Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 No Retort for me Martlet? Sorry, I missed it. For some reason the template appears to be off in this thread and I'm having trouble reading the comments. As a result, I'm not going to quote in hopes that this page stays aligned. I'll answer from memory: I don't agree that we went in because he pissed us off and we wanted a foothold. Nor do take what Paul Oneil, a disgruntled relic who was axed, says as gospel. I think the reasons we went in are obvious. Saddam had WMD. No one denied this. Saddam supported terrorists. No one denied that. WMD + terrorists = unsafe situation for the US. To avoid invasion, Saddam simply had to comply with the numerous UN resolutions. He didn't. All evidence points towards guilt. It wasn't just Bush that thought so, even most of the opponents of the war thought so. Bush just had the balls to act. As to the long term effects only time will tell. We turn over the gov't in a month and a half. We'll see what happens after. Most likely the UN will step in. Either way, the war in Iraq has produced far more good than bad. Heck, even the Arab League announced it was going to start down a path towards civil/women's rights and democracy. Unfortunately, seeing things for what they are doesn't help fuel your blind, irrational hatred for Bush. It doesn't feed your "he stole the election" agenda. Therefore, you look for the negative, and cover the whole issue with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Oh Martlet, please come out and play. We didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Marlet - Do you really expect answer? Notice how he speaks of deceptions but when asked this - I notice now you have changed your reference number to include military personnel. (ie the change from 10k to 40k- both numbers you provided). Since we are discussing “collateral” damage why did it suddenly change? - he was silent. PP no peter, the reason i did not answer is because you offered nothing new in your argument. as for me increasing the number of casualties to ~40,000 to include the military: i consider bombing to paste ~30,000 unmotivated, poor-as-dirt individuals wearing uniform to be as much 'collateral damage' of predatorial policies as the killing of civilians. is there any good reason why you would exclude the death of iraqi military from your grim justifications? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Marlet - Do you really expect answer? Notice how he speaks of deceptions but when asked this - I notice now you have changed your reference number to include military personnel. (ie the change from 10k to 40k- both numbers you provided). Since we are discussing “collateral” damage why did it suddenly change? - he was silent. PP no peter, the reason i did not answer is because you offered nothing new in your argument. as for me increasing the number of casualties to ~40,000 to include the military: i consider bombing to paste ~30,000 unmotivated, poor-as-dirt individuals wearing uniform to be as much 'collateral damage' of predatorial policies as the killing of civilians. is there any good reason why you would exclude the death of iraqi military from your grim justifications? It's amazing how far your stretches become when you've completely lost the argument. HAHAHAHAHA Let's count car accidents, too! Damn republican jackboots making the poor oppressed drive inferior automobiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Marlet - Do you really expect answer? Notice how he speaks of deceptions but when asked this - I notice now you have changed your reference number to include military personnel. (ie the change from 10k to 40k- both numbers you provided). Since we are discussing “collateral” damage why did it suddenly change? - he was silent. PP no peter, the reason i did not answer is because you offered nothing new in your argument. as for me increasing the number of casualties to ~40,000 to include the military: i consider bombing to paste ~30,000 unmotivated, poor-as-dirt individuals wearing uniform to be as much 'collateral damage' of predatorial policies as the killing of civilians. is there any good reason why you would exclude the death of iraqi military from your grim justifications? J_B - Well maybe because the discussion which by the way you brought exlpicitly into the thread was concerned with civilian casualties! Here is a short but cogent media critique. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 J_B - Well maybe because the discussion which by the way you brought exlpicitly into the thread was concerned with civilian casualties! no, it was explicitly concerned with the assessment that "collateral damage has been quite minor" which i initially countered with the number of civilian casualties and in later posts included all iraqi casualties for the past year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 J_B - Well maybe because the discussion which by the way you brought exlpicitly into the thread was concerned with civilian casualties! no, it was explicitly concerned with the assessment that "collateral damage has been quite minor" which i initially countered with the number of civilian casualties and in later posts included all iraqi casualties for the past year. Definition collateral damage noun during a war, the unintentional deaths and injuries of people who are not soldiers, and damage that is caused to their homes, hospitals, schools, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 J_B - No matter how you twist and turn you still can't spin away your faulty thinking. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 yeah sure. as if "collateral damage" wasn't spin ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 yeah sure. as if "collateral damage" wasn't spin ... Well, your definition of collateral damage surely was.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 it's not my definiton that is spin. "collateral damage" in itself is spin for "horrible things that resulted from our actions" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 If O'Neil was the only disgruntled employee who after they were fired/left came out and said "Bush's is screwing things up" I'd probably by the disgruntled employee spewing lies line. But they're kind of stacking up. Hell Clarke served under, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. It's not like democrat out to get the republicans... the number of testimony's are just becoming a little overwhelming to discount all of them. So Sadam had WMD? Really? Are you sure? The UN inspectors didn't think so? I didn't particularly think so? Are you sure no one denied this? He supported terrorists? Are you sure? I'd love to see your sources, I thoroughly remember him being declared a rogue dictator. I don't remember any clear ties to terrorism, besides against his own people. So all he had to do was comply to UN resolutions? Then why didn't the UN go in instead of the US unilaterally going in? To my knowledge the only restriction we can be sure he broke is that some of his missiles had a longer range then allowed (Something like 200 miles). So Bush had the balls to act? That i'll agree with and that's not the question. The question is whether he was right to? And your right, we'll see the long term effects. Any bets on how long were going to have to keep a military presence there to keep it from degenerating into anarchy and civil war? Has it done more bad than good? I would guess that very much depends on who you talk to. And again, we've established that just because he was a cruel dictator isn't enough justification to go in. It's ancillary. There are lots of places we could get rid of dictators.... That doesn't give us the right to. (remember, you said were not the World Police) Justifying it by saying the outcome was good is an easy way out, and doesn't mean a thing. And to say the outcome has been good is marginal at best. My blind irrational hatred for Bush? Let me tell you what I think of Bush. I think he's a fundamentally good, god fearing christian man who's doing what he honestly believes is best. He doesn't strike me as smart enough, or having enough force of will to make decisions for himself. He's relied too much on his cabinet to make decisions for him, and hasn't been good about gathering information himself and analyzing the consequences of his actions. We didn't elect his cabinet, we elected him, and it seems an awful lot like he's turned it over to his cabinet. I've heard it said Clinton had problems because he micromanaged, he wanted to know everything. I'd say Bush is on the far other end, he doesn't make sure he knows enough of what's going on, and doesn't spend enough time thinking about the consequences. He even said he doesn't have much difficulty making decisions as a president. And that spooks the hell out of me. In national and world politics there are simply too many factors, for decisions to be straighforward and easy. I think he's probably a very good, very honest man. I just don't think he's a good leader or a good president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Since you obviously don't follow the news, or keep your sources to moveon and NPR, allow me to educate you free of charge. Saddam supports terrorists Terrorists captured in Iraq Here too Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Clarke, and pals thought there were WMD too And yes, all he had to do was comply with the resolutions. Why didn't the UN go in? Because as we are now learning, a good portion of the UN was profiting from the standoff, and in Saddams pocket. Again, your irrational hatred and scramble for any scrap of "Bush is Hitler" to hold on to is blinding you from the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjd Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Poster: Martlet *** You are ignoring this user *** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Poster: Martlet *** You are ignoring this user *** HAHA! There's another that got beaten down and ran away. Anyone else wanna step up to the plate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Because as we are now learning, a good portion of the UN was profiting from the standoff, and in Saddams pocket. puff puff... give. I said GIVE dammit! Good to know that the right wing still has an imagination . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martlet Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 Because as we are now learning, a good portion of the UN was profiting from the standoff, and in Saddams pocket. puff puff... give. I said GIVE dammit! Good to know that the right wing still has an imagination . You're denying that? Then what is the investigation for? What were the letters saying not to cooperate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted May 13, 2004 Share Posted May 13, 2004 Apparently that trailer-park girl with the dogleash was in a number of the "unreleased" photos, having sex with a number of soldiers in the prison. The whole damn prison is beginning to sound like some kind of sordid scene out of a Fellini movie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.