The Forever War [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

small axe

09-14-2007, 05:10 PM

Reports are that President Bush will unveil a plan tonight for a permanent military presence in Iraq, much like the presence we have along the DMZ in Korea.

So you mean, much like the DMZ in Korea because there has been peace between those countries for about 50 years during which time the people of South Korea have known relative peace and freedom ... and the tyranny of the North (consumed by its fanatical ideologies) has been kept at bay?

A permanent defense a la the DMZ of Peace and Prosperity would be ... um ... good or bad, to us here? :)

My concern would be that it will be too UNlike the DMZ. But trying for Peace and Prosperity is ... um ... good or bad, here?

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/silenced/images/girl.jpg http://www.moveamericaforward.org/images/uploads/blogimages/KurdishGirl.jpg
Kurdish refugee girl

I sure hope we stand by and help defend the Kurds, even if the Dems cut the rest of Iraq loose.

Folks can and will blame a lot of suffering in Iraq on Bush, I won't defend that ... but here's the thing we gotta remember about the Kurdish areas: they're far better off because of the USA action against Saddam.

(insert outrage replies here; yes, there is anecdotal violence among Kurds ... but who'd be so foolish to abandon Los Angeles because there's murder and gang violence in LA?)

Can we sanely abandon THEM to the mad dog terrorists and suicide bombers and the maelstrom of Iraqi civil war, if we remove ourselves from Iraq ???

Bird of Prey

09-14-2007, 05:28 PM

Jack Reed's response:

Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq's fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.

When the president launched the surge in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress.

But now, nine months into the surge, the president's own advisers tell us that Iraq's leaders have not, and are not likely to do so. Meanwhile, thousands of brave Americans remain in the crossfire of another country's civil war. . . .

Do we continue to heed the president's call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops _ the same number as nine months ago? Or do we follow what is in our nation's best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?

Democrats believe it is a time to change course. We think it's wrong that the president tells us there's not enough money for our veterans and children's health care because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. We have put forth a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops. Our proposal cannot erase the mistakes of the last four and a half years, but we can chart a better way forward.

That is why our plan focuses on counterterrorism and training the Iraqi army. It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation. It begins a responsible and rapid redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. And it returns our focus to those who seek to do us harm: al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091400342.html

rugcat

09-14-2007, 07:22 PM

Which part of the speech was that?"At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America."So you mean, much like the DMZ in Korea because there has been peace between those countries for about 50 years during which time the people of South Korea have known relative peace and freedom ... and the tyranny of the North (consumed by its fanatical ideologies) has been kept at bay?If the U.S. were to post a force along the Kurdish border to prevent an invasion from the rest of Iraq to bring the Kurds under the control of a fanatical Shi'a theocracy, that would be a closer analogy, and I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately, that's not the case at all.

blacbird

09-14-2007, 08:51 PM

who'd be so foolish to abandon Los Angeles because there's murder and gang violence in LA?

Correct. There are lots of other, more germane reasons to abandon Los Angeles.

caw

billythrilly7th

09-14-2007, 09:57 PM

"At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America.".

That's a far cry from "Bush wants to keep a miliitary presence there PERMANENTLY."

And as it's been posted "it doesn't matter what he wants in 15 months."

SpookyWriter

09-14-2007, 10:02 PM

Correct. There are lots of other, more germane reasons to abandon Los Angeles.

cawThey can all resettle in Alaska.

InfinityGoddess

09-14-2007, 10:20 PM

rugcat

09-14-2007, 10:26 PM

That's a far cry from "Bush wants to keep a miliitary presence there PERMANENTLY."You are correct. That's simply my interpretation, but I think it's not unreasonable to assume he envisions a military presence in Iraq into the foreseeable future, with "permanent" military bases to protect what he perceives to be our national interests.

And as the Democrats are beginning to discover, although you may very much want to leave, once you're established there it's not so easy to come up with a way to get out without risking unpleasant and unforeseen consequences.

Andrew

09-15-2007, 12:05 AM

Are any of you worried about having to go? Don't worry too much--there are still plenty of men and women who will do it for you.

talkwrite

09-15-2007, 12:24 AM

Just remember that when Bush says that troops are coming home, it's because they have to. ..

Considering our growing commercial presence, our civilians implementing American industrialization procedures, our governmental and social policies being implemented it appears that the U.S. is pretty much developing a new Iraq in it's own image. Before you know it it will be a "protectorate" much like Puerto Rico. And that way Bush will not have to bring the troops home, they will already be on U.S. soil.
It could happen....

III

09-15-2007, 12:32 AM

Are any of you worried about having to go? Don't worry too much--there are still plenty of men and women who will do it for you.

I've never been worried about it. If my country ever asked I'd go, simple as that.

rugcat

09-15-2007, 12:46 AM

I've never been worried about it. If my country ever asked I'd go, simple as that.The problem comes for those who are morally convinced that the war is not only pointless, but immoral. Then, if a draft is reinstated, young men (and possibly women, now) who believe that will be faced with a serious ethical dilemma.

That's what happened with the Vietnam war, and the rift it brought about in our society was so deep we still feel its effects today.

clintl

09-15-2007, 01:27 AM

Correct. There are lots of other, more germane reasons to abandon Los Angeles.

caw

On the downside, though, if Los Angeles were abandoned, we Northern Californians wouldn't have the Dodgers and Lakers to hate any more.

Bird of Prey

09-15-2007, 01:30 AM

Are any of you worried about having to go? Don't worry too much--there are still plenty of men and women who will do it for you.

Do it for who? Not for me and not for my country. It's for George Bush and friends.

You know, Andrew, that crap about "doing it for you," implying that somehow one's reluctance to pull duty in Iraq has a damned thing to do with patriotism is not only transparent but about as slimey as it gets.

You're welcome to suck up to President Bush as much as you want; you can think he's the Messiah for all I care; but there are rational and brave people who don't, and think this war has nothing to do with the defense of their country, and think throwing more bodies at it is immoral. I support our troops but I sure as hell don't support this war.

III

09-15-2007, 01:43 AM

The problem comes for those who are morally convinced that the war is not only pointless, but immoral. Then, if a draft is reinstated, young men (and possibly women, now) who believe that will be faced with a serious ethical dilemma.

That's what happened with the Vietnam war, and the rift it brought about in our society was so deep we still feel its effects today.

I hear what you're saying, but it's tough for me to get behind it. LOTS of things our government does which are supported by my tax dollars, I consider to be pointless and immoral, but I still pay my taxes because I'm an American Citizen. If I don't like it, I have the freedom to protest and try to effect change, but I still obey.

Similarly, I've always been of the mindset that if America called me into war, I'd go, even if I didn't agree with the war, because it's my civic duty. I can still voice my concerns, but ultimately it's up to our elected officials, for better or worse, whether I respect them or not.

I'm not arguing about the rightness of this particular war, but I would assert that we are a stronger nation for highly esteeming our civic duty. You're a former civil servant, Rugcat, so I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

dclary

09-15-2007, 02:22 AM

The problem comes for those who are morally convinced that the war is not only pointless, but immoral.
Who are these people? They're not the people in Congress, I don't think. Nor the people in the Senate, near as I can tell. Or even the world governing bodies.

Iraq violated the terms of the first Gulf War's peace treaty, and was subject to invasion just for that. Iraq violated nearly 50 UN resolutions/sanctions against them after the first Gulf War.

And you say that we're fighting just for our own interests... Excuse me.. but why in the world is that a bad thing? Whose interests SHOULD our boys be dying for?

How could a war be any MORE moral?

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations." John Kerry, 2003

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." John Edwards, 2002

""Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. " John Kerry, 2003

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can." John Edwards, 2002

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust Saddam Hussein. New York Times, 2002

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." -- Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, signed into law by Bill Clinton

"There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!" John D. Rockefeller, 2002

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." Bill Clinton, 1998

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 02:36 AM

How could a war be any MORE moral?

It's an immoral war because our president lied to us. There were numerous reports by the UN inspectors and even our own CIA that Saddam had no capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, let alone a fully-functioning army and even Shrub himself said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (being the brilliant man that he is and admitting it on television).

Furthermore, it's an occupation and as a rule, no one likes being occupied, not even the Iraqis.

dclary

09-15-2007, 02:37 AM

It's an immoral war because our president lied to us. There were numerous reports by the UN inspectors and even our own CIA that Saddam had no capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, let alone a fully-functioning army and even Shrub himself said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (being the brilliant man that he is and admitting it on television).

