So the new neocon tactics here are...

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whenever Bush does something wrong, bring up something that a Democrat did in the past and ignore what is happening now.

Ignore what Bush said and did, and instead concentrate on the incidental, although good result of Iraqis getting rid of Saddam, although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation"



Carry on.

 

[mastertech01]

although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation

What was the name of the operation? I believe it was Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whenever Bush does something wrong, bring up something that a Democrat did in the past and ignore what is happening now.

Ignore what Bush said and did, and instead concentrate on the incidental, although good result of Iraqis getting rid of Saddam, although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation"



Carry on.

yup

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation

What was the name of the operation? I believe it was Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't it?

LOL, that's the point.

Perhaps you forget about Ari coming on TV and saying that the battle for the disarmament of Iraq has begun. To that point, that was the administrations justification, to disarm Iraq. Bush came out shortly afterwards started with something completely different. Well, we didnt get Operation Disarm Iraq, did we? That would not have played nearly as well. What it should have been called is "Operation whatever we can think of that plays best in the press".

 

[syzygy]

Perhaps you forget about Ari coming on TV and saying that the battle for the disarmament of Iraq has begun. To that point, that was the
administrations justification, to disarm Iraq. Bush came out shortly afterwards started with something completely different. Well, we didnt get
Operation Disarm Iraq, did we? That would not have played nearly as well. What it should have been called is "Operation whatever we can
think of that plays best in the press".

ari came on tv many, many times. but you're fixed on one specific bravura performance of his that jibes with your loony takes on reality.
so cut and paste as you like.

iraq is disarmed: of wmd, of its dictator, his evil brood, the ba'ath party, and all your other favorites. sorry.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation

What was the name of the operation? I believe it was Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't it?

I read it somewhere that the original name for the operation was "Operation Iraqi Liberation", but since the acronym would be OIL they changed the word Liberation to Freedom. I'm not sure if it was true though, it was probably just a joke 😉

The point is that all the time leading to the war, WMD were used by the administration as justification for preemptive strike and to gather support of American public. Preemptive strike is only conceivable when there is an imminent thread which can no longer be tolerated and that was the rationale behind the attack. Once the conflict started you could see "Operation Iraqi Freedom" with a waving American flag in the background on major news networks, like Fox News.

If you keep seeing and hearing the phrase "Operation Iraqi Freedom" over and over again you'll finally believe it, and it seems like a lot of people did. That is why it is a good idea to have a diverse sources of information

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whenever Bush does something wrong, bring up something that a Democrat did in the past and ignore what is happening now.

Ignore what Bush said and did, and instead concentrate on the incidental, although good result of Iraqis getting rid of Saddam, although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation"



Carry on.

You see that's the point. For me, and I try to be objective, I see no other reason the US/UK (and in the case of UK it was the only reason) could sanction a war against Iraq other than to eliminate a significant threat posed by its WMD. That's it.

If it were "moral" then the superpowers should be content to go around the world, labelling hostile, opressive regimes as such and then actively petitioning for military action in order to "free" their citizens. Liberia, Tibet, North Korea, etc. wherever there is opression, murder and large scale injustice the US/UK should be petitioning for active and full scale intervention. This is not and I predict will not be happening anytime soon.

Which is actaully a good thing! Because my next point is that this approach - though it may sound appealing has one fatal flaw. That is, without UN backing it is extremely difficult to avoid a US led (and therefore 90% influenced) coalition to do this work. A coalition where the US is playing judge. Where the US collates the "evidence". Where the US decides what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Who is to say that the US will always make the "right" choice? Without consensus we leave this more or less in the hands of of a single country. This is not the right approach and I fear for what may transpire once this power is ordained and ingrained.

That's my 2c worth.

