PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs planet Iraq, 2003


Lightning Rod
09-14-2004, 01:10 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=56210&highlight=Memyself


I thought about bumping this but It would have gone to the football section. It is odd how little has changed.

Ultra Peanut
09-14-2004, 01:54 PM
Because I'm so frustrated with stupidity. I've lobbed a name or two at conservatives in my time when they've been so utterly stupid that they can't see the forest through the trees.

Kicking and screaming about this war isn't going to change the moral imperative here. Those people need to be freed. Crying about failed US policy does no good... We no longer follow that policy, and have adopted one that is superior. And while we're on the subject, let's remember that the old policy put us in a position to be the lone super-power in the world, so it wasn't as bad as it is being made out to be.

You wont find a decent answer for that one. I've tried to do the same, asking in another thread who, then, is supposed to liberate the Iraqi people if not us. Are we supposed to stand-by as a regime abuses and murders its people? Of course not... But that's not what these idiots want to address, because it's a dead end for them. So instead, these fools start whining about failed foriegn policy, and what role the US played in those nations getting where they are. Well what the hell good does that do? We can sit here and talk all day about how Reagan did this, and how Clinton didn't do that got us here. It's just more partisain bulls#it, and no matter how hard you try, you wont be able to blame George W. Bush for it. It's not his fault that our past policies have put us at odds with other nations.

The policy of containment wasn't just a conservative idea. It spanned both Republican and Democratic presidencies. Indeed, our money did benefit Saddam in his quest for power. The point is, after 9/11 we got a wake-up call. It's time to look around and evaluate what we were doing wrong around the world (and this is where most conservatives will part with me). The fact is, those planes going into those buildings was not only an act of terror, but it was also an act of communication. It was a message from the Arab World: "Hey look! We think you're doing us wrong."

And you know what? We were. Saddam Hussein is proof of that. So here's the question Liberals... What are we supposed to do about the problem that we helped create there? The typical liberal will whine and cry about the smallest injustice here. But when Bush tries to fix an injustice that our nation took part of in Iraq, what do you think the liberal is doing now? Oh, they'll talk about how the Iraqis should be free, but they won't offer any solutions on how that should happen. Perhaps if we all meditate long enough, Saddam Hussein will just decide that he doesn't need to grab as much Arab power as possible, trampling over whoever gets in his path, women, children, fathers... If we hold our yoga poses long enough, maybe Uday and Qsay will decide that they don't want to rape women and kill men anymore, and would rather step aside in favor of the government of the people's choice.

What kind of moral imperative is that?

You know what smart liberals are doing right now? They are familiarizing themselves with the Bush doctrine and figuring out how liberal ideals can shape the future of America under its guidance. This Gore voter wouldn't even consider voting for a Democrat who didn't believe in the policy. And for the record, I believe it would be called the Gore Doctrine right now had he won the election.

I've got to keep bringing this post back up until I get someone who is anti-war to address my points. I must be a magician, because I keep making liberals disappear...

Where is the moral imperative here on the anti-war side? Of course, there isn't one. But I'd like to see one at least advanced, or maybe some capitulation is in order.

In my opinion, this anti-war garbage is nothing more than the same witch-hunt that the republicans were on as they scrambled to find something, anything to nail Clinton on. It's the same garbage, only on the other side of the fence. Blind partasainship masquerading itself as moral high-ground. But when pressed on the issues, it turns out that high-groud is made of quicksand.

Heh.

Lightning Rod
09-14-2004, 01:58 PM
yeah, there are a couple of gems in there.

Brock
09-14-2004, 02:01 PM
Heh.

Taco John
09-14-2004, 03:51 PM
How is that owned?

I stand behind every one of those statements...

Taco John
09-14-2004, 03:56 PM
Hell, all that does is prove that I'm not a blind partisan homer.

Raiderhader
09-14-2004, 04:17 PM
Hell, all that does is prove that I'm not a blind partisan homer.


It proves that you want both sides of the issue like your boy Kerry. ;)

2bikemike
09-14-2004, 04:19 PM
Hell, all that does is prove that I'm not a blind partisan homer.

Taco John Kerry? :hmmm:

Taco John
09-14-2004, 04:24 PM
It proves that you want both sides of the issue like your boy Kerry. ;)



I know you're joking... But other peole will take you serious.

I stand behind the war in Iraq. I think the Administration's execution was atrocious, however. Especially declaring victory before the war was over for political reasons.

memyselfI
09-14-2004, 04:28 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=56210&highlight=Memyself


I thought about bumping this but It would have gone to the football section. It is odd how little has changed.

Well no one can say I've flip/flopped over this issue. :thumb: :clap:

KC Jones
09-14-2004, 04:38 PM
I know you're joking... But other peole will take you serious.

I stand behind the war in Iraq. I think the Administration's execution was atrocious, however. Especially declaring victory before the war was over for political reasons.

Nuanced thinking is not allowed in this forum. You either march in lockstep or you are the enemy.

KCWolfman
09-14-2004, 05:25 PM
I know you're joking... But other peole will take you serious.

I stand behind the war in Iraq. I think the Administration's execution was atrocious, however. Especially declaring victory before the war was over for political reasons.
Crying about failed US policy does no good... We no longer follow that policy, and have adopted one that is superior.

Taco John
09-20-2004, 03:04 AM
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Crying about failed US policy does no good... We no longer follow that policy, and have adopted one that is superior.



And again, I stand by the statement. What I don't stand by is the execution of that policy.

I am all for a policy of pre-emptive self defense. As long as the trigger is in the hands of a man who has a brain, and can think on his feet. Having a policy of pre-emptive self-defense in the hands of a person like George Bush is dangerous.

Pre-emptive self defense is great. But if we're going to use pre-emptive self defense, we need to get into the metrics of the entire package, and that includes a cadre of things. The Blame President wants to tell me that our teachers need to be held accountable in the classrooms, and then positions himself in however he can not to be held accountable for the annoying amount of stupid strategic errors and miscalculations since the war began.

I'm all for pre-emptive measures. But this "write a blank check and hope for the best" approach is foolhardy. I bought on to the war in Iraq because I believed that Iraq had the WMD stockpiles that people who I trusted, like Colin Powell, was saying it was so. What was the buzz phrase back then? "45-minute capability?"

This Administration put out a lot of disinformation... In fact, I ask you... How is Bush any different than Dan Rather? Anyone remember all these conservatives demanding Dan Rather be held accountable by resigning for putting out fake documents? You think a single conservative applies this "principled" position by demanding that Bush resign for going to war on false information? Hell no! Apparently WMDs cannot be considered as a metric of a pre-emptive attack strategy.

So I'll put this out to the herd. What the hell kind of metric *should* I be using to measure Bush's performance in our pre-emptive strike against the country of Iraq? Or is this thing a walking target, pereptually "around the corner?"

I am 100% behind a pre-emptive war strategy. But if I'm a bad guy for demanding accoutability, so be it. The last thing you'll ever see me do is write my government any blank checks. "Conservatives" used to believe like that. But that was in pre-hijack days.

Raiderhader
09-20-2004, 06:56 AM
And again, I stand by the statement. What I don't stand by is the execution of that policy.

I am all for a policy of pre-emptive self defense. As long as the trigger is in the hands of a man who has a brain, and can think on his feet. Having a policy of pre-emptive self-defense in the hands of a person like George Bush is dangerous.

Pre-emptive self defense is great. But if we're going to use pre-emptive self defense, we need to get into the metrics of the entire package, and that includes a cadre of things. The Blame President wants to tell me that our teachers need to be held accountable in the classrooms, and then positions himself in however he can not to be held accountable for the annoying amount of stupid strategic errors and miscalculations since the war began.

I'm all for pre-emptive measures. But this "write a blank check and hope for the best" approach is foolhardy. I bought on to the war in Iraq because I believed that Iraq had the WMD stockpiles that people who I trusted, like Colin Powell, was saying it was so. What was the buzz phrase back then? "45-minute capability?"

This Administration put out a lot of disinformation... In fact, I ask you... How is Bush any different than Dan Rather? Anyone remember all these conservatives demanding Dan Rather be held accountable by resigning for putting out fake documents? You think a single conservative applies this "principled" position by demanding that Bush resign for going to war on false information? Hell no! Apparently WMDs cannot be considered as a metric of a pre-emptive attack strategy.

So I'll put this out to the herd. What the hell kind of metric *should* I be using to measure Bush's performance in our pre-emptive strike against the country of Iraq? Or is this thing a walking target, pereptually "around the corner?"

I am 100% behind a pre-emptive war strategy. But if I'm a bad guy for demanding accoutability, so be it. The last thing you'll ever see me do is write my government any blank checks. "Conservatives" used to believe like that. But that was in pre-hijack days.


What kind of metric should you use to measure Bush's performance in this? How about throwing out the first paragraph in bold? Let's measure by the truth. The truth is that "disinformation" was widely held and reported to be the truth by the two previous Presidents, the UN, several intelligence agencies around the world and the governments they report to.

You want to judge based on hindsight as if that hindsight reveals a lie from our President, when all it shows is that the world was fooled because Saddam acted like a guilty man and refused to prove he no longer had these weapons systems.

And yet you have the audacity to question conservatives and their principles when you take this approach simply because you do not like the man in the WH? Step off of it Taco, you do not hold the moral high ground here. Frankly, I rate you right around jAZ and Frankie for trying to push this misconception for your own political desires. If you are an example of principled conservative thinking and actions, I consider myself proud to be the unprincipled non-conservative that you have labled me.

tiptap
09-20-2004, 08:58 AM
It proves that you want both sides of the issue like your boy Kerry. ;)

Or that the fog produced by the Bush administration's WORDS has lifted and in light of the REALITY assessed now showing the Bush got it all wrong, we move on to meet the real situation. Unlike those who wallow in their misconceptions and bad judgements to justify another term to only repeat again their mistakes.

Raiderhader
09-20-2004, 12:24 PM
Or that the fog produced by the Bush administration's WORDS has lifted and in light of the REALITY assessed now showing the Bush got it all wrong, we move on to meet the real situation. Unlike those who wallow in their misconceptions and bad judgements to justify another term to only repeat again their mistakes.


Sorry, but until you stop trying to push this misconception that Bush hid reality from us and the rest of the world there is no way we can have a meaningful discussion of the issue.

Bush was not the only one who said Saddam had WMDs. And yet you talk of reality.....