We will start withdrawing from Iraq by Summer 2006

[Dave]

Not to minimize their contributions, but the problem isn't people like Bush and Dick.. it's the lack of activism at the highest levels of government and society.

I agree with your sentiment Dave. But I tend to think that the root of problem lies within us, not our leaders. They are but reflections.

it totally lies within us.. that's my point

When the most gifted and "virtuous" individuals in society with the widest appeal to the population don't care enough to stand up to arouse public debate, we're fucked. The problem with America is that everyone knows their place. Bill Cosby is getting blasted for being an Uncle Tom, but at least he has the guts to say what he thinks even if his ideas are taboo (which is almost another issue all together). The same kind of no-nonsense discourse by seemingly apolitical people like Cosby needs to be applied to the nation as a whole.

Not just anyone has the ability to take a stand on that level. Look at Cindy Sheehan. She was co-opted by special interests as a mouth peice just as much as she was blasted by war hawks, if you can make that comparison. For someone like Powell to resign takes guts in our society, but to end the crusade there is a tragedy.

[MidnightQ4]

Again, this view point of hindsight is irrelevant. Whether he did or did not have weapons was not the reason we invaded Iraq.

Idiotic post of the fucking century, there Midnight. The stated reason for the US invading Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD, and was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, specfically that he was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

It's not idiotic at all. You just can't comprehend what I'm saying. God you are so dense. Let me break it down for you.

We invaded on the premise that he had WMDs. We thought he did by every piece of intel that we had. Combine that with the noncompliance with inspectors and you can only draw one conclusion. So yes we invaded based on the premise. However, whatever the reality was found out to be later on, that reality had nothing to do with our invading. So to then say after the fact that "oh look he didn't have WMDs therefore the reason to invade was wrong" is completely moronic and a complete nonarguement. Make sense now after the 5th time explaining it? kthx retard.

OK I think you probably still don't get it so let me make it as simple as I can:

Premise of WMDs = invade
Actual WMDs after the fact = doesn't matter about anything

[Foo]

...it follows that since all evidence points to you being a complete fucking retard, doesn't actually matter if you think you have a point worth arguing, that's after the fact.

What a fucking retard.

[MidnightQ4]

Again, this view point of hindsight is irrelevant. Whether he did or did not have weapons was not the reason we invaded Iraq.

Idiotic post of the fucking century, there Midnight. The stated reason for the US invading Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of WMD, and was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, specfically that he was trying to acquire uranium from Niger.

lol, is mq4 suggesting iraq was invaded to *find out* if iraq had wmds? holy mother of fuck that's retarded

Again you guys are morons who can't understand simple english. Stop putting words in my mouth. Your IQ = 0

[MidnightQ4]

It scares me to think that so many people don't care about improving the world for the future. If this kind of mentality ever makes it way to those in charge we are really fucked at WWIII is inevitable in that case.

[Foo]

Lots of people care, they just dont think the way America has gone about it currently is the right way.

It's your lack of appreciating that which makes us think you're a boob.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

seriously this guy can't be for real

[MidnightQ4]

From what you guys are saying though we should just butt out and let the rest of the world do what they want. Even if that includes building nukes or other weapons and then using them on people. Then only after a country such as Iran has amassed a huge military power that is very difficult to deal with and started attacking people, only then should we deal with them. Um, hello, Nazi Germany anyone! We already played that scenario out. Why you guys are so eager to repeat it I just can't understand.

[[xeno]Julios]

but what about the U.S.?!!!

they're the only fucking nation in this planet's history to actually have used nuclear weapons.

[Foo]

Um, hello, Nazi Germany anyone! We already played that scenario out. Why you guys are so eager to repeat it I just can't understand.

This is my point *AGAIN* right here. You assume that because we do not support this course of action, we support the worst possible outcome.

It's a very childish view of the world and of discussion. Any chance of holding a serious debate is definitely out of the window until you overcome this mentally immature flaw in your reasoning ability.

[Nightshade]

It's not idiotic at all. You just can't comprehend what I'm saying. God you are so dense. Let me break it down for you.

We invaded on the premise that he had WMDs. We thought he did by every piece of intel that we had. Combine that with the noncompliance with inspectors and you can only draw one conclusion. So yes we invaded based on the premise. However, whatever the reality was found out to be later on, that reality had nothing to do with our invading. So to then say after the fact that "oh look he didn't have WMDs therefore the reason to invade was wrong" is completely moronic and a complete nonarguement. Make sense now after the 5th time explaining it? kthx retard.

OK I think you probably still don't get it so let me make it as simple as I can:

Premise of WMDs = invade
Actual WMDs after the fact = doesn't matter about anything

My god in heaven you're a fucking dipshit. You're right, it doesn't matter whether or not the sole reason given for the invasion was correct or not. Again, you have swallowed every single thing the Bush adminstration has peddled, without question. It doesn't matter that people in the Bush camp have been howling to inavde Iraq since he was elected, and that they'd use BLATANTLY FORGED documents to try and justify an invasion. Doesn't matter at all to you, does it? Because Saddam's a bad guy and the US has to ride in on their white horses and fucking level an entire country for....oh hell, it doesn't matter what for, right? As long as we THOUGHT we had a good reason, whatever we found is irrelevant. That has be be the single fucking DUMBEST "justification" for this war I've heard yet.

