Milltycoon and Ninespine were kind enough to leave me with tons of stuff to respond to, so I am giving it its own thread. Although I think the both of them are wrong, I would like to thank the both of them for posting. Also since there is a lot of material to cover, I will respond on a point by point basis.
>> I'm for taking the word of the weapons inspectors who were there. You can't make the argument that we needed to invade because he wasn't complying with inspectors, and then when I post irrefutable evidence that he was, tell me the inspectors don't matter. There is only one of us taking the word of a high level Iraqi official, and it's you.
If you want proof that U.N. inspectors are a bunch of corrupt failures, you need look no further thanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-underground-nuclear-plant. Clearly, U.N. inspectors were not allowed to inspect everything.
>> You also can't justify the invasion of Iraq on the basis of violating U.N. resolutions, when we invaded without U.N. approval. You can't be for and against the U.N. in one breath.
Under International Law, POTUS has the right to send the U.S. military on a police action.
>> The war was a dismal failure and a waste of lives and money. To watch someone complain about the deficit and then support a pointless war of aggression is pathetic.
The point of the war was to bring some sanity to the Middle East, and I think it was a very successful and positive first step.
>> Islam is a religion, not a genetic marker. It doesn't get passed down through birth. It's a belief system. If you believe it, you are a Muslim. If you don't, you aren't. The end.
I had this debate before. http://garnelironheart.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-is-safe.html
>> The flotilla had no weapons on it. There was no reason to believe it had weapons on it. There is zero justification for boarding it in international waters. There is also zero justification for Israel turning Gaza into an apartheid state in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions by blocking medicine and food from getting in. Mass punishment is barbaric and immoral.
There was every reason to believe it had weapons on it. Also, in a military situation the standard of evidence is lower than it is in a civilian criminal trial.
Since Hamas is an enemy of Israel, Israel's blockade of Gaza is legitimate.
>> The majority of our foreign troops are stationed in random countries where they aren't doing anything except exist and cost money, when they at least could be here doing public works projects or better yet working other jobs that boost the economy. You think it helps the economy that massive numbers of citizens are living on foreign soil, spending all of their money there, while contributing NOTHING to our GDP?
I think this is a major understatement of what our troops do.
>> We spend absurd amounts of money on weapons that are built to fight advanced military enemies that don't exist, like anti-aircraft aircraft. You think we are getting involved in aerial dogfights again? No, we aren't. Ever. This isn't the early 20th century.
I don't think we can make that assumption that a dog fight will neeeeeeeeever happen again.
>> We keep building nuclear weapons when we have enough to destroy the world so many times that we have about 9000 contingency plans. What sense does that make? Isn't the ability to destroy the entire world 10 or 20 times enough?
America's nuclear arsneal serves as a stabilizing force.
>> The military is not the answer to every problem. In fact, it's the answer to very few. If we had simply stuck with intelligence, bombing, targeted aid, and covert ops in Afghanistan, we would have easily toppled the government except we wouldnt have created an insurgency and skyrocketed Al Qaeda's recruitment in the process.
Remember that the CIA could not get rid of Castro. The military is still very relevant.
>> The military is, more often than not, a DESTABILIZING force.
The surge worked in Iraq, seems pretty stabilizing if you ask me.
>> BECAUSE NOBODY LIKES TO BE OCCUPIED NO MATTER WHAT THE OCCUPIERS DO!!! Do you want Germany to come around and tell you what to do, even if it matches YOUR agenda and ideology perfectly? NO! So why the hell do you expect different from everyone else?
Educated Iraqis know that the USA is there to help and get out when Iraq is ready to take care of itself. Radical nutcases are another story.
>> Our military spending is INDEFENSIBLE. If you really cared about the deficit, you should have thought about that before you decided occupying two Middle Eastern countries was constructive. You should have thought about that before giving the rich giant tax breaks. You should have thought about that before the conservatives ran the country into the ground, tarred and feathered it, quartered it, lit it on fire, and then pissed on it. You need to wake up and stop ignoring the elephant in the room: The military-industrial complex that one of the last great Republicans (Eisenhower) warned us about.
The doctrine of military preparedness comes from Truman, the last great Democrat.
Now, in order to save time discussing the debt issues, I am just going to bring up this news article: Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404 Nuff said. Even Clinton Democrats are deficit hawks even though they pick on the military. Obama is beyond that into a new level of leftist craziness.
12 comments:
7. "I don't think we can make that assumption that a dog fight will neeeeeeeeever happen again.."
Yes, we can. Do you also advocate building weapons from the 1800s because they MIGHT come back into use under some kind of weird Mad Max scenario?
War has changed, as it always does. The primary tragedy of World War I was that they were tyring to use tactics from the 1800s with technology the 20th century. That's why so many people died and nobody gained any ground. It was a waste of lives, time, and money.
We are spending more on weapons now than we were during the Cold War. That's batshit crazy and makes no sense. We expected to, at any moment, become involved in a massive land, sea, and air battle with the world's other sole superpower. We don't live in that world anymore. It's time to adapt. Weapons technologies have far surpassed the use of most of the garbage we are still building. You don't need to build battleships with anti-sea capabilities when your missile systems can easily wipe out enemy ships anyway in a far more productive manner.
Our missile systems are so advanced that the idea of an air war is completely insane. The level of economic instability that would be caused by any war between advanced nations, and the level of damage that would be wrought by the nuclear weapons which could be used, completely negates the need for the vast majority of our military, especially the weapons. To put it simply: It's not, and will not at any point in the future of the human race, be worthwhile for major nations to go to war. Both will have such a ridiculous amount to lose that there can be no winners. Everyone involved knows this.
To put it even simpler: Any major war we could possibly use these weapons for would be quickly ended by the use of nuclear weapons, which we would use if we had to. Therefore, most of these weapons are pointless. There simply isn't a feasible scenario when they would be used.
8. "America's nuclear arsneal serves as a stabilizing force."
So the ability to destroy the entire planet hundreds of times, as opposed to twenty times, somehow dissuades someone? You really think there are people kicking back right now saying "Well I would start a war, but America can kill all of us a thousand times. If they could only demolish the entire planet thirty times, I might start a war."
Please.
9. The CIA could not get rid of Castro fifty years ago. Welcome to the 21st century.
10. "The surge worked in Iraq, seems pretty stabilizing if you ask me."
The surge happened right after we started a policy of paying people to stop attacking us. It was also started around the same time as the Anbar awakening.
While it's possible the surge was responsible for some stability, even if only partially, the Anbar Awakening was a massive event and cannot be flatly ignored. It had way more to do with the increase in stability.
However, in reality, the country has been losing stability since that spike anyway. The government is completely in shambles right now and shows no signs of improving.
11. Educated Iraqis left the country. Nobody educated stays in a warzone. That's traditionally one of the main issues with occupations: You drive out the people most likely to help rebuild. The educated left when the unemployment was at 50% and they aren't going to return to a warzone with a sham government.
12. "The doctrine of military preparedness comes from Truman, the last great Democrat."
This doesn't refute any of my points. If you decided to carry seventeen guns on your person, and I asked why, and you said "It's always good to be prepared", it wouldn't really explain why you have seventeen guns.
1. You still have not told me why you said invading Iraq was justified because they weren't allowing in weapons inspectors, and then when I proved that wrong, you changed your argument to that inspectors aren't trustworthy. Those two points are inconsistent.
All that article you posted says is that Iran hid something from inspectors That's hardly a raving condemnation of inspectors.
There isn't really a comparison to be made. The inspectors said Iraq was complying. Iran doesn't comply with inspections. It lets them in, kicks them out, and plays games. It's not a surprise that a non-compliant country would have hidden things, but that really has nothing to do with whether inspectors are useful in a compliant county.
2. You are completely ignoring your inconsistency on U.N. resolutions. Either you think the U.N, needs to be followed or you don't. You can't say in one breath that Iraq needed to be invaded because of their failure to comply with U.S. resolutions, and then go right on to say that it doesn't matter that our invasion was in violation of the U.N.. The U.N. told us not to invade and we went anyway. You are either FOR or AGAINST following the U.N.. Make up your mind.