Furthermore, it's an occupation and as a rule, no one likes being occupied, not even the Iraqis.

We were authorized to go to war before George Bush even announced his candidacy to run for president. So who, exactly, are you referring to there?

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 02:55 AM

We were authorized to go to war before George Bush even announced his candidacy to run for president. So who, exactly, are you referring to there?

Uh, no we weren't. Shrub used the authorization that brought us to Afghanistan and ran on the Iraq thing from there.

Joe270

09-15-2007, 03:13 AM

Iraq violated the terms of the first Gulf War's peace treaty, and was subject to invasion just for that. Iraq violated nearly 50 UN resolutions/sanctions against them after the first Gulf War.

He already answered your question.

Dave.C.Robinson

09-15-2007, 03:14 AM

I expected a discussion of Heinlein vs. Haldeman.

dclary

09-15-2007, 03:22 AM

I expected a discussion of Heinlein vs. Haldeman.

It would have certainly been a better discussion..

dclary

09-15-2007, 03:23 AM

He already answered your question.
LOL, like IG's gonna let facts or history get in the way.

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 03:32 AM

LOL, like IG's gonna let facts or history get in the way.

Fact: Former Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent on the behalf of the CIA to go to Niger to see whether or not Saddam was looking to purchase yellow-cake uranium. His findings suggested that he didn't find any evidence to that effect. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)

Fact: The Downing Street Minutes indicates the Bush Administrations' plans to cherry-pick intelligence to their benefit (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/).

Fact: Saddam was letting in UN inspectors. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/31/bush_lies/) Aside from having to destroy a few illegal missiles that he had, he really had no WMDs on hand. The sanctions were working.

Fact: Darth Cheney himself once said that going into Iraq would turn into a quagmire. Talk about a man of contradiction.

Fact: Saddam and Osama hated each other. Saddam saw Islamic fundamentalists as a whole as a threat to his power, and likewise Osama saw Saddam as a heretic for being secular.

dclary

09-15-2007, 03:51 AM

Fact: Former Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent on the behalf of the CIA to go to Niger to see whether or not Saddam was looking to purchase yellow-cake uranium. His findings suggested that he didn't find any evidence to that effect. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)

Fact: The Downing Street Minutes indicates the Bush Administrations' plans to cherry-pick intelligence to their benefit (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/).

Fact: Saddam was letting in UN inspectors. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/31/bush_lies/) Aside from having to destroy a few illegal missiles that he had, he really had no WMDs on hand. The sanctions were working.

Fact: Darth Cheney himself once said that going into Iraq would turn into a quagmire. Talk about a man of contradiction.

Fact: Saddam and Osama hated each other. Saddam saw Islamic fundamentalists as a whole as a threat to his power, and likewise Osama saw Saddam as a heretic for being secular.

I won't dispute any of those points. I don't need to, since none of them have anything to do with the reality that our war with Iraq was morally (and legally) enforceable the moment they violated the conditions of our peace treaty with them in Gulf I.

But here... I went online, and found more incontrovertable proof of how evil our goverment's "morally wrong" wars are for you:

http://www.redstate.com/files/liesandpower.jpg

rugcat

09-15-2007, 04:02 AM

Similarly, I've always been of the mindset that if America called me into war, I'd go, even if I didn't agree with the war, because it's my civic duty. I can still voice my concerns, but ultimately it's up to our elected officials, for better or worse, whether I respect them or not.I don't disagree with this position, actually. But I am conflicted about it, as are many thoughtful and patriotic Americans. I don't think it's a simple no brainer question, that's all.

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 04:07 AM

I won't dispute any of those points. I don't need to, since none of them have anything to do with the reality that our war with Iraq was morally (and legally) enforceable the moment they violated the conditions of our peace treaty with them in Gulf I.

No it wasn't. Bush still needed authorization from Congress. He used the one that was authorized for Afghanistan under the guise of "going after the terrorists". He said as much himself.

But here... I went online, and found more incontrovertable proof of how evil our goverment's "morally wrong" wars are for you:

There is a difference between what happened in WWII and what's happening now. Many differences. For one thing, Japan attacked us. We declared war on them. Their ally Germany declared war on us. Therefore, war was justified. FDR made no bones about it and didn't hide things from the American people on this very fact and in fact encouraged Americans to help with the war effort.

That, and we had a draft then, so we weren't on the verge of breaking the military as we are now. You can't simply rely on an all-voluntary army in a time of war; not feasible. Nor can you cut taxes; the bill will come due eventually. Nor do you hide things and act on things in secret.

The American public ain't buying a damned thing from the Shrub or his cronies. And I'm not just talking about us "lefties" either being against this occupation.

rugcat

09-15-2007, 04:09 AM

.

And you say that we're fighting just for our own interests... Excuse me.. but why in the world is that a bad thing? Whose interests SHOULD our boys be dying for?I said, "perceived interests." That's one of the issues those of us opposed to this war have a problem with. Apart from all moral concerns, this war is not in the best interests of America. How could a war be any MORE moral?Well, a war to repel a foreign invader would be one example.

Magdalen

09-15-2007, 04:11 AM

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/moral.html

Below is an excerpt:

If we speak of the fear of emancipation from the fear-regime, we put the whole situation into a single phrase; fear regarding ourselves now taking the place of the ancient fear of the enemy.

Turn the fear over as I will in my mind, it all seems to lead back to two unwillingnesses of the imagination, one aesthetic, and the other moral; unwillingness, first, to envisage a future in which army-life, with its many elements of charm, shall be forever impossible, and in which the destinies of peoples shall nevermore be decided quickly, thrillingly, and tragically by force, but only gradually and insipidly by "evolution," and, secondly, unwillingness to see the supreme theatre of human strenuousness closed, and the splendid military aptitudes of men doomed to keep always in a state of latency and never show themselves in action. These insistent unwillingnesses, no less than other aesthetic and ethical insistencies, have, it seems to me, to be listened to and respected. One cannot meet them effectively by mere counter-insistency on war's expensiveness and horror. The horror makes the thrill; and when the question is of getting the extremest and supremest out of human nature, talk of expense sounds ignominious. The weakness of so much merely negative criticism is evident -- pacifism makes no converts from the military party. The military party denies neither the bestiality nor the horror, nor the expense; it only says that these things tell but half the story. It only says that war is worth them; that, taking human nature as a whole, its wars are its best protection against its weaker and more cowardly self, and that mankind cannot afford to adopt a peace economy.

My opinion is that ALL wars are immoral. And each of us is entitled to our own opinions. It is the equivalent of a stronger child beating up on a weaker child until Mommy breaks it up.

And this was based on a speech from 100 years ago. Mature adults use reason as their weapon. Reason, discourse and compromise are ultimately the final arbitrators of most conflicts, except, of course, where tyranny is invoked. I make a very, very tiny exception for self-defense, in some cases. War is soooo Devo!

Where have all the soldiers gone,
Long time passing.
Where have all the soldiers gone,
Long time ago.
Where have all the soldiers gone
Gone to graveyards everyone,
Oh when will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?

by Pete Seeger

dclary

09-15-2007, 04:17 AM

I said, "perceived interests." That's one of the issues those of us opposed to this war have a problem with. Apart from all moral concerns, this war is not in the best interests of America. Well, a war to repel a foreign invader would be one example.

I'll concede the point on a war to repel a foreign invader.

Consider this, though, for me: in spite of the fact that Al qaeda was not in iraq when we invaded... Al Qaeda is there now, and they've declared Iraq their central battleground, and their most important mission in the defeat of the United States and western civilization. In other words, they are setting this as their hill to die on. If they lose, we win. If we lose... they advance -- and redouble their efforts to attack us again on our own soil.

In this case, is not staying and fighting them where they've drawn their line in the sand the better option? Is not fighting them there in America's general interests?

And I have to disagree with you about America's interests on principle anyway. Until we are an oil-independent nation, securing oil reserves for our use must remain a top priority.

Joe270

09-15-2007, 04:20 AM

Fact: Saddam and Osama hated each other. Saddam saw Islamic fundamentalists as a whole as a threat to his power, and likewise Osama saw Saddam as a heretic for being secular.

Fact: There were other terrorists and terrorist groups training and operating in Iraq.

Al Queso isn't the only islamist terrorist group we are fighting.

