Originally Posted By Beaumandy What straw man? If your arguing that the war is illegal, the weapons inspectors should have had unlimited time to do their work, and that the war is all based on lies, you are arguing that Saddam the murdering dictator should still be in power. Why is that so hard to figure out? There used to be a time when Americans supported their country during a war. But ever since the libs helped us lose in Vietnam they won't be happy until we lose every other war we are engaged in. Oh.. they support the troops though.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The straw men you set up so you can knock down. The ones that pop up every time you post something. Those straw men.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy cmpaley, why dodge the fact that if you are against the war and support the lying democrats then you are for Saddam being in power. Tough to admit isn't it. But that's the left today. A group of people who want to let terrorists win and dictators rule. Actions do speak louder than words. Did we ever get the replacement for Bush once the left impeach him for removing the victim known as Saddam?
Originally Posted By Bruiser "But that's the left today. A group of people who want to let terrorists win and dictators rule." Surely you must be aware that you write some of the most asinine stuff to ever appear on the Internet. Of course no one on the "left" wants this. But go ahead, look like an idiot. Is is too much of a concept for you to grasp that people have fundamental political disagreements over the way things are done by this Administration and still agree on the end result? If sweeping generalizations were loose women you would have caught a disease a long time ago.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "If sweeping generalizations were loose women you would have caught a disease a long time ago." I just about busted a gut when I read this. Shame on me I guess, but that was funny.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Surely you must be aware that you write some of the most asinine stuff to ever appear on the Internet. Of course no one on the "left" wants this.>> Bruiser, how is the left going to win the war on terror when they have a hard time admitting it's even real, they attack a president during war time with lies, and they fight all anti terror measures like the Patriot Act. So yes, if you take everything the libs do on a whole, it appears tehy want to lose the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They sure don't have any earth shattering ideas on how to win now do they?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan How will we know when the "War on Terror" has been won? Or will we be fighting it forever?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < If sweeping generalizations were loose women you would have caught a disease a long time ago. > I have to say I LOL on that one too. I was going to point out the fallacies in Beau's logic, but sometimes something like the above just plain says it better.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>How will we know when the "War on Terror" has been won?<< My religious answer: When we remember why we celebrate Easter. My secular answer: The first step is to get back to fighting terrorists instead of creating new ones.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The reason terrorist do what they do is because they can pretty much predict the response it will generate. Killing a few dozen people isn't what their major goal is -- it's fostering that "Oh my God... will I be next?" mindset in the rest of us. And since 9/11, terrorism has pretty much been running the show. What if we reacted in an unpredictable manner for a change? I don't know if it would "win" the war on terror, but it might take some of their power away.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>cmpaley, why dodge the fact that if you are against the war and support the lying democrats then you are for Saddam being in power.<< I deny the logic of your progression as it is inaccurate and untrue. I am of the opinion that Bush and gang wanted to go into Iraq since well before November of 2000. It wasn't spoken of very much because it would have given lie to the whole, "we're not into nation building" line that candidate Bush was foisting upon the people of this country. We're there now and it's more trouble that a toilet full of snakes. The whole situation is being used by the rabid-right and the left to make the other side look bad. Of course, since the rabid-right wing of the Republican Party holds absolute and unchallenged power, the burden of proof is on them to show why they're the ones who have it right when things aren't going as smoothly as promised. Talking points and screaming, "but where are YOUR ideas?" isn't cutting it. Those are the tactics used by children. Time to grow up.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I am of the opinion that Bush and gang wanted to go into Iraq since well before November of 2000. It wasn't spoken of very much because it would have given lie to the whole, "we're not into nation building" line that candidate Bush was foisting upon the people of this country.<< You said it. It's all there in the Project for a New American Century stuff. Signed, by the way, by several high ranking members of this administration as well as the president's brother.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's all there in the Project for a New American Century stuff.> It's also here: <a href="http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm" target="_blank">http://www.library.cornell.edu /colldev/mideast/libera.htm</a> A relevant quote: "The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Another relevant quote. >> These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But not everyone "knew" that therefore Iraq needed to be invaded and occupied, now did they?<< Then why in heaven's name did they all vote for the war?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan They "all" didn't. And remember that those who didn't faced a lot of ridicule because of it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
