preemptive war and why no one anwered these questions

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: digiram
Agreed partner.

Put it this way. If someone told me that my neighbor has a gun and was planning on killing me, and I go and break into his house and kill him first I'd probably be in jail right now. In this instance, not only did I break into the guys house and kill him, but I found that the dude doesn't even have a gun. Since he's dead anyhow, I guess I'll just take over his house and try to make things right with the rest of the family, eh?

To make it fit a little closer, the history is that you justify it by saying you were saving his family from his abuse, even though you now have daily use of the hot tub you were coveting. While it's true he was a threat to his family, your own history is that you used to high five him and give him aid back when he killed one of his own family, even though you try to use that now to justify your violence. You once told one of his family members not to put up with it, implying you would help the family member if they stood up to him, but then changed your mind and let him kill the family member who spoke up, because you realized that the other neighbor you are friends with wanted his family kept oppressed.

And that's not even mentioning the way you encouraged your two neighbors to have a bloody feud in the past with terrible violence.

But you tell visitors that you're the one keeping the peace in the neighborhood.

:thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing is Fern you don't attack a country no matter what if the results are going to be extremely negative for the invading country like it has been for the the US. Just ask yourself, would we be better off if we didn't invade Iraq? Of course we would have been.

Can I borrow your see-the-future glasses?

You don't need em, just take off your right-wing blinders and listen to others.

 

[brencat]

I was in NYC -- in the building across the street on 9/11, and on the ground 1 block away watching the 1st tower burn when I had a 5-seconds-before-impact view of the 2nd plane as it approached and smashed into the 2nd WTC tower. Yes, I saw people jumping and burning too as they fell. I got out of the city safely by ferry, then hopped NJ transit out of Hoboken to my parents place and from there my wife picked me up. After a week went by, I can tell you I was damned mad...livid beyond believe that a bunch of 8th-century animals could have pulled this off and done this to the great USA. I wanted blood -- and revenge.

Some of you in this thread have asked how many of us could have been "duped" or apathetically accepted pre-emptive war. I admit that Iraq was a tougher sell than Afghanistan was, but I didn't care. Like I said, I wanted revenge. "How DARE they do that to my country?" For me, I was okay with the Iraq war and never believed the "story" as was sold. I knew going in this was a war to send a message to the despots of the world that you don't fvck with the USA, or this is what happens...and Iraq was an easy example to make because of the repeated defiance of U.N. sanctions.

We don't have the benefit of hindsight. I personally wish we would have gone in with overwhelming force Colin Powell style and taken control of every nook and cranny of Iraq early on instead of the stupid Rumsfeld strategy of doing it on the cheap. This has gone on too long and too much money has been wasted. But part of me wants this won decisively -- because of what happened on 9/11 and to send a message that the USA follows through.

I know many of you won't agree with me. But I believe some of your tunes would change if you were as close to ground zero as I was.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: brencat
I was in NYC -- in the building across the street on 9/11, and on the ground 1 block away watching the 1st tower burn when I had a 5-seconds-before-impact view of the 2nd plane as it approached and smashed into the 2nd WTC tower. Yes, I saw people jumping and burning too as they fell. I got out of the city safely by ferry, then hopped NJ transit out of Hoboken to my parents place and from there my wife picked me up. After a week went by, I can tell you I was damned mad...livid beyond believe that a bunch of 8th-century animals could have pulled this off and done this to the great USA. I wanted blood -- and revenge.

Some of you in this thread have asked how many of us could have been "duped" or apathetically accepted pre-emptive war. I admit that Iraq was a tougher sell than Afghanistan was, but I didn't care. Like I said, I wanted revenge. "How DARE they do that to my country?" For me, I was okay with the Iraq war and never believed the "story" as was sold. I knew going in this was a war to send a message to the despots of the world that you don't fvck with the USA, or this is what happens...and Iraq was an easy example to make because of the repeated defiance of U.N. sanctions.

