Regards,

Jason

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
And we all know how important YOUR approval is, of course. However, very nice of you to now read meaning into *my* posts. I see no reason to bother with you at this point; you clearly have no interest in reasoning your way through anything at all, merely putting forth your zealous devotion to your moral relativism. Have fun with that.

Jason

Well since you haven't bothered with any of my reasoning, or arguments, right from the start, I guess this would just be par for the course as far as you're concerned.

No one needs my approval. But you can't declare that something is obviously true despite ample evidence to the contrary, disregard dissenting opinions, and then claim to have won any sort of 'argument'.

You can't judge principles in absence of actions, and you can't judge 'means' in the absence of 'ends'. You've taken up the cause of the OP on this one, and I'm sorry, but the OP's statement was logically and morally indefensible.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

WMD or not, this was not right. Do you think America would have supported the fiasco Bush has created in Iraq if he had told us we were on a crusade to remove a brutal dictator rather than making up lies about the threat of Saddam and his tons upon tons of WMD?

I can't speak for the whole of the US any more than you can, but I do suspect that, provided the testimony of former Iraqi citizens and others who have witnessed Saddam's atrocities, that YES, we would have been in support of such an effort. In 1991 we were OVERWHELMINGLY in support of removing Saddam; I rather suspect that our failure to do so at that time is ONE of the (many) reasons why Bush Sr. didn't get re-elected.

World leaders from supposed democracies cannot manufacture lies and use them to attack others. To do so is barbarism not civilization.

Fair enough, and I would agree with you. However you haven't provided a single bit of evidence that anyone "Manufactured evidence" or that anyone LIED. What we KNOW is that much of our intelligence turned out to be either WRONG or hopelessly out of date, and that the WMD situation wasn't what was anticipated. An intelligence failure is NOT evidence of lying, it is evidence of ineptitude on the part of the intelligence gathering agencies. The President is just as vulnerable to those failures as anyone else. In the end, however, you can either sit around and choose to wait for *PERFECT* information (which you will never, EVER get) or you can act on the best information you can get. I loathe Bush as much as the next guy, but you really can't make a solid case that this was based on LIES so much as on incomplete information which lead to faulty conclusions. That, my friend, is an ENTIRELY different ballgame.

And to suggest Saddam's sons and his weakened military were WMD is one of the most ridiculous suggestions you've made yet. You're simply being absurd. Truly laughable.

Tell it to the 400,000 corpses in mass graves. Tell it to the prisoners who were tortured, mutilated and murdered for having an OPINION. Tell it to the CHILDREN who were imprisoned for not being Baath party loyalists. It's very, VERY easy to pretend that these horrors didn't occur when you live in a civilized nation where you come home to your comfy house with adequate food, where you can chat with your neighbor or pop online and chat to the WORLD about what a f'kd up President you have, and you don't have to worry AT ALL that you'll be murdered or tortured for your beliefs. Neither you nor I nor I daresay ANYONE here can relate to the situation under Saddam and other dictators. It is arrogant, insensitive and incredibly BLIND of you to insinuate for even a moment that Saddam's regime was ANYTHING but an engine for the destruction of whatever person dared to disagree.

It isn't the role of the United States to decide which foreign leaders to take out. It isn't a president's job to falsify evidence to do so. Doing so has brought a worse fate to the Iraqi people than leaving in power a toothless tiger who was under constant scrutiny. We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was. And we've destroyed our reputation and credibility for taking on that responsibility.

On the contrary, where it comes to our national security, it is VERY MUCH the role of our government to ascertain what threats may be lurking around the corner and to take action to prevent those threats from manifesting themselves. You keep insisting that the President falsified information but there is STILL no proof of any such doing. What there is AMPLE proof of is that the President had INCORRECT information which he got from our Intelligence community. CLEARLY they were not doing a very good job *OR* their information was already too old to be considered reliable but was trusted even so.

Your claim that "we are responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam was" is preposterous AT BEST. You have NO official numbers concerning Iraqi casualties because there ARE NO official numbers. Rough UNOFFICIAL estimates range UP TO 100,000 with an ENORMOUS latitude for disagreement. The fact is that NO ONE knows exactly how many, but what we DO know is that Saddam's regime is responsible for AT LEAST 400,000 CONFIRMED corpses, with the evidence right now being that most of those occurred in the time AFTER 1991. I suppose in a certain sense you could say we ARE responsible for those in that we didn't remove Saddam in 1991, WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE.

