Author Topic: Before - and After - Iraq  (Read 28772 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2006, 12:48:15 AM »
Returning to the absolutely asinine Victor Davis Hanson article at the head of this thread and addressing its various idiocies from the point where I last left off:

<<Taking out Saddam Hussein was not dreamed up - as is sometimes alleged - by sneaky supporters of Israel. >>

Actually, it was.  Read the PNAC founding documents, most of which were written by fervent Zionists quite a few years before the invasion.  In fact, they tried unsuccessfully to foist this insanity on the Clinton administration, which wasn't buying it.

<<Nor did oil-hungry CEOs or Halliburton puppeteers pull strings in the shadows to get us in. >>

Uh, and you know this because of your night-vision goggles that permit you to peer into those shadows and see exactly which strings were or were  not being pulled by the oil industry?  Come on!!!!  Did these guys suddenly become averse to the kind of profits they could realize if the U.S. government were suddenly in control of the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world?  Or is it that they felt they could not ethically exploit any family or business connections to the executive branch and cheapen them with the taint of commercial doings?

<<And the go-ahead wasn't given merely on the strength of trumped-up fears of weapons of mass destruction . . . >>

No of course not.  Weapons of mass destruction were never even mentioned in the same breath as invading Iraq.  No senior executive of the U.S. government EVER indicated the slightest reason to be afraid of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion.

<< The U.S. Congress authorized the war on 23 diverse counts, from Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice to its record of giving both money and sanctuary to terrorists.>>

Every single one of them exceedingly trivial and/or phony and/or trumped up and/or totally hypocritical.  Not one of them in itself even remotely capable of justifying an invasion of one sovereign state by another.  But I must admit, that "23" is a very impressive number. A propagandist work of genius.

<<George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.>>

WHOAAA THERE cowboy.  Couldja back that up just a little bit?  George W. Bush chose to WHAT Iraq?  Democratize?  Did I miss something here?  Was there some speech that George W. Bush gave where he told the country, "Folks, things er BAD in Eye-rak today.  Man can't even vote fer prezdunt there wifout some men with guns thretnin himniz famlee ifn Saddam Hoosain ain't relected.  People er tole howda vote n'Gawd helpum ifn they don't vote how there tole.  So I think we should invade Eye-rak rat naow so weecun bringem summa that fahn dimockracy.

Now I'm sure I missed that speech.  I did, however, hear quite a few that seemed to promise people the horrors and the hell of nuclear war if Iraq wasn't invaded immediately.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2006, 01:08:14 AM »
Quote
Actually, it was.  Read the PNAC founding documents, most of which were written by fervent Zionists quite a few years before the invasion.  In fact, they tried unsuccessfully to foist this insanity on the Clinton administration, which wasn't buying it.


Actually the Congress passed a resolution - overwhelmingly and with bi-partisan support- callling for regime change in Iraq. Independent of the PNAC letter which came later.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2006, 02:12:57 AM »

You present your opinion as if it were fact.


Yes. Mr. Hanson believes his opinion is the truth, and I believe my opinion is the truth. So what?


Can you not point to one instance where conflicts in ideology were solved at the point of a bayonet?


Sure I can. So? Are you suggesting that because some conflicts seem to have been solved by military force then military force is the best way to handle such conflicts always? I once had a conflict of ideology/interest with a bully. I solved it by throwing my shoes at his head and making it clear in no uncertain terms that I was not going to take his bullying anymore. He left me alone. But that hardly seems like a proper pattern for all or even most conflicts of ideology/interest that I may have with other people. Seems to me if I settled all or most conflicts in such a manner, I would become the bully and end up with few if any friends. Seems to me, I am better off finding peaceful solutions. If I use force, I do so rare instances, not as a standard mode of operation. I attempt as a standard mode of operation getting along with others, acting non-aggressively toward others, letting others peacefully disagree with me, even those who would use government to enforce their preferences. Speaking of which, I do not advocate armed and/or violent revolution against the government or against those who promote policies with which I could be said to in ideological conflict. I doubt seriously that a more militant and/or more aggressive approach would achieve much good. Do you have some reason why I should think otherwise?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2006, 03:42:25 AM »
Quote
We will not achieve that idealism until we stop trying to make it happen by military force. And stopping that is the right and smart thing to do.

