actually, yes!
Printable View
actually, yes!
Kestra, are you exactly certain what a "neoconservative" is? Remember, it's not just a term for "aggressive Republicans I don't like" - there's an actual ideology there, if not necessarily one that is entirely agreed upon within the NeoCon community. Furthermore, NeoCons make up not a majority, not a "dominating" majority, but a MINORITY of the political base that supported this war - because, quite frankly, there aren't that many NeoCons out there. There are people who - gasp - believe in pre-emption as a doctrine that are not NeoCons part and parcel.Quote:
I think one of the main reasons for the Iraq war lie in a philosophical vision of the neo conservatives, who dominate the foreign policy establishment,
We ARE the world's only superpower.Quote:
is the belief that the United States does dominate the world as the world's only superpower
See above. Perk of the job. We shoulder MORE than our share of global responsibilities. Is it America's job to address the economic stability of foreign currencies, to seek to curb foreign starvation, or to try and reduce or contain foreign epidemics? No. Is it America's job to prevent foreign genocide, slaughter, and "ethnic cleansing?" No. Is it America's job to intervene whenever the sovereignty of a foreign nation has been wrongly violated? No. Are we called upon REGULARLY to not only *do* all of these things, but to fund the international community in pursuit of all of these goals? Yes. Daily.Quote:
, that it must assert it's power, globally, everywhere
Guess what? International politics is rarely a realm of "right" and "wrong", Kestra, it's a realm of power and who is in charge. We are, at the moment, king of the mountain. We have a responsibility to use this power in a judicious way, because -no- nation stays "the boss" forever, but we have EVERY right to wield our position as the world's foremost nation to our advantage, and to the disadvantage of our enemies. Should we blunt our might just because our enemies do not have such force? Would you advise that whenever we deploy troops, we outfit -our- soldiers with technology no better than our enemies possess? More fittingly, and more domestically, if you were attacked by a raving lunatic with a tree branch, would you rather the police respond to your situation with, say, guns, or with equally maladroit tree branches?Quote:
, and that anyone who resists it or defies American power, is absolutely unacceptable, and becomes, automatically, very much the enemy.
Having superior force to your foe - believe it or not - is not an immoral state.
Yeah, you can't ever "bludgeon" political grievances out of existence. I mean, seriously, when were the times force managed to subdue radically opposing political views? Let's see. You've got the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II...and so on, and so on, and so on...Quote:
The theory that you can bludgeon political grievances out of existance,
See above. To borrow a phrase: except for communism, slavery, totalitarianism, and fascism, war never solved anything!Quote:
doesn't have much of a track record,
Really witty. What Jaenine Garofalo short did you jack that from?Quote:
and essentially, we have been neo-conned by this administration.
Are suicide bombers terrorists? Because we've established, ASIDE from Al-Qaeda, Hussein made regular payments to the families of suicide bombers. Or is that not "terroristic enough?"Quote:
This war had nothing to do with terrorism.
So leaving a terrible villain - by your own admission - in power is alright, because terrible villain X wasn't helping terrible villain Y?Quote:
There was no connection between Iraq and the religious fanatics that perpetrated 911. Saddam Hussein is not a fool. He's a terrible villain, yes,
Completely opposite? I think you are overestimating the gap between the "secular" - and that's in quotes, because Saddam Hussein CLEARLY was more a deluded megalomaniac with dreams of being a new Saladin than an empirically a-religious ruler - Ba'athist party and Al-Qaeda when put in reference to THE UNITED STATES. Sure, factions A and B in the small world of crazy fucking Islamofascist regimes might not agree on the fine points of whether or not John Q. Infidel should be shot in the streets or boiled in oil, or whether a martyr receives 72 or 73 virgins, but their cultural and philosophical differences PALE in comparison to the wide, wide gulf between either of those sects and the prevailing wisdom of the United States.Quote:
but why would he risk sacrificing his own life and country to terrorists who had completely opposite views to his own?
Give up control? "Control" of his country? Don't be absurd. No one is implying that SH was going to turn the reins of Iraq over to OBL. That is a ridiculous fallacy you reply to - what is implicated is that SH gave SHELTER and FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE to OBL's network, which was, as the despot of an oil-rich land, wholly within his power.Quote:
Iraq was a highly centralized dictatorship, why would Saddam ever want to give up control of that to scatterings of terrorist organizations?
