You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For all the moral equivalence-hampered moonbats
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
Um, hello, that youtube video does NOT support your point at all. Cheney makes no mention of what would happen should we depose Saddam, prop up the government with our military, and then leave!! What he did do is explain that it would be urban versus desert warfare, Saddam would have to be found, and the new government propped up, all at a cost that he and Bush Sr. did not consider, in 1992, to be worth it.Quote from Avid_Consumer:
the administration knew that it would come to this the entire time. there are multiple videos of cheney warning against invading and deposing saddam, for that very reason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7Ik_X1HU0
Good grief, yet another moonbat who posts links to videos that do not support his position. Perhaps you were relying on noone actually watching the video and discovering that you're as full of shit as your other moonbat comrades-in-derangement here.
Oh sure, yeah, the administration invaded Iraq fully expecting to be cut-and-running a few years later. But at least they got their few years of stealing Iraq's oil, right???this moral judgement makes no sense given the administration's full knowledge of the consequences of their actions. your administration initiated this war expecting this outcome
Damn but you're a loonie...
So answer this simple question: if you're all about caring for your fellow man, why would you be in support of a withdrawal of our troops - whether you agree with the invasion or not - if you know that the resulting chaos will inflict unimaginable death and suffering to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis?
What you think about the administration is irrelevant. Let's all put on our tinfoil hats and assume for a minute that you're right and Bush is Hitler reincarnated, we did it all for the oil, etc. That still doesn't change the reality on the ground that if we leave, the Iraqis will suffer and die on a scale heretofore unseen.
So why would you support that? Simple question. I'm betting you don't have the intellectual honesty to answer it, at least without assigning irrelevant blame to Bush and Co.
Quote from hapaboy:
Um, hello, that youtube video does NOT support your point at all. Cheney makes no mention of what would happen should we depose Saddam, prop up the government with our military, and then leave!! What he did do is explain that it would be urban versus desert warfare, Saddam would have to be found, and the new government propped up, all at a cost that he and Bush Sr. did not consider, in 1992, to be worth it.
yes he definitely did. cheney described the power vacuum that would ensue from all directions, and the propping that would be necessary for decades. it's implicit that he understood the country would be dangerously unstable once we left.
are you saying that even though he explicitly said he believed the country would split in 3 or more parts and need perpetual propping - he didn't forsee total chaos for the civilians once we'd eventually leave? you're stuck on insults and youtube - not making an argument
Good grief, yet another moonbat who posts links to videos that do not support his position. Perhaps you were relying on noone actually watching the video and discovering that you're as full of shit as your other moonbat comrades-in-derangement here.
spare me your vapid grafitti
Oh sure, yeah, the administration invaded Iraq fully expecting to be cut-and-running a few years later. But at least they got their few years of stealing Iraq's oil, right???
Damn but you're a loonie...
i didn't say anything about stealing oil. ask alan greenspan why he thinks the war was about oil. if anything i think this war has kept it in the ground... saddam was ready to undercut his neighbors. plain and simple common interest with the saudis - a perpetual destabilization
So answer this simple question: if you're all about caring for your fellow man, why would you be in support of a withdrawal of our troops - whether you agree with the invasion or not - if you know that the resulting chaos will inflict unimaginable death and suffering to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis?
did i say that? where. i'm not against stabilizing the situation that already exists. i just think it's f-ing weak to use that as a moralistic argument against 'the left'. two totally different things - a subtlety you didn't discern
What you think about the administration is irrelevant. Let's all put on our tinfoil hats and assume for a minute that you're right and Bush is Hitler reincarnated, we did it all for the oil, etc. That still doesn't change the reality on the ground that if we leave, the Iraqis will suffer and die on a scale heretofore unseen.
more of your flawed assumption
So why would you support that? Simple question. I'm betting you don't have the intellectual honesty to answer it, at least without assigning irrelevant blame to Bush and Co.
all that vomit for nothing. i haven't advocated pulling out. i've established that your morality judgement is flawed because cheney knew this war would result in perpetual occupation, chaos for the iraqi people, or both
Quote from Thunderdog:
If you are fashioning yourself after that resident troll, then I suggest you aim higher. However, if the term "neocon" offends you, then you may wish to explore what you find so offensive about it: the name, or the people and conduct it represents. The name itself harmlessly and accurately identifies the far right. Is it perhaps the far right that you find offensive? I'm just trying to get to the root of your aversion to the accurately descriptive term.
