Damn fool war

[twentythree]

Originally posted by Marsupial
It's inevitable that when you know history and look into the truth of any issue, you're going to end up with a conservative viewpoint.

I'm wondering what kind of Marsupial could come to the conclusion that by looking into the truth of any issues one ends up with a conservative viewpoint?

[twentythree]

If so many of the posters of late think that Cecil got it wrong with regard to shrub going AWOL why haven't they refuted his arguments instead of questioned his political bent?

[Irishman]

twentythree, this whole thread is not really about Bush going AWOL, even though that is the topic of the column, but rather about the comment Cecil summarized/editorialized at the bottom of the column about the "damn fool war".

hyjyljyj, #7 is getting closer to true every day, between the USA Patriot Act, USA Patriot Act #2, Ashcroft's efforts, and the recent Supreme Court decision that determined police officers are no longer required to read Miranda rights to suspects. And while #6 specifically says executing (which we certainly are not doing), there is no denying that government efforts have been pointed specifically at Arabs and Muslims. Think of the group arrested for playing paintball, because that was "terrorist training".

But 2 out of 14 isn't really all that much.

[Dr. Cobweb]

Originally posted by Irishman
twentythree, this whole thread is not really about Bush going AWOL, even though that is the topic of the column, but rather about the comment Cecil summarized/editorialized at the bottom of the column about the "damn fool war".

hyjyljyj, #7 is getting closer to true every day, between the USA Patriot Act, USA Patriot Act #2, Ashcroft's efforts, and the recent Supreme Court decision that determined police officers are no longer required to read Miranda rights to suspects. And while #6 specifically says executing (which we certainly are not doing), there is no denying that government efforts have been pointed specifically at Arabs and Muslims. Think of the group arrested for playing paintball, because that was "terrorist training".

But 2 out of 14 isn't really all that much. A lot of progress is being made on numbers 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12, too. Give the scumbags a few more years; they're working on it.

[QueenJbean]

Having just read Cecil's comments I have decided - I am madly in love and shall marry him.

Cecil - my idol ;)

[hyjyljyj]

Originally posted by Dr. Cobweb
A lot of progress is being made on numbers 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12, too. Give the scumbags a few more years; they're working on it. One presumes that must include former Fuhrer Bill Clinton, a vocal proponent of abolishing the regulation that limits a president to two terms.

However, re-reading the cited items while wiping away the "cobwebs" will reveal the irony of your cynicism.

If this were in fact the totalitarian nightmare state that you seem to believe it is or is becoming, one of its rules would be that you would NOT be allowed to leave (Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, etc.). As it is, America's borders work both ways.

The freedoms you take for granted are yours to escape and abandon at any time. If indeed it is the mark of insanity to stay in a bad marriage where one feels no love and one's freedom and identity are squelched, then logically this extends to the scale of nations as well. If it is stupid to stay in a bad relationship, then it is even moreso to stay in a bad country.

Oh, so "love it or leave it," in other words--what about protesting, being vocal, speaking out against injustice, abolishing slavery, passing the Civil Rights Act, working to change it for the better, you say?

Precisely. You can't do that in a Nazi state, or any other authoritarian regime. You can in America. Welcome to the greatest country in history.

[Dr. Cobweb]

Originally posted by hyjyljyj
[irrelevant blather snipped]

If this were in fact the totalitarian nightmare state that you seem to believe it is or is becoming, one of its rules would be that you would NOT be allowed to leave (Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, etc.). As it is, America's borders work both ways.

The freedoms you take for granted are yours to escape and abandon at any time.

[blah blah blah snipped]

Welcome to the greatest country in history. When someone's notion of logic is "it ain't that bad yet, therefore it ain't ever gonna be that bad", there's not much room for discussion. People who believe "it can't happen here" are the ones who will help it to happen here.

I don't take my freedoms for granted; I cherish them, such as they are, while I have them. And I will certainly fight for them, and kill, if necessary, in an effort to preserve them. I'm just not foolish enough to believe that it's only swarthy foreigners with box cutters who can be a threat, and I recognize that right now, in fact, the greatest threat to the existence of our Constitution and our freedom lies not in foreign terrorists, but in a fanatically secretive, power-drunk regime with clearly demonstrated, openly stated fascist intentions, a thorough disregard and even contempt for our legal system, and a vociferous and febrile following of yahoos, who unthinkingly swallow and then parrot jingoistic claptrap in the apparent belief that unquestioning acceptance of feculent propaganda makes them better Americans and more secure from harm.

This was indeed a great country: great in its principles, its ideals, and its freedoms. Probably the greatest country in history. But it's in serious fucking trouble at the moment, and what kind of place it will be ten or twenty years from now is very much up in the air. I hope it will weather the current threat and come out all right. But I'm acutely aware of the possibility that it will not, and with all the help the jingoes and yahoos are giving to the fascists, it ain't looking good at the moment.

[mangeorge]

One presumes that must include former Fuhrer Bill Clinton, a vocal proponent of abolishing the regulation that limits a president to two terms.
Something about that idea scares the shit out of conservatives, doesn't it?
And please, justify or explain " Fuhrer".

