IS THIS WAR JUSTIFIED

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Serbia?

48779[/snapback]

 

Serbia? YES (actually, it's Croatia and Bosnia-Herzogovina; Serbians are the aggressors!!!)

 

Those poor people, being murdered like the Jews in WWII, except on a much smaller scale. That aid didn't involve invading a foreign country on false pretenses (for now).

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Serbia? YES (actually, it's Croatia and Bosnia-Herzogovina; Serbians are the aggressors!!!)

 

Those poor people, being murdered like the Jews in WWII, except on a much smaller scale. That aid didn't involve invading a foreign country on false pretenses (for now).

49007[/snapback]

 

There were US forses involved. So bombs dropped with a "D" on them are O.K. But bombs dropped with a "R" on them are not. Please! Just curious, when will it be OK to invade Iran and North Korea. Oh I know. When we have a democrat in charge, one that will run a more sensitive war.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

There were US forses involved.  So bombs dropped with a "D" on them are O.K.  But bombs dropped with a "R" on them are not.  Please!  Just curious, when will it be OK to invade Iran and North Korea.  Oh I know.  When we have a democrat in charge, one that will run a more sensitive war.

49099[/snapback]

 

Bush used sensitive in describing the war BEFORE Kerry did, so that sensitive matter is done.

 

SO WHAT?!?!? I don't care if it were just US, US and NATO, US and UN, US and British, US and Chinese... the POINT IS that we were there to DEFEND the Bosnians and Croats from mass murder, JUSTIFIED to do so, being aided by a unified world opinion, UNLIKE IRAQ. Adding a party label to a war is just a way of dodging that fact... good for sound bites and quick quips, but not a legitimate answer to my point.

 

It's ok NOW to go after Iran and North Korea if we exhaust our diplomatic solutions BECAUSE IT IS JUSTIFIED... they pose an ACTUAL, REAL threat that no classified documents need to tell us someday, unlike Iraq.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Bush used sensitive in describing the war BEFORE Kerry did, so that sensitive matter is done.

 

SO WHAT?!?!? I don't care if it were just US, US and NATO, US and UN, US and British, US and Chinese... the POINT IS that we were there to DEFEND the Bosnians and Croats from mass murder, JUSTIFIED to do so, being aided by a unified world opinion, UNLIKE IRAQ. Adding a party label to a war is just a way of dodging that fact... good for sound bites and quick quips, but not a legitimate answer to my point.

 

It's ok NOW to go after Iran and North Korea if we exhaust our diplomatic solutions BECAUSE IT IS JUSTIFIED... they pose an ACTUAL, REAL threat that no classified documents need to tell us someday, unlike Iraq.

49180[/snapback]

 

And I don't really care what you think is justified or not justified in your own mind. Atrocities go on all over the world all the time, in every decade. Ever hear of Pol Pot? The Carter administartion did not rush to the Cambodians defense. It probably wasn't justifiable at that time. Still three million people were executed our starved. Humanitarian reasons are not the only reasons to JUSTIFY the US using its military. I'm not saying that what we tried to do for the Bosnians wasn't noble. So glad we were able to save the Croats and Bosnians from mass murder, only to watch them regoup and murder Serbs a little while later. You are so transparently partisan, it's pathetic.

[Wacka]

So the mass murders in Iraq don't count?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

And I don't really care what you think is justified or not justified in your own mind.  Atrocities go on all over the world all the time, in every decade.  Ever hear of Pol Pot?  The Carter administartion did not rush to the Cambodians defense.  It probably wasn't justifiable at that time.  Still three million people were executed our starved.  Humanitarian reasons are not the only reasons to JUSTIFY the US using its military.  I'm not saying that what we tried to do for the Bosnians wasn't noble.  So glad we were able to save the Croats and Bosnians from mass murder, only to watch them regoup and murder Serbs a little while later. You are so transparently partisan, it's pathetic.

50215[/snapback]

 

What in the HELL does Carter have to do with anything? YOU are the one bringing political parties into this discussion, NOT ME. I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING PARTISAN about my statements!! It's a FACT Bush used the word sensitive in describing war before Kerry did, not some opinion... I used that to show you that your inferrence that anyone but Bush would be weak is just plain NOT TRUE.

 

WHEN did I mention Democrat? Carter? etc..

 

OK, here you go: Desert Storm, totally justified... although not a humanitarian instance, it had to be done!!

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

What in the HELL does Carter have to do with anything? YOU are the one bringing political parties into this discussion, NOT ME. I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING PARTISAN about my statements!! It's a FACT Bush used the word sensitive in describing war before Kerry did, not some opinion... I used that to show you that your inferrence that anyone but Bush would be weak is just plain NOT TRUE.

 

 

WHEN did I mention Democrat? Carter? etc..

 

OK, here you go: Desert Storm, totally justified... although not a humanitarian instance, it had to be done!!

50387[/snapback]

 

 

Well, I never said or inferred that.

I was attempting to give an example of a time the US did not JUSTIFY getting involved in a conflict.

 

Iraq was justified, if for no other reason, because they violated the conditions of the truce that they agreed to after they was expelled from Kuwait. At that time, we ceased hostilities against Iraq, but always knew we might have to go back.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Well, I never said or inferred that.

I was attempting to give an example of a time the US did not JUSTIFY getting involved in a conflict.

 

Iraq was justified, if for no other reason, because they violated the conditions of the truce that they agreed to after they was expelled from Kuwait.  At that time, we ceased hostilities against Iraq, but always knew we might have to go back.

50428[/snapback]

 

So in other words you would send your wife to die because Saddam was taking pot shots at some of our planes in the no fly zone and jerking around Hans Blix.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Well, I never said or inferred that.

I was attempting to give an example of a time the US did not JUSTIFY getting involved in a conflict.

 

Iraq was justified, if for no other reason, because they violated the conditions of the truce that they agreed to after they was expelled from Kuwait.  At that time, we ceased hostilities against Iraq, but always knew we might have to go back.

50428[/snapback]

 

So why didn't we just SAY that, instead of pushing this gigantic WMD story (until proven otherwise), and proclaiming that we were 'freeing the Iraqis' AFTER we moved in as a reason why we did it?!?!

 

It looked very suspicious when he tried to make the case for war on this accelerated timeline, and it still does. How else would he have gotten authorization from Congress, other than playing on the fears of the people after 9/11???

 

If he broke a truce, just go in... if that was a sole reason, then we should have just screwed the UN, and used that as a basis.

 

This has nothing to do with politics... it is about justifying a war on weak grounds. I don't care WHO is in the White House... if ANYONE did what happened, I'd still be just as upset. You called me partisan in my points, and that is surely not the case.

[MichFan]

In response of the tripe that the libs have posted in this thread, and in anticipation of the same from their Vietnam war hero tonight, I offer the following.

 

You cannot lead a country making judgements based on the past. Hindsight is always 20/20 with regards to the path you've taken, but offers little insight about consequences of taking the alternative.

 

When this country was approaching the final decision about the Iraq war:

- the American government had a policy of regime change in Iraq, inherited from the Clinton administration

- The U.S. Congress voted resoundingly to support the use of military force

- There was world consensus that Saddam had WMD's, the debate was over whether to continue with inspections or finally take action

- America and U.K. were accused of killing a million Iraqi children due to the sanctions they championed at the U.N.

- The U.N. was growing weary of Iraq sanctions and we were nearing the very real possibility of a rollback on these sanctions led by France and Germany

- Saddam was harboring Nidal and Zarqawi

- Czech intelligence was insisting that Iraqi representatives met with 9/11 planners

- Saddam had increased the raping, torturing, and killing of dissenters and their families

- Most of the opponenets to the war were the same people who protested U.S. action in Afghanistan (in other words, they had already discredited themselves in public opinon)

- Mainstream U.S. opinion was not willing to be patient with regards to Saddam in the wake of 9/11

- Government officials knew what was going on with Oil For Food (France, Germany, and Russia opposition was highly discredited by strategic planners)

 

The people who are now so admantly opposing the war based on what we know today are nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacks. They think they know it all -- actually, they know they know it all -- based on their knowledge of current events. Of course they still have no clue as to what will occur six months from now. Kerry is a card carrying member of this club and I shudder at the thought that we'll manage the war on terror over the next four years by looking into a crystal ball or flipping tarot cards. I shudder at the thought that we will empower a Commander in Chief who's attitude is that if we win it was worth it, if we lose it wasn't worth it.

[MichFan]

So in other words you would send your wife to die because Saddam was taking pot shots at some of our planes in the no fly zone and jerking around Hans Blix.

Coach, would you please explain to me how one goes about sending their wife to Iraq? And if they can actually pull that off, then could you also explain to me how you ensure they die once they get there?