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 04:22 AM

Consider this, though, for me: in spite of the fact that Al qaeda was not in iraq when we invaded... Al Qaeda is there now, and they've declared Iraq their central battleground, and their most important mission in the defeat of the United States and western civilization. In other words, they are setting this as their hill to die on. If they lose, we win. If we lose... they advance -- and redouble their efforts to attack us again on our own soil.

The Iraqis are perfectly capable of expelling Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (not to be confused with Al Qaeda Proper) themselves. They don't want any foreigners on their soil, including us and the invading Saudi fighters.

And I have to disagree with you about America's interests on principle anyway. Until we are an oil-independent nation, securing oil reserves for our use must remain a top priority.

That's the point. It's not our oil to secure. It belongs to the Iraqis.

Dave.C.Robinson

09-15-2007, 04:26 AM

The question is never whether war is a good thing or not. It's not a good thing, never has been and never will be. The question that matters is whether the alternative is worse. Some people believe war is worse than any alternative. Others disagree.

I'm one who disagrees. My uncle joined the Welsh Guards in the summer of 1939. He went with the BEF to France, and was in the rear-guard who stayed behind at Dunkirk. He got home Christmas Eve, 1945 after spending the war in captivity and being liberated by the Russians.

Most people believe a permanent Nazi occupation of Europe would have been worse than the war that happened.

I have not seen any real counterarguments to that position.

Therefore at least one war was better than the alternative. Note that even had Hitler been contained and the war not fought, the camps would have existed, only on a smaller scale. He had to be removed and he was the elected leader of the German Reich.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil. The question here is not whether war is indefensible, it is. The question is whether this war in Iraq is indefensible. We can argue semantics all we want. The following facts remain:

The Hussein regime was in violation of the peace treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Saddam had used poison gas on the population of his own country.

Whether the war was handled well is a different question. It was a legitimate decision to go in.

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 04:26 AM

Fact: There were other terrorists and terrorist groups training and operating in Iraq.

Al Queso isn't the only islamist terrorist group we are fighting.

Point 1: Only in the no-fly zone over Kurdish territories. If they had moved into the non-restricted areas, they would be dead on sight.

Point 2: It's "Al Qaeda" and so far, they're the only real boogiemen that the Shrub seems fond of using at the moment.

The Hussein regime was in violation of the peace treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Saddam had used poison gas on the population of his own country.

Only because they dared to try to overthrow him. You know dictators are funny like that...

dclary

09-15-2007, 04:34 AM

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/moral.html

by Pete Seeger

That's a great link Magdalen. I thought the speaker did a great job in trying to make his points. But I also think, that just as he ignorantly thought that racism was ok, and foolishly thought sexism was ok, he also believes naively that there are no reasons for war that don't include pride or hubris, and that one day mankind will be able to reason out all their differences.

I pray for a day like that, but until it comes, isn't it folly to live in a world where you are the only person not wielding a stick in a stickfight?

And even when that day comes, what happens when we finally meet visitors from another star? Do we pray to whatever gods we believe in that they also are enlightened? What if they're not? What if having an army and waging a war means not the fight to preserve a nation, or an ethnicity... but to preserve our entire race?

dclary

09-15-2007, 04:36 AM

Only because they dared to try to overthrow him. You know dictators are like that...

>.<

Not sure... but are you defending Saddam's actions?

/dclary goes looking for a pair of "floaties" to throw to IG. She's way off in the deep end now.

small axe

09-15-2007, 04:38 AM

It's an immoral war because our president lied to us.

Well, it's not an immoral war BECAUSE the President 'lied to us' ...

If we can imagine a scenario where the President used a convenient EXCUSE -- to do what morally should be done anyway despite the 'lie' -- then he could lie and it would have no effect on the war's morality. :)

Imagine a WW2 scenario (most sane folks think WW2 was a necessary, moral war):

FDR knows that Hitler is murdering 6 million Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc in his death camps ... but America is sadly Isolationist and sadly bigoted enough (let's pretend) that we won't spill USA blood to defend Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc.

FDR has evidence that the Nazis are working on developing the Atomic Bomb (add to that, developing rockets that can hit Britain, jet bombers, all sorts of advanced weapons of war)

FDR knows the Japanese are committing atrocities against the Chinese (using bubonic-plague weapons to kill 100,000's of innocents, etc) ... is conquering the Pacific Rim ... but again, the USA public doesn't care enough to DEFEND these people ...

America needs an EXCUSE to go to war, soon, because if we waited too long millions more will be murdered and the world will be enslaved under tyranny.

FDR knows the Japanese are about to attack us at Pearl Harbor. FDR could prevent it ... but FDR allows Hawaii to be attacked because a SNEAK ATTACK is the excuse (really, the 'lie') he needs to get the USA into the war in time to save the world and its people from far, far, WORSE war (or not war -- DEFEAT) ...

WW2 based on the 'lie' of a Japanese 'sneak' attack ...
WW2 based on Atomic bombs the Nazis never were able to build (but wanted and tried to build) ...

It'd still be a moral war that saved the free world, based on 'lies' :)

Now, imagine the neo-cons (lights dimmed they walk on stage, the masked Greek chorus tells us they are our villains, the audience boos) fearing the spread of Islamic Fundamentalist terror, devouring not just the Muslim world ... but strangling the free world's oil supplies ...

The conflict is there, is coming ... but the free world sleeps blind to the danger of (Greek chorus! Tell us how to feel!) "RELIGIOUS FANATICISM" and Islamist JIHAD!

What will wake the West to act, before it's too late? What excuse will wake the sleeper to the fact that the house is aflame (a small, distant flame, but one that will engulf the sleeper's house later, if not extinguished now?)

A sneak attack cometh on that dark day, Sept. 11, 2001 ...

The tyrant and the terrorist await ...

The neo-cons act. Morally, based on a 'lie'

(Now, I challenge ANYONE to quote anywhere that Bush directly claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Yes, implications were dangled, suggestions made, fear exploited ... Democrat and Republican alike were sucked in ... but that's seduction, not 'lies')

The rest is history. The past is prologue.

Is there chaos in Iraq? Yes.

And if -- in WW2 -- we had defeated Japan, and OCCUPIED Japan, and insread of being rational being glad to have peace forced upon them, the Japanese had FOUGHT OUR OCCUPATION?

Would the Occupation of Japan be 'immoral'?

Would we have wisely RETREATED from Japan and 'let them find their own political solution' ???

No. And no.

Are Japan and Iraq 'different' ??? Yes.

Can a war be moral or immoral, regardless of the PRETEXT, based upon the REAL THREAT instead?

Yes.

Some want us out of Iraq. Okay. But the extra blood that's spilled BECAUSE we leave too soon is on our hands no matter if Bush was there at the start. Because Bush is saying "We mustn't leave too soon, we must prevent a bloodbath"

And if IRAQ didn't start the Terrorist War against us ...

LEAVING Iraq won't cure the cancer of Jihad and Terrorist War against us.

Bush screwed the pooch on how he handled the war ...

The War That Will Need To Be Fought Regardless of Bush.

There were numerous reports by the UN inspectors and even our own CIA that Saddam had no capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, let alone a fully-functioning army and even Shrub himself said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (being the brilliant man that he is and admitting it on television).

That may be called "historical revisionism" I think. What is clear in 2007 was foggy and scary in 2001, yes.

Furthermore, it's an occupation and as a rule, no one likes being occupied, not even the Iraqis.

But ... the Iraqis car-bombing, beheading, and terrorizing against IRAQIS more than they do against the 'Occupiers' ... that's a warning that no one should be blind to.

That warns us that it's NOT about the Occupation ... and it's NOT going to end with the Occupation.

In my opinion. I could be right.

We may still find Hitler's buried Flying saucers he was going to bomb New York with! :D

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 04:38 AM

>.<

Not sure... but are you defending Saddam's actions?

Oh hell, no. Just saying that dictators tend to kill people for trying to get uppity with them. Saddam was horrible when it came to human rights.

rugcat

09-15-2007, 04:46 AM

I'll concede the point on a war to repel a foreign invader. Which, ironically, is what the Iraquis are trying to do.
Consider this, though, for me: in spite of the fact that Al qaeda was not in iraq when we invaded... Al Qaeda is there now, and they've declared Iraq their central battleground, and their most important mission in the defeat of the United States and western civilization. In other words, they are setting this as their hill to die on. If they lose, we win. If we lose... they advance -- and redouble their efforts to attack us again on our own soil.If we leave, the Iraquis will take care of them. The only reason anyone in Iraq is allied to al qaeda is because the U.S. is a common enemy to both. Even so, as seen in Anbar lately, the insurgents are already sick of them.

