Arguments like this tend to imply that those of us who opposed the invasion were somehow convinced that Saddam Hussein was a good guy who deserved to be left alone. May i reiterate in the strongest possible terms that many (most?) of us who imposed the invasion are, nonetheless, very happy that Hussein is no longer running Iraq, and were happy to see him removed from power and captured. In fact, the leftists and liberals who opposed the war have, for the most part, been saying how bad Saddam was since the time when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.
The substance of this issue is not whether Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, although so far the answer to this question is, at best, still up in the air. The key is whether it is acceptable for America’s leaders to lie to the American people in order to justify an invasion of a foreign nation that kills tens of thousands of that nation’s citizens and over a thousand American troops. The issue is also whether it is acceptable to circumvent the United Nations in order to undertake such an action, especially when the US had already spent so much time moralizing to Saddam Hussein about how he should not defy the UN.
Your “ends justify the means” position leaves open the question of exactly how often the US should undertake such “humanitarian” missions, and who the targets should be.
And liberal, i’m constantly amazed that someone who ostensibly takes such pride in being outside and above the usual silly Democrat v. Republican tunnel-vision that characterises American politics is also so quick to quick enter many debates with posts that say nothing more than “but the Democrats do it too.”
Of course, you’ll probably argue that you are simply trying to point out that no major party has a monopoly on tyranny and incompetence—and you would be correct on this score—but you often phrase your posts with so little context and so little argumentation that they sound like nothing more than a defense of the Republicans.
If a policeman spots a jay-walker, and pulls his pistol and fires at him, misses, and hits Lee Harvey Oswald on this way to the Book Depository, he has committed a commendable act and deserves a medal.
Or that old man who drove into the Santa Monica farmers market – maybe one of the people he hit was going to be the next Hitler, and it turns out he did exactly the right thing.
The last time I checked we had a voluntary military force. Nodoby sacrificed thier child for anything. These are people that are at least 18 years of age and as such are adults and can make thier own fucking choices.
I tried to enlist back in 1992 when I turned 18. I was rejected for medical reasons. If I was accepted to the military and was still serving now, then yeah, I would.
I don’t know who pissed in your Post Toasties or who is responsible for the sand in your vagina, but it wasn’t me. I am perfectly entitled to my opinion and my views. If you don’t share them that is fine and we can discuss that if you like. But don’t start preaching to me about loss of life in the war, you little twat sausage. I have lost a loved one already in this war and may stand to lose more.
Is a half brother close enough? I also have a full brother and a cousin currently in military service in the war. How much would I have to lose before you decide that I am allowed to have my own views on this subject and you stop being such a fucking dildo?
I know damn well that this is the Pit and as such, flames are par for the course. You may want to get a little more info next time before you start talking about shit that you don’t know about. I have never written about my brother on these boards before. He was a damn good man and was doing what he felt was his duty. As such, I doubt he regreted his choice. But if I want to try and see what ever kind of silver fucking lining that I can and hope that some good…any good, can come from this, then I fucking well will.
I regret your loss, Greathouse. I hope you can have enough faith in my sincerity to accept that at face value. I wish I could tell you that is was a worthy sacrifice and for good cause, but you probably already know that I don’t believe it, and I would not insult you so. Your kins commitment was worthy and honorable, but to spend a good mans life in a vain and false enterprise is obscene. I, for one, will never forgive the authors of this debacle. But please never imagine, even for an instant, that this means I hold such pain as yours in contempt. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well said, elucidator. This is exactly what I would have written if I were smarter and perhaps more handsome. Greathouse, I am deeply sorry for your loss. Whether or not I agree with your views, I can’t fault anyone who lost a loved one in this war for wanting to believe that sacrifice went to achieve something worth the cost.
No, no. It was declared over. “Mission accomplished.” Remember? They hung a big ol’ ugly banner off our bridge when the chimp played dress up in a flight suit.
Actually because the UN have a greater sense of perspective (which wouldn’t be hard) they would probably have responded: “well if you have billions of dollars and thousands of lives to sacrifice in the cause of fighting oppression, here’s a list of the top 10 [or whatever] horrific fascist dictatorships and vicious wars that need sorting out. You will note that Saddam doesn’t even make the list, your particular obsessions notwithstanding. When are your troops loading up for Sudan [or wherever?]”
How? By full co-operation? Is to laugh. By the end he was bent over holding his ass cheeks apart pretending to be loving it with the Porcupine probing him to the full ten inches but he got beaten up for being unco-operative anyway.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy, of course, but don’t kid yourself he was going to suffer anything other than a beating from the moment Bush set his sights on him, no matter what he did.
Failed? As I understand it, he ended up getting full co-operation and finding that there were no WMD. How is that failure?
Unless you mean “failed to tell the Bush admin what they wanted to hear”.
Pretending each party is as bad as the other is unfair on this issue unless you can say what Clinton would have done once the position had been reached where full co-operation had been given and the Inspectors were saying there was nothing.
The Bush admin response was to say “Don’t tell us what we don’t want to hear”, run a smear campaign against the messengers, demand and get the “fixed-up” intelligence they wanted and then run the invasion they always wanted to.
Unless you have any actual evidence that a Clinton administration would have done the same, your post and what it implies is drivel.
There is a world of difference between a leader who talks tough when there is some evidence of a threat, and the leader who still talks (and indeed acts) tough even after the threat is gone, for political (or whatever the fuck it is Bush thinks he’s getting out of this) gain.
