Will The Repulicans Hold Congressional Power?

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Raystonn:

At the time it was thought that WMD did exist in Iraq. If you search for something and do not find it, does that mean you should never have searched? Considering the fact that Saddam was in violation of many, many U.N. Resolutions, his credibility was shot. We could not trust his word on whether or not they had WMD. We could only trust our intelligence reports.

Actually, it was that Iraq was being helpful to AQ. This has been shown. Saddam regularly gave out prizes to the families of suicide bombers to encourage the practice. This is all well documented.

Your list of reasons is not a very accurate list. I suggest grabbing the real list from the White House. "Getting" Saddam was merely the desired action due to all other items on the list. It wasn't a bullet item itself.

Nonsense. This was not on the list, either.

Most of this is complete strawman fallacy.

-Raystonn

you are the one that said even though the main point on the list that we went to war over was ultimately determined to be based on a lie it was ok with you because they had other excuses to start an illegal war.
i like to think as americans truth and justice was one of our cornerstones.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Raystonn:

You can't show a loss in the Gross Profit column, but I understand your meaning.

Are your assumptions of their rate of growth based in fact? Can you provide some backing?

-Raystonn

No assumptions. Simply pointing out that this is not a zero sum game. Past experiences of imperial occupations have shown that the only way to pacify a population is to use a totally brutal force that the civilized nations have no stomach for.

A half-hearted effort is worse than no effort at all.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Raystonn:

Tell me, what is wrong with a stalemate? The whole point is to keep the fighting away from the United States. You will never, ever, eliminate all threats to the United States. You will never, ever, kill every enemy soldier. But if you can distract them with fighting in another country, you have succeeded in preventing further attacks where it counts. What you see as a mess I see as success.

It seems we have different goals for the war. My goal is to keep the fighting elsewhere. Your goal is to "win" and eliminate the enemies. I don't believe the latter is truly possible when dealing with religious fanatics. The crusades are a good example here.

-Raystonn

We have better weapons than they had during the crusades. Said with tongue slightly in cheek, very slightly. What's wrong with a stalemate is our country will rip itself to pieces without some sort of final decision. It's going to have to be bloody, really bloody. No we can't kill every single enemy soldier, but we can kill them is such large numbers even a crazy person will understand they can't go on. We must also kill their sympathisers, apologists, and all those trying assit them. Like I said, bloody. Don't have the stomach for that?......Then our country is going down at our own hand. It's just gone too far to work out any other way.

 

[Raystonn]

We have better weapons than they had during the crusades. Said with tongue slightly in cheek, very slightly. What's wrong with a stalemate is our country will rip itself to pieces without some sort of final decision. It's going to have to be bloody, really bloody. No we can't kill every single enemy soldier, but we can kill them is such large numbers even a crazy person will understand they can't go on. We must also kill their sympathisers, apologists, and all those trying assit them. Like I said, bloody. Don't have the stomach for that?......Then our country is going down at our own hand. It's just gone too far to work out any other way.

Are you telling me that the Iraq war critics are complaining because they want a bloody war of vengeance? I'm highly skeptical of that. Honestly, there is no way to do what you want without turning into the very enemy we are fighting. If you are saying we should either do that or do nothing, then I couldn't disagree more vehemently.

-Raystonn

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from Raystonn:

By what measure is the "CEO" (a veiled reference to President Bush) a failure?

Oh...what can one say to such blindness?

Are you paying attention at all?

 

[Arnie]

Getting back to the OP, I think the Republicans are toast, and it's not because the Dems offer a compelling alternative. I can't wait to see Pelosi as Speaker and Charlie Rangle and Harry Reid and Hilary and all the rest of them running the show. Maybe it will make Bush grow a spine and start vetoing some bills. One thing that really pissed me off was the Republicans passing a law against internet gambling with all of the other problems we have. Unbelievable.