3. If the point of the war was to bring some sanity to the Middle East, it failed miserably. It dramatically increased recruitment into Al Qaeda.
Iraq was a fairly stable country before we invaded. Saddam was a ruthless dictator, but, generally speaking, people could let their kids outside without having to worry. The issues were primarily with political dissidence.
Now, Iraq is a hellhole. The government has control over a pathetic fraction of the country. There are bombings every day. It's completely unstable. Unemployment is through the roof. There are fewer hours of electricity in Baghdad than there were before the war. The majority of educated people have left the country.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was brutal, but he was secular. He was not an extremist Muslim. He was a vehement enemy of Al Qaeda and similar ideologies. If the primary problem in the Middle East is extremist Islam, how is removing one of their biggest enemies any kind of "sanity"? When we invaded, we opened the flood gates for extremist recruiters, who otherwise did not fare well in Iraq due to it's stability and how hard Hussein would crush those types of people.
I don't care how well educated you are, when someone invades and your family is blown up in the process, you don't say "Oh well!" and side with the invaders.
4. You can keep saying it but it won't make it true: Islam is a religion and cannot be passed down genetically. Period. Do I really need to start posting guides to how genetics work? By the way, his father wasn't even a Muslim by the time Obama was born, so even if I was to accept your ludicrously offensive concept, you would still be wrong.
5. Again, saying it is doesn't make it so. There was no reason to believe that the flotilla had weapons on it. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The end. Show me one shred of evidence that the flotilla had weapons on it.
It doesn't matter whether Hamas is the enemy of Israel. Collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It is a barbaric, inhumane, disgusting practice and it is immoral to even attempt to defend it. Depriving children of food and medicine because you don't like the government of a people is fundamentally wrong. Unless you are a sociopath, this is not debatable.
Hamas was democratically elected. Either you are for freedom, or you aren't. If you like American values so much, how dare you advocate brutalizing a people for electing someone you don't like?
Furthermore, Hamas was becoming increasingly moderate as they were being given a spot at the table, which is traditionally what happens. People kicked out of the room and backed into a corner become radical, while the primary stabilizing force throughout all of history has traditionally been a seat at the table.
Hamas 100% stuck to the ceasefire in 2008 and then Israel, who even themselves admit so, broke the ceasefire. Hamas offered AGAIN, after the brutal Israeli attacks that killed scores of civilians, to start the ceasefire again and Israel spit in their face.
Israel's weapons blockade is arguably legitimate. Israel's food, medicine, and medical supplies blockade is disgusting, immoral, and, honestly, even talking to someone who would defend something that despicable sickens me.
6. "I think this is a major understatement of what our troops do."
That's not even a point. I can't elaborate further if you aren't even going to try to make an argument. I've talked to many service members and virtually all agree that the vast majority of overseas jobs are a complete waste of time where you sit around doing busywork.
We are stationed in 70% of the countries in the world. That's ridiculous. It's a waste of money. There's bounds of reason, and we are about fifteen miles passed them.
LOL now look who is avoiding facts and figures. I show clear proof that the U.N. failed and you hold your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la la la XD
Hellooooooooooooooo there was no change of argument. I never ceded your point about the inspectors being allowed in. Saddam played the same games as Iran does.
I can't understand why you hold the word of a dictator in higher regard than the word of American and British intelligence.
>> You are completely ignoring your inconsistency on U.N. resolutions. Either you think the U.N, needs to be followed or you don't. You can't say in one breath that Iraq needed to be invaded because of their failure to comply with U.S. resolutions, and then go right on to say that it doesn't matter that our invasion was in violation of the U.N.. The U.N. told us not to invade and we went anyway. You are either FOR or AGAINST following the U.N.. Make up your mind.
I don't care for the United Nations, I can make plenty of arguments for the Iraq war without the U.N., but if you want to bring up the U.N., then in International Law, police actions are legitimate.
You obviously haven't been watching Fox News, the only real news network. XD Iraqis don't want the USA to leave just yet. They understand the need for the USA to be there until the terrorist problem is taken care of.
People who are radical were already radical. Let them fight U.S. troops and be clobbered. It's better for the world that way.
7. "I don't think we can make that assumption that a dog fight will neeeeeeeeever happen again.."
Yes, we can. Do you also advocate building weapons from the 1800s because they MIGHT come back into use under some kind of weird Mad Max scenario?
War has changed, as it always does. The primary tragedy of World War I was that they were tyring to use tactics from the 1800s with technology the 20th century. That's why so many people died and nobody gained any ground. It was a waste of lives, time, and money.
We are spending more on weapons now than we were during the Cold War. That's batshit crazy and makes no sense. We expected to, at any moment, become involved in a massive land, sea, and air battle with the world's other sole superpower. We don't live in that world anymore. It's time to adapt. Weapons technologies have far surpassed the use of most of the garbage we are still building. You don't need to build battleships with anti-sea capabilities when your missile systems can easily wipe out enemy ships anyway in a far more productive manner.
Our missile systems are so advanced that the idea of an air war is completely insane. The level of economic instability that would be caused by any war between advanced nations, and the level of damage that would be wrought by the nuclear weapons which could be used, completely negates the need for the vast majority of our military, especially the weapons. To put it simply: It's not, and will not at any point in the future of the human race, be worthwhile for major nations to go to war. Both will have such a ridiculous amount to lose that there can be no winners. Everyone involved knows this.
To put it even simpler: Any major war we could possibly use these weapons for would be quickly ended by the use of nuclear weapons, which we would use if we had to. Therefore, most of these weapons are pointless. There simply isn't a feasible scenario when they would be used.
8. "America's nuclear arsneal serves as a stabilizing force."
So the ability to destroy the entire planet hundreds of times, as opposed to twenty times, somehow dissuades someone? You really think there are people kicking back right now saying "Well I would start a war, but America can kill all of us a thousand times. If they could only demolish the entire planet thirty times, I might start a war."
Please.
9. The CIA could not get rid of Castro fifty years ago. Welcome to the 21st century.
10. "The surge worked in Iraq, seems pretty stabilizing if you ask me."
The surge happened right after we started a policy of paying people to stop attacking us. It was also started around the same time as the Anbar awakening.
While it's possible the surge was responsible for some stability, even if only partially, the Anbar Awakening was a massive event and cannot be flatly ignored. It had way more to do with the increase in stability.
However, in reality, the country has been losing stability since that spike anyway. The government is completely in shambles right now and shows no signs of improving.
11. Educated Iraqis left the country. Nobody educated stays in a warzone. That's traditionally one of the main issues with occupations: You drive out the people most likely to help rebuild. The educated left when the unemployment was at 50% and they aren't going to return to a warzone with a sham government.
12. "The doctrine of military preparedness comes from Truman, the last great Democrat."
This doesn't refute any of my points. If you decided to carry seventeen guns on your person, and I asked why, and you said "It's always good to be prepared", it wouldn't really explain why you have seventeen guns.
13. Well it's great that you wanted to save time, which apparently means you wanted to flat out ignore every single thing I brought up.
I mean really, do you really expect to be taken seriously when your arguments mostly amount to "NUH UH!" and then running away? You didn't address 90% of what I said in my last post, including EVERYTHING I said about the budget.
I posted a bunch of facts and figures which coalesce into a point. You then respond with what amounts to "WELL OBAMA SPENT A LOT OF MONEY!" You really think that that's a mature, rational response?
First of all, that article doesn't adjust for inflation, which is really pathetic reporting.
Second of all, it counts the stimulus as all hitting in the first year. It doesn't. The stimulus is spread out over ten years. Also, half of it is tax cuts so the fact that a conservative would complain about that is priceless.
Third of all, the first year of Obama's presidency wasn't his budget. It was Bush's budget. The first year of every president's administration is the previous president's budget.