We don't have the benefit of hindsight. I personally wish we would have gone in with overwhelming force Colin Powell style and taken control of every nook and cranny of Iraq early on instead of the stupid Rumsfeld strategy of doing it on the cheap. This has gone on too long and too much money has been wasted. But part of me wants this won decisively -- because of what happened on 9/11 and to send a message that the USA follows through.

I know many of you won't agree with me. But I believe some of your tunes would change if you were as close to ground zero as I was.

I wasn't nearly as close. I did have an odd experience, of being aroung the 75th to 90th floor (can't remember exactly), between the two attacks, and I had this uncomfortable feeling about the place, and thought at the time it was likely to be attacked again, and I wouldn't be comfortable being there. I didn't know how, with the great security, but it was eerie (or paranoid, maybe). I was worried about the poeple there.

Anyway, I think you are being myopic in how you reacted. While you felt an understandable 'how dare they' feeling, your post suggests to me that you lack a 'walking in their shoes' understanding of what the people in the Middle East have been put through, in part by our policies (and Britain's and many others). I have an issue with that selective reaction to unjustified violence, the outrage when done to us but complacency when done to others.

If you read these forums, you know there's a lot to become aware of and to fix in our foreign policy. If we did, it'd be less of a two-sided discussion.

I'm not really even connecting the violence as if there's a question of justification. If we had a wonderful foreign policy, there would still be unjustified acts against us. If there had not been a 9/11, we'd still have a lot to fix in our foreign policy. Rather, I'm saying we should pay attention to what we need to do right regardless of 9/11's happening or not.

You suggest that those who saw 9/11 up close would feel the same way you do.

I'd suggest, from seeing many people close to 9/11 speak, that the reactions I see tend to split by pre-existing political orientation. Those pre-disposed to support a more right-wing policy tend to share your reaction of fury and desire for revenge. Those who are more liberal tend to say we need not to use violence excessively as the response. There was a group of family members who lost people formed, for example, explicitly to send the message that war should not be started on their behalf.

Of three motives for the war in Iraq - American 'interests', 'liberating' the Iraqi people, and revenge for 9/11, let's look at the latter which is the one you cite.

What does it say about you that you saw the violence of attacks from foreigners far away in your sky kill your fellow citizens, and that your reaction is to put some innocent Iraqi into your shoes there as he watches the violence of the attacks from foreigners far away kill his fellow citizens, to 'shock and awe' him?

It's a natural reaction, revnge, but a bad one. You see someone you care about killed, you look for who to kill to 'get even'. Maybe the person you saw killed was killed by someone just like you who had seen someone they care about killed? There's a reason phrases such as 'cycle of violence' exist.

We have:

- Every right to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11

- Every obligation to ensure our own behavior is moral, regardless of others

- Every duty to hold our government accountable for using 9/11 to push us to war in Iraq

No matter how good you feel about the war in Iraq overal, you can see the abuse of democracy in how the government abused its power in taking advantage of 9/11.

If the government can't persuade the American people to go to war with Iraq through normal democratic processes, they have no business orchestrating a manipulative push.

That's exactly what they did; I've mentioned Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" before, but it's a great book for this topic.

 

[SP33Demon]

Like Craig mentioned, the Shock Doctrine is a good read. I'd also recommend Gore's Assault on Reason, while it is a lot of Bush bashing, it still offers a scientific analysis of how propaganda manipulated the American public's emotions into approval of attacking Iraq. It's analogous to a daughter who cries to elicit an emotional, yet irrational, approval from a father who she knows will always fall for it. Gore goes in depth on how the emotional response of fear overcame reason, and most of Congress fell for it too (excluding guys like Byrd, Obama, R.Paul). Reason will never win over kneejerk emotional responses like fear and anger.

 

[brencat]

@Craig, that's a fair and levelheaded response. And I will certainly take a look at the Shock Doctrine which you and SP33 recommended. I conceed revenge and the 'head for an eye' mentality are not admirable traits to have, but I'm not sure I can change my nature (must be the Scorpio blood in me, heh).