[hyjyljyj]

Conservatives ain't scared of nothin', long as there's duct tape.

Seriously, I'm not sure I understand the suggested polarizing of the two-term limit. It seems clear enough that it's to everyone's advantage that presidents be limited to two terms, e.g., won't two terms of GW Bush be enough for you? If so, then you support the two-term limit--without deserving the label 'scared conservative'. No matter who is in the White House, one side will always be drooling (and in some extreme cases evidently, gibbering and foaming at the mouth) for him or her to be out of there as soon as possible.

So it comes down to perspective. Just as for some, this USED to be a great country; and there is another perspective from which this currently still IS a great country.

And since you said please,...Some google--er, yahoo a while back attempted to liken present-day America to Nazi Germany. I know it's an absurdly gigantic stretch, but I am not making this up. Anyway, Nazi...egomaniacal power junkie [insert name here]...Fuhrer...that's all

We now resume our regularly scheduled BushBash >:^D)

[mangeorge]

No, I'm not against Bush running for a third term. I can not-vote* him as often as needed. I advocate direct popular vote and no term limits. I see voting as a near duty. I resent having my right to vote taken away.
And I enjoyed Clinton's presidency. It was fun. :p

*Vote for anyone but.

[thor2]

I miss Bill Clinton. Good economy; good pornography; good White House sex !

What more could you want ?:) :p

[Irishman]

hyjyljyj said:
One presumes that must include former Fuhrer Bill Clinton, a vocal proponent of abolishing the regulation that limits a president to two terms.

Really? I must have missed that. Got a cite?

So it comes down to perspective. Just as for some, this USED to be a great country; and there is another perspective from which this currently still IS a great country.

I think the point is that some of us are worried the politicians are busy screwing up the things that make it such a great country. In other words, it's not the country we hate, but the changes being enacted that are counter to the spirit of the country.

[The Great Zamboni]

I have to come back.

Originally posted by Dr. Cobweb
A lot of progress is being made on numbers 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12, too. Give the scumbags a few more years; they're working on it.

Originally posted by Irishman
hyjyljyj, #7 is getting closer to true every day, between the USA Patriot Act, USA Patriot Act #2, Ashcroft's efforts, and the recent Supreme Court decision that determined police officers are no longer required to read Miranda rights to suspects. And while #6 specifically says executing (which we certainly are not doing), there is no denying that government efforts have been pointed specifically at Arabs and Muslims. Think of the group arrested for playing paintball, because that was "terrorist training".

People have been saying "This country is going down the tubes" ever since it started, even before it started. During the Revolutionary War, many citizens of the colonies didn't trust Democracy. They thought it would be oppressive or allow society to become so open it would fall apart. They were wrong. Many people believed Abraham Lincoln was ruining the country, yet it was better after his rule and the Civil War. The same goes for Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. I could probably find many other examples, but there is nothing else off the top of my head.

My point is the country has never been "going down the tubes." This phrase (and variations) and the above quotes are what people use whenever someone who has ideologies, beliefs, and agendas contrary to their own hold power.

Conservatives had the same laments when Congress was full of Democrats and Clinton was in office. They were all convinced the country would be ruined. It didn't happen.

I'm more worried about the economy, Iraq, and juggling work and college than I am the Patriot Act, terrorism and the so-called NAZIism in this country. In other words, I'm the typical American voter.

Now I must leave again. The venom spewed from this thread is dissolving my eyes.

[Artemius]

How come the leftist's who were so against the war in Iraq want us to send troops into Liberia where we have absolutely no strategic interests and thus everything to lose (like another Mogadishu)

[naita]

Originally posted by Artemius
How come the leftist's who were so against the war in Iraq want us to send troops into Liberia where we have absolutely no strategic interests and thus everything to lose (like another Mogadishu)

Because the population is asking for a peace-keeping force, the 'evil despot' of that country has said he'll accept asylum in a neighboring country, the force will be a small one, and because it'll be a peace-keeping effort, not an invasion and occupation.

Apples and oranges.

[Artemius]

Originally posted by naita
Because the population is asking for a peace-keeping force, the 'evil despot' of that country has said he'll accept asylum in a neighboring country, the force will be a small one, and because it'll be a peace-keeping effort, not an invasion and occupation.

Apples and oranges.

(Ahhh...a real live lefty here folks)

Apples and oranges my ass. Peace-keeping force? Wasn't that what Clinton called the Somalia force? Didn't they make a movie out of that fiasco? The same movie Iraq'ee generals made their troops watch so they'd know how to fight us? Who gives a rat's ass about Liberia and why does the U.S. have to be the one to go in. Why aren't you sissy Liberals screaming at France or Germany to send in forces since it's just to be a small one. Why don't you stand up for your own country for a change and direct your anti-Americanism towards those countries who sit back and do nothing. Your (liberals) hypocrisy is like a neon sign. Before the war you were screaming about all the American lives that would be lost, war is bad, etc. Then this comes along and Somalia is all but forgotten. Not one American life is worth the situation in Liberia. Why don't African countries straighten out their own mess? :mad:

[naita]

