It’d be the only one that made the war legal, wouldn’t it?
The imminent threat to the USA from Iraq’s CBW’s was what sold the idea to the American public. We *had * to attack Iraq to prevent a repeat of 9-11.
Weirddave, Weirddave, Weirddave…you’ve really got to stop following me from thread to thread with your affectionate little driveby’s. People will say we’re in love.
And that’d annoy me 'cos I think you’re a fucking idiot.
I said that it was rash to assume now that we’ve actually saved the lives of all those little brown people we never cared about until FOX news reminded us they exist until the dust settles and we know the new regime isn’t as bad. You, seemingly immersed in your quest to find out whether or not a potato battery will suffice in lieu of a brain when conducting discourse with a rational human being, interpreted my statement to mean that we should assume that there will never be a better government.
I said: "That it was rash to assume at this point in time that there have truly been humanitarian benefits. It really is too soon to tell.
You heard “We should assume that there will never be a humane government in Iraq”
Goddammit man, I’ve eaten things that are smarter than you. Every time I read one of your posts I picture a old dying hamster, the methusaleh of the rodent world, s-l-o-w-l-y- puttering round on a wheel desperately trying to keep going on its own ever decreasing momentum.
By the way, the last time you drove by purely to insult me I asked you this question
Don’t bother answering it. Your last post forced my question deep into the realms of the rhetorical.
Benny, you really should look into hiring some comedy writers, you might be able to post some insults that are within spitting distance of clever, as it is they’re just sad. As it is, you simply waffle on your previous statement: “I said there may not be humane benefits in the future, it’s too early to tell”. You are quite correct in this assertation, it’s one I’ve been making for quite some time, maybe your nascent brain is starting to function with something aproaching human normality. That dosen’t change the fact that the current discussion was about the Iraqi people being better off now, at this particular moment, then they were under SH. Feel free to argue that they were not, but don’t change the subject as you tried to do here.
:smack: Sorry, typo.
Weirddave, I’m not trying to be snipey, but is this true? That the Iraqis are better off now?
I thought the current discussion was whether the war was fought for nothing or for something, or, more precisely, whether Americans were sent to die for nothing. They certainly weren;'t sent to die for the reasons that they were told.
There is no such word as “assertation,” btw.
“assertion”
Spelling nazi! 
Except that one cannot argue the point out of context. If someone started a thread arguing Africans were better off under colonial rule it would be proper to post saying they lacked the freedom to decide their own destiny. If someone started a thread saying some blacks were better off as slaves than later as free people, while it may be strictly true, some context might be in order.
Given the evidence I have seen I do not think Iraqis are better off but that is not even a major point. whether they are or not, in fact, better off, does not detract from the fact that they have been invaded and occupied. Do you think Americans would consent to be invaded and occupied if they were guaranteed, say, a 10% increase in their incomes? I don’t think so. Likewise I think the Iraqis would much prefer the Americans to go away. So, the fact that they may be better off from your point of view does not mean they feel better off. They are making it abundantly clear that they want the Americans out and discussing whether they are better off outside of any context is just an effort to disguise and justify the larger picture.
Which is all well and good except it ignores the fact that the last item on he American adjenda is “leave Iraq(hopefully with a stable, peaceful government in place when we do)”. If the Shrub thinks he can just occupy Iraq indefinitely, he is badly mistaken and it’ll cost him a second term. I am just waiting to see if he can pull off the part in parentases. If the 'pubbies got a half a brain and put the guy who’s in charge in Karbala ( Marine Lt. Col. Michael Belcher )in charge of all of Iraq instead of political cronies, it might just get done. I hold little hope for that, however.
Interesting article about Karbala where many people don’t want us to leave yet.
Of course “stable, peaceful government” means “American puppet government.”
What if the Iraqis don’t want a democracy? What if the want a monarchy? Is that going to be ok with the US? Why should they even have any say in it?
DtC claimed that it was nothing, which it wasn’t. Therefore he’s wrong.
Ben Hicks
It would be difficult for it to not be, but even if it isn’t, there already have been benefits. But at least you’re actually addressing the issue, unlike DtC who simply changed the subject.
sailor
The fact that they are linked does not mean that we cannot separate them. There have been benefits, and those benefits exist independently of whether the war was justified.
But it was DtC that beought up the issue. It’s rather dishonest to claim that there are no benefits, and then when someone points out that there are, to say that whether there are any benfits is irrevelant and we really should be discussing whether it was justified. In your analogy, I wouldn’t bring up the $100, but if someone else claimed that he didn’t give her any money, I would challenge that, and I would consider the response of “hey, it’s not important whether he gave her any money, let’s discuss the rape” to be an attempt to weasel out of admitting error.
AZCowboy
And to see AZCowboy’s credentials in judging logical discourse, check out this thread, in which he claims to have refuted three of my points despite not refuting any of them. Not only does he not know how to win an argument in the first place, he can’t even tell when he’s lost.
I don’t believe that I made any suggestion in that thread that the end justifies the means, and I’m not pitting DtC for debating Sam, I’m pitting him for not debating him, but simply changing the subject instead.
I don’t accept that any of the hypothetical “benefits” you perceive as arising from the attack on Iraq are good enough reasons to kill people or to send US/UK troops to be killed.
Bush killed people for nothing.
N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Not a motherfucking thing.
Let me define “nothing.” Nothing means “No legitimate reason.”
Getting rid of Hussein was, guess what, NOT A LEGITIMATE REASON TO KILL PEOPLE!
It wasn’t even a legal fucking reason.
It sure as hell wasn’t the reason that he stated before the invasion. We expended tremendous resources and wasted human lives on both sides over a false alarm. If despotism was a good enough reason to invade other countries, presidents wouldn’t have to lie about WMDs.
It’s irrelevant to me that Hussein was a despot. The world is full of despots. It’s not a legitimate reason for a war. Trying to justify the invasion now as being warranted simply for regime change is nothing but back-pedalling, apologist spin, and I’m not having it. You say it’s something, I say it’s nothing.
wow im the 4th person from minnesota in this thread.
/me feels special.
…man i need to get away form IRC a little bit…
D the C–
I don’t think you should define “nothing” as “No legitimate reason” and I’m not playing semantics here.
I believe that Bush killed people for a REASON-- but just not a legitimate (or publically announced) reason.
I couldn’t tell you what his reasons were, but I suspect it had something to do with eliminating a nuisance and arranging the middle-east checkers a little more to the USA’s liking.
In the long run, the war may end up helping the USA’s interests as well as possibly bettering the lot of some Iraqis.
Of course, these are absolutely NOT legitimate or legal or moral reasons for going to war. So the whole thing still stinks… let’s just hope the chucklehead voters can catch a whiff of that evil odor by November of 2004.
Unfortunately, i’m not sure this is true. I really don’t think that many Americans care enough about foreign policy (at least when it seems to be "working’ for America) to make it the key issue in an election.
I think a far bigger danger to Bush’s re-election chances is the tanking economy.
mhendo,
Normally, I would agree with you, but in this case, if we’re still occupying Iraq with no timetable and/or plan for leaving in place and accepted by the Iraqis, I would expect the death toll among our occupying troops to start to climb quickly due to attacks by Iraqi freedom fighters. THAT is the type of thing that will get the attention of the American people.
Hopefully we’ll get out of Iraq in a fairly expedient manner AND the economy will torpedo Shrub’s second term. I pray to God something does.
I meant to say “if we’re still occupying Iraq with no timetable and/or plan for leaving in place and accepted by the Iraqis a year from now,” Sorry.