Legitimacy of Iraq War Debate (split topic)
Comments
-
pokersloper wrote: 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.
You have repeatedly implied that a lot of us (or liberals in general) oppose the Iraq War simply out of Bush hate.
That is not being honest or 'talking issues'. It is generalizing and ignoring very specific points that a handful of us have made during this sub-thread.
I advise you to avoid the accusation of mindless Bush opposition if you want to keep this 'honest'. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]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.
You have repeatedly implied that a lot of us (or liberals in general) oppose the Iraq War simply out of Bush hate..
I said that about one poster specifically. Go back and look if you want. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]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.
You have repeatedly implied that a lot of us (or liberals in general) oppose the Iraq War simply out of Bush hate.
That is not being honest or 'talking issues'. It is generalizing and ignoring very specific points that a handful of us have made during this sub-thread.
I advise you to avoid the accusation of mindless Bush opposition if you want to keep this 'honest'.
BoyG, please point out a point, or points, that you think I have missed and I am happy to lay out my position on it or them. -
pokersloper wrote: BoyG, please point out a point, or points, that you think I have missed and I am happy to lay out my position on it or them.
Ok:
1a. These intelligence services suspected it, but with nowhere near the certainty needed to preemptively invade.
1b. this is an extremely important distinction and highlights how flawed and dangerous the binary neoconservative worldview is.
2. 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.
3. The idea that what we imposed in Iraq is less of a humanitarian crisis than what existed under saddam this decade is indefensible. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]BoyG, please point out a point, or points, that you think I have missed and I am happy to lay out my position on it or them.
Ok:
1a. These intelligence services suspected it, but with nowhere near the certainty needed to preemptively invade.
1b. this is an extremely important distinction and highlights how flawed and dangerous the binary neoconservative worldview is.
2. 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.
3. The idea that what we imposed in Iraq is less of a humanitarian crisis than what existed under saddam this decade is indefensible.
1. At the time, publicly, France, Germany, Spain, US reported that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction. Maybe now it has come out that these were inflated views or something else was said behind closed doors (I don't know that to be the case, just trying to be fair) but at the time, this is what they all said. It wasn't just neo conservatives who believed this. The governments of France and Spain are hardly neo cons.
2. I have never said otherwise. The UN, Democrats, Republicans have completely forgotten about human rights.
3. I disagree. Large scale genocide has stopped. By most accounts, the country seems to be moving towards stability. I fully admit Bush was a terrible leader, but that doesn't change my view that stopping genocide and the potential for regional or international war was a good thing. -
pokersloper wrote: 3. I disagree. Large scale genocide has stopped. By most accounts, the country seems to be moving towards stability. I fully admit Bush was a terrible leader, but that doesn't change my view that stopping genocide and the potential for regional or international war was a good thing.
We didn't stop a genocide. A genocide wasn't occurring.
More people have died since we invaded and destroyed Iraqi society than had died under Saddam in decades.
Decades. -
genocide was not happening when we went to iraq.
-
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]3. I disagree. Large scale genocide has stopped. By most accounts, the country seems to be moving towards stability. I fully admit Bush was a terrible leader, but that doesn't change my view that stopping genocide and the potential for regional or international war was a good thing.
We didn't stop a genocide. A genocide wasn't occurring.
More people have died since we invaded and destroyed Iraqi society than had died under Saddam in decades.
Decades.
Amnesty International reports mass graves with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands dead.
Iraq/Iran war - maybe millions dead
How many Kurds were gassed to death?
Kuwait - tens of thousands dead
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
We stopped genoicde, torture, and put the country back on the path of normalcy. -
but we keep saying that that happened decades ago. there was no genocide happening in iraq in 2003.
and Kuwait? that was the first war. the one we were justified to enter. -
pokersloper wrote: Amnesty International reports mass graves with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands dead.
None of that was actively happening, or happened any time recently, or was in any imminent danger of happening any time soon.
Iraq/Iran war - maybe millions dead
How many Kurds were gassed to death?
