Legitimacy of Iraq War Debate (split topic)
Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.on humanitarian grounds, right? that's why we did it? who do you want to save next?
Comments
-
But if Obama looks to plunge the country into unprecedented levels of debt, or Michael Moore twists facts and lies in what is supposed to be a respectable documentary, it's OK because their ideals align with yours.
show me where i said that it's okay that Moore lies in his films. i haven't defended Obama's health care plan either. i'm not sure what you're talking about. you're denouncing a "frothing NY left" that is not here. -
mr. met wrote:
No, that's why I supported it. I know this hard for you, I know that you are not used to dealing with lefties like myself who support the war on a human rights level. Maybe you should read the reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (Or maybe it was Human Rights Now) that have detailed tens, perhaps hundred of thousands of dead Iraqis found in mass graves. As a person, as a Jew, as an American, I am proud that we took out a brutal thug who was raping and mass murdering his own people and who had bombed Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel without provocation. You can worry about why Bush did it, I will be thankful that we did it.Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.
on humanitarian grounds, right? that's why we did it? who do you want to save next?
As far as saving next goes, I think that is a very poor argument. There are many people in need. To say we should never cut the grass in the front yard because of the grass in the back and the sides doesn't make any sense to me. We can't do it all at once, but that doens't mean we give up on human rights. -
pokersloper wrote: [quote=Boygabriel][quote=pokersloper]However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur? -
As far as saving next goes, I think that is a very poor argument. There are many people in need. To say we should never cut the grass in the front yard because of the grass in the back and the sides doesn't make any sense to me. We can't do it all at once, but that doens't mean we give up on human rights.
if that's why you supported going to iraq, then you should probably be outraged that we aren't planning to go to Darfur or Burma or other places in need, right? there was no genocide going on in Iraq when we went there. that was over 10 years ago.You can worry about why Bush did it, I will be thankful that we did it.
so you recognize that Bush went there for the wrong reasons (fake reasons)? -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper][quote=Boygabriel][quote=pokersloper]However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur?
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone. I would FULLY SUPPORT an international force that would help end the brutality, gang rapes, murder, and genocide going on anywhere in this world including Darfur and the Congro. There is no reason why the United States can’t work with the EU and other parties to end the madness. -
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone.
just so you know, it is against international law to go to war with someone because you think they may attack you. there has to be an imminent threat (bombs or planes are in the air). -
mr. met wrote:
Mr. Met, this may surprise you, but I don't care at all about international law. International law sits back and watches as women are gang raped, millions are slaughtered in genocide, etc. Ask the international troops in Rwanda who were ordered to watch the genocide how much international law helped those who were raped, gutted and killed.My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone.
just so you know, it is against international law to go to war with someone because you think they may attack you. there has to be an imminent threat (bombs or planes are in the air).
International law, that is funny. -
pokersloper wrote: [quote=Boygabriel][quote=pokersloper][quote=Boygabriel][quote=pokersloper]However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur?
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone. I would FULLY SUPPORT an international force that would help end the brutality, gang rapes, murder, and genocide going on anywhere in this world including Darfur and the Congro. There is no reason why the United States can’t work with the EU and other parties to end the madness.
I too support international peace forces and wish we had done that in Iraq. Then maybe we wouldn't have given birth to a humanitarian tragedy far bigger than anything Saddam ever perpetrated on the Iraqi people.
Iran does not have nukes and is nowhere near having them.
Pakistan has nukes but they are safely in the hands of the military, which runs most segments of Pakistani society and remains closely aligned with the West, as far as security is concerned. Even if Pakistan collapses, which is highly unlikely, it is even more unlikely that extremists would gain control of the nuclear arsenal.
