George II should be executed on national television.

[sleeper]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


There is no clear evidence of WMD in Iraq. The Bush administration knew this going in. You are a fool.

what? i agree with that. what is going on. i cant tell if your just fucking with me

[crescentfresh]

THE NEVER ENDING ARRRRRGUMEEEENT! UUUHHHOOOH OOOOHHH OOHHH OHHH

[sarmatianus]

Originally posted by crescentfresh
THE NEVER ENDING ARRRRRGUMEEEENT! UUUHHHOOOH OOOOHHH OOHHH OHHH

EXTREME CLOSE-UP!
WWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

WWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


I've been paying attention just as much as you have, and we did not invade Iraq solely so Halliburton could get a major business contract.

We didn't do anything. They did. And oh, yes they did. They just found the other reasons because "finishing what my daddy started" wasn't good enough. You are a cow.

but there are reasons that were a lot more important for this war than just the prospect of money.

They weren't concerned with those.

It wasn't WMD--that was just the official spin (that now needs some credibility). It was oil, but it wasn't just oil.

So invading a country for oil is ok with you as long as it's only part of the reason. Fuck you.

Since I know people are going to be asking me what I think, here it is: this war was mostly about the propsect of power and maintaining security and the U.S. status quo. Basically, after 9/11 and a quick strike in Afghanistan, the administration thought it was in our best political interest to strike the Middle East, both to send a message and to reassert our dominance in the world structure. It could have been Syria or it could have been Iran, but for lots of reasons--the fact that he was a horrible despot, the fact that we had gone to war with him before, the fact that he had aided terrorist groups (even if we have little to no proof that he helped al-Qaeda, he certainly assisted Palestinian groups in suicide attacks), the fact that they are sitting on all those oil reserves, stuff I'm not even thinking of right now--we went after Hussein.

I see you got the press package from King George.

Originally posted by sarmatianus


Which "this" are we talking about?

Never mind. I thought we were eye to eye on this matter.

I am serious in this thread. Except for the divine will of king george stuff. I mean we can always kill him.

[sarmatianus]

both to send a message and to reassert our dominance in the world structure

Those are not valid reasons to start a war. At least not in a so-called democratic society that values freedom and open government.

[sleeper]

CUT TO: PROTAGANIST DIGGING FINGERS IN EYE LIDS.
-FREEZE FRAME

TITLE: POLITICS HAVE NO PLACE IN NETPHORIA

[sarmatianus]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros


Never mind. I thought we were eye to eye on this matter.

Yeah, we pretty much are.

[sleeper]

that last one was just for you sarmatianus

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros
They weren't concerned with those.

Bullshit. Even if there were no valid political reason to care, and there is, the Bushies have a vested personal interest in that.

So invading a country for oil is ok with you as long as it's only part of the reason. Fuck you.

Find the part where I said I supported the war. Yes, I think there can be positive benefits from this, but that doesn't mean I was gung-ho on the day we launched troops or at any time thereafter. And I don't see any of those benefits coming to fruition anytime soon. Didn't you read my thread the other day on WMD?

I see you got the press package from King George.

Just because I don't 100%, unequivocally think the war was a bad idea doesn't mean I'm some pro-administration lemming. Stop treating this war like it's a black-and-white issue that can't have positive and negative effects. Yes, I think we're getting screwed. I also think we've been getting screwed for years and years, and the majority of the United States populace doesn't give a fuck--it's not detrimental to their quality of life in any way. It's kind of hard to change things when the population of an elected government doesn't care. Aldous Huxley was right; I just hope I die before I have to see that day. There's not much else to do.

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by sarmatianus
Those are not valid reasons to start a war. At least not in a so-called democratic society that values freedom and open government.

World politics simply don't work this idealistically. They never have, and they never will. That doesn't make it just, or right, but it might make it necessary. Time will tell if it was the correct decision, but it's looking more and more every day as if it wasn't.

[sarmatianus]

Originally posted by sleeper
CUT TO: PROTAGANIST DIGGING FINGERS IN EYE LIDS.
-FREEZE FRAME

TITLE: POLITICS HAVE NO PLACE IN NETPHORIA

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


Bullshit. Even if there were no valid political reason to care, and there is, the Bushies have a vested personal interest in that.

