Study: False Statements Preceded War

Superfreak said:
That is because you only see the deaths that resulted from this war. You shall continue to ignore the dead during the sanctions and those that would have continued should we have kept Saddam "contained" (translated: He could only kill rape and maim his own people and not us). You will continue to ignore all the chants for the end of sanctions because of their ineffictiveness and resulting consequences to the people of Iraq.

It is because you equate the death and cost from what has occured and project it to mean that there were no other ways to manage it to different outcomes.

But that is ok. I respect your opinion on what you think would have been the best way to go. I disagree with it, but as I stated you could be right, you could be wrong. There is no way for us to know. It is all conjecture based on our beliefs of "what might have been".
Click to expand...

Well guys I wonder when Bush is going to send troops to the Congo.
 
Superfreak said:
That is because you only see the deaths that resulted from this war. You shall continue to ignore the dead during the sanctions and those that would have continued should we have kept Saddam "contained" (translated: He could only kill rape and maim his own people and not us). You will continue to ignore all the chants for the end of sanctions because of their ineffictiveness and resulting consequences to the people of Iraq.

It is because you equate the death and cost from what has occured and project it to mean that there were no other ways to manage it to different outcomes.

But that is ok. I respect your opinion on what you think would have been the best way to go. I disagree with it, but as I stated you could be right, you could be wrong. There is no way for us to know. It is all conjecture based on our beliefs of "what might have been".
Click to expand...


I'd like to know at exactly what point in time you started claiming invading iraq was justified, simply for humanitarian reasons.

When the WMD went missing?
 
LadyT said:
Well guys I wonder when Bush is going to send troops to the Congo.
Click to expand...

I've posted threads on the horrors that are going on in the Congo, and to my recollection, not one Bush voter to my knowledge felt compelled to comment on the thread, let along declare "Let's invade!".
 
Cypress said:
I'd like to know at exactly what point in time you started claiming invading iraq was justified, simply for humanitarian reasons.

When the WMD went missing?
Click to expand...

LOL. Its so funny how the justication changes. We had to go in to Iraq because of the damage the sanctions were causing - humanitarily, I've yet to hear a peep out of his mouth about other genocides that have been going across the globe.
 
Cypress said:
I've posted threads on the horrors that are going on in the Congo, and to my recollection, not one Bush voter to my knowledge felt compelled to comment on the thread, let along declare "Let's invade!".
Click to expand...

Trying to fall back on humanitarian efforts is really the weakest in the apologists arsenal. Particularly considering atrocities have have been going on in the Sudan, Congo, China, etc. over the last few years and you NEVER hear one GD peep from them. But when its time to revisit why we went into Iraq, they put on their Ghandi hats, and suddenly they care about people's well being.

Don't even get me started on the deaths the destabilization of Iraq causes and how they've actually managed to spread Al Queda's influence and I haven't read every post, but what happened to the proverbial, "War on Terror"?
 
LadyT said:
Fine, we'll leave the "imminent threat crap" off the table. You still have not given one reason as to why the United states out of the 100+ countries around teh world had to invade an occupy Iraq due to their non compliance with the UN decrees.

We're ALL eagerly awaiting.
Click to expand...

1) Because we were the sole superpower remaining and the UN after 12 years did not appear capable of taking the necessary action. Note: they would not have been able to go back in had the US not sent the troops to the border. Hence, there was no one else to lead.

2) I do not think we had to occupy Iraq in the manner in which we did. The disbanding of the Iraqi army was a collassal mistake and a costly one. We should have gone in, eliminated Saddam and the baath leadership and then immediately pulled back out of Iraq. No way I can prove this, but I believe the sectarian violence that we have seen, still would have likely occured, but then it would be Iraqi on Iraqi and the perception would not have been that we were forcing a government on them or that we were occupiers. Again, no way for us to know whether this is a good or idiotic assumption on my part. (yes, I know which way many of you lean as to which one you think it is)

3) the sanctions, as I stated were benifitting Saddam and hurting the Iraqi people.... the exact opposite of what was supposed to happen. This was due in large part to the oil for food fiasco. The UN was handicapped by our (US and UK) refusal to lift the sanctions without compliance and France, China and Russia refusing to take military action. Neither side would budge.

