Yeah I guess it was a lot better when it was their dictator killing his people and ordering all the executions

Big govt FTW

8/19/2009 12:06:04 PM

it has been a tradeoff. the average citizen was much safer then. i guess as long as it isn't the official gov't killing people it's okay? anyway, imposing a democracy on a country (especially in a region with the inherent issues the middle east has) is very unlikely to work.

8/19/2009 12:13:47 PM

^^ From the average iraqi citizen's perspective, it probably WAS a lot better. I would imagine it's probably easier to live under a dictator than it is to live with the daily threat of terrorism.

In any case, this ship has sailed years ago. There's no going back to a dictator, and unless we have one of things like in MIB that wipes peoples' minds, it's going to be difficult to unify the cultural and political factions in Iraq that a careless war unleashed on their country, without violence. But the more the Iraqis know they have to work towards a true solution, the better.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 12:16:19 PM

Quote :

"imposing a democracy on a country (especially in a region with the inherent issues the middle east has) is very unlikely to work."

half of Obama's policies might be very unlikely to work, but I doubt you'd be against trying them if you believe in them in principle...but I just don't get it...how do people such as yourself think, for example, every American has a right to health care, but then when it comes to Iraqis you think they're better off with a dictator than freedom...doesn't seem consistent...only Americans should have / strive for freedom?

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 12:23:44 PM

^ "trying" healthcare, and "trying" to impose democracy, which is likely to result in a decade or more of border-line civil war, and terrorist attacks, are completely different.

Surely you didn't need this pointed out for you?

And no one was saying the Iraqis are better off under a dictator. It's not either we invade Iraq or we don't. There are various other ways the Iraq people could have been liberated, including a better planned war, or even a more diplomatic solution.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 12:25:40 PM

No I didn't, and surely you didn't need to even make that post did you?

Its still extremely inconsistent to want all the great rights and freedoms for Americans, but then say "fuck Iraq, they're better off with a dictator than freedom"

Quote :

"no one was saying the Iraqis are better off under a dictator"

Quote :

"From the average iraqi citizen's perspective, it probably WAS a lot better"

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:27 PM. Reason : k]

8/19/2009 12:26:52 PM

^^^,^because we don't have unlimited funds to democratize every country in the world (especially when it's unlikely to work and likely to decrease our standing in the world). also there are faaaar better uses for the sort of money we've spent in iraq both domestically and abroad.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:27 PM. Reason : l]

8/19/2009 12:27:15 PM

I will repost this, in case you didn't see it...

Quote :

"And no one was saying the Iraqis are better off under a dictator. It's not either we invade Iraq or we don't. There are various other ways the Iraq people could have been liberated, including a better planned war, or even a more diplomatic solution."

Not to mention that free Iraq was a justification that was only seriously pushed by the admin after their claims of WMDs were shown to be lies.

(^^ context makes a difference, but nice try)

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 12:27:30 PM

Quote :

"we don't have unlimited funds to democratize every country in the world"

we don't have unlimited funds for universal healthcare either...how should that change whats likely versus whats optimal?

Quote :

"context makes a difference, but nice try"

you can call it context, i'll call it what it is, which is you directly contradicting your previous post

in fact, a shitload of people continue to say Iraq was better off under a dictator...why are you even trying to claim otherwise? Oh yeah, you're sticking to your political guns at all costs

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 12:29:35 PM

yah, i'm really not sure how anyone can try to argue that Iraq was a good idea in retrospect.

If you really believe in supporting the right of people "breath free", you have to realize that freedom is not really a gift we can just hand over. You're talking about re-ordering an entire society, and you simply can't do that with military force.

Now, if America wants to be in the business of spreading freedom, we should do so through "softer" means. Setting an example of a tolerant, pluralistic society is one way. Conditional aid might be another.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 12:30:08 PM

Quote :

" i'm really not sure how anyone can try to argue that Iraq was a good idea in retrospect. "

I argue that we still don't know

People were willing to say the Iraq War was "lost" a couple months after it started...then people started to say "hey maybe the surge is working" when violence decreased...the final product can't be seen after a couple months, nor can it be seen now after 6 years...its still in progress...I guess people in the digital age just aren't patient enough to understand that fact

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 12:35:07 PM

yes. impatience with a six year war which was unnecessary from the start is a result of the digital age. not like people have gotten sick of wars in less time in the past or anything.

8/19/2009 12:36:24 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention that free Iraq was a justification that was only seriously pushed by the admin after their claims of WMDs were shown to be lies."

Hehehe I always love these arguments. They require that the Bush admin must be incredibly brilliant, stupid, and evil...all at the same time!!

Brilliant enough to manufacture evidence for WMDs without any substantial leaks.
Stupid enough to not plant actual WMDs after the invasion (or at least stupid enough to think no one would notice when no WMDs were found)
And Evil enough to try to pull off a fake war to begin wtih!!!!

lol takes me back to 2003, when Dems were not so afraid to offer up crazy conspiracy theories as facts (Bush let 9/11 happen! They lied to get us to go to war! etc)

8/19/2009 12:36:52 PM

^^Its not about if you're sick of the war or not, its about will Iraq eventually have a sustainable democracy in the region

Your and my opinions of how long it should take don't mean shit. I'll always trust what the military commanders say about Iraq over public opinion


[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 12:37:38 PM

^^^^^^ in no way did I directly contradict my previous post.

I feel like i'm explaining something to a 9 year old, but pointing out that the average Iraqi was safer and more comfortable before we fomented mass terrorism in their country is not the same thing as saying they are better off with a dictator.

They were better off with a dictator in terms of daily life, but they would be even MORE better off without a dictator and without massive civil strife underlain with daily terrorist attacks that were imposed on them.

"are" and "were" have different meanings, you know.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 12:39:37 PM

Quote :

"They lied to get us to go to war!"

pretty sure that one's true, boss.

they really WANTED it to be true that pre-war iraq and al-qaeda were linked even though they weren't. and they kept saying that there was a link in the lead-up to the war. if that's not lying, i don't know what is.

8/19/2009 12:40:22 PM

^^Are they better off with a dictator or not?

that question sure is simple and straightforward, unlike your answers to that question, which are all over the fucking place

8/19/2009 12:41:24 PM

sarijoul,

Don't switch arguments in mid-stream. We are talking about WMDs (see moron's original statement). Please show me some solid proof that the Bush admin purposefully lied about Iraq having WMDs that would threated U.S. security.

Now, I will concede that the Bush team apparently made some arguments about a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda based on some pretty thin evidence. But even in that case, I think "lying" would be a bit of stretch.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 12:43:47 PM

i'm sure that varies from person to person, so i'm not going to insult the iraqi people by presuming i know what they think. one thing i can say is that there was less indiscriminant killing pre-war. but it may have been more dangerous for someone who didn't agree with the established politics of the country's rulers. it really is a tradeoff. and i'm sure some people would say that the violence and destruction of infrastructure is a price they're willing to pay for political freedoms. i'm sure others would take their old lives back where they still had loved ones who ended up getting killed in all the violence.

^you were clearly listing examples of dems saying crazy things, i was responding to that. your quote:

Quote :

"Bush let 9/11 happen! They lied to get us to go to war!"

is bush letting 9/11 happen relevant to WMDs?

Quote :

" I think "lying" would be a bit of stretch."

why? americans trusted them to represent intelligence they had truthfully. they didn't do that. i'd call that a pretty major lie. one that likely cost american and iraqi lives. why do you feel the need to protect people who got us into this mess from being call the liars that they were?

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 12:44:38 PM

Quote :

"Are they better off with a dictator or not? that question sure is simple and straightforward, unlike your answers to that question, which are all over the fucking place"

I answered that question several times, very clearly.

They, and no one, is better off with a dictator.

They were, compared to now, better off with Saddam, from the perspective of a safe and comfortable daily life, for the "average" Iraqi.

Answer this question though: Are people better ofg with healthcare?


[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 12:48:41 PM

Are people better off with healthcare than without healthcare? Sure. How they get that healthcare is another story, but yes, people are better off with healthcare than without. Kind of like how people are better off with freedom, than living under a ruthless dictator.

Its just weird...when Bush was in office and put the Patriot Act into effect, everybody was like "no, he's trampling over our freedoms and rights! He's taking our freedoms!"

Yet somehow some of us don't want Iraqis to have those freedoms? That was my initial point (at least after my point about 86 deaths in Iraq this morning and no mention, because Bush isn't in office)

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2009 12:52:36 PM

sarijoul,

Because lying implies an intention to deceive. Simply pointing out that they made arguments that later proved to be incorrect is not the same as proving that they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

Like I said, this type of argument must assume that the Bush admin is both brilliant and stupid. Brilliant enough to concoct a total lie about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda and control the Pentagon and CIA so well they no one leaked the lie. But then stupid enough to not be able control the Pentagon when it concluded in 2008 that there was indeed no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

The reason I feel the need to defend them is because I resit any and all arguments that rely on your opponent being Lex Luther--evil enough to want to capture Superman, smart enough to do it, then dumb enough to leave him alone in an unguarded room.

8/19/2009 12:54:19 PM

Quote :

"Don't switch arguments in mid-stream. We are talking about WMDs (see moron's original statement). Please show me some solid proof that the Bush admin purposefully lied about Iraq having WMDs that would threated U.S. security."

What does "purposefully lied" mean? If you lie not-on-pupose that is an accident or a mistake.

Rumsfeld and Cheney both have videos on youtube saying they "know" Saddam has WMDs and he's getting ready to use them. Yet we now know between CIA reports and other intelligence agencies, none of their evidence was remotely conclusive enough for either one of these figures to "know" with the certainty they stated that Iraq had WMDs. Combine this with the known paranoia Rumsfeld had, as well as what we've recently learned about Cheney from the recent interview about his memoirs (which any sane person suspected anyway), and it seems plainly obvious that they knew they were not being truthful when they made the statements they did.

You can argue that this is normal in politics, because people aren't going to buy a "maybe" position on things, but when it comes to directly intervening with the stability of a country with a 100 million+ population, as well as the lives of our soldiers, politics-as-usual doesn't cut it.

8/19/2009 12:58:02 PM

Quote :

"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them."

Quote :

"I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (APPLAUSE)"

--President Bill Clinton's State Of The Union Address, Jan. 27, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

Clinton must've lied, too.

8/19/2009 12:58:36 PM

^ maybe he did, but he didn't go and destabilize the country, resulting in potentially a hundred thousand + civilian deaths, and 10s of thousands maimed or dead American soldiers, did he?

And 1998 is not 2002. I realize the years blur together as you get older, but try to have some perspective, mmkay?

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 1:00:38 PM

Socks``, you're forgetting 9/11. Bush and Co. didn't have to be brilliant when one of the largest terrorist attacks in world history had just literally stunned the nation. Don't get me wrong...they were masters of PR, but that's all they were. Otherwise, they were an illusion of an administration, and it's hard to keep that up for eight years, especially when a big part of the image is an imagined military triumph...you can't fake that shit (at least not yet).

Anyway, the evidence of WMDs and a 9/11 link was always tenuous, and there were always individuals questioning it. The administration knew this, but they pushed forward anyway.

They purposefully deceived the American public into believing that they had damning evidence when all reports concluded and still conclude that they did not.

That is lying.

8/19/2009 1:12:51 PM

sarijoul,

I should note that how you and I view the causes of the Iraq War probably explains a lot of our disagreements in other discussions.

By thinking the Iraq War was simply caused by electing evil people, your views on the scope of government have not changed and you think we can avoid these types of events if we just don't vote for evil people (which can clearly be identified as Republicans).

By thinking the Iraq War was caused by a combination of honest mistakes compounded by a failure in the way our government is organized (congress never had to vote to go to war and therefore had less incentive to review and debate the evidence carefully), I am much more skeptical of government than I was in 2003 and I think the only way to avoid these types of mistakes again is to reduce the scope of its power.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 1:17:51 PM

Quote :

"maybe he did, but he didn't go and destabilize the country, resulting in potentially a hundred thousand + civilian deaths, and 10s of thousands maimed or dead American soldiers, did he? And 1998 is not 2002. I realize the years blur together as you get older, but try to have some perspective, mmkay?"

moron

Yeah, Clinton just threatened to do something--like most left-wing doofuses:

Quote :

"And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (APPLAUSE)"

And fuck your "old" comment--you're one of the worst ass clowns on this site. Would the WMD have simply vanished into the ether in the few years from 1998 to 2002? STFU.

8/19/2009 1:26:24 PM

^ Well, they wouldn't have disappeared, they probably would have been destroyed when Clinton bombed Iraq in Dec. of 1998.

PS* Why didn't Bush try that again? Clinton was able to use targeted attacks to wipe out much of SH's WMD infrastructure. Why couldn't Bush do the same thing???

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 1:28:55 PM

Quote :

"no one was saying the Iraqis are better off under a dictator"

Except for the Iraqis

8/19/2009 1:34:14 PM

Lumex, indeed.

In February 2009, 56% of Iraqis polled said that it was somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong that the US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in 2003

In February 2009, 55% of Iraqis polled said they believe the lives of their children will be worse or about the same as their own
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf

No matter what we think, the majority of Iraqis seem to have their doubts that this invasion was worth it.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 1:47:57 PM

Quote :

"By thinking the Iraq War was simply caused by electing evil people, your views on the scope of government have not changed and you think we can avoid these types of events if we just don't vote for evil people (which can clearly be identified as Republicans). "

i don't know where you get this from what i've said.

it's far more complicated than just that. i believe that wars should be far more difficult to start. but as it is now, the president has broad powers to start wars without much approval. they also have access to intelligence that the general population does not have access to. so i do put much of the blame for the war on the bush administration. but i also don't think they should have had that power to begin with (and that power goes back much further).

8/19/2009 1:51:36 PM

^ You didn't say that exactly. You said that Bush lied to get us into the war, which I would say is evil. Based on your continual complaints about Republicans and your apparent willingness to grant government ever more expanding powers in other areas, I inferred that your solution was to stop voting for evil people.

You should be familiar with this game. I was reading your mind, kinda like you did when you said I was willing to support anyone or say anything to keep Obama out of the White House, which meant any discussion I had on Obama's policies could not be trusted to be in Good Faith.

I had a line in there explaining that, but I guess I accidentally deleted it (the post was actually much longer, but I cut a lot out).

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ``]

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 2:02:23 PM

when did i say evil? i said bush lied and that likely contributed to american and iraqi deaths. i don't really care about your little games with teaching me some sort of lesson because i hurt your feelings.

8/19/2009 2:04:40 PM

lol do you ever argue in good faith or do you just argue to argue??

"I never said he was evil! I said he lied to invade another nation and as a result of his compounding lies, thousands of people are dead! I never said the word evil!!!!"

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 2:08:53 PM

there's a difference. evil would be if he thought it would kill people and lied anyway. i think bush probably thought the war would go far more smoothly than it did and the lying that he did was for the good cause of the war.

8/19/2009 2:10:25 PM

but if he lied about the primary reasons for the war (WMDs, Al Qaeda ties, etc) what was the "good cause" you're talking about??? As moron noted, these were the two primary motives for invading Iraq in the run-up to the war. YET, he LIED about these reasons.

Are you reading Bush's mind now too????

Again, do you ever actually argue in good faith?

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 2:12:31 PM

i'm not going to argue for bush's good reasons for the war. i don't think it was a good cause. i don't think he made a good case. i don't THINK that he started the war for evil purposes. wrongheaded? perhaps. but evil is a pretty strong word to me. i think that whatever his specific reasoning (keeping america safe, building democracy in the middle east, stopping the spread of al-qaeda, or whatever), he had a non-evil reason.

8/19/2009 2:15:51 PM

lol yowza. So you're telling me we can't call Bush evil for lying and killing thousands because his intents are unknown.

But.....

But when I say that we can't tell if Bush lied because even though the things he said were factually incorrect his intents are unknown....you ride my ass for 20 posts asking me "why do you
feel the need to protect people who got us into this mess from being call the liars that they were?"

Haha I love MORAL OUTRAGE AND CERTITUDE!! "the liars *they were*"!!

LOL this is some good stuff, watching squirm around in knots only to come back to use a variant of the EXACT SAME argument I was using. Very very rich. Please keep talking.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 2:22:51 PM

what's the score? are you winning? i was just saying what i thought. bush doesn't seem like an evil man. he did lie though. and people around him lied. it's not very complicated.

8/19/2009 2:24:53 PM

well, this thread was about Obamas credibility, or lack of it, so lets get back on message.

but while we are at it, obama lies, grandma dies.

8/19/2009 2:28:10 PM

Sarijoul,

going through the TSB troll playbook well I see. You already used condescension ("sorry i hurt your feelings") and moved onto detachment ("pfft I'm above these petty games...even though I've just spent 30 minutes arguing semantics").

I'm just saying what I think too, friend. And I think you are just arguing for arguments sake. Your argument for why Bush is not evil is inconsistent with your argument for how you know Bush is a liar (unless your mind reading abilities are selective). If you don't know his intents for what caused the war, I don't see how you can know he intended to deceive the American people. But you don't care because you are....

trying to win the argument. I guess YOU are the one keeping score.

Peace out homes, I got a phone call to make.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM. Reason : i mean not evil]

8/19/2009 2:33:05 PM

bush is a liar because things that he said were not true.

notice how i said "think" or specified that it was my opinion that it didn't seem that bush had evil intentions in starting the war. just wrongheaded or stupid ones.

8/19/2009 2:37:04 PM

I haven't read the thread.

My understanding of this argument is that sarijoul said Bush lied. We have evidence that he lied--he intentionally deceived people into believing he had damning evidence when he did not.

Then Socks`` comes back with "Why would he lie? Do you think he's evil? You think he's some sort of Lex Luther? That's ridiculous!" But cutesy mumbo jumbo about Lex Luther has nothing to do with whether or not Bush lied.

And you don't have to know why he lied to know that he did lie. Motive would wrap things up neatly though. So let's talk about motives.

8/19/2009 3:18:12 PM

Quote :

"And you don't have to know why he lied to know that he did lie. Motive would wrap things up neatly though. So let's talk about motives."

This thread is not about Bush's credibility watch, it's already gotten far enough off topic as it is.

Since V requested that I find a topic to put us back on track... How about a gallup poll showing approval at 51%: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx


Or How about approval ratings for Obama specifically about health care? http://www.gallup.com/poll/122255/Amid-Debate-Obama-Approval-Rating-Healthcare-Steady.aspx

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM. Reason : that good enough for you?]

8/19/2009 3:20:45 PM

If you wanna put the thread back on what you perceive to be the proper track, then do that.

Otherwise, STFU.

8/19/2009 3:24:46 PM

Good enough?

I'm still annoyed. I've recently made two "off-topic" posts in a thread where other people have made dozens. Yet you chose to quote me and respond to me about being off-topic. It's bullshit.


On to the polls...it concerns me. We had this sweeping wave of change last November, and it scares me that Obama and other Democrats have already (apparently) lost so much good will with the people. It's still not clear that they really have lost that much good will though. And politicians/parties can win back the approval of a flighty public with ease. However, I don't feel good...the only thing Democrats really seem to have going for them is an impotent opponent. Seriously, Obama's biggest threat right now is Rush Limbaugh...a testament to that man's influence and the Republican party's lack of influence.

But that's party politics. It's so crazy and stupid that it's pointless to talk about it, but it's fun...

8/19/2009 3:39:10 PM

Bridget,

Despite what sarijoul says, a lie is more than saying something that is not true (if it was Aristotle was a liar for claiming the sun revolves around the earth, which is not true). M-W defines a lie as "to manke an untrue statement with intent to decieve".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

In order to say that Bush lied, you DO have to prove that when he said untrue things (that Iraq had WMDs for example) that he knew they were untrue and was only saying them to decieve the American people. In otherwords, you do have know his intent (intent is kinda what distinguishes a lie from a mistake so, um, its kinda important).

So far, no one has done that. NO one any where has demonstrated that Bush intentionally tried to decieve the American people. He was wrong about WMDs like a lot of things...but did he lie? I have not seen the evidence for it. Please share whatever blog entry or American Prospect article you think will convince me.

But if we want to move on let's move on and not mention it anymore. I think Obama's approval ratings are just a consequence of the health care debacle. If he can get at least some reform package in place, I think he will go back to something like a 60% approval rating.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 3:43:42 PM

^^I wasn't meaning to single you out. Just getting tired of an entire conversation that was pointless really. We can discuss lies and motives all we want and we aren't going to come any closer to knowing the real truth. Sorry if I came across harsher than intended.

^I can definitely agree with you there, about the opinion polls. I think it's just a downswing on economy, health care, and a lot of other distractions. I think we'll see how things flesh out once Congress gets back into the swing of things.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 3:47:05 PM

8/19/2009 6:07:23 PM