Originally posted by Artemius
(Ahhh...a real live lefty here folks)

Apples and oranges my ass. Peace-keeping force? Wasn't that what Clinton called the Somalia force? Didn't they make a movie out of that fiasco? The same movie Iraq'ee generals made their troops watch so they'd know how to fight us? Who gives a rat's ass about Liberia and why does the U.S. have to be the one to go in. Why aren't you sissy Liberals screaming at France or Germany to send in forces since it's just to be a small one. Why don't you stand up for your own country for a change and direct your anti-Americanism towards those countries who sit back and do nothing. Your (liberals) hypocrisy is like a neon sign. Before the war you were screaming about all the American lives that would be lost, war is bad, etc. Then this comes along and Somalia is all but forgotten. Not one American life is worth the situation in Liberia. Why don't African countries straighten out their own mess? :mad:

I'm probably more to the left than you can even imagine, being a foreigner and everything. And I'm not screaming at the US that you should be sending a force, or that anyone else should for that matter.
And that wasn't your original question. You first asked: why were you against war against Iraq and for sending forces to Liberia, and I gave you a list of the differences that are important to me. An other one could be, 'because I believe it will make a difference and not cost lots of lives'. Avoiding loss of life is important to me when having opinions on situations that don't directly involve me.

Not having read enough on the situation in Somalia I can only guess that I would have agreed with the intent of the operation, and that the decisions that led to the Black Hawk Down situation were, with hind-sight, bad. But that I don't necessarily need to go all the way back to 'sending troops to Somalia', my WAG would be I could stop at 'sending troops with insufficient back-up into that specific situation'.

Oh, and I'm deliberately ignoring the rest of your questions. Most of them are just plain dumb.

[Artemius]

Originally posted by naita
I'm probably more to the left than you can even imagine, being a foreigner and everything. And I'm not screaming at the US that you should be sending a force, or that anyone else should for that matter.

And that wasn't your original question. You first asked: why were you against war against Iraq and for sending forces to Liberia, and I gave you a list of the differences that are important to me. An other one could be, 'because I believe it will make a difference and not cost lots of lives'. Avoiding loss of life is important to me when having opinions on situations that don't directly involve me.

O.K. I'll back off the rhetoric some. I was a helicopter pilot in the Army and aircrew in the Navy and served during Viet Nam. Liberia is another Somalia in the waiting. BTW, how do you define *lots of lives*? If that country has no strategic value whatsoever to us, in the scheme of things, what do we care? And why aren't other countries worried about it? Also, if that dictator was trustworthy (ie. we could believe him) that country wouldn't be in the mess it's in now. First he said he would leave, no he's renigging by placing certain conditions on his departure. If you wish to avoid loss of life, lots or otherwise, then don't go there...period.

Not having read enough on the situation in Somalia I can only guess that I would have agreed with the intent of the operation, and that the decisions that led to the Black Hawk Down situation were, with hind-sight, bad. But that I don't necessarily need to go all the way back to 'sending troops to Somalia', my WAG would be I could stop at 'sending troops with insufficient back-up into that specific situation'.

While, on the surface, what you suggest sounds logical, once studied is impractical. The U.S. is now a 12 division armed force. You know how many we had in WWII. About 60+. We've got forces spread out all over this globe. Look at the morale problem starting to surface in Iraq because there's no troops to relieve the beliguered one's already there.

I'm sure the warring factions there are already gearing up and honing their hit-and-run guerrila tactics and just itching to kill some G.I.'s

Plus, you don't just fly some troops in there. There's all the logistics involving ships and aircraft transports. Men, equipment, vehicles, tanks, aircraft, etc. *Insufficient backup* would mean not enough tanks and armour which takes time, resources, manpower, and lots of money. And the democrats are already trying to use the deficit as a political tool. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that they are all for this (since it was their bright idea to begin with) in order to create another Mogadishu and drive up the deficit further in order to use it against the Republicans in 2004 (my political commentary, folks).

Oh, and I'm deliberately ignoring the rest of your questions. Most of them are just plain dumb.

Dumb? You are just plain naive and advocating reckless liberal ideas. I'd be curious to know what country you are from. Care to tell?

[naita]

Originally posted by Artemius
Dumb? You are just plain naive and advocating reckless liberal ideas. I'd be curious to know what country you are from. Care to tell?

I don't really need to tell. It's right there in location. ;)

And apart from your statement " If that country has no strategic value whatsoever to us, in the scheme of things, what do we care? And why aren't other countries worried about it?" I can't argue against the points you are making. All the points about risk and overreaching may be completely correct, but they are not relevant when it comes to "Why are you liberals for a peace force in Liberia when you were against an invasion in Iraq." They may, however, be a good reason not to send a force.

Why aren't other countries worried, you say. Well, they are. The French forreign minister said late in June that 'An international presence is required in Liberia. The responsibility for this force should be distributed equaly in the international community.
The British UN ambassador said that the US was the most natural candidate to lead a peace force in Liberia. And the UN wants a peace force in Liberia. Whether or not someone else would have taken the responsibility if the US hadn't started a process towards sending a force is of course an interesting hypothetical question. But it isn't a case of no one else worrying.