First of all, OBL is not a nihilist. He's one crazy motherfucker, but he's not a nihilist. He is an exceptionally pragmatic, tactically intelligent (if strategically idiotic) individual with a vitriolic bent against the United States. Saddam Hussein has ABSOLUTELY no love for the U.S., for reasons that need no elucidation. Have you never heard, Kestra, of the concept of plausible deniability? Is it so absurd to presume that if enemy X of ours has a country, and enemy Y also wants to blow us up, enemy X might set aside his differences with enemy Y in order to allow enemy Y to do his work - and thus please enemy X, by fucking with the U.S. further?Quote:
He would loose that control. Do you really think
Saddam would trust his fate to OBL and his nihilistic ways??
I don't think so!!
Aside from those presuppositions, however, you stated it already - Saddam Hussein was a 'terrible villain.' He was a wicked, despotic man, who ruled millions underneath an iron fist with the only alternative being state-sponsored torture, rape, and execution in ways so grisly even the most hardened, chiseled psyches cringe to consider them. I don't care if iota of evidence -ONE- is never proven to your liking that SH and OBL had any link whatsoever. Saddam Hussein was - note the post tense, now, was - a horrifyingly brutal, evil man, whose days of terror are over because the United States had the courage to use its position as foremost superpower in the globe to make it so. That is a consummately moral act.
wait wait wait
"It's not what you know but what you can prove"
So if I KNOW that you were murdered, I saw it... I witnessed it, I watched it, the guy walked up to me and said "Hah, I killed that bitch" and then storms off... I know what happend, I saw what happend but how can I prove it?
I believe the question at hand is, would you care enough to bother?Quote:
So if I KNOW that you were murdered, I saw it... I witnessed it, I watched it, the guy walked up to me and said "Hah, I killed that bitch" and then storms off... I know what happend, I saw what happend but how can I prove it?
One might also mention here that Saddam not being involved in September 11th does not equal to Saddam having no connections with Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations in general. Yet somehow, while the commission only stated the former, anti-Bush partisans are subverting it to mean the latter.
While working yesterday I heard on the news that the commission stated that there was indeed connections between Saddam and the Al Qaeda. However, Saddam just was simply not directly involved with 9/11.Quote:
Originally posted by Solmyr
One might also mention here that Saddam not being involved in September 11th does not equal to Saddam having no connections with Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations in general. Yet somehow, while the commission only stated the former, anti-Bush partisans are subverting it to mean the latter.
Just thought I would rehash your point, since it seems to be so confusing to some people. =)
Quote:
Originally posted by kestra
This war had nothing to do with terrorism. There was no connection between Iraq and the religious fanatics that perpetrated 911.
Err.... wanna tell that to thousands and thousands of his own citizens that have been slaughtered at his order, all whom where Muslims, but of a differing ilk, or spoke out against his regime.
There's a blight on the world where people run slap bang into a cause because they are bored or have to feel like they belong to something, yet they don't know the full story about what the fight for. Kestra, bless your cotton socks, i think your one of them.
Just because we didn't find Chemical weapons, doesn't mean there wasn't any. Put your self in the boot of Blair or Bush....would you wait to find out...i doubt it. Would you sit by idly as a nation was terrorised by a crack pot dictator...i'd hope not.
Your Blairs and Bushes of the world are put on the spot, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So they have to go by what the think is right at the time.
"Just because we didn't find Chemical weapons, doesn't mean there wasn't any. Put your self in the boot of Blair or Bush....would you wait to find out...i doubt it. Would you sit by idly as a nation was terrorised by a crack pot dictator...i'd hope not"
The Bush administration made it very clear what they said they knew before the invasion. They left no room for doubt when
presenting their intelligence.
Now that nothing has been found, they fudge their statements.
Condi Rice
Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year [that Iraq acquires nuclear weapons]." [Source: PBS Web site]
Fact:
"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President George W. Bush, 10/7/02
“We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” [Source: DOS Web site]
Fact:
President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” - Globalsecurity.org
Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 “I think it's not surprising that people make that connection” between Saddam and 9/11--he had no evidence to back up his claim. - Meet the Press, 9/14/03
And Bramond, I do know what I'm talking about, but you're entitled to think whatever you like. I have family and friends who have been in combat, so I don't have to take any bullshit from anybody, nor will I.
When the emperor has no clothes, we need to have the presence
of mind, and courage to stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes"
i almost hope Bush loses the next election so we won't have to listen to Kestra's babbling for another 4 years.
almost
And when the liberal makes no points, we need to have the presence of mind and courage to stand up and say, "The liberal makes no points!"Quote:
When the emperor has no clothes, we need to have the presence of mind, and courage to stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes"