Every nation is guilty of crimes and can represent a serious threat to world safety, whether via terrorism or otherwise. The question is moot. However, in the spirit of the question, I'd say yes they would be justified.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
It seems to me nearly all your posts in this thread have been based on your misstating statistics about Iraqi deaths under Saddam Hussein. I have already responded to the few other things you had to say. I don't think you can reasonably blame the deflection of this thread on anyone but yourself. You're not really making yourself a good citizen here.
glenn1:
Our foreign policy isn't a pancake, despite what Bush thinks. It isn't a question of helping Iraq make chemical weapons OR obliterating the country. When the U.S. learns the subtleties of foreign policy perhaps the world's leaders and their people will have some respect for us. Until then, we will continue to be seen as stupid bullies.
-Robert
Our foreign policy isn't a pancake, despite what Bush thinks. It isn't a question of helping Iraq make chemical weapons OR obliterating the country. When the U.S. learns the subtleties of foreign policy perhaps the world's leaders and their people will have some respect for us. Until then, we will continue to be seen as stupid bullies.
-Robert
Somehow using Conjur and credibility in the same sentance just seems dirty.
Edit to address the OP.
I like the others in the start of this thread am somewhat dismayed that the writer of said piece would use and abuse the general in such a manner as taking their one line and then extrapolating on it using their own personal beliefs/ideology...I was expecting to read a lengthy quote of an old wise general who has something heartfelt to say, instead I am subjected to the rantings and ravings of some fanatic....all in all I give that article a big thumbs down for misrepresenting its content.
The Elitist Neocons in here will not answer your question.
Posing questions like this certainly reveals the true Wussiness of their nature.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I don't agree - I think he gets a bad rap mainly because he is so prolific here. He always backs up any assertion of fact with reliable, credible sources, and fights fair. CycloWizard, OTOH, is clearly, IMO, a previously-banned member, and in this thread he's premised all his arguments on lies, then whined when he was called out for it. This does not = credibility to my mind.
Hmm...first off I would say "good luck to them" as it would be a bitch of a time but would they be justified? I could see them thinking so, would we think it is justified? I guess it depends on who you talk to as there seem to be an influx of "american hating" foriegn born US citizens comming about who are well to do and very vocal, but it isn't like our goverment is killing off large groups of people here in house and for the most part americans are far better off than virtually any other nation, really I cannot see a parallel to iraq as the weak one you are trying to draw given the vast desparities in quality of life and so fourth....heck even cheap broke guys like Dave can afford a computer and can waste their lives away on ATPN, in Iraq and many other countries guys like that would be dead in their early 20s
I don't know if I would say he backs up his assertions with reliable and or credible sources, sure some of them are not as outrageous as those linking to hard core left or right sites but ultimately every source is biased in some form or another and Conjur tends to favor linking to those which lean to the left. Also I don't think I would classify him as someone who readily engages in "fair" fights as the "strawman" phrase Cyclo likes to use sounds about right when referring to Conjur. I think many here have their patience tried with conjur simply because he tries to paint this image of a former conservative who has recently either "seen the light" or was so disgusted by the current admin that he is forced to fall in line with the liberals, which IMHO is anything but the case, Conjur was a moderate liberal who has moved further left as time progresses, if he would just deal with it and admit it then I personally wouldn't have much issue.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I don't know whether conjur's painting himself as conservative is true or not, but I know a lot of people (myself included) who supported President Bush as recently as the spring of 2002, and don't anymore. I was recently searching for an old post of mine and found one from Apr 02 in which I said I thought President Bush was doing a good job.
As I said, I'm quite sure we've seen CW before, and he's either a new identity of an existing poster, like Rip, or a previously-banned member. I don't buy that anyone could show up here and create something like 60 posts/day in his first week.
Wouldn't surprise me. I've noticed a strange increase of new right-wing posters during the 08/15/2004 -08/30/2004 period. My instinct, much like yours, tells me it's either an existing poster making extra accounts or previously banned member(s). If I was a mod here, I'd be checking out new accounts from that period.
You think we don't? Ashcroft has nothing on us
What's sad is there are people like bozack (and corn, crimson, CsG, and others) who fail to see that people CAN change their opinion of an administration. I was big on Reagan and even the first Bush until after the first Gulf War. I didn't understand all of the underlying reasons of the stopping short of Baghdad and that pissed me off. I wanted to see Saddam taken out. That, and Bush did end up raising taxes despite his "no new taxes". Then came Clinton and he seemed a change of pace from the stodginess of the GOP and I voted for him. But, the sleaziness factor starting building and then I went for Dole in '96. Would have voted for Perot in '92 until he picked that Admiral for his running mate. Wow...that guy being a heartbeat away from the White House was just too unnerving.
I wanted McCain to get the nod in 2000 but Bush got it and Al Gore impressed me not at all. Bush was running on a campaign of being a uniter and a compassionate conservative. I believed he would do that and would still support the environment.
Well, it didn't take long for the newness to wear off but after 9/11, Bush came off as a solid leader intent on annihilating Al Qaeda. Heck, I was even along for the ride in invading Iraq last year. It wasn't until about 9-10 months ago I began to truly question the motives and now have seen that I've had the wool pulled over my eyes by the Bush admin for the last 3 1/2 years.
No more.
I'm not real thrilled with Kerry but he's the best viable candidate right now. My hope is the Republicans in Congress and Kerry in the White House will move us toward more compromise and then my bigger hope is a strong, moderate candidate arises in 2008. Someone like McCain or Biden.
You think we don't? Ashcroft has nothing on us
Well, good to know you mods are keeping an eye on things.
Conjur it is one thing to change ones opinion and then it is another to acknolwedge that change and embrace it, you still put up the farce that you are somewhat "conservative" in ideology and nature when in reality you are just short of being moonie and have been for quite a while...also you desire to split or balance power between the oval office and the congress is so typical and in line with 99.999% of america, heck that is polisci 101 right there...not saying this is a bad thing per say, just ironic as I remember my professor talking about this phenom so vividly where people are clearly aligned with one set of ideals yet still desire to balance out the different aspects of government and obtain a more moderate stance...ultimately allowing nothing drastic to get "done" towards either agenda direction.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
No, I don't claim the government can solve all the world's ails. But I do condemn as immoral those who think that because we can't fix them all that we shouldn't try to solve any. If you opposed removing Saddam Hussein, you can't simply point out other horrors that we could have addressed but haven't (like North Korea or Sudan) as being evidence that OIF was morally wrong. That's not how it works.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
BTW, anyone who cares to speak about strategies against terrorism in a more generic sense not limited to Iraq, feel free to add to the thread on it here.......
I'll be more than happy to take on whatever arguments and policy suggestions you want to bring to the table on the subject of terrorism.
I'll be more than happy to take on whatever arguments and policy suggestions you want to bring to the table on the subject of terrorism.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter