|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
19-08-05, 09:02 AM | #61 |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
nice list, laddie, but well out of context: the relevant lies, for the purposes of this particular discussion, are those which were used to actively promote and sell the need to invade iraq, as told by the people who were directly in a position to launch said invasion. this eliminates anyone in congress or in the previous administration.
that being said, it is certainly worth noting the pre-war comments of those Dems who were either too spineless to stand up to the administration in the rush to war or were too stupid to know they were being duped by the administration's bogus intel. but that's a whole 'nother topic. |
19-08-05, 09:59 AM | #62 | |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Quote:
|
|
19-08-05, 10:42 AM | #63 |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Nice commentary from the L.A. Times
Who speaks for Casey Sheehan? DAVID GELERNTER THIS NATION respects and admires Cindy Sheehan on account of her son's heroic death in Iraq. But the Cindy Sheehan spectacle has been another thing altogether. It's on hold now; perhaps it's over. But the protest echoes. It's tragic that we don't seem to remember President Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, and Sheehan and her supporters don't either: "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." In the shadow of heroic deeds, words don't count for much. The Gettysburg Address is one of the rare exceptions. Casey Sheehan's deeds were heroic. By laying down his life for this nation, he delivered the kind of message that is written in blood, that lives forever. Why on Earth would a loving mother choose to refocus the nation's attention onto her words and away from his deeds? And what was Casey Sheehan's message? It had nothing to do with President Bush. It didn't even have to do with the war, necessarily. It said something much simpler: "I love my country." His mother seemed intent on drowning out that message. At times she contradicted it. Some news stories about the mother's protest didn't even mention the son's name. In most, he passed through like a butterfly that is gone before you really see it. "Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in an ambush in Baghdad last year…. " That's all you got; then it was right back to Cindy Sheehan's latest pronouncements..... cont - LA Times Ends with "The news media have done Cindy Sheehan no favor. They only let a grief-stricken mother embarrass herself; it has been painful to watch. It's past time to shift the spotlight back to her brave son and his surviving comrades, where it has always belonged. " Amen....
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
19-08-05, 12:06 PM | #64 | |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
Quote:
like the right's been falling all over itself even acknowledging dead soldiers let alone shining "spotlights" on them. when ted koppel read the names of the dead when they were still below 600, sinclair group, the big conservative tv station owner refused even to broadcast the program, pulling it from cities reaching hundreds of thousands. in actuality the right much prefers the dead out of the way and invisible. - js. |
|
19-08-05, 12:44 PM | #65 |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Hmmm....I don't suppose you ever used your DJ work to do that yourself did you?
You must be one of those right wingers then, preferring the dead out of the way and invisible. |
19-08-05, 02:50 PM | #66 | ||
even the losers
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
|
Quote:
On Regime Change in Iraq Quote:
|
||
19-08-05, 03:28 PM | #67 |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
unfortunately, the desire for regime change is not a legal justfication for war, which is precisely why the Bush administration had to create a bogus case for invading Iraq.
if you looked around, you could probably find similar feel-good legislation addressing our desire for regime change in various countries such as iran, venezuela, cuba, north korea etc . however, this desire does not legally justify invasion and occupation...which is probably fortunate, considering how badly iraq turned out. |
19-08-05, 03:37 PM | #68 |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Why are liberals so inclined to play lawyer? There was nothing illegal about the Iraq invasion or a heck of a lot of similar invasions. The real lawyers know that but the parrots just keep on squawking as if endless repetition will make it true.
|
19-08-05, 04:12 PM | #69 | |||
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
looks like those on whom the task fell to make the legal and political case for war knew thier credibility was going to get sacrificed by the White House:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
from CNN - text or video |
|||
19-08-05, 05:00 PM | #70 | |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
Quote:
|
|
19-08-05, 05:09 PM | #71 |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
You actually stopped playing music and read or played a reading of dead soldiers names?
Give us the story Jack. Where were you? How did it go over? |
19-08-05, 07:42 PM | #72 | |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Quote:
I think the argument could be made that a majority of Americans supported an invasion before Powell asked the UN for its blessing, though I admit I have no evidence to support this claim. It should have been enough for Powell to tell the UN, "Look at all of your sanctions that Iraq is violating, that's why you should support us." It wasn't until after the UN decided they didn't want us enforcing their sanctions and inspections that WMD's became an issue as a last ditch attempt to build a consensus. But here's the thing: the UN had decided long before that they wouldn't support a war, and the US had decided long before that it would pursue a war. The WMD argument wasn't a justification for our war, it was an attempt to build consesus for a war we were going to start anyway. If the administration lied to the UN, so what? But if you're so hung up on this issue I want to remind you of three truths:
Those reasons, combined with his past actions of firing missiles at our planes, violating the no fly zones, bribing UN officials, and generally abusing his power to rape his own nation of its wealth and culture more than justified his ouster. |
|
19-08-05, 10:50 PM | #73 | ||
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
and while your world may feel like a safer place, the rest of the world is not: number of terror incidents tripled last year from 2003, making 2004 the most active year for terror attack since 1985. and if you think these numbers are some kind of anomaly, bear in mind that the CIA has identified Iraq as having replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists. so rather than diminishing terror, we created a post-graduate course in terror with our occupation of Iraq that has spread to places like Egypt, London, Madrid, Iistanbul and others. so here we are three years later and we are indeed left with three truths: the war in Iraq was not necessary, it was not worth the cost because the world is not a safer place, and it is not winnable. so no matter how good of an idea you think iraq invading may be, it is a failure by any military or political yardstick you'd care to use. at this point, my question to any Iraq war supporter would be twofold: 1) exactly how many american lives is war in iraq worth? 5000? 10000? 5000? unlimited casualties? put a number on it 2) exactly how is victory defined? reduction of car bombs to x per day? 50% of the population employed? reduction of insurgent attacks to x per day? electricity in bagdhad to 15 houors per day? specifically, what does victory in iraq mean? your leaders cannot define the cost because they are locked into the consequences of thier decisions and they can't define victory because they don't know what it looks like. that's why they can only speak in bumperstickers. i'll finish this rant with the words of CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheuer, on Hardball today: Quote:
|
||
20-08-05, 12:17 AM | #74 | |||||||||||
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. The US Army and Marines covered more ground during their invasion faster than any other invading force in history. 2. The civilian to soldier kill ratio is the lowest of any war. 3. It is statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq than to live in California, which has roughly the same geographic size and population. 4. Iraqi POWs (soldiers, not terror suspects) have been treated better than American POWs in every part of the world, and those prison guards who do mistreat prisoners are severely punished. 5. The people of Iraq have enjoyed more freedoms during three years of American occupation than any time in the previous two decades. 6. Politicians in Iraq are optimistic about their future and they're up to the challenge. There are probably more, but it's late and I can't think of any more right now. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||
20-08-05, 11:30 AM | #75 | |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Quote:
Because you can't. Why don't you adjust your viewpoint to reflect truth and reality? Again, because you can't. Your reality is what's inside your warped head and you dedicate your life to convincing others that that is the truth instead of accepting the honest truth yourself. |
|
20-08-05, 06:01 PM | #76 |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
^...and the house troll erupts!^
swissh...nothing but net |
21-08-05, 06:22 PM | #77 | |||||||||||
I took both pills.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where 'strange' is a prerequisite.
Posts: 1,165
|
Not really up to me to answer but I am bored
Quote:
Ever wondered why during the first gulf war countries were actually falling over each other to back the U.S. up? Why nobody bitched their asses off whether the U.S. invasion was right or not? Iraq invaded another country therefore Iraq posed a threat to the stability of the region if not the world (oil reserves) daddy Bush went by the book and got the backing and the U.N. resolution he wanted! To make it even more sad not even the gas attack by Saddam on its own people is a proper reason to attack a country according to international law. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2. Meaning??? What exactly??? 3. A man tried to cross a river once that statistically was only 2 feet deep on average. Guess what ... he drowned! Statistically I can proof about the most idiotic theory I can shove out of my mouth. 4. true no argument there other than that every great nation is measured by its level of humanity. 5. hmm I think I can dig up enough samples contradicting that one but it is late here too and I really don’t feel like it. 6. Of course they are but since the u.s. state department has their arms so far up their asses that it became kinda hard to say otherwise. Or did you actually expect them to say:”you know what, I think we are in serious shit here. Those who helped me into power also rendered my country in a state anarchy and we know shit what to do about it.” Quote:
WW2.: 1,078,162 Korean war: 136,935 Vietnam war:311,471 Gulf war: 760 The only reason the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam is/was that the government lost the backing of the American people (which is the only way to force the military might of the U.S. to its knees) Please note that I used the words pulled out and not lost since the U.S. never lost any major battle in Vietnam and therefore from a military point of view it actually was a success. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Some people exist just to annoy me |
|||||||||||
21-08-05, 09:51 PM | #78 | |||
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Quote:
Now, I don't believe any one reason justifies war, it takes a combination of things to come to that decision. I listed a few in a previous post. Iraq's former state of repression by itself was not the only reason to invade, nor was it the best reason. Whether invading a country that hasn't harassed its neighbors for a little while is illegal under international law is something I don't really know. I do know the only international law that the United States is obligated to obey is international treaty, the second highest law of our land as mandated by our highest law, the Constitution. Quote:
Quote:
theknife claimed that the war was a military failure. By citing the number of dead civilians compared to past wars I was giving one example of how our invasion was a military success. You can try to prove anything you want to with statistics, but these statistics really are relevant. When the news reports the troop body count they should also report the percent of the total number of troops. In both world wars the mortality rate of American soldiers was greater than 2%, but in this war it is less than .2%. Interpret these stats any way you like, I choose to believe that soldiers in Iraq are fairly safe. It is true that American soldiers haven't had to deal with a suicidal insurgency in past wars. They're generally not prepared for the special situations Iraq presents with its road-side bombs, its hidden arms cache, its leaky borders, etc. Should we give up just because this kind of conflict is unprecidented? I look to the progression of warfare over the past two centuries as an example of how resiliant and adaptive American forces tend to be. When rifles became accurate, semi-automatic, and easy to reload, our army stopped digging trenches and charging in straight lines to make themselves easy targets. When Japanese soldiers and civilians proved they weren't afraid to die, we nuked them to make their deaths pointless. There is as yet some military innovation to be discovered that will bring a quick end to American deaths in Iraq. Until that comes to pass we're trying diplomacy, and hopefully by building up the people themselves we'll make our military tactics obsolete. |
|||
21-08-05, 10:19 PM | #79 | |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
dont want to split hairs with you or anything ...but
Quote:
here that in WWII there was about that many Chineese killed..wtf? the total was like 55000000 and WWI was something like 15 000 000 , so that sort of cancels that idea out... |
|
22-08-05, 07:29 AM | #80 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
some comments obviously are worth no reply at all but i'll go one round of quotes with most people - maybe two if valid points are being made. after that, i'm done. it's an act of mercy - watching people struggle to defend the indefensible gets painful after a while. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|