Has anyone here heard the one about the nun who walks over to the construction site next to the convent to complain about the fact that her sweet and innocent charges were constantly being exposed to the rough language of the workmen? The foreman explained that he was sorry but there wasn’t much he could do, these guys are rough-hewn contruction workers and they’re just inclined to call a spade a spade. The nun replies “But you see, sir, that’s just the problem. They don’t call it a spade, they call it a ‘fucking shovel.’”
Well, let me call a spade a fucking shovel here: You people don’t give a flying fuck how “immenent” anything was; what Hussein might have done; whether WMD had been found or not; whether Bush lied or was mistaken; whether or not fewer Iraqis are dying now and in the future; and whether or not the war will eventually benefit Iraqis in general. You’re simply against the war and that’s all there is to it. You demand this or that in the way of exposition from those of us who feel it was the right thing to do – as though an answer would make any difference – and then you either ignore the answer, call the poster a moron, or jump to some other objection.
The fact of the matter is there is nothing that would cause the great majority of you to ever feel the war was justified. Most of you are Democrats, most of you oppose everything Bush stands for, and most of you have been against the war since the time it was just an idea.
This is the crux of your negative reaction to everything you hear about the war. It is why you view your so-called “evidence” and “statistics” as concrete proof that that things are going to hell in a handbasket over there when the rest of us can look at the same evidence and those same statistics and arrive at a completely different conclusion.
Therefore, I would like to thank all the “nattering nabobs of negativity” ( ) in this thread for proving with their own words and by their own behavior that my description of them in the beginning of this thread was spot-on.
And the following year you had Hans Blix essentially stating that even though Iraq had not made a full disclosure of weapons disposal, he was ready to bless Iraq as “compliant.” You can debate what “imminent” means as it is a subjective term, but it is hard to dispute that the end of sanctions and inspection was insight.
You’re big kids, you can go look up information on your own without prodding me to educate you. (Assuming, of course, that you can accept the risk of learning something that doesn’t fit your worldview).
I’m sorry, I’m getting a bit tired of bearing the one-sided burden of facts and cites to satisfy your endless petulant questions… would anyone care to get off of their ass and bring their own information to the table?
On the contrary. These are precisely the things that I, and I image lots of others, are concerned about. See, the evidence indicates that things weren’t imminent, that Bush lied, that more Iraqis are dying now, that the war isn’t benefitting Iraqis.
I guess that the reason why non-Pubbies believe that the war wasn’t justified is basically that there is and was no justification. Hard to deal with that.
Most of us live in the reality based community. You live in some fantasy that you’ve constructed in your head.
Wow, did you build that strawman all by yourself, or did you have help?
In case you missed it I supported the war, Goddess help me I believed Powel’s spiel before the UN. But how this was has been prosecuted, as well as information that has come out, has caused me to view it as a failure. Unlike you, I don’t view it as a sucess simply because Sadaam was nabbed.
Especially since the rationalization de jur is that it was for the Iraqi people
The mission is not accomplished until the stated goal of helping the Iraqi people is met.
Had you actually defended the war in any way at all, you might’ve had more credence. Your tactic was to declare that the war was already a sucess, and that nothing from here on in could possibly make it a failure. That’s not defending the war on rational grounds, that’s having a pipe dream.
Had there been actual WMD.
Had there been actual Al Queda connections.
Had this war really been about helping Iraqi civilians (civilians who you see to not care much about, as their survival or slaughter evidently doesn’t even enter into the equation of failure or sucess for the war)
And, lo and behold, they’ve been right.
The war is a quagmire. There were no WMD. There were no AQ connections. This isn’t about the Iraqi people.
Your ability to look at a burning house and call it a unique fixer upper isn’t a strength SA
Couldn’t possibly be that the war is overwhelmingly negative, and one of the only ways to support is to blank out reality like you’ve done.
There’s a saying “belief is braindeath” because once you believe in something, you stop looking at new data. You’ve already found your answer. And your answer is that the war is a sucess, regardless of what happens now. As such, you’re not looking at the data. And no ammount of civil strife in Iraq, no ammount of roadside bombs, no ammount of carnage and woe will sway you from your adherance to your pipe dream.
Heh, “statistics”. So called. Heh.
And, as you’ve already told us, it isn’t that you’re looking at them and arriving at a different conclusion. It’s that you’ve arrived at your conclusion and aren’t looking at them.
Au contraire (to practically everything you’ve said, as a matter of fact). I don’t recall ever hearing the administration stating that we were going to war in order to help the Iraqi people. You’ve mentioned this “goal” or “rationalization” before. From whence doth it come, pray tell?
Helping the people of Iraq is certainly icing on the cake, but do you really contend that GWB went before the American people and stated we were going to go to war with Iraq in order to “help” the Iraqi people?
I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve heard it said here that I haven’t “defended” the war properly, or that I haven’t “debated” the war properly, etc. But that was never my intent. The OP asked how those of us who support the war could support it. I offered an explanation, at least insofar as those who think as I do think of it. I’ve been offering a description of a point of view. That’s all. If you will recall, there was a huge hue and cry that I elucidate my specific reasoning regarding the war, and I resisted because I knew what it would lead to: i.e., endless quibbling over my reasons, rather than the simple acknowledgement of a differing point of view.
Au contraire, (yet again). It was not a tactic. It was a statement of fact, which I elucidated with a detailed explanation.
I addressed my thinking on each of these points, yet you appear to give my point of view on them absolutely no credence and assume your point of view to be definitive fact. This is not so.
Wow, three erroneous assumptions in one! First, yes, it could be possible that the war is overwhelmingly negative…fortunately, such is not the case. Second, no, I doubt it’s the only way to support it. And third, I’ve done no such thing.
But nice try, though.
Your high-minded declarations aside, the situation is that the overriding goal of the war – the removal of Hussein and the threat he posed – has been accomplished. Thus, the war is a success because its objective has been realized.
What you continue to refer to as “failure of the war” is the aftermath. I’ve spoken to this issue as well, though you’ve obviously either given it no weight or simply forgotten it. Either way, the fact remains that the things you are pointing to as evidence of failure is simply the chaos and uncertainty that follows every war.
Have you really paid any attention at all to what I’ve had to say to you? I have explained in detail what I derive from the “evidence” you point to.
What you are really saying is that since I haven’t looked at the evidence and come to the same conclusion you have, I’m ignoring the evidence.
He certainly led the Iraqis to believe that steaming crock.
What, you expected that people in the US wouldn’t treat statements like this as some sort of promise to help the Iraqis? People in the US should have known that Bush was lying or something?
Christ on a crutch!
Ari Fleischer announced that the war had begun with the phrase “The liberation of Iraq has begun.” Liberation Not part of the goals and rationalizations my ass!
Since you have your head in the sand, it’s not surprising to learn that you had your head in the sand.
Um… so you didn’t plan on supporting your position?
Yes, but your opinion is false-to-facts and fallacious. Or at best, has already definied the ongoing war as a sucess regardless of what happens.
See, that’s because there are no facts which support your insane optimism.
Or, perhaps not optimism, perhaps just the fact that you’ve stopped thinking/judging and the war is already a sucess as far as you’re concerned.
You’re entitled to your own point of view. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.
Um, no. At best it was a statement of wilful ignorance and the death of critical thinking.
Head in the sand dude, head in the sand.
The war is a mess, even though you refuse to look at evicence.
There were no WMD.
There was no AQ connection.
This wasn’t about the Iraqi people (as you yourself said at the start of this post I’m responding to)
So, yeah, the facts I’m talking about are indeed part of my point of view. Your point of view, however, isn’t based on facts. And you wonder why people talk smack?
Right, because currently it’s just so damn positive. ~yawns~ Your pipe dreams about the future don’t affect the situation in the present I’m afraid.
I said “one of the only”
I’ll leave that up to any Doper who ever reads this thread. I claim that you’re living in a pipe dream. I’d wager money that the majority of intelligent people to see your posts would agree.
~yawn~ You now going to deny, again, that you’ve stated the war can’t become a failure since the capture of Saddam made it a sucess? Moreoever, if the goal was the capture of Sadaam, but not normalization of Iraqi life without making Iraq into a terrorist hotbed… well… someone was an idiot and botched pre-war planning and the goals, now didn’t they? Which would make the war a failure from the start, wouldn’t it?
What you continue to refer to as ‘aftermath’ is the damn war.
No, you’ve refused to look at the specifics because you claim that they always happen. When we occupied former-nazi germany, did we have entire cities where we couldn’t enter? When we defeated Japan, were there constant Japanese kamikaze attacks while we tried to hold elections?
Your basic claim is spurious, and you’ve blanked out conflicting data.
Cognitive dissonance is truly the enemy of Bush’s regime.
Exactly, your “evidence”, thank you for putting it in quotes.
Moreoever, stop being a dick. In this very post I’m referring to you say the war is a sucess since Sadaam was nabbed. Thus, you’ve stopped looking. Hell, you’ve even decided that what’s going on now is somehow not part of the war. And yet, you won’t even touch on whether what’s going on now is sucess or failure, you simply state that every war, ever, has been just like this.
Whatever.
I’ll leave this conversation to the SDMB archives.
The validity of your positions will be clear to anybody reading, and arguing with you about this damn fool war is like trying to pin jello to a wall. I give up.
You realize, of course, that the “same opportunity” he had in the 1980s would mean shaking hands with Rumsfeld and having the support and aid of the United States government, right?
2001? Here I thought you had proof that the king of France was holding a gun to Bush’s head and demanding an immediate end to the sanctions. Talks of the sort you cited had been going on for most of a decade. The sanctions were still in place. You can apply any meaning you want to the word imminent, but when you choose to use the word in a nonstandard way, you’ve no call to get all bombastic when that’s pointed out to you. I’m sorry that you’re getting a ‘bit tired’ of your one sided burden, but so far the quality of the facts you’ve brought to the table has been on a par with Powell’s ‘fact based’ presentation to the United Nations: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’m not surprised at that, as you seem to lack any rational justification for the invasion, but you are going to continue to take shit for it until you either come up with an explanation, admit you were wrong, or withdraw from political discourse.
Well, hot damn, as long as if you’re going to be throwing lavish praise around, I feel compelled to answer in kind: I give you praise for having opposable thumbs. There… We’re even in that department.
You know, I thought for a sec that you might actually an open-minded – albeit confused – individual honestly searching for the turth. Instead, once again, what we have here is another mindless Bushdrone seeking justification – if in you mind only. Because for all the bullshit you’ve spouted such as charging us with not reading thge “full report,” “selective quoting” and so forth, fact remains that you have to turn into a pretzel if you’re going to attempt to justify this murderous enterprise based on what Duelfer actually says in his report. Bottom line:
Security threat to the US my ass. A fly attacking an elephant gets better odds from me.
I’ll also note that you’ve conveniently ignored my refutations to both of your earlier claims, firing at US planes in the no-fly zones and the oil-for-food scandal – presented, and I paraphrase here, cause I really don’t feel like wasting any more time with yet another Bushbot/reflexive American patiot: “irrefutable evidence.”
Turns out neither were even close to said standard. Just more ignorant speil/talking points from your wingnut sources to distract from the real issue. Which in case you’ve forgoteen yet again involves an illegal invasion based on lies and deceit…as has now been confirmed by your own intelligence experts. Your precious Duelfer included of course.
Go clean your house first. You’re in soo deep in feces you’re gonna need scuba gear.
Would you acknowledge the possibility of a scenario emerging that’s worse then Saddam in power? If that scenario came to be, would you still consider the war a success?
Finally, I hear it bandied about that even though he didn’t have WMD, he was a threat. I’m curious, in the absence of WMD, what exactly makes him dangerous? He has nothing to hit us with.
Why, my dear World Eater, thought. Thoughts were going to lead to the ruin of our world, apparently. Scientists and technicians with no equipment and no plans on paper and no materials(though they could be obtained my anyone with money and connections, I will freely admit), were going to remember formulas for a decade and re-emerge as a threat to us all.
Dirty bombs galore, didn’t you see** A Clear and Present Danger**?
) in this thread for proving with their own words and by their own behavior that my description of them in the beginning of this thread was spot-on.