"If that country has no strategic value whatsoever to us, in the scheme of things, what do we care?" Well, even if you don't care about anything at all except the US you haven't yet shut the rest of the world out completely, so doing things the rest of the world approves of, instead of what half of it thinks is 'damn fool', could be thought of as PR-building. But, of course, if that's the only reason you can muster then you shouldn't expend any lives on it.

I'll have a go at the questions I just labled as dumb as well.
"Why aren't you sissy Liberals screaming at France or Germany to send in forces since it's just to be a small one." Well I'm not screaming at anyone. I'm cynical enough to say that Liberia isn't an immediate risk to the rest of the world, so we should step carefully (as Bush is doing) so we don't make a mess of it. Had the US refused to lead the effort, I would be expecting the rest of the Western World to step up to the plate, and be annoyed if they didn't.

"Why don't you stand up for your own country for a change and direct your anti-Americanism towards those countries who sit back and do nothing." Well I'm hardly in a position to argue here, since I'm not an American, but I do think disagreeing on parts of US forreign policy doesn't make one anti-American.

"Before the war you were screaming about all the American lives that would be lost, war is bad, etc. Then this comes along and Somalia is all but forgotten. Not one American life is worth the situation in Liberia. Why don't African countries straighten out their own mess?"
I didn't scream about all the American lives that would be lost. I calmly listed the risks of American lives being losts, and I'm happy that fewer have died than I thought would be the case, the risk that Iraqi civilians would be killed, because unlike you I have empathy for people living far away, the risks that rebuilding and reinventing Iraq afterwards would be very difficult, especially when it comes to avoiding an extremist muslim rule, which is what scares everyone at the moment. And my main point was that going to war, right now, without international support, would not be a good thing.
African countries don't straighten out their own mess because most of them are in a mess themselves and can't spare resources dealing with everyone elses.

When it comes to risking lives to stabilize situations like this, I'm inclined to agree with you. Risking ones own life to fix someone elses problems is foolish. You won't find me volunteering.

[hyjyljyj]

A tad long but highly worth it and VERY pertinent

http://64.177.83.63/liberty/email.htm

[refusal]

Originally posted by hyjyljyj
A tad long but highly worth it and VERY pertinent

http://64.177.83.63/liberty/email.htm

Having watched the whole of that I have to say that it's the biggest load of rubbish I've ever seen on the subject. What is it saying? That it's a good thing for people to die? That the deaths of those on September 11 were worthwhile exactly how? That they died so other Americans would live free? Please explain that to me.

[Artemius]

Naita wrote:

<<because unlike you I have empathy for people living far away,..>

You know, once you are called to task to back up your statements you actually come across pretty reasonable. However, regarding the above......

Listen Mr. Norway, I've seen more than enough death and destruction in my lifetime. You had no basis for making that comment. I sometimes cry when I see clips of the suffering in impoverished nations, especially those of children. But it' like you said, Africa is one messed up place. And you know what, it's always going to be screwed up unless they do something about it themselves. No amount of American do-goodism and money is going to change it. Again, I say, why is it our responsibility? How many frickin' nations are on this planet? Let the UN mobilize a force from those parasite countries that do nothing but occupy space in a chair on one hand while begging for U.S. dollars in the other. This AIDS money we're donating is an absolute waste absolutely. The US cannot be held responsible for every corrupt and cruel government on the globe. When our strategic interests are at stake then that's a different matter. It comes down to priorities. And it just infuriates me to no end to not hear of any NORWEGIAN troops being sent to Liberia (or anywhere for that matter).

Everyone loves to hate America even while they are clamoring for our money and goods and sometimes our blood. And I'll tell you why Tony Blair said we were in the best position to send forces to Liberia. It's because France, Germany, and to a lesser extent Britain, are becoming increasingly under the yoke (paralyzed into inaction) of you socialist, pussified, lame-brained liberals, with your head-in-the-sand view of geopolitics. (political commentary, not PIT commentary). I suppose Nether Chamberlain is your hero, eh?

Norway. Geez, you guys fought Hitler (or was it Stalin?) heroically like a pack of wild dogs. What in the hell happened to you since then?

[Artemius]

Sorry, that was *Nevel* Chamberlain.

[Artemius]

If we were smart we'd reinforce troops in Iraq slowly even if it means stretching our forces even thinner elsewhere and poise *reconnaisance in force* troops on the Syrian and Iranian borders. Then enter into intense political negotiations to force these radical motherfuckers and general assholes (Hussein and Ayatollah asshole clerics) into coughing up known terrorists and whatever other garbage assholes we're interested in and they are harboring. Otherwise roll right on in a kick their ass. It's already been demonstrated time and time again that Arabian fighting forces are generally a joke. Then we can take care of that bad hair-do, Napolean complex'ed, midget motherfucker Korean dictator and shove a missle or two up his ass. He'd crumble like the sock puppet that he is. His frickin' people are already starving.

Hey, Mr. Norwegian man. What's your take even though, hey, I'm just plain dumb.

[naita]

Originally posted by Artemius
Naita wrote:
<<because unlike you I have empathy for people living far away,..>
You know, once you are called to task to back up your statements you actually come across pretty reasonable. However, regarding the above......


Thank you. I try to be reasonable, most of the time. I'll admit that the above is less than.


Listen Mr. Norway, I've seen more than enough death and destruction in my lifetime. You had no basis for making that comment. I sometimes cry when I see clips of the suffering in impoverished nations, especially those of children. But it' like you said, Africa is one messed up place. And you know what, it's always going to be screwed up unless they do something about it themselves. No amount of American do-goodism and money is going to change it. Again, I say, why is it our responsibility? How many frickin' nations are on this planet? Let the UN mobilize a force from those parasite countries that do nothing but occupy space in a chair on one hand while begging for U.S. dollars in the other. This AIDS money we're donating is an absolute waste absolutely. The US cannot be held responsible for every corrupt and cruel government on the globe. When our strategic interests are at stake then that's a different matter. It comes down to priorities. And it just infuriates me to no end to not hear of any NORWEGIAN troops being sent to Liberia (or anywhere for that matter).[QUOTE]

I disagree, I did have basis for making that comment. It's the Iraq - Libera comparison again. Your arguments for not intervening in Liberia were, the risks to american soldiers lives, and the lack of US interests in the country. Whether or not you have empathy for the inhabitants of Libera, your arguments for not intervening outweighed that feeling.
Iraq on the other hand was worth invading, along the way killing a number of civilians, for what reasons exactly? From my point of view, empathy for the population of Iraq weighed _against_ an invasion. Which means that, from my point of view admittedly, you overruled empathy here as well. But of course, your rationalization may differ from mine.

And please stop whining about money being spent. When the US disagrees on how large a share it should pay of UNs costs it holds the funds back, the US still owes the UN more than a billion dollars. And when it comes to foreign aid the Scandinavian countries contribute about ten times more in proportion to GNP. (Again, it might be that this is not a good way to spend the money, but that's a different debate.)

Norwegian troops are being sent, all over the place in fact. Norwegian troops have been part of UN peace keeping forces since the inception, Norwegian F-16s supported the NATO campaign in Kosovo, Norwegian F-16s and ground forces are participating in Afghanistan. Once again you make statements not backed by facts.

[QUOTE]
Everyone loves to hate America even while they are clamoring for our money and goods and sometimes our blood. And I'll tell you why Tony Blair said we were in the best position to send forces to Liberia. It's because France, Germany, and to a lesser extent Britain, are becoming increasingly under the yoke (paralyzed into inaction) of you socialist, pussified, lame-brained liberals, with your head-in-the-sand view of geopolitics. (political commentary, not PIT commentary). I suppose Nether Chamberlain is your hero, eh?

Actually it's Neville, you got it wrong in your correction as well, but who cares, the man was a fool. Us socialist, pussified, lame-brained liberals fully supported kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991, and in my opinion dethroning Saddam at that point would have made sense. We didn't support the US and Brittain going it alone now.


Norway. Geez, you guys fought Hitler (or was it Stalin?) heroically like a pack of wild dogs. What in the hell happened to you since then?

Well, we were invaded, and we didn't approve.


I haven't called you dumb yet, I called your questions dumb. Which could be because you're misinformed and disinclined to actually discover what the rest of the world thinks and means.

If you think having US soldiers occupying every country you have a disagreement with will lead to peace, I'd have to say you actually are dumb. The countries you have mentioned don't have a reasonable alternative government to put in place, which means you'll have to keep US forces there to avoid the bad old guys taking over just when you think you're done. Which means even those who're glad you arrived will start to grumble. You can't magically make Syria, Iraq and Iran less of a home to islamic extremists by invading them. (And most of the terrorists seem to come from your buddies in Saudi-Arabia anyway.) If you could, then you'd have a leg to stand on with your calculations on the worth of american lives compared with arab civilians, as it is you're just fumbling.

Forcefully reuniting the Koreas on the other hand, could possibly work, but you'd better get China on your team.

[Artemius]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by naita

I disagree, I did have basis for making that comment. It's the Iraq - Libera comparison again. Your arguments for not intervening in Liberia were, the risks to american soldiers lives, and the lack of US interests in the country. Whether or not you have empathy for the inhabitants of Libera, your arguments for not intervening outweighed that feeling.[QUOTE]

Yeh, so??? It’s priorities. Understand?

[QUOTE]Iraq on the other hand was worth invading, along the way killing a number of civilians, for what reasons exactly?[QUOTE]

In order to start the ball rolling towards stabilizing a region that we have strategic interests in. You may not agree with that but I’m willing to bet it will work to our advantage in the long run.

[QUOTE]From my point of view, empathy for the population of Iraq weighed _against_ an invasion. Which means that, from my point of view admittedly, you overruled empathy here as well. But of course, your rationalization may differ from mine.[QUOTE]

Your *empathy* led you to overrule an invasion of Iraq?!?!?!? Just how isolated are you in Norway? You do get things like TV and radio? How many ‘effin people have Saddam and his Hitler-like sons and the regime been responsible for murdering and torturing? Huh? Care to answer that? Probably millions or at least hundreds of thousands. We SAVED lives by invading. So here the U.S. killed two birds with one stone. Strategic interests and humanitarian reasons. (Gottcha Mr. Norwegian, he, he).

