no, but we'll be paying more to finance these pointless wars.

And you may want to make up your mind as to whether you want to defend this war as a humanitarian war or a homeland defense war or a retaliatory war for that assassination attempt. You keep switching every time your arguments are torn apart.

9/21/2006 10:51:59 AM

You don't see the irony of using war to impose freedom?

You don't see the glaring fatal flaw in that doctrine?

9/21/2006 10:56:13 AM

no i'm not switching...you and others keep trying to limit it to one kind of war instead of realizing that is multi-faceted

Does it help the Iraqi citizens get more freedom? Yes
Does it help the US get a stronghold in the Middle East? Yes
Should it help us be able to get oil? Yes
Does it make the world safer by taking one ruthless dictator out of power? Yes

I'll defend the war regardless because I think overall its worth it...you may disagree which is fine, but don't act like I am as narrowminded as you

Quote :

"You don't see the irony of using war to impose freedom?"

I see the simple irony in that sure...are you complaining about the irony of using war for freedom in the Revolutionary War? WW1? WW2? Desert Storm? All those used war for freedom...its NOTHING NEW

9/21/2006 10:56:21 AM

Those are distinctly different cases. In the revolutionary war, we fought for our freedom. In WWI, We fought for national interests, not freedom. In WWII, we again fought for national interest and our own sovereignty which would have been seriously hampered by a Nazi Europe.

In other nations, we'd be coming in and removing their government and destablizing their soceity. You can't free people at gunpoint.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2006 11:00:49 AM

SandSanta, how was WW2 not fighting for freedom? When you say "our own sovereignty" that is pretty much our own freedom. It was potentially fighting for the whole (non-Nazi) world's freedom

Also I certainly agree that Revolutionary War was the most necessary war since it did directly deal with out own freedom

However I think fighting for the freedom of our allies, while it has backfired in some cases, is overall the right thing to do to make the world a better place

9/21/2006 11:05:23 AM

So Tree,

are you going to address the fact that we had complete air superiority over the two minority groups in Iraq, and that any attempt at genocide would have failed?

9/21/2006 11:13:04 AM

Did we have complete air superiority over Iraq and most other nations' militaries? Of course

But what are you even getting at about genocide? Are you saying our air superiority would have prevented Saddam's regime from eradicating the Kurds?

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2006 11:16:42 AM

Yes, that's why we had the no-fly zones in the first place.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2006 11:18:29 AM

so what are you asking

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

9/21/2006 11:19:11 AM

You say Iraq is safer now than it was before the war.

Your reasoning is thta Saddam practiced genocide

That fails, because as of 1991 he was no longer able to do these things.

9/21/2006 11:22:05 AM

Quote :

"i think worldwide freedom and democracy in an optimal situation would be a lot more valuable than enraging some neighbors"

Oh, but good sir, do not try to minimize the "enraging neighbors" point to aid your argument, you just look silly.

Quote :

"in the long run, the US and the whole world would be more safe"

You mean, in the same ideal world that George Bush sold us about being in and done in 6 months, being greeted as liberators, and having a glorious democracy in the Middle East, a beacon of light in a land so desperately needing freedom? The world that we'll probably never see happen because of severe misunderstandings of the situation on the ground and the people we hoped to 'free'?


I deal with people that have this sort of same flawed mindset like you every day at work. They are the ones that base a business plans on all the positives of a project if it is to actually work, without ever considering that it just might not work.

Quote :

"and how is the US less safe? have we been attacked since 9/11?"

The US is less safe because rather than decrease our presence in an area where its people live their lives governed by a religion that says to mistrust it's "neighbors" if they are of a different religion, we increased our presence, and we did it by the sword, and we did it for resources.

I don't use aberrations, one off events (as ghastly as they may be), as the measuring stick about the country's safety. Simpletons like the current administration and yourself are more prone to that.

9/21/2006 11:25:15 AM

Quote :

"That fails, because as of 1991 he was no longer able to do these things."