Andy

 

[syzygy]

The point is that all the time leading to the war, WMD were used by the administration as justification for preemptive strike and to gather support of American public. Preemptive strike is only conceivable when there is an imminent thread which can no longer be tolerated and that was the rationale behind the attack. Once the conflict started you could see "Operation Iraqi Freedom" with a waving American flag in the background on major news networks, like Fox News.

firstly, the only reason wmd was used as an issue was due to the gov't in charge in iraq. saddam may have been suffering from sanction fatigue
after a 12 year shell game, but saddam would only have put their wmd programs into deeper abeyance for as long as he and his sons were in
power. he needed to have those sanctions lifted, he needed those inspectors satisfied and out of iraq, and he needed dire economic support
from sympathetic member states on the security council to reinvigorate public support - or at least sooth public discontent - with his own folk.

secondly, when you speak of 'preemptive strikes' and 'imminent threats' you've walked into the domain of just war theory. the justification
for this, or any confilct, can be both theoretical and historical (practical). was there a prior history of conflict and deterence against future
conflict with iraq prior to our 2003 campaign ? the war we fought in 1991 did not end the threat posed by saddam. saddam toyed with the
u.n. for 12 years, ignoring numerous resolution, rebuffing entreaties from arab, european, asian and north american states to comply in good
faith to the fullest extent of these resolutions. yet he failed again and again to do so. the gist is he would've continued to fail if the same
predictable procedures that had degenerated into kowtowing to his regime were again applied. a different, more strident course was needed.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: syzygy

The point is that all the time leading to the war, WMD were used by the administration as justification for preemptive strike and to gather support of American public. Preemptive strike is only conceivable when there is an imminent thread which can no longer be tolerated and that was the rationale behind the attack. Once the conflict started you could see "Operation Iraqi Freedom" with a waving American flag in the background on major news networks, like Fox News.

firstly, the only reason wmd was used as an issue was due to the gov't in charge in iraq. saddam may have been suffering from sanction fatigue
after a 12 year shell game, but saddam would only have put their wmd programs into deeper abeyance for as long as he and his sons were in
power. he needed to have those sanctions lifted, he needed those inspectors satisfied and out of iraq, and he needed dire economic support
from sympathetic member states on the security council to reinvigorate public support - or at least sooth public discontent - with his own folk.

secondly, when you speak of 'preemptive strikes' and 'imminent threats' you've walked into the domain of just war theory. the justification
for this, or any confilct, can be both theoretical and historical (practical). was there a prior history of conflict and deterence against future
conflict with iraq prior to our 2003 campaign ? the war we fought in 1991 did not end the threat posed by saddam. saddam toyed with the
u.n. for 12 years, ignoring numerous resolution, rebuffing entreaties from arab, european, asian and north american states to comply in good
faith to the fullest extent of these resolutions. yet he failed again and again to do so. the gist is he would've continued to fail if the same
predictable procedures that had degenerated into kowtowing to his regime were again applied. a different, more strident course was needed.

No, the only reason WMDs were brought up is because it was the best way to scare the Americans into supporting this mess. History shows times and time again, when the general population is in fear, they will support extreme measures which they would not otherwise.

Iraq was no threat to us in 1991, nor were they even remotely a threat in 2003. No links have been made tying Iraq to Al Qaeda, so as much as you want to beleive that, you better take control of your emotions and let reasoning back into your head.

Furthermore, what Saddam was doing with the UN is just what you said, toying. There were definite times when IRaq failed to fully cooperate with the UN, but these are rather trivial, not something someone in their right mind would endorse a war over. Especially since Iraq has improved it's cooperation drastically over the years- even up to letting inspectors into Iraq's most sensitive facilities like the Presidential Palaces and Ministries. How did we reward them for their new signs of cooperation? We bomb them! Since when should we punish people for showing signs of improvement?

And lastly, if we wanna play world police like that, bombing nations which 'fail to fully cooperate' with some UN inspections, then why doesn't Israel get any attention? How many UN resolutions have they ignored and for how long? Why doesn't Israel allow arms inspectors to see their nuclear arms? Many nations have called for inspections on Israel's arms programs but we totally ignore them, even though to them, it is a dire issue of security. And don't forget, Israel developed it's nuclear arms in secret, while lying to us about what they were doing. We're not the world police, we're the world SS Troopers.

 

[Corn]

Ignore what Bush said and did, and instead concentrate on the incidental, although good result of Iraqis getting rid of Saddam, although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation"

Interesting that you put that last part into quotes. Why don't you provide us a source to those quotes? Maybe we need an open hearing, this sounds like a lie!

