Hypocrisy

[mattp]

Scott, thanks for the history lesson. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. He was our friend for a long time, though -- even when he "gassed his own people." Either way, that doesn't change the fact that OUR ACTION has caused the current crisis. And you point out that his actions were "contrary to everything we believe in?" Aren't those of your Commander in Chief also contrary to everything we believe in? Lying to the American people to go to war that was waged for control of foreign oil resources? Authorizing kidnapping and torture? Outing a secret agent for revenge against her husband?

 

With your argument here you are only proving the premise of the original post to this thread - or at least supporting it.

[akhalteke]

Scott, thanks for the history lesson. Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. He was our friend for a long time, though -- even when he "gassed his own people." Either way, that doesn't change the fact that OUR ACTION has caused the current crisis.

 

We didn't cause anything. We just kept one tribe from killing all the other tribes. Whether this is a good thing in the long haul or not is debatable and something that we will have to wait a few years (likely 25) before we get the answer.

[pink]

[mattp]

We didn't cause anything.

 

How can you possibly argue that our war "didn't cause anything?"

 

I agree that time will tell how it turns out, but there is no denying that WE CAUSED THIS PARTICULAR MESS.

 

 

[akhalteke]

Lying to the American people to go to war that was waged for control of foreign oil resources? Authorizing kidnapping and torture? Outing a secret agent for revenge against her husband? With your argument here you are only proving the premise of the original post to this thread.

 

Nope. It might prove hypocrisy of the leaders in this country (whom I have long been at odds with) but it does not implicate the average conservative voter that the post was designed for. There is a difference. Just because I am conservative, doesn't mean that I am willing to give a conservative carte blanche for any transgressions he might have committed.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

We didn't cause anything.

 

How can you possibly argue that our war "didn't cause anything?"

 

I agree that time will tell how it turns out, but there is no denying that WE CAUSED THIS PARTICULAR MESS.

 

 

Man, you are dense.

[akhalteke]

We didn't cause anything.

 

How can you possibly argue that our war "didn't cause anything?"

 

I agree that time will tell how it turns out, but there is no denying that WE CAUSED THIS PARTICULAR MESS.

 

 

Perhaps this particular instance but it was only a matter of time before it would happen again. The politics in that area are so convoluted, perhaps a militant murderous dictator is the only way to keep peace there. Who knows? Again, time will tell. I am not so brash as to say I have the concrete answers that many here claim (despite my dealings with the people). It is more complicated than any of you will ever know and no book will teach you what you need to know about how to deal with the different nuances and idiosyncracies of each micro-sect in the area.

[mattp]

We all agree that time will tell.

 

You may not argue this way (at least no on this page of this thread) but plenty of "ordinary conservative voters" as you call them maintain that the ends justify the means so our president did the right thing to lie, there was nothing wrong with undertaking extraordinary rendition and they don't mind if "rules were broken" at Abu Ghraib or Guantanimo because "everything has changed since 911," and they claim that we don't have proof that Bush's men outed Plame when in fact we know that is exactly what happened. Plenty argued that the war was not about oil, and many still do because they don't want to acknowledge the obvious: we didn't go in there to make Iraq better for Iraqi's - we went in there to make it friendlier to our oil interests.

 

Some of it is just wishiful thinking or "my country right or wrong," but clearlyli there is a big dose of hypocrisy here: it is OK if we use military means to pursue OUR economic interests, but "in this day and age civilized nations (Russia) don't do it."

[akhalteke]

Well, lets not lump everyone into one pile eh? Though I joke about it. I reserve my most vile comments for uneducated people like Kevbone while I reserve a modicum of respect for those like you that have well researched and thought out positions.

 

People will disagree, though how they respect others and how they are prepared to explain their positions marks the value of the man.

[hafilax]

The hypocrisy to me is that despotic tactics were used by a democratic government to depose a despot and impose a democracy.

 

You have to admire Russia's honesty. There is no question about their motives or intentions.

[mkporwit]

You have to admire Russia's honesty. There is no question about their motives or intentions.

 

No, you don't have to admire their honesty. This sort of fucked-up apologetic reasoning is the same as saying you have to admire a thug for being upfront about wanting to cap you...

[akhalteke]

The hypocrisy to me is that despotic tactics were used by a democratic government to depose a despot and impose a democracy.

 

You have to admire Russia's honesty. There is no question about their motives or intentions.

 

I think it is a little early to be making such statements. There do seem to be some irregularities, but I am not willing to assign such titles until I know they are rightfully earned. War is dirty; there is no doubt about it. You can't be involved in any part of it without getting your hands dirty. Again, time will tell who was wrong, right, bad or not-so-bad.

[akhalteke]

You have to admire Russia's honesty. There is no question about their motives or intentions.

 

No, you don't have to admire their honesty. This sort of fucked-up apologetic reasoning is the same as saying you have to admire a thug for being upfront about wanting to cap you...

 

Hitler was pretty honest too.

[hafilax]

Where's the tongue in cheek emoticon?

[The_Rooster]

The financial chickens have not come home to roost yet (OK Cock, flash us with your inane presence).

 

 

COCK A DOODLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JosephH]

From my perspective, I thought that the early prosecution of the war, as in

how we started and got into it, was one of the more horrendous things I've seen my gov't do.

I carry some bitterness of the initiation of that whole thing. That you, my brothers, overwhelmingly

and totally supported it then after the early success after running in there like Leroy Jenkins

all akimbo, seemed crazy to me then and now (yet understandable). It shows weak minds

and weak will. That the stakes are huge is undeniable, and I would hope that once we've

collectively jumped off the cliff like we have, then stay tucked up till ya hit the water or

your nuts will go splat. Which translates loosely to stop whining about Iraq and STFU.

We MUST successfully pull this off. It's huge and we already spent the money and the lives.

Somehow many of you feel that whining and complaining on public boards translates to something like

intellectual discourse. It isn't and it doesn't. It marks you as pussies. It shows weak minds and weak will.

So STFU and sack up - don't fuck this up for the rest of us.

 

The unfortunate reality is there is no "winning" with the current approach or the approaches

of either candidate - it's like saying we shouldn't have stuck our hand in that hornet's nest

but we are going to stay until we "win" when what you need is a can of RAID. If we were

serious about "winning" then we wouldn't have been or be screwing around - we'd have 500k troops

minimum on the ground in Iraq. The borders would be secured and sealed tight with 100k of them,

Baghdad with 100k, outlying towns of significance with 100k, and we'd have 200k involved with protecting

and rebuilding their infrastructure.

 

Had we done that in the beginning we could have been in and out of there in two to three years.

Better yet, we could have just killed Saddam and his sons remotely and explained we'd like

a few changes and we'll keep killing the leadership until we got them. What we've done instead -

and since - has displayed an almost indescribable level of incompetence and a complete inability

to wield U.S. military might effectively.

 

So long as we approach such problems in a manner which won't disturb anyone's delicate suburban

sensibilities we'll continue to drown in circumstances we refuse to take responsibility for or deal with

as they've been dealt. And the similarities of our inability to deal effectively with the Iraq, New Orleans,

and rebuilding the WTC are not lost on China who take all three to be a clear statement we lack the

ability to project our will or endure pain. A huge strategic mistake on our part as far as I'm concerned.

[Bug]

Yes. We have demonstrated weakness while claiming to be tough.

Every step of the way, we said "X" and did less.

We suck for what we did in Iraq.

What really sucks is that Bush's generation was the same generation that proved that people power could effect policy changes.

Now we just roll over and pretend it is not our problem.

 

Now THAT is hypocracy.

[Couloir]

I like The Rooster.

[rob]

There has been a strange new trend on cc -- threads starting out with immature, spray-infested and childish humor that slowly morph into mature, semi-intelligent and somewhat respectable discourse. It's kind of backwards.

 

It makes me kinda uncomfortable. Thank god for Couloir's avatar.

[Dechristo]

I heard that global warming was caused by Saddam, which is why we invaded Iraq.

 

Correct. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has been a misnomer for "WMDs" from the start.

 

We knew all along that Saddam was fomenting "Weather of Mass Destruction".

[kevbone]

The unfortunate reality is there is no "winning" with the current approach or the approaches

of either candidate - it's like saying we shouldn't have stuck our hand in that hornet's nest

but we are going to stay until we "win" when what you need is a can of RAID. If we were

serious about "winning" then we wouldn't have been or be screwing around - we'd have 500k troops

minimum on the ground in Iraq. The borders would be secured and sealed tight with 100k of them,

Baghdad with 100k, outlying towns of significance with 100k, and we'd have 200k involved with protecting

and rebuilding their infrastructure.

 

Had we done that in the beginning we could have been in and out of there in two to three years.

Better yet, we could have just killed Saddam and his sons remotely and explained we'd like

a few changes and we'll keep killing the leadership until we got them. What we've done instead -

and since - has displayed an almost indescribable level of incompetence and a complete inability

to wield U.S. military might effectively.

 

So long as we approach such problems in a manner which won't disturb anyone's delicate suburban

sensibilities we'll continue to drown in circumstances we refuse to take responsibility for or deal with

as they've been dealt. And the similarities of our inability to deal effectively with the Iraq, New Orleans,

and rebuilding the WTC are not lost on China who take all three to be a clear statement we lack the

ability to project our will or endure pain. A huge strategic mistake on our part as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

Agreed!

[TheJiggler]

It is more complicated than any of you will ever know and no book will teach you what you need to know about how to deal with the different nuances and idiosyncracies of each micro-sect in the area.

 

By your own definition you can't know the consequences of your actions. SO WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU INVADE THE DAMN PLACE!!!! There is so much cognitive dissonance with you conservatives:

 

US == always good!

US kills thousands of people

Those people would have killed themselves QED

 

[akhalteke]

It is more complicated than any of you will ever know and no book will teach you what you need to know about how to deal with the different nuances and idiosyncracies of each micro-sect in the area.

 

By your own definition you can't know the consequences of your actions. SO WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU INVADE THE DAMN PLACE!!!! There is so much cognitive dissonance with you conservatives:

 

US == always good!

US kills thousands of people

Those people would have killed themselves QED

 

Because the consequences of innaction far transcend the consequences of international apathy.

[TheJiggler]

It is more complicated than any of you will ever know and no book will teach you what you need to know about how to deal with the different nuances and idiosyncracies of each micro-sect in the area.

 

By your own definition you can't know the consequences of your actions. SO WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU INVADE THE DAMN PLACE!!!! There is so much cognitive dissonance with you conservatives:

 

US == always good!

US kills thousands of people

Those people would have killed themselves QED

 

Because the consequences of innaction far transcend the consequences of international apathy.

Nonsense! We would be safer, richer and fewer people would have died had we not gone to Iraq. Those holding defense contractor or oil stocks would be a little poorer, but the rest of us would be better off.

[billcoe]

Nonsense! We would be safer, richer and fewer people would have died had we not gone to Iraq. Those holding defense contractor or oil stocks would be a little poorer, but the rest of us would be better off.

 

If you truly believe that statement 100%, it shows you to have lots of "Nonsense!" inside your head. Nobody can know that for a absolute fact, and although I tend to agree with your statement, there is plenty of evidence to indicate the opposite of what you just said. Had you phrased it "we most likely would have been safer, richer and fewer people would have died had we not gone to Iraq. Those holding defense contractor or oil stocks would be a little poorer, but the rest of us would be better off." I'd be in agreement. That you totally ignore all the evidence not to your liking reflects poorly on your thought process's IMO.

 

Yet we spent the money and the lives...to walk away now and allow it to disintegrate into a sectarian violent hell does a disservice to the Iraqis and the region, and furthermore weakens us in all future negotiations with all countries in the world, both friend and foe, in my view.

 

It could be that Bush is dyslexic and misread the Roosevelt diatribe "Walk softly and carry a big stick" backasswards, but regardless, where do you go from here: what is the best case scenario is the big question that remains. Even Obama has changed and swapped his view. Formerly, he had stated we should pull out immediately. His current opinion has softened substantially, and I think it's due to as he is getting more information on the subject, he has become wiser.