But here's the great tragedy that Bush has led us into. If we stay, we inflame radical Muslims which helps to recruit even more terrorists, and convince even moderate Muslims that we are an imperial power bent on dominating an Islamic country. We have become the most hated country in the world.

We install and support an Shi'a dominated government which may well devolve into a theocracy like that in Iran. We pin down our entire military to the point where we cannot deal with threats that may arise elsewhere in the world.

We spend hundreds of billions and sacrifice out finest men and women in an endless conflict, one which is destroying Iraq.

But if we leave, it will indeed energize and empower radical Islamists who will see our withdrawal as a sign we can be beaten. Al Qaeda will trumpet the victory around the Muslim world. Iraq may well be plunged into civil war and ethnic cleansing, with enormous loss of life.

There are no good options. It's no longer a matter of what's best, it's now simply a matter of what's least bad. Whatever we do, there will be horrible consequences.

This is the legacy that Bush and the neocons, with their deadly combination of arrogance and stupidity, have left for us.

Dave.C.Robinson

09-15-2007, 04:50 AM

Only because they dared to try to overthrow him. You know dictators are funny like that...

I don't believe that was an allowable exception in the terms of the peace treaty. Just because he had a perfectly logical reason (from his own perspective) to break the treaty does not mean he did not do it nor allow him to escape the consequences of those actions.

Bird of Prey

09-15-2007, 04:51 AM

Well, it's not an immoral war BECAUSE the President 'lied to us' ...

If we can imagine a scenario where the President used a convenient EXCUSE -- to do what morally should be done anyway despite the 'lie' -- then he could lie and it would have no effect on the war's morality. :)

Imagine a WW2 scenario (most sane folks think WW2 was a necessary, moral war):

FDR knows that Hitler is murdering 6 million Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc in his death camps ... but America is sadly Isolationist and sadly bigoted enough (let's pretend) that we won't spill USA blood to defend Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc.

FDR has evidence that the Nazis are working on developing the Atomic Bomb (add to that, developing rockets that can hit Britain, jet bombers, all sorts of advanced weapons of war)

FDR knows the Japanese are committing atrocities against the Chinese (using bubonic-plague weapons to kill 100,000's of innocents, etc) ... is conquering the Pacific Rim ... but again, the USA public doesn't care enough to DEFEND these people ...

America needs an EXCUSE to go to war, soon, because if we waited too long millions more will be murdered and the world will be enslaved under tyranny.

FDR knows the Japanese are about to attack us at Pearl Harbor. FDR could prevent it ... but FDR allows Hawaii to be attacked because a SNEAK ATTACK is the excuse (really, the 'lie') he needs to get the USA into the war in time to save the world and its people from far, far, WORSE war (or not war -- DEFEAT) ...

WW2 based on the 'lie' of a Japanese 'sneak' attack ...
WW2 based on Atomic bombs the Nazis never were able to build (but wanted and tried to build) ...

It'd still be a moral war that saved the free world, based on 'lies' :)

Now, imagine the neo-cons (lights dimmed they walk on stage, the masked Greek chorus tells us they are our villains, the audience boos) fearing the spread of Islamic Fundamentalist terror, devouring not just the Muslim world ... but strangling the free world's oil supplies ...

The conflict is there, is coming ... but the free world sleeps blind to the danger of (Greek chorus! Tell us how to feel!) "RELIGIOUS FANATICISM" and Islamist JIHAD!

What will wake the West to act, before it's too late? What excuse will wake the sleeper to the fact that the house is aflame (a small, distant flame, but one that will engulf the sleeper's house later, if not extinguished now?)

A sneak attack cometh on that dark day, Sept. 11, 2001 ...

The tyrant and the terrorist await ...

The neo-cons act. Morally, based on a 'lie'

(Now, I challenge ANYONE to quote anywhere that Bush directly claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. Yes, implications were dangled, suggestions made, fear exploited ... Democrat and Republican alike were sucked in ... but that's seduction, not 'lies')

The rest is history. The past is prologue.

Is there chaos in Iraq? Yes.

And if -- in WW2 -- we had defeated Japan, and OCCUPIED Japan, and insread of being rational being glad to have peace forced upon them, the Japanese had FOUGHT OUR OCCUPATION?

Would the Occupation of Japan be 'immoral'?

Would we have wisely RETREATED from Japan and 'let them find their own political solution' ???

No. And no.

Are Japan and Iraq 'different' ??? Yes.

Can a war be moral or immoral, regardless of the PRETEXT, based upon the REAL THREAT instead?

Yes.

Some want us out of Iraq. Okay. But the extra blood that's spilled BECAUSE we leave too soon is on our hands no matter if Bush was there at the start. Because Bush is saying "We mustn't leave too soon, we must prevent a bloodbath"

And if IRAQ didn't start the Terrorist War against us ...

LEAVING Iraq won't cure the cancer of Jihad and Terrorist War against us.

Bush screwed the pooch on how he handled the war ...

The War That Will Need To Be Fought Regardless of Bush.

That may be called "historical revisionism" I think. What is clear in 2007 was foggy and scary in 2001, yes.

But ... the Iraqis car-bombing, beheading, and terrorizing against IRAQIS more than they do against the 'Occupiers' ... that's a warning that no one should be blind to.

That warns us that it's NOT about the Occupation ... and it's NOT going to end with the Occupation.

In my opinion. I could be right.

We may still find Hitler's buried Flying saucers he was going to bomb New York with! :D

A position predicated on what ifs and maybes does not serve to bolster the position; rather it serves to weaken it. You have no idea what "FDR" did or didn't know. If he actually knew there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing to prevent it, he's a murderous traitor. End of story. If you are using his supposed maniacal rationale to support a war in Iraq, you have more than shot yourself in the foot. You have killed your supposition by using a manufactured, completely immoral traitorous albeit false figment of a president to support our current one.

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 05:00 AM

I don't believe that was an allowable exception in the terms of the peace treaty. Just because he had a perfectly logical reason (from his own perspective) to break the treaty does not mean he did not do it nor allow him to escape the consequences of those actions.

Yet we didn't do anything about it at the time he did that, supposedly because going into Iraq would be a "quagmire". Which is fishy as to why we went in years after the fact.

robeiae

09-15-2007, 05:07 AM

dclary

09-15-2007, 05:09 AM

There are no good options. It's no longer a matter of what's best, it's now simply a matter of what's least bad. Whatever we do, there will be horrible consequences.

This is the legacy that Bush and the neocons, with their deadly combination of arrogance and stupidity, have left for us.
Well, I disagree, but your points are well-made and coherent. These days, that's better than these threads can expect.

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 05:21 AM

BS. Even the 9-11 Commision agreed that Wilson's report lent credence to the idea that Iraq was seeking yellow cake from Niger. Wilson lied when he "went public." Major league loser.

Do you have evidence of this, I wonder?

dclary

09-15-2007, 05:30 AM

Do you have evidence of this, I wonder?
He's not you. Of course he has evidence.

small axe

09-15-2007, 05:40 AM

A position predicated on what ifs and maybes does not serve to bolster the position; rather it serves to weaken it. You have no idea what "FDR" did or didn't know. If he actually knew there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing to prevent it, he's a murderous traitor. End of story. If you are using his supposed maniacal rationale to support a war in Iraq, you have more than shot yourself in the foot. You have killed your supposition by using a manufactured, completely immoral traitorous albeit false figment of a president to support our current one.

So obviously you had NO VALID REBUTTAL to my point:

We may still find Hitler's buried Flying saucers he was going to bomb New York with!

hee hee :)

Originally Posted by InfinityGoddess http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1638240#post1638240)
It's an immoral war because our president lied to us.

I think governments 'lie' every time they grab onto some pretext to take some necessary diplomatic stance or engage in a policy 'bluff' in the dicey poker game of world politics and negotiations.

They bluff. They threaten. They lie.

And they can lie for MORAL reasons ... as well as for immoral ones. :poke:

So, perhaps you don't agree with my WW2 riff. I'll stand by it, as a scenario:

FDR could have known the Japanese were going to attack (there are books suggesting he did) ...

It would've been 'moral' to tell the American people it was an unprovoked 'sneak attack' (and there is history to suggest we were strangling Japan's access to natural resources, pre-war) ... if that was the inspiration an Isolationist America needed to get us in a war to defeat Nazism, Japanese conquest, and genocide.

The white lie that defeats the black truth, as it were.

realpolitik

Pronunciation: rA-'äl-"pO-li-"tEk
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: German, from real actual + Politik politics
: politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realpolitik (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realpolitik) :welcome:

Gandhi probably hated the idea (see below) ... but no one's ever accused Bush or Saddam or Osama of being another Gandhi.

Question to everyone:
If a terrorist organization were plotting to blow up your family, who would you want to be working to stop the death of your family?
Bush?
Saddam (well, y'know, if they hadn't hanged him)?
Osama?
or
Gandhi?

robeiae

09-15-2007, 06:02 AM

Do you have evidence of this, I wonder?
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/sic70904iraqrpt.pdf

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRkMjU3YmQ2MzIwZjhhNDkwYWE3NWI1ZjhhZmRkMmY=

Bird of Prey

09-15-2007, 06:13 AM

And they can lie for MORAL reasons ... as well as for immoral ones. :poke:

So, perhaps you don't agree with my WW2 riff. I'll stand by it, as a scenario:

It would've been 'moral' to tell the American people it was an unprovoked 'sneak attack' (and there is history to suggest we were strangling Japan's access to natural resources, pre-war) ... if that was the inspiration an Isolationist America needed to get us in a war to defeat Nazism, Japanese conquest, and genocide.

The white lie that defeats the black truth, as it were.

Moral reasons? The white lie?

Try to imagine sailors asphyxiating, drowning, burning to death by design because their own president deliberately failed to warn them. You believe he was capable of that? Do you have any idea what you're saying?

Jesus!! Are you mad?? You think that's O.K?

InfinityGoddess

09-15-2007, 06:21 AM

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/sic70904iraqrpt.pdf

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjRkMjU3YmQ2MzIwZjhhNDkwYWE3NWI1ZjhhZmRkMmY=

Hmm...had trouble getting into the first link for some reason. The second one is an article with a right-wing bias to it.

EDIT: Holy shit, that's some file there. It'll take me WEEKS to sort through it. >.<;

FDR could have known the Japanese were going to attack (there are books suggesting he did) ...

There may be books alleging such, but that doesn't make it true.

Magdalen

09-15-2007, 06:37 AM

Question to everyone:
If a terrorist organization were plotting to blow up your family, who would you want to be working to stop the death of your family?
Bush?
Saddam (well, y'know, if they hadn't hanged him)?
Osama?
or
Gandhi?

Is this a trick question? Well, if terrorists were plotting to blow up my family (I assume you mean only mine) I'd want to go right to the top o' the heap and have the leader of the terrorists stop it, because he would likely have the greatest ability. So I guess I'd have to pick Osama.

dclary

09-15-2007, 06:45 AM

There may be books alleging such, but that doesn't make it true.

:roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll:
:roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

dclary

09-15-2007, 06:47 AM

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Wow.

Sorry about that.

It just came out.

Magdalen

09-15-2007, 06:51 AM

Or you could just type

ROFL

Of course, I do abide that a picture is worth a thousand words, so you've got what, 65,000???

Plus another 30,000 (but that must be the deluxe edition, eh?)

dclary

09-15-2007, 06:58 AM

I'm a writer. I like to show, not tell.

billythrilly7th

09-15-2007, 07:13 AM

What's so funny?

You all laughimg at me?

Well, you know what?

Screw you all!!

You ain't the boss of me!!!

You ain't the boss of me!!

Huh?

Traffic?

dclary

09-15-2007, 07:17 AM

I miss Tour. :(

billythrilly7th

09-15-2007, 07:25 AM

I miss Tour. :(

I sent him a sincere heartfelt PM.

He'll be back.

I love him too.

small axe

09-15-2007, 07:37 AM

Moral reasons? The white lie?

Try to imagine sailors asphyxiating, drowning, burning to death by design because their own president deliberately failed to warn them. You believe he was capable of that? Do you have any idea what you're saying?

Jesus!! Are you mad?? You think that's O.K?

I think I recognize a difference in our view of the world: I can think it happened, and still not think it's 'O.K.' -- I am not dumbfounded by that possibility.

Yes, people are 'capable of that' ...
Yes, I have an 'idea what [I'm] saying'

Jesus, indeed. I don't know the context of you calling on Jesus is, but I assume you're recognizing that Jesus' teachings (I like the Sermon on the Mount, and the whole "do these things to the least of men and you do them for me" attitude) could help our tragic world, so "Jesus!!" indeed.

Am I mad? Nawwww. Not even upset.

And once again, I can think it happens and still not be 'OK' with it ... or I can think about saving the world from Hitler and be glad FDR helped stop Hitler.

The world isn't just black and white, us versus them ...

Bush, hated, can still do something right.
Democrats, even when mouthing the correct platitudes, can possibly stand by and allow disasters to happen.

I know which of those I'd want to happen. Some folks seem not to know.

small axe

09-15-2007, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by small axe http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1638812#post1638812)
FDR could have known the Japanese were going to attack (there are books suggesting he did) ...

There may be books alleging such, but that doesn't make it true.

No, it doesn't. I am the foe of assumptions and mere allegations, as we all know (in tedious detail)

Are we agreeing that mere 'alleging' is invalid and without logical value, then?

Lets!

Because ... If we removed all the mere 'allegations' about "Bush" and "the war in Iraq" that we find written HERE ...

We might be on Page #1 of this thread! :)

Bad Penny

09-15-2007, 07:55 AM

He had to be removed and he was the elected leader of the German Reich.

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil. The question here is not whether war is indefensible, it is. The question is whether this war in Iraq is indefensible. We can argue semantics all we want. The following facts remain:

The Hussein regime was in violation of the peace treaty that ended the first Gulf War. Saddam had used poison gas on the population of his own country.

Whether the war was handled well is a different question. It was a legitimate decision to go in.

Hitler was never elected Chancellor by the German public. He never even had 40% of the popular vote. Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor. Hitler then appointed himself Fuehrer (decider?)

How come no one in the Bush 1 administration ever brought up Saddam's use of that poison gas when they were gearing up for war with him in '91? He used that gas in 1988. But hey, Bush could have brought up something that Iraq did in 1923 for a reason to go to war and you and many others here wouldn't have thought twice about it.

10 years of sanctions destroyed Saddam's military machine, and much of his population. Did you not see the fields of rusted tanks certain reporters discovered during the blitz to Baghdad? And anyway, if Saddam had any WMD or military strength I'm sure Bush wouldn't have been so cocky telling him and the world what he was going to do to him militarily. If Saddam had WMD he would easily have wiped out thousands of US soldiers while they were staging in Kuwait and vulnerable. Amazing how that little fact always goes over the heads of so many.

It was not a legitimate decision to go in in any way, shape or form. Sorry. But your post gets an F

MattW

09-15-2007, 08:29 AM

10 years of sanctions destroyed Saddam's military machine, and much of his population. Did you not see the fields of rusted tanks certain reporters discovered during the blitz to Baghdad? Saddam was filtering the oil for food money into whatever weapons he could wheedle out of the Russians and Chinese or any other enterprising group. Sanctions only hurt who Saddam wanted them to hurt.

Those same tanks you mention were hit with munitions during Iraq I - there's no value in salvaging a busted tank, and it's too hard Ahmed's Towing to get it for the scrap metal. They weren't abandoned because he had no parts - they were spent and worthless hulks.

Bad Penny

09-15-2007, 08:51 AM

what's your point?

He had no tanks to seriously oppose the US blitzkrieg. He had no tanks to seriously oppose the Fijian Army. Bush made it sound he had an army ready and formidable enough to take over the middleast. I know those tanks were dead since GW 1. That was my point. The sanctions assured it wasn't going to get strong again. The oil for food nonsense is a good bit of Bush propaganda. There's more evidence he used it to guild the walls of his palaces then using it to re-strengthen his military hardware. The bottom line is where was Saddam's HUGE war machine that was (remember Rumsfeld assuring us?) on a par with Hitler's just before WW2?

F'in crap. I and millions of others didn't buy it. So let's just once and for all consider that one big victory you can't spin for us idiots who don't know shit over you smart geniuses who know it all.

Bird of Prey

09-15-2007, 05:19 PM

Take a good hard look here folks:

Well, it's not an immoral war BECAUSE the President 'lied to us' ...

If we can imagine a scenario where the President used a convenient EXCUSE -- to do what morally should be done anyway despite the 'lie' -- then he could lie and it would have no effect on the war's morality. :)

Imagine a WW2 scenario (most sane folks think WW2 was a necessary, moral war):

FDR knows that Hitler is murdering 6 million Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc in his death camps ... but America is sadly Isolationist and sadly bigoted enough (let's pretend) that we won't spill USA blood to defend Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. . .

