I say you have tunnel-vision because you lie about what others say to prop up your arguments. It's a Nixon-like paranoid behavior.
Look, they haven't found them. They aren't going to ether. The fact that you say it doesn't matter, doesn't matter. They lied or at the best bent the truth to get this war going. That's wrong in my book ( it'll be wrong in a lot of voters books also ). The fact that you say it doesn't matter, doesn't matter. The end didn't justify the means. What they did was Nixon like behavior. The only lie here is from our government. That's about it in a nutshell. No amount of spin doctoring or obfuscation on your part ( or theirs ) will change that. Acts like these cheapen and tarnish the whole meaning of our country and it's values. Shame on you for supporting it.
Tell me, jimmac, what was the end you are talking about?
In a system as complex and inherently corrupt and self-interest-driven as international politics the end can certainly justify the means; we don't live in a world governed by the Tao te Ching, we live in the real world.
If someone lies to remove a corrupt dictator and remove a slaughter, whether or not that's the liar's goal it is a worthy end. For you to say it is better to sacrifice 1.2 million more Iraqi lives at the bungling hand of the UN Security Council than to pervert some ambiguous idea is on the level of a sociopathic monster.
In the ideal, the US should stand for freedom, that should be the value. And under Saddam and the UN's method of keeping him and power there was no freedom. Now there is a chance for freedom.
You choose international politik over freedom, jimmac, and if you cannot face that you are lying to yourself. To constantly harp on the fact that a politician lied shows a glaring lack of reason and foresight in your position.
The game you are playing is dangerous. No matter how many times the brick hits you in the head, you keep trying to concoct a explaination to convince yourself that that either you aren't getting hit or that somehow the wounds are good for you. Basically, you went out on a limb and thought your support somehow was helping people, but you were let down.
But denial of reality is exactly how such suffering gets justified. If you really want to help people, stop playing games with yourself, be a man and realize that you've been had. Don't you realize how far you are grasping for anything that helps you avoid facing the facts?
I see two possible explainations for your posts. Vanity or denial
Note: The anti-war nations want inspections (and wanted continued sanctions) to continue.
Note: After 12 years of inspections and a mere two weeks before war, UNMOVIC released a 170+ page report detailing disarmament issues Hussein still hadn't resolved.
So tell me, bunge, how was Iraq going to be disarmed? (8200 people killed every month waiting for that answer)
Basically, you went out on a limb and thought your support somehow was helping people, but you were let down.
No, just like your opposition didn't mean a damned thing neither did my support. I just support(ed) war because it was the right thing.
Quote:
But denial of reality is exactly how such suffering gets justified.
What reality? I think denying the reality of what the anti-war movement advocated is one of the more glaring instances of hypocrisy I've ever seen.
You supported sanctions slaughter over war. That's fact, if it's too uncomfortable for you to face that's your problem.
I knew what I was supporting when I advocated war, did you know what you advocated? Or do you think posting "blah blah blah" absolves you?
Quote:
on't you realize how far you are grasping for anything that helps you avoid facing the facts?
What facts? That Bush lied? BIG ****ING DEAL. Never once has Bush's honesty been a factor in any of my decisions, as I've been saying since 6 months before the goddam war started.
Here are a couple of facts you'll love to ignore ("blah blah blah"):
The 1 month war took ~6000 lives.
1 month of sanctions (which you advocated over war): 8200
Not only that, but your preferred route would've taken 8200 lives every month until your ambiguous and non-specific solution came to fruition. But they are over now.
[groverat's feeble attempt at trying to rejustify the war in human rights terms now that his WMD argument has crumbled]
I guess I have to repost what I posted earlier:
Quote:
Giant, from the previous page:
Do people not think through anything? Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq. If the goal is to make life as pleasant as possible for the most people, or for the people that are suffering the most, there are many places that are MUCH more in need of our help than Iraq. Like...oh, maybe...Afghanistan. Or have you forgotten along with everyone else? Or have you just not noticed that Afghanistan is getting little substantial help from the US, and certainly nothing close to the scale of Iraq. Maybe you are unaware of what going on in Congo. Hell, we could go down a whole list of regions that make Iraq seem like disneyland.
Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists? Isn't it ironic that perhaps one of the biggest human rights offenses the regime committed in the last year was to release the prisoners?!?!
And how is it that someone in one of the last developed countries to execute prisoners is condemning another nation for doing the same thing?
PS: I should also remind you that those large mass graves in the south were very much our fault, too, since we prompted the uprising and basically handed them to the Iraqis. Also those deaths happened in the context of a civil war, of which there are many [that result in millions of deaths] that we never get involved in.
The piss-poor attempt to paint this as a great humanitarian mission is sick and deceitful.
It is a list of a metric assload of very important question Hussein never answered.
Not really. why not provide examples that constitue a threat.
Quote:
How about this, give me one piece of evidence that I give a shit about WMD and said they were there and your demand will make sense.
For the umpteenth time:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.
Quote:
That is a false dichotomy.
You cannot disprove the very real human suffering there by saying "there's suffering other places, too."
If we are waging war to ease human suffering, Iraq is not the best way to do it.
But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.
Not really. why not provide examples that constitue a threat.
So disarmament is connected somehow to threat status? If so you might want to inform the UN-SC of your new insight into geo-politics, such a caveat for disarmament hasn't made its way into a single document or resolution they have produced.
Quote:
If we are waging war to ease human suffering, Iraq is not the best way to do it.
Waging a war on human suffering in Iraq is best done by removing both Hussein and the sanctions. Which is what war did. You'll notice I didn't say we're going to fix Congolese rebellion by ousting Hussein.
You build straw men to tear them down, you are not good at this.
Quote:
But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.
But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.
YES. Lets focus on this instead of what Grovy said or didn´t say. The importent thing is what the prez said to defend the war and not what some goat beard growing Marylin Manson listening individual said.
On a side note: I think Grovy got his ass covered here. But no matter what he do he can´t cover Georgies ass.
Waging a war on human suffering in Iraq is best done by removing both Hussein and the sanctions. Which is what war did. You'll notice I didn't say we're going to fix Congolese rebellion by ousting Hussein.
But why in Iraq. If we can save more people in much more dire situations by focusing elsewhere, then why start a war in Iraq?
So disarmament is connected somehow to threat status?
Yes. Note that the US, through the UN, focused on Weapons of Mass Destruction (as you did, if you need a refresher go to the beginning of the thread) because they are threat. Not because they are environmentally unsound. Not because they ruin the decor. The are targeted because of the threat.
Why do I have to dumb this down so much for you. Are you just playing stupid?
Then the war wouldn't have happened. Look at how much everyone here was attacked when we were posting the PNAC and Perle docs explaining the motivations in their own words. Those who supported the war couldn't deal with the truth then and they apparently can't deal with it even with it beating them over the head.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
So, I have tunnel-vision because you say patently absurd things and I merely point them out. Uh-huh. Keep trying.
I say you have tunnel-vision because you lie about what others say to prop up your arguments. It's a Nixon-like paranoid behavior.
Originally posted by groverat
I say you have tunnel-vision because you lie about what others say to prop up your arguments. It's a Nixon-like paranoid behavior.
Look, they haven't found them. They aren't going to ether. The fact that you say it doesn't matter, doesn't matter. They lied or at the best bent the truth to get this war going. That's wrong in my book ( it'll be wrong in a lot of voters books also ). The fact that you say it doesn't matter, doesn't matter. The end didn't justify the means. What they did was Nixon like behavior. The only lie here is from our government. That's about it in a nutshell. No amount of spin doctoring or obfuscation on your part ( or theirs ) will change that. Acts like these cheapen and tarnish the whole meaning of our country and it's values. Shame on you for supporting it.
The end didn't justify the means.
Tell me, jimmac, what was the end you are talking about?
In a system as complex and inherently corrupt and self-interest-driven as international politics the end can certainly justify the means; we don't live in a world governed by the Tao te Ching, we live in the real world.
If someone lies to remove a corrupt dictator and remove a slaughter, whether or not that's the liar's goal it is a worthy end. For you to say it is better to sacrifice 1.2 million more Iraqi lives at the bungling hand of the UN Security Council than to pervert some ambiguous idea is on the level of a sociopathic monster.
