And this… is why Bush is full of it. As they say, fighting for peace is like f***** for virginity 
Maybe if Bush didn’t come out and sprout a bunch of BS about how this war was about spreading peace and reducing terrorism then it’d be easier to take the US position here seriously. Maybe if the US could hold on to a cause of war for a few weeks without changing the story it would be easier to accept it at face value.
While I can’t argue that the two enemies (make no mistake, they hate each other) both would see the US as the greater evil and given the situation I could even imagine them allying, it certainly has never seemed likely. Still the fact they both hate us is NOT evidence they’ve ever consider an alliance! This is like throwing someone in jail because they MIGHT commit a crime. You know it is also possible Russia will align with North Korea… but ya can’t exactly act on that until there is some evidence it might happen. This was nothing more then propaganda… it certainly isn’t proper to start a war because we think our enemy might sometime in the future ally with our other enemy.
Don’t be so sure… no matter how much they both hate the US Al-Qaeda STILL hates Saddam! Think about it, if Osama woke up tommarow and said ‘I hate the US but I hate Saddam more’ would we be willing to overlook the fact we too are in their targets and then hand them chemical weapons?! As our friends the brits would say, ‘not bloody likely’.
For clarification… this argument is used to show that Bush is lying, not that he is immoral. The argument follows thus: Bush says this is being done to get rid of an evil dictator and spread freedom, the US has let many dictatorships survive without batting an eyelash and will continue to do so when this is over, therefore… this war isn’t about freedom and democracy as history tells us quite clearly these aren’t things America will go to war for.
That being said, I just don’t buy the fact it is the US’s job in the world to guareentee freedom for the masses. In fact as far as I’m concerned we have no right to presume all people on earth would consider our way better then anything else… this is arrogence. Freedom is something you have to fight for… not sit on your butt and wait for someone ELSE to fight for. Summation… it is not the US’s responsibilty to spread it’s form of freedom and it isn’t within the US’s moral right to force it’s style of government onto a group of people because we are convinced we have it better then you. Obviously people are dying, its so very easy for us in our comfy chairs to say ‘but it will be worth it’. Really though shouldn’t the decision to die for ones freedom be made by the people and not a foreign government?
I agree its funny how everyone has become physic… but keep in mind this easily applies to those who close their eyes and scream its about freedom for Iraqis!! I’m not so sure it’s about oil but I think theres plenty of evidence to say the spreading freedom excuse was something they came up with at the last minute because proving the resolutions weren’t being upheld was becoming a challenge. When the US leaves Iraq a free independant country with a government supported by the people then I might consider believing it really was for freedom. But on the other hand… I won’t believe oil has nothing to do with it until I see the US leave the country having not dabbled their hands in it…
I think much of the backlash comes from the anti-war crowd attacking the administration on a personal level. It’s fine if you don’t agree with the war, just don’t attack our leaders personally. You might not agree with their positions or the means but you should at least support them instead of calling them idiots. These are highly educated, intelligent men. I mean I supported Clinton for getting a blowjob, although I think it’s wrong for a married man to do. I didn’t like the lies or the spin, but if he wanted a blowjob I would fully support that position.
Lost one,
Kudos for an excellent argument…i would hate to meet yoo in a courtroom. But you are wring in saying that it is not the job of the USa to give freedom to others…why not? Do you think the Iraqis could give themselves freedom under Saddam? And as for imposing our way of life for them, it is not arrogance to free them from a monster like Saddam. Logic tells me they are not exactly thrilled at their way of life. Yes, freedom has to be fought for, but saying only the oppressed should fight for themselves is wrong. Even if Bush has other motivations, the fact remains that he IS freeing them and thats what counts above all.
As for Saddam and Al-Qaeda, its hard for me to believe that the latter can hate Saddam more than USA. You seriously underestimate the unity of Muslims throughout the world no matter how they disagree.
I knoew that post would bring out the nitpickers brigade 
typos there…wring=wrong, yoo=you, knoew=knew…yikes, the African heat is a bitch.
Always first look to yourself, first.
Is BBC anti-war spin causing more casualties than necessary? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172857
Anti-War protesters change their minds… http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=171971
Are antiwar protests causing more casualties than necessary? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172487
Are inaccurate complaints undermining the war effort? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=174440
Is Anti-Americanism the 21st Century’s Anti-Semitism? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=172587
Why is France acting so anti war? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=171709
Why is France behaving this way http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=168338
Are the French just now being obstinant ? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=171560
Boycott French Products? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=169630
Those who oppose war in Iraq are supporting Saddam Hussein. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=167331
Why do peace protests attract all the loonies? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=170846
Um, Stalinists Run US Peace Movement? Would that be bad? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=162324
Irony:Seems more people are being injured in"peace protest" than actual war http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=171544
War is not the answer! The answer is, um, er, ah, my brain hurts… http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=164312
War solves nothing! http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=171756
‘Bush Wins’: The Left’s Nightmare Scenario http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=169535
Q: Who made the decision to go to war?
A: The leaders.
[Q:** So if folks oppose the war, who do they blame for making that decision to engage in one?
A: Uhhhhhhhh…
I agree with the “support our troops – end the war” crowd in that you can’t blame the grunts on the front line for following orders. But IMO, you most certainly can blame the folks who gave those orders to begin with.
As I laconically mentioned, there are dumbasses on both sides, I dont deny that. It is the perception that there seems to be a majority of them on the anti-war side. The pro-war may not be suffering from a lack of idiots, but the anti-war side has the impression of suffering from an overabundance of it.
Is it being a political and military catastrophy not as callous the financial burden of sending troops to do a job and yanking them out before the finish it? Do you really think that saving lives in that way would really promote peace and harmoby with Saddam. I can just hear him rasping in utter joy at his hospital bed, “I beat America twice!! I am invincible! I can do anything and no one can stop me!!” Everyone is worried about the economy and you think its callous to consider the cost of not finishing a very expensive operation.
Excuse me, this “handfull of people” represent the majority in America, which is where I am focusing this debate about. The topic they repeat consistantly is support the troops and US patriotism and down with saddam. Hardly refutable. Now, your assessment of the anti-war crowd is accurate. However noble their goal is, they seem to be viewed as a rabble with no common goal other than to protest together. My suggestion was to get a specific common theme. Look United, organized, goal-oriented. I would listen more to a specific subject than be blitzed by a dozen unrelated topics.
Skepticism yes, but what was posted above was borderline paranoia. Paranoics are unreliable sources and if you get labeled as one then people tend to tune out. For example, when has the US govt asked for unconditional support? To interject that this country is headng towards dictatorship is farfetched and your arguement would not be worth persuing. To say things like that out of left field would give people pause and ask “are you for real?”
OK. you almost lost me on the dictatorship thing. With this rabid “Bush is a warmongering idiot” line, you just completely lost me.
We’ll have to disagree on that one. I see approximately equal levels of idiocy. Even if there were more dumbasses on the anti-war side, I don’t see the vast majority of them expressing the same level of hatefulness as is evident in my link.
Again – I’m sure that’s not the way most pro-war folks feel, but there are a lmore than a handful of them.
That is a seperate argument. There’s something you are failing to understand: If YOU make an argument, such as saying that we can’t pull out of the war because it would waste money, and I disagree with that argument, it does not entitle you to attribute to me any strawman anti-war position that you can think of. This is Great Debates - get with the program.
Nice try, but I didn’t say that. I said it’s callous to consider the cost ahead of human lives. Are you disagreeing with me?
Listen, don’t blame me - if you make weak arguments, they’re going to get shot down.
That is your perception, perhaps, but as others have already pointed out, some see a more equal percentage of dumbass-dom on both sides of the argument. I’d have to say that yours is a remarkably myopic view of the pro-war folks and anti-war folks in general.
Put it this way: the day I can’t turn on an AM talk radio show and hear some idiot caller proclaiming that those “Moooslims” just want to “slit our children’s throats” or that France “wants to keep Saddam Hussein in power” or that “anyone who’s against this war just isn’t American” at any given time of the day is the day that I’ll change my perception that there are plenty of idiots to go around, and that there are just as many fools who support the war as are against it.
This is an unfortunate fact, that the idiots get more airtime precisely because of their idiocy. Inflammatory beliefs and comments are what make TV worth watching and radio worth listening to for many of these people, and so moderates (which make up a significant segment) are often ignored in favor of the more extreme views. But to say that there’s more idiots on the anti-war side that the pro-war side is simply denying human nature, and its tendency towards some people simply being willfully ignorant, whatever their beliefs.
Thats what the perception of the pro-war demonstrators are, hateful and violent. Notice they are not giving much fuel to that fire. Thats a point for us. Its an easy point to recover. If ever the anti-war is looking for a spokesman, I nominate this guy:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030402_517.html
Take the arguement in its entireity. Are you postualting that it is good Great Debate protocol to be picking at a singular arguement and not consider the context by which that single arguement is derived from?
We are at war. The cost of a single life, if not many lives, including all of the finances by which we wage this war are secondary to the objective and the benefits to finishing the war. To place the death of any single soldier or civilian over and above the objectives of this war makes that death futile and meaningless and in the overall scheme of things, would only endanger many more lives in the future.
**
[/QUOTE]
**
[/QUOTE]
Did you read the discussion I linked to?
I think you are being somewhat blind to the idiots on your side.
BTW – I agree that Jimmy Carter is the ideal spokesman. He’s certainly a man I admire. However, it’s not like there is some anti-war club out here that is electing representatives; rather, individuals are speaking up about their opinions. Some of those individuals are dumb. Jimmy Carter doesn’t really speak for them any more than they speak for Jimmy Carter, or me for that matter (not that I’m comparing myself to Jimmy Carter, understand).
Did you read the discussion I linked to?
I think you are being somewhat blind to the idiots on your side. **
[/QUOTE]
I did not read the link you provided, sorry. I do not tolerate idiots no matter what side they profess to be on. An idiot is an idiot.
Agreed. I’ll confess that this one made me very twitchy because it pretty much happened in my backyard.
Not only was the protester attending the rally attacked and beaten, but someone has lately posted a website called “traitors of Tucson”, with pictures of anti-war protestors.
Patriotic, indeed.
DOH!!! Now you had to make me curious enuf to read it!
Thanks a lot! :dubious:
ooy…
Well, that discussion link wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. I dont subscribe to calling myself a patriot. I havent done anything significant for my country to qualify me as such. I am moderate pro-war advocate. That portion you picked out was a bit disturbing until you notice he qulaifies his hatred to the extent of legal means possible. I might consider him a bit over zealous but considering the moment by which he posted that, not all together unreasonable.
I wish I saw some newsmedia pictures of the event. The media tend to focus on the nuts and from what I could see from the pictures posted, there werent that many. I say that based on the signs that I can read from the pictures. Notice it sort of proves my point that they stick to theme however monotonous it may seem at first glance. I like the Big sign tho
“We will not subordinate our Constitution to any International Authority.”
Well, I’m not accusing anyone of being a criminal here (except the people who assaulted the protester). You yourself admit that his position is one of hatred, though. In my mind, this is equal in offensiveness to some anti-war jerk wishing death upon American soldiers. In fact, it’s worse, because they are celebrating the ** actual assault** of a guy they did not agree with.
Again, I’ll reiterate. I don’t think the posters in that thread “represent” anyone themselves. But I think they are jerks. Their language is hateful and abusive. They could be worse, but they hardly deserve a pass for that. I think if you expect those of us on the other side of the fence to be somehow apologetic or defensive of our idiots, you had better do likewise.
OTOH, if you don’t think they are being jerks, then perhaps you oughta lighten up on the “no blood for oil” idjits. They are also working within the extent of the law.
And to emphasize, I don’t think the fact that he qualifies his statement makes it nondisturbing.