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whenever Bush does something wrong, bring up something that a Democrat did in the past and ignore what is happening now.

Ignore what Bush said and did, and instead concentrate on the incidental, although good result of Iraqis getting rid of Saddam, although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation"



Carry on.

You see that's the point. For me, and I try to be objective, I see no other reason the US/UK (and in the case of UK it was the only reason) could sanction a war against Iraq other than to eliminate a significant threat posed by its WMD. That's it.

If it were "moral" then the superpowers should be content to go around the world, labelling hostile, opressive regimes as such and then actively petitioning for military action in order to "free" their citizens. Liberia, Tibet, North Korea, etc. wherever there is opression, murder and large scale injustice the US/UK should be petitioning for active and full scale intervention. This is not and I predict will not be happening anytime soon.

Which is actaully a good thing! Because my next point is that this approach - though it may sound appealing has one fatal flaw. That is, without UN backing it is extremely difficult to avoid a US led (and therefore 90% influenced) coalition to do this work. A coalition where the US is playing judge. Where the US collates the "evidence". Where the US decides what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Who is to say that the US will always make the "right" choice? Without consensus we leave this more or less in the hands of of a single country. This is not the right approach and I fear for what may transpire once this power is ordained and ingrained.

That's my 2c worth.

Andy

Bingo Andy! :beer:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whenever Bush does something wrong, bring up something that a Democrat did in the past and ignore what is happening now.

Ignore what Bush said and did, and instead concentrate on the incidental, although good result of Iraqis getting rid of Saddam, although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation"



Carry on.

You see that's the point. For me, and I try to be objective, I see no other reason the US/UK (and in the case of UK it was the only reason) could sanction a war against Iraq other than to eliminate a significant threat posed by its WMD. That's it.

If it were "moral" then the superpowers should be content to go around the world, labelling hostile, opressive regimes as such and then actively petitioning for military action in order to "free" their citizens. Liberia, Tibet, North Korea, etc. wherever there is opression, murder and large scale injustice the US/UK should be petitioning for active and full scale intervention. This is not and I predict will not be happening anytime soon.

Which is actaully a good thing! Because my next point is that this approach - though it may sound appealing has one fatal flaw. That is, without UN backing it is extremely difficult to avoid a US led (and therefore 90% influenced) coalition to do this work. A coalition where the US is playing judge. Where the US collates the "evidence". Where the US decides what is "right" and what is "wrong".

Who is to say that the US will always make the "right" choice? Without consensus we leave this more or less in the hands of of a single country. This is not the right approach and I fear for what may transpire once this power is ordained and ingrained.

That's my 2c worth.

Andy

Bingo Andy! :beer:

So are you both always against war?

CkG

 

[syzygy]

No, the only reason WMDs were brought up is because it was the best way to scare the Americans into supporting this mess. History shows times and time again, when the general population is in fear, they will support extreme measures which they would not otherwise.

to scare americans ? i thought they were already on edge following 9/11. saddam was scary too. he refused to play nice with the
u.n. so we decided to communicate with him using the only language he understands. ofcourse, some like yourself, think saddam
harmless or manageable. but he fooled you again and again and you still kept coming back for more with the same stillborn u.n.
propositions that must've grown too abrasive for even saddam to continue using as toilet paper.

Iraq was no threat to us in 1991, nor were they even remotely a threat in 2003. No links have been made tying Iraq to Al Qaeda,
so as much as you want to beleive that, you better take control of your emotions and let reasoning back into your head.

threats to the economic livelihoods of nations are threat to each nation's national interest and security. there was near unanimous
world opinion to the contrary in 1991. the world spoke that saddam had to leave kuwait. he played our bluff. your friend lost. so i'll
leave you alone on your island.

as for 2003, the mere fact saddam was in control and flaunting his power was sufficient reason in itself.

Furthermore, what Saddam was doing with the UN is just what you said, toying. There were definite times when IRaq failed to fully
cooperate with the UN, but these are rather trivial, not something someone in their right mind would endorse a war over. Especially
since Iraq has improved it's cooperation drastically over the years- even up to letting inspectors into Iraq's most sensitive facilities like
the Presidential Palaces and Ministries. How did we reward them for their new signs of cooperation? We bomb them! Since when should
we punish people for showing signs of improvement?

'definite times', as in the plural, is key. you believe a continual flouting of the u.n. authority is 'trivial'. i don't, nor does the u.n., e.u.,
arab league, etc.

and it was never a question of his 'improvement' but his absolute full compliance with the first resolution, not the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.
the slips and loose-ends you appear to forgive in bloodthirsty dictators is a recipe cribbed from the anarchist's cookbook.

And lastly, if we wanna play world police like that, bombing nations which 'fail to fully cooperate' with some UN inspections, then why
doesn't Israel get any attention? How many UN resolutions have they ignored and for how long? Why doesn't Israel allow arms inspectors
to see their nuclear arms? Many nations have called for inspections on Israel's arms programs but we totally ignore them, even though to
them, it is a dire issue of security. And don't forget, Israel developed it's nuclear arms in secret, while lying to us about what they were doing.
We're not the world police, we're the world SS Troopers.

isreal had nothing to do with the threat posed by the ba'ath party in iraq. don't employ red herrings. learn to argue. although i thank you
for your polite tone.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: syzygy

The point is that all the time leading to the war, WMD were used by the administration as justification for preemptive strike and to gather support of American public. Preemptive strike is only conceivable when there is an imminent thread which can no longer be tolerated and that was the rationale behind the attack. Once the conflict started you could see "Operation Iraqi Freedom" with a waving American flag in the background on major news networks, like Fox News.

firstly, the only reason wmd was used as an issue was due to the gov't in charge in iraq. saddam may have been suffering from sanction fatigue
after a 12 year shell game, but saddam would only have put their wmd programs into deeper abeyance for as long as he and his sons were in
power. he needed to have those sanctions lifted, he needed those inspectors satisfied and out of iraq, and he needed dire economic support
from sympathetic member states on the security council to reinvigorate public support - or at least sooth public discontent - with his own folk.

secondly, when you speak of 'preemptive strikes' and 'imminent threats' you've walked into the domain of just war theory. the justification
for this, or any confilct, can be both theoretical and historical (practical). was there a prior history of conflict and deterence against future
conflict with iraq prior to our 2003 campaign ? the war we fought in 1991 did not end the threat posed by saddam. saddam toyed with the
u.n. for 12 years, ignoring numerous resolution, rebuffing entreaties from arab, european, asian and north american states to comply in good
faith to the fullest extent of these resolutions. yet he failed again and again to do so. the gist is he would've continued to fail if the same
predictable procedures that had degenerated into kowtowing to his regime were again applied. a different, more strident course was needed.

I wasn't trying to say if the war was needed or not. I was replaying to the post about "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and why it is fallacious to call it that. The Bush administration made the case for the war based on WMD and terrorism (29 January 2003 George Bush: "Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons") and the imminent threat to US and the world. Today the administration is evidently downplaying the chief reasons for the course they took and concentrating on other issues that weren't emphasized as much previously.

What I am aiming at is that if the administration was more honest about the supposed threats, the average-uninformed American public wouldn't be so eager to support the conflict.

 

[Siwy]

to scare americans ? i thought they were already on edge following 9/11. saddam was scary too

I can't believe this still has to be said over and over again but here it goes...9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other!

he refused to play nice with the u.n. so we decided to communicate with him using the only language he understands. ofcourse, some like yourself, think saddam

If he refused to play nice with UN what gives US the right to come and intervene without UN approval? It's like me going out onto the street and shooting criminals because the Police cannot take care of them all. It is very wrong and illegal and in cases like this there are other measures that have to be taken.

ofcourse, some like yourself, think saddam harmless or manageable.

There was a lot of progress being made in containing him and managing him. Saddam was much more harmless and manageable than the Bush administration made him out to be.

isreal had nothing to do with the threat posed by the ba'ath party in iraq. don't employ red herrings. learn to argue. although i thank you for your polite tone

Iozina's argument is valid, and just because you say they are red herrings it does not make it so. Although, I can say your arguments are red herrings. 🙂 For example you associate 9/11 with Iraq or it seems like you use 1991 war as a reason for 2003 war.

