What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
138 Comments
- enki25, on 10/12/2007, -9/+99That analogy is misleading, it implies our country has been charged with policing the world. We haven't. But even if we had been, your analogy is still wrong because our actions in Iraq have clearly made things worse!
Every justification Bush has given for the second invasion of Iraq has been disproven or made irrelevant by the consequences of our actions there.
WMD - None were there, and no reliable intelligence ever existed showing that there were.
Terrorism - None were there before our invasion, but there are now because of our invasion.
Islamic Extremism - Iraq was a secular state, lead by a dicatator of course, but was not driven by the fundamentalists we are at war with. Now it has the potential to be overrun by these people, because of our invasion.
Protection of Iraqi Civilians - The US invasion has now lead to more civilian casualties than Saddam ever could have gotten away with given the international scruitiny he was under before we invaded. - jaymzz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+72Annn Coulter has a Digg account? *sweet*!
- javip, on 10/12/2007, -5/+60I think this is the problem with conservatives.. they make these arguments which on some level sound logical, so they are convinced that their view must be correct.
They then either refuse to listen to why their logic and argument is faulty, or 'listen' selectively, and come up with some other messed up logic regarding something irrelevant and somehow link it to the original argument and further convince themselves that they are correct.
Eventually, the conservative ends up even more convinced he's right, and the other person ends up with a headache and confused from trying to explain something which should be so easy to understand, to an idiot that doesn't know he's an idiot. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45Your analogy would be fitting if the second, third, or even fourth reasons turned out to be valid.
The correct analogy would be, your a cop and think this guy is shady but you don't have any evidence so you can't do anything. So you put together some shakey evidence and sell it to your superiors as hard truth. You get a warrant and move in, You arrest the guy, kill a bunch of his friends, but don't find anything illegal in his home. Meanwhile, his neighbors, who are pissed because they know you trumped the charges to begin with, come over and start a fight. So you go back to your public and say see, this is why we are here... to battle the aggresive neighbors.
I think it is a matter of public record now that the intelligence we had was wrong. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40LoneRanger is clearly an example of one of those dyed in the wool supporters who you're never going to convince no matter what. Once an apologist always an apologist. You can't make the leopard change its spots.
Look LR, if you feel so strongly about such repugnant behavior by others across the world, then you should put your money where your pious mouth is and as an individual go overseas to support some cause on your own. I don't mean doing it through the military, but doing it on your own or with others who join you voluntarily, however our wonderful big government does not allow that. The fact that it is a volunteer military is beside the point here. Even though we're not forced to join thank God, it still has ramifications and effects us at home and effects the world and on top of that we have to foot the bill so don't try to tell us that it is none of our damn business! It sure as hell is. Anything the government does is our business. Anytime our government interferes in foreign matters overseas with its interventionist foreign policy and gets into wars that have nothing to do with self-defense it creates a ripple effect throughout the world that will be felt many years on down the road as it creates all these side effects and unforseen unintended consequences and the track record of that happening with our government in history proves that. Just do a little studying of our governments history and you will see that to be the case. Our government meddling in the Middle East for decades created a lot of these problems in the first place and led to this tragic blowback.
So do not try to tell me that it is our moral obligation to police the world and rid the world of dictators. As Ayn Rand once said..."You have no unchosen obligations in life". The key word being unchosen. If you think it is incumbent upon us to police the world and get rid of bloody dictators, good luck. You'll be doing that forever and will just make the world worse in the process. It's an impossible task. Liberty can not be forced upon others by an outside party. Liberty has to be earned by those who clearly understand it and want it. Yes, it is a sad thing for people who have to live under dictators like Saddam, but as unfortunate as it is, clearly he was there for a reason, not to mention our government was also responsible for him being there in the first place thanks to the CI..*****..A. You just take out one bloody dictator and there will simply be another dictator who will eventually fill the vacuum. Just look at the drug war for an example of that happening. The philosophy of liberty has to be in the collective consciousness of the population in order for there to be a revolution of liberty and clearly there are no Thomas Jeffersons in Iraq. You can't force it upon them. George Bush obviously does not understand this concept.
