*sigh*... What is the result of their deaths? ie. the cause for tossing them? For the baby? For the old lady? I understand that you're not keen on the liberation of Iraq. I understand. But to pull out completely now seems as ludicrous as anything. People were outraged... let me repeat, outraged in the 40's that we were spending our money rebuilding Japan (although there were no suicide bombers there). Now Japan is one of our biggest allies. The results of what we do now will have a lasting effect on our 2nd and 3rd generations. I'd prefer to have an ally in the middle east when my son is my age. But that's me.
Batman- you seem particulary troubled by the deaths of innocents in this war. many innocents died in afghanistan as well. do you feel we should not have invaded? also, in your mass invasion scenario, the inciting offense is legal gay marriage. our foes in Iraq would deny homosexuals the right to live, much less marry. is are homosexual rights only worth fighting for in this country?
............... (don't give a damn about the people falling out of helicopters... wear the damn harnesses) You are both so eager to tell Batman what he's thinking. I understand him, although I wouldn't have used the "invading (fill in the blank)" scenario to make the point, since I think it was unnecessary and could be confusing. Why bring up the occupation of Japan? It has no relationship to what occurred regarding Iraq, and isn't remotely similar in circumstance. Does Batman, or anyone against the war, whatever the reasons are (yes, there are different reasons), wish for the "mission" to succeed? Which mission? Which one is the Administration using this week? We all wish for the success of one mission... for the safe return of those military men and women fighting in Iraq, and for another... the end of the suffering of the Iraqi people. I think I can safely say that without fear of being too far off base. The problem, and it is a big one, is that George W. Bush made this idiotic decision to begin with. Are the Iraqi people better off today than they were before the invasion? I would say they are not. Is it possible that they could be better off because of the invasion and occupation sometime in the future? Yes, it is possible. Could they have become better off someday in the future if George W. Bush hadn't made this colossal blunder? Yes, no one can say they couldn't have. There are a host of possible scenarios. Saddam could have died of natural causes. Saddam could have, finally, been assassinated. There could have been a successful coup. One could go on. What could have been a real possibility is that Bush could have done what I hoped he would do before the invasion. In the weeks leading up to it, Saddam was under enormous pressure. He was scrambling around trying to find a way out of his predicament. At the time, on this board, I said that invading was a mistake, that we have plenty on our plate, and plenty of unfinished business to take care of. I made no secret of my dislike for Bush then, just as I make no secret of it now, but I stated that if Bush used the threat of invasion to get significant concessions from Saddam, and then held back to see what became of those concessions, that I would be very complimentary... that he would have pulled off a foreign policy coup. Clearly, we didn't have much of a coalition for this action, we didn't have sufficient troops to occupy a country of this size, we were fully engaged in other parts of the world seeking our retribution for 9/11, as well as facing real threats (as opposed to the bogus "imminent threat" of Saddam) from North Korea and Iran who were, at that time, clearly pursuing weapons of mass destruction. I said it then, and I'll say it again... the problem of Saddam could have, and should have, waited to be dealt with. So what does Bush do instead? He deliberately misleads his own country, and the world, about why Saddam is such a threat, and proceeds to do what I have no doubt was his intention all along... he invades, despite not being ready, ignoring the military experts who warned against going in as the Administration planned, and replaces those who cautioned him against taking the most drastic step a sovereign nation can take. Going to war. And you come back with this lame, "Well, do you want the mission to succeed, or not?" What simplistic nonsense, and that is directed to you, basso. Keep D&D Civil.
with all due respect, you, and batman, are still stuck on stupid. the question of whether we want the troops to succeed in their mission of establishing a free, stable, democratic, terror-free society is quite independent to the question of whether the invasion was justified or not. we are there now. we are quite clearly involved in a fight with an enemy who wishes this country, and our troops, mortal harm. the consequenses of our premature withdrawal could be catestrophic for the innocent iraqis batman professes to care so deeply for, and not incidentally, for this country as well. fine, you believe bush is a lying sombitch, and no WMDs were found. history will judge whether you are correct. that's not the fight we're in now. so the question remains. do you, or do you not, support the troops in their mission as it now stands?
was, and is, remains a part of the mission. but events have moved on. if the democrats are still arguing about WMD in 2006 and 2008, they'll lose those elections as well. if the republicans qualify as the most arrogant party, surely the democrats are the stupidest. don't get stuck on stupid.
I assume that by "success" you mean a free and democratic Iraqi state. My question is would you wish for success no matter how many American troops die in the process? If there is a limit on the number of troops that can die before they are pulled out of Iraq short of success what is that number. Ball park it for us. 2500? 5000? 10000? At what point would you say "enough is enough" and pull the troops and risk Iraq falling back into the hands of an Islamic Theocracy or dictatorship?
You seemed to have moved onto a tangent argument. I'll agree the Dems have been rather ineffective lately, but you still haven't made your case. What mission? A stable, free Iraq that is no threat to us? Is that the mission? It's not going to happen. That's why no one is answering. If Iraq ever does become free and stable, it sure wouldn't be because of GWB and Operation Freedom.
Nuremberg sets the standard that 'following orders' is not an acceptable excuse. That is why its relevant. THAT is the standard it set for ALL soldiers. I may have practical reasons for robbing a bank, that doesn't mean its acceptable. Saying they face jail or whatever is not convincing, especially in the face of the soldiers who ARE refusing these orders. Why are they refusing orders? Because they feel the actions are illegal or immoral. Sorry but this is the same argument made over again. Yes, there can be a consequence to acting morally and legally - just as there is a consequence to acting immorally and/or illegally. That a consequence exists does not justify acting immorally or illegally.
For a logical person, how can you not see that the actions of a person when threatened would be different than when not threatened. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to steal a candy bar for him, are you really going to refuse? If you were not threatened, then you would not have stolen. Soldiers are being faced with jail time, dishonorably discharged, and public condemnation. They will be called cowards. Sure, some people choose not to fight, in spite of all that, but you will agree that some people have stronger wills than others. Some have weak wills or, perhaps are goaded into staying by their 'comrades'. Others are pushed into a corner by financial obligations. Many people, if not for forced situations, would not act the way they do.
You are not seriously trying to compare WWII to this war are you? I will acknowledge the fact that you don't know how many dead American soldiers are an acceptable price to pay to have Iraq become a democratic nation, at least until we leave.
Hayes: I'd love a response to my original post. Was fun playing round with the local liar and the local (what's the PC take?) 'challenged' one. But you started this thread and I sincerely doubt you'd respond to my post with something as simple (and, again, disingenuous) as, "so are you for success or failure." Whenever you have a minute, any response appreciated.
I'm assuming i am, ahem, the "challenged" one? I'll say this... I just stopped two wreckers in their tracks tonight. Why, you may ask? Because what they were doing was wrong, and I wasn't going to put up with it. If it weren't for the fact that I was seeing my son tomorrow, I would have held my ground, like I always have. I've been to detention in elementary, middle, high school, and jail in the "real" world because of things I've stood for. Don't even pretend you've done likewise. That is why the people who know me, while they may not necessarily agree with what I may be standing for, always respect my conviction.
I'm assuming i am, ahem, the "challenged" one? I'll say this... I just stopped two wreckers in their tracks tonight. Why, you may ask? Because what they were doing was wrong, and I wasn't going to put up with it. If it weren't for the fact that I was seeing my son tomorrow, I would have held my ground, like I always have. I've been to detention in elementary, middle, high school, and jail in the "real" world because of things I've stood for. Don't even pretend you've done likewise. That is why the people who know me, while they may not necessarily agree with what I may be standing for, always respect my conviction. EDIT: Sorry for the double post. I'm at a friends computer right now, and don't have the capacity to delete it.
Actually, I thought of a much better analogy: You purchased a home with a known major flaw. You know it has to be fixed. You decide to purchase the home for, oh... let's say... $10,000,000. You assume it will cost $10,000 to fix it. Next thing you know, you find out there are a lot of damages to this house. ie. $5-600,000 worth of repairs. You have a choice: A: Fix the house, knowing that it will eventually be worthwhile. B:Abondon the house, and let it deteriorate, Batman, I'm guessing you're a "B" guy? Why?
Nope, Fatty. I'm the guy who told you it was gonna cost 5 million in repairs before you bought it. You ignored me and bought it anyway. Now you're asking me for answers as if I never warned you. Do a BBS search on Batman and Iraq. I was telling you guys to think about this stuff years ago. Now you want to pin it on me that you didn't listen.
I haven't pretended anything here. But why would you assume I haven't done likewise? Or, worse still, bested you at this silly and irrelevant game? Chances are, embarassingly enough, I have. (Stopping wreckers?? Ooooohhhhh.....) Don't guess, Fatty. You don't know me any better than I know you. Let's just argue this politics stuff. You'd almost certainly lose that other fight but either way we'd both wind up looking even stupider than we usually do.