Saddam was a dictator who used a rigged electoral process to maintain an air of legitimacy. Thanks to Bush, America has removed him and taken his place -- only under Bush the situation in Iraq is far worse than it was under Saddam. And now all the lives lost, the wounded civilians, the bombed out cities, are on our heads. And it's our responsibility to fix what we've destroyed.

It isn't that Saddam "rigged the electoral process", man! Do you ALWAYS go out of your way to try and paint Saddam as a nice guy who just got a little out of control? He "rigged" the process by leaving no doubt in people's minds that they would be KILLED or TORTURED or their FAMILIES starved and bean and murdered if they DIDN'T support him. That's more than just "Rigging the electoral process", and you really ought to sit down and THINK awhile about that.

Your argument that Iraq is worse off now than they were under Saddam is absurd at best. Under Saddam the Iraqi people had nothing to look forward to but more of the same, and perhaps WORSE once his sons came into full power when he died. By all accounts, his sons were MORE brutal than he was! Today they have a fight on their hands to make sure that Iraq can be a sovereign, FREE nation, and it's a NOBLE fight. They have the help of our military, the finest on earth. They have a buttload of funding coming from us directly to rebuild (and certainly we have a responsibility to help in that area; I see NO evidence that we are shirking that responsibility, as the spiraling deficit will attest to!)

Sorry, the Iraqi's now have a *chance* at a free future. Not a *guarantee*, that's true, but they do have a good chance now.

All based on Bush's lies.

Hey, slice it however makes your little unidirectional world view happy.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well since you haven't bothered with any of my reasoning, or arguments, right from the start, I guess this would just be par for the course as far as you're concerned.

No one needs my approval. But you can't declare that something is obviously true despite ample evidence to the contrary, disregard dissenting opinions, and then claim to have won any sort of 'argument'.

You can't judge principles in absence of actions, and you can't judge 'means' in the absence of 'ends'. You've taken up the cause of the OP on this one, and I'm sorry, but the OP's statement was logically and morally indefensible.

I would be glad to address your reasoning if you actually PRESENTED some. Your primary tenet seems to be that removing Saddam from power is immoral because a lot of people disagree with it. Sorry, but just because a lot of people feel a certain way does NOT mean they are right. Platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, yes, 100 million people CAN be WRONG. And they very often ARE.

Jason

 

[BBond]

What issue forced such pressing urgency that it required the USA to get involved in all of this carnage in Iraq?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well since you haven't bothered with any of my reasoning, or arguments, right from the start, I guess this would just be par for the course as far as you're concerned.

No one needs my approval. But you can't declare that something is obviously true despite ample evidence to the contrary, disregard dissenting opinions, and then claim to have won any sort of 'argument'.

You can't judge principles in absence of actions, and you can't judge 'means' in the absence of 'ends'. You've taken up the cause of the OP on this one, and I'm sorry, but the OP's statement was logically and morally indefensible.

I would be glad to address your reasoning if you actually PRESENTED some. Your primary tenet seems to be that removing Saddam from power is immoral because a lot of people disagree with it. Sorry, but just because a lot of people feel a certain way does NOT mean they are right. Platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, yes, 100 million people CAN be WRONG. And they very often ARE.

Jason

Originally posted by: BBond
What issue forced such pressing urgency that it required the USA to get involved in all of this carnage in Iraq?

This was not the issue.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Well since you haven't bothered with any of my reasoning, or arguments, right from the start, I guess this would just be par for the course as far as you're concerned.

No one needs my approval. But you can't declare that something is obviously true despite ample evidence to the contrary, disregard dissenting opinions, and then claim to have won any sort of 'argument'.

You can't judge principles in absence of actions, and you can't judge 'means' in the absence of 'ends'. You've taken up the cause of the OP on this one, and I'm sorry, but the OP's statement was logically and morally indefensible.

I would be glad to address your reasoning if you actually PRESENTED some. Your primary tenet seems to be that removing Saddam from power is immoral because a lot of people disagree with it. Sorry, but just because a lot of people feel a certain way does NOT mean they are right. Platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, yes, 100 million people CAN be WRONG. And they very often ARE.

Jason

Have you already forgotten the justification for the removal of Saddam? It was the WMDs. Where are the WMDs? They're not there. They never were. It was all a carefully orchestrated scrubbing of dubious intelligence to sell a war.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I would be glad to address your reasoning if you actually PRESENTED some. Your primary tenet seems to be that removing Saddam from power is immoral because a lot of people disagree with it. Sorry, but just because a lot of people feel a certain way does NOT mean they are right. Platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding, yes, 100 million people CAN be WRONG. And they very often ARE.

Jason

My primary tenet is that when the USA engages in pre-emptive warfare, and kills thousands of civilians, it is wholly insufficient to fall back on a claim that 'we are a highly moral nation, therefore our actions are just'. The fact remains that 'freeing the Iraqi people' was not the primary motivation for going to war in Iraq; officially, WMDs were the reason, speculatively, access to oil may have been a major consideration. I think a utilitarian approach would suggest that civilians in Iraq were not being killed by the thousands at the time of the invasion, and that civilian deaths and probably insurgency were relatively predictable outcomes of the invasion.

A much better time to act would have been at the point of succession from Saddam to his chosen successor, since at that time a power vaccuum (however brief) and civil disorder would likely have occurred. In this way you could have minimized civilian casualties now and had probably many years, instead of a few months, to plan a course of action to be put into play in the future, with at least the potential for a better result.

I'm particularly offended by cwj's original claim that the USA by virtue of it's moral status has a moral imperative to attack many nations, but should only do so if it is in their own interests; this, it seems to me, runs precisely counter to the idea of behaving morally; it claims some sort of external moral superiority, as justification for acting selfishly!

 

[BBond]

World history will record Bush's war in Iraq as an act of outright aggression.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

[snip the emotional propaganda]

The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.

I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:

Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.

Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?

My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|

For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.

It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:

But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:

 

[Tylanner]

Don't the ends justify the means??

Isn't that the Liberal motto?

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond
We as a nation are responsible for more Iraqi deaths and mutilations than Saddam was.

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the insurgency?

When are you leaving for Iraq to join the slaughter?

[snip the emotional propaganda]

The Doctrine of overwhelming force does leave in its wake, innocent casualties. This is not something that anyone can deny. A sane thought process would not define it as slaughter. :roll: But if that is what it takes to help you sleep at night, go for it.

I have asked you a few times about going to Iraq and joining the insurgency, but you seem rather hesitant to engage in any discussion about it as if it is not a realistic question. I would suggest to you that my question is engrained in analyzing the thought process and Ideology that seemingly goes into your posts. :gift:

Just So that there is not any question, I would like you to know that my question is deadly serious.

Do you have any intention of joining the insurgency in Iraq? Or are you content to stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency?

My impression is that you would rather stay where you are and engage in your current method of supporting the goal of the insurgency. Hell it worked with Viet-nam, why not now, right? :|

For clarity I will add that I do not have any sort of problem with the rights of individuals to express dissent to the action that this country is engaged in. Nor do I see it as a question of patriotism.

It is , for me, more of a moral dilemma in viewing the way you choose to dissent, especially when your chosen method is perfectly aligned and supports the goal of the insurgency in Iraq, and leads to the deaths of my brothers and sisters. :brokenheart:

But like I said, if it helps you to sleep at night, keep it up. I am sure that there are like-minded individuals in here that will continue to support your method of contributing to the deaths of our military members. :disgust: :disgust: :disgust:

On the contrary; we would prefer not to be in Iraq at all. We would prefer for the troops to have never left home. We want to bring the troops home ASAP. It is YOU who want them there. YOU who are encouraging this pre-emptive act of aggression on a sovereign nation. The insurgency in Iraq leads to the death of your brothers and sisters; but the people of iraq are brothers and sisters too. The lord endowed ALL men with certain unalienable rights, remember? or does that just apply to Americans? Or just White Christian Americans maybe?

I don't believe this war was about WMDs but that's what we were TOLD it was about. Was it for OIL? for Bush's re-election? I don't know, but I do know that the United States is the foreign aggressor. Foreign devils occupying a country and killing the Iraqi people. If in Iraq, i might join the insurgency and fight the foreigners; that is what a true patriot would do, no? I mean.. if Canada invaded your town, would you say "okay! welcome! Bush is a jerk and deserves to be overthrown!" oo.. well i would.. man that sounds good... but I digress- i mean of course you wouldn't, you love America too much, right?

Lets split up the US. The blue states will join Canada and create the United States of Canada and the Red States can be the United States of Bush. Good luck without our revenue, suckers.