Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa ChopperDave, Your ideas are noble but your rationale is flawed regarding "at what cost" Or is it that no loss is worth the cost in fighting for the freedom of a muslim country? I don't think that 1500 Americans should die to liberate a country that a) will probably descend into civil war due to deep religious and cultural divisions and can't stand us. They may "love" us now, but while our backs our turned, we're the Great Evil. We don't need to kill our soldiers for a cause like that. Do you not think this country had some idea of the tremendous loss of life we'd suffer when we shipped our men off to Europe to fight the very enemy that was hell bent on eradicating the Jewish race? An enemy with the same goal has surfaced and your willing to stand by and watch in the name of sparing American soldiers lives? One difference now is that the Enemy has the stated goal of destroying us enroute to destroying all of Israel. Why is that do you suppose? We both know the answer. We are the only force on this planet that can doom their mission. We stand in their way. That is why they hate us. I'm almost offended that you would compare the Nazis to Islamic fundamentalism. Intentions are intentions, and Islamic fundamentalism hasn't and won't slaughter 12 million people. And even if they planning on doing so, attacking Iraq wouldn't stop it. 1500 deaths is nothing when compared to the loss of life we've suffered in most all other wars in which we've engaged. This is a tremendously small price to pay for the freedom (of their chosing) of millions of fellow HUMANS. American or not, do they not have the same inalienable rights as do you and I? Aside from the fact that the "freedom" of these fellow humans has nothing to do with our original stated goal in Iraq, to answer your question, yes, they are deserving of those rights. That said, it's not our responsibility to ensure those rights to anyone but Americans. Now, being the hippie that I am, I'd love for everyone to have those rights. But what makes Iraqis more deserving than the Sudanese, or the Iranians, or the Koreans? The fact that they hate us more? Art is too kind in his call for a liberal's apology. I should think that a great outpouring of shame should be free flowing from anyone who cannot see and admit what an amazing day this is for the Iragi people. As well as for the continual hoping for doom and failure so they could prove their politics. I'm supremely happy that today went off well, as little hope as I have for Iraq after we leave the country. Though, it goes back to that eternal question, at what cost? What do you people think is going through the minds of the populus in the regions other oppressed nations. I'd imagine that those that get a true picture of the outcome today will start asking "why can't we voter for our government" Of course they won't be saying it outloud!! We choose Iraq over all the other countries listed in this thread because we had legal recourse to invade. (And Saddam was supporting terrorism by funding terrorist) My God, can you imagine the outcries from Liberals if we'd have tried to invade Iran, Syria or some other terrorist supporting nation. Never could have happened. Now these countries will know we are serious. They will not doubt our threats in the future. And you better believe the tyrants of these nations know full well that the very citizens they oppress would love to have the opportunity just experienced by the average Iraqi. We had the legal recourse to invade, fine. So millions of Africans being slaughtered isn't legal recourse? How many treaties and resolutions are N. Korea and Iran breaking in their quest for nukes? I would have been all for an invasion of Iran. Not only do most of their citizens want us there (the outpouring by Iraqis came mostly after the invasion), but there's overwhelming evidence that they have nukes. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what type of government the people of Iraq decide upon. It is their choice, and if it falls on it's face then it will be THEIR failing, not ours. We have given them what they never could have given themselves in the face of the brutal totality of the Saddam regime. The chance to vote for their own freedom. It is in their hands now. So now it doesn't even matter if the 1500 dead, 10000+ injured Americans (not to mention the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis) succeed? Is it just enough to show that we'll flex our muscles if we have to? Was this one giant geopolitical photo-op? Wake up and take a whiff of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear You are wrong.. You were wrong.. and your going to be wrong again on Iraq.. its ok though.. thats why there is freedom of speech.. so people like us can take care of people like you. Its what we do. :doh: I was wrong? So there were WMD? Yeah, Art's ill-conceived attempt to force us to apologize for not agreeing with him certainly goes hand in hand with free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave I would have been all for an invasion of Iran. Not only do most of their citizens want us there (the outpouring by Iraqis came mostly after the invasion), but there's overwhelming evidence that they have nukes. .... Wake up and take a whiff of reality. If anyone needs a dose of reality, it is you Chopper Dave. "Overwhelming evidence" that they have nukes in the case of Iran? You think that the invasion of Iraq was illegitimate based on the evidence we had on Saddam having WMD, denying UN inspector's access to unaccounted stocks of WMD, and the very fact that he had used them liberally in the past --- but suddenly now IRAN is a more legitimate target based on WMD. Wow. THAT is one helluva paradigm you're setting up there. Good luck with that. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by jpillian If anyone needs a dose of reality, it is you Chopper Dave. "Overwhelming evidence" that they have nukes in the case of Iran? You think that the invasion of Iraq was illegitimate based on the evidence we had on Saddam having WMD, denying UN inspector's access to unaccounted stocks of WMD, and the very fact that he had used them liberally in the past --- but suddenly now IRAN is a more legitimate target based on WMD. Wow. THAT is one helluva paradigm you're setting up there. Good luck with that. :laugh: You heard me right. It's a known and practically admitted fact that Iran has WMD. I know I called bullsh*t on Iraqi WMD months before we invaded. It's two completely different situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 So you're saying that this "overwhelming evidence" of Iran having WMDs is justification for us to invade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave You heard me right. It's a known and practically admitted fact that Iran has WMD. I know I called bullsh*t on Iraqi WMD months before we invaded. It's two completely different situations. Not really man. They are almost exactly the same. Why should we trust the intelligence now, when we shouldn't have before with Iraq. Everybody believed Saddam had WMD's. Now everybody believes that Iran's "peaceful" Nuclear program is for nuclear weapons. What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller Not really man. They are almost exactly the same. Why should we trust the intelligence now, when we shouldn't have before with Iraq. Everybody believed Saddam had WMD's. Now everybody believes that Iran's "peaceful" Nuclear program is for nuclear weapons. What's the difference? Good point, I'm kind of hoping for the "learn from our mistakes" cliche. Since the "take responsibility for your actions" cliche was swept under the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by jpillian So you're saying that this "overwhelming evidence" of Iran having WMDs is justification for us to invade? Yes. And I know the point you're trying to make. If you must know, if I had believed that there WMD in Iraq in the first place, I would have been for the war. Originally posted by Painkiller Not really man. They are almost exactly the same. Why should we trust the intelligence now, when we shouldn't have before with Iraq. Everybody believed Saddam had WMD's. Now everybody believes that Iran's "peaceful" Nuclear program is for nuclear weapons. What's the difference? Because it's different intelligence. We know they have working nuclear reactors. We know they haven't shut them down when we asked. We know they have bad intentions. We knew Iraq had bad intentions, but they didn't have the capabilities that Iran had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Art, as soon as I saw the topic of this thread I knew it was you that started it. While I do mostly enjoy your posts I must say that your extreme right wing bias and liberal hating takes alot of punch out of your views. Its the likes of you hating on one or the other parties that continue to give the country a black eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave Yes. And I know the point you're trying to make. If you must know, if I had believed that there WMD in Iraq in the first place, I would have been for the war. Because it's different intelligence. We know they have working nuclear reactors. We know they haven't shut them down when we asked. We know they have bad intentions. We knew Iraq had bad intentions, but they didn't have the capabilities that Iran had. Dave what makes you think that our "intelligence" isn't wrong about Iran's nuclear reactors. The intelligence we had going into Iraq came from the same sources, the same intelligence agencies. We know that Saddam once had WMD's. We know that he used them. We know he had foiled United Nations resolutions for over a decade. We know he didn't account for all his Weapons. I again ask, what is the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by KevinthePRF Good point, I'm kind of hoping for the "learn from our mistakes" cliche. Since the "take responsibility for your actions" cliche was swept under the rug. You are soooo right!!! I really hope our president does take responsibility for the fantastic and hostoric elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan! I will be upset if he sweeps that under the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller Dave what makes you think that our "intelligence" isn't wrong about Iran's nuclear reactors. The intelligence we had going into Iraq came from the same sources, the same intelligence agencies. We know that Saddam once had WMD's. We know that he used them. We know he had foiled United Nations resolutions for over a decade. We know he didn't account for all his Weapons. I again ask, what is the difference? We have photos. Hell, we have confirmation from the Iranian government. They have nuclear reactors, and that's a fact. It's also enough for me to believe we should have gone after them instead of Iraq, if we were going to go after someone. Of course, I think we should have dealt with N. Korea first, so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by TMat184 Art, as soon as I saw the topic of this thread I knew it was you that started it. While I do mostly enjoy your posts I must say that your extreme right wing bias and liberal hating takes alot of punch out of your views. Its the likes of you hating on one or the other parties that continue to give the country a black eye. Our country has little to call a black eye right now! Pssst....may want to read the rest of the thread. Art has 100% justification to give Liberals the opportunity to apologize for the constant negative outlook for the Iraq elections. Can't argue that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Our country has little to call a black eye right now! Pssst....may want to read the rest of the thread. Art has 100% justification to give Liberals the opportunity to apologize for the constant negative outlook for the Iraq elections. Can't argue that at all. No, he really doesn't. 1500 American soldiers dead, 10000+ American soldiers injured, 15000+ Iraqis dead, and we're supposed to apologize to some guy on a message board for thinking negatively? That's what I call a big pile of bullsh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave We have photos. Hell, we have confirmation from the Iranian government. They have nuclear reactors, and that's a fact. It's also enough for me to believe we should have gone after them instead of Iraq, if we were going to go after someone. Of course, I think we should have dealt with N. Korea first, so.... CD!!! STOP!!! You are digging into a hole you soon won't be able to back away from. You are holding onto Iran rationale that almost mirrors that of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas CD!!! STOP!!! You are digging into a hole you soon won't be able to back away from. You are holding onto Iran rationale that almost mirrors that of Iraq. That's absolutely false. Did we know Iraq had nuclear reactors that they've refused to shut down? No. We thought that they may have maybe had something in the past. We know Iran has nuclear reactors. Why does everything always need to be black and white with you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave No, he really doesn't. 1500 American soldiers dead, 10000+ American soldiers injured, 15000+ Iraqis dead, and we're supposed to apologize to some guy on a message board for thinking negatively? That's what I call a big pile of bullsh*t. Don't get so testy!!!! Are you that upset that the majority here have not agreed with you today? Face it, Many libs said this would be, oh how was that said again....? " a quagmire" "a nightmare" "illegitimate" etc, etc, etc, Art and many others feel very vindicated that the elections went as we had hoped, and that it seems those Iraqi's really do want a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Chopper Dave We have photos. Hell, we have confirmation from the Iranian government. They have nuclear reactors, and that's a fact. It's also enough for me to believe we should have gone after them instead of Iraq, if we were going to go after someone. Of course, I think we should have dealt with N. Korea first, so.... While I agree with you that we should consider going after Iran if they refuse to stop working on their Nuclear Program. I'm just not getting your argument for why we should go after Iran, and North Korea, but we should have left Iraq alone. We had photos of Iraq. Pictures of mobile labs, etc. that were used in the justification for war. Labs that our (and the world's)"intelligence" agencies said were used for making biological and chemical weapons. Why should we trust those same sources now, that we shouldn't have before? Maybe their photos of Iran's nuclear facilities are actually textile plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMat184 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Everyone can say they are happy that Saddam is out of power in Iraq but I certainly won't sit here and champion this war. I continue to believe we had larger and more immediate threats out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas Don't get so testy!!!! Are you that upset that the majority here have not agreed with you today? Face it, Many libs said this would be, oh how was that said again....? " a quagmire" "a nightmare" "illegitimate" etc, etc, etc, Art and many others feel very vindicated that the elections went as we had hoped, and that it seems those Iraqi's really do want a democracy. Nah, I'm not really surprised that most don't agree with me, it's actually kinda the norm around here. The war was illegitimate, and I don't really consider all those casualties a success, especially when we still haven't justified our original reason for going in. I'm not saying the biproduct is bad; it's just that if we were going to go in for humanitarian reasons, say so. I'd be more inclined to support it that way. I'm glad things went well today, for the millionth and final time. I still think it's arrogant and childish to go out of your way to make people apologize to you for not agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Didn't read the whole thread, but when the Repubs apologize to us for the whole "Oh, the WMDs are there, we just KNOW it", then we'll start talking. They can also apologize for the backdoor draft, for making this country look like Nazis with the prison abuse scandal, and for allowing 9/11 to happen because the National Security Advisor was to preoccupied with Star Wars (someone forgot to tell her the Cold War was over?) to worry about little things like "Bin Laden Determined To Strike U.S.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Only in right wing america can the reason for war be proven wrong.....and result in those who said so being asked to apologize. The reasoning for war was bogus. Bush was dishonest when he pretended war was a result of following the evidence, because he wanted to go from day 1. Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 INSTEAD of afghanstan. So no you won't get an apology or any sort of admission. Just because the ends are good doesn't mean the BS that lead to them are all forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by TMat184 Everyone can say they are happy that Saddam is out of power in Iraq but I certainly won't sit here and champion this war. I continue to believe we had larger and more immediate threats out there. Do me a favor, list those "larger and more immediate threats" out for me. Don't worry, the computer won't limit you post length. So go ahead, list 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 and even though the Iranians admitted they are working on a innocent nuclear program, designed only for peaceful endeavors...why should we believe them? Maybe they are all crazy and they are actually making lawn chairs. I'm getting tired now, and I'm starting to get goofy. :doh1: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller While I agree with you that we should consider going after Iran if they refuse to stop working on their Nuclear Program. I'm just not getting your argument for why we should go after Iran, and North Korea, but we should have left Iraq alone. We had photos of Iraq. Pictures of mobile labs, etc. that were used in the justification for war. Labs that our (and the world's)"intelligence" agencies said were used for making biological and chemical weapons. Why should we trust those same sources now, that we shouldn't have before? Maybe their photos of Iran's nuclear facilities are actually textile plants. I think an admission by the Iranian government is pretty substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.