FDR has evidence that the Nazis are working on developing the Atomic Bomb (add to that, developing rockets that can hit Britain, jet bombers, all sorts of advanced weapons of war)

FDR knows the Japanese are committing atrocities against the Chinese (using bubonic-plague weapons to kill 100,000's of innocents, etc) ... is conquering the Pacific Rim ... but again, the USA public doesn't care enough to DEFEND these people ...

America needs an EXCUSE to go to war, soon, because if we waited too long millions more will be murdered and the world will be enslaved under tyranny.

FDR knows the Japanese are about to attack us at Pearl Harbor. FDR could prevent it ... but FDR allows Hawaii to be attacked because a SNEAK ATTACK is the excuse (really, the 'lie') he needs to get the USA into the war in time to save the world and its people from far, far, WORSE war (or not war -- DEFEAT) . . . .

It'd still be a moral war that saved the free world, based on 'lies' :)

Now, imagine the neo-cons (lights dimmed they walk on stage, the masked Greek chorus tells us they are our villains, the audience boos) fearing the spread of Islamic Fundamentalist terror, devouring not just the Muslim world ... but strangling the free world's oil supplies ...

The conflict is there, is coming ... but the free world sleeps blind to the danger of (Greek chorus! Tell us how to feel!) "RELIGIOUS FANATICISM" and Islamist JIHAD!

What will wake the West to act, before it's too late? What excuse will wake the sleeper to the fact that the house is aflame (a small, distant flame, but one that will engulf the sleeper's house later, if not extinguished now?)

A sneak attack cometh on that dark day, Sept. 11, 2001 ...

The tyrant and the terrorist await ...

The neo-cons act. Morally, based on a 'lie' . . . .

This is a rationale that you - obviously - find acceptable. You can backtrack and weasel around it but what you presented here was an immoral rationalization that you find perfectly fucking acceptable for getting into WWII and now Iraq.

I can't even begin to tell you what I think of your posts. You think this is some kind of sophisticated thinking on your part, that sometimes the American people need a "lie" to give up their sons and daughters and set the world straight?

One thing for sure: you're not going to hide backstage on this one.

You don't want a free country; you want a totalitarian state with leadership that lies to get its"lazy, unmotivated people" to do its bidding: that's exactly you and your kind endorse. I'm happy to expose you for what you are.

Joe270

09-15-2007, 10:32 PM

This whole argument stems from the liberal left catch phrase "Bush Lied".

Bush lied, and brilliantly duped a bunch of other countries, and stared the war all on his own.

I just don't believe it. Sorry. Either Bush is an ignorant, bumbling moron or he is a brilliant international conspirator. He cannot be both like the liberal left portrays.

Prove that he lied in the first place, please. You're using a supposition as a base for your entire argument. You house has a piss-poor foundation.

Easy catch-phrase to remember, though. Even easier than 'If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.'

Jamesaritchie

09-15-2007, 11:06 PM

Reports are that President Bush will unveil a plan tonight for a permanent military presence in Iraq, much like the presence we have along the DMZ in Korea.

Stay tuned

All war is forever. War is the norm, always has been, and probably always will be. Peace is no more than a rest period between wars.

Fortunately, we still have a few people left who are willing to fight, and a tiny few left smart enough and wise enough to understand than war is often necessary, and that peace is not always the best option.

rugcat

09-15-2007, 11:30 PM

Fortunately, we still have a few people left who are willing to fight, and a tiny few left smart enough and wise enough to understand than war is often necessary, and that peace is not always the best option.Does that tiny few who are wise and smart include yourself, perhaps?

War is sometimes necessary. War as a tool for the accomplishment of policy goals is never necessary -- it is but one choice among many. And those policy goals often reflect what is best for the policy makers but not necessarily best for the country.

All wars are horrible both for those who have to fight them and for the civilians who suffer from them, but not all wars are avoidable nor should they be.

This war, however, does not fall into that category.

Bad Penny

09-16-2007, 01:59 AM

robeiae

09-16-2007, 02:01 AM

If they were the same people Joe was criticizing, I'm fairly certain they'd die of starvation before any of them got up enough willpower or courage to do anything, other then design a t-shirt.

SpookyWriter

09-16-2007, 02:04 AM

If a group of people ever find themselves marooned with you in the wilderness, it would be in their best interest to kill and eat you right away rather than to run the risk of you trying to lead them out.Logic flaw. I stopped reading after this sentence because you can not be marooned in the wilderness. Makes no sense. So I already made the same conclusion for the remainer of the paragraph.

Bad Penny

09-16-2007, 02:06 AM

If they were the same people Joe was criticizing, I'm fairly certain they'd die of starvation before any of them got up enough willpower or courage to do anything, other then design a t-shirt.

We'll sure be eatin' well

you're on the menu too

Bad Penny

09-16-2007, 02:08 AM

Logic flaw. I stopped reading after this sentence because you can not be marooned in the wilderness. Makes no sense. So I already made the same conclusion for the remainer of the paragraph.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=marooned+in+the+wilderness&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

robeiae

09-16-2007, 02:09 AM

We'll sure be eatin' well

you're on the menu too
Very good. That would make an excellent slogan for a t-shirt. Maybe have some moose tracks...people like animals.

Bad Penny

09-16-2007, 02:18 AM

Fortunately, we still have a few people left who are willing to fight, and a tiny few left smart enough and wise enough to understand than war is often necessary, and that peace is not always the best option

So we have one group of willing fighters and one smarter, wiser group of war mongering keyboard commandos. Gee, I wonder which group you belong to

SpookyWriter

09-16-2007, 02:27 AM

http://www.google.ca/search?q=marooned+in+the+wilderness&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialI didn't have to read the link. In the U.S. we still call it lost in the wilderness.

eta: the #1 result brought back this jewel

marooned on a wilderness island

Well duh. Island. Not wilderness; like Alaska or Canadian forrest.

dclary

09-16-2007, 02:30 AM

Bad Penny

09-16-2007, 02:32 AM

Very good. That would make an excellent slogan for a t-shirt. Maybe have some moose tracks...people like animals.

Here are some good T-Shirt designs

http://i7.tinypic.com/5zef039.gif

http://i11.tinypic.com/6fpa9f9.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/5zozdjn.jpg

http://i2.tinypic.com/4ldzqts.jpg

blacbird

09-16-2007, 02:33 AM

Logic flaw. I stopped reading after this sentence because you can not be marooned in the wilderness. Makes no sense.

You need to read Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer.

caw

robeiae

09-16-2007, 02:33 AM

Logic flaw. I stopped reading after this sentence because you can not be marooned in the wilderness. Makes no sense. So I already made the same conclusion for the remainer of the paragraph.
You can be marooned anywhere, if you have enough red and purple paint...

What?

robeiae

09-16-2007, 02:34 AM

You need to read Into the Wild, by Jon Krakauer.

caw
I just finished his Under the Banner of Heaven. Fascinating.

Bad Penny

09-16-2007, 02:36 AM

Main Entry: maroon
Function: transitive verb
1 : to put ashore on a desolate island or coast and leave to one's fate
2 : to place or leave in isolation or without hope of ready escape
3 : A Bush supporter (noun)

SpookyWriter

09-16-2007, 02:36 AM

It could be a wilderness on an island.Well then it would be either marooned on an wilderness island or marooned on an island, but they're mutually exclusive. Not marooned in the wilderness. It's not like Pen was marooned in a high school. Of cource I could be wrong about that.

Jacob

09-16-2007, 03:17 AM

My response to this thread has been quite an emotional rollercoaster it went something like this ...Uh....Uh...hmmmm...wow... whoa slow down cowboy.............holy sweet baby Jesus are you serious............... could we just impeach Bush already and do the entire world a favor.........wow what an intense thread ...O that was nice...man, is that really her profile pic ..shes smokin hot...etc etc...Im gonna go eat a muffin..

SpookyWriter

09-16-2007, 03:22 AM

Main Entry: moron
Function: transitive verb
1 : to put Pen ashore on a desolate wilderness fucking island or coast (near France) and leave to one's fate -- good luck frencie
2 : to place Pen or leave Pen in isolation or without penning hope of ready escape - democrates
3 : A support bra (noun) that squeals like a bad penny when pinched in the bushes.:tongue

robeiae

09-16-2007, 03:25 AM

...man, is that really her profile pic ..shes smokin hot...Thank you.