Just because the intent of the no-fly zones was to protect the two groups doesnt mean they worked...sure they prevented Iraqi air strikes in those zones for the most part (while Iraqi ground forces shot at coalition planes) but does setting up some no-fly zones just excuse a ruthless dictator from murdering 50,000+ of his country's citizens? "We know you killed tens and tens and tens of thousands of your own people, but this no-fly zone should be good enough to make up for those deaths"

State409c...which neighbors of Iraq were enraged? Please elaborate...was Iran mad that we took out one of their rivals/enemies?

In the long run, the US and the whole world ARE more safe...you can begin the personal attacks and cliche Bush comparisons now in an effort to downplay my comments but instead you should consider addressing whether or not the world is more safe...comparing this to business plans is not an effective debate tactic

Again with the simpleton comments...don't address that WE HAVE NOT been attacked since 9/11...just speculate on safety without giving any evidence...have we been attacked since 9/11 or not?

9/21/2006 11:31:07 AM

Quote :

"Just because the intent of the no-fly zones was to protect the two groups doesnt mean they worked...sure they prevented Iraqi air strikes in those zones for the most part (while Iraqi ground forces shot at coalition planes) but does setting up some no-fly zones just excuse a ruthless dictator from murdering 50,000+ of his country's citizens?"

They did work.

There was no genocide campaigns 1991-2003.

You see, airplanes have things called "bombs." We can use these bombs to stop ground forces perpetrating genocide.

9/21/2006 11:36:37 AM

so how effective are air strikes against GROUND attacks when the attackers and targets are in the same vicinity?

ps: the no-fly zones were originally setup to prevent IRAQI AIRPLANES from being able to fly in the no-fly zones occupied by Shias and Kurds and bomb them...they were not setup for American planes to be able to bomb Iraqi GROUND forces attacking Shias or Kurds

btw

Quote :

"Following Operation Provide Comfort, the United States continued to watch over the northern skies with the launching of Operation Northern Watch on January 1st, 1997. Operation Northern Watch continued to provide air security to the Kurdish population in the north. American and British aircraft continuously maintained the integrity of the NFZ, receiving anti-aircraft fire from Iraqi forces almost daily. The operation ran until its conclusion on May 1st, 2003."

The no-fly zones:

A. REQUIRED allied aircraft to patrol them constantly...so you didnt have a problem with this continuous US/British occupation of Iraqi airspace?

B. Were constantly subjected to Iraqi ground fire shooting at allied aircraft

Yet you claim they worked?

9/21/2006 11:38:13 AM

Quote :

" State409c...which neighbors of Iraq were enraged? Please elaborate...was Iran mad that we took out one of their rivals/enemies?"

Hell no they aren't mad. Iran, predominately shia, is licking it's chops that the mechanism blocking their access to more shia population, that is, the sunni Baath minority, has been removed from power. Hell, we did Iran a favor. Sectarian ties transcend country borders. Now, their rival is gone and they are goin to try and capitalize on the situation. The democracy project is going to fail because you have three seperate groups that don't want to live together anymore. This will spell trouble when Iran tries to exert it's influence. And they are threatening with nukes. The situation there is clearly less stable than before. I don't get how the world is a safer place.


You still want to stick with the concept that, one group of people attacked us, we go kick another groups ass that had nothing to do with it, and because the original group hasn't attacked us since, our action on the second group clearly must mean we made it safer for ourselves?

That's like you kicking my ass in a bar. Several weeks later I fuck your girlfriend up because I suspected she told you to beat me up, then claim that I am safer because you haven't found me out in public yet.

9/21/2006 11:59:03 AM

Quote :

"State409c: Even if it means enraging their neighbors and making the US less safe?"

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: State409c...which neighbors of Iraq were enraged? Please elaborate"

ps that barfight / gf fucking analogy is horrible

while iraq didnt attack us on 9/11 you imply that "one group" who attacked us is some type of confined, preset group, instead of a shadow-lurking, worldwide threat

a better analogy would be: there are a couple dozen bullies...one bully kicks your ass...you start to realize "oh shit, bullies might be a problem!"...you kick a different bully's ass and realize that its one less bully to worry about, while at the same time, you watch your back more often because you realize that bullies are actually a threat that you've been ignoring for all these years

9/21/2006 12:01:27 PM

i would rather my tax dollars not be spent on killing people and instead given to me so I can buy some burgers.

also, why in the fuck is everyone so worried about the Kurbs. You couldnt tell the damn different between a Kurd and the muslims you want to kill. The interest in the Kurds to now support the war in Iraq seems pretty damn hilarious to me.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 12:06 PM. Reason : !]

9/21/2006 12:02:17 PM

Quote :

""TreeTwista10: State409c...which neighbors of Iraq were enraged? Please elaborate""

Muslims all over the middle east have an extra bitter taste in their mouth because of this conflict.

Does everything have to be spelled out for you? It's just like was mentioned in the other thread I made, when you know you have lost the thread (either by a poor ability to stay on track, poor ability to convey your argument, or just generally losing) you do up to 3 things

1) You devolve the argument into semantics (which you did with this most recent comment)
2) You just say an argument sucks but don't say why (my analogy was perfect, btw)
3) You mistrue or misunderstand someone elses argument and typical toss out a strawman or non sequitor because of it.

I think people must reply to you out of boredom and viewpoints that are just barely constructed enough to get a reply.

Quote :

"a better analogy would be: there are a couple dozen bullies...one bully kicks your ass...you start to realize "oh shit, bullies might be a problem!"...you kick a different bully's ass and realize that its one less bully to worry about"

Does it not make better sense to focus your efforts on the bully that actually kicked your ass, you know, the more immediate threat? And, if the other 11 bullies aren't actually a bully threat to me (that is, they kick others asses) then again why are we focused on them at the huge expense to taxpayers?


[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM. Reason : a]

9/21/2006 12:06:58 PM

YOU CLAIMED THE US ATTACKING IRAQ ENRAGED ITS NEIGHBORS

I ASKED YOU WHICH NEIGHBORS

YOU RESPONDED BY SAYING IRAN WAS NOT ENRAGED

all your "arguments" quickly turn to personal attacks...when other people criticize you instead of attacking them personally like me, you are confused and dont get it (see your other thread)

Quote :

"Muslims all over the middle east have an extra bitter taste in their mouth because of this conflict. "

is it really that hard for you to be specific about anything? you who criticized me about sweeping generalizations? all you can say is "muslims all over the area are enraged"...like who?

9/21/2006 12:09:24 PM

Quote :

"if the other 11 bullies aren't actually a bully threat to me "

but they are a threat to you

Quote :

"Does it not make better sense to focus your efforts on the bully that actually kicked your ass, you know, the more immediate threat? "

the bully that is in hiding? the bully thats scared shitless to show his face?

9/21/2006 12:12:01 PM

Quote :

"YOU CLAIMED THE US ATTACKING IRAQ ENRAGED ITS NEIGHBORS I ASKED YOU WHICH NEIGHBORS YOU RESPONDED BY SAYING IRAN WAS NOT ENRAGED"

Iranian muslims surely aren't too happy that we are threatening their way of life.

Here again is a severe inability for you to keep your thoughts collected properly.

I said neighbors are enraged without being specific about people or governments, I'll be sure next time to spell everything out for you, since your favorite past time is to be dumb to the discussion (the semantics focus).

You asked which of their neighbors were enraged as one question, and was Iran mad a rival was "removed" as the second question. The second could only be taken to mean the government, because clearly the Iranian people themselves aren't the strategizers, it's the government.

I answered the Iran question, but not the neighbors question to which you attributed my answer to.

Do you not see why people don't like you or debating with you? It's like an able bodied person trying to dance with a parapallegic, it just doesn't work very well.

9/21/2006 12:15:40 PM

treetwista, why do you care about Kurds so much and why are you using their suffering to justify the war in Iraq.

9/21/2006 12:16:23 PM

Quote :

"but they are a threat to you"

Really? A bully with no weapons and no capability to actually hurt me is a threat to me?

Quote :

"the bully that is in hiding? the bully thats scared shitless to show his face?"

You mean, 'hiding' in London and Madrid right?

9/21/2006 12:17:32 PM

^so they have no weapons or capability to hurt you...but they're plotting attacks in London and Madrid? do you not realize the contradiction?

Quote :

"Iranian muslims surely aren't too happy that we are threatening their way of life."

how are we threatening their way of life? and why do you care what nutcases that want to eradicate america and israel think in the first place?

Quote :

"Do you not see why people don't like you or debating with you?"

then why do you continue to do it

Quote :

"treetwista, why do you care about Kurds so much and why are you using their suffering to justify the war in Iraq."

in an optimal world, ALL people should be free, including Kurds

and its not my only justification of the war

Quote :

"Does it help the Iraqi citizens get more freedom? Yes Does it help the US get a stronghold in the Middle East? Yes Should it help us be able to get oil? Yes Does it make the world safer by taking one ruthless dictator out of power? Yes "

9/21/2006 12:24:36 PM

Can we be frank? ... the Kurds and talk about Saddam being a dictator are an afterthought ... They weren't used to justify the war (because no one would have bought it), and we've been friendly to dictators in the past (including Saddam) when it suits our needs ... What was used was an immediate threat to our safety (in the form of WMDs), which turned out to be false ... The current talk is just justification, and for reasons already stated, I believe the world in general is much less safe ....

9/21/2006 12:28:07 PM

there were a number of resolutions that the majority of the House and Senate voted on to go to war in Iraq...WMDs were ONE of the threats...one of the multiple resolutions...like violating the No-Fly Zone, not allowing UN inspectors, using WMDs on their citizens, attempting to assassinate a US president, etc...yet the only resolution still harped on by many who opposed the war is WMDs

In March 2003, nobody in Congress had a problem voting for war with all the UN sanctions Iraq broke...but since we havent found WMDs thats apparently good enough for some of the people opposed to the war to call it an unjust war...even though Congress voted to go to war because of over a dozen reasons...not just WMDs

9/21/2006 12:30:38 PM

Quote :

"^so they have no weapons or capability to hurt you...but they're plotting attacks in London and Madrid? do you not realize the contradiction?"

GOOD GOD MAN, WOULD YOU TRY TO KEEP UP. I'M DEAD SERIOUS WHEN I SAY YOU MOST BE TROLLING BECAUSE NO COLLEGE EDUCATED KID SHOULD BE THIS STUPID.

HOW CAN I NOT ATTACK YOU WITH DISPARAGING REMARKS WHEN YOU ARE THIS PATENTLY STUPID.

Iraq sans WMD and no real capability to wage war on our soil (or their own for that matter) = NOT A THREAT TO ME

Al qaida is the other group

9/21/2006 12:32:29 PM

whoops yeah i did misread that part...however

Quote :

"Iraq sans WMD and no real capability to wage war on our soil (or their own for that matter)"

thats false

9/21/2006 12:33:20 PM

Quote :

"2) You just say an argument sucks but don't say why (my analogy was perfect, btw)"

10 seconds of google to find someone that agrees with me

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/442

Quote :

"5. Iraq Is No Longer a Significant Military Threat to Its Neighbors Iraq's offensive capabilities have been severely weakened by years of bombings, sanctions, and UN-sponsored decommissioning. Its current armed forces are barely one-third their pre-Gulf War strength. Iraq's navy is virtually nonexistent, and its air force is just a fraction of what it was before the war. Military spending by Iraq has been estimated at barely one-tenth of its level in the 1980s, and the belief is that the country has no more functioning missiles. None of Iraq's immediate neighbors have expressed any concern about a possible Iraqi invasion in the foreseeable future. The Bush administration has been unable to explain why today, when Saddam Hussein has only a tiny percentage of his once-formidable military capability, Iraq is considered such a threat that it is necessary to invade the country and replace its leader--the same leader that Washington quietly supported during the peak of Iraq's military capability."

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 12:36 PM. Reason : a]

9/21/2006 12:34:17 PM

HOW

CAN

YOU

BE

THIS

FUCKING

STUPID?

9/21/2006 12:37:44 PM

GOOGLE IS PROOF I GUESS

so how come you criticize me for making personal attacks yet you continue to make personal attacks?

thats not good debating practice

Quote :

"Do you not see why people don't like you or debating with you?"

then why do you continue to do it

nobody was heartbroken over your recent TWW hiatus...seriously, nobody really noticed

9/21/2006 12:40:18 PM

Quote :

"so how come you criticize me for making personal attacks yet you continue to make personal attacks?"

Would you please point out my post where I criticize you for making personal attacks? I won't post in the soap box any more if you can find that post.

Quote :

"then why do you continue to do it"

Quote :

"I think people must reply to you out of boredom"

Quote :

"nobody was heartbroken over your recent TWW hiatus...seriously, nobody really noticed"

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't actually contemplated this until you mentioned it. Am I supposed to have some emotion about this now?

9/21/2006 12:44:22 PM

i like how you bitch and moan about how mad you are in regards to debating with me yet you continue to do it

Quote :

"Would you please point out my post where I criticize you for making personal attacks? I won't post in the soap box any more if you can find that post"

eh, maybe not you...but plenty of people on here call me a troll for making personal attacks, but if they make personal attacks its ok

9/21/2006 12:46:12 PM

Quote :

"i like how you bitch and moan about how mad you are in regards to debating with me yet you continue to do it"

A part of me hopes that you'll wisen up to your extremely lacking ability in debating subject matter here. But it takes an admission of a problem before any change will occur, and I see you being too stubborn to do that.

9/21/2006 12:59:08 PM

why are you so stubborn to admit that Iraq could've been a threat

9/21/2006 1:01:12 PM

The problem is that there's no set formula for seeding democracy, especially to people that haven't had it in awhile. I am not aware of any (there maybe some, I just don't know) cases where a democracy we've forced on a nation has been successful.

9/21/2006 1:03:23 PM

I strongly believe that we need to get some clerics / religious leaders in the Middle East (people who have the peoples' ears) that agree democracy would be good, so that they can persuade their people to give it a chance...definitely some type of proxy

9/21/2006 1:07:30 PM

Quote :

"why are you so stubborn to admit that Iraq could've been a threat"

Here again, you show your inability to manage a thought. Iraq when we invaded was not a threat to us. Could they have attempted to manufacture more weapons? Sure. Were sanctions working well throughout the 90s to stop this? Certainly! (why did Bush refuse to reengage in the late 90s after we botched it the first time tryin to spy?) But they weren't a threat. I don't know what you mean by "could've" been.

To go to war with a country because 30, 50, 100 years later they might be a threat (I guess if we consider the 1% clause) is a pretty weak reason to go to war.

If this is the case then we should go ahead and attack any country out there that currently doesn't like us because sometime in the future they could be a threat.

9/21/2006 1:09:17 PM

Quote :

"I strongly believe that we need to get some clerics / religious leaders in the Middle East (people who have the peoples' ears) that agree democracy would be good, so that they can persuade their people to give it a chance...definitely some type of proxy"

And how do we go about doing that? It's about time you offer up some solutions rather than regurgitating the right wing talking points.

9/21/2006 1:10:15 PM

why dont you tell me genius? you're so fucking brilliant why dont you come up with a single idea of your own instead of regurgitating some left wing criticism

9/21/2006 1:17:51 PM

^ I disagree with your assertion ... Nobody goes to war for violating UN agreements (see Israel) ... People go to war if they're threaten ... that's why the WMDs were plumped up, not by the media, but by Bush himself ....

9/21/2006 1:23:22 PM

THE IRAQI'S ARE SAFER NOW!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm

Quote :

"why dont you tell me genius? you're so fucking brilliant why dont you come up with a single idea of your own instead of regurgitating some left wing criticism"

I have never claimed to know all the answers. And if you think they can be summarized in a few lines on this message board, then you are blind to the situation (like we didn't already know that).

And left wing? I'm fiscally conservative and have mixed emotions on whether I actually want to be socially liberal.

You look like a clown each and every time you try to label anyone that opposes your viewpoint as being from the left. I've seen it happen like 10 times in the past week.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 1:31 PM. Reason : a]

9/21/2006 1:29:43 PM

oh I look like a clown, huh?

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=434028

^^who continues to hype up the WMDs? Bush or the media?

9/21/2006 1:43:01 PM

Quote :

"^^who continues to hype up the WMDs? Bush or the media? "

It's questions like that that make people think you're a troll. That question has no relevance, and shows that you completely mis-read or mis-interpreted his post, and most people would assume you do this for the purpose of trolling.

9/21/2006 1:55:54 PM

Quote :

"who continues to hype up the WMDs? Bush or the media?"

That is funny ...

He hyped them up before the war ... now that they haven't found any it's low key, and off to other excuses. I'm sure he wishes people would just forget about those darn WMDs.

I blame the media for continuing to harp on them ....

9/21/2006 1:57:46 PM

^^

Quote :

"that's why the WMDs were plumped up, not by the media, but by Bush himself ...."

thats what he said...so how come its not relevant???

i wouldnt bring this up if there werent dozens of threads and posts everyday to the effect of "OMG BUSH LIED WHERE ARE THE WMDS THE WAR IS UNJUST"

but you just glance over a few posts and think you know everything

^see, you agree...YOU SEE THAT moron...BoBo AGREES, or is at least willing to keep a discussion going...NOW STFU

The media harps on WMDs...the media never even mentions the broken UN sanctions...the media focuses on ONE of the reasons for going to Iraq while essentially ignoring the other dozen plus reasons

9/21/2006 1:57:55 PM

(I was being ironic) ... Collin Powell didn't go in front of the UN showing refusals to let in inspectors ... He went in to show evidence of WMDs .... (which was bogus by the way ... but that's a bigger story) ... you can't use it as your main reason, and then expect people to drop it when you're wrong ...

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 2:07 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

9/21/2006 2:06:18 PM

You just don't fucking convey your ideas well at all with proper english language.

Bobo said:

Quote :

"hat's why the WMDs were plumped up, not by the media, but by Bush himself ...."

"were" is past tense

then you said this

Quote :

"^^who continues to hype up the WMDs? Bush or the media?"

"continues" = present

which brought this post

Quote :

"That question has no relevance, and shows that you completely mis-read or mis-interpreted his post"

Which is how I view it too. So either you can't read correctly what Bobo posted, or your reply misses its mark because of a poor command of the english language or the poor ability to use it to correctly convey your thoughts.


And in the process of thinking that Bobo agreed with you someone, you clowned yourself again.

He stated this

Quote :

"Nobody goes to war for violating UN agreements"

which is why the media continues to bitch about the WMDs, because

Quote :

"that's why the WMDs were plumped up, not by the media, but by Bush himself ...."

as the reason for war.


How dense is the tissue between your ears?

9/21/2006 2:06:54 PM

Quote :

"the media focuses on ONE of the reasons for going to Iraq while essentially ignoring the other dozen plus reasons"

Why should they focus on them when all those other ones were just "adders" to the WMD threat?

It makes the business case look good when you have a WMD threat, and oh, there are a lot of other reasons he is a bad man too.

Without the WMD reason, all those other reasons don't stand on their own in getting us to war. It's why the media doesn't give a shit.

9/21/2006 2:08:44 PM

Quote :

"Why should they focus on them when all those other ones were just "adders" to the WMD threat?"

so killing 50,000+ innocents is just an "adder" to you

boy, you sure are compassionate!

let alone that you ignore all the other reasons THAT CONGRESS VOTED ON to go to this war

ps: BoBo and I were having an intelligent discussion...you really don't need to come in here and defend his positition by simply arguing my semantics...we were both capable of continuing the conversation, thank you very much

BoBo: It's one thing to "drop" talking about WMDs...its another to ignore the other ~17 resolutions

9/21/2006 2:08:54 PM