|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Political Matters > An interesting perspective on what GWB has NOT done in properly defining the Iraq mission to his com |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: 24hournut That was cool, except the small little part about economy and security. I don't see or predict an improvement in either, especially due to the spending in money and life. It seems you are trying to justify a nation building we just happen to find beneficial. It's not like Iraq was attacking us or was a top producer and enabler of terrorism or black market WMDs. Much bigger fish for that. Seems more out of convenience than anything.
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"That was cool, except the small little part about economy and security. I don't see or predict an improvement in either, especially due to the spending in money and life." Unfortunately 24hn I agree with you but the reasons go far beyond our involvement in Iraq. Our economy is suffering from problems that are systemic in our society and are tied to issues related to the global economy. While I believe there have been slow improvements as far as security in Iraq is concerned the Islamic Jihad is not over and my guess is there will be ups and downs as the battle continues for years to come. We still have porous borders. There are very dangers weapons and technology available to those that would do us great harm. There is no magic bullet to solve these problems and we are in for decades of difficulties on both fronts. The fallacy is believing that this would not be the case if we just hadn't invade Iraq. That argument is short sighted and just so much Bush bashing. As for the morality of the war, we've been over that numerous times before. We're there and redeploying tomorrow would solve nothing, and by almost all accounts it has the potential to make things dramatically worse.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes, but on every level, except the ol "but it could be good for America" view, going into debt and causing physical destruction of families and property to nation build a country that didn't attack us seems hurting in the "principled" department. Surely the Founders (even adapted to today) would have worked on our actual borders, making us energy independent, and addressing the REAL source of terrorism enabling, condoning, fueling, and creation. The Founders would have addressed the real candidates for using WMDs on us and spreading them on the black market. Iraq was a poor candidate if the job requirement was creating terrorists and attack threat. There were and are far better/guiltier/troublesome candidates abound. The people who actually DID create the terrorists who actually DID attack the U.S. and who actually continue to create them were and are not properly addressed. THAT is the problem. It's like spending a lot of money and lives to kick out the muggers in your neighborhood while leaving your doors and windows open and letting the machine-gun toting crack addicts and home invaders alone. The Iraq move was an unprinciple farce that left the real evil scums alone which contributes to why we are no more secure in our borders or abroad.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Yes, but on every level, except the ol "but it could be good for America" view, going into debt and causing physical destruction of families and property to nation build a country that didn't attack us seems hurting in the "principled" department." Try telling that to the millions of Iraqis that had family members imprisoned, tortured, raped and murdered by Saddam's regime. Yes, we are in the process of helping build a nation that honors the basic human right so all of its citizens. "Surely the Founders (even adapted to today) would have worked on our actual borders, making us energy independent, and addressing the REAL source of terrorism enabling, condoning, fueling, and creation." You can keep wishing for the rise of Washington, Adams and Jefferson but the reality is the Founders aren't here and our national interest stretch way beyond our geographic borders. Their view of the world and our role in it is very much different then the world we live in today and how those difference affect our role in it. "The people who actually DID create the terrorists who actually DID attack the U.S. and who actually continue to create them were and are not properly addressed." The people that have committed terrorist attacks against us are Islamic radicals from many nations. They found sanctuary and support in many nations. But once again you throw up the strawman argument that we shouldn't have removed Saddam's regime because it wasn't directly involved in the 9/11 attack, ignoring the broken 1991 surrender agreement, violations of U.N. sanctions and human rights atrocities against hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. "It's like spending a lot of money and lives to kick out the muggers in your neighborhood while leaving your doors and windows open and letting the machine-gun toting crack addicts and home invaders alone." Much more needs to be done to secure our borders. But the claim that we can't fight the terrorist threat on more then one front ignors the internation scope of the terrorist threat. That claim also seems to ignor the reality that securing our borders is NOT overnight process.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Yes, but on every level, except the ol "but it could be good for America" view, going into debt and causing physical destruction of families and property to nation build a country that didn't attack us seems hurting in the "principled" department." I can't. We've killed the survivors or maimed them along with scores of our soldiers. Saddam abusing people was not how nation-building was justified. Terrorism and threat of WMD attack was the ticket. My point was that there were and are much bigger threats and sources of terrorism and WMDs. So, your comment didn't negate my point. If human rights violations was a reason to nation-build, there were and are far bigger violators. But like I said, terrorism and WMD action was the ticket. Yes, we are in the process of helping build a nation that honors the basic human right so all of its citizens. See above and throw in how there were and are much bigger sources of human rights violations. Your justification for nation-building grows weaker with each passing comment. Just sayin, it does. "Surely the Founders (even adapted to