NH Primaries

[uBeR]

Guuuuauaaagaagghhhh.

[BinaryLife]

lol, poor howard dean.

[bokko]

Scuzzy,
I think just about everyone bar a minority of United States citizens consider the Iraqi war a fucking disgrace so I can't really grasp how you can think this is somehow unique for american liberals? Unless you are being sarcastic/joking/being witty, then I'm sure it was hilarious.

[uBeR]

That minority of which you speak is but a small handful of neoconservatives.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by bokko

Scuzzy,
I think just about everyone bar a minority of United States citizens consider the Iraqi war a fucking disgrace so I can't really grasp how you can think this is somehow unique for american liberals? Unless you are being sarcastic/joking/being witty, then I'm sure it was hilarious.

While there may be general agreement that involvement in Iraq is problematic there would not be consensus on why or how to fix it amongst those disparate groups.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Vicious

I never said kill every man, woman, and child. I've simply stated that in order to win a war, you kill your enemy's will to fight. There is no faster way to do that than to kill your enemy, their friends, and their families.

Killing their families? What the fuck are you saying, man? Murdering innocents is evil, even if you use scare quotes.

Besides (not that there needs to be a besides), there is no faster way than to whip up support for insurgency than to do wrong by the civilian population.

Originally Posted by Vicious

I've simply stated that our troops shouldn't have to hesitate before they open fire on grown men threatening them with their own firearms and explosives. If someone stood before you and told you they were going to punch you in the face, are you really going to turn the other cheek? It's human nature not to.

So "liberals" are somehow tying the hands of US soldiers in Iraq and stopping them from defending themsleves when attacked? You really believe that shit?

[Rutabeggar]

Originally Posted by ekiM

So "liberals" are somehow tying the hands of US soldiers in Iraq and stopping them from defending themsleves when attacked? You really believe that shit?

Yes.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I think he was basically saying it's a double edged sword with some Liberals. If we'd walked into Iraq, taken out Hussein and left, we'd be horrible in allowing human rights violations to occur because we caused the Iraqs to fight amongst themselves in a civil war causing civilians deaths. However, since we stayed, and Iraq/Syria and the like are sending suicide bombers over and they're killing civilians, liberals say we're causing innocent civilian deaths because of our presence. Either way liberals will claim we are causing human rights catastrophes. They'd have rather left him in power believing he'd never ever ever try to get weapons to do what he did to the Kurds again, but if he did, we'd be responsible for that human rights catastrophe because we didn't "finish the job" with Bush 41. One way or another, it just seems to some, that liberals will always find a way to blame America... so long as it isn't themselves. I think that's where his frustration lies.

Yeah, and one of my big frustrations with you guys is the way you refer to "liberals" as if they were some demonic, homogenous, America-hating mass that you can fantasise opinions for then pat yourself on the back when you refute them.

But, in fact, what the dude was saying was not that he was pissed off that "liberals" are blaming America for the bad results of the Iraq war. He was saying that "liberals" are tying the hands of your troops by demanding that human rights be observed. For instance, he's stated that the best way to fight the insurgency would be to kill the families of anyone associated with it to "send a message". Apparently the "liberals" feel that it's wrong to kill the "innocent", and they're wrong wrong wrong (of course they are! they're liberals!). Do you agree with this nut?

[Rutabeggar]

So what would you have our troops do...here's a situation for you to think about.

A man, driving the streets of Baghdad approaches a U.S. Military convoy. The troops ask the man to stop, he does not answer and keeps approaching them. They insist on him stopping, still he does not. He looks "innocent" but how can you really tell he doesn't have a trunk full of C4 for you. He keeps approaching, but he appears to be innocent, but not stopping. What would you have the troops do...Shoot him up or let him get close enough to blow 20 of the men/women defending YOUR rights. It's the same situation with the 5 Iranian speed boats that approached the U.S. ships in international waters. What are you gonna do? Let them get close enough to blow you away, or save the lives of YOUR men and a warship by eliminating the threat. We can't begin to presume to know or FATHOM the choices these individuals have to make on a daily basis. Sure, it's nice to talk about human rights, until it's you in that convoy who has to make the choice whether to save you and your friends lives or the life of 1 potential "innocent" person.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

So what would you have our troops do...here's a situation for you to think about.

A man, driving the streets of Baghdad approaches a U.S. Military convoy. The troops ask the man to stop, he does not answer and keeps approaching them. They insist on him stopping, still he does not. He looks "innocent" but how can you really tell he doesn't have a trunk full of C4 for you. He keeps approaching, but he appears to be innocent, but not stopping. What would you have the troops do...Shoot him up or let him get close enough to blow 20 of the men/women defending YOUR rights. It's the same situation with the 5 Iranian speed boats that approached the U.S. ships in international waters. What are you gonna do? Let them get close enough to blow you away, or save the lives of YOUR men and a warship by eliminating the threat. We can't begin to presume to know or FATHOM the choices these individuals have to make on a daily basis. Sure, it's nice to talk about human rights, until it's you in that convoy who has to make the choice whether to save you and your friends lives or the life of 1 potential "innocent" person.

The problem with a "reasonable man" hypothetical is that there's no guarantee that both parties to the discussion operate withing the same "reasonable" framework of concepts and ideas.

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

So what would you have our troops do...here's a situation for you to think about.