Another thing is, do you even care about the Constitution? Last I checked, this is an unconstitutional war. The founding fathers were against foreign interventionism. The only time a war is justified is if it is clearly a matter of self-defense and don't give me this preemptive crap either. That does not fly with me. Plus what on Earth did Iraq have to do with 9/11? I guess after the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, we should have attacked Canada? I also don't want to hear any of those stupid World War II analogies from you. I'm sick of you neocons using those dumb analogies. It has been well proven by now that Iraq was in no shape or form, affiliated with al-qaeda and in fact, Iraq could have actually proved to be a useful ally for us and as a buffer against Iran as Saddam and Osama were at odds with each other and were enemies. Invading Iraq played right into Osamas hands and now there is a danger of there being a greater Iranian empire to fill the void there.
Let me ask you, assuming that you're likely a good republican, were you screaming bloody murder about Bill Clintons interventionst foreign policy with Mogoadishu and so forth? If so, then you're a flaming hypocrite. Of course, I'm sure you're also going to blame all of this on Clinton now for not doing anything after the first World Trade Center bombing and those other incidents. I'm not defending Clinton. He bears some responsibility for the problems we're in, but it is so childish and overly simplistic for you republicans to put all of the blame entirely on him. There is plenty of blame to go around for both democrats and republicans alike going back years and years.
I don't understand why you people have suddenly transformed this war into a moral duty to free other people over the world. WTF?! I thought after 9/11 it was supposed to about defending us, not helping other people! How does that work?! We should have strictly gone after the al-qaeda elements that were targeting us and we should have done it as if one would do when going after a mafia with the help of other countries cooperating with us and we could have done that if he better statesmen who weren't such hot heads. The Bush adminstration really blew it. The world was with us immediately after 9/11, but with the Bush administrations behavior, we lost the worlds support.
Oh, and this should not have been broadened into a world wide war against all terrorism. It should have remained strictly to al-qaeda and to fight a war against terrorism is an unwinnable war. It's not like a conventional war where there is a clear end in sight where you know who the enemy is and can easily defeat that enemy. This is an open ended, never ending Orwellian war. Terrorism is a mindset and a tactic and as long as the mindset of terrorism exists in some persons mind, there will always be a threat of it. You can't completely eliminate or prevent it. There is no such thing as true security from government. It's an illusion. All it leads to is tyranny. With the way we're approaching this, we're just fanning the flames of more terrorism in the world. So don't try to tell me that I'm some insane, suicidal peacenik liberal. I'm all for defending ourselves if we are truly threatened. We just disagree with the strategy and I don't want to see the Constitution trampled upon and see big government grow even more at home and abroad in the name of fighting this. Much of this terrorism was provoked by our interventionist foreign policy so that is a key to how we can stop terrorism by eliminating the damn foreign policy. Oh, and before you call me one of these liberals, let's just say that I actually used to be a conservative republican/libertarian in the small government Jeffersonian sense. However, I abandoned the republican party some time ago and became an extreme big L libertarian so I am no liberal. I changed.
As for your analogy, it's not even relevant and applicable at all because a world wide war against terrorism and invading Iraq is unconstiutional in the first place and it is no business of our military to take out Saddam as bad as he may have been not to mention that the Congress did not get a constitutional declaration of war. So that analogy doesn't even fit. You don't invade soverign countries who are not declaring war on you and attacking you in the first place. It's also an abuse of the military to use our troops as sacrificial lambs for other countries citizens. Our military was only intended to be used to strictly defend our shores, period! It was not meant to be used as an interventionist policing force. Think about that any time someones child comes home in a body bag. What a waste of life that is. It is unconstitutional, immoral and a waste of time. It accomplishes nothing! Don't try that isolationist angle on me either. That won't work, which that has nothing to do with isolationism anyway. I'm also skeptical of anything the government tells us. Our big media is awful and does not do its job of investigative journalism. They just parrot what the government tells them and cheerlead our big government. You have to go to the Internet for real investigative journalism. I know Saddam was a dictator and I'm sure he did many bad things, but it actually turned out that some of what our government said about him was actually exaggerated or an outright lie. I will not take as gospel anything our government says. I've certainly learned that over time. - kaemaril, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29"OK, let's say you are are a police chief. You receive word from ALL your intelligence people that a crack house is being operated out of a certain address. So, you send in the SWAT team to kick butt and take names. But when they break down the door, they don't find any drugs. What they find is a child porn ring and two missing children. What would you do?
Would you "revise" your justification for raiding the house and arrest everyone and seize everything in sight? Or would you apologize profusely and back out, promising to send someone to repair the door?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Here's an even better option:
c) Say 'Yes, we made a mistake. Lessons will be leant. Meantime, we found evidence of another crime, and arrests were made."
But that's not what happened. Here's what actually happened, to use your analogy:
Police Chief : We busted these guys 'cos they were drug dealers.
Reporter : But no drugs were found. Nor any drug-making paraphenalia.
Police Chief : Yesssss .... that's true. But we found they were child pornographers.
Reporter : No children were found on the premises, nor any tapes. At least, according to the officers we interviewed.
Police Chief : Well, yes, OK ... that's true. But they were ... um ... going to rob a bank.
Reporter : No weapons were found, no plans for bank vaults, no sign of any intention to rob a bank. Isn't that true?
Police Chief : OK, OK... yeah, that's true. But we DID find evidence they were going to stick up a licquor store!
Reporter : Oh? What was that?
Police Chief : I can't tell you that, it's classified.
Reporter : According to our information it was a half-drunk bottle of tequila.
Police Chief : Exactly!
Reporter : And this is evidence?
Police Chief : We have reliable intelligence they were going to go after more tequila. We can't find any intelligence to suggest they were going to pay.
Reporter : Do you have ANY evidence at all, other than your so-called reliable intelligence, that the people in that house are criminals?
Police Chief : ... Not as such, no. But they were bad people! So we HAVE to arrest them, or they might do bad things to us one day!
Reporter : Like steal some tequila?
Police Chief : Exactly. We were practically FORCED to lock them up. - sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24"But when they break down the door, they don't find any drugs. What they find is a child porn ring and two missing children. What would you do?"
I sure as hell wouldn't camp out in that crack house, years after arresting the original criminals, to install democracy.
"They know that as the wealthiest, most powerful, freest country in the history of the world owes something to the global community"
You show perfectly the difference between a conservative and a neocon. A conservative would say "we don't owe the world *****". I agreed with them. You are just a neocon idiot who would sell your soul for a political party that, truthfully, could care less about you or any other American. - BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25@dirka
Because the rich, famous and politicians don't WANT to do any of the fighting or protecting, so just order or rile up the middle and lower classes to do their bidding. Then they proclaim how its "their" fight in the corrupt media.
Gotta love the system :) - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Fangasm...... "The correct analogy would be, your a cop and think this guy is shady but you don't have any evidence so you can't do anything. So you put together some shakey evidence and sell it to your superiors as hard truth. You get a warrant and move in, You arrest the guy, kill a bunch of his friends, but don't find anything illegal in his home. Meanwhile, his neighbors, who are pissed because they know you trumped the charges to begin with, come over and start a fight. So you go back to your public and say see, this is why we are here... to battle the aggresive neighbors."
I don't mean to be nitpicky here, but there was one thing you could have corrected there in your correction of his analogy. You mentioned get a warrant and move in. Well, the warrant part wouldn't have even been analogous to our government in this case because our governments equivalent to a warrant would have been a constitutional declaration of war, which our government did not get. So that a minor change there that you could have pointed out to him. - dirka, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Why don't the people in America that have all the money and owe the most to this country pack back what we owe?? Why does the middle and lower class have to protect the world and do all the fighting???
- javip, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Well that explains it, you spent 24 years being brainwashed.
OBVIOUSLY no argument is ever going to convince you here, because it would basically mean admitting that for 24 years you were being brainwashed by this "world police academy".. which you won't do, it's too painful.
Good luck with that. - realsurreal2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20"Second of all - lets poll the survivors of the world trade center and see if they think we should be in Iraq."
Why should their opinion be any more valid than anyone else's? - kcasper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20It is amazing at how liberals have been trying to solve problems like the poor and hunger and conservatives routinely say it isn't our problem. During Katrina it is the conservatives that are saying "Not our problem". Yet here you are saying:"I am constantly amazed at how liberals can turn a blind eye to ANY human suffering if it means sacrifice on their part."
You have very selective values in this area. Anything to justify the war I guess. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19bclinton, speak for yourself you ***** moron. At least I can write something intelligent. All you can do is try to slam me with some ad hominem attack and spout off with these emotional talking points. What weak arguments you have. Got anything better *****? I'm sorry my lengthy, well thought out post was too hard for your reading comprehension level dummy. You apparently have the time to spend on digg and write moronic responses to people like me so what gives? I guess you've also never heard of these things called books since you don't like coming across something long like my post.
Don't try to call me an ACLU wacko either. I'm no liberal dummy. Get that through your thick skull. The ACLU may be right about a few things from time to time, but many times that organization takes liberal stances. They are good about some civil liberties, but I know dummies like yourself don't give a ***** about civil liberties. To tell me about the dead at the WTC site is a purely emotional argument. It has no relevance to the merits of my argument. Learn some logic *****!. You sure didn't give me much of anything substantive to respond to in your vacuous post. As to WMD, no Iraq did not have any! You want to prove me wrong? Go ahead. Try. Yes, at one time Iraq did have WMD, but they did not at the time that we were threatening them and you know what, even if Iraq did have WMD that still would not have justified the war. God you idiots are so brainwashed. Don't try to use your childish insults about getting a hobby either you low iq troglodyte. You apparently still need to evolve. Obviously you must be some brainwashed dunce young person if you're using some dumb insult like that. ***** you too about trying to tell me about thanking a soldier for my speech. Oh yeah, when has the military seriously protected our liberty at home? I know you will likely bring up WWII, but I'll save that for now. The military has never been used to protect us here literally. It has only been used abroad against nonexistent threats created by our government. I will thank the founding fathers and the Constitution for my free speech, but oh at the same time, your wonderful government you're supporting is in the meantime taking away our liberty and I'll probably eventually lose my speech anyway. It is the government that is the real threat. Don't try to lecture me about my freedoms because you're the one who clearly doesn't care about us losing our liberty. So drop dead you stupid prick! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I thought that's about the most sensible thing I've seen written on Digg.
@bclinton
"Bush was being proactive with our defense. In other words the best defense is a good offense. It seems before we would wait for something to happen and then react. [snip] Always second guessing decisions."
That is such a load of simplistic *****. Spoken with the blithe impatience of a man who doesn't have to suffer the reality of the war you cheer on. - javip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I'll only speak for myself here, but I'm pretty sure all these liberals would be more than happy for there never to be a need for any of these articles to appear on digg..
if there weren't any idiots out there like LoneRanger still commenting in support of conservatives, I'd be more than happy never to comment on articles regarding George Bush - xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Who will police the police" doesn't sound as important when you're the police. The funny thing is 10 years ago conservatives said "we shouldn't be the world's policeman". Now, they want to be. What's the difference? They're in power.
Anyone who wants to be the world's sole or primary policeman isn't doing it because they want to make the world a better place, they're doing it because they are an authoritarian. They feel *they* have the right and the ability to make decisions for others. Sorry, but you're only one step away from being the type of person who should be policed. - Tolpero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"It's a struggle between good and evil."
Where have I heard this before? (apart from Bush, ofcourse)
Sounds like a line of text overlayed on the introduction part of a computer game or a movie.
Lol, getting even better: Dick Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the civilized world ride with us,"
Some pr guy must have spent countless hours making that ***** up for these guys.. :) - bpatters7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Your analogies are so zany they could almost be part of a comedy skit. It's like saying, "You think we shouldn't have invaded Iraq? Why do you hate the troops so much." I mean really it's funny. Or rather would be if nearly 3000 of our finest military men and women hadn't died (so far) as a result of Bush and his bumbling buddies.....all of whom are getting very very rich off this war while taxpayers shell out hundreds of billions.
Here is just one more comment, "They know that as the wealthiest, most powerful, freest country in the history of the world owes something to the global community and they aren't afraid to pay back what we owe."
The world didn't want us to invade and they don't want us there now. We're destabalizing the region and the world. It's just amazing how easy it is for you to drink the Neo-con koolaid. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Ok, you're such a big boy than LR. Good for you that you served in the military. I'm sorry to say that YOU WERE USED! ;-) If you weren't such an idiot on here, then I would have some respect for you. I notice that's all you had to say. Couldn't respond to any of my arguments huh? Don't you call me a coward either you ***** idiot and don't say that I don't care about brown people just because I'm not for using our military this way. You're the one who doesn't understand morality if you think it is some how morally superior to use the force of the government military to your ends and force us to support it and foot the bill. That in itself is immoral so don't lecture me about that.
