A BIG THANK YOU, a You Welcome and A BIG SCREW YOU

Our stated justification for the invasion was to protect the US from WMD’s. If it ws just about “liberating” the Iraqi people we could have done that years ago. How many of you war-lovers were pushing for an Invasion of Iraq when Clinton was POTUS? None of you were, and if BC had proposed it you would have had an embolism, and GWB isn’t one tenth the president or the man that BC was.

Well not quite - it was actually, back in 1998, this reason:

Note the use of the godwinesque word “oil”.

The other motives that were added are called, I think, “mission creep”, or sometimes “bullshitting”.

Way to morph my post into a racist “nuke the raghead” post. Idiot.

My point is that anti-war politicians should not expect to have a sizeable role in shaping post-war Iraq, when they’ve been finger-wagging the entire operation in the first place. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that someone would try to maintain a moral high ground before and during the war, but then applaud the result (Hussein’s ouster) of that same war. But of course the US is a democracy, and all legislators – pro- and anti-war – will have a say in rebubilding Iraq. This is necessary, and is in fact the backbone of American democracy, which results in hopefully a (relatively) tempered and balanced outcome. But I do think more credence should be given to those who took the political risk of supporting the war in the first place.

Check out Chirac’s most recent comments on the war, in which he states he’s “delighted” at the outcome of the war. Yeah, he’s delighted at the result, but wanted no part in making it happen.

Why? Their thoughts are somehow more valid because they didn’t oppose the war? I fail to grasp the logic here. It appears like nothing more than a Nelson Muntz-esque “A-ha”.

And of course I meant GHWB in these 2 instances:smack:

(nitpick)
Nelson says: “HA-ha”.

Not that I disagree with you (but odds are that I might), but what political risks, exactly, were associated with being in the 75% majority (public opinion-wise) of those who supported the war?

The risk of looking like a sphincter-smooching yes-man? (Or, rather, yes-person.)

Excuse me???
I don’t see the relevance between this and what I said, which was simply questioning the use of the word “conqueror.” The point is that the U.S. has sent men and women to die in foreign countries and the only piece of real estate we asked for was a place to bury the dead.

I didn’t insult or characterize anybody, or equate you with anything. I’m sorry if you hate me now. You should try to avoid hate; it will raise your blood pressure, and ultimately harms you more than those you hate.

MLS, Nanoda didn’t use the word “conqueror”, but the word “conquer”. His point was that the OP specifically made mention of his wish to “lets have them again and again till the whole world is free”.

The risk of being wrong, of ending up in a quagmire of a war with no exit strategy, of not finding WMD’s, of having Israel enter the war, of creating (in the words of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak) “100 bin Ladens.” The pro-war folks shouldn’t be celebrating just yet, because they still haven’t been vindicated on the WMD’s issue yet; and the longer term implications are unknowable for the foreseeable future.

So quite frankly, the pro-war crowd placed itself in a no-win situation in re: anti-war folks. Even if we win, and find WMD’s, people will still say “But look at what might possibly happen next!” There’s no real way for them to win in the eyes of many anti-war factions. This, I would say, was an enormous political risk to take, and it’s still a risk.

The option of not going to war had, for its part, one risk: that of a major terrorist attack with WMD’s against the US or its allies. (I’m not going to pretend the war was fought to liberate the Iraqi people, even though that is a welcome result of it.) The Bush Administration and Congress felt this was an unacceptable risk, and instead took on the still-not-insignificant risk of engaging Iraq in a war.

Gotcha. All certainly very reasonable. However, I have to nitpick something that keeps coming up:

The problem is that that is not the anti-this-war risk that is taken, simply because the anti-this-war doesn’t unilaterally equate to no-war-whatsoever. I just don’t understand how the jump is made from “these people are pissed at how Bush et al. went about waging this war” to “these people do not accept war under any circumstances”.

It’s minor, and doesn’t take away from the legitimate stance of “you didn’t support this war, you don’t get to help clean up”, but it’s a consistent oversight I’ve seen lately.

