Sorry but justifacation is everything. The president had to lie to get the ball rolling on this. That makes it wrong no matter what the outcome.
Please reread. giant asked for my justification for going to war with iraq instead of dealing with the Pakistani problem. My response was that my justification was not the point, because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was not addressing the order in which people feel the problems should have been dealt with. Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
Sure it does. You can't make the car go forward by first turning the engine off and then pressing the brake.
Please reread. giant asked for my justification for going to war with iraq instead of dealing with the Pakistani problem. My response was that my justification was not the point, because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was not addressing the order in which people feel the problems should have been dealt with. Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
Well, considering the Bush admin tried every justification in the book, I'm really curious what this mystery justification of your is. Was you favorite candy manufactured there or something and you couldn't get it because of the sanctions?
" Justification is not the point. The point is that if someone believes it is better to first have Saddam Hussein removed from his position of leadership in Iraq than it is to deal with pakistan, that does not make them misinformed. They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution. "
This is the leap in logic that simply eludes me, Giant.
Aside from the general "Bush is evil" doctrine your side holds to, I can't see how this thinking holds up to scrutiny.
The same crowd saying 'Bush should have acted on this' is the EXACT SAME crowd that's always crowing about why the US should not act unilaterally, and work through UN channels.
"your side"
"same crowd"
This is so lame. I see this kind of tactic from followers of both of the major parties and it is so so very childish.
Address giant as giant. Does it really do anything to talk in terms of "your side" this that and the other....
Musharraf won't hand him over no matter what Bush does, so what do you suggest the United States do?
Even as giant mentioned, it's a moot point to really do anything about him now. He isn't giving anymore secrets, which in turn makes me wonder why you guys see the need to go after him. Do you want to jail him? Have a trial?
Musharraf won't hand him over no matter what Bush does, so what do you suggest the United States do?
Even as giant mentioned, it's a moot point to really do anything about him now. He isn't giving anymore secrets, which in turn makes me wonder why you guys see the need to go after him. Do you want to jail him? Have a trial?
I believe his assets should be seized as they were gained in a criminal way. These assets should be used for efforts of combating the proliferation of WMD.
He should serve a prison term after cooperating with US intel as to what exactly went on. When where and who is involved.
Should he be a free man after doing what he has done? No.
Please reread. giant asked for my justification for going to war with iraq instead of dealing with the Pakistani problem. My response was that my justification was not the point, because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was not addressing the order in which people feel the problems should have been dealt with. Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
thanks.
It is disengenuous at this point to act as if it is a given that Iraq was part of some kind of "to do" list and that the debate is over what order.
The entire contention is that the invasion of Iraq made no sense given the realities of relative threat levels to the US.
It is now apparent that this is in fact the case.
We invaded a country that posed no threat to us. None. There is simply no other way to read the information available.
This is the point over which it is no longer a matter of opinion, or agreeing to disagee, or giving every side its due.
By invading a country that posed no threat, we have squandered American lives, resources and credibility on the wrong target. We have diminished resources for actual threats.
It's about national security now. It's about my personal dislike of being vaporized by a satchel nuke because my president had some damn jones for Iraq. It's about actually fighting a war on terrorism, instead of pretending.
Is Saddam Hussein now being brought to justice? Yes.
Many people don't support nor condone starting a war under false pretenses. But they do support the removal of a brutal dictator, wether or not that's the reason that was sold to them for invasion.
Is Saddam Hussein now being brought to justice? Yes.
Many people don't support nor condone starting a war under false pretenses. But they do support the removal of a brutal dictator, wether or not that's the reason that was sold to them for invasion.
Which would be lovely if we were a country of limitless resources and could afford to fight any battles we liked.
The point is that there are a lot of brutal dictators that we could bring to justice by invading their country, but that would be unwise given that we are alledgedly fight a war on terror.
And as per the thread topic, I would feel much better if the Bush administration were concentrating our full resources on things like making sure terrorists don't get there hands on a nuclear weapon.
Instead of ascribing a nuclear capability to Iraq that the intellegence made clear they didn't have.
This is so lame. I see this kind of tactic from followers of both of the major parties and it is so so very childish.
Address giant as giant. Does it really do anything to talk in terms of "your side" this that and the other....
??
Fellows
First of all, check out my location. I'm a CANADIAN, so I'm a "follower" of neither of your major parties.
Giant raises good arguments that everyone knows is held to by a large cross-section of US (and even world) opinion. He's not some crackpot loner living in a Montana cabin.
I see nothing childish about questioning his arguments and referring to the proponents of these arguments in the plural sense.
Perhaps now we can get back to discussing the issues at hand...
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but justifacation is everything. The president had to lie to get the ball rolling on this. That makes it wrong no matter what the outcome.
Please reread. giant asked for my justification for going to war with iraq instead of dealing with the Pakistani problem. My response was that my justification was not the point, because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was not addressing the order in which people feel the problems should have been dealt with. Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
thanks.
Originally posted by rageous
Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
Sure it does. You can't make the car go forward by first turning the engine off and then pressing the brake.
Originally posted by rageous
Please reread. giant asked for my justification for going to war with iraq instead of dealing with the Pakistani problem. My response was that my justification was not the point, because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was not addressing the order in which people feel the problems should have been dealt with. Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
thanks.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by giant
Well, considering the Bush admin tried every justification in the book, I'm really curious what this mystery justification of your is. Was you favorite candy manufactured there or something and you couldn't get it because of the sanctions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from you
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Justification is not the point. The point is that if someone believes it is better to first have Saddam Hussein removed from his position of leadership in Iraq than it is to deal with pakistan, that does not make them misinformed. They simply have a different opinion as to the order in which to approach all the situations that need resolution. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but that was what it sounded like to me.
