Have You No Shame, Mr. President?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You read into that COMPLETELY wrong..

When you say that its a pity we have to abide by rules that the other side doesn't, what other interpretation is there? Human shields = ok, torture = ok, detention without trial = ok. There's a theme here

Hahah was waiting for that from one of you guys.. well hey think what you want.. I will know what I know..

Except you won't because you trust the Government to keep certain things from you. All apparently in your best interests.

Which suggests that either you will know, or you won't know - but in any case it won't matter because you don't need to know...

Edited August 29, 2006 by erekose

[vartan 0]

When you say that its a pity we have to abide by rules that the other side doesn't, what other interpretation is there? Human shields = ok, torture = ok, detention without trial = ok. There's a theme here

Yeah I see your theme.. we always have to play fair .. we are the good guys... it was an anology buddy .. they use kids to attack our soldiers.. they use women and children to blow us up as suicide bombers.. we don't do that.. its hard to be the good guy.. I would never want us to be anything other .. I was just making a point

Except you won't because you trust the Government to keep certain things from you. All apparently in your best interests.

Nah

Which suggests that either you will know, or you won't know - but in any case it won't matter because you don't need to know...

I know that you knew that I knew you knew??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I know that you knew that I knew you knew??

More - Yes/No/Don't Care

[vartan 0]

More - Yes/No/Don't Care

[dalegg 143]

I wonder if it's even possible to have a civilized debate about this subject.

[vartan 0]

its too hard.. there is no middle ground..

[dalegg 143]

its too hard.. there is no middle ground..

There may not be much middle ground, but it is possible to gain understanding. Not everybody in the world is hard set in the idea that they know everything. I know this is a relatively light-weight forum to discuss such important topics, but that's why I like it. Everybody here has something in common so it is possible to be civilized with eachother.

Do you see the rainbow?

[vartan 0]

The problem is .. if we were all in front of each other it would be more civilized.. unfortunatly we dont have non verbal communication. Thats the prob with me typing anything.. I use alot of non verbal actions when speaking which people can't see.

Answer=More and More emoticons...

[GaryC 7]

Gary, are you saying that you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? I'm posing a hypothetical- given all of the benifits of hindsight, given everything we know today, do you believe the invasion was a good idea?- I mean the timing, everything.

As a matter of fact I do think it was right. The way things were done in Iraq after we got that SOB were done wrong and I have no problems laying the blame on Bush for that. But yes, I think it was right to do.

What do you think we could have done differently that would have made things turn out better?

We needed WAY more troops in there. After we took control of the country we should have used all our resources to find the non-Iraqi fighters. We should have locked down the borders to keep new ones from coming in. But most important we should have done much more to strengthen the Iraq police force so they could have taken over quickly. We should have also done a crash project to rebuild their infrastructure and properly protected the workers doing that. If we could have done those things we WOULD have been looked at as liberators and not invaders. We would have had the support of the Iraq people.

I think we did the right thing going in. We blew it when it came to the aftermath.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, are you saying that you still think invading Iraq was the right thing to do? I'm posing a hypothetical- given all of the benifits of hindsight, given everything we know today, do you believe the invasion was a good idea?- I mean the timing, everything.

As a matter of fact I do think it was right. The way things were done in Iraq after we got that SOB were done wrong and I have no problems laying the blame on Bush for that. But yes, I think it was right to do.

What do you think we could have done differently that would have made things turn out better?

We needed WAY more troops in there. After we took control of the country we should have used all our resources to find the non-Iraqi fighters. We should have locked down the borders to keep new ones from coming in. But most important we should have done much more to strengthen the Iraq police force so they could have taken over quickly. We should have also done a crash project to rebuild their infrastructure and properly protected the workers doing that. If we could have done those things we WOULD have been looked at as liberators and not invaders. We would have had the support of the Iraq people.

I think we did the right thing going in. We blew it when it came to the aftermath.

I would agree to that strategically...except... without Iraq being an immediate threat to the U.S. or it's allies, we had no justification for going in. Simply taking out a tyrant is not good enough. Simply guessing he has nuclear or chemical weapons is not good enough. And now we have a great majority of the world believing we are bullies rather than liberators. You can argue until you are blue in the face trying to prove that having Saddam in power was a threat, but now look what we have in that country (which I agree with you - we needed way more troops). It's a goddam mess and there's really no way out except withdrawal. Those that engineered the invasion should have foreseen the type of civil unrest that happened in the aftermath if they studied and understood how Saddam used an iron fist to keep the warring tribes from killing each other. Had we not invaded, yes, Saddam would still be in power, but we would have continued to have a stranglehold on his power. We should've patiently waited for him to either die of natural causes, or wait for someone to finally overthrow him. He was a tyrant and a trouble maker, but he didn't have the brains or the brawn to expand his power.

[GaryC 7]

I would agree to that strategically...except... without Iraq being an immediate threat to the U.S. or it's allies, we had no justification for going in. Simply taking out a tyrant is not good enough. Simply guessing he has nuclear or chemical weapons is not good enough. And now we have a great majority of the world believing we are bullies rather than liberators. You can argue until you are blue in the face trying to prove that having Saddam in power was a threat, but now look what we have in that country (which I agree with you - we needed way more troops). It's a goddam mess and there's really no way out except withdrawal. Those that engineered the invasion should have foreseen the type of civil unrest that happened in the aftermath if they studied and understood how Saddam used an iron fist to keep the warring tribes from killing each other. Had we not invaded, yes, Saddam would still be in power, but we would have continued to have a stranglehold on his power. We should've patiently waited for him to either die of natural causes, or wait for someone to finally overthrow him. He was a tyrant and a trouble maker, but he didn't have the brains or the brawn to expand his power.

Well Steve, as you already know I am one of those "right wing nuts" those on the left hate so much. I am

un-apologetic about it. I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. They will hate us just the same weather we retreat to our borders and cower in the corner or go out and kick-a$$ to take out a tyrant. Suffice it to say we are on opposite sides of the issue. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. Going in was right IMO but Bush blew it when it came to stablizing the aftermath.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I would agree to that strategically...except... without Iraq being an immediate threat to the U.S. or it's allies, we had no justification for going in. Simply taking out a tyrant is not good enough. Simply guessing he has nuclear or chemical weapons is not good enough. And now we have a great majority of the world believing we are bullies rather than liberators. You can argue until you are blue in the face trying to prove that having Saddam in power was a threat, but now look what we have in that country (which I agree with you - we needed way more troops). It's a goddam mess and there's really no way out except withdrawal. Those that engineered the invasion should have foreseen the type of civil unrest that happened in the aftermath if they studied and understood how Saddam used an iron fist to keep the warring tribes from killing each other. Had we not invaded, yes, Saddam would still be in power, but we would have continued to have a stranglehold on his power. We should've patiently waited for him to either die of natural causes, or wait for someone to finally overthrow him. He was a tyrant and a trouble maker, but he didn't have the brains or the brawn to expand his power.

Well Steve, as you already know I am one of those "right wing nuts" those on the left hate so much. I am

un-apologetic about it. I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. They will hate us just the same weather we retreat to our borders and cower in the corner or go out and kick-a$$ to take out a tyrant. Suffice it to say we are on opposite sides of the issue. I was asked my opinion and I gave it. Going in was right IMO but Bush blew it when it came to stablizing the aftermath.

No, you're not a nut...anyone who can make awesome charts like you do can't be that crazy.

Well, what happened to the respect the U.S. had with the rest of the world right after WW2? It is has been our foreign affairs that have changed the world's view about us. We were once the champions of democracy and justice, but now many look at us as hypocrital bullies and this didn't just happen with Iraq - but particularly in the Middle East, it started with us putting the Shah of Iran in power. It's not about cowering, Gary, but of decency and following the very principles that made this country great. We can't have the attitude of 'do as I say, not as I do'.

As for Iraq, you can't ignore the fact that we made Saddam powerful. He couldn't have succeeded without our help which we more than willingly gave...until he got greedy and decided to invade Kuwait. The reality is the world is full of jackarse tyrants and if it is our job to rid the world then we better make damn sure we aren't propping them up first. Let's stand on principle and not on opportunity - that is what will bring back world respect towards the U.S..

[GaryC 7]

As for Iraq, you can't ignore the fact that we made Saddam powerful. He couldn't have succeeded without our help which we more than willingly gave...until he got greedy and decided to invade Kuwait. The reality is the world is full of jackarse tyrants and if it is our job to rid the world then we better make damn sure we aren't propping them up first. Let's stand on principle and not on opportunity - that is what will bring back world respect towards the U.S..

Your right, we made him what he was. He was fighting Iran and we chose sides. I never liked the "proxy" war way of doing things. If we are gonna give a country our stuff we should make sure they are not just a "friend of the day". We should only support democratic governments that share our goals and values. Unfortunately all presidents are guilty of that. I am a simple, straight forward kind of guy. If I think we should take someone out, for any reason, we should at least be honest enough about it to do it ourselves. I really hate the CIA style, doing things in the shadows #######.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As for Iraq, you can't ignore the fact that we made Saddam powerful. He couldn't have succeeded without our help which we more than willingly gave...until he got greedy and decided to invade Kuwait. The reality is the world is full of jackarse tyrants and if it is our job to rid the world then we better make damn sure we aren't propping them up first. Let's stand on principle and not on opportunity - that is what will bring back world respect towards the U.S..

Your right, we made him what he was. He was fighting Iran and we chose sides. I never liked the "proxy" war way of doing things. If we are gonna give a country our stuff we should make sure they are not just a "friend of the day". We should only support democratic governments that share our goals and values. Unfortunately all presidents are guilty of that. I am a simple, straight forward kind of guy. If I think we should take someone out, for any reason, we should at least be honest enough about it to do it ourselves. I really hate the CIA style, doing things in the shadows #######.

We chose sides long before Saddam fought Iran - the result of failed 'cloak and dagger' policies towards Iran that ended up making things a hell of a lot worse.

[GaryC 7]

We chose sides long before Saddam fought Iran - the result of failed 'cloak and dagger' policies towards Iran that ended up making things a hell of a lot worse.

I have to agree with you. The cloak and dagger stuff causes much more harm than good. I say that whoever is in power should have the courage of their convictions and do it out in the open. The C&D stuff is the same as telling lies. They will come back to haunt you.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever