|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
He's saying that the time for that is after the troops come home.
I respect your argument, but you are wrong about this.
It's also a matter of credibility: if we remained silent, we would rightfully be accused of sandbagging. We would be accused of having "20/20 hindsight."
Obviously, I think I'm right. The objections have been voiced. Let it play out without the relentless harranging is all I'm saying.
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
You're giving them the impression that they can divide the nation & erode support for the effort, & therefore they will continue to perform their evil deeds when they otherwise would quit. And yes, I am saying that if the nation were united in the effort (now that we are in fact there), the terrorists & their potential recruits would quickly see the futility of their methods.
It may be true that if none of us expressed any opposition to the war, that the jihadi nutjobs would pack up and go home sooner. But it is politically naive to think that such a thing could ever happen in the real world. There are ALWAYS dissidents. How could they be silenced? Would you ban street protests? Would you ban letters to the editor? Jihadi nutjobs can read the results of opinion surveys saying that most Americans now think the war was a mistake. Would you ban such polls?
Our right to protest and dissent and speak our minds is fundamental to democracy. If you ban dissent, you are destroying the essence of democracy: the right of individual citizens to influence decisionmakers and policymaking. If you ban dissent, in the hopes of demoralizing the insurgents, you are essentially giving up the very bedrock of our liberty. You are giving up the best thing we have, just to paper over Bush's huge mistake.
Who said anything about banning anything?? You're putting words into my mouth. Again, The objections have been voiced. Let it play out without the relentless harranging is all I'm saying.
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
There will be the few hard-core retards, but recruiting would be near impossible without evidence of any effectiveness.
I agree. Most Americans now think that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Naturally, it's getting harder and harder for the military to convince potential recruits that Bush's war is worth dying for. Does that mean we dissenters are endangering the troops? Maybe it means that we dissenters will end up SAVING soldiers' (and future soldiers', and potential recruits') lives.
You are deliberately being obtuse AGAIN. I was talking about the terrorists ability to recruit, not our own military. You knew that, but decided it would be more fun to twist meaning & send up yet another smoke screen. You're not fun anymore.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by caltour:
It's hard to think of many other examples of a popular war in modern times.
afghanistan comes to mind. even though that was more of a all out arse whoping than a war, i think virtually all of us were for destroying the support base for bin laden at the time.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
I am so ashamed of some of these politicians, above and beyond any partisan differences, it makes me ill at times.
But as a private citizen it is fine to voice whatever objections to the war immediately and publicly and often. It is unlikely that Al-Jazerra will put you on the cover and if they do, no one will care.
I see what you're saying, Dan, but what difference would it make if only the politicians shut up? Who cares if 535 politicians are silent about the war? Unless you muzzle the public and the press, the jihadis and the insurgents will very quickly find out about our street protests, opposition editorials, and polls showing that a majority of Americans don't support Bush's war.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by caltour:
a majority of Americans do support Bush's war.
There, fixed.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Why do Bush supporters (and Iraq war supporters) so frequently resort to name-calling? Hint: that's all they have left, since their opinion is not supported by facts.
Oh thats a good one there, liberals NEVER refer to Bush as a dumb redneck, uneducated, etc. The list of liberal Bush bashing names goes on and on. Does that mean THEIR opinion is not supported by facts! Certainly not!!! /sarcasm
Quote:
Exactly who are you arguing with? No one on this site, apparently. I have never seen anyone on this site saying our troops are terrorists or torturers. And I personally never said our troops are terrorists or torturers.
I am arguing with you, who supports the same people who call our troops the equivilance of Nazi's.
Quote:
World War II is commonly used by American historians as an example of a popular war. The vast, vast majority of Americans thought it was right, and supported it wholeheartedly. It's hard to think of many other examples of a popular war in modern times.
So a popular war is a fluke, but you use it as an example of why Iraq is wrong? Seems like shaky ground to stand on, using the fluke to back your argument...
Quote:
Oh, god. We've covered this time and again.
Bush could have cooperated with the UN, and shared the burden of ousting Saddam with the rest of the free world, just like Clinton did in Kosovo, and his father did in Desert Storm.
Yeah the UN was doing such a good job during your hero, Clinton's administration. Tell me how we could have supported the UN better, maybe throw a couple hundred billion more dollars to them to screw up the use of?
Quote:
I am amazed that you still make this "last resort" argument. Most Americans (and most of the rest of the world) don't believe it. They think we could have contained any threat posed by Saddam in a number of other ways. Bush's case for war is widely considered to be an almost complete sham.
Widely considered a sham huh? I love how your arguments almost always fall back on your taking your opinion and making it seem to be the majority's opinion. And I also couldn't care less what the rest of the world thought. They aren't the ones that lost 3000+ on 9/11, of course they couldn't care less. Or maybe you were referring to the countries making money off of Saddam being in power? YOU consider the war to be a sham, not the majority.
Quote:
Focus: we're talking about what's the best national policy re: Iraq today. We are not talking about the actions of some dirty-ass stoned hippies 35 years ago.
This comming from the same person that told me I should use WWII as my litmus test of a popular war...
Quote:
Prove it. Show us exactly what sources and information you are relying on in making this claim.
Sources??? Like what, tell me what you want to see here and I will try to find it for you. How about the fact that we have a murdering dictator out of power and are currently promoting the ideas of freedom and democracy to a place that was in the equivilant of the friggin ice age in terms of development. Or how about us capturing terrorists and would be terrorists along with many top people from terrorist organizations. How many coordinated attacks have there been since 9/11. You might be able to make the argument of London, but as much as a tragedy that was, it was NOTHING compared to what they could have done had they been as powerful and coordinated and rich as they were when 9/11 took place.
Quote:
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Get a clue please, your ignorance is just spewing from every hole in your body, please find something to plug them up already.
Nice. Very nice.
Thank you.
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Bush could have cooperated with the UN, and shared the burden of ousting Saddam with the rest of the free world, just like Clinton did in Kosovo, and his father did in Desert Storm.
You make it seem as if we gave the UN no chance to join us in Iraq. In fact, we gave them several chances. They refused, and it became known later that they refused because of certain countries' involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Clinton didn't have UN approval to bomb the hell out of Kosovo, by the way.
...but it's not as if this stuff has never been debated here before. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
"[I]n the equivilant (sp) of the friggin ice age in terms of development..."
Are you confusing Baghdad with the Khalahari desert or the bush about the Okovango Delta? Had/has Baghdad NO middle class, no water service, no electricity service, no universities before we arrived?
Your point did not hold water, but it was a first class rant.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
I am so ashamed of some of these politicians, above and beyond any partisan differences, it makes me ill at times.
But as a private citizen it is fine to voice whatever objections to the war immediately and publicly and often. It is unlikely that Al-Jazerra will put you on the cover and if they do, no one will care.
I see what you're saying, Dan, but what difference would it make if only the politicians shut up? Who cares if 535 politicians are silent about the war? Unless you muzzle the public and the press, the jihadis and the insurgents will very quickly find out about our street protests, opposition editorials, and polls showing that a majority of Americans don't support Bush's war.
I believe it makes a big difference..
They understand (perhaps better than some Americans) that the politicians are selected by the majority of the people and represent the people. A US sentator literally speaks for millions. The environment that they are familiar with is one where the citizens have NO VOICE and protests are relatively meaningless. A DOZEN protests crying foul do not carry the weight in the Middle East of a single senior US senator calling Gitmo a Gulag. They also know that the president can make war without the American people's consent but he REQUIRES congress to sustain it. They have seen congress thwart presidential legislation many times and can only pray that congress will thwart the war. Such negative comments by a Senator give them hope and fuel the cause.."If only we can hit them harder, kill more Americans, it will give the great Satin's (Bush) detracters in Congress even more power, so that THEY can stop him". Because they now know that Bush WILL keep coming...
Protests, articles, polls simply do not carry a FRACTION of the propaganda power of a single powerful leader's quote in Iraq or Iran. Think about it..if a pole or a protest carried the day in Iran, the Ayetollas would be long gone.
As far as the running and progress of the war is concerned, politicians need to present a united front to the media. But saddly, they are not..
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by caltour:
Bush could have cooperated with the UN, and shared the burden of ousting Saddam with the rest of the free world, just like Clinton did in Kosovo, and his father did in Desert Storm.
You make it seem as if we gave the UN no chance to join us in Iraq. In fact, we gave them several chances. They refused, and it became known later that they refused because of certain countries' involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Clinton didn't have UN approval to bomb the hell out of Kosovo, by the way.
...but it's not as if this stuff has never been debated here before.
Davo, don't go confusing Caltours points with facts. That's not fair! 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
They understand (perhaps better than some Americans) that the politicians are selected by the majority of the people and represent the people. A US sentator literally speaks for millions. The environment that they are familiar with is one where the citizens have NO VOICE and protests are relatively meaningless. A DOZEN protests crying foul do not carry the weight in the Middle East of a single senior US senator calling Gitmo a Gulag. They also know that the president can make war without the American people's consent but he REQUIRES congress to sustain it. They have seen congress thwart presidential legislation many times and can only pray that congress will thwart the war. Such negative comments by a Senator give them hope and fuel the cause.."If only we can hit them harder, kill more Americans, it will give the great Satin's (Bush) detracters in Congress even more power, so that THEY can stop him". Because they now know that Bush WILL keep coming...
Protests, articles, polls simply do not carry a FRACTION of the propaganda power of a single powerful leader's quote in Iraq or Iran. Think about it..if a pole or a protest carried the day in Iran, the Ayetollas would be long gone.
As far as the running and progress of the war is concerned, politicians need to present a united front to the media. But saddly, they are not..
What you're saying makes sense. The insurgents may put more stock in some Senator's sound bite than we do. And they may not know or care much about the facts on the ground here, such as anti-war protests, opinion polls, etc.
But what I said before about dissent being the soul of democracy applies to goofball Senators, too. If our representatives' right to speak out against the war were restricted (either by self-censorship or by law), we would have the same huge problem I mentioned before: no effective check or balance on presidents who want to drag us into ill-advised and unpopular wars. Our system was designed to function only with those checks and balances in place. I don't feel like experimenting with their removal.
|
|
|
|
|