A man, driving the streets of Baghdad approaches a U.S. Military convoy. The troops ask the man to stop, he does not answer and keeps approaching them. They insist on him stopping, still he does not. He looks "innocent" but how can you really tell he doesn't have a trunk full of C4 for you. He keeps approaching, but he appears to be innocent, but not stopping. What would you have the troops do...Shoot him up or let him get close enough to blow 20 of the men/women defending YOUR rights. It's the same situation with the 5 Iranian speed boats that approached the U.S. ships in international waters. What are you gonna do? Let them get close enough to blow you away, or save the lives of YOUR men and a warship by eliminating the threat. We can't begin to presume to know or FATHOM the choices these individuals have to make on a daily basis. Sure, it's nice to talk about human rights, until it's you in that convoy who has to make the choice whether to save you and your friends lives or the life of 1 potential "innocent" person.

Ever watch Terminator 2? "Drop him!" It depends on the threat at hand. Obviously you're a sick fuck who has a twisted view on life, so I'll leave it at that.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I think he was basically saying it's a double edged sword with some Liberals. If we'd walked into Iraq, taken out Hussein and left, we'd be horrible in allowing human rights violations to occur because we caused the Iraqs to fight amongst themselves in a civil war causing civilians deaths. However, since we stayed, and Iraq/Syria and the like are sending suicide bombers over and they're killing civilians, liberals say we're causing innocent civilian deaths because of our presence. Either way liberals will claim we are causing human rights catastrophes. They'd have rather left him in power believing he'd never ever ever try to get weapons to do what he did to the Kurds again, but if he did, we'd be responsible for that human rights catastrophe because we didn't "finish the job" with Bush 41. One way or another, it just seems to some, that liberals will always find a way to blame America... so long as it isn't themselves. I think that's where his frustration lies.

Scuzzy

Solution? Don't invade a sovereign nation in the first place! There's absolutely no basis for the American government to attack a country that which has not attacked us or intended to.

Human rights violations for having a civil war in another country? Give me a break! You want to go in and fight everybody's civil war?? How would you have felt if, during the American Civil War, China decided that, hey, the Confederates are fighting for a just cause, they agree with their positions, the Confederates provide economic benefits for the Chinese, and the Chinese don't like Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, so they're going to fight with the Confederates against the Union. Nevermind that neither side had provoked or attacked China. They felt because they had a strong military and lots of money that they should support the Confederates and that civil wars are inherently bad and the Union members were evil peoples. If you were a Union soldier, would you not be a little mad at China?? Would you not feel China deserves a little retribution?

Fact of the matter is that we can't fight everybody's civil war, and war is going to happen regardless if we intervene. Let me ask you, where were you petitioning your representatives to solve the unrest in Burma? Why aren't you up in arms because of the violence and death in Kenya right now? How come we aren't bombing the fuck out of China right now for their human rights abuses? Why aren't you pissed we didn't send in troops during the Chinese Civil War? Where were you during the Algerian Civil War? All of those Algerians died! Oooh, how could we have let that happen?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Solution? Don't invade a sovereign nation in the first place! There's absolutely no basis for the American government to attack a country that which has not attacked us or intended to.

Hello? WMDs?

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Hello? WMDs?

Impotent chemical shells and storage areas left over from gassing the Kurds?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

Impotent chemical shells and storage areas left over from gassing the Kurds?

What we know now is irrelevant. That was the biggest issue that was used as justification for the COALITION to go in. Faulty or not.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Hello? WMDs?

Oh, you mean these?

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Oh, you mean these?

Monday morning quarterbacking does us no good back then.

[BinaryLife]

At the time we had intelligence saying there were WMD's in Iraq. Which is justification to go in there. Especially since Saddam was being evasive about the topic and denying us access. If he had been more forthcoming then we probably wouldn't have gone in to be honest. That being our primary reason.

Now of course we know better. But the decision isn't being made now, it was already made. The decisions being made now are simply not the best for getting out of there. The Bush administration knows we can't just haul ass, and they're using that as an excuse for staying. I don't honestly believe they know how to fix the problem they've created.

[uBeR]

Hmm, John McCain said he would have invaded Iraq anyway even if he knew they had no WMDs. Would you agree? If you don't agree, would you listen to weapon inspectors or would you ignore the inspectors before deciding to go to war with a nation who supposedly has WMDs?

Second, where's the basis upon which we go to war with a nation that is (supposedly) developing WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. (Dun dun dun!) Where is it in the Constitution that says we've got the obligation or even the authority to do that? Hell, where is it even stated in statutory law? Hell, even common law? Where's the justification for invading a country that had no intentions of attacking the American people? (Besides, they would have no way to attack us with any WMDs had they actually had any.)

Third, I think one of things you have to consider is the way that we treat people who have and people who don't. As soon a country has a nuclear weapon, we start treating them nicely, give them loads of money, and mostly leave them alone. If they don't, we invade and occupy them. And you wonder where the incentive is. (Take Pakistan for example.)

"We have it. The smoking gun. The evidence. The potential weapon of mass destruction we have been looking for as our pretext of invading Iraq. There’s just one problem--it’s in North Korea."

[Innoc]

IIRC, Iraq didn't have free reign to do whatever they wanted. There's the little matter of the post-DS1 conditions.