That is what you said. Not that you believed it to be the truth.

You act as if other means of achieving the same goals were not tried, and that is also not the truth.

But i am glad you admitted that sometimes force is necessary even if it means pinging shoes off of someones head in order to achieve an ideal goal.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2006, 04:31:02 AM »
Quote
" As Obama says, there are no good options. NOW WE CAN BEGIN OUR ANALYSIS."



I posit that the options availible set the standard for what options are "good".


Of all the options that we have which one is best?

Can this question be answered without examinition of the potential results of each choice.

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2006, 12:19:42 PM »
The alternative of allowing Israeli's to be driven into the sea and the country driven from existence seems to be the price we are unwilling to pay.

Who's "we"?

Whatever the views of Congress, eventually they have to answer to the American people. And when support for Israel heats up as an issue, which it obviously will eventually, either the congresscritters will comply with the wishes of the American people, or they'll be replaced with congresscritters who will.

And if the purpose of this war is the defense of Israel, why doesn't President Bush simply say so? You know why he doesn't - there's no way in hell the American people would ever support such a war.

and i opine rightfully so.

Then feel free to jump on an airplane and put up your own blood and treasure to defend it. But to me as an American citizen, and I suspect to most American citizens, it's a matter of small consequence whether Israel gets driven into the sea, or builds settlements all the way to China.

Let's remember the current inhabitants of Israel are in a large part, if not mostly, immigrants. They are there by choice, nobody forced them there at gunpoint. Fine and dandy, but if they wish to establish a nation out in the middle of where they aren't welcome, I submit the onus is on the Israelis to defend it. Not on America.

Americans themselves have made the same dramatic about-face. They once approved of the war by a 70 percent majority.

And this here is one big steaming crock of bullshit. You might get 70% if you took the outlier results of the most optimistic polls, but there has never been anything like a sustained 70% support for this war, with the exception of a.) immediately following 9/11, and b.) immediately after the fall of Baghdad, when there was a predictable Rally-Round-the-Flag effect. Check the polling data yourself:

http://pollingreport.com/iraq10.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq9.htm
http://pollingreport.com/iraq8.htm

In fact, the Time/CNN poll from the week of Feb. 19-20 2003 showed only 54% of Americans supported a ground invasion of Iraq. That's after nearly a year of the Administration ginning up war propaganda. What do you think the results would have been otherwise?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2006, 12:21:21 PM by Religious Dick »
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2006, 12:34:18 PM »
Quote
Then feel free to jump on an airplane and put up your own blood and treasure to defend it.

Been there, done that. '71-73 active duty. Not much blood expended but i wouldn't mind getting two years added to whatever time i have left.

And it is true that eventually the representatives in DC take their marching orders from the people, though they haven't changed direction in 50 odd years. Think the pollong data for support of Israel is flawed? Not sure if a "fuck the jews" plank is a winning platform. Perhaps a focus group study will clarify the issue.








Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2006, 12:43:40 PM »
<< It is as though Iraq was a broken refrigerator with the directions printed in Arabic, and the US was a crew of loggers, armed with axes, hammers and chocker cables and instructions in English.>>

Very well put, XO. 

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2006, 12:53:06 PM »

Been there, done that. '71-73 active duty. Not much blood expended but i wouldn't mind getting two years added to whatever time i have left.

How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?

And it is true that eventually the representatives in DC take their marching orders from the people, though they haven't changed direction in 50 odd years. Think the pollong data for support of Israel is flawed?

No, I do not. Up to this point, merely providing arms and cash to Israel hasn't been sufficient cause to make support a significant issue for the typical voter. If they're going to be sending their sons and daughters off to fight a war on Israel's behalf, I'm willing to bet the issue moves up on their list of priorities right quick.

Not sure if a "fuck the jews" plank is a winning platform. Perhaps a focus group study will clarify the issue.

Considering that as a demographic, Jews are among the most likely to oppose the Iraq war, and support of Israel is hardly unanimous among Jews, I'm not sure a policy of non-intervention would be construed as "fuck the Jews", even among Jews.
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2006, 01:10:50 PM »
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?

Do you feel the same way about Social Security? If not, why not?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2006, 01:35:55 PM »
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?

Do you feel the same way about Social Security? If not, why not?

As a matter of fact, I do. Why?
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2006, 01:49:43 PM »
As a matter of fact, I do. Why?

Just wondering how consistant you were. Many who are against using taxpayer funding for the war in Iraq are very protective of using taxpayer funding to support Social Security.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2006, 02:01:47 PM »
<<Actually the Congress passed a resolution - overwhelmingly and with bi-partisan support- callling for regime change in Iraq. Independent of the PNAC letter which came later. >>

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Congress "called for regime change" in Iraq "with bi-partisan support" before the PNAC letter urging Clinton to invade.  I'd like to know what particular resolution you are referring to - - date and text.

Even if you are correct, this is just typical of the bullshit used to obscure PNAC/Zionist involvment in this debacle.  

Firstly because AIPAC and its associated agencies, PNAC and/or others are and have been tireless in lobbying the U.S. government for assistance to Israel and neutralization of any country that is seen as threatening Israel's interests.  The fact that a particular Congressional resolution preceded an overtly Zionist attempt to promote an invasion of Iraq does not mean that the resolution itself was in any way spontaneous or devoid of Zionist influence.  Quite the contrary.  The intense lobbying efforts of PNAC, AIPAC and others did not spring into existence sometime after the Congressional resolution you refer to and before the PNAC letter to Clinton, but were present all along.  Why would the U.S. Congress concern itself with regime change in Iraq of all places?  Obviously external forces were at work to procure the resolution, and obviously those promoting the resolution knew that AIPAC, PNAC and similar agencies would have an interest in seeing it pushed through.  It would have been insane for those promoters NOT to have enlisted Zionist support for the "bi-partisan" resolution, whether the original promoters were (as seems highly likely) Zionists or not.

Secondly because there is all the difference in the world between enacting some bullshit resolution calling for "regime change" in Iraq or "democracy" in Cuba or "independence" for Tibet or whatever flavour-of-the-month special interest pork barrel needs attention at the moment and actually invading the country.  Try to focus on the issue here:  Victor Davis Hanson claimed the INVASION was not the result of Zionist pressure.  He didn't claim the Congressional resolution was not the result of Zionist pressure.  In my response, I did not concern myself with ineffectual, pure-bullshit Congressional resolutions  but with the invasion itself.  Contrary to what that bullshit artist Hanson claims, the invasion definitely was for reasons which included the satisfaction of Zionist objectives.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2006, 02:16:59 PM »
Quote
Even if you are correct, this is just typical of the bullshit used to obscure PNAC/Zionist involvment in this debacle. 

Sorry , don't see how a congressional resolutional before the PNAC letters is an attempt by the jew bastard neo-cons to obscure the issue. Firstly because the PNAC signers were not all jew bastards and secondly because the PNAC letters were basically a me too statement. It's that pesky timeline thing again.




BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Before - and After - Iraq
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2006, 02:20:50 PM »
Quote
How about supporting your Worthy Cause at your own expense, rather than that of the tax-payers?

Gladly, once we get a checkbox designating where our tax dollars go.

Quote
Considering that as a demographic, Jews are among the most likely to oppose the Iraq war, and support of Israel is hardly unanimous among Jews, I'm not sure a policy of non-intervention would be construed as "fuck the Jews", even among Jews.

Perhaps that is the wrong question to ask them in a poll. Perhaps asking whether the road to middle east peace goes through, baghdad, damascus, cairo and tehran and the answer might be quite different.