Best speech ever (Iraq reality)

I self-pit this for the obvious reasons. First off, there is no debate to be had since I have proved that a large amount of conspiracies that the left are championing are lies, and second is that I have a large project coming up and if I crapped in anyone’s corn flakes in the overworld then here I am in the underworld for one post to make myself available to any due hollerings at.

Anyhoo…

I know that the office of the president of the USA comes along with a speech writer or two, but I like to think the White House speech writers had nothing to do with this other than proofreading it:

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.”

How can anyone argue that there is a secret plot afoot or anything nefarious going on when everything is going along to the same exact plan that has been talked about in very clear terms from the beginning… regardless if the president wrote his own speech or someone in his own administration did it for him. These speeches are forever sealed in history. There is no way around them. The only way around them is to be an idiot and pretend they don’t exist.

There are many idiots today who refuse to see that the plan to invade Iraq has been out in the open for many years and everything that was said before the invasion has come to pass.

Line by line:

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, - TRUE

(he threatens the ) the peace of his region, - TRUE

(he threatens the) the security of the world. -TRUE

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. – VERY TRUE

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. - TRUE

We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. - TRUE

The decision to use force is never cost-free. - TRUE

Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. - TRUE

And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties." - TRUE

Check and MATE.

Way to go, DevNull! You certainly showed yourself! That’ll learn you.

Following 9/11 somehow America managed to make the world a more dangerous place. - TRUE

A nation that cannot get it’s government to abide by it’s wishes probably shouldn’t be going to foreign soil to hold innocent citizens responsible (with their lives) for the actions of their government. - TRUE.

The same is true of Kim Jung-Il and several other dictators. One could argue it’s also true of George Bush.

No more so than any other mideastern ruler.

False.

So what? The best way to shut someone up is to shoot them in the face with a shotgun. Very effective, but by what ethic are you given the right?

And lies. And desecration of the Constitution. And nearly a trillion dollars. And the loss of American prestige worldwide.

False. Our armed forces have never been thinner nor weaker. Our generals keep saying we’re failing, and they keep getting fired. The only ones still working with us are street thugs whom we have inexplicably armed.

Neither is the decision to use reason. So what?

Yeah. When you throw people out of an airplane, you risk them dying.

Jesus. It’s like you’ve posted the manifesto of a mass murderer and are marveling at his keen sense of the obvious.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, The people were better off when he was in power than they are now.

(he threatens the ) the peace of his region, Any threat he had was effectively neutralized as a result of Gulf War I and the no fly zones and other sanctions and restrictions.

(he threatens the) the security of the world. Even less true than the preceding. As a military power, Iraq was quite insignificant.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. It has not been shown that this “best way” is possible.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. Again, it is not certain that positive change is possible.

We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. After 5 years, no progress yet.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. That should deter using force without good reason.

Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. The American loss of life is but a fraction of the loss of innocent civilian lives in Iraq.

And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Not all the civilian casualties were unintentional.

What a weak speech and an even weaker analysis in the OP.

You do not mean that.

You do not mean that I do not mean that.

You do not mean that.

I know what I said to you and I meant it.

It is not nice to direct insults towards the office of the president of the USA. Surely, you do not believe just because of his speech I posted that his speech is like that of a mass-murderer… do you?

Yet another “bait the anti-war folks with something Clinton said in 1998 when he launched a measly four days of airstrikes” thread. Fantastic.

DevNull, I understand your interest in trying to stick Bill Clinton with the mess that George Bush created, but this is stupid. Surely you can recognize the difference between limited airstrikes nine years ago when Saddam arguably had more military capability than he did in 2003, versus a full-blown invasion that has lasted four years, claimed thousands of American lives and only-God-knows how many tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives.

You’ve got a few folks to buy your game, hook line and sinker. Are you happy now?

Like? I think you could make a good case it IS.

No you didn’t. You didn’t mean it at all. Be honest.

I got a feeling that this is going to be hard for you to grasp. The analogy wasn’t about speeches; it was about you. Ask your teacher to explain more about how analogies work.

I didn’t mention any airstrikes. What thread are you reading?

I posted a speech. I got a few honest results from Clinton’s speech.

No stick, only that Clinton supported the idea…

His military was NEVER a threat. We proved that in 1991. Straw man argument.

Yup. And I would have had more happy if it wasn’t for you meddling kids!

It’s pretty gutless for the OP to post this drivel and then announce that he has no intention of debating it. If he has no intention of responding to rebuttals then there’s no point in posting them.

I don’t think anybody cares. I know I don’t.

Clinton overstated the Iraqi “threat” in 1998, and the result was some air strikes. Bush overstated the “threat” in 2003, and the result was hundreds of thousands dead and trillions of dollars wasted. I think many many politicians grossly overstated the threat posed by Saddam between the Gulf Wars. But only one used it as an excuse to wage a senseless war.

Well, you said

Posting a speech of Bill Clinton’s is like posting the manifesto of a mass murderer?

Explain.

Oh, I think he does. And I’ll second it. Your analysis is

  1. Based wholly on implying that opposition to the war is based on disagreement with that particular snippet of speech, which of course is absurd,
  2. Betrays an enormous, though admittedly common, misunderstanding of what a military “plan” is - there’s no “plan” in that speech to discuss - and
  3. Appears to be entirely consisted of platitudes, like “There’s cost to war.” Well, gosh, thanks, detective.

You start out by claiming there’s no debating your claims becausec you’ve “proved” that “a large amount of conspiracies that the left are championing are lies” but don’t say what those are and, to be honest, I don’t have the first fucking idea who you are. What claims are there that you have disproven?
But let’s do your line by line analysis:

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, - TRUE

Okay, we all agree on that.

(he threatens the ) the peace of his region, - TRUE

Well, no, not really. Iraq, by 2003, was almost completely marginalized and its ability to project force was nonexistent. It was, as Middle Eastern countries go, not even a blip on the radar in terms fo state support of terrorism. Its WMD programs had been either completely or at least largely abandoned, as the UN inspection teams had found and has to absence of hard evidence of their existence should have suggested to any thinking person. Iraq simply did not have the strategic capability to threaten its neighbours.

(he threatens the) the security of the world. -TRUE

Nonsense; Iraq wasn’t a threat to its own neighbours, much less Australia or Belgium.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government – a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. – VERY TRUE

This is of course true. It is also true that the best way for me to become an NBA star is to grow another foot, become ten times more athletic, and magically develop a two-foot vertical jump and mad defensive skills. The question is whether or not that’s possible.

Of COURSE it would be really nice if Iraq had a stable, friendly government. It would be really nice. The question is whether invading an ethnically divided pesudo-state with a half-assed plan, no occupation plan at all, killing a hundred thousand innocent people (many because you don’t think to train your soldiers how to be an occupying force), torturing and murdering prisoners for the entire world to see, and otherwise screwing up the occupation in almost every conceivable way is going to bring about your desired result; the answer, quite obviously, is no.

I mean, if I throw a grenade into your kitchen, are you going to be surprised if my approach fails to generate a tasty omelette? Or is it just going to blow up your kitchen and break all your appliances?

We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. - TRUE

That’s simply false; they did nothing of the sort. From the get go, the U.S. occupation was hopelessly clueless in how to deal with the various factions and communities in Iraq; some were dealth with well, while most were insulted, marginalized, or ignored. The mass de-Baathification effort and firing of the entire armed forces was so monumentally stupid as to almost suggest sabotage, but whatever you think of it it certainly can’t be defined as “Strengthening our engagement.” It was a catastrophic decision.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. - TRUE
The decision to use force is never cost-free. - TRUE
Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. - TRUE
And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties." - TRUE

Meaningless platitudes. It’s as if he said “Helium atoms have two protons” or “The Vikings have never won the Super Bowl.” So what? War kills people; are we supposed to take from this that they didn’t screw the war up because he predicted people would die?

Now you’re losing your grip on coherence. Clinton made a speech in 1998 explaining why he was launching airstrikes. Unless you start making some more sense, I can only assume that you meant that Clinton argued for the 2003 invasion of Iraq in 1998, which is odd because Clinton, as President, never invaded Iraq. He couldn’t have supported the invasion of Iraq that strongly if he never tried to do it while he was in power.

Oh, I beg your pardon. I must have read what you typed [and I quote, (he threatens the ) the peace of his region, - TRUE; (he threatens the) the security of the world. -TRUE] and assumed you meant it. You have an interesting version of a strawman argument, which seems to be something like this: if people use your words against you, and you don’t like it, it is a strawman.

Hey, I believe it is “not nice” to tap citizens’ phones, hold people without trial, continue sending your soldiers off to die for no purpose and condone torture. In fact, I believe those things are all less nice than directing insults at the president. But I guess I’m not as much of a fucking douchebag as you.