strike on iraq

[ElCubano]

Originally posted by dotslashfuture
it is sad that not enough is done for combat veterans, but all wars have wounded veterans and people also get killed. Nobody is arguing about that here. What matters is whether the war is good for our country or bad for our country.

Every piece of anti-war rhetoric is a rehash of the same old thing. All of it is designed to tug at the emotions and ignore logic. If I ask somebody whether an attack on iraq is just or not and they say "thousands of body bags will come home" or "Osama wants you to attack" they have not answered the question. The reason is that they know the answer is yes, and they don't want to admit it.

As for the logical reasons in favor of an attack, there are many. The liberal partisan's choose to ignore what they don't want to hear. Some people would rather drown themselves with liberal editorial pages and cartoons than look at the truth. That is sad for them, but the average person has more common sense than the extreme left.

Ok.I'll answer your question.....It may or may not be just , but not at the price of losing 1 soldier....as has been said here over 1000 times but u seem not to register it, there are other places that are of more danger than IRAQ, we should look there perhaps.....

"What matters is whether the war is good for our country or bad for our country."....snipped quote from above....

No, thats not what matters..What matters is are we going in for the right reasons....if not i would hate to lose one American Soldier......

Once again; I am trying to have an open mind here..I love the USA and I hate Castro....We just need to make sure this is the right way....

 

[vvv]

quote max: I think when someone claims to be a combat veteran and in this case, having experienced comrades fallen in battle, they need to give some verification of that. It is of such a highly revered and honored status that it demands more than just "I was in combat."

oh, give me a break.

why don't you just apply for the position of national chief inquisitor for hiomeland defense, i'm sure that W would like loyal, unquestioning stalwarts like you working for him selling his positions.

 

[max401]

Originally posted by vvv
quote max: I think when someone claims to be a combat veteran and in this case, having experienced comrades fallen in battle, they need to give some verification of that. It is of such a highly revered and honored status that it demands more than just "I was in combat."

oh, give me a break.

why don't you just apply for the position of national chief inquisitor for hiomeland defense, i'm sure that W would like loyal, unquestioning stalwarts like you working for him selling his positions.

Listen, vvv, you are now in pure attack and rant mode. I understand that. However, to the point, rather than all your silly mud slinging, you apparently feel fine running your own inquisition; from one of your recent posts:

"how come every CTA has to post facts...

ie an audited real time performance...

and you guys get away with posting marketing slogans with zero substance..."

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by ElCubano


Ok.I'll answer your question.....It may or may not be just , but not at the price of losing 1 soldier....as has been said here over 1000 times but u seem not to register it, there are other places that are of more danger than IRAQ, we should look there perhaps.....

seems to be that we have some stalwarts here who just fancy the idea of war, they like the action as long as it's not themselves doing the fighting, the simplistic idea of good against bad, etc., and particularly so when times are bad.

that's the way it's always been, and probably always will.

it's very easy to incite a joe and jane sixpack into clamoring for war, and it's always a great distraction from national problems.

war obviously loses it's attraction when the first body bags come home, or when the first maimed arrive back.

that's when joe and jane sixpack start waking up.

post facto.

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by max401


"how come every CTA has to post facts...

ie an audited real time performance...

and you guys get away with posting marketing slogans with zero substance..."

all that's coming from you warmongers, after all, is a constant hashing and rehashing of your gurus W crazy utterings and wild plans RE killing saddam, an opinion directly instrumental in our intl isolation.

and, if you had any brains whatsoever the difference between your instrumentalized attack on r7's credibility, another person who like national security advisor brent scowcroft happens to not fall in your militaristic camp, by questioning wether he ever served etc on the one hand, and my query RE sales people promising the world and not being able to back up their facts on the other hand would be perfectly obvious.

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by max401


Listen, vvv, you are now in pure attack and rant mode. I understand that. However, to the point, rather than all your silly mud slinging, [/i]

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to bush senior and ford:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts.

read all he wrote himself on the subject here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133

mudslinging, pointing out the obvious?

back at your favourite past time, dissembling again, max?

 

[canyonman00]

Originally posted by ElCubano


Ok.I'll answer your question.....It may or may not be just , but not at the price of losing 1 soldier....as has been said here over 1000 times but u seem not to register it, there are other places that are of more danger than IRAQ, we should look there perhaps.....

"What matters is whether the war is good for our country or bad for our country."....snipped quote from above....

No, thats not what matters..What matters is are we going in for the right reasons....if not i would hate to lose one American Soldier......

Once again; I am trying to have an open mind here..I love the USA and I hate Castro....We just need to make sure this is the right way....

No matter where we start, there will be someone in opposition. This time we have decided to start with Sadam. Scocoft, someone tell me the last time he was DIRECTLY in the loop to be able to speak to TODAY's intelligence info.

First, everyone was screaming, "Listen to Powell! Listen to Powell, an honorable and experienced man." Now Powell is posturing for war and no one says much anymore. Rather, the default expert of opposite opinion is now, "The Man!"

Are you using some kind of "Just War" criterion here? EVERY war has had detractors who would say that it was unjust no matter what the reason or outcome. Remember, America decided for quite some time that Hitler was not our problem. Fortunately, we decided to stop debating and start acting.

Now the administration has basically gotten a Congressional Agreement. Now how unhappy will you be? The Congress has decided that within 48 hours of actions militarily, the President will have to agree to come to the Speaker of the House to explain his actions. Not get approval, but explain his actions. Dashcle will not be too happy about that as he still get notification after-the-fact. Let's see how many painted on smiles surface.

 

[max401]

Originally posted by vvv


all that's coming from you warmongerers, after all, is a constant hashing and rehashing of your gurus W crazy utterings and wild plans RE killing saddam, an opinion directly instrumental in our intl isolation.

and, if you had any brains whatsoever the difference between your instrumentalized attack on r7's credibility, another person who like national security advisor brent scowcroft happens to not fall in your militaristic camp, by questioning wether he ever served etc and my query RE sales people promising the world and not being able to back up their facts would be perfectly obvious.

r7's credibility is not under attack, I simply asked for some verification of his claim.

Scowcroft falls into "my camp," at least the parts I quoted.

"my query RE sales people promising the world and not being able to back up their facts would be perfectly obvious."

I could not agree more wholeheartedly, just like "I was in combat." and I'm requesting that he back up that fact. Thank you.

 

[vvv]

Originally posted by max401


r7's credibility is not under attack, I simply asked for some verification of his claim.

Scowcroft falls into "my camp," at least the parts I quoted.

"my query RE sales people promising the world and not being able to back up their facts would be perfectly obvious."

I could not agree more wholeheartedly, just like "I was in combat." and I'm requesting that he back up that fact. Thank you.

how, pray, should r7 be able to, hmm, verify his claims on a public board?

what difference does it make to the material content of his message?

did bush serve?

did scowcroft serve?

did clinton serve?

as for scowcroft, i think that you might broaden your thinking if you'd let his other relevant points enter your mind as well:

But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression.

An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.

Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.


very glad to see we agree on sales people, that, particularly in the context of our jobs, ie, trading, is certainly one of my pet peeves.

you're welcome.

 

[max401]

how, pray, should r7 be able to, hmm, verify his claims on a public board?

You let me worry about that.

what difference does it make?

I have explained this previously. Do read or simply react?

as for scowcroft, i think that you might broaden your thinking if you'd let his other relevant points enter your mind as well . . .

Why, you don't seem to set the example.

very glad to see we agree on sales people, that, particularly in the context of our jobs, is cerainly one of my pet peeves.

What we agree on is that when someone makes a claim of fact it is acceptable to ask for verification of the same.