No. He thought he could get away with it. And he still might.

Didn't you read my thread the other day on WMD?

I wasn't on here the other day. I may look for it.

Just because I don't 100%, unequivocally think the war was a bad idea doesn't mean I'm some pro-administration lemming. Stop treating this war like it's a black-and-white issue that can't have positive and negative effects.

Since everyone else seems to only see positives, I see negatives. The world isn't a happy place.

Yes, I think we're getting screwed. I also think we've been getting screwed for years and years, and the majority of the United States populace doesn't give a fuck--it's not detrimental to their quality of life in any way. It's kind of hard to change things when the population of an elected government doesn't care. Aldous Huxley was right; I just hope I die before I have to see that day. There's not much else to do.

Maybe we should start somewhere.

I can't believe you call yourself a liberal. Just have the balls to jump the fence for god's sake.

[sleeper]

hhaha thats not that dali movie is it? with the window and the eye being cut in half or whatever.

[sarmatianus]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


World politics simply don't work this idealistically. They never have, and they never will. That doesn't make it just, or right, but it might make it necessary. Time will tell if it was the correct decision, but it's looking more and more every day as if it wasn't.

World politics aside, the fact is that if we're gonna pride ourselves on these things, we better not use them as emblems when we directly oppose them by having this war on the terms it was waged.

World politics go this way or that. No one forced the US to essentially go against the principles upon which it was founded. That was a decision made by those who run things.

[sarmatianus]

A question:

What do you think would have happened if George I got re-elected?

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by sarmatianus
World politics go this way or that. No one forced the US to essentially go against the principles upon which it was founded. That was a decision made by those who run things.

There was a legitimate argument, at least before the war, that even if Iraq didn't pose an immediate security threat to the United States, military action in the Middle East, particularly in a volatile area, eventually would stabilize the area and protect our security interests, our economic interests (and the economic interests of the Middle East) and promote freedom, which in turn isn't really in opposition to American ideals. We've been expansionist since before the Spanish-American War; this isn't exactly a new trend in our history, and it's pretty much well-accepted. Unless you want to argue for U.S. isolationism and against globalization, this is the reality of our situation. And again, that doesn't make the war right, but these are things people should be thinking about.

And Brendan: Just because I not a radical doesn't mean I'm not a liberal. On the vast majority of issues I'm further right than the majority of the country. I have thought about this a lot, moreso than most people, and I think I have a pretty good head on my shoulders for this sort of thing. You're acting like the militia guys in Bowling for Columbine.

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by sarmatianus
What do you think would have happened if George I got re-elected?

I think most people would have realized it was a major personal vendetta for him. The only reason the first war was so popular is because Iraq invaded Kuwait--which I know stings of hypocrisy for us to criticize, but politically speaking it's a more than valid reason.

[sleeper]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


There was a legitimate argument, at least before the war, that even if Iraq didn't pose an immediate security threat to the United States, military action in the Middle East, particularly in a volatile area, eventually would stabilize the area and protect our security interests, our economic interests (and the economic interests of the Middle East) and promote freedom, which in turn isn't really in opposition to American ideals. We've been expansionist since before the Spanish-American War; this isn't exactly a new trend in our history, and it's pretty much well-accepted. Unless you want to argue for U.S. isolationism and against globalization, this is the reality of our situation. And again, that doesn't make the war right, but these are things people should be thinking about.

that was pretty well said, and i think above all adresses the need for some kind of understand before enganging in an argument with someone on topics like this and this one specifically. there is a hundred levels you can argue this war on. the biggest problem is that people come to the table with different understandings and bases and are arguing on two seperate levels. ones arguing thats its wrong becauce the humanitarian issue and the others arguing that is right because it is a vital step to secure american interests and sumpremacy for the next 25-50 years. a mutual agreement is key

[sarmatianus]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


There was a legitimate argument[...]And again, that doesn't make the war right, but these are things people should be thinking about.