4) We more than any other country (save maybe Russia) owed it to the Iraqi people. For the time when the Soviets and US were playing war games with the lives of the Iranian and Iraqi people for the sake of not allowing each other dominance in the vast oil region. For abandoning them at the end of the Gulf War. For not ensuring that the oil for food money was actually going to feed them.
 
Liar............

Cypress said:
I've posted threads on the horrors that are going on in the Congo, and to my recollection, not one Bush voter to my knowledge felt compelled to comment on the thread, let along declare "Let's invade!".
Click to expand...


I remember your thread...I also commented..now once again...if we were to hit the 'Congo'...all you libs would be up in arms ...again...calling the admin and soldiers 'Baby Killers' and such... heaven forbid 'collatteral damage'... All of you Liberals are a joke and enable all of our enemies! Let the 'Big Boys'do their job where needed...Keep playing with your Play Stations and the porn channnel...kay!
.
 
LadyT said:
Trying to fall back on humanitarian efforts is really the weakest in the apologists arsenal. Particularly considering atrocities have have been going on in the Sudan, Congo, China, etc. over the last few years and you NEVER hear one GD peep from them. But when its time to revisit why we went into Iraq, they put on their Ghandi hats, and suddenly they care about people's well being.

Don't even get me started on the deaths the destabilization of Iraq causes and how they've actually managed to spread Al Queda's influence and I haven't read every post, but what happened to the proverbial, "War on Terror"?
Click to expand...

Damn girl, you're good.

you're right. Not one GD peep about invading the Congo, Burma, Zimbabwe.

That's how you know they're lying about their new-found humanitarian reason for invading iraq.
 
LadyT said:
Trying to fall back on humanitarian efforts is really the weakest in the apologists arsenal. Particularly considering atrocities have have been going on in the Sudan, Congo, China, etc. over the last few years and you NEVER hear one GD peep from them. But when its time to revisit why we went into Iraq, they put on their Ghandi hats, and suddenly they care about people's well being.

Don't even get me started on the deaths the destabilization of Iraq causes and how they've actually managed to spread Al Queda's influence and I haven't read every post, but what happened to the proverbial, "War on Terror"?
Click to expand...

Please. I have said repeatedly that we should take action where we had/have the power to do so. Which includes Sudan and the Congo and the fact that we should have gone into Rwanda. We do not have the power militarily to do anything with regards to China... that has to be diplomatically/economically... which admittedly has been a failure to this point with regards to human rights violations.
 
LMAO@Cypress..........

Cypress said:
Damn girl, you're good.

you're right. Not one GD peep about invading the Congo, Burma, Zimbabwe.

That's how you know they're lying about their new-found humanitarian reason for invading iraq.
Click to expand...


read my answer to your BS right above this comment(#230)...:cof1:
 
LadyT said:
LOL. Its so funny how the justication changes. We had to go in to Iraq because of the damage the sanctions were causing - humanitarily, I've yet to hear a peep out of his mouth about other genocides that have been going across the globe.
Click to expand...

I wish we could pull up the old politics.com.... because that was absolutely a part of my justification for going in. I admit I was wrong about Saddam having WMDs. But you are fooling yourself if you think this was a new position for me.

and you are completely disingenous if you believe I haven't said a word about the other genocides. Disingenous and blatantly wrong.
 
Darla said:
Oh wow, that is the best analogy I have seen…that’s exactly how I feel.
That’s why I try not to argue about the war anymore. Sometimes I do, but I try not to because I found that I can’t keep civility in the discussion. After a while it just becomes two people screaming at each other, and you start to feel like you really despise them, and those feelings are what gets us into wars in the first place. I mean, money and greed gets us into wars, but if people at large didn’t hate so easily, then the handful that benefit so much financially, couldn’t manipulate people into supporting the war.
Click to expand...

I promise not to scream... just type menacingly. :)

come on... tell me how you feel... let me have it.

:burn:
 
LadyT said:
Well guys I wonder when Bush is going to send troops to the Congo.
Click to expand...

I don't think he will.

It doesn't change the fact that I think he should. Just as he should go into the Sudan.

I'm sure the almighty UN will take care of this gross oversight any day now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top