Fourth of all, a massive chunk of that is TARP, which was Bush's plan, the majority of which has been paid BACK already anyway.
Fifth of all, it ignores that Bush left the wars out of his budgets. If you include them, his deficits are much higher.
Sixth of all, this article has nothing to do with any of the points I raised. The way a debate works is someone posts an argument, and then you respond to that argument. If you don't want to answer my points, just ignore me. However, do not pretend I'm an imbecile by responding to my points with something totally nonsensical and irrelevant.
That is the most pathetic news source I have ever seen. It's one thing to come at the news from a perspective. It's another to flat out distort things to make your argument look better.
Seriously, you are simply refusing to address the vast majority of what I say. If you need to ignore my points in order to debate, you might want to simply consider whether you are wrong.
12. "The doctrine of military preparedness comes from Truman, the last great Democrat."
This doesn't refute any of my points. If you decided to carry seventeen guns on your person, and I asked why, and you said "It's always good to be prepared", it wouldn't really explain why you have seventeen guns.
13. Well it's great that you wanted to save time, which apparently means you wanted to flat out ignore every single thing I brought up.
I mean really, do you really expect to be taken seriously when your arguments mostly amount to "NUH UH!" and then running away? You didn't address 90% of what I said in my last post, including EVERYTHING I said about the budget.
I posted a bunch of facts and figures which coalesce into a point. You then respond with what amounts to "WELL OBAMA SPENT A LOT OF MONEY!" You really think that that's a mature, rational response?
First of all, that article doesn't adjust for inflation, which is really pathetic reporting.
Second of all, it counts the stimulus as all hitting in the first year. It doesn't. The stimulus is spread out over ten years. Also, half of it is tax cuts so the fact that a conservative would complain about that is priceless.
Third of all, the first year of Obama's presidency wasn't his budget. It was Bush's budget. The first year of every president's administration is the previous president's budget.
Fourth of all, a massive chunk of that is TARP, which was Bush's plan, the majority of which has been paid BACK already anyway.
Fifth of all, it ignores that Bush left the wars out of his budgets. If you include them, his deficits are much higher.
Sixth of all, this article has nothing to do with any of the points I raised. The way a debate works is someone posts an argument, and then you respond to that argument. If you don't want to answer my points, just ignore me. However, do not pretend I'm an imbecile by responding to my points with something totally nonsensical and irrelevant.
That is the most pathetic news source I have ever seen. It's one thing to come at the news from a perspective. It's another to flat out distort things to make your argument look better.
Seriously, you are simply refusing to address the vast majority of what I say. If you need to ignore my points in order to debate, you might want to simply consider whether you are wrong.
By the way, your forum software is killing me. It took me like two hours just to get this to post... out of order. lol
I just don't see how there isn't room for dog fighting in the future. You seem to be making a very dangerous assumption.
Second, we do live in a world where the USA can clash with China over Taiwan, where the shit can hit the fan with North Korea. How do you know something won't happen that will set the whole Middle east on fire? How do you know the drug cartels of Mexico won't get 100000000 times more brazen in U.S. territory than they are now?
It is foolish to believe that the future is going to be 100% serene. Harry Truman understood that.
Nothing in Iraq would have been possible without the USA providing the physical security.
>> 11. Educated Iraqis left the country
You took a poll?
>> By the way, your forum software is killing me. It took me like two hours just to get this to post... out of order. lol
I don't use any special software. Just what Blogspot provides.
By the way, Fox is not a news station. It's an opinion station bordering on propaganda. News stations don't hold and endorse political rallies. Period. If I wanted my news from an organization whose second biggest shareholder is a Saudi Prince, I'd put on Fox News, but thankfully I know better than that.
Frankly, I don't care for any television news. It's all flashy BS and no substance, no matter what channel you put on. I don't care what Sean Hannity thinks. I don't care what Keith Olbermann thinks. I want to hear news stories which I can then investigate myself if I want further information. I don't want anyone's one-sided nonsense take on the matter.
TV news died with Tim Russert.
Post a Comment