[QUOTE]And please stop whining about money being spent.[QUOTE]

Hey, listen Mr. Limp dick scandinavian man (political commentary and said in a caring, loving way), you’re the only one whining (being a liberal=whining by default) here and giving tepid arguments. I’m a U.S. citizen and it’s my tax dollars too. If I don’t like how they’re being spent I’ll speak up.

[QUOTE]When the US disagrees on how large a share it should pay of UNs costs it holds the funds back, the US still owes the UN more than a billion dollars.[QUOTE]

Substantiate your facts please (hey, you demand it of me so let’s pony up). I don’t care how much we owe the UN, you name ONE other country that gives as much aid to as many countries as us in total $$ amount. Certainly not Norway. RIGHT?

[QUOTE]And when it comes to foreign aid the Scandinavian countries contribute about ten times more in proportion to GNP. (Again, it might be that this is not a good way to spend the money, but that's a different debate.)[QUOTE]

References please. 10 times? I’ll believe it when you present the facts. Foreign aid to where? Your next door neighbor? Are we talkin’ $$ aid or Norwegian porno flicks? Then again, let’s say what you present is true. If the US donated 10x’s more in proportion to our GNP the amount of $$ we’re talking about would be staggering. If those countries were dependent on the US before, how parasitic would they be with 10x's more money to squander?

Also, you guys don’t have military bases all over the world and an Armed Force that requires huge expenditures of money in proportion to our GNP with nothing even approaching our investments in ships, subs, tanks, missiles, etc., you man an army a fraction of our size, and you have a population probably less than the size of NYC (I’m guessing). This is not to mention what it takes to take care for a population of 250 million people and having to prop up the entire frickin’ economy of the planet.

[QUOTE]Norwegian troops are being sent, all over the place in fact. Norwegian troops have been part of UN peace keeping forces since the inception, Norwegian F-16s supported the NATO campaign in Kosovo, Norwegian F-16s and ground forces are participating in Afghanistan. Once again you make statements not backed by facts.[QUOTE]

Yeh? Well where’s your facts? Let’s see….hmmmm… A dozen troops to Afghanistan, 2 F-16’s in Kosovo, desk clerks as peace keeping forces. BTW, how many Norwegian troops have been killed during all these *massive* troop deployments? Yep, those Norwegian forces certainly made headlines with all their acts of bravery and sacrifice.

[QUOTE]Actually it's Neville, you got it wrong in your correction as well, but who cares, the man was a fool.[QUOTE]

You’re right. I was having a brain cramp and screwed that up. I believe Neville could be classified as a liberal. Wait a minute! You’re a liberal too! You’re not saying you’re a fool are you? (I love you, man)

[QUOTE]Us socialist, pussified, lame-brained liberals fully supported kicking Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991, and in my opinion dethroning Saddam at that point would have made sense.[QUOTE]

What role did you guys play? Guarding the USO shows in the rear?

Unfortunately, Bush was too afraid of what the liberals would think when he stopped the war when he did.

[QUOTE]We didn't support the US and Brittain going it alone now. [QUOTE]

That’s obvious and I hope we get to return the favor some day.

[QUOTE]I haven't called you dumb yet….[QUOTE]

Go ahead. I know you’re dying to. I’ll bet you and Janine Garafalo and Al Frankin are penpals (those are pinhead leftist liberal entertainers that made asses of themselves prior to the war.) Traitors (Quisling’s [sp],) as far as I’m concerned.

[QUOTE]I called your questions dumb. Which could be because you're misinformed and disinclined to actually discover what the rest of the world thinks and means.[QUOTE]

I’d suggest looking in the mirror to see who’s misinformed and disinclined. Regarding what the rest of the world thinks: Don’t forget, we DID have a coalition. And I’ll also tell you America is the country everyone loves to hate because we have what a lot of other countries want and the muscle to protect our interests. People don’t like that. People like you. Guess what? Go _uck yourself. (that was said in a kind, loving, gentle way)

[QUOTE]If you think having US soldiers occupying every country you have a disagreement with will lead to peace, I'd have to say you actually are dumb.[QUOTE]

Ah! I knew you’d get around to it. Feel better now?

If that was the case we’d be in about a dozen other countries right now. So, can I all you dumb now? You are DUMB, DUMB, DUMB (I feel so much better now. That was sorta’ like therapy)

[QUOTE]The countries you have mentioned don't have a reasonable alternative government to put in place, which means you'll have to keep US forces there to avoid the bad old guys taking over just when you think you're done.[QUOTE]

That’s the most limb dick argument you’ve made yet. You pull that one out of your ass? (Oh how I love you like a brother). How come WE could come up with an alternative gov’t and put it in place? Are you saying we Americans are smarter than Europeans? No, the reason France and Germany so actively and viciously opposed us is because of the socialistic pathetic liberal forces driving the gov’ts AND the huge $$$ contracts that companies within those countries stood to lose by toppling Saddam. So, save all your smokescreen arguments of sparing Iraqi lives and such when we all know the dirty little secret of the major countries against the war was $$$$. Sure, we’re having some problems but at least we acted. What’s the old saying regarding evil and good men doing nothing (France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Mexico,NORWAY).

Incidentally, what a pathetic site it was that after we kicked ass, those same assholes started sucking up to us! "Oh, please Mr. Bush (slurping, sucking noises), can we please have some crumbs? We were actually behind you all the time (more slurping, sucking sounds)."

[QUOTE]Which means even those who're glad you arrived will start to grumble.[QUOTE]

No, that’s primarily because of those asshole Muslim clerics and Iran. But I will grant you there are problems which, IMO, will eventually be worked out. However, when the Iraqi Republican guard and Fedayeen people are blowing up power lines, oil pipelines and such, it may take some time to kill them. I believe it will all come together, eventually. Just like people thought Saddam’s regime would come back until we sent some missiles up Udai’s and Qusay’s assholes.

[QUOTE]You can't magically make Syria, Iraq and Iran less of a home to islamic extremists by invading them.[QUOTE]

No, but I’d sure enjoy watching the news and seeing how many we killed that day.

[QUOTE](And most of the terrorists seem to come from your buddies in Saudi-Arabia anyway.)[QUOTE]

Touchet! I’ll give you that one Mr. Norwegian man. That’s my main beef with this country; that we haven’t been more aggressively pursued alternative fuels so we could tell the Saudi’s to go _uck themselves.

[QUOTE]If you could, then you'd have a leg to stand on with your calculations on the worth of american lives compared with arab civilians, as it is you're just fumbling.[QUOTE]

While I did try to compliment you as being reasonable, I must modify my assessment. You’re either not too bright or are willing to argue for arguments despite the lack of logic and facts.

Let me reiterate, for YOU. We SAVED Iraqi lives by invading because we toppled the regime that would have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians had they stayed in power (I typed that real slow so you could understand it).

[QUOTE]Forcefully reuniting the Koreas on the other hand, could possibly work, but you'd better get China on your team.[QUOTE]

_uck China

[mangeorge]

Trashmouth sez;
Touchet! I’ll give you that one Mr. Norwegian man. That’s my main beef with this country; that we haven’t been more aggressively pursued alternative fuels so we could tell the Saudi’s to go _uck themselves.
I work for an oil company. I hear this inane arguement all the time. I can't help but wonder why the US can't tell the Saudis to go fuck themselves. "We Need The Oil", they say. Fuck that. Define "need" for me, please. US oil companies want Saudi oil. If supporting a repressive regime (and sucking Saudi dick) gets that oil, well, slurp-slurp-slurp.
What the fuck is _uck, anyway?
All said in the totally respectful and admiring tone set by the above wonderful human being.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Artemius]

Originally posted by the asshole mangeorge:)
Trashmouth sez;

I work for an oil company. I hear this inane arguement all the time. I can't help but wonder why the US can't tell the Saudis to go fuck themselves. "We Need The Oil", they say. Fuck that. Define "need" for me, please. US oil companies want Saudi oil. If supporting a repressive regime (and sucking Saudi dick) gets that oil, well, slurp-slurp-slurp.
What the fuck is _uck, anyway?
All said in the totally respectful and admiring tone set by the above wonderful human being.
Peace,
mangeorge

Listen smartypants. Instead of coming on and saying US Oil companies want Saudi oil and stopping, why don't you explain that? Are you saying we don't need to import oil at all or that it's Saudi oil specifically that we want. What are you saying?

Oh, and _uck, means FUCK, as FUCK YOU (Hey, I love you like a brother and wonderful human being that you are and was said with great respect. :)).

[naita]

You make a couple of interesting points, but I can't be bothered to search for them inbetween all your ranting. Goodbye Artemius.

[Ed Zotti]

This is not the Pit, folks. We've already tossed one poster. Anyone else who can't keep a civil tongue will have his posting privileges revoked without further notice.

[Irishman]

Why hasn't this thread been closed? The question has been addressed (the "damn fool war" comment), and it's already spawned 2 train wrecks.

naita said:
Iraq on the other hand was worth invading, along the way killing a number of civilians, for what reasons exactly?

So, what if Bush had instead skipped all the WMD rigamarole and declared outright this was an effort to liberate the Iraqi people? Would that have justified the invasion? After all, there is clear evidence of what a tyrant Hussein was, and a motivation to help the Iraqi people seems more justified to you than protecting the US's own interests. (In fact, it was used - "Operation Iraqi Freedom", not "Operation Get The WMD", or "Operation Regime Change", or "Operation Take Over The World One Dicatator At A Time".) I realize civilians died, but frankly the numbers are incredibly low compared to what I expected.

naita said:
The countries you have mentioned don't have a reasonable alternative government to put in place, which means you'll have to keep US forces there to avoid the bad old guys taking over just when you think you're done.

