Lionel_Hutz Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Based on what appears to be the results of a fair election, the majority of the country would not agree. Disrespecting the results of a peaceful democratic election because the outcome is unfavorable is not appropriate. Other countries should be so lucky to have the process we enjoy. If change is desired, voter opinion needs to be changed, and that's not going to happen by ignoring the election results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Saying we invaded due to genocide is profoundly ridiculous. Are you now a spokesman for the administration? because DFA implied that if a democrat did it we would all bum rush him. Try'n keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The american taxpayer has footed the bill for the war while Haliburton and other american corporations have profited handsomely. This is simple stuff Scott. Wake up. It's funny, Republicans will raise hell over a thousand dollars' waste in areas like welfare, school funding, job training programs, etc., i.e. programs that help people, but will pour billions into the bottomless pit of defense spending without batting an eye. A friend of the Doctor's who works in computer security recounted a tale of visiting a defense contractor to do some consulting for them and seeing a ca. $10k computer just sitting out of its crate, covered in dust, on a loading dock, unused. Can you imagine how far $10k would go toward, say, new textbooks for a struggling school? Makes your head spin ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Quit changing the topic scotty! I didn't NOLEY I was merely adressing the point of DFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 But your acceptance of the false rationale just throws another equally important baby out with some decidedly dirty bathwater, which is the issue of the President lying to bolster support for the initiation of the war. If any Democrat had stooped to such tactics on any issue (imagine the fallout if it had been a Dem lying to boost school funding), he would have been crucified post haste. It seems black and white, but Bush and Company just changes the story as necessary, and, with a pocketful of plausible other reasons for war, none of which were given when it mattered, sidesteps what should have been a major backlash. And Bush had the brilliant (though despicable) strategy of accusing people of not supporting our troops should they question if he was truthful on Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Georing, spoken at the Nuremberg Trials, 1947 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Saying we invaded due to genocide is profoundly ridiculous. Are you now a spokesman for the administration? It is indeed, but so to is teh assertation that we did it solely for the money or the oil. I do not see a way that Bush can gain from this economically. It is clear taht there are many reasons for entering this war and as I have shown you earlier, there were many reasons for our involmenent in WW2. Don't kid yourselves they were not all grandiose "save the world from evil and genocide" reasons that we left our isolationist slumber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 But your acceptance of the false rationale just throws another equally important baby out with some decidedly dirty bathwater, which is the issue of the President lying to bolster support for the initiation of the war. If any Democrat had stooped to such tactics on any issue (imagine the fallout if it had been a Dem lying to boost school funding), he would have been crucified post haste. It seems black and white, but Bush and Company just changes the story as necessary, and, with a pocketful of plausible other reasons for war, none of which were given when it mattered, sidesteps what should have been a major backlash. And Bush had the brilliant (though despicable) strategy of accusing people of not supporting our troops should they question if he was truthful on Iraq. When did he ever do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Georing, spoken at the Nuremberg Trials, 1947 Yep we should have just let them take over the World ass peacefull-like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Saying we invaded due to genocide is profoundly ridiculous. Are you now a spokesman for the administration? It is indeed, but so to is teh assertation that we did it solely for the money or the oil. Research on "The Hawks" and their modified dominoe theory after the Vietnam War. We did not go into Iraq solely for the money or oil, but for a world order "The Hawks" believe in. Iraq is their testing ground. Research it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 And Bush had the brilliant (though despicable) strategy of accusing people of not supporting our troops should they question if he was truthful on Iraq. When did he ever do this? Every presidential debate, where he accused Kerry's attacks on the rationale for going to war of sending a bad message to the troops and our allies?* * Apparently foreign allies are important when we have them, but unimportant when we actually do insult and alienate them ("old Europe"?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think you are reading into this a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Yep we should have just let them take over the World ass peacefull-like You remind me of Britney Spears when Michael Moore in his movie Fahrenheit 911 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Yep we should have just let them take over the World ass peacefull-like You remind me of Britney Spears when Michael Moore in his movie Fahrenheit 911 What? Me no understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Yep we should have just let them take over the World ass peacefull-like You remind me of Britney Spears when Michael Moore had her in his movie Fahrenheit 911 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 No brah. These are real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Yep we should have just let them take over the World ass peacefull-like You remind me of Britney Spears when Michael Moore had her in his movie Fahrenheit 911 What? Me no understand. Watch the movie. You will understand then. It won't work on writing becuase I can't do voice inflection or get the same feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 genocide goes on in other countries and we don't do anything about it because they have no oil. Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti (or are we talking about suntan oil)? And....Sudan actually has quite a bit of oil. Several countries that are opposing any action to reign in the janjaweed millitias there have significant oil interests in that country - but I have yet to hear any recriminations of their actions or indictments of their motives from the "No Blood for Oil" crowd. I would say that the usual bureaucratic inertia and in Europe - remember the Balkans? -and the fact that we have no significant millitary assets to spare at the moment are more significant factors in the perpetuation of this genocide than anything else. The Euros have hundreds of thousands of troops engaged in nothing more consequential than guarding the local cafe but don't look for them to deploy any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think you are reading into this a bit. What, you mean like reading between the lines, thinking critically, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 No, by donning a tin-foil hat and reciting partisan propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 No, by donning a tin-foil hat and reciting partisan propaganda. What? Can we stay serious, here? What "partisan propaganda"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Everything that come out of you guy's mouths is recycled from moveon.org. What do you want me to say? You say that the war is going on so George Bush can get rich. I ask you to prove it and you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 (edited) Everything that come out of you guy's mouths is recycled from moveon.org. What do you want me to say? You say that the war is going on so George Bush can get rich. I ask you to prove it and you can't. DFA never said anything about the war going on so Bush could get rich. At issue was Bush lying to justify going to war. Stay with it, Scott. Now that we're back on topic, ask yourself: If Bush had such good reasons for a war on Iraq, why didn't he use those reasons in the first place; why fabricate nonexistent reasons? And since he did have to lie, what, then, was the real reason behind the war? Are you so nonchalant about war that this does not seem like a serious issue to you? Edited November 3, 2004 by Dr_Flash_Amazing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Every president has done it in every war that we have undertaken. I am not saying I agree with it, but it is better to get popular support for a war to be sure that once it is embarked upon, the inevitable turn of opinion against the war will not necessitate the withdrawl of forces before the mission is accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I think it's inaccurate to say Bush wanted to go to war. I doubt Bush knew whether he wanted to go to war or not. Check out Rumsfeld's War on Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/ The complete disregard of advice from 4-star generals is particularly disturbing. 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.