How many times can I say this is a straw man? It is a STUPID straw man. What the Iraqi resistance might do IF circumstances were different is totally and absolutely irrelevant and I have made the argument several times and you keep ignoring it. Yours is a really stupid argument.
A man may react the same way if his car is taken by a thief or repossessed by the lender but I support him against the thief and not against the repossessor. The fact that his reaction may be the same is completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that one action is legal and the other illegal.
Please stop making stupid arguments… although it seems that’s all you got.
I fail to see why my honest answer to your question is “in the way.” You’re the one setting up conditions that are duplicitous. I just gave a straight answer. Deal with it.
It’s not a question, it’s an assertion. Furthermore, it is an assertion which the immense majority of the people who opposed the war are not making so it is also a straw man. But I suppose this is what those who would defend Bush at any cost are reduced to since they have nothing else to grab.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
The point is it were US soldiers marooned in the desert and Bush adm. was responsible for them, while other countries could continue to play diplomacy games with impunity. Of course there were two ways out: invade or leave. The order could’ve been given to go home, WH could issue a statement, “Fuck UN and all its fucking resolutions, next time we get hit we just nuke something”, INS could be set to arrest and deport all UN personnel out of the country in 24 hours… I’d support that too.QUOTE]
Let´s see, are you saying that it would be fine by you to nuke Iraq as a response to 9/11?
New Iskander, it is really tiring to follow your posts and see you ignoring what is said and building stupid straw men which you cannot even demolish and so you beat around the Bush.
Your OP says:
You say I justify Iraqi resistance to be legitimate because I consider the invasion was illegitimate. This is correct. And then you go on to say the resistance would have been the same had the invasion been legitimate. So what? WTF has this to do with anything? Even if it were true (and I do not accept it as true), it does not in any way invalidate my position.
Wel, it’s nice of you to confirm that you have no comprehension skills at all. Go back and re-read my post. S-l-o-w-l-y. Move your lips if that helps. My point was Bush “marooned” the soldiers in the desert before making even a half-assed attempt at diplomacy. He was responsible for them, and he irresponibly put them in harms way because he was unwilling to persue a diplomatic solution.
I was fed-up with reading endless equivocations like this one of yours from above:
to the point that I couldn’t contain it any longer. There was no “proper” way to invade Iraq and remove Saddam, will you get it through your head? It was whether do or not. Your quibbles don’t mean shit, because about the same number of people would die. I want US to prevail, but I have equal respect for US soldiers and Iraqi resistance, for they both are fighting real war for real stakes. For you, they are just a bunch of wooden pawns you can paint one color or another, depending which way your farts flow.
I substantiated that in my first answer to Sailor, above. Iraq resistance is fighting to restore the way of life those peopple that burn Bush in effigies have no experience and no idea about; no idea how horrible it is. They heard that Saddam was bad but they can’t comprehend the alternate reality where their lives wouldn’t be worth a scrap of used toilet paper from the moment they discussed an idea of mocking the ruler.
Well, again you prove how much of an idiot you are. Do you really beleive this? Here are some finer points:[ul]*Attempt diplomacy before sending force to the region.
*Exhaust all avenues before going it alone.
*Be sure your reasons are true and aim righteous before committing American blood.
*Be forthright in the reasons for action.
*Confirm the intelligence sources.
*Don’t allow personal agendas cloud judgement.
*Confirm commitment of bordering countries so 1/3 of your force isn’t floating in the Med when it’s time to act.
*Commit a sufficient number of troops for the task.
*Have a plan in place for a transition.
*Be prepared for a looming humanitarian crisis when the shooting stops.
*Plan on medical resources for the civilian population.
[/ul]Hows that for just a start?
So taking possesion of a car is the same thing whether you have a legal right to it or not? The only thing that counts is that the present owner will resist? Everything else is just quibbles?
In this we agree. I have said the same thing many times. Both American soldiers and Iraqi insurgents are fighting for their ideals and both are equally respectable.
Of course, had the USA waited a bit and gone along with the rest of the world, the war may have been averted and the situation would have been resolved in a satisfactory manner for all parties concerned without sheding blood.
Ideally. But I think we can all agree that Saddam was a supreme butthead. It may have ended in use of force, but our standing in the world would have not been as damaged.
Well, yes, we never know. But the USA was saying “that’s my car and I am taking it by force and I am not waiting for a court to rule”. Well, even if it is your car you can’t do that but when you take it and it turns out you were mistaken and it wasn’t your car after all, then you look like a bully and an idiot who has caused a big fight in the neighborhood and soured life for everybody and on top of this you were wrong. That is the position of the USA in the world right now.
On top of that the USA refuses to transfer any authority to the UN so, in spite of having made the mess and in spite of being wrong about the reasons, they continue to occupy Iraq for their own benefit. If they are acting in such good faith, now that Saddam is gone and there are no WMD, why don’t the transfer the authority to the UN?
Oh? Well, ask yourself this question, SPOOFE. If the best evidence available should indicate that an Iraqi election would install an Islamic fundie state similar to Iran, do you really…really…believe that Bremer, Chalabi, and Co. will permit such a thing to go forward?
If you do, I have an acquaintance from Nigeria you might like to get in touch with. He’s in the banking business there, you see, and …