Johnny one-note. Get off it. SDW understood. You didn't. Big deal. It isn't the end of the world. It might be nice if at some point you'd figure things out, though.
Let's see...
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
First, his post DOES make sense. Let me offer this though:...he seems to want to intervene for humanitarian reasons and peacekeeping missions. He is opposed to large scale invasions with serious risk of casualties, it would seem (I'm being general of course).... In Liberia, we'll have a small comittment of troops over an indefinite period of time (as we do in countless other places). This in itself isn't a problem....
Actually, you're wrong. SDW and I are in agreement on a lot of this. It's not hypocritical and your post makes indefensible assumptions.
But you can say what Dean would or wouldn't do in a hypothetical situation?
No silly, hypothetical situations are not important. That's why the original post makes no sense.
You can think harder than this, groverat. You know I don't have to prove what Dean would have done in the case of Iraq. Zaphod has to prove he wouldn't have supported a humanitarian effort with a low number of troops and a finite period of time. Of course, Zaphod can't prove that because it is a hypothetical.
Again, that's why the thread makes no sense. Even SDW can see there's a difference between the two 'wars', even if politically Dean might get skewered for this decision.
You can think harder than this, groverat. You know I don't have to prove what Dean would have done in the case of Iraq. Zaphod has to prove he wouldn't have supported a humanitarian effort with a low number of troops and a finite period of time. Of course, Zaphod can't prove that because it is a hypothetical.
I don't give a crap about Zaphod. You said Dean would've supported a humanitarian case for war. You are full of shit. This has nothing to do with zaphod, at all. You take responsibility for what you say.
Quote:
Again, that's why the thread makes no sense. Even SDW can see there's a difference between the two 'wars', even if politically Dean might get skewered for this decision.
Sure there's a difference but I haven't seen a thorough explanation of how that absolves his hypocrisy if we're so goddam concerned about politicians being forthright.
I don't give a crap about Zaphod. You said Dean would've supported a humanitarian case for war. You are full of shit. This has nothing to do with zaphod, at all. You take responsibility for what you say.
Stretch as far as you can groverat.
Dean is supporting a humanitarian case for military intervention. Because he's doing so, it's not that far of a stretch to imagine that he would also support a humanitarian case for military intervention.
I realize that the differences between the two are that one is exactly the same as the other, and that's confusing to you, because it means you're pointless here.
Dean is supporting a humanitarian case for military intervention. Because he's doing so, it's not that far of a stretch to imagine that he would also support a humanitarian case for military intervention.
I realize that the differences between the two are that one is exactly the same as the other, and that's confusing to you, because it means you're pointless here.
I don't know If I agree. I think he'd pretty much oppose Iraq no matter what.
Dean is supporting a humanitarian case for military intervention. Because he's doing so, it's not that far of a stretch to imagine that he would also support a humanitarian case for military intervention.
It is not politically tenable to oppose intervention in Liberia. You have no idea what Dean would have said about an official humanitarian reasoning for war in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein makes Charles Taylor look like a saint. Is Dean incapable of independent thought? Of course not, he's a politician who knows the game that fools people like you.
It is not politically tenable to oppose intervention in Liberia. You have no idea what Dean would have said about an official humanitarian reasoning for war in Iraq.
groverat,
Attack the logic, not the semantics. You're wasting your time.
Actually, you're wrong. SDW and I are in agreement on a lot of this. It's not hypocritical and your post makes indefensible assumptions.
What did I assume? I linked to an article that described Dean's attempt to distinguish between the two. "Dean argued there's no inconsistency in opposing the war in Iraq while backing intervention in Africa. He said Bush never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world." But that DOESN'T explain the difference between what we are doing in Iraq with a possible Liberian intervention. If, according to Dean, Iraq posed no threat it certainly cannot be argued that Liberia does. Yes, the two actions will be very different. But Dean hasn't explained why we should do Liberia and not Iraq.
But Dean hasn't explained why we should do Liberia and not Iraq.
I think you're missing Dean's point.
Bush made a weak case for intervention in Iraq. There is a stronger case for intervention in Liberia.
If Bush had made a strong case for intervention based out of humanitarian need and Dean was against the plan, then supporting a plan to go into Liberia would (could) be hypocritical. Or conversely, if Bush wanted to send troops into Liberia to take it over, I'd imagine Dean would be against that.
Two separate motives for intervention define Dean's reasons for support. It's not very clear in the article, but that's what it comes down to for him.
Assuming he has one, that would be because the argument he made was opaque.
