Simon has been like a voice in the wilderness in these debates, patiently trying to explain to his conservative brethren that criticism of Bush and his policies does not map onto the liberal-to-conservative spectrum. (His adherence to truth, rather than party politics, has really won my respect; there are some good conservatives out there!) There are perfectly legitimate grounds for criticizing this administration’s actions even from a conservative perspective. And of course, no one should condone the level of mendacity this administration has displayed, regardless of its ideological orientation.
So while perhaps you didn’t actually promote Bush’s lies, you approved of them because they suited your agenda, plus it was too much bother to try to make an honest case for war. Oh yeah, that puts you on the side of the Angels here! You were better off accepting Mr. Svinlasha’s lashing without comment.
Welcome to our planet. We were patrolling Iraq for 11 years, subjecting the local population to great hardships. Ex-POTUS didn’t call the whole thing off, but escalated gradually.
Poor, neglected, oppressed, spit-upon, vilified, misunderstood liberals; all alone in the world! Well, before you all got seriously warm and wet all over pitying yourselves, hear this:
Bush is an Idiot! And a Bufoon! I love Liberals! Liberals are essential for eco-system!
Feeling better? I will repeat, as necessary.
Now, can we have some straight answers to certain straight questions?
No, I didn’t approve of them at all. In fact I disapproved of them decisively. I was practically screaming, “Mr. Bush! You Idiot! You Bufoon! Don’t go there, A-ole! You don’t get any credit from those frauds, you only make things worse, you bufoon, you idiot!”
Maybe. However, the rhetoric that was claimed to be only for the “… lefties and foreign crooks …[New Isklander]” was also used to influence the Congress to authorize the war and was attempted at the UN by Saint Colin.
I simply don’t accept that the GW cabal is so rational as to have an even maginally justifiable reason for the Iraq blunder. They certainly haven’t demonstrated much along that line in the so-called “war on terror.”
The things you listed are, in my opinion, annoyances and do not even come close to a such a “problem” as to pose so imminent a threat to the US as to justify a preemptive war. And, come to think of it, do you really expect me to believe that you give a shit about “subjecting the local population to great hardships?”
Your arguments are merely a chain of silly asides that I assume you think are funny. Well, don’t give up your day job.
You asked me why I was so harsh. Following that you chose to make light of issues that are deeply serious, and employ deprecating stereotypes of your debating opponents as jokes. I didn’t think it was very funny, and have grown weary of the unholy SHITE promulgated regularly by Bush supporters, especially regarding the war. Even a gentleman has limits.
However, I did give you a straight answer. The Bush administration at large, and it’s many supporters here at the SDMB, have been thoroughly high-handed, arrogant, rude, spiteful, snide, and condescending (actually, for the sake of accuracy, Sam is one of the few exceptions to that characterization). Time, however, has also proven them to be completely wrong in virtually every one of their assertions regarding Iraq (and this accusation, I’m afraid, does include Sam). At this point, when the pre-war claims made by Bush and his cronies have been so entirely discredited, there is simply no defense left for those who continue to support this thoroughly corrupt administration.
Well, was it rhetoric, or was it truth? You see, you give the lie to the administration’s claims even here. “Oh, that was only rhetoric, aimed at you dumb lefties,” you say. “We never really believed Iraq had “WMDs,” or was a serious threat, after all. We just said that stuff to convince you to go to war.”
But I disagree with your analysis. I believe the rhetoric was aimed at the true-blue believers, not us skeptics. And they were the ones who swallowed it, willfully or unwittingly, hook, line, and sinker. Just long enough to start the invasion. Then fuck ‘em.
I can’t muster a straightforward argument? Really?
Ask Sam if he agrees with that statement, why don’t you.
Yet, I’m still waiting for a straightforward argument from the pro-war side which can be debated. Was the invasion a response to an imminent threat? To Iraq’s possession of “WMDs” and its connection to al Qaida? You’ve just admitted that these claims were merely rhetoric. Anti-war types argued that Iraq was never a real threat to the US, and that the Bush administration had failed to produce credible evidence of “WMDs”; we were right.
Was it to prevent terrorism? Many of us believe that is was a distraction from the hunt for al Qaida and bin Laden, including prominent Republicans like Richard Clarke, one of the world’s leading experts on counter-terrorism. And indeed, since the war, acts of terror by al Qaida and other, linked organizations have increased, precisely as those in the anti-war camp warned.
Was it to overthrow Hussein’s regime and establish an Iraqi democracy? If so, why the urgency? Why not work with the UN? Why risk the ire of the world community just to free a foreign people, to whom we owe literally nothing? Are you so naive as to believe that the Bush administration would behave in such an altruistic fashion, without expecting anything in return? Again, said the experts, while a noble cause, it is a risky venture. We asked, “Well, if it goes south, what then?” Pre-war planners warned the administration that this might happen. They were ignored. Now, it’s beginning to go south. Do you have even one bloody foggy suggestion as to what to do about it? Shall we agree upon a symbol for the new Iraqi Olympic Team, stick our fingers in our ears, and sing “God Bless America” at the top of our lungs? Do you think maybe that will make all those nasty Sadrists go away? And now, after I’ve spent the last 2 1/2 years trying to convince my debating opponents not to do this, am I somehow expected to be responsible for the results of a policy I stridently opposed, here and on the street as well? Why?
Yet, not more than a paragraph previously, you concede that your “certain real problem” was just a product of rhetoric, designed to convince “foreign crooks and lefties” (interesting, by the way, how you lump those two categories together). And may I point out, yet again, that your “practical solution” hasn’t proven to be particularly practical? That it’s cost too many lives, and too many valuable resources, and too much US prestige, as is?
Your solution: lie to the American public, ignore the tenets of international law (yeah, I know you don’t believe there is such a thing), ignore and insult some of our most trusted allies, violate the UN Charter, launch an unprovoked war of aggression against a tin-pot dictator on false pretenses, pretend afterwards that it was really a noble humanitarian action, attempt to install a known con-man as a puppet, and, when all hell breaks loose, throw up your hands and request “an honest debate.” A bit late for that, don’t you think?
Let me remind you as well, that at least previously, you have admitted that you don’t even know why he did it, yourself:
(How’s that for a little fuzzy logic? He believed in the accusations that Iraq had “WMDs,” but his real reasons for invading were totally different. Only, we don’t know what those reasons were. Despite that fact, we know they were “very serious.”
And you say I can’t muster a straightforward argument?)
The time for debate is over, Is. Tonight Baghdad’s in flames. Your time is up, your experiment finished. Thank you, thank you all, for supporting this foolish war, and getting us into this mess. For myself, I’ve debated it into the ground. What use arguing with the walls?
To be honest, I’m not sure I have one. I also don’t have a solution to the problems in China. Do you think we should invade them next? If not, then what is your solution to the “Chinese problem?”
No. I explained to you exactly why I made that remark.
Frankly, as a “marginalized lefty” (read: mainstream American) who was “almost breath-takingly stupid” (read: brilliantly insightful and ultimately proven correct), I don’t really care if Shodan has the balls to admit to his earlier errors and apologize for his previous boneheaded remarks. My ego is certainly not dependent on the approval of a Bush apologist who, at this point, won’t budge his opinion for anything less than a ten-megaton warhead.
What does get my goat is that he continues to parrot the daily talking points of the White House and the Republican Party, without the slightest iota of skepticism or doubt. If friend Shodan were to intelligently respond to the latest Bush directive with a doubtful “Boy, they’re going to try to fleece the public again!”, I’d gladly overlook his past boorish behavior and self-contradictions, just for the pleasure of seeing him exhibit some form of independent thought.
Because, in the end, we’re here to fight ignorance, not perpetuate it.
New Iskander:
No, I’m wondering about your solution to the “Iraqi problem,” that is to say, the burgeoning Iraqi civil war that is a result of your invasion.