IValueFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
as well as all but proven that the administration has twisted intelligence in order to sell the war to the public, I am that much more against it.
Which is worse, not supporting a war which our country is in or sending young American men and women to give the ultimate sacrifice to serve an unjust purpose?
IValueFreedom said:As such, I have always been against it. Now that it has been proven that there are no WMD's and never were, as well as all but proven that the administration has twisted intelligence in order to sell the war to the public, I am that much more against it.
Zyphlin said:That being said, i have issues with the two things you said. I have no seen anything stating full 100% "proof" there was never any WMD's at any point in Iraq or being developed in Iraq. I'm not saying there were, and I agree it was looked horrible we never found anything, but the ease in which things like that can be hidden in the middle of the desert or slipped to another country quickly is remarkably easy.
I"m not sure about "altering" intel but it was deliberately misrepresented. Examine this thread for some straightforward instances: Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"Messerschmitt said:I have never seen any factual evidence to support that the administration has altered intel.
That's the theory. Some of what they have reported has gone unnoticed. The signal gets lost in the noise. Even when it's not, not every thirsty horse will drink when led to water.Messerschmitt said:The press is a free press to keep things like that from happening or at least bring them to light.
Agreed, but my view alters a bit. See, I know that war was probably necessary, but I wanted two things, and two things to make it legitmate in my mind-more UN/world involvement and more information on the part of the administration. The information part comes from more information coming into the intel people at that time from reliable sources, not just relying on information from flyovers and from reports from years before. I would have liked to see more world involvement because that would have lessened the burden on our troops more and alleiviated some of the cost to, well, me.cnredd said:The thing I always hate about the WMD thing is that some people don't understand that we could not afford to have Saddam hang around; weapons or not...I recall the Dulfer Report saying that Saddam had everything BUT weapons stockpiles. He had the recipes, the scientists, the infrastructure, and the intent to build WMD once the sanctions were lifted. And thanks to his Oil-for-Food bribes, the sanctions were being eroded in the UN Security Council every year. Dulfer concluded that Saddam was actually more dangerous than we had anticipated before the war.
I was just about to post the same thing.cnredd said:For anyone wanting to understand the wide range of "debate forum" responses...look at the last two posts...
ShamMol responds intelligently...Hoot responds like a whiney child....
rudy0908 said:I was just about to post the same thing.
I don't know what you're talking about.cnredd said:I ain't no angel, but I usully respond to a post with the same demeaner as the post intends...
If someone throws out an intellectually stimualting comment, it will be answered with such...
If you throw out hate filled rhetoric, I will reply with snide comments..
I don't expect you to actually do this, but If you looked at all of my past posts, you'll see they range from thought provoking insight all the way down to personal attacks and insults...But you'd also see that I never instigate; it's all in the form of rebuttal.
IValueFreedom said:As for being anti-war. I am 100% against the war in Iraq. I tend to side with just war theorists when deciding when it is appropriate to go to war. Iraq, even if everything that Bush claimed was true, would not generally be considered a good enough reason to wage the horrible act of war on that country.
Now that it has been proven that there are no WMD's and never were, as well as all but proven that the administration has twisted intelligence in order to sell the war to the public, I am that much more against it.
Unfortunately, this has been translated somehow to mean that I am anti-soldiers, which is 100% not the case.
Now, the actual cause they are working for is a different story. As they think they are giving their lives for American freedom, their heroism is undeniable, but the goal they are actually working for is not one which I support. The soldiers actions are perfect in motives, deserving my everlasting gratitude as they protect the freedoms I cherish, but in this instance they're vision has been clouded. They generally are young and have been mislead.
Which is worse, not supporting a war which our country is in or sending young American men and women to give the ultimate sacrifice to serve an unjust purpose?
I submit that the latter is.
tanenger said:Practically all of them realize they're fighting to make a bunch of dictators in Washington rich, and there's not a thing they can do about it. They've got a choice of going to prison or gambling that they won't be the next one to be killed. Which would you do?
Connecticutter said:The other day I actually saw some protestor holding a sign saying "Victory to the Iraqi Insurgents." He was probably just trying to get some attention, but it made me sick. That's what I'd call anti-American.
The other day I actually saw some protestor holding a sign saying "Victory to the Iraqi Insurgents." He was probably just trying to get some attention, but it made me sick. That's what I'd call anti-American.
cnredd said:Did he have a pin that said, "Massachussetts Senator"?
Alaster said:Did you stop and talk to him? Perhaps his point was, "This is what we're doing" rather than, "This is what I hope happens."
tanenger said:As German Bishop Martin Niemoler said about the situation under Hitler:
When Nazis put communists in the concentration camp, I did not protest because I was not a communist; when they persecuted the social democrats, I did not protest because I was not a social democrat; When they massacred the Jews, I did not protest because I was not a Jew; When they banned all political parties and trade unions, I did not protest because I was not one of them; when they came for me, there was no one to speak for me.
If you can think of a better type of government to suit the countries needs, I'd love to hear it, along with specific reason(s) that you think Democracy sucks (especially American Democracy...ewww).
Would you please explain to me how we are imposing "our" brand of democracy when the Iraq's are drawing up their own constitution to be voted on by them?Alastor said:What I said, quite clearly, multiple times (but that apparently still escapes you) is that if we impose our particular brand of democracy onto the Iraqi people rather than allowing them to choose the course themselves, that it's not really a democracy. It's an imposed liberalist dictatorship.
.
Rather, I encourage us to engage the Iraqi people, and spend money on ads, radio shows, newspaper articles and editorials, campaigns, etc... and simply win their hearts and minds on the issue. After all, there are good and rational reasons that we extended equality to women across the board. If we share those same arguments with the Iraqis now, especially in a free and more open society, we truly ought to be able to sway them.
All we need to do is make sound arguments, be persistent, and allow them the time it takes to go through what every other democracy in the history of the world has gone through - growing pains as they come out of an ultra-conservative system and into the second and first worlds.
teacher said:What the hell do you think we are doing now?
Although, you believe that the current standing government is bound to fail, and I don't think I can change your mind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?