- HologramRose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Who the f*ck are you to know better than the rest of the world what they need? You think it's your duty to help other countries without them asking? Why?
So what if other countries decide to come help you and liberate you from your current dictatorship? Oh, it's not a dictatorship? Damn, I guess you must be brainwashed like these people in Iraq, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, South America, and all the others that did not see things your way for the last 60 years.
Wake up. - carbocalm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16bclinton: "If you are stupid enough to think that Iraq never had WMD's then I am amazed."
Sure they had. Guess where they bought them ? - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@LoneRanger85 I am really sorry, but I AM a true Republican conservative and NOT some wackjob neo-con. Your argument is horrible because we have now killed more civilians over there than the last regime in power. We are NOT the police of the world point in fact.
There are a LOT of bad things in this world. China does most of them, but are we putting sanctions on China? NO. If we want to be leaders among the nations, then we need to do by example. We need to stop torture, stop secret prisons, stop secret court trials, and make sure the Habeas Corpus is ALWAYS available. Even a "terrorist" should have council to at least make sure whomever labeled him as such is kept in check.
As for being the world police, I say we need to be good neighbors. If we find a country like China killing its citizens, or selling organs from inmates, or grabbing people off the street for organs, or any other horrible things then we need to stop dealing with them. We need to sanction all relations with that country until they shape up.
Governments should never be allowed to do what China, or even our current administration is doing. Our constitution should be sacrosanct. If we start fooling around with the meaning of "is" with our liberties we are screwed. wait, that is happening now. - bubba9999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16You can go back and work as a civilian contractor. Haliburton needs plenty of truck drivers over there and they pay big bucks. You only have to worry about getting shot or blown up every trip. But you would be doing your part.
I'm glad that you keep going against the face of all evidence to insist that the US involvement in Iraq still has something to do with terrorism, and not something to do with special interests. I mean, how terrible would it be for your neighbors and their families to find out that their loved ones lost their lives to support profit-driven folly? - osirisothedead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@back40t
The folks in your town changed their tune? Why? What happened? Did a bunch of hillbillies and yourself storm their houses wielding pitchforks? - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15back40t...Got any more insults that you can assume about me just because I'm a dissenter? I'm also against government handouts so that shows how much you know about me. Oh yeah, I'm self-centered. Whatever. You morons somehow think you're a moral pedestal above us just because you support all of this. You have no real arguments so you're just reduced to insulting us.
- Tomos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+141. JDenigma is the smartest person here.
2. Anyone defending any of the actions Bush has taken.. pretty much ever, is a seriously out of touch individual. Invading countries for ANY reason (be it Oil or pre-emptive attack/defense strategy?!) is not the way forward for the world, us humans, of for our entire future.
3. Sorry this post isn't as prolific and lengthy as some of the fine readin' material here, but I just got back from an all night London techno rave and haven't gone to bed - wburglett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I have a feeling loneranger85 has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
I mean, it is a misleading comparison, first of all, but in addition to that it is also justifies that we went there on false pretenses. Here is a better example: You go home and your brother comes up to you and tells you that from the tinted glass window he saw a person outside with a gun, knocking on the door. So as a preemptive strike, you pour boiling water out of that window. Well it turns out, of course, that your intelligence was flawed and now the door-to-door solicitation company that was at your door, actually does want to kill you. While at the same time, what you did made you lose your friends (somehow) and have the members of the solicitation company fighting each other for power. And some branch of the solicitation company personally dedicated to blowing up your house. Worst of all, you didn't even succeed in what you were trying to do, even though it looked like you did.
Basically, what you get is a big mess when you could have just asked the poor guy to leave.
But now back to Iraq. When we invaded there wasn't even a mention of torture or anything else that Saddam had done except get weapons of mass destruction. And now that we find out that he didn't, Bush is trying to re justify it. If our attempt is to attack, and get the reasons for it later, i don't see much hope for your future as a nation.
But what I hate most about this is how Bush is using our PM as a puppet, to do what ever he wants him to do. Personally, I believe that we should just break our alliance with you, b/c an alliance is supposed to be mutual, and what have you brought to us? War and terrible foreign policy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"Why is the war in Iraq any of your business?"
Because I live down the street from a widow who lost her husband in Iraq and I get to watch her three little kids grow up without their dad. Because those same kids are going to be stuck paying back the massive budget deficits we've run up while wasting 5 billion a month in Iraq. Because the Bush administration squandered our collective treasure while giving tax breaks to people who already have more money than they can spend. And because our army is weakened to the point we can't do squat against Iran and North Korea, both of which really do have WMD's. And because the war in Iraq creates the largest and most convenient terrorist training ground on earth.
Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head and would be bad enough if that were the exhaustive list. You have no ethics, no character, and no principles if you continue to stick up for the failed philosophy that's led us into the most shockingly mismanaged time in the history of our nation. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Oh yeah, what kind of terrorism did he support? You'll tell me he suppported the Palestinian terrorism against Israel I'll bet. Sorry, but that does not count. That has nothing to do with protecting ourselves. I guess I'm just a cold, uncaring person because I don't believe in using the force of government around the world for some morally pious purpose and in the process destroy liberty at home and kill many lives abroad. Sorry that is not morally superior. It is not a moral obligation for us to use our government as a tool to supposedly help other people around the world. To be against that is not immoral. If you think so, then you don't understand morality. What would be truly moral is for the American government to stay out of other peoples matters around the world and let it be a shining example and beacon to the rest of the world to follow our example. Then if people have trouble overseas they can overthrow their government or move here. That would also be tough love. That would be the truly morally superior stance to take with respect to marco level morality on the world stage. People ultimately get the government they deserve and sorry, they had that government in Iraq for a reason. Those people do not understand liberty like some of us do here. You can spout off all you want about your high and might democracy that you want to spread. I hate democracy anyway. Democracy is a bad form of government. That is a myth. We are not supposed to be a democracy. We were intended to be a Constitutional republic. Just having a democracy in Iraq will probably just usher in a theocratic Islamic republic allied with Iran.
Your argument also still doesn't make sense because I don't think Saddam would have cared and been concerned about that at the moment of being invaded. All he would be concerned about is protecting his own hide and not getting caught. I'm also not so sure that the world would have turned against him because they would have seen Saddam acting as someone in self-defense from an invading occupier.
The only terrorism that Saddam supported was the Palestinian terrorism, which had nothing to do with us and Israels interests are not justificatin for our involvement! All the intelligence was flawed including the Downing Street Memo. - mikecap, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14To anyone who supports Bush or the war in Iraq:
Why didn't we invade North Korea? If we knew North Korea has WMDs (we did) and we knew people are tortured and suffering there (we did) and those justifications were good enough to enter Iraq - why weren't they good enough to invade and occupy North Korea?
The answer is: because that's not what the neoconservatives wanted. They wanted oil prices to soar for the Grand Oil Party and they wanted a trillion dollars to be spent on war profiteering. And they got it. - converge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13that's one long-ass comment. dugg.
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14What a load of bs this claim by the right that Saddam moved the weapons. I'm sure there is as much evidence for that as there was evidence for all the other governments claims. You'll believe anything you're told huh? Next if we don't find them in Syria they'll say that they transported the weapons to some reptilian aliens and had them shipped off to Mars. You can quibble all you want about WMD because even with the WMD I don't care! That still would not be justification for the war. How many other dictatorial countries in this world have WMD. Let's invade the whole damn world!
- DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The crying shame is that Bush et al cherry picked intelligence reports to find a justification for a war that fit into their agenda for the region. As a consequence this nation's wealth and military have been squandered in a futile attempt to remake Iraq into a democracy. This in an artificial nation with no prior history of determination buy its people. I do not criticize those who serve their country but rather those who put them in harm's way for what appears to be no good reason. Now Bush et al keep changing that reason to fit the political winds. Mr. Bush is, in my opinion, the most shameful modern president; right down there with Mr. Nixon. Bush et al need to be castrated on November 7! Take back reason! Vote!
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12That alone should also tell you that Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons or really any WMD because America doesn't attack countries that can fight back with WMD
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What the founding fathers were for or against has nothing to do with whether a war is constitutional. Only the constitution says that, and there is nothing in the US constitution that says a war is only for internal defensive purposes. Sorry.
