Calling All Cowards

What exactly did Saddam have to do with radical Islam?

 

Batman, at least let them rebuild the former World Trade Center site before you dismiss the 911 tragedy as being inconsequential with regard to policy. While references to 911 have certainly become cliche, it does not mean that we should ignore the causes of the event and not attempt to take corrective action. Instability in the Middle East was a chief contributor to the mindset of the radical Muslims who destroyed the twin towers. To argue with this is pure lunacy and you know it.

 

Jorge, you and Bush should be ashamed of yourselves for continually using the horrible tragedy of the 9/11 attack to advance GOP politics.

It is despicable to use such misery for partisan gain.

 

I know batman can argue this one very well himself, but I have to say something, because what you are doing here is wrong.

Batman isn't saying that 9/11 is inconsequential, that would be abhorant.

What you are doing is not saying that 9/11 is inconsequential but you are treating it as such. When you use 9/11 as an excuse to try and discredit others, you are the one who is disrespecting the tragedy of 9/11.

As far as using 9/11 as an excuse to make war, that's rotten too. You mention radical, and militant muslim groups as dangerous, and I agree with you. But tell me, how many radical Muslims groups no longer have any power as a result of the Iraq war? Has the number and memberships of radical muslim groups gone down because of Iraq? If so please name them, and give me a list of references where you got the information.

Until then, you should lose your privilege to use 9/11 because I've seen you abuse the tragedy in your own petty efforts to discredit others or make them look bad. I certainly hope that's not the legacy of that tragedy.

 

Wow! I missed this before...

Batman...

In some ways you are reflecting thoughts I have had...I have noticed that certain posters, heath, tree, to name a coouple, who were two of the more abusive, dismissive, and smug posters when the government was getting theri way seem to have disappeared. I also have, with regards to both of them, had specific instances where they called me a Liar, for the umpteenth time, and having learned how to cu and paste, I proved them wrong and demanded an apology...and in another instance tree 'challenged ' me on a fact, and I backed it up...and in both cases I was never responded to, although in tree's defense he is subject to flurries of busy time beyond his control, and might have just forgotten...

But heath in particular told me, and I quote, that he would sooner " Scoop out his eye with a spoon" than apologze to me for anything. That pretty much summed him up, I thought.

On the other hand, Batman, I think we need to be carefull here...Carefull not to parrot their kind of smugness...carefull not to lump people in that don't belong..For example, there are some on who I disagreed with this all along, like Mad Max, who have shown that they are very open minded about this...there are others, like Mr. Clutch, who while not being exactly free from bias, IMO, are at least attempting to find out the truth rather than just support their position...and then there are others, like DD or T_J, who while IMO being not at all objective about this, and continuing to avoid uncomfortable facts, still are in here every day yelling just as loudly as ever that they are in the right.

 

Let me explain something to the lunatic fringe here:

1) The war was far from a partisan affair. Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force abroad. That vote included many Democrats.

2) Given 1, citing 9/11 as a *partial* reason why a more stable Iraq is a good thing is not being partisan. Many Democrats share this belief.

3) To claim that the world is better off with a destabilized Middle East is a ridiculous assertion. One of the largest motives for the hate that comes from Muslim extremists is the instability of the Middle East and the subsequent UN response. Stabilizing this region by removing a tyrant in Iraq goes a long way towards reducing the terrorists' motives.

4) It is unclear to me why you think that even the mention of 911 is a 'shameless attempt to advance GOP politics". 911 was a national tragedy, not a partisan one. What is shameless is the liberal left's mudslinging when one dares to even broach the topic of the horrible tragedy.

 

I might agree with you on some of these, SM. I certainly agree that there are some benefits from the war...but there we part ways. To me the fact that there are positive effects of a war, and justifying a war are seperate things.

Consider that among your reasons for war lies the kind of government that Iraq has vs. what we hope it will have when we're done. That we see representative government as superior. It is iessential, then, that we ourselves remain representative, no?

So even if we agree on the reasons you posted...and there are some that we both see as negatives lessened by the war, I'll go that far...they are irrelevent insofar as they were not the argument put forward to the people for the war. They may indeed have been the "real" reasons...they may have been part of a compliation of real reasons the administration felt that Saddam had to go...but they were not at all the reasons put before the people.

WMD was the reason. WMD was the factor which Bush et al said, if resolved, prevented war. That is pretty indisputable. So if we remain representative, Bush et all must be held accountable for the reasons they put before the people, nut the reasons supporters have since claimed were always the underlying reasons beneath the public pretext...whether or not those reasons are accurate. Representative government comes with many flaws...and if you support the reasons you claim above, you can argue that they are real, but not sexy enough to sell...and I'd see your point. But to circumvent the system we have in play to accomplish what they see as legitimate undermines the very thing we say we are fighting for, and invalidates many of the arguments themselves.

Second...even if you propose...and i feel that's it's completely insupportable, but for argument's sake...if you propose that WMD wasn't THE reason, but one of several, the argument that that inaccuracy refutes the justification for war in a representative society stands. Think of this...the arguments weren't presented as a menu, as in " Pick and choose...if some of these turn out, do you support the war?" They were, if the argument that you propose follows, presented comnprehensively. So the American people supported them en masse, and to present the argument sand WMD is an entirely seperate arguemtn because even if you propose that WMD weren't THE argument, they were certainly parrt of the argument presented to the people, and it is impossible to say that the people would have supported that argument without WMD...Therefore, the war is not in any way justified in a representative society.