today) would have worked on our actual borders, making us energy independent, and addressing the REAL source of terrorism enabling, condoning, fueling, and creation." I don't wish for their rise. You have often brought up what the Founders believed or would do so I thought I would mention how it goes against even their grain since Iraq was not a top force for terrorism and threat of WMD proliferation or attack on us in the world. "The people who actually DID create the terrorists who actually DID attack the U.S. and who actually continue to create them were and are not properly addressed." Read again: the people who actually DID create the terrorists who actually DID attack the U.S. and who actually continue to create them were and are not properly addressed. The main sources of radicals who are a threat to the U.S. were not in Iraq. They were partly on Bush's big oil buddy list. "It's like spending a lot of money and lives to kick out the muggers in your neighborhood while leaving your doors and windows open and letting the machine-gun toting crack addicts and home invaders alone." It's as if you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't imply or claim that we can't fight on more than one front or that it is an overnight process to secure our borders. I said: It's like spending a lot of money and lives to kick out the muggers in your neighborhood while leaving your doors and windows open and letting the machine-gun toting crack addicts and home invaders alone. That is an analogy that does not reflect a view on overnight processes or multi-front attack ability. It is an analogy that reflects how Iraq was not one of the biggest sources of WMD proliferation, one of the biggest threats of a U.S. attack, or one of the biggest sources and enablers of terrorizing radicals. It reflects how the bigger sources of WMD threats to the U.S. and fuelers of terrorism were put backseat to Iraq while our Government spent through the roof, didn't engage in serious energy indepenence, and left our borders as insecure as ever. PERIOD.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"I can't. We've killed the survivors or maimed them along with scores of our soldiers." As usual you lack any sense of moral clarity or an ability to make a moral distinction between killing to maintain a brutal dictatorship and killing to advance human rights and freedom. "Saddam abusing people was not how nation-building was justified. Terrorism and threat of WMD attack was the ticket. My point was that there were and are much bigger threats and sources of terrorism and WMDs. So, your comment didn't negate my point. If human rights violations was a reason to nation-build, there were and are far bigger violators. But like I said, terrorism and WMD action was the ticket." You're also ignorant of recent history. Go back and READ speeches made by Bush, Rice, Powell, Tenet, Cheney and numerous others in the Bush Administration and what THEY SAID (not the medias interpretation of what they said) about the justifications for removing Saddam from power. The reasons include breaking the 1991 surrender agreement, violation of U.N. resolutions, human rights atrocities and support of terrorism. I believe the Founders with a keen understanding of the economics, politics and security interest of the U.S. in the 21st century would be looking at long term solutions to the problems we face in the Middle East, especially in light of the rise of radical Islam in the last few decades. The bottomline is we are in Iraq, we have invest lives and treasure to advance freedom and democracy in the region. Calls for redeployment without a regard for the security that has been achieved and the advances towards democracy that have been made are short sighted and dangerous.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As usual you lack any sense of moral clarity or an ability to make a moral distinction between killing to maintain a brutal dictatorship and killing to advance human rights and freedom. I have the moral clarity to know that it is immoral to kill people for the reasons you've given. If we are in Iraq for human rights and freedom reasons, then you are justifying and endorsing a policy of nation-building and cherrypicking that is immoral. Like I said, if you cared so much about human rights and freedom you'd understand there are far bigger fish to fry .. but we look the other way at those the way we look the other way at the real sources of terror and WMD threat. You lack the moral clarity, and clarity in general, to understand that. Part of that is because Bush's big oil buddies are involved. You're also ignorant of recent history. Go back and READ speeches made by Bush, Rice, Powell, Tenet, Cheney and numerous others in the Bush Administration and what THEY SAID (not the medias interpretation of what they said) about the justifications for removing Saddam from power. The reasons include breaking the 1991 surrender agreement, violation of U.N. resolutions, human rights atrocities and support of terrorism. More lame excuse-making. I already addressed that and put Iraq in context of the real, truly large suppliers of terrorism and WMD threats. Iraq was played up, like you keep doing. That is because, like the Administration did, you make excuses and try to justify picking Iraq while the real suppliers of terrorism and WMD threats, like the ones behind the attack on our soil, are let off while we fail to seriously work toward energy independence and secure borders. I believe the Founders with a keen understanding of the economics, politics and security interest of the U.S. in the 21st century would be looking at long term solutions to the problems we face in the Middle East, especially in light of the rise of radical Islam in the last few decades. Which is exactly why they would have been much more likely to have worked to make us energy independent, secure our borders, and address the REAL suppliers of terrorism and WMD threats, verses kissing ass of big oil with a corrupt Administration and Congress. Your way, which is the obscene spending, immoral, corrupt way ... does not address the real sources, puts us in debt, kills more people than Saddam every dreamed of, and keeps our borders insecure while we are dependent upon Bush's buddies for oil. Keep ignoring those truths. It's like a chief of police spending a lot of money and lives to kick out the muggers (Iraq) in your neighborhood while leaving your doors and windows (borders) open and letting the machine-gun toting crack addicts (real suppliers of terrorism) and home invaders (real WMD dangers) alone. Coincidentally, the chief of police has friends that manufacture crack, machine guns, and home invasion tools. The bottomline is we are in Iraq, we have invest lives and treasure to advance freedom and democracy in the region. Calls for redeployment without a regard for the security that has been achieved and the advances towards democracy that have been made are short sighted and dangerous I noticed you dropped the terrorism and WMD thing, smart move. You keep focusing now on freedom and human rights, which I addressed by pointing out how that is not a valid reason to spend lives and money like we are. So let me say - it's absurd to think we should be spending this kind of money, life, family destruction, and resources on a place in the world that was nowhere near being a chief supplier of terrorism, WMD proliferation, threat to the U.S. economy, or human rights violations. American soldiers and families (as well as inncent foreigners) should not be destroyed by the boat load because someone somewhere is abusing some of his people and our Government decided to ignore the real sources of human rights violations, terrorism, and WMDs. But you keep pretending and excusing immorality and corruption across the board. It's your specialty, after all.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"I have the moral clarity to know that it is immoral to kill people for the reasons you've given." So it is immoral to hold a brutal dictator and his regime accountable for murdering hundreds of thousands of people, terrorizing the region, violating U.N. resolutions, violating a surrender agreement, providing assistance to terrorist, etc., etc., etc??? Like I said, you have zero moral clarity on this issue. You've let your hatred for Bush take over for good reason. "If we are in Iraq for human rights and freedom reasons, then you are justifying and endorsing a policy of nation-building and cherrypicking that is immoral." We are in Iraq for many reasons including the advance of freedom and democracy. If you want to call that "nation building" that's fine with me. And yes, we cherry pick where and when we get involved militarily in nation building. "Like I said, if you cared so much about human rights and freedom you'd understand there are far bigger fish to fry .." Your bigger fish to fry argument is an excuse to do nothing. Your argument that if you don't do it everywhere you shouldn't do it at all is bogus.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So it is immoral to hold a brutal dictator and his regime accountable for murdering hundreds of thousands of people, terrorizing the region, violating U.N. resolutions, violating a surrender agreement, providing assistance to terrorist, etc., etc., etc??? No, it is immoral to destroy and maim far greater amounts of things like loads of innocent lives, American soldiers and their families while putting us into debt. At least do that with the real sources of terror and threat to the U.S. It's immoral to use money, resources, and American lives on that instead of helping the dying, starving, and abused people right here in America, and instead of securing our borders and making us indepdendent of terror oil. Like I said, you have zero moral clarity on this issue. You've let your hatred for Bush take over for good reason. My moral clarity is just fine. I am not the one making excuses for corruption and immorality. I don't care if it was Bozo the Clown in the White House, I was indicating Government - Congress and the Administration. Bush's oil buddies play a role, too. Stop making excuses and pretending there is no truth in it. For a religious person you certainly are quick to make excuses for, or deny, immorality and corruption. Your bigger fish to fry argument is an excuse to do nothing. Your argument that if you don't do it everywhere you shouldn't do it at all is bogus. That would be true if that were my argument. It must be convenient to read what you want and create comments from others out of thin air to suit your emotional needs. Maybe one day you will read something I write without misrepresenting it, like you did earlier when you pretended that I implied or claimed that we can't fight on more than one front or that it is an overnight process to secure our borders. I don't feel, nor did I say, that if you can't do it everywhere you shouldn't do it at all. That was YOU doing your typical fabrication and misrepresentation tactic. What I indicated was that if you are going to stop terrorists from attacking the U.S. and are going to stop WMD proliferation or WMD attacks, you should deal with the REAL sources and threats to those things, particularly if they already attacked us on 9/11. That's called doing something, not doing nothing. Throw in serious energy indepdence and border security as part of the "do something more direct to the source of our problems and vulnerabilities" suggestion you now understand. Not spend obscene amounts of money killing and destroying due to corrupt and immoral decisions in Iraq while the real providers of terror and WMD threat go on, with our borders and energy depdendence as sucky as ever. I hope you stop pretending, fabricating, and making excuses soon.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
wallstreetman Original500© Member Patriot
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: So it is immoral to hold a brutal dictator and his regime accountable for murdering hundreds of thousands of people, terrorizing the region, violating U.N. resolutions, violating a surrender agreement, providing assistance to terrorist, etc., etc., etc??? Are you guys still arguing with this clueless individual, just be happy that his corrupt party will be gone soon!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
wallstreetman Original500© Member Patriot
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: So it is immoral to hold a brutal dictator and his regime accountable for murdering hundreds of thousands of people, terrorizing the region, violating U.N. resolutions, violating a surrender agreement, providing assistance to terrorist, etc., etc., etc??? Are you guys still arguing with this clueless individual, just be happy that his corrupt party will be gone soon!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Political Matters > An interesting perspective on what GWB has NOT done in properly defining the Iraq mission to his com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez