Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement...

ObamacareFail said:

So.... post it again.....if you can.

Click to expand...

Quite being lazy, it's posted in this thread.

MadLib said:

I'm not willing to personally go and fight crime. Am I therefore a piece of fecal matter for supporting the existence of a police force?

Click to expand...

We can't choose whether to fight local crime; nobody opposes anyone's efforts to do so. We can choose whether to fight a particular war.

Ahlevah said:

So much for non-partisanship, eh? But the fact is Bush was the one who wanted Saddam Hussein removed from power, and the neocons in his administration made it their mission in life to make it happen. They did, and now, $1.7 trillion or whatever and change later, Iraqis and U.S. veterans (the ones who didn't die) and their families are paying the price. Meanwhile, these guys are back on Fox once again tossing peanuts from their gallery at Obama on Syria. But when they're asked about whether they bear any responsibility for getting us involved in a war that cost untold Iraqi lives and the lives of 4,500 U.S. servicemen and women their mea culpa is "Oops! We goofed! We thought he still had weapons" or "Our detractors just don't like Jews." (Richard Perle: Don't Blame Neocons for Iraq Crisis)

Click to expand...

Nice try, however it was Bill Clinton who made regime change in Iraq "official administration policy" before he left office. And there is nothing partisan by me in giving you a list of democrat who insisted long before Bush ever ran for president that the Saddam regime had wmds. After all, you seem to be pushing the fantasy that it was all Bush's idea. Even Hillary was sounding the war drums.

The Bush Administration in the Fall of 2002 seemed to believe there was some urgency to invading Iraq. They agitated for a congressional authorization to do just that based on the idea that Iraq was seeking to develop nuclear weapons once again even though Bush's CIA never prepared a National Intelligence Estimate concerning the Iraq threat. And the International Atomic Energy Agency, which had supervised the dismantling of Iraq's nuclear program in the aftermath of the First Gulf War, stated in its 1998 report to the UN Security Council that there was no evidence that Iraq possessed even the capability to produce weapons-grade nuclear materials in any significant quantity (The IAEA in IRAQ: Past Activities and Findings).

Click to expand...

I suggest that you study the history again. Nearly every intelligence service in the free world concluded that Iraq had wmds. A couple nations (france and Germany) played it down in the months leading up to the war...only because they profiting from back room deals with the regime in the midst of the oil for food/medicine scandal going on under the eyes of the UN.

I'll feel better if you put aside your hatred of Obama for a minute and just admit (like I did) that, where it concerns the invasion of Iraq, we were all snowed and now they're back at it again. It's just too bad Bush listened to them instead of his generals. My father said cynically just before the First Gulf War, "The veterans' hospitals are empty. It's time to fill them up again."

Click to expand...

Son....I dislike Obama, however I harbor no hatred of him. He's not worth it. And Bush very much listened to his generals. It's Obama who is not doing so.

DifferentDrummr said:

We can't choose whether to fight local crime; nobody opposes anyone's efforts to do so. We can choose whether to fight a particular war.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that first part? I'm sure there are more than a few anarchists who oppose the existence of even local police forces, and libertarians/anarcho-capitalists who think that crime fighting should be privatized.

Furthermore, that's not the issue. You're making the fallacious assertion that someone who supports foreign intervention has no integrity unless they themselves are willing to fight. There are numerous issues with the chickenhawk argument; the fact that it automatically excludes any support for the existence of police, border guards, firefighters, etc. unless the people who support them would risk having skin in the game is merely one of its problems.

MadLib said:

Are you sure about that first part? I'm sure there are more than a few anarchists who oppose the existence of even local police forces, and libertarians/anarcho-capitalists who think that crime fighting should be privatized.

Click to expand...

The number of such individuals is too small to care about. Their influence in public policy certainly is.

Furthermore, that's not the issue. You're making the fallacious assertion that someone who supports foreign intervention has no integrity unless they themselves are willing to fight. There are numerous issues with the chickenhawk argument; the fact that it automatically excludes any support for the existence of police, border guards, firefighters, etc. unless the people who support them would risk having skin in the game is merely one of its problems.

Click to expand...

It's very much the issue, because you made the fallacious comparison between crime fighting and war.

The chickenhawk argument applies only to supporting a military action outside US territory. I don't know of anyone besides you who tries to apply it elsewhere.

DifferentDrummr said:

The number of such individuals is too small to care about. Their influence in public policy certainly is.


It's very much the issue, because you made the fallacious comparison between crime fighting and war.

The chickenhawk argument applies only to supporting a military action outside US territory. I don't know of anyone besides you who tries to apply it elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Good sig line btw, it will keep you at odds though, most people are partisan and loyal to their party over what's good for America and what fits within the confines of our constitution. And when it comes to war, well , We're always right.

Montecresto said:

Good sig line btw, it will keep you at odds though, most people are partisan and loyal to their party over what's good for America and what fits within the confines of our constitution. And when it comes to war, well , We're always right.

Click to expand...

Thanks, and I always put country before party. Which does put me at odds with most people, but I'd rather make the right decision than the popular one.