Santorum the Great!

Cypress said:
If as you claim "iran (sic) is the source of most of the troubles in iraq (sic)" why did the great and wise Bush and his cohors, go to war with Iraq before taking care of the problems in Iran.

Standard republican answer:

Because Bush was "clever" enough to "surround" Iran, by removing Iran's two worst enemies - the sunni-extremist Taliban, and the secular dictator Saddam. If that makes sense.


Two more years of these idiot NeoCons in power.
Click to expand...
Assume that it is a "clever" ruse rather than something that I brought up before the war started on p.com and you might be right.

I was also against any undeclared war as they constantly turn into these type of things... Either have enough to declare or don't go.
 
Cypress said:
By every concievable empirical measure, the Iraq invasion strengthened Iran.

If the goal was to weaken Iran, we would have left their worst enemy in power: Saddam.
Click to expand...
Saddam's power had been severly limited. There were factions in Iran asking for our help to topple that government. They, IMO, believed that working first by surrounding Iran with Democracy would weaken the position of the Iranian government further before giving equipment and aid to those inside the nation....

I believe that this was the original aim of Iraq invasion.
 
Damocles said:
Assume that it is a "clever" ruse rather than something that I brought up before the war started on p.com and you might be right.

I was also against any undeclared war as they constantly turn into these type of things... Either have enough to declare or don't go.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you or Glenn Beck brought up before the war. Its irrelevant. I know what you think.

The only thing that matters is what Bush said and did. Unless he flat out lied to congress and the american people (an impeachable offense), we have to assume that he went in because of WMD and the imminent threat of Saddam.
 
Cypress said:
It doesn't matter what you or Glenn Beck brought up before the war. Its irrelevant. I know what you think.

The only thing that matters is what Bush said and did. Unless he flat out lied to congress and the american people (an impeachable offense), we have to assume that he went in because of WMD and the imminent threat of Saddam.
Click to expand...
No we don't have to assume that. We can assume he used what he believed to be strong evidence of other "offenses" to get it done all without having to pretend that his only thought was of WMD.

We can assume that he surrounded himself with complex people who are smart enough to use what was believed true to get something done for a different reason.
 
You constantly pretend that I didn't talk about it long before the war started, that I somehow came up with it recently which is total hogwash... You constantly act like I cheerled this thing, which is also hogwash... I may have a different view of the world than you politically but it doesn't mean I am inept at speaking my mind.
 
Damocles said:
No we don't have to assume that. We can assume he used what he believed to be strong evidence of other "offenses" to get it done all without having to pretend that his only thought was of WMD.

We can assume that he surrounded himself with complex people who are smart enough to use what was believed true to get something done for a different reason.
Click to expand...


So he lied. WMD was a ruse, to cover for the "real" reason.
 
Damocles said:
You constantly pretend that I didn't talk about it long before the war started, that I somehow came up with it recently which is total hogwash... You constantly act like I cheerled this thing, which is also hogwash... I may have a different view of the world than you politically but it doesn't mean I am inept at speaking my mind.
Click to expand...

Me? I don't think your a cheerleader for the war damo. I don't believe I've ever said that.

I think you are far to comfortable with american leaders lying about the real reasons for war though.

Bush should have made the case, that he wanted to "surround" Iran, if he thought that that was an argument that had merit. There was no reason to hide it.
 
It was another reason that they believed would be more effective. Yes, that is what I believe.
 
Cypress said:
Me? I don't think your a cheerleader for the war damo. I don't believe I've ever said that.

I think you are far to comfortable with american leaders lying about the real reasons for war though.

Bush should have made the case, that he wanted to "surround" Iran, if he thought that that was an argument that had merit. There was no reason to hide it.
Click to expand...
Comfortable? I clued y'all in long ago for a reason. I warned against Undeclared war for the same reason. I would prefer things to be upfront as well and stated so, because I thought that they would have to make up new reasons as they went along. I believed that if Saddam had WMD he would hide them well and kill those who knew. All these things I believed before we ever set foot in Iraq and posted on p.com.
 
Damocles said:
Comfortable? I clued y'all in long ago for a reason. I warned against Undeclared war for the same reason. I would prefer things to be upfront as well and stated so, because I thought that they would have to make up new reasons as they went along. I believed that if Saddam had WMD he would hide them well and kill those who knew. All these things I believed before we ever set foot in Iraq and posted on p.com.
Click to expand...


I understand you warned againts an "undeclared" war.

But, thats just a procedural thing. A legality if you will.

This war would have been wrong, whether declared or not. Agree?
 
Cypress said:
I understand you warned againts an "undeclared" war.

But, thats just a procedural thing. A legality if you will.

This war would have been wrong, whether declared or not. Agree?
Click to expand...
That was my point. I didn't believe that they had enough to declare war and that it was proof that it was the wrong move. That if Bush had asked they would have declared in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq which told me we were making the wrong move....
 
Damocles said:
That was my point. I didn't believe that they had enough to declare war and that it was proof that it was the wrong move. That if Bush had asked they would have declared in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq which told me we were making the wrong move....
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Cypress said:
Well said.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I don't pretend to be a conservative Libertarian. I really am. I believe that the Constitution was written for a reason and that the government should be forced to actually follow the document. That all these wars without declarations have been mistakes that have cost too many lives for very little gain, if there ever was gain.

One of these days I should write a long-assed rant about my real beliefs and what I think of things... I just don't have the time right now.
 
I do believe that once entered it is important to craft the exit smartly. Wait until just the right moment of quiet, declare that the new government is "ready" and then out we go...
 
The congress doesn't have the balls to declare war on anyone. It might offend our enemies. That's why the president always has to act on his own and just get funding approval. They will always fund a war, they just won't declare one.
 
Gaffer said:
The congress doesn't have the balls to declare war on anyone. It might offend our enemies. That's why the president always has to act on his own and just get funding approval. They will always fund a war, they just won't declare one.
Click to expand...
It also gives them an excuse... "I didn't vote for a war, I voted that way so he could use it as leverage in peace talks!"...

:cool:
 
Gaffer said:
The congress doesn't have the balls to declare war on anyone. It might offend our enemies. That's why the president always has to act on his own and just get funding approval. They will always fund a war, they just won't declare one.
Click to expand...
Damocles has already stated my position in more accurate terms. Unfortunately, accuracy also leads to misinterpretation: those prone to snap, emotional judgments tend to miss the nuances.

If Congress doesn't have the "balls" to declare war then the war is almost certainlly not warranted. That's why the framers vested Congress and Congress alone with that responsibility.
 
Gaffer said:
The congress doesn't have the balls to declare war on anyone. It might offend our enemies. That's why the president always has to act on his own and just get funding approval. They will always fund a war, they just won't declare one.
Click to expand...

Ornot's right.

You're describing a dictatorship, where one Executive gets to decide matters of war.

We are a democratic republic, where the founders rightly dismissed people like you, and entrusted decisions about war to the people's representatives in congress.
 
Gaffer and his type must have simple answers for problems, complex answers just confuse em. Just binary mentalaties. ie thie or that , good or bad. lets not try and confuse him with facts ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top