I agree our foreign policy has been all over the map for the past 50 years over there -- partly due to changing administrations every 4 to 8 years. Not sure if there will ever be a consistent policy one way or another. Nearly all of the problems have to do with Israel but the way I see it, Israel is there to stay...period. It should not be moved and no more land should be ceded. Certain countries will simply have to accept that fact and abandon their vows to destroy it.

Frankly, if we could just get ourselves off of foreign oil (while increasing drilling and exploration back home to smooth out the transition in the meantime), we could send those Middle East despotic regimes packing. Without our petrodollars they'll be back to riding camels within 2 decades.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing is Fern you don't attack a country no matter what if the results are going to be extremely negative for the invading country like it has been for the the US. Just ask yourself, would we be better off if we didn't invade Iraq? Of course we would have been.

Can I borrow your see-the-future glasses?

You don't need em, just take off your right-wing blinders and listen to others.

If right wing blinders is what you call using facts and logic to come to conclusions instead of looking for ways to spin things to reaching my pre-determined conclusions than call me right wing.

I used to be a hard core liberal. The tag lines are just too good. Then I grew up and applied my own decision making process. I have a unique set of views I have never seen duplicated in another person. Most of my views being "right leaning" then overall that makes me a rightie. I've had people refer to me as a liberal douche after discussing a single issue with me. Overall i prefer to think of myself as a realist.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing is Fern you don't attack a country no matter what if the results are going to be extremely negative for the invading country like it has been for the the US. Just ask yourself, would we be better off if we didn't invade Iraq? Of course we would have been.

Can I borrow your see-the-future glasses?

You don't need em, just take off your right-wing blinders and listen to others.

If right wing blinders is what you call using facts and logic to come to conclusions instead of looking for ways to spin things to reaching my pre-determined conclusions than call me right wing.

I used to be a hard core liberal. The tag lines are just too good. Then I grew up and applied my own decision making process. I have a unique set of views I have never seen duplicated in another person. Most of my views being "right leaning" then overall that makes me a rightie. I've had people refer to me as a liberal douche after discussing a single issue with me. Overall i prefer to think of myself as a realist.

Of course, that's quite the opposite of what I mean by right-wing blinders.

The fact is, there was *all kinds* of information on the problems with the war on Iraq before the war that did not need any special glasses as you claimed. The fact you did not have the infomration reflects your not looking for such information, not that it was unavailable. Of course not all the problems could be known, many were complete surprises to everyone on how badly the occupation was run, but just compare the thorough planning the State Department did, and which the Pentago who was put in charge threw away, for an idea about how plenty was known beforehand. There was a lot of British history, warnings from them and others, and there were the clear lies from the administration on how they took us to war. There were the people who were telling the truth about even the known costs of the war hugely exceeding the estimates, people who were punished but who had some media coverage.

But I understand you would rather not admit you had any shortcomings in your own research, and would rather say the information just was unavailable.

And that's part of the blinders.

Your 'former liberal' shtick I've seen before; the fact you were a liberal for the 'tag lines' suggests you were not a substantive liberal. Of course there's a baby step you take from the child's version of liberalism to the 'real world', but it's just that a baby step. But I see many righties who are not more developed than that baby step. Once they see that the most innocent platitutes aren't exactly right, they announce how they're the realists. Oh, please. Show me how much you can improve society with your policies, then say that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing is Fern you don't attack a country no matter what if the results are going to be extremely negative for the invading country like it has been for the the US. Just ask yourself, would we be better off if we didn't invade Iraq? Of course we would have been.

Can I borrow your see-the-future glasses?

You don't need em, just take off your right-wing blinders and listen to others.