Originally posted by Frank777
This is the leap in logic that simply eludes me, Giant.
Aside from the general "Bush is evil" doctrine your side holds to, I can't see how this thinking holds up to scrutiny.
The same crowd saying 'Bush should have acted on this' is the EXACT SAME crowd that's always crowing about why the US should not act unilaterally, and work through UN channels.
"your side"
"same crowd"
This is so lame. I see this kind of tactic from followers of both of the major parties and it is so so very childish.
Address giant as giant. Does it really do anything to talk in terms of "your side" this that and the other....
??
Fellows
Musharraf won't hand him over no matter what Bush does, so what do you suggest the United States do?
Even as giant mentioned, it's a moot point to really do anything about him now. He isn't giving anymore secrets, which in turn makes me wonder why you guys see the need to go after him. Do you want to jail him? Have a trial?
Originally posted by Fellowship
"your side"
"same crowd"
This is so lame. I see this kind of tactic from followers of both of the major parties and it is so so very childish.
Address giant as giant. Does it really do anything to talk in terms of "your side" this that and the other....
??
Fellows
I'll ask you directly Fellowship:
Would you be willing to see the United States undertake a unilateral action to capture or eliminate A.Q. Kahn?
Originally posted by job
I have an open question to Fellowship and giant:
Musharraf won't hand him over no matter what Bush does, so what do you suggest the United States do?
Even as giant mentioned, it's a moot point to really do anything about him now. He isn't giving anymore secrets, which in turn makes me wonder why you guys see the need to go after him. Do you want to jail him? Have a trial?
I believe his assets should be seized as they were gained in a criminal way. These assets should be used for efforts of combating the proliferation of WMD.
He should serve a prison term after cooperating with US intel as to what exactly went on. When where and who is involved.
Should he be a free man after doing what he has done? No.
fellows
Originally posted by job
I'll ask you directly Fellowship:
Would you be willing to see the United States undertake a unilateral action to capture or eliminate A.Q. Kahn?
I am not qualified to answer this. I would need more information first before I could have a reply to this.
fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
He should serve a prison term after cooperating with US intel as to what exactly went on. When where and who is involved.
Should he be a free man after doing what he has done? No.
fellows
How is the US going to get him, especially when Pakistan won't give him up?
I agree that what he did could come back and haunt us, but as a Pakistani national we have no legal jurisdiction over him.
Originally posted by rageous
Please reread. giant asked for my justification for going to war with iraq instead of dealing with the Pakistani problem. My response was that my justification was not the point, because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was not addressing the order in which people feel the problems should have been dealt with. Instead I was addressing the idea that people have the right to have different ideas as to which order problems should be dealt with, and no certain order makes one opinion more informed than another.
thanks.
It is disengenuous at this point to act as if it is a given that Iraq was part of some kind of "to do" list and that the debate is over what order.
The entire contention is that the invasion of Iraq made no sense given the realities of relative threat levels to the US.
It is now apparent that this is in fact the case.
We invaded a country that posed no threat to us. None. There is simply no other way to read the information available.
This is the point over which it is no longer a matter of opinion, or agreeing to disagee, or giving every side its due.
By invading a country that posed no threat, we have squandered American lives, resources and credibility on the wrong target. We have diminished resources for actual threats.
It's about national security now. It's about my personal dislike of being vaporized by a satchel nuke because my president had some damn jones for Iraq. It's about actually fighting a war on terrorism, instead of pretending.
Is Saddam Hussein now being brought to justice? Yes.
Many people don't support nor condone starting a war under false pretenses. But they do support the removal of a brutal dictator, wether or not that's the reason that was sold to them for invasion.
Originally posted by rageous
Did Iraq pose a threat? Nope.
Is Saddam Hussein now being brought to justice? Yes.
Many people don't support nor condone starting a war under false pretenses. But they do support the removal of a brutal dictator, wether or not that's the reason that was sold to them for invasion.
Which would be lovely if we were a country of limitless resources and could afford to fight any battles we liked.
The point is that there are a lot of brutal dictators that we could bring to justice by invading their country, but that would be unwise given that we are alledgedly fight a war on terror.
And as per the thread topic, I would feel much better if the Bush administration were concentrating our full resources on things like making sure terrorists don't get there hands on a nuclear weapon.
Instead of ascribing a nuclear capability to Iraq that the intellegence made clear they didn't have.
Right?
Originally posted by Fellowship
"your side"
"same crowd"
This is so lame. I see this kind of tactic from followers of both of the major parties and it is so so very childish.
Address giant as giant. Does it really do anything to talk in terms of "your side" this that and the other....
??
Fellows
First of all, check out my location. I'm a CANADIAN, so I'm a "follower" of neither of your major parties.
Giant raises good arguments that everyone knows is held to by a large cross-section of US (and even world) opinion. He's not some crackpot loner living in a Montana cabin.
I see nothing childish about questioning his arguments and referring to the proponents of these arguments in the plural sense.
Perhaps now we can get back to discussing the issues at hand...
Originally posted by Fellowship
Honestly they both make me sick to my stomache.
I may not vote
Fellowship
i hear ya. i will not vote for president this year
Originally posted by burningwheel
i hear ya. i will not vote for president this year
Wow. You just threw a match into a gas filled room...
I'm not either. Two bonesmen don't make a right.
I want to share a humorous Bush jab I found on my own
...from FARK...sorry, don't know the originator..but a keeper.
Originally posted by rageous
of course it's also possible that if everyone who didn't vote in fact did, he could've won by a far larger margin...
Yes but since Gore won the popular vote by a pretty fair margin that's not indicated. You can thank the electoral college for Mr. Bush.