Legitimacy of Iraq War Debate (split topic)

mr. met

that is an immoral threshold for war.

i think Pokersloper finds it unfair to discuss morality in relation to reasons for going to war.

and yet he thinks it was good that we went to iraq because of moral (human rights) concerns.

pokersloper

mr. met wrote:

funny how you ignore my comments about Obama's new Viet Nam

you ignore essentially every difficult question asked of you! but okay, i'll respond. i think sending more troops to Afghanistan is a mistake.

what is Viet Nam?

I agree, Obama is wrong to pour troops into Afghanistan, especially when his own party and many conservatives don't back it. While I understand why he wants to, both parties are against it and much of the house and senate leadership are against it.

doctorj

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=doctorj][quote=Boygabriel]

pokersloper wrote:
we don't agree the intelligence was weak.

it wasn't strong enough for any other nation besides England to act on.

Actually, Australia's John Howard also parroted Bush and Blair, and sent a proportionally sizeable force to Northern Iraq.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html

true, let me revise my statement:

it wasn't strong enough for any other nations besides England, Australia, and a couple small countries to act on.

Certainly no other European countries besides these were willing, many of which were at equal risk, or worse, from Saddam than we were.

It's worse than that: these countries knew that the 'intelligence' the US spruiking was bogus, but they went ahead anyway (see above story). Mostly, the decision of individual countries about whether to join the US-Iraq freakshow came down to whichever trade agreement or investment package or treaty they were angling for from the US at the time. Most governments aren't stupid. I think the Danes were the smartest: Anders Fogh Rasmussen's contribution to the invasion of Iraq was a submarine... and now he's the Secretary General of Nato.

pokersloper

mr. met wrote:

that is an immoral threshold for war.

i think Pokersloper finds it unfair to discuss morality in relation to reasons for going to war.

and yet he thinks it was good that we went to iraq because of moral (human rights) concerns.

Pokersloper thinks it is dirty and low to discuss issues while calling the other person "immoral." You can twist all you want, but I wouldn't call you immoral and then expect you to engage.

mr. met

I agree, Obama is wrong to pour troops into Afghanistan, especially when his own party and many conservatives don't back it. While I understand why he wants to, both parties are against it and much of the house and senate leadership are against it.

agreed.

i also think large-scale military action of this kind is ineffective in fighting a battle against a terrorist organization.

pokersloper

mr. met wrote:

I agree, Obama is wrong to pour troops into Afghanistan, especially when his own party and many conservatives don't back it. While I understand why he wants to, both parties are against it and much of the house and senate leadership are against it.

agreed.

i also think large-scale military action of this kind is ineffective in fighting a battle against a terrorist organization.

goodness, I agree. And you used the term terrorist, not militant, interesting. So many dems (obviously not you) won't go near the word terrorist. Clearly we disagree on much, but it is nice to hear you throw out a good strong terrorist quote.

boygabriel

pokersloper wrote: Pokersloper thinks it is dirty and low to discuss issues while calling the other person "immoral." You can twist all you want, but I wouldn't call you immoral and then expect you to engage.

I never called you immoral. If you took it that way I strongly apologize.

boygabriel

pokersloper wrote: goodness, I agree. And you used the term terrorist, not militant, interesting. So many dems (obviously not you) won't go near the word terrorist. Clearly we disagree on much, but it is nice to hear you throw out a good strong terrorist quote.

I find 'terrorism' to be a troublesome term to describe what's going on in Afghanistan. The dynamics between the Taliban, the Afghanistan population, and the US are faaaar more complicated than simple terrorism.

pokersloper

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]Pokersloper thinks it is dirty and low to discuss issues while calling the other person "immoral." You can twist all you want, but I wouldn't call you immoral and then expect you to engage.

I never called you immoral. If you took it that way I strongly apologize.

fair enough