This discussion has been had before. We don't know what would have happened if we didn't go into Iraq. Maybe the forces distracted there would otherwise have attacked us again. Who knows? You can't say "of course we would have been better off" if we hadn't invaded, though a good argument can be made for "of course we would have been better off if the admin actually had a plan for the country after deposing Saddam."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Like Craig mentioned, the Shock Doctrine is a good read. I'd also recommend Gore's Assault on Reason, while it is a lot of Bush bashing, it still offers a scientific analysis of how propaganda manipulated the American public's emotions into approval of attacking Iraq. It's analogous to a daughter who cries to elicit an emotional, yet irrational, approval from a father who she knows will always fall for it. Gore goes in depth on how the emotional response of fear overcame reason, and most of Congress fell for it too (excluding guys like Byrd, Obama, R.Paul). Reason will never win over kneejerk emotional responses like fear and anger.

I suppose it would be a good read for those who seek emotional affirmation for their thought process but I rather prefer using rational thought - which is why I did support the action to remove Saddam and still do to this day. I have posted my reasoning many times here when people tried to change the history or try to ignore it. Anyway, I'm sure Gore's book is great red meat for the left and likewise - shock doctrine... have at it...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing is Fern you don't attack a country no matter what if the results are going to be extremely negative for the invading country like it has been for the the US. Just ask yourself, would we be better off if we didn't invade Iraq? Of course we would have been.

Can I borrow your see-the-future glasses?

You don't need em, just take off your right-wing blinders and listen to others.

This discussion has been had before. We don't know what would have happened if we didn't go into Iraq. Maybe the forces distracted there would otherwise have attacked us again. Who knows? You can't say "of course we would have been better off" if we hadn't invaded, though a good argument can be made for "of course we would have been better off if the admin actually had a plan for the country after deposing Saddam."

I've long said that the liberal side has some questions to answer on its lack of doing much about Saddam. Maybe we could have come up with a plan, maybe we could have defending leaving him in power, but there was a problem to discuss. I've also said that if Bush had done what he promised, he could have come out looking pretty good: had he indeed used the war authorization act for leverage to get the inspectors back in, which he did, and let them complete the inspections, which he didn't, he could have made an argument that 'weak' Clinton had let Saddam get away with defying the UN, while the stronger Bush had a more forceful but measured response which forced Saddam back into compliance and put in place confirmation Saddam had no WMD as well as monitoring systems to ensure he remained that way. It'd have been a pretty good story for Bush.

But he didn't. Finally, as I said in my later post above, we couldn't have predicted all kinds of the problems that happened, because no one knew all the factors and knew how badly the administration would run things. Some problems could be seen, others couldn't. But we did know problems with the diffictulty in occupying Iraq, some of them anyway, we did know problems with the Bush case for war, and the point was as I said that Train's preference is not to admit he has any fault for not learning the available information.

Instead he'll argue that it's all 20-20 hindsight, when much is not, though much is as well. His denial that much was not is a type of blinder.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Like Craig mentioned, the Shock Doctrine is a good read. I'd also recommend Gore's Assault on Reason, while it is a lot of Bush bashing, it still offers a scientific analysis of how propaganda manipulated the American public's emotions into approval of attacking Iraq. It's analogous to a daughter who cries to elicit an emotional, yet irrational, approval from a father who she knows will always fall for it. Gore goes in depth on how the emotional response of fear overcame reason, and most of Congress fell for it too (excluding guys like Byrd, Obama, R.Paul). Reason will never win over kneejerk emotional responses like fear and anger.

I suppose it would be a good read for those who seek emotional affirmation for their thought process but I rather prefer using rational thought - which is why I did support the action to remove Saddam and still do to this day. I have posted my reasoning many times here when people tried to change the history or try to ignore it. Anyway, I'm sure Gore's book is great red meat for the left and likewise - shock doctrine... have at it...

You're the one rejecting reason and choosing ignorance. Why don't you try exposing yourself to a few facts, such as in Klein's book, and then get back to us?

