And now he would like you to pay attention to domestic issues. Okay?
ADDED: "The war is over"... remember Phil Ochs singing that?
AND: "What Obama said about the surge when it mattered."
August 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
209 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 209 of 209Cook wrote: Afghans did not attack us. Arab terrorists attacked us, and they were members of a stateless organization. Much of the planning for 9/11 was conducted in Germany and even in America.
Germany joined us, albeit somewhat half-heartedly, in fighting this stateless organization. It's also pretty clear, that unlike Afghanistan, they did not abet the attack on us in September of 2001.
If you didn't know international law, I will now inform you that stateless organizations are not allowed to wage wars on us either, and the states that sponsor those so-called stateless organizations can be held responsible for their acts. Bush kind of glossed over all that in his headlong rush to embrace Islam and all its adherents.
Afghanistan was responsible for delivering up Al Qaeda in its borders. They decided not to. In fact they defended them. That confirms that they were our enemy.
We were indeed at war with the government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, and we overthrew them and prematurely put a puppet government in place.
Fen,
Bless you brother for fighting the good fight, but you're wasting energy (I know, I do it all the time too).
You can post as many facts as you want, but it's in vain. These clowns are impervious to facts. I'm sure you've been doing this for years like I did, and it's good to see someone still has the energy to.
Keep it up.
and
Semper Fi
Garage mahal wrote:
//We didn't find any evidence of any programs rightard.//
No lefttard we dind't find stockpiles. Duelfler said that Sadaam maintained his programs and his bankroll and was set to resume production once containment fell apart (and it was in it's death spiral) AND that Iraq could have reconstituted its stockpiles within months. So, sorry, you don't know what you're talking aout.
//Who knows. It certainly was not worth invading and occupying Iraq.//
Well, if you're against our invasion do you should we have continued to contained Iraq? If we hadn't contained Iraq do you think Sadaam would have resumed weapons productions?
Since Robert Cook didn't answer I'll pose the same questions to you.
Why the hell, considering the cost would Sadaam go through a ruse that would make it seem as if he had weapons?
There are three posibilities. Either Iraq HAD weapons, and on the eve of war the stockpiles were either degraded, destroyed or removed to Syria. We have evidence of looting and Iraq certainly had months to move stuff in our mad rush to war (/sarc), but absent invasion of Syria we may never know. OR Sadaam was trying to pursue weapons but his scientists couldn't deliver and strung him along. OR he strung along the international community (as he suggested) because he was trying to project power to his enemies and had to lie about his weapons capability to do so.
Which of these three seem the most valid to you? Please explain Sadaam's rationale, to the best of your ability, if you can.
And again, should we have contained Iraq because it was in it's interest to remain armed? Because if we didn't go to war with Iraq we'd have to either contain or not contain Iraq. And remember, containment required us to impose no fly zones and brutal sanctions, which as the left pointed out killed half a million Iraqi children and which Madeline Albright said was necessary. If we removed containment do you think Iraq would or would not rearm itself. But if you doin't think Iraq had weapons how would you justify continuing containment? Did containment work?
Also, please explain all the actions of everyone prior to Bush coming on the scene. Please explain why the UN passed 15 resolutions against it if you believe they didn't have weapons. Were they acting out of belligerence? Were they sincere in their beliefs. PLease explain Clinton and congress setting up no fly zones, imposing tough sanctions, bombing Iraq on multiple occasions, not to mention congress passing the Iraq Liberation Act.
I realize that for you history began with the start of the Bush administration, but isn't that pretty lazy thinking on your part? Rather than saying "Bush lied people died" or "Where were the weapons". Becuase I think you are deliberately not answering said questions because you would otherwise have to admit to some pretty willful distortion and ignorance on your part (and even if you don't admit it, it's ok as we assume it)
'Obama is president. He is getting us OUT of one horrible Bush mess and has about a dozen more to go.'
I think we're in for the long haul...we didn't build those huge bases for nothin'. As the irascible, irreverent 7 said, 'fasten your seatbelts, we're in for a bumpy night.' No, that was Bette Davis. 7 said we need to establish a regional beachhead.
Not that AL and Cookie are in perfect agreement but I have to point this out:
from AL;
Hope the remaining service members left behind will be okay. I hope our country provides for them when they return (Repubs will oppose this, see Agent Orange).
from Cookie;
our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are mass murder,
Why would we provide any services, let alone health services, to mass murderers?
"Why would we provide any services, let alone health services, to mass murderers?"
C3, you don't understand: the mass murderers are already here, in Washington, in Congress, in the White House. They're the ones calling the shots, giving the orders, promulgating the propaganda.
The troops were merely their hapless triggermen, (although those troops who went out of their way to rape and murder persons they knew were harmless or helpless, to satisfy their own rage, are also mass murderers).
Skyler,
Where is your evidence that Afghanistan abetted the Al Qaeda attacks on us or even really sponsored them?
Waging war was and has been the absolute worst method of trying to thwart Al Qaeda, and we will be facing the consequences of this tragically wrong, stupid, criminal and failed decision for decades.
Robert Cook wrote:
Where is your evidence that Afghanistan abetted the Al Qaeda attacks on us or even really sponsored them?
Waging war was and has been the absolute worst method of trying to thwart Al Qaeda, and we will be facing the consequences of this tragically wrong, stupid, criminal and failed decision for decades.
You;re actually right on this. Afghanistan, and more particularly the Taliban did not, as far as we know, conribute to 9/11. That being said Skyler is right in hat htey did protect Al Qaeda and OBL in particular.
And waging war may be the worst method of trying to thwart Al Qaeda, except of course for all the other methods that that have been tried. Similar to Churchill's dictum on democracy.
I hear pacifists make that claim all the time. There isn't that much worldly evidence thought that these other methods produce postive results, especially againstr groups like Al Qaeda. What are you going ot do appeal to their sense of morality or their humanism? You're going to appeal to your allies humanism? How are they going to deal with Al Qaeda, especially if Al Qaeda is planting bombs. Are you going to appeal to moderate Islam? Haven't you learned the lesson yet that moderates will lose to extremists a majority of the time simply beause it's hard to reason with someone who will chop off your head to get his way.And an extremist is far more wiling to back his belief with a sword than a moderate will back his words with nothing more than rhetoric. Which is why dictatorships and organized crime is so effective. Good people can be cowed into submission through violence. And dictators know that those who try to appeal to their good will are simply there for slaughter.
You stand up against Sadaam through protest. He shoots your kid in the face and then sends you the bill for the bullet. You don't protest any more.
Post a Comment