MtnGoat Posted April 10, 2003 Author Posted April 10, 2003 (edited) "MtnGoat, it was only a little while ago you were beating the "threat" drum. Now its liberation. " The threat drum was the driving force, liberation is a welcome side effect. The threat of Iraqui is nearly gone, the liberation is a bonus. "You used to believe in the power of the market, but now you're in favor of force as the foundation of foreign policy." The power of the market only applies in situations where law is stable and people are free. Where they are not, the application of force in support of proper principles is needed. Force does not define these principles, right and wrong does. "Your principles keep shifting to suit your needs, just like the ends you use to justify your means keep shifting to whatever you think plays well to the world." Your misunderstanding of my principles does not mean I am shifting them, it merely means you misunderstand them. Edited April 10, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote
Off_White Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Umm, that would be you? Go back, edit your post so that mememe... is not all one word, so it doesn't stretch the frame all out like you wearing your ex-wife's overalls. Quote
iain Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 It felt good to see images of happy people in Iraq. I'm sure many there are pleased to see S.H. gone. But what else would you do as an Iraqi citizen? Stand and fight against an overwhelming force such as the US military, where what's left of your own military is cowering away, or start kissing USA ass and tearing down statues? Blatently working the P.R. of this war to present it as some perverted form of manifest destiny is both obvious and a disgrace. Quote
vegetablebelay Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Cynical. What an ugly world you guys live in. Quote
Off_White Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 MtnGoat said: The threat drum was the driving force, liberation is a welcome side effect. The threat of Iraqui is nearly gone, the liberation is a bonus. Then why are you entitled to take credit for unintended benefits? Like saying "hey, I just wanted to shoot the dirty hippy, but isn't it great that he can't beat his wife now?" If you take an illegal action, an unintended happy outcome does not justify the action. Quote
iain Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 vegetablebelay said: Cynical. What an ugly world you guys live in. I thought the driving force behind this war was that everyone was out to get us? That's a pretty ugly world too. Quote
JGowans Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Well said Off-White. Methinks MtnGoatCheese makes no sense and keeps digging himself deeper and deeper. Quote
Dru Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 trask said: Who's the asshole that screwed up the font? 'tis cause you used a run on word like memememeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee that expanded width of page silly moderators! Quote
j_b Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 the application of force in support of proper principles is needed does appointing an arms dealer to lead the interim government have anything to do with what these "proper principles" are? http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15512 Quote
johnny_destiny Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 I wonder if the residents of Baghdad have ever seen Baghdad Cafe'....great movie(if you like 'em strange ) Quote
MtnGoat Posted April 10, 2003 Author Posted April 10, 2003 (edited) "Blatently working the P.R. of this war to present it as some perverted form of manifest destiny is both obvious and a disgrace." Yeah, there's no chance Iraquis are glad to be free of someone who slaughters whole families in front of each other, rapes people with official rapists, beheads women on the streets, feeds people to plastic shredders and jails children. They figure we're just the same so they dance in the streets. Makes sense. And the refugees and exiles here in the US, are dancing around because they prefer Saddam, after all they left Iraq because they loved him so much, and suddenly they need to kiss US ass under threat too. Yup, makes sense! There are some folks who simply cannot accept that sometimes good things happen, and sometimes even people they don't like, make them happen. And they complain about the marginalization of their points of view, without even realizing they marginalize *themselves* by their choice of stances. Edited April 10, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote
MtnGoat Posted April 10, 2003 Author Posted April 10, 2003 "Then why are you entitled to take credit for unintended benefits?" Because they occurred as a direct result of our actions. Besides, I said it was a nice side benefit, I never said it was inunintended. The intention was A) remove the threat, B) get rid of Saddam and free Iraq. That the primary is tied in with the secondary doesn't mean we don't get credit for both. No matter how uncomfortable it makes some folks. "If you take an illegal action, an unintended happy outcome does not justify the action." We did not take an illegal action. We are within our rights to take action to defend the US, and the violation of the ceasefire terms for 12 years means we've been at war the entire time. Now we finish it. Quote
MtnGoat Posted April 10, 2003 Author Posted April 10, 2003 (edited) "I thought the driving force behind this war was that everyone was out to get us? That's a pretty ugly world too. " No, that's the left's interpretation of the need to deal with some regimes in a position to help an outfit that actually is out to get us. When the left are claims someone elses view is that everyone is out to get us, it does not mean anyone but the left is claiming it that. They're inventing positions for someone else and then basing opposition on that, as you are. Edited April 10, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote
iain Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 MtnGoat said: No, that's the left's interpretation of the need to deal with some regimes in a position to help an outfit that actually is out to get us. When the left are claims someone elses view is... They're inventing positions for someone else and then basing opposition on that, as you are. Not only is that broken english, it is also remarkably hypocritical. You are in fact dishing out exactly that which you complain about, in the same post. You are fabricating positions and motivations of other people. You throw away peoples' opinions with "they just can't accept anything good can happen from people they don't like"? That's pretty damn simplistic, not to mention completely inaccurate. Quote
Off_White Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 MtnGoat said:We did not take an illegal action. We are within our rights to take action to defend the US, and the violation of the ceasefire terms for 12 years means we've been at war the entire time. Now we finish it. Under this reasoning, the North Koreans, with whom we only have a ceasefire agreement, not a peace treaty, are fully in their rights to nuke the US because we certainly pose a threat to them. Or vice versa I suppose, we should absolutely invade immediatedly. My country becomes Travis Bickle, what a revolting thought. (for those who don't know, Travis was the DeNiro character in Taxi Driver). Your assertion that Iraq posed a threat to the US is bogus. If you honestly believe that, its a point of disagreement we cannot move beyond. Now that things are winding down, I think its interesting that you trumpet about freedom for the Iraqi people, rather than this great threat that we have averted through pre-emptive war. Please re-read my earlier post regarding reasons for this war, which you did not respond to in any meaningful way. This war is about advancing the neoconservative's ambitions for US world empire, and ALL that other crap is just so much advertising campaign. Pleasant side benefits and your pythonesque "no it isn't" assertions do not justify this illegal action. Quote
j_b Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 And the refugees and exiles here in the US, are dancing around because they prefer Saddam, after all they left Iraq because they loved him so much, and suddenly they need to kiss US ass under threat too. Yup, makes sense! I suspect he forgot that in your world, people are either for Saddam or for us. I suggest you try to have the meaning of the expression "not for us" changed permanently to "for Saddam", it'll make things much easier for you. Who knows, Webster and Oxford dict. might go for it? Quote
j_b Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Now of course they'll all say they didn't support Saddam not only we didn't support Saddam, but consistently so for 25 years. it's not like we suddenly discovered our dislike for him a decade ago after arming him and closing our eyes to atrocities because it was in our strategic interest. Quote
JGowans Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 j_b said: does appointing an arms dealer to lead the interim government have anything to do with what these "proper principles" are? http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15512 Jeez man. Can it possibly get any worse?? This is total insanity. Why is everyone so damn passive about this ridiculous charade taking place? Quote
iain Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Off_White said: pythonesque "no it isn't" assertions That is exactly the adjective for which I was grasping. Quote
Jim Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Hey, who put Sadam in power in the first place. Opps - that would be the US CIA. Ancient history I guess - we'll get it right this time. Looks like we're off to a stelar start. Quote
vegetablebelay Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Jim said: Looks like we're off to a stelar start. Wow, first time I've ever agreed with you! Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Jim said: Hey, who put Sadam in power in the first place. Opps - that would be the US CIA. Ancient history I guess - we'll get it right this time. Looks like we're off to a stelar start. Yes the CIA and GOVT have been diong similar things like this for over 100 years. Maybe it was Carter's administration. There was no way to tell this was giong to be the outcome back then. It's really just a weak argument for the anti war people to justify some of their political views and blunders. We win with BIG FUCKING TANKS! Fuck all the anti war protestors. What a bunch of tools Quote
Jim Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Despite my poor spelling I was being facetious. Quote
Jim Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: Jim said: Hey, who put Sadam in power in the first place. Opps - that would be the US CIA. Ancient history I guess - we'll get it right this time. Looks like we're off to a stelar start. Yes the CIA and GOVT have been diong similar things like this for over 100 years. Maybe it was Carter's administration. There was no way to tell this was giong to be the outcome back then. It's really just a weak argument for the anti war people to justify some of their political views and blunders. But this is what we ALWAYS say. We screwed up the population last time (Iran, Iraq, Columbia, Chile, etc. etc.) but we'll get it right this time. We didn't intend the dictator we put in place to develop death squads and squash the democratic movement that was there. It was merely an "unitended consequence". What a joke! It's collective memory loss. Think how much Iraq would have been without the CIA putting in Saddam in the first place. Oh, but we'll clean up our mess and spend about $500 billion in the process. Quote
JGowans Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: We win with BIG FUCKING TANKS! Fuck all the anti war protestors. What a bunch of tools Is that the best you can come up with? If that's the case then you're a fucking tool you fucking tool. and i'm no better for being suckered into name calling Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.