Quote:
... There is a stronger case for intervention in Liberia.
Nonsense.
Quote:
... Or conversely, if Bush wanted to send troops into Liberia to take it over, I'd imagine Dean would be against that.
Two separate motives for intervention define Dean's reasons for support. It's not very clear in the article, but that's what it comes down to for him.
We didn't go into Iraq to take the country over. The occupation there won't last forever. Liberia is a failed state. If we go to Liberia, the end of Charles Taylor's 14 years of misrule had better be a key part of the plan.
Assuming he has one, that would be because the argument he made was opaque.
Or it could just be a hack editing job by the person writing the article.
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Nonsense.
I'll rephrase my assertion: the humanitarian case for intervention in Liberia is stronger than the WMD case was for Iraq. There is no hyprocrisy in that statement and no hyprocrisy from Dean. Sorry.
Dean is NOT a pacifist. He certainly has pacifists talking, but he's closer to an old-school Democrat like LBJ than a left-wing peacenik. He has gone on record supporting the first Gulf War, interventions in Bosnia and Somalia, etc.
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a clear and present humanitarian disaster going on in Liberia and there was no clear and present danger from WMD (as far as we know, yes yes I know we're still looking but come on..he said IMMINENT! one would think that such an imminent threat would show itself fairly quickly...IMMINENT!!).
Sure, there was a humanitarian disaster going on in Iraq too but that was not what the war was originally sold on so it's disingenuous to that was the reason we went in. Saying so is blatant revisionist history.
as far as we know, yes yes I know we're still looking but come on..he said IMMINENT! one would think that such an imminent threat would show itself fairly quickly...IMMINENT!!
It depends on what your definition of "imminent" is
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a clear and present humanitarian disaster going on in Liberia and there was no clear and present danger from WMD (as far as we know, yes yes I know we're still looking but come on..he said IMMINENT! one would think that such an imminent threat would show itself fairly quickly...IMMINENT!!).
He did NOT say the threat was imminent. Where are you people getting this stuff from? This is what Bush said, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent... Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Johnny one-note. Get off it. SDW understood. You didn't. Big deal. It isn't the end of the world. It might be nice if at some point you'd figure things out, though.
Let's see...
Originally posted by SDW2001
First, his post DOES make sense. Let me offer this though:...he seems to want to intervene for humanitarian reasons and peacekeeping missions. He is opposed to large scale invasions with serious risk of casualties, it would seem (I'm being general of course).... In Liberia, we'll have a small comittment of troops over an indefinite period of time (as we do in countless other places). This in itself isn't a problem....
Actually, you're wrong. SDW and I are in agreement on a lot of this. It's not hypocritical and your post makes indefensible assumptions.
Originally posted by groverat
But you can say what Dean would or wouldn't do in a hypothetical situation?
No silly, hypothetical situations are not important. That's why the original post makes no sense.
You can think harder than this, groverat. You know I don't have to prove what Dean would have done in the case of Iraq. Zaphod has to prove he wouldn't have supported a humanitarian effort with a low number of troops and a finite period of time. Of course, Zaphod can't prove that because it is a hypothetical.
Again, that's why the thread makes no sense. Even SDW can see there's a difference between the two 'wars', even if politically Dean might get skewered for this decision.
bunge, the beauty of having the old posts below the box where you type is that you can see all of the thread posts at once.
it's annoying to have to read through post after post after post from the same person. a rather annoying forum habit.
You can think harder than this, groverat. You know I don't have to prove what Dean would have done in the case of Iraq. Zaphod has to prove he wouldn't have supported a humanitarian effort with a low number of troops and a finite period of time. Of course, Zaphod can't prove that because it is a hypothetical.
I don't give a crap about Zaphod. You said Dean would've supported a humanitarian case for war. You are full of shit. This has nothing to do with zaphod, at all. You take responsibility for what you say.
Again, that's why the thread makes no sense. Even SDW can see there's a difference between the two 'wars', even if politically Dean might get skewered for this decision.
Sure there's a difference but I haven't seen a thorough explanation of how that absolves his hypocrisy if we're so goddam concerned about politicians being forthright.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't give a crap about Zaphod. You said Dean would've supported a humanitarian case for war. You are full of shit. This has nothing to do with zaphod, at all. You take responsibility for what you say.
Stretch as far as you can groverat.
Dean is supporting a humanitarian case for military intervention. Because he's doing so, it's not that far of a stretch to imagine that he would also support a humanitarian case for military intervention.
I realize that the differences between the two are that one is exactly the same as the other, and that's confusing to you, because it means you're pointless here.