The tribal areas and advancement of the Taliban are paramount concerns for sure, but military action would be extremely counterproductive and shortsighted at this point. -
mr. met wrote:
Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program. Bush may have lied or concealed information, sure. Why would I deny it if it were proven? I am not sure it has been proven though. Frankly, I am more inclined to think that Bush, who I voted for the second time around, just wasn't very smart.As far as saving next goes, I think that is a very poor argument. There are many people in need. To say we should never cut the grass in the front yard because of the grass in the back and the sides doesn't make any sense to me. We can't do it all at once, but that doens't mean we give up on human rights.
if that's why you supported going to iraq, then you should probably be outraged that we aren't planning to go to Darfur or Burma or other places in need, right? there was no genocide going on in Iraq when we went there. that was over 10 years ago.You can worry about why Bush did it, I will be thankful that we did it.
so you recognize that Bush went there for the wrong reasons (fake reasons)? -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper][quote=Boygabriel][quote=pokersloper][quote=Boygabriel][quote=pokersloper]However, I fully support the war in Iraq from a human rights and national security perspective. Bush - very poor war leader, but I support taking out a very bad government.
* blinks *
yawns
what are your thoughts on going into Eastern Congo and Darfur?
My thoughts are that right now it sounds as if Iran and Pakistan are very dangerous. They both have nukes. Pakistan may collapse, Iran may attack someone. I would FULLY SUPPORT an international force that would help end the brutality, gang rapes, murder, and genocide going on anywhere in this world including Darfur and the Congro. There is no reason why the United States can’t work with the EU and other parties to end the madness.
I too support international peace forces and wish we had done that in Iraq. Then maybe we wouldn't have given birth to a humanitarian tragedy far bigger than anything Saddam ever perpetrated on the Iraqi people.
Iran does not have nukes and is nowhere near having them.
Pakistan has nukes but they are safely in the hands of the military, which runs most segments of Pakistani society and remains closely aligned with the West, as far as security is concerned. Even if Pakistan collapses, which is highly unlikely, it is even more unlikely that extremists would gain control of the nuclear arsenal.
The tribal areas and advancement of the Taliban are paramount concerns for sure, but military action would be extremely counterproductive and shortsighted at this point.
Well, you brought up a lot of great stuff, some I agree with. I wish I had more time, but I gotta be brief for now.
Bush did a bad job of gaining international support, but many countries acted very poorly. As I recall, Germany's ambassador to the UN said that anything Bush wanted to do, Germany would be against. It didn’t matter what he asked for, Germany would say no. Not exactly diplomacy at its best.
As far as Iran goes, many countries – Britain, Israel, US, Turkey, India think Iran is months away from nukes. That is scary. -
pokersloper wrote: Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program. Bush may have lied or concealed information, sure. Why would I deny it if it were proven? I am not sure it has been proven though. Frankly, I am more inclined to think that Bush, who I voted for the second time around, just wasn't very smart.
these intelligence services suspected it, but with nowhere near the certainty needed to preemptively invade.
this is an extremely important distinction and highlights how flawed and dangerous the binary neoconservative worldview is. -
Mr. Met, this may surprise you, but I don't care at all about international law.
doesn't surprise me at all, actually. GET 'ER DONE!Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program.
strange that all of these countries weren't in the coalition. -
mr. met wrote:
not strange, sad for human rights.Mr. Met, this may surprise you, but I don't care at all about international law.
doesn't surprise me at all, actually. GET 'ER DONE!Well, we know that the finest intelligence agencies in the world thought Iraq had a strong nuclear program. France, Germany, US, Israel, Turkey, India, Spain, etc. were all convinced Iraq had a strong nuclear program.
strange that all of these countries weren't in the coalition. -
not strange, sad for human rights.
that's not why they were being asked to go to iraq.
there were other countries that needed help on humanitarian grounds WAY more than iraq. -
mr. met wrote:
so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.not strange, sad for human rights.
that's not why they were being asked to go to iraq.
there were other countries that needed help on humanitarian grounds WAY more than iraq.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights. -
pokersloper wrote: so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
Iraq in the 00's was not home to a genocide. pick a different word to describe it.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights.
The genocide happened in 1988 and was long since over.
There were far more urgent humanitarian crises in the world than Iraq in 2003. The humanitarian angle rings hollow when we could barely get Bush to mention the word Darfur in public, let alone give a speech on it, let alone lift a finger for it.
The idea that what we imposed in Iraq is less of a humanitarian crisis than what existed under saddam this decade is indefensible. -
-
invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
right. that's why we went there with Bush Sr., and we were justified bc our ally was attacked.-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
the bombings happened over 10 years ago. citing that as a reason for us going there is silly.-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
what? when did Hussein threaten nuclear war? he had no nuclear weapons!I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
set aside that the genocide in iraq happened over ten years ago. it's not that i think other human rights violations were/are more important. it's just that there are/were so many others out there, many more egregious, so going to iraq on the basis of human rights seems arbitrary. -
pokersloper wrote: so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
All of those except the last were relevant to Bush the Elder's Gulf War, and have nothing to do with why Bush the Younger attacked Iraq.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights.
And as far as your last point goes, it is pure revisionist history. Repeating it still won't make it true. If our allies' intelligence agencies thought the nuclear threat was credible, they would have joined us in the war. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=pokersloper]so what. I am not going to turn my back on genocide because you think a genocide somewhere else is more important.
All of those except the last were relevant to Bush the Elder's Gulf War, and have nothing to do with why Bush the Younger attacked Iraq.
Iraq:
-invaded Kuwait killed tens of thousands
-killed hundreds of thousands of its own people
-bombed Saudi Arabia
-bombed Israel
-threatened nulcear war to the point where most intelligent agencies thought it was real.
All the reason you need. It is really sad that you let your Bush hate get in the way of human rights.
And as far as your last point goes, it is pure revisionist history. Repeating it still won't make it true. If our allies' intelligence agencies thought the nuclear threat was credible, they would have joined us in the war.
Our allies are filled with countries with huge Muslim populations who vote. Unfortunately, local politics usually wins out over human rights. -
Our allies are filled with countries with huge Muslim populations who vote. Unfortunately, local politics usually wins out over human rights.
you think that's why they wouldn't go to iraq? seriously? again, i don't know what to say to that. -
pokersloper wrote:
invading Iraq was demonstrably not about human rights.
Our allies are filled with countries with huge Muslim populations who vote. Unfortunately, local politics usually wins out over human rights. -
invading Iraq was demonstrably not about human rights.
Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point. -
mr. met wrote:
are your arguments so weak that you have to make stuff up. I know the mods don't like people talking about name calling, but so far you have called someone an idiot and now you tell a lie.invading Iraq was demonstrably not about human rights.
Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point.
perhaps you should focus on polite conversation, my beliefs are strong, but they are polite and I don't play word games and lie. -
Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point.
sorry if i lied.
tell me which part is false. -
mr. met wrote:
"Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point."Parkersloper doesn't care why we went there. Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point.
sorry if i lied.
tell me which part is false.
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort. You know this of course, but choose to play dirty. I choose to talk issues. I have been honest and have said some very unpopular things on this board. You don't have to agree or respect my views, but they are honest and they do not misrepresent what you or any other poster has said. You should really focus on the issues and not name calling and making stuff up. -
PokerSloper said nothing of the sort.
you said that going to iraq was good because of the human rights violoations, correct? but you know the violations happened before the first war in iraq, right?
do you see where i'm going?
based on your position on iraq, it seems fair to say that you would be in favor of invading other countries in which human rights violations have occurred, regardless of when they occurred. -
mr. met wrote:
You lied when you wrote, "Parkersloper has said that he/she is in favor of attacking any country in which there were human rights violations at some point."PokerSloper said nothing of the sort.
you said that going to iraq was good because of the human rights violoations, correct? but you know the violations happened before the first war in iraq, right?
do you see where i'm going?
based on your position on iraq, it seems fair to say that you would be in favor of invading other countries in which human rights violations have occurred, regardless of when they occurred.
You lied. Pokersloper never said this in any way. You see where I am going? -
i was making inferences based on what you said about iraq.
are you not going to address what i said? -
mr. met wrote: i was making inferences based on what you said about iraq.
so, you make up a lie because you assume that is what I would think?
are you not going to address what i said?
You are what us poker players call an angle shooter. You lie, you call names, and I won't play your games. We can talk when you are serious, polite, stop lying and stop shooting angles.
Take care. -
i didn't call you anything, Parkersloper. i called someone an idiot because they posted a picture of obama with his face painted like the joker and the word "socialism" under it. i'm really sorry if that offends you.
set me straight on what you said about iraq and what you think about when it is okay to attack a country based on human rights violations.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds