Only one republican candidate for President believes in Evolution

[CptStern]

kind of a flip flop from the days when pretty much any excuse for invadign iraq was good enough for you. even when the credibility fell from under each and every excuse you still supported it

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

kind of a flip flop from the days when pretty much any excuse for invadign iraq was good enough for you. even when the credibility fell from under each and every excuse you still supported it

Yeah, I addressed that in the other thread, too. I once thought we had an obligation to police the world of tyrants but now I've grown to know that these nation's peoples are in charge of their own destinies, and we definately don't have the resources to handle every tyrant on Earth. I believe it's time to bring the troops home from the three campaigns we're involved in. The two in Afghanistan and Iraq are complete and in Libya the rebels have pretty much sealed the deal.

 

[CptStern]

invading iraq is not "policing the world" if that were true the US would have been invaded shortly after March 2003 so they dont do it again

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

invading iraq is not "policing the world" if that were true the US would have been invaded shortly after March 2003 so they dont do it again

Nobody could ever successfully invade the continental US.

And I don't get how it's not policing the world. I'm agreeing we don't have a place to be doing it, but it definately was an attempt of the US to impose what we felt around the globe. I didn't understand the financial and long term implications of that at the start of the war. I was 14 when we first invaded. I'm now 22. It's been 8 years. That's a long time to wise up and gain some perspective. We cannot and should not bail out the rest of the world's population militarily all the time.

 

[CptStern]

Nobody could ever successfully invade the continental US.

And I don't get how it's not policing the world.

saddam wasnt a threat to anyone but iraqis

I'm agreeing we don't have a place to be doing it, but it definately was an attempt of the US to impose what we felt around the globe.

the US didnt invade iraq because it was a threat. just the opposite in fact

I didn't understand the financial and long term implications of that at the start of the war. I was 14 when we first invaded. I'm now 22. It's been 8 years. That's a long time to wise up and gain some perspective. We cannot and should not bail out the rest of the world's population militarily all the time.

when has that happened? I cant think of a single time the US has invaded anyone out of humanitarian reasons

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

saddam wasnt a threat to anyone but iraqis

I know. When I say policing the world I don't mean stopping invasions, I meant it as toppling tyrants and such just because they oppress their own people.

the US didnt invade iraq because it was a threat. just the opposite in fact

Hostile to our interests in general but more in a vocal way than anything tangible. Bad WMD intelligence and humanitarian reasons the other two reasons.

when has that happened? I cant think of a single time the US has invaded anyone out of humanitarian reasons

Libya & Iraq (one of multiple reasons for Iraq)




Either way- what I'm saying is we shouldn't be doing so anymore. Military should be used to protect our necessary interests & borders from those hostile to it. Me thinking that in no way makes me an elitist nor selfish (as others in the other thread stated)

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

when has that happened? I cant think of a single time the US has invaded anyone out of humanitarian reasons

Western Europe (via France), arguably.

@RT

In regards to Libya, we didn't invade it - we just helped bomb the shit out of it.

 

[CptStern]

I know. When I say policing the world I don't mean stopping invasions, I meant it as toppling tyrants and such just because they oppress their own people.

ya the US isnt in the business of toppling tyrants unless they're of their own making (see shah of iran, Papa Doc Duvalier, Rafael Trujillo, Juan Bosch, Hugo Banzer etc etc etc)

Hostile to our interests in general but more in a vocal way than anything tangible. Bad WMD intelligence and humanitarian reasons the other two reasons.

perhaps if you subscribe to revisionist history then yes invading iraq was meant to saqve iraqis by bombing them back to the stone age. humanitarian concerns were never of the list of reasons why oh sure perhaps once they couldnt find anything they switched justification but from the bvery get go it was the threat of WMD

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003


we've been through this dozens of times rakurai

Libya & Iraq (one of multiple reasons for Iraq)

the US has never invaded Libya. where are you getting this from? and we've been through the justifications of the war in iraq it was NEVER a humanitarian mission

Either way- what I'm saying is we shouldn't be doing so anymore. Military should be used to protect our necessary interests & borders from those hostile to it. Me thinking that in no way makes me an elitist nor selfish (as others in the other thread stated)

in a perfect world yes but no one does that the US certainly doesnt do that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

ya the US isnt in the business of toppling tyrants unless they're of their own making (see shah of iran, Papa Doc Duvalier, Rafael Trujillo, Juan Bosch, Hugo Banzer etc etc etc)




perhaps if you subscribe to revisionist history then yes invading iraq was meant to saqve iraqis by bombing them back to the stone age. humanitarian concerns were never of the list of reasons why oh sure perhaps once they couldnt find anything they switched justification but from the bvery get go it was the threat of WMD

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003


we've been through this dozens of times rakurai

It was one of many reasons listed at the start of the war. Hussein misled the entire global community about WMD in order to trick Iran, this is already common knowledge now. But WMD was never the only reason listed for going in. Sure, it was bullet point one in size 48 font, but the other reasons WERE listed before and weren't just some afterthought thrown in when the WMD thing fell apart.

the US has never invaded Libya. where are you getting this from? and we've been through the justifications of the war in iraq it was NEVER a humanitarian mission

You're correct in the sense that we're not occupying the cities of Libya. I shouldn't have used the word invade. I'm talking about using our military and funds to carry out military operations there. We have guys on the ground there and constant military hardware in and out carrying out combat missions. Sure, it's no 'invasion' force but it's still a war.

in a perfect world yes but no one does that the US certainly doesnt do that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

I don't think it's a "in a perfect" world scenerio anymore. We simply don't have the funds to continue galloping around the world even if every American wanted to. You have got to have the cash to fund it, and our credit lines are beginning to dry up.

 

[CptStern]

It was one of many reasons listed at the start of the war. Hussein misled the entire global community about WMD in order to trick Iran, this is already common knowledge now.

weapon inspectors, US intelligence as well as former iraqi ex-pats were saying right up to invasion that he didnt have the capability. hell the Bush admin were saying a few months before 9/11 they didnt have the capability

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU

But WMD was never the only reason listed for going in. Sure, it was bullet point one in size 48 font, but the other reasons WERE listed before and weren't just some afterthought thrown in when the WMD thing fell apart.

at best a very minor footnote. his entire speech leading up to the invasion was about WMD with only a brief mention of the iraqi people:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq

You're correct in the sense that we're not occupying the cities of Libya. I shouldn't have used the word invade. I'm talking about using our military and funds to carry out military operations there. We have guys on the ground there and constant military hardware in and out carrying out combat missions. Sure, it's no 'invasion' force but it's still a war.

I asked you which countries the US has invaded out of humanitarian reasons. you answered libya and iraq. since they never invaded libya for any reason that rules out libya and because bombing the shit out of a nation is the opposite of humanitarian missions

I don't think it's a "in a perfect" world scenerio anymore. We simply don't have the funds to continue galloping around the world even if every American wanted to. You have got to have the cash to fund it, and our credit lines are beginning to dry up.

the US has never been about galloping around the world saving saving nations from the clutches of evil masterminds. your overly simplistic take on US "imperialism" is a fantasy that has never existed

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

weapon inspectors, US intelligence as well as former iraqi ex-pats were saying right up to invasion that he didnt have the capability. hell the Bush admin were saying a few months before 9/11 they didnt have the capability

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU

Poor intelligence. I watched the presentation given by Colin Powell to the UN live on TV prior to invading.

at best a very minor footnote. his entire speech leading up to the invasion was about WMD with only a brief mention of the iraqi people:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq

Regardless it was the reason many supported it either way, particularly when WMD were never found.

I asked you which countries the US has invaded out of humanitarian reasons. you answered libya and iraq. since they never invaded libya for any reason that rules out libya and because bombing the shit out of a nation is the opposite of humanitarian missions

It depends what you consider an invasion. Is it marines in the city or massive bombardment? I should have said military intervention, yes, if we want to get PC about it. And other examples of what I was trying to imply are Kosovo/Bosnia, Haiti, etc. We've used military intervention (be it bombing, logistics, or whatever) in these places with humanitarianism as the banner when going in.

the US has never been about galloping around the world saving saving nations from the clutches of evil masterminds. your overly simplistic take on US "imperialism" is a fantasy that has never existed

Never implied such. But it's always been a factor when going into these places. There is a list of factors that the US has used to justify military intervention, certain criteria must be met, and humanitarianism is always one on the list (not the only, but its there)


Anyway, we're arguing towards two different ends about two different issues. You're pressing on the cause of war in past conflicts, while my arguement is in regard to the US Military's role in the future. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you but we feel the same way for very different reasons.

 

[CptStern]

Poor intelligence.

that would imply the cia didnt know what it was doing when in fact they were warning that he wasnt reliable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

despite this collin powell went with the info knowing full well it was bs. that's the presentation you're talking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...nd_the_Iraq_War#Colin_Powell.27s_presentation

Regardless it was the reason many supported it either way, particularly when WMD were never found.

revisionist history to save face. NO ONE prior to march 2003 or during the initial occupation claimed it was for humanitarian reasons. WMD; that's all we heard out of the white house at the time. to claim otherwise is just being dishonest

It depends what you consider an invasion. Is it marines in the city or massive bombardment?

a simple "ok the US never invaded libya" would have sufficed

I should have said military intervention, yes,

you're splitting hairs

if we want to get PC about it. And other examples of what I was trying to imply are Kosovo/Bosnia, Haiti, etc. We've used military intervention (be it bombing, logistics, or whatever) in these places with humanitarianism as the banner when going in.

haiti? the US propped up a puppet regime. your country actively propped up a murderous madman and when he was finished they propped up his son


also the kosovo bombing campaign was a Nato operation

Never implied such. But it's always been a factor when going into these places. There is a list of factors that the US has used to justify military intervention, certain criteria must be met, and humanitarianism is always one on the list (not the only, but its there)

can you post this list so that we can see if any of those conditions were met in iraq ...or anywhere else for that matter?

Anyway, we're arguing towards two different ends about two different issues. You're pressing on the cause of war in past conflicts, while my arguement is in regard to the US Military's role in the future. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you but we feel the same way for very different reasons.

I'm not arguing anything except that the US isnt about rushing to the defense of anyone. not in the past and not in the future. there always far more important underlying motives other than good samaritanism

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It's a stretch to claim they 'knew was BS' versus quickly accepted the submitted story that fit the needs best. I tend to believe that latter happened with regard to the WMD issue.
And to say humanitarian reasons were never mentioned is wrong as well. Like I said, WMD was reason number one, but in rigorous debates at the time and in public comments, particularly on the news and from public officials, Saddam's treatment of his own people was raised as well.

NATO operations that include the US still are the US being involved. It's my belief that we shouldn't be trotting around the globe enforcing military actions anymore unless it's to counter a direct, tangible threat. Not a 'possible' threat or anything like that, nor to stop dictators from turning on their own people. Libya and Kosovo are examples of this. We've toppled Gaddafi and look what we have now- an AlQaeda affiliated rebel government who is putting forward a constitution based on Sharia law. Wow- that's WAY better. We need to just stop, the outcome never is rosey like we imagine.

 

[CptStern]

It's a stretch to claim they 'knew was BS'

not a stretch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n9JXgXYgQU

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

from the leaked downing street memo months before the invasion

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

[Richard] Clarke [counter-terrorism for the Bush admin] says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.'

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

I tend to believe that latter happened with regard to the WMD issue.

sure but that wouldnt be remotely accurate to what actually happened

And to say humanitarian reasons were never mentioned is wrong as well.

did you read the speech I posted? I know full well it was mentioned however if you actually read it you'd see it was at best a footnote to a speech that was almost all about WMD

Like I said, WMD was reason number one, but in rigorous debates at the time and in public comments, particularly on the news and from public officials, Saddam's treatment of his own people was raised as well.

barely mentioned. it was always WMD as the only real justification:

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

NATO operations that include the US still are the US being involved. It's my belief that we shouldn't be trotting around the globe enforcing military actions anymore unless it's to counter a direct, tangible threat. Not a 'possible' threat or anything like that, nor to stop dictators from turning on their own people. Libya and Kosovo are examples of this. We've toppled Gaddafi and look what we have now- an AlQaeda affiliated rebel government who is putting forward a constitution based on Sharia law. Wow- that's WAY better. We need to just stop, the outcome never is rosey like we imagine.

lol way to take credit for toppling gaddafi. as if the rebels had nothing to do with it. and you're being hypocritical because there are countless examples of the US overthrowing a leader only to replace him with a madman

In 1970, President Juan Jose Torres was leading the country [Bolivia] in a leftist direction, arousing the ire and mistrust of conservative anti-communist circles in Bolivia and, crucially, in the Nixon administration

On August 18, 1971, General Banzer, at long last, masterminded a successful military uprising that erupted in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, where he had many supporters. Eventually, the plotters gained control over the La Paz garrisons, although not without considerable bloodshed. The combined levels of United States and Brazilian involvement for the coup d'état have been debated but it is apparent that significant clandestine financial & advisory assistance existed at a critical level within the Nixon administration for [General Hugo] Banzer.

Conversely, President Juan Jose Torres was forced to take refuge in Buenos Aires, Argentina where he was kidnapped and assassinated by right-wing death squads associated with the Videla government and with the acquiescence of Hugo Banzer. His murder was part of Operation Condor.

Operation Condor, which took place in the context of the Cold War, had the tacit approval of the United States. In 1968, U.S. General Robert W. Porter stated that "In order to facilitate the coordinated employment of internal security forces within and among Latin American countries, we are...endeavoring to foster inter-service and regional cooperation by assisting in the organization of integrated command and control centers; the establishment of common operating procedures; and the conduct of joint and combined training exercises." Condor was one of the fruits of this effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Banzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor#U.S._Congressman_Edward_Koch

we've been through this before rakurai.

 

[Sulkdodds]

look what we have now- an AlQaeda affiliated rebel government who is putting forward a constitution based on Sharia law.

Where are you getting this from? We're talking about a rebel movement that has continuously appealed to and spoken of western ideals of freedom and that has no obvious connection to religious fundamentalism. Also, when actual Muslims use the words 'sharia law', it can denote a pretty wide array of political approaches, unlike when non-Muslims use the word 'sharia law', which in most cases means "STONING WOMEN TO DEATH".