US is unjust when it comes to Israel and Iraq. Asking why US does nothing about Israel's UN resolution but starts a war because of Iraq's UN resolution is a very legitimate question. UN resolution are there to be followed by everyone, if one country is allowed to break them and get away with it, others will try to do the same. In one instance US totally ignores the resolutions and in other instances they not only try to enforce them but they take it into their own hands, how wrong is that?

 

[syzygy]

I can't believe this still has to be said over and over again but here it goes...9/11 and Iraq have nothing to do with each other!

iraq is very much related to 9/11. iraq was a major sponsor of international terrorism. they represented a rogue state
that meddled in the internal politics of their neighbors. the ba'ath party funded terrorist organizations as diverse as the
pkk, abu nidal, and the iranian mujahadeen. this proclivity speaks of the measures they will resort to if the ba'ath party
ever felt cornered without any other conventional options left in their arsenal.

iraq foundation report on ba'ath party activiites - 2000

upi story on the capture of abu abbas inside iraq

"This mission success highlights the U.S. and our coalition partners' commitment to defeating terrorism worldwide. The
capture of Abu Abbas in Iraq removes a portion of the terror network supported by Iraq and represents yet another victory
in the global war on terrorism," Centcom said in a statement released Tuesday.

If he refused to play nice with UN what gives US the right to come and intervene without UN approval? It's like me going out
onto the street and shooting criminals because the Police cannot take care of them all. It is very wrong and illegal and in cases
like this there are other measures that have to be taken.

the u.n. gave approval. read resolution 1441. what did we promise sweet saddam if he failed to comply fully again ? guess: it
wasn't another u.n. resolution 😀

There was a lot of progress being made in containing him and managing him. Saddam was much more harmless and manageable
than the Bush administration made him out to be.

gawd, how can you be so naive. to employ your own logic, if saddam needs to be 'contained' or 'managed' does not that in itself
tell you something. hmmm.. . .

we are speaking about a mass murderer of historic proportions whom you expect to hide in a corner of the middle east if he shows
improvement in his public displays of self-control. this utter madness.

US is unjust when it comes to Israel and Iraq. Asking why US does nothing about Israel's UN resolution but starts a war because
of Iraq's UN resolution is a very legitimate question. UN resolution are there to be followed by everyone, if one country is allowed to
break them and get away with it, others will try to do the same. In one instance US totally ignores the resolutions and in other instances
they not only try to enforce them but they take it into their own hands, how wrong is that?

isreal has nothing to do with iraqi compliance. if saddam had been in full compliance with the first resolution, he would still be in power
today regardless of what isreal did and did not do vis-a-vis the u.n. security council.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

So are you both always against war?

CkG

CkG did you even read his post?
I don't think he mentions being against war. He does express fear that 1 country deciding to go to war alone in the name of the good of everyone might not be the best approach.

how about reading next time? especially since it was a very good post.

 

[Siwy]

iraq is very much related to 9/11

The links provided do not prove at all that Saddam was related to 9/11, show me which quotes give you that idea because I must have missed them. Here is a link for you:
CIA fails to find Iraqi link to terror

the u.n. gave approval. read resolution 1441. what did we promise sweet saddam if he failed to comply fully again ? guess: it wasn't another u.n. resolution

Yes, but who has decided that Saddam has failed to fully comply with Resolution 1441? US or UN?

gawd, how can you be so naive. to employ your own logic, if saddam needs to be 'contained' or 'managed' does not that in itself tell you something. hmmm.. . .

Yes, that tells me that he should have been contained and managed until it was decided what to do by the international community, not by a cowboy from Texas.

isreal has nothing to do with iraqi compliance. if saddam had been in full compliance with the first resolution, he would still be in power today regardless of what isreal did and did not do vis-a-vis the u.n. security council.

It has a lot to do with it. Israel demonstrates to the world that UN resolutions do not have to be followed.

Complying with Resolution 678 would gain Saddam nothing and he knew it. In May of 1991 Bush senior said: "At this juncture, my view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power", and Secretary of State James Baker said: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power". Regardless of what Saddam did the sanctions would not be removed, so what would you expect him to do?

-----------------------
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. "
--Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, August 12, 1945

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whenever Bush does something wrong, bring up something that a Democrat did in the past and ignore what is happening now.