SpookyWriter

09-16-2007, 03:29 AM

...man, is that really her profile pic ..shes smokin hot...etc etc...Im gonna go eat a muffin..Who?

Bad Penny

09-16-2007, 03:33 AM

Less drugs, spooky

SpookyWriter

09-16-2007, 03:37 AM

Less drugs, spookyNow just how do you expect us to function in a capitalistic society without meds?

Joe270

09-16-2007, 06:57 AM

If a group of people ever find themselves marooned with you in the wilderness, it would be in their best interest to kill and eat you right away rather than to run the risk of you trying to lead them out.

I note you didn't even try to answer my legitimate question. A false premise is the basis for the argument and none of you can validate it. If you could, you'd be moveon.org's poster child, rather than the poster child for abortion, Penny.

You and IG have presented the far left liberal debate guide here very well.

1.) Whatever the left says is correct, everyone else is wrong, no matter what the facts are.

2.) Make up 'facts' to support your position.

3.) When pinned down on these 'facts', change the subject. Baffle your opponent with bullshit.

4.) If that doesn't work, yell it louder and with more emphasis.

5.) If you continue to fail, then attack your debate opponent.

Even your personal attack was lame. I get worse from Spooky and Rob when they agree with me. It's a tough room.

SarahinOhio

09-16-2007, 07:42 AM

Joe,

The NIE report delivered to the President in October, 2002 was clear about the threat Saddam posed to the US:

(2003 article)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:
had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,
was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,
and was not a terrorist threat to America.

Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq.

Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that "on any given day" – provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not – Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," Bush said Oct. 7 in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints." The terrorists he was referring to were "al-Qaida members."

By telling Americans that Saddam could "on any given day" slip unconventional weapons to al-Qaida if America didn't disarm him, the president misrepresented the conclusions of his own secret intelligence report, which warned that Saddam wouldn't even try to reach out to al-Qaida unless he were attacked and had nothing to lose – and might even find that hard to do since he had no history of conducting joint terrorist operations with al-Qaida, and certainly none against the U.S.

Sorry for the length, but this is important.

What's worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as part of the launch of the White House's campaign to sell the war. The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam's reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn't see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized.

Over the following months, in speech after speech, Bush went right on lying with impunity about the Iraq-al-Qaida threat, all the while flouting the judgments of his own intelligence agencies.

Even after the war, Bush continued the lie. "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida," he said May 1 from the deck of the USS Lincoln. "No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."

The president's spokespeople say they're shocked, shocked, to learn that seven in 10 Americans tell pollsters they blame Saddam Hussein for the 9-11 attacks. Gee, they pondered, wherever did they get such an idea?

Oh, maybe from all the president's speeches and remarks suggesting Saddam was to blame for 9-11, starting with this one:

"Prior to Sept. 11, we thought two oceans would protect us," President Bush said about Iraq in an Oct. 14 speech in Michigan. "After Sept. 11, we've entered into a new era in a new war."

"This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida," he continued, referring to Saddam. "This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace."

Or this one:

"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country," Bush said March 6 in a White House news conference. "The attacks of Sept. 11 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Or this:

"Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror," he said at the same press conference. "Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."

In that press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times, Saddam 40 times, and Osama zero, effectively morphing Osama into Saddam...

At the very least, Bush cherry-picked information, and willingly stoked public fears regarding 9/11 in order to ignite the neocons' long-sought bonfire in the Middle East. He was dishonest, in my opinion.

But hey, that's just me. If you don't see lies in the above examples, you're obviously more forgiving than I.

Joe270

09-16-2007, 08:01 AM

I won't get all my info from a biased source, that's for sure.

I know Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Still, an aide did meet with one of the hijackers in Czechoslovakia prior to the event. Saddam did have contact with al-queso.

There must have been tens of thousands of intel reports from the US and other countries. The reports probably ran the gamut from 'no threat' to 'absolute threat', so picking out what seems to be correct becomes a judgment call, not a lie.

Besides, al queso was not the reason we went into Iraq.

InfinityGoddess

09-16-2007, 08:04 AM

Besides, al queso was not the reason we went into Iraq.

What's "al queso"?

EDIT: Also that report is from World Net Daily, which I believe is a right-wing website? Funny how whenever Bush is disagreed with by even conservative sources, they're suddenly labeled with a "liberal bias"...

rugcat

09-16-2007, 08:08 AM

Still, an aide did meet with one of the hijackers in Czechoslovakia prior to the event.Actually, that's one of those "facts" that has been discredited, even by our own CIA.

And as to the "far left liberal debate guide," you posit, I would agree word for word, except that's exactly how I feel about the far right.

Which is why we have endless political debate.

SarahinOhio

09-16-2007, 08:16 AM

Argh! The "biased source" rebuttal. ;)

I thought by quoting Bush's speeches during the run-up to the war, I might persuade you to look again at his record of honesty. The NIE report alluded to was the document Bush cited regarding weapons of mass destruction, and other intelligence info. And yet the study's authors gave Iraq their "lowest confidence" rating concerning its status as a terrorist threat. So is the CIA biased, too?

And it has been well proven that Saddam had no link to Al-Queda. Stephen Hayes might still be beating that drum, but nobody's hearing it.

How can you say Al-Queda had nothing to do with our going into Iraq? Read Bush's speeches again. He conflated 9/11 and Saddam. You think that if Al-Queda hadn't attacked us on 9/11, we would be in Iraq now? I don't even think Bush is that ballsy...

Joe270

09-16-2007, 11:20 AM

What's "al queso"?

Use your mind and think just a little bit. That's all we're asking.

Joe270

09-16-2007, 11:22 AM

Actually, that's one of those "facts" that has been discredited, even by our own CIA.

I have not heard that as discredited, but if it was, so what? At the time, it was taken as gospel.

Armchair quarterbacking, that's what America is really good at. Making a decision, now there's a challenge.

SarahinOhio

09-16-2007, 04:12 PM

Joe,

You asked for examples of Bush lying. I gave you plenty in which he was at least being intellectually dishonest. These things were not "gospel." If Bush believed the NIE's WMD info, why didn't he absorb the other part of their report? It was simply not convenient for him to do so.

Google "Knight-Ridder Iraq" and you'll find real investigative journalists who did their job prior to the Iraq War. Others simply didn't ask. The intelligence info was tenuous and contradictory. It was not a "slam dunk." Any President (or Congressman, yes) worth his salt could have seen this for himself. I do not exclude Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards from this accusation: they had access to the info, too. But certainly the brunt of a war's burden rests on the shoulders of the Commander in Chief.

And this one willfully blinded himself.

JJ Cooper

09-16-2007, 05:09 PM

Are any of you worried about having to go? Don't worry too much--there are still plenty of men and women who will do it for you.

I wouldn't return.

Sometimes you got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run.

JJ

InfinityGoddess

09-16-2007, 07:05 PM

Use your mind and think just a little bit. That's all we're asking.

Actually, I was hoping that you learn to properly spell "Al Qaeda". :P~ That was my point.

Joe270

09-16-2007, 11:05 PM

Why would I extend that courtesy to al queso? It's simply a little barb I jab in for their benefit.

I regret the inconsiderate reply. Please accept my apology. I can be an ass on occasion.

blacbird

09-16-2007, 11:11 PM

How can you say Al-Queda had nothing to do with our going into Iraq? Read Bush's speeches again. He conflated 9/11 and Saddam. You think that if Al-Queda hadn't attacked us on 9/11, we would be in Iraq now? I don't even think Bush is that ballsy...

There's plenty of documented evidence, from transcripts of Oval Office meetings with Cheney, Rumsfeld et al., that the Bushies were seriously considering a military overthrow of Saddam Hussein from the earliest days of the Administration, months before 9/11. Would they have done it? Moot point, now, but given the ridiculous level of expectation ("greeted as liberators", remember?) expressed when we actually did invade, I think most likely they would have.

caw

dclary

09-16-2007, 11:46 PM

Actually, I was hoping that you learn to properly spell "Al Qaeda". :P~ That was my point.

:roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll:
:roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll::roll:
:roll::roll:

This from the person who calls the people she doesn't like "Shrub" and "Darth Cheney?"

I see. Disrespect America's leaders, but tut-tut us when we do the same to the guys who killed 5,000 Americans 6 years ago, last week.

