Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 9:26 am EST
Quote:
Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.
on humanitarian grounds, right? that's why we did it? who do you want to save next?
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 9:28 am EST
Quote:
But if Obama looks to plunge the country into unprecedented levels of debt, or Michael Moore twists facts and lies in what is supposed to be a respectable documentary, it's OK because their ideals align with yours.
show me where i said that it's okay that Moore lies in his films. i haven't defended Obama's health care plan either. i'm not sure what you're talking about. you're denouncing a "frothing NY left" that is not here.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 9:36 am EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.
on humanitarian grounds, right? that's why we did it? who do you want to save next?
No, that's why I supported it. I know this hard for you, I know that you are not used to dealing with lefties like myself who support the war on a human rights level. Maybe you should read the reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (Or maybe it was Human Rights Now) that have detailed tens, perhaps hundred of thousands of dead Iraqis found in mass graves. As a person, as a Jew, as an American, I am proud that we took out a brutal thug who was raping and mass murdering his own people and who had bombed Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel without provocation. You can worry about why Bush did it, I will be thankful that we did it.
As far as saving next goes, I think that is a very poor argument. There are many people in need. To say we should never cut the grass in the front yard because of the grass in the back and the sides doesn't make any sense to me. We can't do it all at once, but that doens't mean we give up on human rights.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 9:39 am EST
pokersloper wrote:
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur? _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 9:45 am EST
Quote:
As far as saving next goes, I think that is a very poor argument. There are many people in need. To say we should never cut the grass in the front yard because of the grass in the back and the sides doesn't make any sense to me. We can't do it all at once, but that doens't mean we give up on human rights.
if that's why you supported going to iraq, then you should probably be outraged that we aren't planning to go to Darfur or Burma or other places in need, right? there was no genocide going on in Iraq when we went there. that was over 10 years ago.
Quote:
You can worry about why Bush did it, I will be thankful that we did it.
so you recognize that Bush went there for the wrong reasons (fake reasons)?
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 9:47 am EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur?
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone. I would FULLY SUPPORT an international force that would help end the brutality, gang rapes, murder, and genocide going on anywhere in this world including Darfur and the Congro. There is no reason why the United States can’t work with the EU and other parties to end the madness.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 9:52 am EST
Quote:
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone.
just so you know, it is against international law to go to war with someone because you think they may attack you. there has to be an imminent threat (bombs or planes are in the air).
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:01 am EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone.
just so you know, it is against international law to go to war with someone because you think they may attack you. there has to be an imminent threat (bombs or planes are in the air).
Mr. Met, this may surprise you, but I don't care at all about international law. International law sits back and watches as women are gang raped, millions are slaughtered in genocide, etc. Ask the international troops in Rwanda who were ordered to watch the genocide how much international law helped those who were raped, gutted and killed.
International law, that is funny.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:01 am EST
pokersloper wrote:
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur?
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone. I would FULLY SUPPORT an international force that would help end the brutality, gang rapes, murder, and genocide going on anywhere in this world including Darfur and the Congro. There is no reason why the United States can’t work with the EU and other parties to end the madness.
I too support international peace forces and wish we had done that in Iraq. Then maybe we wouldn't have given birth to a humanitarian tragedy far bigger than anything Saddam ever perpetrated on the Iraqi people.
Iran does not have nukes and is nowhere near having them.
Pakistan has nukes but they are safely in the hands of the military, which runs most segments of Pakistani society and remains closely aligned with the West, as far as security is concerned. Even if Pakistan collapses, which is highly unlikely, it is even more unlikely that extremists would gain control of the nuclear arsenal.
The tribal areas and advancement of the Taliban are paramount concerns for sure, but military action would be extremely counterproductive and shortsighted at this point. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:05 am EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
As far as saving next goes, I think that is a very poor argument. There are many people in need. To say we should never cut the grass in the front yard because of the grass in the back and the sides doesn't make any sense to me. We can't do it all at once, but that doens't mean we give up on human rights.
if that's why you supported going to iraq, then you should probably be outraged that we aren't planning to go to Darfur or Burma or other places in need, right? there was no genocide going on in Iraq when we went there. that was over 10 years ago.