Just because an argument is legitimate (ie would work) does not make it just or right. Ostensibly, the Vietnam War was waged because we wanted to bring all these democratic ideals to the Vietnamese. But in fact, we essentially raped the country to the point that they preferred domestic oppression to foreign oppression.

We do not have the right, even if we do have the might, to take over a country because it is in our best economic or security interests, aside from self-defense (and not pre-emption). Even if the country is given democratic rights they did not formerly have.

To paraphrase Gandhi: "I would rather have a poorly run India run by Indians than a well run India run by the British".

As for isolationism - look at the havoc that the national security state, as instituted by Truman, has wrought upon the long-term interests and institutions of the government. We've been a police state since 1947, as per NSC 68. That is what has caused the rise in taxes, the military procurement excesses, the military-industrial complex, the McCarthy era, the enemy-of-the-month club (ie virtually all of our foreign adventures - and there have been hundreds), and the increasing debt.

NSC 68 is the American equivalent of the Roman "curse of the Punic purse": the price of empire is the economic stranglehold it demands. The Punic Wars, in the long run, created an empire 100 years before it was run by the emperors. What will it cost the US, you think?

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by sarmatianus
NSC 68 is the American equivalent of the Roman "curse of the Punic purse": the price of empire is the economic stranglehold it demands. The Punic Wars, in the long run, created an empire 100 years before it was run by the emperors. What will it cost the US, you think?

Empires fall. Ours will be no differerent.

[sarmatianus]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


Empires fall. Ours will be no differerent.

But why encourage the creation (and hence the destruction) of one?

[Mayfuck]

Who bumped this four month old thread?

[Nimrod's Son]

There is nothing more fun than atching liberals fight amoungst themselves.

Is there any wonder why they are going to get trounced in the next election?

BTW, sawdust is the only one who has gotten any of his facts straight. I love the BUSH IS A FASCIST, DIE BASTARD DIE stuff though. Good theatre!

If you want my opinion, and I know you do, The war was for a number of reasons.

#1 Iraq had been in gross violation of a NUMBER of UN sanctions since 1991.

#2 9-11. Yes, this did play a part. The countries harboring terrorist networks operating in the middle east got a good look of what will and can do should we feel the need to step in.

#3 WMD. The Bush administration presented classifed documents to the UN showing the existance of WMD. I haven't seen them and neither have you. But the no one who HAS seen them in the UN has disputed their existance.

#4 Terrorism, in general. Now the west has a democratic nation in that region. Now, they can encourage other nations in that area to also have democratic rebellion. You don't breed terrorism in a democratic nation like you do in a fundamentalist Islamic state. It also shows neigboring countries that the US isn't going to just sit down and play dead anymore. The Clinton years are over.

[sarmatianus]

The ends - and I mean the LONG LONG TERM ends - do not justify the means (ie slow degradation of the basic rights and principles of law upon which the country was founded).

[sleeper]

those 4 reasons are the most pathetic and incorrect 4 reasons ive ever heard. add a fifth and ill start to laugh maybe

[jenniferkate]

Originally posted by sarmatianus
picture

:erm

[sarmatianus]

Originally posted by jenniferkate


:erm

'Cause I am un CHIEN andalusia
I am un CHIEN andalusia
I am un CHIEN andalusia

[Vulva]

1. Doesn't Israel have many more UN violations than Iraq. Israel has basically raped the Palestinian people of their land and pride. suicide attacks are a result of the helplessness of the Palestinians.

2. WMD- if we had solid evidence to begin with, we still wouldn't be looking for them.

3. This doesn't teach the Middle East a lesson. The whole idea of terrorism is that you don't need a centrallized army to conduct attacks. This has just pissed them off even more.

4. Democracy in Iraq will flourish like democracy in Afganistan? Maybe, but only through force and a puppet government.

5. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. That was planned and executed by al-qaeda, the attackers were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden even despises Sadaam for not being a fundamentalist. It is idiotic to think that all Muslims that hate America work together.

This is a war about oil. some people convince themselves it's not only due to their party affiliation.

[Shparticus]

Eep. Somebody's taking his avatar too seriously...