So you're now trying to tell me that this war is actually constitutional? Please do enlighten me then and explain how and where this is all justified. Our military was only designed to protect our shores and our borders from any enemies that would attempt to attack us and that can also include a missle defense shield to protect us against any future threats of missles being lobbed our way. Not only was our government not set up to get involved in entangling alliances over seas, but it is also supposed to be a constitutional procedure to get the declaration of war from Congress, not give a blank check to the executive branch to decide on a whim when and where they can send us to war. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11They believe this same intelligence that failed us before 9/11. They also rip the Clinton administration for fing up the intelligence agencies yet they at the same time take the intelligence agencies word as gosepl. What hypocrites.
- scrambled, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm pretty sure there was a report circling around that Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda.
- socket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Duh, why do you think that is? That's because none of what he tells us is the real truth. I doubt anyone really knows his real rational for war with Iraq, besides him and Barney, maybe. But the bottom line he we have plenty of evidence he has lied us into a war. That is in my book unforgivable.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10bclinton wrote: "Second of all - lets poll the survivors of the world trade center and see if they think we should be in Iraq."
Uhh... Woo... Someone missed the memo. September 11th had nothing to do with Iraq, so what relevance would their answers have ('yes' *or* 'no')? Absolutely none. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8This fight against WMD is like the global version of gun control
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yeah, all that will happen is people will for the "lesser of two evils" in 08 and democrats will regain control and nothing will change. The democrats will play the same big government game either. Round and round we go and never do we learn
- kozie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9That he probably had something to hide.
But why then kill all his friends and the people that he forced to live on his property because there was nothing there when you had a look? - Maaarrrk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7He revises it to whatever his spinmaster Karl Rove tells he will fool the most voters today.
What a looser - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Ha ha, I'm no liberal. I'm a libertarian. Big difference dummy lol
- wanderer2005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I believe President Bush continues to justify his decision to go to war with Iraq is because of his pride. President Bush cited 3 reasons why going to war with Iraq was necessary, which are (1) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), (2) to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and (3) to stabilize the region. Well, there are no WMD. We did manage to depose Saddam Hussein but now, instead of Saddam Hussein, Americans soldiers are convicting the atrocities. For example, American soldiers mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Gharb. Prisoners being stripped naked and lineup against a wall. Soldiers torturing prisoners. American soldiers raping civilians. For example, Pfc Steven D. Green and 4 other Americans soldier broke in to a home and killed the entire family except the daughter. The soldiers took turns raping her and when they were finished they shot her in the head. Next, they took gas and burnt down the home to destroy any evidence of the crime. If anything, American presence in the Middle East has destabilize the region. Iraq is on the brink of a civil war. More soldiers and civilians have died after the war than during the war. The US efforts in Iraq is an uttered failure. If President Bush was to admit he made a mistake then he would be admitting that thousands of American soldiers and civilian lives, and billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted for nothing. Do you think he willing to admit that? I don't.
- mikecap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Do you even know what the definition of WMD is? Practically anything can be a WMD if deployed correctly. And of course we know that Saddam used toxic gas, and gas is a WMD, but Rumsfeld and Rice and all the other cronies used terms like "mushroom cloud" and used false evidence like the "uranium in Africa" that never existed to make it sound like Saddam had nukes - and he never did. North Korea on the other hand, we have known has had nukes and has been starving its people for decades, and no one has done ***** about Kim Jong Il.
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Here's a better drug analogy:
A major drug kingpin as a condition for his parole agrees to inspections of his apartment and major real estate holdings. But then he decides when those inspections are to occur. After that he decides what buildings people should be allowed to look in. And if that wasn't enough, he decides the Chief of Police shouldn't head up the inspection team - he wants somebody less hostile. Finally, after years of stonewalling, he finally decides he's ready to let the inspection team in.
What would you conclude?
Forget your cute little analogy. With regards to Saddam having WMD, why in the hell didn't he use them then when we invaded his country?! It makes no sense. You would think any human being in the interest of their own self-preservation would use what they could to protect themself. The fact that nothing was used against our troops tells me Saddam was really impotent, so to speak. Saddam was probably also bluffing about having WMD because he wanted his neighboring enemies to be afraid of him. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Spread democracy spread democracy blah blah blah. You know, this very same thing happened to the British empire and the Roman empire.
- JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
old link
just something interesting to add to the debate -
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is