Neocons are not "far right." They were part of the Republican alliance, but they have never gotten along very well with other factions in that alliance, such as the Evangelicals and the paleo-conservatives. The original neocons were largely jewish intellectuals who were liberal democrats but broke with that party over its approach to the Soviet Union.
They're called Jacobian's...liberal Jewish democrats who have co-oped a terribly weak president and his willing allies.
I find it hilariously ironic that many who consider themselves "right wing" (hapadouche) are actually aligned with the most liberal Democrats in this country in the last 50 years who are masquerading as conservatives. Too Funny...always has been.
I find it hilariously ironic that many who consider themselves "right wing" (hapadouche) are actually aligned with the most liberal Democrats in this country in the last 50 years who are masquerading as conservatives. Too Funny...always has been.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
The original neocons were largely jewish intellectuals who were liberal democrats but broke with that party over its approach to the Soviet Union.
At this point who fucking cares?
So ...now we should stay in Iraq as to not oversee a bloodbath between two faction of Islam that's existed since and been whacking each other since the 10th century . And we should spend American blood and treasure to do so? Pull your freaking head out...Junior.
You sound LBJ and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
So ...now we should stay in Iraq as to not oversee a bloodbath between two faction of Islam that's existed since and been whacking each other since the 10th century . And we should spend American blood and treasure to do so? Pull your freaking head out...Junior.
You sound LBJ and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Quote from hapaboy:
....if we leave, the Iraqis will suffer and die on a scale heretofore unseen.
No, it is not "implicit that he understood the country would be dangerously unstable once we left," or that he foresaw "total chaos for the civilians once we left." He says none of those things. He mentions the dangers of us going in and removing Saddam, but he does NOT say anything anywhere about us leaving. How could he? We hadn't gone in at the time of those interviews!! Doh!!Quote from Avid_Consumer:
yes he definitely did. cheney described the power vacuum that would ensue from all directions, and the propping that would be necessary for decades. it's implicit that he understood the country would be dangerously unstable once we left.
are you saying that even though he explicitly said he believed the country would split in 3 or more parts and need perpetual propping - he didn't forsee total chaos for the civilians once we'd eventually leave? you're stuck on insults and youtube - not making an argument
Are you so dull-witted that you honestly believe that this administration went into Iraq KNOWING that we would be departing with our tails between our legs a few years down the road?
Well, I really shouldn't be surprised. You are, after all, the same genius who equates Americans who do not share your hatred of Bush and Co. with Islamofascists, and claims that large numbers of those we have killed in Iraq would not have beheaded us if they had the chance. Oh wait, that's because we've killed "hundreds of thousands" of innocent Iraqis mostly. Sorry, I forgot the moonbat dogma for a sec...
So, for the record, then, you agree that the war was not about stealing oil, and you are for US troops remaining in Iraq for the timebeing. Is that correct?i didn't say anything about stealing oil.
i'm not against stabilizing the situation that already exists.
i haven't advocated pulling out.
I believe it to be a completely justifiable moral argument against those on the Left who demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq.i just think it's f-ing weak to use that as a moralistic argument against 'the left'. two totally different things - a subtlety you didn't discern
i've established that your morality judgement is flawed because cheney knew this war would result in perpetual occupation, chaos for the iraqi people, or both
Again, what you believe about the Right is irrelevant. Let me put this in terms you might understand: If you say Pam Anderson is beautiful and I say Jessica Alba is beautiful, does that mean Pam Anderson is not beautiful? Of course not...
Quote from hapaboy:
You are, after all, the same genius who equates Americans who do not share your hatred of Bush and Co. with Islamofascists, and claims that large numbers of those we have killed in Iraq would not have beheaded us if they had the chance.
so you're saying... if we take a very conservative estimate that only 40,000 iraqi civilians have died... that most of them would have cut your head off?
just checking before i spend another second on your warped bullshit
i wouldn't save you over one iraqi kid or any other kid, let alone 40,000 or 400,000 of them. being an american earns you no greater claim on life than anyone else on earth. sorry if you feel entitled to more
cheney stated the obvious necessity for a perpetual occupation. whether they expected to 'cut and run' or not within their term is irrelevant. the bush administration has placed an entire country on a landmine for arbitrary reasons, and made it someone else's moral obligation to resolve