Originally posted by bunge
Stretch as far as you can groverat.
Dean is supporting a humanitarian case for military intervention. Because he's doing so, it's not that far of a stretch to imagine that he would also support a humanitarian case for military intervention.
I realize that the differences between the two are that one is exactly the same as the other, and that's confusing to you, because it means you're pointless here.
I don't know If I agree. I think he'd pretty much oppose Iraq no matter what.
Dean is supporting a humanitarian case for military intervention. Because he's doing so, it's not that far of a stretch to imagine that he would also support a humanitarian case for military intervention.
It is not politically tenable to oppose intervention in Liberia. You have no idea what Dean would have said about an official humanitarian reasoning for war in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein makes Charles Taylor look like a saint. Is Dean incapable of independent thought? Of course not, he's a politician who knows the game that fools people like you.
Originally posted by groverat
It is not politically tenable to oppose intervention in Liberia. You have no idea what Dean would have said about an official humanitarian reasoning for war in Iraq.
groverat,
Attack the logic, not the semantics. You're wasting your time.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually, you're wrong. SDW and I are in agreement on a lot of this. It's not hypocritical and your post makes indefensible assumptions.
What did I assume? I linked to an article that described Dean's attempt to distinguish between the two. "Dean argued there's no inconsistency in opposing the war in Iraq while backing intervention in Africa. He said Bush never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world." But that DOESN'T explain the difference between what we are doing in Iraq with a possible Liberian intervention. If, according to Dean, Iraq posed no threat it certainly cannot be argued that Liberia does. Yes, the two actions will be very different. But Dean hasn't explained why we should do Liberia and not Iraq.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
But Dean hasn't explained why we should do Liberia and not Iraq.
I think you're missing Dean's point.
Bush made a weak case for intervention in Iraq. There is a stronger case for intervention in Liberia.
If Bush had made a strong case for intervention based out of humanitarian need and Dean was against the plan, then supporting a plan to go into Liberia would (could) be hypocritical. Or conversely, if Bush wanted to send troops into Liberia to take it over, I'd imagine Dean would be against that.
Two separate motives for intervention define Dean's reasons for support. It's not very clear in the article, but that's what it comes down to for him.
Originally posted by bunge
I think you're missing Dean's point.
Assuming he has one, that would be because the argument he made was opaque.
... There is a stronger case for intervention in Liberia.
Nonsense.
... Or conversely, if Bush wanted to send troops into Liberia to take it over, I'd imagine Dean would be against that.
Two separate motives for intervention define Dean's reasons for support. It's not very clear in the article, but that's what it comes down to for him.
We didn't go into Iraq to take the country over. The occupation there won't last forever. Liberia is a failed state. If we go to Liberia, the end of Charles Taylor's 14 years of misrule had better be a key part of the plan.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Assuming he has one, that would be because the argument he made was opaque.
Or it could just be a hack editing job by the person writing the article.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Nonsense.
I'll rephrase my assertion: the humanitarian case for intervention in Liberia is stronger than the WMD case was for Iraq. There is no hyprocrisy in that statement and no hyprocrisy from Dean. Sorry.
I'll rephrase my assertion: the humanitarian case for intervention in Liberia is stronger than the WMD case was for Iraq.
Please explain this.
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
Please explain this.
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a clear and present humanitarian disaster going on in Liberia and there was no clear and present danger from WMD (as far as we know, yes yes I know we're still looking but come on..he said IMMINENT! one would think that such an imminent threat would show itself fairly quickly...IMMINENT!!).
Sure, there was a humanitarian disaster going on in Iraq too but that was not what the war was originally sold on so it's disingenuous to that was the reason we went in. Saying so is blatant revisionist history.
Originally posted by BR
as far as we know, yes yes I know we're still looking but come on..he said IMMINENT! one would think that such an imminent threat would show itself fairly quickly...IMMINENT!!
It depends on what your definition of "imminent" is
Originally posted by Anders
It depends on what your definition of "imminent" is
AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAYHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAA
Originally posted by Anders
It depends on what your definition of "imminent" is
the definition of imminent doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.
Originally posted by BR
I think what he is trying to say is that there is a clear and present humanitarian disaster going on in Liberia and there was no clear and present danger from WMD (as far as we know, yes yes I know we're still looking but come on..he said IMMINENT! one would think that such an imminent threat would show itself fairly quickly...IMMINENT!!).
He did NOT say the threat was imminent. Where are you people getting this stuff from? This is what Bush said, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent... Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."