 

Jorge, you and Bush should be ashamed of yourselves for continually using the horrible tragedy of the 9/11 attack to advance GOP politics.

Hey this is a first. I'm quoting from my own post.

I made this tongue in cheek to mimic a tactic that I'm not sure whether itis humorous or annoying trying to to guilt trip and or win every argument by dragging in reputed concern for 911 victims.

 

T_J...Your basic premise...that those opposed are 'fringe', 'irelevent' etc. might have been legit a while back, but as Batman points out, that is no longer accurate. Now I have never supported the premise that poll majority equals moral justification, so i won't start now...but as one who has, I ask you whether you will continue with that line of thought if the current trend away from your position continues?

"The war in Iraq was one of the most overwhelming military victories in the history of man."

As a military historian, I am curious about this. What is the basis for this claim? One of the top what...5? 500? 50, 000? What? And upon what do you base that? I should point out that history is replete with superpowers beating up on relatively minor nations with very little cost to themselves. The Assyrians, Romans, Mongols, Huns, Goths, Spanish, British, and countless others made specialties of it. If you want victories with disproportionate numbers, there are many, many examples of much more extreme 'victories' than this, and many of them occurred when the playing fields were much more even. This is a blip, as expected.

 

funny pic rimrocker. hopefully those guys won't get into any trouble for having it photographed.

have you guys seen the billboard on I-45 that says: "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home Now"?

 

I must have missed the part where I talked about the importance of representative democracy. Looking back I still don't see it anywhere among the 8 justifications I listed. Since the rest of your post addressed something that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about, I won't address it. These were reasons I felt a war against Iraq was justified, it has nothing to do with what was put forth by the Bush White House or anyone else.

Anyway, I am not at all sure that representative democracy is the best way to run a country.I certainly would not insist that all other countries be run like the US. Right now, this is the greatest country in the world, IMO, but it is by no means the best possible country. My thinking is that some sort of oligarchy would probably be the best, but I am not sure how to put it into practice.

 

I supposed that it was an understood element behind this claim:

"3. The Baath ragime would torture, rape, and kill political dissidents. This means that change from within was unlikely, and probably doomed to failure in light of the aftermath of GW I."

I thought the point you were making was that, as they are not a responsible/representative government, they can do whatever they want to maintain power, and as such they had to go.

Re: oligarchy...interesting. I have not heard that one advocated for a while...( NOT a condescenscion...serious interest) Usually pro-war people are also those who assume the US way is the ONLY right way. Not a challenge, but out of intellectual interest, what is the basis for envisioning an oligarchy as the best way to go in Iraq?

 

Thanks for the props. I guess it is rather easy to run and hide when the going gets tough (like not wearing your Rox gear out of town when you go on vacation when they suck!). Fairweather fans are everywhere. Bush is under some pressure, but I think that his poll numbers are still ridiculously high for the state of the economy. And on the Democratic side, all I see are a bunch of non-starter candidates who have no chance to dethrone Bush. The Democrats are as desperate for traction on issues as I've ever seen them. Bush has more teflon than Clinton, because nothing seems to stick to him.

 

Personally, I think oligarchy is moving too far towards monarchy and aristocratic rule for my taste. I believe that if we had MORE people involved in government, it would be a better system.

I mean, an oligarchy is where a privileged few run the country completely with very little outside influence, right? It seems that we have a corporate oligarchy already, what with the huge campaign contributions to incumbents who seem to "serve" year after year and sometimes (Strom) decade after decade.

I think that there needs to be one more division in
Congress, something like a House of Commons. This house would be made up of people elected to serve up to 2 one year terms. They would be responsible for representing the common citizen (since the other houses are representing the corporations, unions, and PACs). Just something I've been kicking around.

 

That is what the House is supposed to do. The Senate as envisaged by the Founders was to represent state governments (since originally senators were chosen by the state legislators) and temper the passions of the masses as embodied by the popularly elected House. When we went to a popularly elected Senate as well, chaos ensued as state governments were effectively shut out of the power corridors of Washington and the two vital functions of the Senate, as outlined in the Federalist Papers, went by the wayside. I think term limits are the only way within the strictures of the 1st Amendment on campaign finance "reform" to end this perpetual ruling political class that has no other job but to be re-elected. The model of Cincinnatus, the Roman who served as Consul and returned when his task was completed to his plow and oxen has fallen by the wayside. When the politicians abandoned the principles of statesmanship and became merely whores for reelection, they began to use the public treasury to buy votes with various goodies and programs. Thus the dream of republic has descended into oligarchy, chaos and eventually the descent of our nation in unbridled tyranny.

Alexander Tyler
The Cycle of Democracy 1778
He wrote that thesis about the Athenian Republic more than two hundred years ago, but it fits our situation today.

 

I agree completely about term limits and campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, my idea of EFFECTIVE campaign finance reform would probably require a constitutional amendment (as discussed in the thread).

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60975