And AGAIN, show me a single piece of publically verifiable evidence that Saddam was a direct threat to the US.

[jester!]

It scares me to think that so many people don't care about improving the world for the future. If this kind of mentality ever makes it way to those in charge we are really fucked at WWIII is inevitable in that case.

It scares me to think that there are so many people who believe that starting wars will improve the world in the future. If this kind of mentality stays with those in charge we are really fucked as WWIII is inevitable in that case.

[MidnightQ4]

but what about the U.S.?!!!

they're the only fucking nation in this planet's history to actually have used nuclear weapons.

It brought a quick end to the war. It was the right decision.

[MidnightQ4]

Um, hello, Nazi Germany anyone! We already played that scenario out. Why you guys are so eager to repeat it I just can't understand.

This is my point *AGAIN* right here. You assume that because we do not support this course of action, we support the worst possible outcome.

It's a very childish view of the world and of discussion. Any chance of holding a serious debate is definitely out of the window until you overcome this mentally immature flaw in your reasoning ability.

Well if you claim that, then I have to say that you guys are dismissing this outcome at a distinct possibility. I'm not saying it would for sure end up that way, but you guys want to certainly give it a good chance to happen. I for one am tired of taking chances which is why I agree with the US playing police.

[MidnightQ4]

It's not idiotic at all. You just can't comprehend what I'm saying. God you are so dense. Let me break it down for you.

We invaded on the premise that he had WMDs. We thought he did by every piece of intel that we had. Combine that with the noncompliance with inspectors and you can only draw one conclusion. So yes we invaded based on the premise. However, whatever the reality was found out to be later on, that reality had nothing to do with our invading. So to then say after the fact that "oh look he didn't have WMDs therefore the reason to invade was wrong" is completely moronic and a complete nonarguement. Make sense now after the 5th time explaining it? kthx retard.

OK I think you probably still don't get it so let me make it as simple as I can:

Premise of WMDs = invade
Actual WMDs after the fact = doesn't matter about anything

My god in heaven you're a fucking dipshit. You're right, it doesn't matter whether or not the sole reason given for the invasion was correct or not. Again, you have swallowed every single thing the Bush adminstration has peddled, without question. It doesn't matter that people in the Bush camp have been howling to inavde Iraq since he was elected, and that they'd use BLATANTLY FORGED documents to try and justify an invasion. Doesn't matter at all to you, does it? Because Saddam's a bad guy and the US has to ride in on their white horses and fucking level an entire country for....oh hell, it doesn't matter what for, right? As long as we THOUGHT we had a good reason, whatever we found is irrelevant. That has be be the single fucking DUMBEST "justification" for this war I've heard yet.

And AGAIN, show me a single piece of publically verifiable evidence that Saddam was a direct threat to the US.

You're an idiot. AND I already answered that question.

So what you are saying is that if Saddam had nukes then the war was justified. See you are basing the war on the outcome of WMDs or not. But what you can't seem to fathom is that we didn't have the luxury of knowing that until we kicked out Saddam. Therefore we have to go on our best knowledge, unless he is cooperating so we can determine if he had nukes. He forced our hand and brought the war on himself. We told him we would invade, he didn't cooperate, so we did the only logical thing to protect against the potential for him to use WMDs. Really it's not hard to grasp at all. Your logic is completely flawed.

[jester!]

Oh and did you answer this?

PostPosted: 12-09-2005 11:06 PM Post subject:
Was the US acting as a member of the UN or of their own accord?

Who was this act of war you talk about commited against?

[Nightshade]

You haven't answered a damn thing. You've said "Oh, well, the inrelligence said..." which is a crock of shit. The key problem with your argument is that you accept Saddam's status as a direct threat to the US as cast in stone, and it wasn't. I don't know how many times you need to have that proven to you. No WMD, no ties to 9/11, no ties to Al Qaeda. All things that were known prior to invading, yet you'll go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify the invasion. This is insanity to anyone with a brain in their head, probably why it makes perfect sense to you.

We didn't HAVE to invade on our best knowledge as you put it, because Saddam was NOT A THREAT TO THE US, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN SINCE THE INVASION. George Bush & Co. WANTED to invade, so they found "reasons". Stop with your retarded circular logic and wake the hell up.
One of the reasons why I get so pissed about this whole thing is that I fell for the WMD argument before the war. I said "Hey, if this is the case, let's go kick his ass." Well, turns out it was a crock. So, what about the forged Niger uranium documents? How do they fit into your little worldview?

[[xeno]Julios]

but what about the U.S.?!!!

they're the only fucking nation in this planet's history to actually have used nuclear weapons.

It brought a quick end to the war. It was the right decision.

perhaps it was the right decision, insofar as "right" means securing and reinforcing the U.S.' role of power. From my limited understanding of the issue, the use of nuclear weapons in ww2 was unnecessary in terms of actual security.

But regardless, my point stands that there the whole discussion of WMD's seems to be taking place within an irrational framework.

By default, anything the U.S. has or does is justifiable, since they set the (moral) standard.

This is what is being challenged here.

[seremtan]

One of the reasons why I get so pissed about this whole thing is that I fell for the WMD argument before the war. I said "Hey, if this is the case, let's go kick his ass." Well, turns out it was a crock.

funny you should say that but it was the whole democracy'n'freedom thing that had me supporting it to begin with. i was never that sold on the whole WMD thing, and frankly thought the attempts to connect saddam and al-qa'eda were bollocks

oddly what changed my mind in a big way was nothing to do with the war or its consequences or subsequent revelations. i'd gotten interested in libertarian ideas about that time, and it was reading murray rothbard's chapter on war in his libertarian manifesto that made me start thinking along different lines

[seremtan]

It brought a quick end to the war. It was the right decision.

if that was the only reason for dropping it, why wasn't a nuke dropped on berlin?

[Hannibal]

[MidnightQ4]

Oh and did you answer this?

PostPosted: 12-09-2005 11:06 PM Post subject:
Was the US acting as a member of the UN or of their own accord?

Who was this act of war you talk about commited against?

Yes I specifically answered that.

[Tormentius]

It brought a quick end to the war. It was the right decision.

And that justifies men, women, and children being vaporized?! Fuck man, compared to you even Dubya looks like an intellectual powerhouse.

[MidnightQ4]

No WMD, no ties to 9/11, no ties to Al Qaeda. All things that were known prior to invading, yet you'll go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify the invasion. This is insanity to anyone with a brain in their head, probably why it makes perfect sense to you.

The insanity here is that you still don't comprehend what I've said for 5 posts now. You cannot claim no WMDs as a reason against the invasion because that was not a fact that was known at the time. As for no ties to Al Qaeda and terrorism in general, it is well known that those terrorists hide out in sympathetic countries in the middle east. Therefore, regardless of direct ties or not, changing countries in the mideast to be nonsympathetic to terrorists has a direct impact against terrorism. So yes, invading Iraq will in the end have a positive impact on terrorism by changing that area of the world to one which does not harbor terrorists.

We didn't HAVE to invade on our best knowledge as you put it, because Saddam was NOT A THREAT TO THE US, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN SINCE THE INVASION.

Again, SINCE the invasion. You continue to point to hindsight as a reason for your arguement, which is your fatal flaw. You just will not admit that the threat was real at the time will you? And no we didn't HAVE to invade, but then again we don't HAVE to sit back and wait to get blow to bits either.

George Bush & Co. WANTED to invade, so they found "reasons".

Perhaps they did use the circumstances as "good enough" to invade Iraq. SO WHAT? Obviously it was something that should have been done back in 1991. The thing is, even if what you claim is true, so what? So we made up reasons to go in and remove Saddam. I say about fucking time. We would have done it back in 1991 if not for peer pressure from the other nations, which was ass backwards and retarded. They ask us to go save Kuwait, then they tell us what we can and can't do to get the job done. Brilliant.

Stop with your retarded circular logic and wake the hell up.
One of the reasons why I get so pissed about this whole thing is that I fell for the WMD argument before the war. I said "Hey, if this is the case, let's go kick his ass." Well, turns out it was a crock. So, what about the forged Niger uranium documents? How do they fit into your little worldview?

Hmm ok so you feel like you were lied to and therefore you are upset. Fine. However you shouldn't be upset about there not being any WMDs. Just figure that Saddam got rid of everything in those few month when he was jacking around the inspectors, cause frankly that is probably the case. If we invaded the first day after the inspectors were told to turn around and go home I'm sure we would have found something. And again you are using hindsight as your arguement. What you need to do is go back to Feb 2003 and remember the situation, and then decide if it was a good decision or not. You cannot use what we know today as a reason to decide if invading was a the right decision back then. That arguement holds no water and is the arguement of the uneducated who don't know any better.

The evidence has too be looked at as a whole, one or two things that were forged or lies that were told do not mean that we didn't have a lot of other evidence at the time pointing to some kind of WMDs being worked on in Iraq. I'm sure the powers that be did not decide to invade based on 1 or 2 pieces of evidence.

[MidnightQ4]

It brought a quick end to the war. It was the right decision.

And that justifies men, women, and children being vaporized?! Fuck man, compared to you even Dubya looks like an intellectual powerhouse.

vaporized, or starving to death, or bomobed, it's all the same, they died. vaporizing 200,000 people is not as bad as slowly starving to death and bombing millions, which is what would have happend otherwise. That's the basis for my arguement. Those same people in Japan were dying at the rate of 100,000 per month in Japan. So now, knowing that, don't you agree that ending the conflict so we can go help the women and children was the right thing to do?