That’s amazingly unclear. Lemme try again:

While there is a very vocal and visible pacifist voice, another large percentage of anti-war folks are being unrepresented in these discussions - those who would support a war with Iraq had Bush et al. taken further measures to ensure the validity of that action.

OK there is a lot here, I will try to get to as many as I can.

As for why you should have a say in the rebuilding, it would seem that the anti-war crowd is out of power at this time, for a representative republic the party in power calls the shots till the next election. You weren’t with us when we really need you, there is no reason you should be involved in the rebuilding unless the pro war group want you in or the voters vote enough of you in.

Honest answer, I assume you stayed kind of neutral then.

This wasn’t aimed so much at the people on this board, more to get this issue off my chest (and boy did it feel good).

China has a BIT of tea

Dunes are made of a BIT of sand

The north pole has a BIT of cold

hey this is fun

No, as stated above they are entitled to their views, but since they are currently out of power as elected by the American people they have no right to act.

I went into this before, any media coverage of anti-war protests can be used to support the moral of the Iraqi forces and demoralize our forces.

We are not there to take control of Iraq, we were there to get rid of a murderous gov’t. I have wrestled with the issue if we can know weather a political system about 200+ years old can be morally superior to a system that is several thousand years old. I have thought it to be a risky statement to say so, but add in torture and I think it is much safer to.

No I was not, My message was take out this dictator before he gets bigger & badder bombs. I started thinking about the people of Iraq slightly before the invasion and at the same time started to form an idea what moral obligation was.

No and no (answering the last parts 1st). At least their families knew the purpose that they dies for, perhaps you would like to talk to the families of the slaughtered Iraqi under Sadam. Again to the people and now extended tot he families of the military, thank you. For the people who lost loved ones in battle the nation grieves with you. God Bless.

Blatantly taken out of context - It’s the economy stupid! (the context which it should be taken)

Then you haven’t been reading what I posted or you are living in a hole in the ground. Iraqi were being slaughtered under Sadam already.

Not something I would expect to be reported but did hear at least one comments on the news about 3 ambulances being stuck in protestor traffic. I don’t know what the status of them were.

thank you The Great Unwashed

Low energy prices in general help everyone except for ‘big’ energy. If companies are doing well they tend to hire and if it is cheaper to make an item they tend to lower their prices, both which helps the poor and middle class. They also tend to pay better dividends which helps the middle class and the rich. So all 3 benefit - I really don’t see a problem here. I still say that cheaper oil prices help out the poor and middle class much more then the rich.

I do not know enough on this one to comment, Have any sources you can point me to so I can inform myself? (much more pleasent then ‘cite?’ IMHO.

Really! I have paid attention to those issues and evidently so have you (though I disagree with some of your interpretations).

I was talking about the economy, not just the stock market which softened as much as 2 years fromt he end of Clintons term in some areas. But even with your example the S.M. decline happened under Clinton’s economic policy, which stretched for several quarters into Bushes term.

Again taken out of context, you would love me to link the 2 wouldn’t you. Bin Laden is either dead, incapable of attacking and/or we are hunting him.

How many Iraqi civilians have dies in Sadam’s torture chambers, thousands?

Didn’t read this till now (I’m replying as I’m reading). This must be horrible for you, I’m sure many on this board are praying for you and your family.

How many times do I have to say this the USA is NOT a democracy, never was!!!
**Hamadryad
**

Not yet but we accomplished the major objective, Sadam is not in control of Iraq anymore.

Please refer to my above ‘morally obligated’ statement in my above post. (again I’m still working on it)

tdn

I like to leave the decisions to the ones who planned and executed the war. After all that’s how it works doesn’t it? the ones who take the land get to decide?

Alice_i_w & spiff I believe the protestors were putting our troops in additional harm (through moral issues as stated above)- this is what I have a problem with.

Misery L C &spiff I do support the 2 points you made. (even though I would personally like to see some oil $ go to help pay this down a bit). And yes the process has to be completed (not half assed)
bnorton 6 words (and a link for you)
underground nuclear facility and biowarfare truck
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83845,00.html

to be honest diogenes T C I don’t Clinton was capable of launching such an attack as I stated in a previous thread.