I think Gore's book is good and important as well, but I'm unsure how a righty reading it will react, and not sure I have any chance to find out, since they avoid exposure to it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Like Craig mentioned, the Shock Doctrine is a good read. I'd also recommend Gore's Assault on Reason, while it is a lot of Bush bashing, it still offers a scientific analysis of how propaganda manipulated the American public's emotions into approval of attacking Iraq. It's analogous to a daughter who cries to elicit an emotional, yet irrational, approval from a father who she knows will always fall for it. Gore goes in depth on how the emotional response of fear overcame reason, and most of Congress fell for it too (excluding guys like Byrd, Obama, R.Paul). Reason will never win over kneejerk emotional responses like fear and anger.

I suppose it would be a good read for those who seek emotional affirmation for their thought process but I rather prefer using rational thought - which is why I did support the action to remove Saddam and still do to this day. I have posted my reasoning many times here when people tried to change the history or try to ignore it. Anyway, I'm sure Gore's book is great red meat for the left and likewise - shock doctrine... have at it...

You're the one rejecting reason and choosing ignorance. Why don't you try exposing yourself to a few facts, such as in Klein's book, and then get back to us?

I think Gore's book is good and important as well, but I'm unsure how a righty reading it will react, and not sure I have any chance to find out, since they avoid exposure to it.

rejecting reason? Buahahahaha... sure... if you say so. I've posted many times here why I supported the removal of Saddam and my position on it is entirely based on logic and reason - not emotion like so many of you.

As to kleins book - I could care less about it. I took a gander at her site and read quite a bit of what is posted there. Reason dictates that reading her book would be a waste if it is anything like what is on her site. She might have a few points of interest but I think she lacks the "reality" factor that needs to be present in these sorts of discussions. Just my opinion...

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The thing is Fern you don't attack a country no matter what if the results are going to be extremely negative for the invading country like it has been for the the US. Just ask yourself, would we be better off if we didn't invade Iraq? Of course we would have been.

Can I borrow your see-the-future glasses?

You don't need em, just take off your right-wing blinders and listen to others.

If right wing blinders is what you call using facts and logic to come to conclusions instead of looking for ways to spin things to reaching my pre-determined conclusions than call me right wing.

I used to be a hard core liberal. The tag lines are just too good. Then I grew up and applied my own decision making process. I have a unique set of views I have never seen duplicated in another person. Most of my views being "right leaning" then overall that makes me a rightie. I've had people refer to me as a liberal douche after discussing a single issue with me. Overall i prefer to think of myself as a realist.

Of course, that's quite the opposite of what I mean by right-wing blinders.

The fact is, there was *all kinds* of information on the problems with the war on Iraq before the war that did not need any special glasses as you claimed. The fact you did not have the infomration reflects your not looking for such information, not that it was unavailable. Of course not all the problems could be known, many were complete surprises to everyone on how badly the occupation was run, but just compare the thorough planning the State Department did, and which the Pentago who was put in charge threw away, for an idea about how plenty was known beforehand. There was a lot of British history, warnings from them and others, and there were the clear lies from the administration on how they took us to war. There were the people who were telling the truth about even the known costs of the war hugely exceeding the estimates, people who were punished but who had some media coverage.

But I understand you would rather not admit you had any shortcomings in your own research, and would rather say the information just was unavailable.

And that's part of the blinders.

Your 'former liberal' shtick I've seen before; the fact you were a liberal for the 'tag lines' suggests you were not a substantive liberal. Of course there's a baby step you take from the child's version of liberalism to the 'real world', but it's just that a baby step. But I see many righties who are not more developed than that baby step. Once they see that the most innocent platitutes aren't exactly right, they announce how they're the realists. Oh, please. Show me how much you can improve society with your policies, then say that.

heh, that long winded line of BS is EXACTLY what I used to come up with to try and justify being a liberal. But the proof is in the pudding... you spin crap like this when my response to the OP has gone totally ignored by every liberal in here including you. Which just proves my point, liberals avoid logic. They have to. Because if you start with logic, and drop your predertermined outcomes, it leads you to the right every time.

"If your uder 20 and a conservative you dont have a heart, if your over 20 and a liberal you dont have a brain." - Winston Churchill.

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Train
liberals avoid logic. They have to. Because if you start with logic, and drop your predertermined outcomes, it leads you to the right every time.

lolz

Amazing how the right is the home of the religion, organizations dedicated to the premise of anti-logic.

By your "logic" no intelligent logical person could be a liberal. I have a few (hundred) nobel prize winners who might disagree with you.

And Churchills's ad hominem attack "poisons the well", a logical fallacy. Oops.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Train
liberals avoid logic. They have to. Because if you start with logic, and drop your predertermined outcomes, it leads you to the right every time.

lolz

Amazing how the right is the home of the religion, organizations dedicated to the premise of anti-logic.

you wish. Dems have campaigned from the pulpit for a century, now once a few church groups pop up supporting conservatives you claim the right is the "home" of religion.

Just because communism calls for the elimination of Christianity and Judaism ("free will" based religions are pro-capitalism) and dems just want us closer to govt rule, doesnt mean we should drop the freedom of religion.

By your "logic" no intelligent logical person could be a liberal.

I have a few (hundred) nobel prize winners who might disagree with you.

It's called altruism. This is the part I described above about finding ways to your predetermined outcomes. The smarter you are, the better excuses you can come up with.

And Churchills's ad hominem attack poisons the well, a logical fallacy. Oops.

Poisons the well? Youlibs just hate it when someone hits the nail on the head. I'd say its spot on from my observations.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Train
liberals avoid logic. They have to. Because if you start with logic, and drop your predertermined outcomes, it leads you to the right every time.

lolz

Amazing how the right is the home of the religion, organizations dedicated to the premise of anti-logic.

you wish. Dems have campaigned from the pulpit for a century, now once a few church groups pop up supporting conservatives you claim the right is the "home" of religion.

Just because communism calls for the elimination of Christianity and Judaism ("free will" based religions are pro-capitalism) and dems just want us closer to govt rule, doesnt mean we should drop the freedom of religion.

By your "logic" no intelligent logical person could be a liberal.

I have a few (hundred) nobel prize winners who might disagree with you.

It's called altruism. This is the part I described above about finding ways to your predetermined outcomes. The smarter you are, the better excuses you can come up with.

And Churchills's ad hominem attack poisons the well, a logical fallacy. Oops.

Poisons the well? Youlibs just hate it when someone hits the nail on the head. I'd say its spot on from my observations.

Obviously your observations are viewed from inner walls of your lower intestinal tract.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Train
liberals avoid logic. They have to. Because if you start with logic, and drop your predertermined outcomes, it leads you to the right every time.

lolz

Amazing how the right is the home of the religion, organizations dedicated to the premise of anti-logic.

you wish. Dems have campaigned from the pulpit for a century, now once a few church groups pop up supporting conservatives you claim the right is the "home" of religion.

Just because communism calls for the elimination of Christianity and Judaism ("free will" based religions are pro-capitalism) and dems just want us closer to govt rule, doesnt mean we should drop the freedom of religion.

By your "logic" no intelligent logical person could be a liberal.

I have a few (hundred) nobel prize winners who might disagree with you.

It's called altruism. This is the part I described above about finding ways to your predetermined outcomes. The smarter you are, the better excuses you can come up with.

And Churchills's ad hominem attack poisons the well, a logical fallacy. Oops.

Poisons the well? Youlibs just hate it when someone hits the nail on the head. I'd say its spot on from my observations.

I have only observed you say how smart you think you are.

but nothing to really back that up.

but I guess you sure do type nicely...

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Train
liberals avoid logic. They have to. Because if you start with logic, and drop your predertermined outcomes, it leads you to the right every time.

lolz

Amazing how the right is the home of the religion, organizations dedicated to the premise of anti-logic.

you wish. Dems have campaigned from the pulpit for a century, now once a few church groups pop up supporting conservatives you claim the right is the "home" of religion.

Just because communism calls for the elimination of Christianity and Judaism ("free will" based religions are pro-capitalism) and dems just want us closer to govt rule, doesnt mean we should drop the freedom of religion.

By your "logic" no intelligent logical person could be a liberal.

I have a few (hundred) nobel prize winners who might disagree with you.

It's called altruism. This is the part I described above about finding ways to your predetermined outcomes. The smarter you are, the better excuses you can come up with.

And Churchills's ad hominem attack poisons the well, a logical fallacy. Oops.

Poisons the well? Youlibs just hate it when someone hits the nail on the head. I'd say its spot on from my observations.

Obviously your observations are viewed from inner walls of your lower intestinal tract.

You would know, thats about all you can see based on your useless posts.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Train
liberals avoid logic. They have to. Because if you start with logic, and drop your predertermined outcomes, it leads you to the right every time.

lolz

Amazing how the right is the home of the religion, organizations dedicated to the premise of anti-logic.

you wish. Dems have campaigned from the pulpit for a century, now once a few church groups pop up supporting conservatives you claim the right is the "home" of religion.

Just because communism calls for the elimination of Christianity and Judaism ("free will" based religions are pro-capitalism) and dems just want us closer to govt rule, doesnt mean we should drop the freedom of religion.

By your "logic" no intelligent logical person could be a liberal.

I have a few (hundred) nobel prize winners who might disagree with you.

It's called altruism. This is the part I described above about finding ways to your predetermined outcomes. The smarter you are, the better excuses you can come up with.

And Churchills's ad hominem attack poisons the well, a logical fallacy. Oops.

Poisons the well? Youlibs just hate it when someone hits the nail on the head. I'd say its spot on from my observations.

Obviously your observations are viewed from inner walls of your lower intestinal tract.

You would know, thats about all you can see based on your useless posts.

As if your posts were any more worthwhile.:roll:

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
As if your posts were any more worthwhile.:roll:

My initial post in this thread was quite worthwhile...

Why dont you ever respond to valid arguments? All you guys do in here is snipe with rhetorical BS. Not exactly practicing what you preach.

My initial post in this thread is STILL ignored.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Train
I didnt read all the replies, but in response to the OP,

Your basing your entire question off of the idea that there is a such thing as a "legal war" Legal war is an oxymoron. There are no laws about when to go to war, and when not to. Wars are what happens when the rule of law cant help you. In a sense, ALL wars are illegal. Either that or NO wars are illegal, depends on how you want to look at it.

The preemptive term is another one, ALL wars are preemptive to something. Or you could say there is no such thing, its just a term someone made up, either way, its a useless term to try and differentiate between seperate wars.

I know a lot of people like to cling to fairy tale ideals that "the good guys always win" But in reality there is no such thing as good guys and bad guys. The "good guys" or "the guys who were right" in history's eyes, is the one who won in the end.

One could argue that Japan's bombing of pearl Harbour was a justified "preemptive war" because of American harrasment of Japanese interests, or Roosevelt's planning to bomb Japan anyways. That Germany retaking the Rhineland was preemptive action against further propagation of the unjust treaty of Versaille. Had Japan and Germany Won WWII, we would view them as just actions in hindsight. Both countries could have easily argued for justified retaliatory and preemptive actions and been right on all accounts. However they lost. So history views them as the bad guys.

OHH I guess THIS is the part where you claim to be a smart thinker! I see.

but since you cannot even grasp the simple concept of a 'legal war' then I do not think you are very smart.

There absolutely exists this concept of "legal war" meaning waging war that is sanctioned and approved through the laws that exist. There is a process by which the US wages war. We aren't a bunch of gorillas that go around slapping other gorillas...well, maybe we are now but...

Congress has the powers to vote for war. The executive 'executes' that war.

Through my observations, since you cannot comprehend this grade school level civics idea, then I do not think you are so smart. Sorry.

The OP raises questions that I don't think you are smart enough to answer.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Train
I didnt read all the replies, but in response to the OP,

Your basing your entire question off of the idea that there is a such thing as a "legal war" Legal war is an oxymoron. There are no laws about when to go to war, and when not to. Wars are what happens when the rule of law cant help you. In a sense, ALL wars are illegal. Either that or NO wars are illegal, depends on how you want to look at it.

The preemptive term is another one, ALL wars are preemptive to something. Or you could say there is no such thing, its just a term someone made up, either way, its a useless term to try and differentiate between seperate wars.

I know a lot of people like to cling to fairy tale ideals that "the good guys always win" But in reality there is no such thing as good guys and bad guys. The "good guys" or "the guys who were right" in history's eyes, is the one who won in the end.

One could argue that Japan's bombing of pearl Harbour was a justified "preemptive war" because of American harrasment of Japanese interests, or Roosevelt's planning to bomb Japan anyways. That Germany retaking the Rhineland was preemptive action against further propagation of the unjust treaty of Versaille. Had Japan and Germany Won WWII, we would view them as just actions in hindsight. Both countries could have easily argued for justified retaliatory and preemptive actions and been right on all accounts. However they lost. So history views them as the bad guys.

OHH I guess THIS is the part where you claim to be a smart thinker! I see.

but since you cannot even grasp the simple concept of a 'legal war' then I do not think you are very smart.

There absolutely exists this concept of "legal war" meaning waging war that is sanctioned and approved through the laws that exist. There is a process by which the US wages war. We aren't a bunch of gorillas that go around slapping other gorillas...well, maybe we are now but...

Congress has the powers to vote for war. The executive 'executes' that war.

Through my observations, since you cannot comprehend this grade school level civics idea, then I do not think you are so smart. Sorry.

The OP raises questions that I don't think you are smart enough to answer.

Ahh, nice side step. you mean the USA has a legal way of declaring war. Ok, did congress not give Bush power to take military action? Have they voted to take it away over 5 years later? Within the boundries of US law, this is a "legal" war.

Now, between countries, there is no law. And what little international treaties exist, what if one country disregards them? What law applies then? There is none, therefore lagality one way or the other does not exist. Hence the whole idea of "an illegal" invasion is just tag line used by the oponents of the current admin.

And preemptive war? Want to tackle that one?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Train
I didnt read all the replies, but in response to the OP,

Your basing your entire question off of the idea that there is a such thing as a "legal war" Legal war is an oxymoron. There are no laws about when to go to war, and when not to. Wars are what happens when the rule of law cant help you. In a sense, ALL wars are illegal. Either that or NO wars are illegal, depends on how you want to look at it.

The preemptive term is another one, ALL wars are preemptive to something. Or you could say there is no such thing, its just a term someone made up, either way, its a useless term to try and differentiate between seperate wars.

I know a lot of people like to cling to fairy tale ideals that "the good guys always win" But in reality there is no such thing as good guys and bad guys. The "good guys" or "the guys who were right" in history's eyes, is the one who won in the end.

One could argue that Japan's bombing of pearl Harbour was a justified "preemptive war" because of American harrasment of Japanese interests, or Roosevelt's planning to bomb Japan anyways. That Germany retaking the Rhineland was preemptive action against further propagation of the unjust treaty of Versaille. Had Japan and Germany Won WWII, we would view them as just actions in hindsight. Both countries could have easily argued for justified retaliatory and preemptive actions and been right on all accounts. However they lost. So history views them as the bad guys.

Bull-hockey

Imperialism is Imperialism /end of that argument

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Train
I used to be a hard core liberal. The tag lines are just too good. Then I grew up and applied my own decision making process. I have a unique set of views I have never seen duplicated in another person. Most of my views being "right leaning" then overall that makes me a rightie. I've had people refer to me as a liberal douche after discussing a single issue with me.

Overall i prefer to think of myself as a realist.

I consider myself a Realist as well however looking at your posts it is obvious there can be Radical Conservative Realists as well as Looney Liberal Realists.

I am certainly of the Looney Liberal variety.