Nice play, lefty.

billythrilly7th

09-17-2007, 12:11 AM

This from the person who calls the people she doesn't like "Shrub" and "Darth Cheney?"

Don't forget the wonderfully witty, on point, hilarious play on words...

The always side splitting...

"Fixed News."

I mean...it doesn't get better than that when it comes to word play/punerisms.

That's top notch stuff right there.

Bad Penny

09-17-2007, 01:23 AM

I note you didn't even try to answer my legitimate question. A false premise is the basis for the argument and none of you can validate it. If you could, you'd be moveon.org's poster child, rather than the poster child for abortion, Penny.

You and IG have presented the far left liberal debate guide here very well.

1.) Whatever the left says is correct, everyone else is wrong, no matter what the facts are.

2.) Make up 'facts' to support your position.

3.) When pinned down on these 'facts', change the subject. Baffle your opponent with bullshit.

4.) If that doesn't work, yell it louder and with more emphasis.

5.) If you continue to fail, then attack your debate opponent.

Even your personal attack was lame. I get worse from Spooky and Rob when they agree with me. It's a tough room.

I didn't answer it the same way I don't play patty cake with red hot stove burners

you'll need more than a monkey wrench to turn up your smarts, Joe. but i'm rootin' for ya

SarahinOhio

09-17-2007, 01:36 AM

There's plenty of documented evidence, from transcripts of Oval Office meetings with Cheney, Rumsfeld et al., that the Bushies were seriously considering a military overthrow of Saddam Hussein from the earliest days of the Administration, months before 9/11. Would they have done it? Moot point, now, but given the ridiculous level of expectation ("greeted as liberators", remember?) expressed when we actually did invade, I think most likely they would have.

You're right, blacbird. I do wonder if they would have been able to garner the public support for a war without the events of 9/11. Certainly, from what Richard Clarke has testified, it didn't take them long (Sept. 12th) to seize upon this golden opportunity. It is likely that 9/11, and Bush's ensuing popularity, launched a more premature war than would have transpired otherwise.

InfinityGoddess

09-17-2007, 01:42 AM

This from the person who calls the people she doesn't like "Shrub" and "Darth Cheney?"

I see. Disrespect America's leaders, but tut-tut us when we do the same to the guys who killed 5,000 Americans 6 years ago, last week.

Nice play, lefty.

I didn't know why Joe there was doing it until he told me. :P Silly.

And I'll only start "respecting America's leaders" when they actually lead. That includes Democrats, as well as Republicans. Until then, I'm not about to start.

clintl

09-17-2007, 01:44 AM

What's "al queso"?

A vicious band of Wisconsin radicals. Usually found in the vicinity of Lambeau Field.

dclary

09-17-2007, 02:04 AM

I didn't know why Joe there was doing it until he told me. :P Silly.

And I'll only start "respecting America's leaders" when they actually lead. That includes Democrats, as well as Republicans. Until then, I'm not about to start.

And still you show the utmost respect to murderers of thousands.

New York City's blood flows from your hands.

InfinityGoddess

09-17-2007, 02:30 AM

And still you show the utmost respect to murderers of thousands.

New York City's blood flows from your hands.

Riiiight. Calling them by their proper name automatically means that I "respect" them.

Would it surprise you to know that I don't make it a habit of supporting or respecting murderers?

blacbird

09-17-2007, 03:02 AM

And still you show the utmost respect to murderers of thousands.

New York City's blood flows from your hands.

Deploy the parachute, declarey. It will make the landing back on your planet a lot softer.

caw

dclary

09-17-2007, 04:20 AM

Riiiight. Calling them by their proper name automatically means that I "respect" them.

Would it surprise you to know that I don't make it a habit of supporting or respecting murderers?
Yes, it would.

dclary

09-17-2007, 04:21 AM

Deploy the parachute, declarey. It will make the landing back on your planet a lot softer.

caw

I have one of those big inflatable bouncy-geodesic-ball thingys, bird. Thanks.

InfinityGoddess

09-17-2007, 04:31 AM

Yes, it would.

Well, let's see...I'm a typical anti-war, anti-death penalty liberal. So nope, not a fan of killing so much there.

Definitely not a fan of the guys who attacked NYC and DC on 9/11.

Certainly not a fan of Saddam Hussein's record of human rights abuses.

And I believe Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice.

Guess I just blew your argument out of the water that I support killers and killing.

Magdalen

09-17-2007, 04:36 AM

Deek, so sorry to hear about your inflated balls. I believe a strong course of anti-biotics will clear up that condition.

SpookyWriter

09-17-2007, 05:11 AM

Deek, so sorry to hear about your inflated balls. I believe a strong course of anti-biotics will clear up that condition.That works best for pimples. Swalled balls in a mark of manhood and not to be taken lightly.

InfinityGoddess

09-17-2007, 05:18 AM

That works best for pimples. Swalled balls in a mark of manhood and not to be taken lightly.

:roll:

I think I nearly choked on my cough drop...

Bad Penny

09-18-2007, 01:26 AM

Well, let's see...I'm a typical anti-war, anti-death penalty liberal. So nope, not a fan of killing so much there.

Definitely not a fan of the guys who attacked NYC and DC on 9/11.

Certainly not a fan of Saddam Hussein's record of human rights abuses.

And I believe Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice.

Guess I just blew your argument out of the water that I support killers and killing.

ok, you hate america

-dclary

dclary

09-18-2007, 02:02 AM

Well, let's see...I'm a anti-death penalty liberal. <--- which makes you a respecter and supporter of murderers. Go on.

Guess I just blew your argument out of the water that I support killers and killing.Nope. You supported it exceedingly well.

You think Osama should be brought to justice? That means you respect him.

I want him quashed like a bug, mangled in a woodchipper, and fed to chihuahuas.

I don't give a rat's ass about justice for mass murderers. That is justice.

Bad Penny

09-18-2007, 02:06 AM

That's exactly how some of us feel about Bush.

Who's right, who's wrong, who sees the light, who dances blindly along?

InfinityGoddess

09-18-2007, 02:09 AM

<--- which makes you a respecter and supporter of murderers. Go on.

No, it means I think that the death penalty, most especially with the way it gets dished out, is inhumane and should have no place in a civilized society. You can lock up someone away for life and they wouldn't be in a place to hurt someone else.

You think Osama should be brought to justice? That means you respect him.

No, again it means that he needs to be taken care of so he can't hurt anyone else ever again.

I don't like killing humans, regardless of what they've done. Two wrongs don't make a right.

III

09-18-2007, 02:12 AM

You can lock up someone away for life and they wouldn't be in a place to hurt someone else.

Except other prisoners, guards, and prison workers. Unless you're talking about lifelong solitary confinement.

Celia Cyanide

09-18-2007, 02:25 AM

<--- which makes you a respecter and supporter of murderers. Go on.

No, it doesn't.

small axe

09-21-2007, 04:36 AM

Take a good hard look here folks:

This is a rationale that you - obviously - find acceptable. You can backtrack and weasel around it but what you presented here was an immoral rationalization that you find perfectly fucking acceptable for getting into WWII and now Iraq.

I can't even begin to tell you what I think of your posts. You think this is some kind of sophisticated thinking on your part, that sometimes the American people need a "lie" to give up their sons and daughters and set the world straight?

One thing for sure: you're not going to hide backstage on this one.

You don't want a free country; you want a totalitarian state with leadership that lies to get its"lazy, unmotivated people" to do its bidding: that's exactly you and your kind endorse. I'm happy to expose you for what you are.

You're not 'exposing' me for anything I'm not already writing right there in black & white (though, aw, the halcyon days when I had blue font .... before folks had their hissy fit ... sigh ;)) little my droog.

It's possible that someone can fail to 'expose' one thing ... while successfully 'exposing' themselves as merely reacting based upon their own emotionalism and inability to see past their own bias to understand what's written.

It's not some cliche covert conspiracy that any pseudo-intellectual needs to uncover and pretend to reveal here (to the uninformed who he thinks need his aid to understand) ...

It's as plain as a knock on the door. I say what I mean. I wrote what I mean.

Spin it or spin upon it (as you need), it's there and speaks for itself ... and doesn't need a personality attack (to fail) to rebut it. :Hug2:

Shouldn't you be able to make your own points (agreement or disagreement) without falling into the trap (it's a tar pit trap, an umbilical noose, as the song goes) of having to tell us via ad hominem attack what you think I "really think" ???

I wrote what I really think. You just dancing to it, above!

Disagree; convince us with your reasoned disagreement ... not empty insult and bias.