 

You can't make a point effectively if you can't use the English language properly. You are failing to sway any of your intended audience because your choice of words indicates you are a partisan hack.

[_BiB_]

Is this war justified? Yes. Next question?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

In response of the tripe that the libs have posted in this thread, and in anticipation of the same from their Vietnam war hero tonight, I offer the following.

 

Yeah, sure... lump me in with one litle convenient group... not a part of that club. It's always much easier to apply little labels instead of talking about just issues.

 

You cannot lead a country making judgements based on the past.  Hindsight is always 20/20 with regards to the path you've taken, but offers little insight about consequences of taking the alternative.

 

You HAVE to have the past in order to take stock of the situation... the past is a GOOD guide by which, along with present facts, can lead to a sound policy. If it turns out to not be right, then at least some sort of intelligent thinking was used.

 

When this country was approaching the final decision about the Iraq war:

- the American government had a policy of regime change in Iraq, inherited from the Clinton administration

 

Through pressure by anti-Saddam groups, yes, but NOT BY the use of US forces to accomplish that goal.

 

- The U.S. Congress voted resoundingly to support the use of military force

 

Based on faulty intelligence, and an administration who didn't have a good plan AFTER force.

 

- There was world consensus that Saddam had WMD's, the debate was over whether to continue with inspections or finally take action

 

World consensus?!!? If there was world consensus, then the UN and several countries would not have openly spoke out against our actions. No proof, no consensus.

 

- America and U.K. were accused of killing a million Iraqi children due to the sanctions they championed at the U.N.

- The U.N. was growing weary of Iraq sanctions and we were nearing the very real possibility of a rollback on these sanctions led by France and Germany

 

Weary, and a rollback of sanctions?!! Well we never found out, since BLIX NEVER GOT TO FINISH HIS REPORT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

- Saddam was harboring Nidal and Zarqawi

 

What does this have to do with THEN? Nothing... Nidal was DEAD!

 

- Czech intelligence was insisting that Iraqi representatives met with 9/11 planners

 

Faulty intelligence! AGAIN!

 

- Saddam had increased the raping, torturing, and killing of dissenters and their families

 

That happens in a lot of countries, and we don't help THEM.

 

- Most of the opponenets to the war were the same people who protested U.S. action in Afghanistan (in other words, they had already discredited themselves in public opinon)

- Mainstream U.S. opinion was not willing to be patient with regards to Saddam in the wake of 9/11

 

BULL#!@#!@!!! I'm calling you on that one, most certainly!!! A MAJORITY of people against the war in Iraq are FOR the War on Terror, including Afghanistan. Discredit my A$$... we are not stupid; we know when a snow job is being pulled on us!

 

- Government officials knew what was going on with Oil For Food (France, Germany, and Russia opposition was highly discredited by strategic planners)

 

Then the UN should have fixed it.

 

The people who are now so admantly opposing the war based on what we know today are nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacks.  They think they know it all -- actually, they know they know it all -- based on their knowledge of current events.  Of course they still have no clue as to what will occur six months from now.  Kerry is a card carrying member of this club and I shudder at the thought that we'll manage the war on terror over the next four years by looking into a crystal ball or flipping tarot cards.  I shudder at the thought that we will empower a Commander in Chief who's attitude is that if we win it was worth it, if we lose it wasn't worth it.

 

I was against the war LONG BEFORE the vote, when it was first brought up!!! I KNEW it was a load of horse dung from the start... WHY would there suddenly be this gigantic Iraqi threat out of thin air?!?! PLEASE, it was a setup, an obvious setup, and there are some who are never fooled. It just happens to be that most are in Congress.

 

The lesser of two evils right now is Kerry, and that is how I am voting. It is a vote that says I want a change. That's what the system gives me, and so I have to vote this way.

[MichFan]

Yeah, sure... lump me in with one litle convenient group... not a part of that club. It's always much easier to apply little labels instead of talking about just issues.

 

You HAVE to have the past in order to take stock of the situation... the past is a GOOD guide by which, along with present facts, can lead to a sound policy. If it turns out to not be right, then at least some sort of intelligent thinking was used.

Rabid, you can't judge decisions made years ago based on how the wind is blowing on any given day (e.g., I can't tell you WMD's are definitely going to turn up, you can't tell me they are definitely not going to turn up). Iraq is far from being resolved and no one has a clue as to how history is ultimately going to judge it. Many of your responses to the case I presented based on 2002 information are your beliefs based on current events. That plays right into my argument. The fact is when it comes to Iraq, you are lumped in with the "no justification" crowd and I am lumped in with the "right decision" crowd. These are not little crowds, each represents roughly half of the country. Accept the label and wear it proudly. I do mine.

 

Bush got a bump at the convention because the RNC did a magnificent job of helping people recall what it felt like in the aftermath of 9/11. If he can create a similar flashback on Iraq, it will be game over for Kerry. The purpsose of my post was to remind those willing to be open-minded about things what the Democrat and Republican leaders, and what Kerry himself, were telling us in the bulid-up to the war. I don't consider any of them liars, including Kerry (when it comes to his pre-war remarks).

 

The lesser of two evils right now is Kerry

That about sums up the collective opinion of Kerry's base. The internals on the latest polls indicate he is now slipping with minorities and the poor. He has a month to start driving some sense of passion or this election could be a disaster for him. Maybe he can pull it off tonight.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Rabid, you can't judge decisions made years ago based on how the wind is blowing on any given day (e.g., I can't tell you WMD's are definitely going to turn up, you can't tell me they are definitely not going to turn up).  Iraq is far from being resolved and no one has a clue as to how history is ultimately going to judge it.  Many of your responses to the case I presented based on 2002 information are your beliefs based on current events.  That plays right into my argument.  The fact is when it comes to Iraq, you are lumped in with the "no justification" crowd and I am lumped in with the "right decision" crowd.  These are not little crowds, each represents roughly half of the country.  Accept the label and wear it proudly.  I do mine.

 

Bush got a bump at the convention because the RNC did a magnificent job of helping people recall what it felt like in the aftermath of 9/11.  If he can create a similar flashback on Iraq, it will be game over for Kerry.  The purpsose of my post was to remind those willing to be open-minded about things what the Democrat and Republican leaders, and what Kerry himself, were telling us in the bulid-up to the war.  I don't consider any of them liars, including Kerry (when it comes to his pre-war remarks).

That about sums up the collective opinion of Kerry's base.  The internals on the latest polls indicate he is now slipping with minorities and the poor.  He has a month to start driving some sense of passion or this election could be a disaster for him.  Maybe he can pull it off tonight.

50670[/snapback]

 

Yes, the country is divided evenly, and the "right decision crowd" happens to outnumber us here. I stick into the fray because someone has got to represent those who think Bush led us into this thing without sound strategy or reasoning IN MY OPINION....

 

Just like Flutie vs. Johnson, I don't want EITHER DAMN ONE, but I'd rather take a Johnson(Kerry) than a Flutie(Bush)... Either way, we get screwed somehow.

 

That's an analogy anyone can appreciate here

[MichFan]

I'd rather take a Johnson(Kerry) than a Flutie(Bush)

 

No wonder you're supporting Kerry. You take a guy with no record and a limited tour of duty over a guy who rallied the troops and won more than he lost. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight -- Flutie was a much better Bill than Johnson.

 

It's not too late, Rabid. You have foreshadowed the failings of your internal crystal ball. Vote Flutie! Vote Flutie! Vote Flutie!

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

No wonder you're supporting Kerry.  You take a guy with no record and a limited tour of duty over a guy who rallied the troops and won more than he lost.  Now that we have the benefit of hindsight -- Flutie was a much better Bill than Johnson.

 

It's not too late, Rabid.  You have foreshadowed the failings of your internal crystal ball.  Vote Flutie!  Vote Flutie!  Vote Flutie!

50963[/snapback]

 

Actually, my vote is worthless anyways... Vermont will go Kerry, there is no doubt in my mind. I think I'll vote for Howard Dean as a write-in candidate on my absentee ballot.

 

YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DC Tom]

I think I'll vote for Howard Dean as a write-in candidate on my absentee ballot.

 

YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

     

51340[/snapback]

 

Ah, the "I have a scream" speech. Greatest speech of the year.

 

A shame, too, how an entire campaign can be destroyed by one sound byte on a distorted audio track. "Democracy" in action...

[Chef Jim]

Bush used sensitive in describing the war BEFORE Kerry did, so that sensitive matter is done.

49180[/snapback]

 

Good line Pee Wee. I know you are, but what am I? The immature garbage is really flowing now. The leader of the free world is elected by US???

[Alaska Darin]

Good line Pee Wee.  I know you are, but what am I?  The immature garbage is really flowing now.  The leader of the free world is elected by US??? 

51405[/snapback]

Unfortunately yes. Look where that's gotten us.