In the ideal, the US should stand for freedom, that should be the value. And under Saddam and the UN's method of keeping him and power there was no freedom. Now there is a chance for freedom.
You choose international politik over freedom, jimmac, and if you cannot face that you are lying to yourself. To constantly harp on the fact that a politician lied shows a glaring lack of reason and foresight in your position.
Originally posted by bunge
You said the world needed war to 'cleanse' Iraq of WMD. Rumsfeld disagrees with you.
Are you going to admit you were wrong?
I guess Groverat, you're not going to admit it?
Originally posted by bunge
I guess Groverat, you're not going to admit it?
I'm tired of being fake quoted, bunge, so quote a statement that I made that you think is wrong. Don't paraphrase me in your own words.
Do a little legwork.
Originally posted by groverat
Do a little legwork.
So you are unwilling to admit it?
Originally posted by groverat
In a system blah, blah, blah...
The game you are playing is dangerous. No matter how many times the brick hits you in the head, you keep trying to concoct a explaination to convince yourself that that either you aren't getting hit or that somehow the wounds are good for you. Basically, you went out on a limb and thought your support somehow was helping people, but you were let down.
But denial of reality is exactly how such suffering gets justified. If you really want to help people, stop playing games with yourself, be a man and realize that you've been had. Don't you realize how far you are grasping for anything that helps you avoid facing the facts?
I see two possible explainations for your posts. Vanity or denial
Originally posted by groverat
I'm tired of being fake quoted, bunge, so quote a statement that I made that you think is wrong. Don't paraphrase me in your own words.
Do a little legwork.
does this help?
Originally posted by groverat
[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.
It's your second post in this thread
Note: Iraq isn't disarmed.
Note: The anti-war nations want inspections (and wanted continued sanctions) to continue.
Note: After 12 years of inspections and a mere two weeks before war, UNMOVIC released a 170+ page report detailing disarmament issues Hussein still hadn't resolved.
So tell me, bunge, how was Iraq going to be disarmed? (8200 people killed every month waiting for that answer)
Basically, you went out on a limb and thought your support somehow was helping people, but you were let down.
No, just like your opposition didn't mean a damned thing neither did my support. I just support(ed) war because it was the right thing.
But denial of reality is exactly how such suffering gets justified.
What reality? I think denying the reality of what the anti-war movement advocated is one of the more glaring instances of hypocrisy I've ever seen.
You supported sanctions slaughter over war. That's fact, if it's too uncomfortable for you to face that's your problem.
I knew what I was supporting when I advocated war, did you know what you advocated? Or do you think posting "blah blah blah" absolves you?
on't you realize how far you are grasping for anything that helps you avoid facing the facts?
What facts? That Bush lied? BIG ****ING DEAL. Never once has Bush's honesty been a factor in any of my decisions, as I've been saying since 6 months before the goddam war started.
Here are a couple of facts you'll love to ignore ("blah blah blah"):
The 1 month war took ~6000 lives.
1 month of sanctions (which you advocated over war): 8200
Not only that, but your preferred route would've taken 8200 lives every month until your ambiguous and non-specific solution came to fruition. But they are over now.
So what was the price of war in human terms?
What was the price of "diplomacy" in human terms?
6,000 v. 1.2 million?
I like my side more.
"blah blah blah"
You really need to stop citing that document until you understand it.
How about this. Give me one piece of evidence that Iraq had a weapon that was a threat to the US.
Originally posted by groverat
[groverat's feeble attempt at trying to rejustify the war in human rights terms now that his WMD argument has crumbled]
I guess I have to repost what I posted earlier:
Giant, from the previous page:
Do people not think through anything? Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq. If the goal is to make life as pleasant as possible for the most people, or for the people that are suffering the most, there are many places that are MUCH more in need of our help than Iraq. Like...oh, maybe...Afghanistan. Or have you forgotten along with everyone else? Or have you just not noticed that Afghanistan is getting little substantial help from the US, and certainly nothing close to the scale of Iraq. Maybe you are unaware of what going on in Congo. Hell, we could go down a whole list of regions that make Iraq seem like disneyland.
Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists? Isn't it ironic that perhaps one of the biggest human rights offenses the regime committed in the last year was to release the prisoners?!?!
And how is it that someone in one of the last developed countries to execute prisoners is condemning another nation for doing the same thing?
PS: I should also remind you that those large mass graves in the south were very much our fault, too, since we prompted the uprising and basically handed them to the Iraqis. Also those deaths happened in the context of a civil war, of which there are many [that result in millions of deaths] that we never get involved in.
The piss-poor attempt to paint this as a great humanitarian mission is sick and deceitful.
You are playing games. Iraq was not a threat. Period. War was not justified.
Since when did I say the justification for the war hinged on Iraq's status as a threat?
You really need to stop citing that document until you understand it.
I understand it. It is a list of a metric assload of very important question Hussein never answered.
How about this. Give me one piece of evidence that Iraq had a weapon that was a threat to the US.
How about this, give me one piece of evidence that I give a shit about WMD and said they were there and your demand will make sense.
Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq.
That is a false dichotomy.
You cannot disprove the very real human suffering there by saying "there's suffering other places, too."
It's bad logic.
Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists?
More than 200,000 people went missing under Saddam...
The Guardian
Yeah, this guy wasn't all that bad after all! You're right, giant, definitely not a problem worth dealing with seriously.
I think defending Hussein is the sickest thing one can do in this debate.
Originally posted by groverat
It is a list of a metric assload of very important question Hussein never answered.
Not really. why not provide examples that constitue a threat.
How about this, give me one piece of evidence that I give a shit about WMD and said they were there and your demand will make sense.
For the umpteenth time:
Originally posted by groverat
[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.
That is a false dichotomy.
You cannot disprove the very real human suffering there by saying "there's suffering other places, too."
If we are waging war to ease human suffering, Iraq is not the best way to do it.
But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.
Not really. why not provide examples that constitue a threat.
So disarmament is connected somehow to threat status? If so you might want to inform the UN-SC of your new insight into geo-politics, such a caveat for disarmament hasn't made its way into a single document or resolution they have produced.
If we are waging war to ease human suffering, Iraq is not the best way to do it.
Waging a war on human suffering in Iraq is best done by removing both Hussein and the sanctions. Which is what war did. You'll notice I didn't say we're going to fix Congolese rebellion by ousting Hussein.
You build straw men to tear them down, you are not good at this.
But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.
Reality doesn't matter because a politician lied.
Moral victories abound!
Originally posted by giant
But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.
YES. Lets focus on this instead of what Grovy said or didn´t say. The importent thing is what the prez said to defend the war and not what some goat beard growing Marylin Manson listening individual said.
On a side note: I think Grovy got his ass covered here. But no matter what he do he can´t cover Georgies ass.
Originally posted by groverat
Waging a war on human suffering in Iraq is best done by removing both Hussein and the sanctions. Which is what war did. You'll notice I didn't say we're going to fix Congolese rebellion by ousting Hussein.
But why in Iraq. If we can save more people in much more dire situations by focusing elsewhere, then why start a war in Iraq?
Originally posted by groverat
So disarmament is connected somehow to threat status?
Yes. Note that the US, through the UN, focused on Weapons of Mass Destruction (as you did, if you need a refresher go to the beginning of the thread) because they are threat. Not because they are environmentally unsound. Not because they ruin the decor. The are targeted because of the threat.
Why do I have to dumb this down so much for you. Are you just playing stupid?
Originally posted by groverat
Reality doesn't matter because a politician lied.
Moral victories abound!
Reality matters and should have been explained.
"No we don´t know if he has WoMD but we want him away from the power solely because of what he does to his people"
Explain it like it is and get backing based on the truth.
If politicians lie to invade a country and put servicemens life in danger something is very wrong.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Reality matters and should have been explained.
Then the war wouldn't have happened. Look at how much everyone here was attacked when we were posting the PNAC and Perle docs explaining the motivations in their own words. Those who supported the war couldn't deal with the truth then and they apparently can't deal with it even with it beating them over the head.