Artemius replied:
That’s the most limb dick argument you’ve made yet. You pull that one out of your ass? (Oh how I love you like a brother). How come WE could come up with an alternative gov’t and put it in place? Are you saying we Americans are smarter than Europeans?

What's needed here is less vitriol and more thinking. That's not what was said at all. naita was saying that without a legitimate alternative government that could be put in place, the U.S. would be required to provide a military occupational force to prevent the bad guys from regrouping and reseizing control. If an alternative government existed, the U.S. requirement would be a lot smaller and end quicker because the alternative government would be acceptable to the Iraqi (or wherever) people, and they would support a quick transition. I think in general that should be the case, though I'm not sure how well it's working out in Afghanistan.

[naita]

Originally posted by Irishman
naita said:
So, what if Bush had instead skipped all the WMD rigamarole and declared outright this was an effort to liberate the Iraqi people? Would that have justified the invasion? After all, there is clear evidence of what a tyrant Hussein was, and a motivation to help the Iraqi people seems more justified to you than protecting the US's own interests. (In fact, it was used - "Operation Iraqi Freedom", not "Operation Get The WMD", or "Operation Regime Change", or "Operation Take Over The World One Dicatator At A Time".) I realize civilians died, but frankly the numbers are incredibly low compared to what I expected.
[/B]

If we pretend he didn't have a history of attacking his neighbors and citizens with chemical weapons we would have a totaly different situation. I'd oppose or approve of an invasion depending on whether or not he was an imminent threat, and whether or not an international concensus could be reached. "He used to be bad" and "Well, some countries agree with us" wouldn't cut it, although removing tyrants by invasion appeal to me I think building international trust and cooperation is more important. Especially when removing tyrants from countries that won't easily be democratised. And I don't find it more valid when spread thinly on top of 'He's an imminent threat to _our_ security'.

Bush and Blair said: He's got lots of WMDs and he's not cooperating, we have to attack now.
I said: I haven't seen convincing evindence that he still has those weapons, the massive military presence seems to be getting to him, how about waiting until we all agree?

Bush and Blair say: We will find the evidence, and even if we don't this was a good thing.
I say: You said you _had_ evidence and now you can't find it? And I'm doubtfull it will be a good thing, I don't think the repressed masses of Iraq will have the patience and forgiveness of Mandela. (Not that the comparison is accurate.)

[mangeorge]

Why hasn't this thread been closed, indeed?
Anyway, here's some biased (http://www.meforum.org/article/42), but pretty accurate info on the US's reliance on Saudi oil.
Like I said, oil companies don't need it, they want it.
Another reason it was (is?) a damn fool war.

[mangeorge]

I meant to link this one (http://www.bens.org/sw_ar041902.html). but the other is ok too.

[srmk64210]

Cecil uses words like, shit, fuck, bull shit, son of a bitch all the time in his columns, as well as refer to people writing in to him with less that flattering terms. And he has said, damn fool war as well as “witness the ongoing debacle in Iraq, which has come to pass in part because U.S. leaders kidded themselves into believing that Iraqis were just like us and would embrace democracy as soon as Saddam Hussein was gone.” both politically..and well..wrong statements. So he has set the precedent. We can say our political views and swear while doing it. After all. We are merely using him as the model as to how to conduct ourselves.
Anyway..its not necessary for him to apologize. As an entertainer who amuses us with his 60's hippy meandering, I cant expect anything more from him. Be that as that may, No one said the Iraqis would embrace democracy as soon as Saddam Hussein (source ?) BAD LAZY IRAQIS! They’ve had freedom and democracy for 5 months and they STILL haven made their perfect utopia! Here is a look at the “ongoing debacle in Iraq”..Only a minority oppose British and American occupation, and fewer than 1 in 8 want them to leave. Hers the poll numbers recently taken...http://www.spectator.co.uk/pdfs/iraqi_poll.pdf...Anyway, everyone go back to sucking up to Cecil.

[mangeorge]

Comments on Cecil's Columns.
Comments. Do you know what that means? It don't say nuthin 'bout no friggin "sources", does it?
Go 'way. ;)
Anyway, the administration, early on, "painted a picture" of a post war country full of happy, free, and democratic Iraquis. That's why conservatives (republicans) are so sensitive about the subject. We should just shut up, quit questioning, close our eyes, and praise the lord for our good luck in finding a warrior president.
Back to sucking up.
Peace,
man (wrong side of history) george

[Ed Zotti]

srmk64210 writes:Cecil uses words like, shit, fuck, bull shit, son of a bitch all the time in his columns, as well as refer to people writing in to him with less that flattering terms. And he has said, damn fool war as well as “witness the ongoing debacle in Iraq, which has come to pass in part because U.S. leaders kidded themselves into believing that Iraqis were just like us and would embrace democracy as soon as Saddam Hussein was gone.” both politically..and well..wrong statements. So he has set the precedent. We can say our political views and swear while doing it. After all. We are merely using him as the model as to how to conduct ourselves.One doesn't diss the Master on the Master's dime, chum.

We've gotten pretty far afield from the original column, so I'm closing this thread. If anyone wants to continue discussing the war in Iraq, which you are welcome to do, please do so in Great Debates.