Munch

It was a play on the term quagmire that has been bandied around be some of the anti-war crowd.

And 7 words back at you, “Possible Evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction”. We’ve seen this already, and every time - so far - it’s been something else. Right now we can go pretty much anywhere we want to in the country and the best we can do is find what may possibly be a mobile bioweapons lab?

They very well may turn up something eventually, but for now it’s interesting to see the main reason behind the war spin away from WMD’s and towards liberation of the Iraqi people.

I disagree. I think that if the claim were true, pro-war, anti-protest columnists and reporters would be leaping all over the story with glee.

Well you obviously didn’t see the definitive connection explanation.

Are you a liar, or just forgetful?

Here’s what you said:

Here’s the clarification offered by peepthis, which I questioned (and you responded to):

At what point do the French, Russians, or Germans get elected by ‘the American people’? Secondly, at what point do ‘the American people’ have any input into the memberships of the various congressional task forces? As a matter of fact, at what point throughout this war did ‘the American people’ vote for anything? The closest thing we could have had to a vote would have been an official declaration of war. But that’s been mysteriously missing throughout this entire process.

I think the real answer can be found in peeps clarification of your OP: A piece of the ends. The war (in your minds, anyway) is now about money. Were it about freedom for the Iraqi people or any of that other righteous bullshit you’ve been spouting, you wouldn’t be so turd-burgling hung up on which countries or congressmen get involved in the rebuilding. Were it about building a stable nation for the Iraqi people you would welcome anyone who wanted to assist in turning post-war Iraq into a modern, peaceful, politically stable democracy. But its about a piece of the ends. It’s about who gets the contracts. It’s about who has the most political influence. It’s about who decides to distribute the spoils, and how and where they’re distributed.

Don’t give me your bullshit about ‘elected by the American people’. The only reason you don’t want anyone else involved is because they had the unmitigated gall to disagree with you in the first place. But you can’t be an adult about it, can you? You have to see how hard you can slap the rest of the world in the face, how loud you can yell “Fuck you, we’re America and we do what we damn well please!” You and your ilk display the mentality of a petulant two-year-old, screaming and clawing to keep toy away from his siblings.

Sure feels good to get a load off your chest, doesn’t it Beelzebubba.

Now take a deep breath, In…Hold…Out

Repeat it a few times.

Ready?

The USA is not a democracy, never was and most liekly never will be. Democracys are forms of government where every citizen allowed to vote votes on every law in their jurastiction. I have also heard democracy referred to as mob rule - which I don’t totally agree with but it does make a point. Anyhoo the USA does not have this form of government.

Votes in the USA elect certain people to take care of the law making issues for them. These elected officials serve out their terms making laws and other functions, as their terms near the end and they wish to serve further they must get re-elected (boy this is fun :)). So the people have a chance to review their record and decide if they want to vote this person in for another term or not.
Ok, you may want to read that again a few times to make sure you got it.

as for

You are combining 2 posts from various places in this thread and drawing a conclusion that doesn’t exist. If you really think that I think the the US citizens elect the French, German and Russan leaders do me a favor and just get the ____ out of my thread - I’m assuming your not stupid so I will continue.

I have said that I like cheap oil because it helps out the poor and middle class (which I fall into). I have said that cheap oil is a factor - this goes to my earlier statement of moral obligation, if it wasn’t on page one then I would repost it. Cheap oil would be a benefit to many americans, a free Iraq would be a benefit to Iraqis, Another ‘friendly’ nation in that area would be a benefit to both, taking the WMD away from Sadam would be a benefit to almost every nation on earth.

Another lesson. This is how war works:

Some country has something some other country wants. The second country goes in and takes it by killing the defending countries forces. Once the second country gets it they decide what is done with it.

Get over it, this is how the world works, politics, business and two-year-olds. If you activally opposed a expansion of your place of work but it was done anyway would you really expect your input into the project to be considered? If they let you do anything it will be just to shut you up.

Ok so I posted it 2x, I took a break between.