Kuwait - tens of thousands dead
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
We stopped genoicde, torture, and put the country back on the path of normalcy.
And
More people have died since 2003 than died in everything you listed above, except maybe the Iran/Iraq War, which we actively promoted anyway.Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
This is false. A vast majority of the dead are Iraqis. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]Amnesty International reports mass graves with tens, maybe hundreds of thousands dead.
None of that was actively happening, or happened any time recently, or was in any imminent danger of happening any time soon.
Iraq/Iran war - maybe millions dead
How many Kurds were gassed to death?
Kuwait - tens of thousands dead
Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
We stopped genoicde, torture, and put the country back on the path of normalcy.
And
More people have died since 2003 than died in everything you listed above, except maybe the Iran/Iraq War, which we actively promoted anyway.Many who have died in Iraq are coming in from other countries to fight.
This is false. A vast majority of the dead are Iraqis.
Sadam made it clear he was working on weapons of mass destruction (even if it turns out he wasn't). Everyone believed him including the leading intelligence agencies. Sadam had invaded regional countries, bombed others, used chemical weapons on his own people, killed hundreds of thousands execution style, engaged in an incredible war with Iran for 8 years killing possibly millions...If these are not good reasons to invade then we just have very different ideas about human rights. -
oh man
-
pokersloper wrote: Sadam made it clear he was working on weapons of mass destruction (even if it turns out he wasn't). Everyone believed him including the leading intelligence agencies. Sadam had invaded regional countries, bombed others, used chemical weapons on his own people, killed hundreds of thousands execution style, engaged in an incredible war with Iran for 8 years killing possibly millions...If these are not good reasons to invade then we just have very different ideas about human rights.
You and I agree that Saddam was an awful terrible tyrant who was guilty of torture and mass murder in the past. And that in a vacuum, the world is better off without him.
Where we differ is in the call to action in this particular situation, in 2003. (or really any time since the close of the first Gulf war)
Given that no invasion or genocide by Saddam was imminent, it was not prudent to invade the country. It became especially imprudent b/c the United States did not have the resources, leadership, or allies in order to successfully depose Saddam and replace him with something better.
This has been proven true over time as more people have died in the situation we created than had died under Saddam in a long, long time. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]Sadam made it clear he was working on weapons of mass destruction (even if it turns out he wasn't). Everyone believed him including the leading intelligence agencies. Sadam had invaded regional countries, bombed others, used chemical weapons on his own people, killed hundreds of thousands execution style, engaged in an incredible war with Iran for 8 years killing possibly millions...If these are not good reasons to invade then we just have very different ideas about human rights.
You and I agree that Saddam was an awful terrible tyrant who was guilty of torture and mass murder in the past. And that in a vacuum, the world is better off without him.
Where we differ is in the call to action in this particular situation, in 2003. (or really any time since the close of the first Gulf war)
Given that no invasion or genocide by Saddam was imminent,.
This is where we disagree. Saddam, like Nasser, like Arafat, used the microphone often, loudly and well. Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past and by all accounts, was building weapons of mass destruction. All arrows and all of Saddam's history pointed that he was an imminent danger. I fully support the decision made at the time based on the information we had at the time. And as I recall, a lot of elected Democrats also agreed. -
pokersloper wrote: This is where we disagree. Saddam, like Nasser, like Arafat, used the microphone often, loudly and well. Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past and by all accounts, was building weapons of mass destruction. All arrows and all of Saddam's history pointed that he was an imminent danger. I fully support the decision made at the time based on the information we had at the time. And as I recall, a lot of elected Democrats also agreed.
you are conflating human rights and his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
regardless, neither were imminent and neither called for a unilateral invasion.
you don't invade a country b/c a tyrant killed 200,000 people 15 years prior, and you don't invade a country when your intelligence was as weak as ours was before the invasion. -
imminent = planes/missiles are in the air
-
mr. met wrote: imminent = planes/missiles are in the air
or armies are mobilized.
or there is inarguable intelligence of an imminent plan.
none of these were close to existing prior to the Bush Invasion. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=mr. met]imminent = planes/missiles are in the air
or armies are mobilized.
or there is inarguable intelligence of an imminent plan.
none of these were close to existing prior to the Bush Invasion.
in a nuclear age, I disagree. -
none of these were close to existing prior to the Bush Invasion.
i know. i don't think it's arguable. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]This is where we disagree. Saddam, like Nasser, like Arafat, used the microphone often, loudly and well. Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past and by all accounts, was building weapons of mass destruction. All arrows and all of Saddam's history pointed that he was an imminent danger. I fully support the decision made at the time based on the information we had at the time. And as I recall, a lot of elected Democrats also agreed.
you are conflating human rights and his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
regardless, neither were imminent and neither called for a unilateral invasion.
you don't invade a country b/c a tyrant killed 200,000 people 15 years prior, and you don't invade a country when your intelligence was as weak as ours was before the invasion.
we don't agree the intelligence was weak. we don't agree on the 15 years. we don't agree on when human rights demands actions. I know you are a mod here, but I won't agree with you because of that - just saying. -
pokersloper wrote: in a nuclear age, I disagree.
That's untenable and immoral threshold to have.
First of all, we do not have the resources to invade and depose every tyrant who seems as recklessly in pursuit of nuclear weapons as Saddam.
Secondly, your intelligence is going to be wrong some if not most of the time. You do not have the moral right to go around ruining countries and inflicting unmentionable misery on populations, just b/c your intelligence suggests there might be an attack at some in the future if the leader happens to get nuclear weapons before all other options have been exhausted.
We do not get to inflict our military will on nations around the world because we have potential intelligence. It is not our right. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]in a nuclear age, I disagree.
That's untenable and immoral threshold to have.
First of all, we do not have the resources to invade and depose every tyrant who seems as recklessly in pursuit of nuclear weapons as Saddam.
Secondly, your intelligence is going to be wrong some if not most of the time. You do not have the moral right to go around ruining countries and inflicting unmentionable misery on populations, just b/c your intelligence suggests there might be an attack at some in the future if the leader happens to get nuclear weapons before all other options have been exhausted.
We do not get to inflict our military will on nations around the world because we have potential intelligence. It is not our right.
wow, immoral huh. Okay, we are done. Have a nice weekend. -
pokersloper wrote: we don't agree the intelligence was weak.
it wasn't strong enough for any other nation besides England to act on.
And there was quite a bit of dissent in our own intelligence community but it was actively undermined by the DOD, at the explicit direction of Cheney.we don't agree on the 15 years.
how many years would you put it at since Saddam committed mass human rights violations?I know you are a mod here, but I won't agree with you because of that - just saying.
me being a mod is completely irrelevant and I'm quite confused why you would mention it. -
pokersloper wrote: wow, immoral huh. Okay, we are done. Have a nice weekend.
awww. are you quitting?
I specifically explained why I view it as immoral. feel free to disagree. -
‘Don't worry, it's a slam dunk case.’" And the president challenges him again and Tenet says, ‘The case, it's a slam dunk.’
MOD NOTE: edited for picture size
-C -
Please do not imply in any way that Bush posed any reasonable independent critical thought towards the veracity of the Iraq intelligence.
Thanks. -
Shit goes downhill.
-
Just wanted to say that my salty potato chips paired really well with porksloper getting schooled in this thread. Thanks!
-
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=pokersloper]wow, immoral huh. Okay, we are done. Have a nice weekend.
awww. are you quitting?
I specifically explained why I view it as immoral. feel free to disagree.
Quitting? Interesting. You played the immoral card. I don't talk politics by calling people who disagree with me immoral. So, I am done talking politics with someone who tries to get a point across by insulting others.
Best of luck with your "I disagree with you so you are immoral" approach. -
he didn't call you immoral. he said one of your positions was immoral. don't be a baby.
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