Ignore what Bush said and did, and instead concentrate on the incidental, although good result of Iraqis getting rid of Saddam, although it was EXPLICITLY stated that "this is not about liberation"



Carry on.

This is only done to expose the partison hacks that exist. It is done neither to show approval or disapproval of what current or past president have done, but to show how opinions change on similar subjects when the party in power changes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

So are you both always against war?

CkG

CkG did you even read his post?
I don't think he mentions being against war. He does express fear that 1 country deciding to go to war alone in the name of the good of everyone might not be the best approach.

how about reading next time? especially since it was a very good post.

Yes I did. And I asked a perfectly good question. It is quite obvious they are against this war(by reading their other posts), and I was wondering if they were against all wars. My line of questioning was heading towards the fact that history has shown that the people in power make the rules and set the morality limits. And that wars by nature are power struggles between those that are in power imposing their rules and morality on those with less power. So again my question is: Are you both against all wars.

Infected Mushroom, please keep your trap shut unless you know what a person is saying. I didn't say his post wasn't a good one, it brings up some good points but I was seeking clarification on his stance.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

<<Infected Mushroom, please keep your trap shut unless you know what a person is saying. I didn't say his post wasn't a good one, it brings up some good points but I was seeking clarification on his stance.>>

Didn't you know what he was saying? 😉

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Infected Mushroom, please keep your trap shut unless you know what a person is saying. I didn't say his post wasn't a good one, it brings up some good points but I was seeking clarification on his stance.>>

Didn't you know what he was saying? 😉

No, I did know what he was saying 😉😛

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Infected Mushroom, please keep your trap shut unless you know what a person is saying. I didn't say his post wasn't a good one, it brings up some good points but I was seeking clarification on his stance.>>

Didn't you know what he was saying? 😉

No, I did know what he was saying 😉😛

CkG

I agree with Andy... Fencer128...
The stance is explicit... "I", "my" statements do that for you... often.. usually... :

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

So are you both always against war?

CkG

CkG did you even read his post?
I don't think he mentions being against war. He does express fear that 1 country deciding to go to war alone in the name of the good of everyone might not be the best approach.

how about reading next time? especially since it was a very good post.

Yes I did. And I asked a perfectly good question. It is quite obvious they are against this war(by reading their other posts), and I was wondering if they were against all wars. My line of questioning was heading towards the fact that history has shown that the people in power make the rules and set the morality limits. And that wars by nature are power struggles between those that are in power imposing their rules and morality on those with less power. So again my question is: Are you both against all wars.

Infected Mushroom, please keep your trap shut unless you know what a person is saying. I didn't say his post wasn't a good one, it brings up some good points but I was seeking clarification on his stance.

CkG

CkG I was only asking that since you were replying to a very nice post, completly IGNORING the point of his post.
How about discussing that, since your clarification had nothing to do with the points discussed in his post.

And if you want to shut my trap, you are welcome to stop by and try to do it in person.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

So are you both always against war?

CkG

CkG did you even read his post?
I don't think he mentions being against war. He does express fear that 1 country deciding to go to war alone in the name of the good of everyone might not be the best approach.

how about reading next time? especially since it was a very good post.

Yes I did. And I asked a perfectly good question. It is quite obvious they are against this war(by reading their other posts), and I was wondering if they were against all wars. My line of questioning was heading towards the fact that history has shown that the people in power make the rules and set the morality limits. And that wars by nature are power struggles between those that are in power imposing their rules and morality on those with less power. So again my question is: Are you both against all wars.

Infected Mushroom, please keep your trap shut unless you know what a person is saying. I didn't say his post wasn't a good one, it brings up some good points but I was seeking clarification on his stance.

CkG

CkG I was only asking that since you were replying to a very nice post, completly IGNORING the point of his post.
How about discussing that, since your clarification had nothing to do with the points discussed in his post.

And if you want to shut my trap, you are welcome to stop by and try to do it in person.

Tough guy, ehh?

There was nothing wrong with my question, it didn't ignore his post either. I was trying to put his post in context. Both are against this war. I was asking if they will always be against war. Simple question.

CkG