I can't speak for others who are against the war or upset with Bush, but I am angry that we did it at all. The fact that Bush misled the public about the reasons for the war only intensifies my feeling of frustration. I wanted to see Saddam go, but I never thought an invasion would be worth the consequences. Now that it is done, I don't believe it was. Again, I reiterate, I think Saddam was a bad, bad, nasty man. But I still do not think the U.S. should have invaded Iraq. I'm sure you're having difficulty reconciling those two sentiments. Someday you'll come to understand that life and politics are not really made up of either/or scenarios.
Exactly. In which reality does the sentence, "I believe President Bush is a liar", equate to, "Jeez, I sure do miss Saddam Hussein, I wish he was my president". Oh yeah, in the warped mind of our very own MannyFreshStunna.
Except that every now and then, both life and politics are. Such as "Either America gets rid of Bush in 2004, or it signifies to the world: 'We were lied to, and the working class/middle class lost many of its children, murdered in the sand, but that's what we want and deserve, 'cause we think so little of ourselves, 'cause we're off chasing the American Dream, no time for reflection or meaningful participation, FRIENDS is on'..." Yes, some things are indeed "either/or"...
That's like saying you wouldn't mind playing the World Cup final against Martinique. But it brings up the fourth possible scenario for this war: We knew we could win, which makes it politically popular. Which, of course, is kinda ironic because while we could defeat the soldiers and destroy the military infrastructure with little effort, that doesn't necessarily count as a win when about a third of the country really despises our occupation and the other two thirds are more than a little suspicious that we will never leave.
Ahhh yes. I come back from class and the liberal chorus really "got me" this time. Please, a spelling smack, Chuck D lyrics, and a petty insult? This is what I'm talking about. it's never actually about the issue at hand. It's always about something else. And obviously since I'm too stupid to spell "crucifixion", whatever i say is just ripped from Coulter or Rush or some other conservative i don't listen to. Listen. Does anyone want to talk about positives/negatives here? Cause if you want to keep playing Bush pinata i'll be glad to give you all sticks and blindfolds and let you whoop each other for all eternity.
hey mannys fresh tuna, don't you ever get tired of stinkin' the place up? has your boyfriend ever done anything untoward? grow up republicon... the people in the white house are dirty, dirty byatches PERIOD
Wow...wow. i can't believe how much you owned me right there. I mean, you totally showed me. Look at that. Ow, my pride hurts. Geez, just look at that;no remorse man. You saw your opportunity and you just cracked open this gem. I'm impressed. I really am. I mean look at the word you came up with. "Republicon." Man. That is soooo clever. I mean, you took the name of the party, and instead of it being "can" you changed it to "con." This implies in a clever way that republicans are really con artists who thieve for a living. What a smart, clever person you must be to take an everyday word out of context like that and give it a whole new meaning. That's really a great job man, keep up the good work.
no genius actually by republicon, which btw i've used on this board for ages, refers to the fact that all W apologists/supporters spout the same bullshyte program... a la a robot... republicon... get it... never mind
Manny, In your posts you keep using the word "you" to refer to -- it seems -- a group of people (liberals who post). In your posts you accuse that group (the amorphous "you") of being Saddam Hussein apologists. Your evidence for this is apparently any and all posts criticizing any part of the war, be it the diplomacy, the representations to the public, the military strategy, the post-war planning. I'm sure you have rational thoughts on these subjects, but do you understand why people are jumping on that particular post? Just acknowledge it because its become the distraction that killed this thread.
Excactly. And I'd be happy to bet on the USA in that case. You see, it's a very consistent position, which for some bizarre reason gets certain anti-war activitsts apoplectic. The very first question I'd want answered before deciding to go to war: Can we win? If no, the discussion is over. If yes, then at what price? Only here can we begin to discuss the reasons for going to war and make a determination if it's worth the costs. Was the Iraq war worth it? Probably not, but one could easily support it ENTIRELY on humanitarian grounds without supporting a war to liberate Tibet and still be perfectly consistent.
Powell didn't say Saddam didn't have anything, he said he didn't have anything "significant". Our February 2001 definition of "significant" might be very different from our post-9/11 definition of "significant". Powell shouldn't have said that in Cairo. Remember that his remarks were certainly based nearly entirely on Clinton-era intel, and Clinton ordered military strikes on Iraq several times for their refusal to comply with WMD regulations. What does that have to do with anything? Rummy wanted to find out if Saddam was involved, he didn't say he was. Again, what's your point? The Bushies were still gathering intel at this point. The same intel that Clinton used as justification for ordering air strikes against Iraq? I made a mistake in saying that because I didn't pay attention to the dates on Powell's quote. If I see proof that the Bush administration did not believe Saddam had significant amounts of WMDs post-9/11, then yeah.
Do I have this right? (2001, paraphrased) - "Saddam isn't a threat to the US" I guess it all depends what your definition of "isn't" is, huh?
are they teaching you anything? is my lotto money going to good use? are you going to uga? because that might explain something...
Yes, you have it right. As Ben said, prior to 9/11 I wouldn't have said bin Laden posed a major threat to the US mainland either. Sure, he could threaten our allies abroad, and carry out relatively minor attacks like bombing our destroyers and embassies, but he couldn't threaten, say New York City or Washington DC. Hmm, does that sound familiar?
That would have been incredibly naive, dfb. The US knew prior to 9/11 that Al Qaeda could and would strike on its territory. It just failed massively at acting on it. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/america_under_attack/clues/timeline.html