Quote:
You can worry about why Bush did it, I will be thankful that we did it.
so you recognize that Bush went there for the wrong reasons (fake reasons)?
Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program. Bush may have lied or concealed information, sure. Why would I deny it if it were proven? I am not sure it has been proven though. Frankly, I am more inclined to think that Bush, who I voted for the second time around, just wasn't very smart.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:09 am EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur?
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone. I would FULLY SUPPORT an international force that would help end the brutality, gang rapes, murder, and genocide going on anywhere in this world including Darfur and the Congro. There is no reason why the United States can’t work with the EU and other parties to end the madness.
I too support international peace forces and wish we had done that in Iraq. Then maybe we wouldn't have given birth to a humanitarian tragedy far bigger than anything Saddam ever perpetrated on the Iraqi people.
Iran does not have nukes and is nowhere near having them.
Pakistan has nukes but they are safely in the hands of the military, which runs most segments of Pakistani society and remains closely aligned with the West, as far as security is concerned. Even if Pakistan collapses, which is highly unlikely, it is even more unlikely that extremists would gain control of the nuclear arsenal.
The tribal areas and advancement of the Taliban are paramount concerns for sure, but military action would be extremely counterproductive and shortsighted at this point.
Well, you brought up a lot of great stuff, some I agree with. I wish I had more time, but I gotta be brief for now.
Bush did a bad job of gaining international support, but many countries acted very poorly. As I recall, Germany's ambassador to the UN said that anything Bush wanted to do, Germany would be against. It didn’t matter what he asked for, Germany would say no. Not exactly diplomacy at its best.
As far as Iran goes, many countries – Britain, Israel, US, Turkey, India think Iran is months away from nukes. That is scary.
Last edited by pokersloper on Fri Sep 11, 09 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:09 am EST
pokersloper wrote:
Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program. Bush may have lied or concealed information, sure. Why would I deny it if it were proven? I am not sure it has been proven though. Frankly, I am more inclined to think that Bush, who I voted for the second time around, just wasn't very smart.
these intelligence services suspected it, but with nowhere near the certainty needed to preemptively invade.
this is an extremely important distinction and highlights how flawed and dangerous the binary neoconservative worldview is. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:19 am EST
Quote:
Mr. Met, this may surprise you, but I don't care at all about international law.
doesn't surprise me at all, actually. GET 'ER DONE!
Quote:
Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program.
strange that all of these countries weren't in the coalition.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:28 am EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
Mr. Met, this may surprise you, but I don't care at all about international law.
doesn't surprise me at all, actually. GET 'ER DONE!
Quote:
Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program.
strange that all of these countries weren't in the coalition.
not strange, sad for human rights.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 10:33 am EST
Quote:
not strange, sad for human rights.
that's not why they were being asked to go to iraq.
there were other countries that needed help on humanitarian grounds WAY more than iraq.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:02 pm EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
not strange, sad for human rights.
that's not why they were being asked to go to iraq.
there were other countries that needed help on humanitarian grounds WAY more than iraq.
so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:06 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights.
Iraq in the 00's was not home to a genocide. pick a different word to describe it.
The genocide happened in 1988 and was long since over.
There were far more urgent humanitarian crises in the world than Iraq in 2003. The humanitarian angle rings hollow when we could barely get Bush to mention the word Darfur in public, let alone give a speech on it, let alone lift a finger for it.
The idea that what we imposed in Iraq is less of a humanitarian crisis than what existed under saddam this decade is indefensible. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:09 pm EST
-
Quote:
invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
right. that's why we went there with Bush Sr., and we were justified bc our ally was attacked.
Quote:
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
the bombings happened over 10 years ago. citing that as a reason for us going there is silly.
Quote:
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
what? when did Hussein threaten nuclear war? he had no nuclear weapons!
Quote:
I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
set aside that the genocide in iraq happened over ten years ago. it's not that i think other human rights violations were/are more important. it's just that there are/were so many others out there, many more egregious, so going to iraq on the basis of human rights seems arbitrary.
Carnivore Brooklyn Snark
Joined: 14 Apr 2005 Posts: 13712 Location: St Johns Pl and Underhill
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:10 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights.
All of those except the last were relevant to Bush the Elder's Gulf War, and have nothing to do with why Bush the Younger attacked Iraq.
And as far as your last point goes, it is pure revisionist history. Repeating it still won't make it true. If our allies' intelligence agencies thought the nuclear threat was credible, they would have joined us in the war.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:13 pm EST
Carnivore wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights.
All of those except the last were relevant to Bush the Elder's Gulf War, and have nothing to do with why Bush the Younger attacked Iraq.
And as far as your last point goes, it is pure revisionist history. Repeating it still won't make it true. If our allies' intelligence agencies thought the nuclear threat was credible, they would have joined us in the war.
Our allies are filled with countries with huge Muslim populations who vote. Unfortunately, local politics usually wins out over human rights.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:15 pm EST
Quote:
Our allies are filled with countries with huge Muslim populations who vote. Unfortunately, local politics usually wins out over human rights.
you think that's why they wouldn't go to iraq? seriously? again, i don't know what to say to that.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:22 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
Our allies are filled with countries with huge Muslim populations who vote. Unfortunately, local politics usually wins out over human rights.
invading Iraq was demonstrably not about human rights. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:25 pm EST
Quote:
invading Iraq was demonstrably not about human rights.
Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:34 pm EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
invading Iraq was demonstrably not about human rights.
Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point.
are your arguments so weak that you have to make stuff up. I know the mods don't like people talking about name calling, but so far you have called someone an idiot and now you tell a lie.
perhaps you should focus on polite conversation, my beliefs are strong, but they are polite and I don't play word games and lie.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:40 pm EST
Quote:
Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point.
sorry if i lied.
tell me which part is false.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:44 pm EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point.
sorry if i lied.
tell me which part is false.
"Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point."
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort. You know this of course, but choose to play dirty. I choose to talk issues. I have been honest and have said some very unpopular things on this board. You don't have to agree or respect my views, but they are honest and they do not misrepresent what you or any other poster has said. You should really focus on the issues and not name calling and making stuff up.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:48 pm EST
Quote:
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort.
you said that going to iraq was good because of the human rights violoations, correct? but you know the violations happened before the first war in iraq, right?
do you see where i'm going?
based on your position on iraq, it seems fair to say that you would be in favor of invading other countries in which human rights violations have occurred, regardless of when they occurred.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:50 pm EST
mr. met wrote:
Quote:
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort.
you said that going to iraq was good because of the human rights violoations, correct? but you know the violations happened before the first war in iraq, right?
do you see where i'm going?
based on your position on iraq, it seems fair to say that you would be in favor of invading other countries in which human rights violations have occurred, regardless of when they occurred.
You lied when you wrote, "Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point."
You lied. Pokersloper never said this in any way. You see where I am going?
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:51 pm EST
i was making inferences based on what you said about iraq.
are you not going to address what i said?
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 12:57 pm EST
mr. met wrote:
i was making inferences based on what you said about iraq.
are you not going to address what i said?
so, you make up a lie because you assume that is what I would think?
You are what us poker players call an angle shooter. You lie, you call names, and I won't play your games. We can talk when you are serious, polite, stop lying and stop shooting angles.
Take care.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:01 pm EST
i didn't call you anything, Parkersloper. i called someone an idiot because they posted a picture of obama with his face painted like the joker and the word "socialism" under it. i'm really sorry if that offends you.
set me straight on what you said about iraq and what you think about when it is okay to attack a country based on human rights violations.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:14 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort. You know this of course, but choose to play dirty. I choose to talk issues. I have been honest and have said some very unpopular things on this board. You don't have to agree or respect my views, but they are honest and they do not misrepresent what you or any other poster has said. You should really focus on the issues and not name calling and making stuff up.
You have repeatedly implied that a lot of us (or liberals in general) oppose the Iraq War simply out of Bush hate.
That is not being honest or 'talking issues'. It is generalizing and ignoring very specific points that a handful of us have made during this sub-thread.
I advise you to avoid the accusation of mindless Bush opposition if you want to keep this 'honest'. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:20 pm EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort. You know this of course, but choose to play dirty. I choose to talk issues. I have been honest and have said some very unpopular things on this board. You don't have to agree or respect my views, but they are honest and they do not misrepresent what you or any other poster has said. You should really focus on the issues and not name calling and making stuff up.
You have repeatedly implied that a lot of us (or liberals in general) oppose the Iraq War simply out of Bush hate..
I said that about one poster specifically. Go back and look if you want.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:22 pm EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort. You know this of course, but choose to play dirty. I choose to talk issues. I have been honest and have said some very unpopular things on this board. You don't have to agree or respect my views, but they are honest and they do not misrepresent what you or any other poster has said. You should really focus on the issues and not name calling and making stuff up.
You have repeatedly implied that a lot of us (or liberals in general) oppose the Iraq War simply out of Bush hate.
That is not being honest or 'talking issues'. It is generalizing and ignoring very specific points that a handful of us have made during this sub-thread.
I advise you to avoid the accusation of mindless Bush opposition if you want to keep this 'honest'.
BoyG, please point out a point, or points, that you think I have missed and I am happy to lay out my position on it or them.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:25 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
BoyG, please point out a point, or points, that you think I have missed and I am happy to lay out my position on it or them.
Ok:
1a. These intelligence services suspected it, but with nowhere near the certainty needed to preemptively invade.
1b. this is an extremely important distinction and highlights how flawed and dangerous the binary neoconservative worldview is.
2. There were far more urgent humanitarian crises in the world than Iraq in 2003. The humanitarian angle rings hollow when we could barely get Bush to mention the word Darfur in public, let alone give a speech on it, let alone lift a finger for it.
3. The idea that what we imposed in Iraq is less of a humanitarian crisis than what existed under saddam this decade is indefensible. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:32 pm EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
BoyG, please point out a point, or points, that you think I have missed and I am happy to lay out my position on it or them.
Ok:
1a. These intelligence services suspected it, but with nowhere near the certainty needed to preemptively invade.
1b. this is an extremely important distinction and highlights how flawed and dangerous the binary neoconservative worldview is.
2. There were far more urgent humanitarian crises in the world than Iraq in 2003. The humanitarian angle rings hollow when we could barely get Bush to mention the word Darfur in public, let alone give a speech on it, let alone lift a finger for it.
3. The idea that what we imposed in Iraq is less of a humanitarian crisis than what existed under saddam this decade is indefensible.
1. At the time, publicly, France, Germany, Spain, US reported that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction. Maybe now it has come out that these were inflated views or something else was said behind closed doors (I don't know that to be the case, just trying to be fair) but at the time, this is what they all said. It wasn't just neo conservatives who believed this. The governments of France and Spain are hardly neo cons.
2. I have never said otherwise. The UN, Democrats, Republicans have completely forgotten about human rights.
3. I disagree. Large scale genocide has stopped. By most accounts, the country seems to be moving towards stability. I fully admit Bush was a terrible leader, but that doesn't change my view that stopping genocide and the potential for regional or international war was a good thing.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:35 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
3. I disagree. Large scale genocide has stopped. By most accounts, the country seems to be moving towards stability. I fully admit Bush was a terrible leader, but that doesn't change my view that stopping genocide and the potential for regional or international war was a good thing.
We didn't stop a genocide. A genocide wasn't occurring.
More people have died since we invaded and destroyed Iraqi society than had died under Saddam in decades.
Decades. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:38 pm EST
genocide was not happening when we went to iraq.
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:42 pm EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
3. I disagree. Large scale genocide has stopped. By most accounts, the country seems to be moving towards stability. I fully admit Bush was a terrible leader, but that doesn't change my view that stopping genocide and the potential for regional or international war was a good thing.
We didn't stop a genocide. A genocide wasn't occurring.
More people have died since we invaded and destroyed Iraqi society than had died under Saddam in decades.
Decades.
Amnesty International reports mass graves with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands dead.
Iraq/Iran war - maybe millions dead
How many Kurds were gassed to death?
Kuwait - tens of thousands dead
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
We stopped genoicde, torture, and put the country back on the path of normalcy.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:45 pm EST
but we keep saying that that happened decades ago. there was no genocide happening in iraq in 2003.
and Kuwait? that was the first war. the one we were justified to enter.
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 1:52 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
Amnesty International reports mass graves with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands dead.
Iraq/Iran war - maybe millions dead
How many Kurds were gassed to death?
Kuwait - tens of thousands dead
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
We stopped genoicde, torture, and put the country back on the path of normalcy.
None of that was actively happening, or happened any time recently, or was in any imminent danger of happening any time soon.
And
More people have died since 2003 than died in everything you listed above, except maybe the Iran/Iraq War, which we actively promoted anyway.
Quote:
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
This is false. A vast majority of the dead are Iraqis. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 2:07 pm EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
Amnesty International reports mass graves with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands dead.
Iraq/Iran war - maybe millions dead
How many Kurds were gassed to death?
Kuwait - tens of thousands dead
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
We stopped genoicde, torture, and put the country back on the path of normalcy.
None of that was actively happening, or happened any time recently, or was in any imminent danger of happening any time soon.
And
More people have died since 2003 than died in everything you listed above, except maybe the Iran/Iraq War, which we actively promoted anyway.
Quote:
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
This is false. A vast majority of the dead are Iraqis.
Sadam made it clear he was working on weapons of mass destruction (even if it turns out he wasn't). Everyone believed him including the leading intelligence agencies. Sadam had invaded regional countries, bombed others, used chemical weapons on his own people, killed hundreds of thousands execution style, engaged in an incredible war with Iran for 8 years killing possibly millions...If these are not good reasons to invade then we just have very different ideas about human rights.
mr. met Carneviento Devotee
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 1073 Location: Classon and Prospect
Fri Sep 11, 09 2:13 pm EST
oh man
Boygabriel G Train Devotee
Joined: 18 Nov 2005 Posts: 2494 Location: Somewhere between Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg and Bushwick
Fri Sep 11, 09 2:14 pm EST
pokersloper wrote:
Sadam made it clear he was working on weapons of mass destruction (even if it turns out he wasn't). Everyone believed him including the leading intelligence agencies. Sadam had invaded regional countries, bombed others, used chemical weapons on his own people, killed hundreds of thousands execution style, engaged in an incredible war with Iran for 8 years killing possibly millions...If these are not good reasons to invade then we just have very different ideas about human rights.
You and I agree that Saddam was an awful terrible tyrant who was guilty of torture and mass murder in the past. And that in a vacuum, the world is better off without him.
Where we differ is in the call to action in this particular situation, in 2003. (or really any time since the close of the first Gulf war)
Given that no invasion or genocide by Saddam was imminent, it was not prudent to invade the country. It became especially imprudent b/c the United States did not have the resources, leadership, or allies in order to successfully depose Saddam and replace him with something better.
This has been proven true over time as more people have died in the situation we created than had died under Saddam in a long, long time. _________________ Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
pokersloper correcting carnivores
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 463
Fri Sep 11, 09 2:29 pm EST
Boygabriel wrote:
pokersloper wrote:
Sadam made it clear he was working on weapons of mass destruction (even if it turns out he wasn't). Everyone believed him including the leading intelligence agencies. Sadam had invaded regional countries, bombed others, used chemical weapons on his own people, killed hundreds of thousands execution style, engaged in an incredible war with Iran for 8 years killing possibly millions...If these are not good reasons to invade then we just have very different ideas about human rights.
You and I agree that Saddam was an awful terrible tyrant who was guilty of torture and mass murder in the past. And that in a vacuum, the world is better off without him.
Where we differ is in the call to action in this particular situation, in 2003. (or really any time since the close of the first Gulf war)
Given that no invasion or genocide by Saddam was imminent,.
This is where we disagree. Saddam, like Nasser, like Arafat, used the microphone often, loudly and well. Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past and by all accounts, was building weapons of mass destruction. All arrows and all of Saddam's history pointed that he was an imminent danger. I fully support the decision made at the time based on the information we had at the time. And as I recall, a lot of elected Democrats also agreed.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Subscribe in a reader
