lack of conservative intellectuals

[bishop]

so that i don't lose my argument by being verbose, this is my response about wmd and inspections: the inspections were working, we did not know for certain that saddam actually had wmd (personally the notion of sending the country to war based on a guess, helped by people named curveball, is very questionable), we were never under the threat of an iraqi attack and the minimal threat that iraq did pose was well contained. it was not necessary and i challenge you to assert that we really did need to invade iraq.

suffice it to say that all of bush's pre-war intelligence claims were completely full of shit. i remember at one point his deputees claimed that saddam was just months away from developing a nuclear weapon. i'm a firm believer in accountability, and to honor that virtue bush must be fired. when he fucks up, he fucks up big.

i supported the daily bombings that happened under the containment policy. i'm glad that kerry supported them as well.

But the alternative is someone who wants to raise minimum wage, raise taxes, force people to pay for failing government schools, appease terrorists, and hand over our soverignty to the United Nations. So does it look like we're out of reasons to support the republicans?

i have no problem with raising the minimum wage.. if people bust their asses day after day, the least they're entitled to is to not have to live in poverty. if a business can't afford to fork over a couple extra bucks a week, it's probably on the verge of insolvency to begin with.

failing government schools.. bush passed one of the biggest spending increases of all time. so much for that one.

how, exactly, can you say that kerry is interested in appeasing terrorists? what do you know that i don't?

he's also repeatedly stated that if we really are under the threat of imminent attack, that he would act unilaterally. he would not, however, act unilaterally if we aren't under the threat of imminent attack. that's a HUGE difference.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by giuliano, has anyone noticed that there is a lack of conservative intellectuals, in comparison to liberals? on various msg boards, conservatives are routinely outnumbered by liberals. in the media, there is a lack of the same. they look up to ann coulter, for crying out loud! they believe she is an intellectual. noam chomsky may be an incurable conspiracist, but he's damned intelligent. is it possible that liberals are just more intelligent than conservatives, on average? where bush goes to NASCAR races, kerry is more likely to address a college crowd. even the intelligent conservatives, like colin powell, cringe at some of the things coming from bush's or rummy's mouths. it doesn't make you more correct, just because the movement you align yourself with may be on average more intelligent. but has anyone else noticed this? do you agree?

The photo Bush and the heading "four more years" did not show up when I clicked "quote" ... however in the photo Buch is holding up three fingers instead of four (four more years) - can he not add? Whew, you are right the conservative leadership is not an intellectual and so how could intellecturals support him?

[Nephilim]

ROFLMAO! The very premise of this thread shows signs of ignorance and self avowed intellectual superiority based on political ideologies. Didn't the Nazi's do that too?

[bishop]

no it doesn't... if you've been paying attention, intellectuals across the board have been voicing criticism.. you have people in government, particularly military men (the ones who wanted higher troop numbers in iraq from the beginning) to former/current diplomats (the ones who repeatedly write bush collective notes pleading for him to change course). and then you have conservative think tanks voicing strong criticism. cato's pretty much abandoned bush. heritage has actually criticized bush, a "republican" - something that rarely ever happens. and we've seen the rise of several different liberal think tanks, particularly brookings. we also see bush contradicting himself on the powell doctrine as well as his own bush doctrine.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by giuliano, lack of conservative intellectuals

Bush supporters = conservative intellectuals
Kerry supporters = liberal intelleectuals
Is that correct "formula" ?

What happens to those who do not match that "rule" ? Are they morons ?

[Kyran]

Originally posted by Yankeefan21,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Yankeefan21,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Link with proof please?[/b]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Would you like your tall glass of STFU with or without the lemon?

He had them and he was hiding them from inspectors. There's no disputing it, no denying it, and no spinning it into an absence of massive stockpiles laying out in the open for coalition forces to find.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Yankeefan21,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's that wonderful right-wing spin. Make it seem as though Kerry is just as guilty as Bush's bumbling.[/b]

Guess again. I'm from my own playing field. Say, did you get so excited when you finally had that moment of self-esteem that you typed out "That's that" instead of "That's some?" Don't let me bring down your special feeling of identifying someone different than yourself and rejecting what they say. Not everyone can be you. I know I can't; I'm just an asshole with an open mind.

I am discussing bombing raids which occurred during Kerry's Senate office, raids which started prior to Dubya being in power. Why are they Bush's and not Clinton's? Would you like me to lay some more hefty facts on the table? No, you don't.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, Raising the mininum wage God forbid we give people a living wage and a few high schoolers will miss out on those Domino's Pizza jobs.

At least you admit the truth. I spent pages trying to force the rest of your crowd to face it. Do you think you can get them on the same page?

My friends back at Domino's aren't high schoolers. They are human beings and they have the right to work without Kerry or you fucking up their jobs. You aren't giving them your money. You are trying to give them someone else's money.

I suggest you read the former failed attempts to argue with me...
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2089

...because you, like everyone else, will fail.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, Force people to pay for government schools let me ask you did you ever attend public school or take out a college loan?

Yes I did go to government schools. Seeing as how vicious the government gets when kids educate themselves, I went along with the program until I could take night school and get out of the daycare.

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, I'd rather help fund schools

It doesn't matter whether you want to pay for the schools or not! It's not your choice. You have no say so in this matter. Unless you own land or vehicle you don't pay for schools anyway.

I don't need a manservant or woman to teach me how to do something. Neither does anyone else who's willing. Wanna debate the topic?
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1586

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, more education equals more jobs equals less hoods on the street or in jail where you pay far more to keep them in the can than you do in school.

So we should send felons to school? Why not. Same shit different building.

Look, the point was that Kerry would continue to force us to pay for this failing system. Just because you like being told what to do by the government doesn't mean everyone else does. Ok?

Originally posted by Yankeefan21, Appease terrorists? LoL how exactly would Kerry appease the terrorists...

Simple. If Kerry is elected, he will do the exact same thing as Clinton: absolutely nothing. They could topple the Statue of Liberty and Kerry would put his fingers in his ears and pretend the middle east doesn't exist. Maybe he'll let Bin Laden go like his predecessor too, that is if anyone catches him again.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yankeefan21,@
Hand our soveriegnty over to the UN?[/quote]

Yes. He wants the UN to rule America. He wants the UN to tax America, to tell America when it can go to war, and to rewrite it's laws. If the UN is going to do all these things, then what good is voting?

Most people will not dispute these facts, rather the norm for your crowd is to say "What's wrong with that" and then proceed to nag about the evils of western imperialism. I thought imperialism was trying to control a country with unelected officials.

Let me translate Kerry's lies for you.

"I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President."
"I protested against this country as a young man and I will protest against it as President."

"Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required."
"Unless foreign troops step foot on our soil, terrorists may do as they please."

"Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."
"I will immediately take a vacation upon the United States being attacked."
or
"I will order the seizure of guns so that Arab-Americans are not killed."
and probably
"I will ask the UN to find the terrorists and bring them to justice."

"I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."
"I will give the UN full authority to decide when we go to war."

"And I will build a stronger American military."
"I will cut military spending."

By the way, nice try with the attempt to persuade me that we are plumetting towards a dark form of socialism. Hahaha, you tried to argue for minimum wage. Who do you think you're fooling? You aren't on my side. You can be if you give up on the social programs and let those who do not want them get out of them. You don't even have to like Bush.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bishop, when two 18 wheelers are loaded and then moved from a site hours before UN weapons inspectors show up, it is not "cooperating" or "working."

Ted Kennedy wrote the education bill. I guess old Dubya's just following orders like all the other republicrats. Still, Bush just wants to fix the education system. If the government wasn't in that business, he wouldn't fight for government schooling. Kerry and his bunch would. Any problem with this conjecture?

I invite you also to argue the issue in the Minimum Wage thread.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bishop,
what do you know that i don't?[/quote]

To start with, I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a MW increase. You don't. Just what do YOU know that I don't?

Hey, I don't care if we argue 50 issues at the same time. I'm still going to win. This way I just win consecutively without it being spread out.

HA! I have a funnier sig than Commie now.

[bishop]

To start with, I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of a MW increase. You don't. Just what do YOU know that I don't?

how do you know that i haven't been in the same situation myself?


regardless, thanks, you helped prove the point i made earlier. especially since you dedicated the vast majority of your posts here to kerry bashing. i said:

i think the crux of the pro-bush argument isn't to give strong intellectual arguments for bush's behavior, it's to demonize kerry because they cannot give strong intellectual arguments for bush's behavior. i.e. it's the only available option.

hell, even bill kristol has voiced strong criticism of bush. most people view him as being an intellectual too..

definitely standing on some thin ice.


i also noticed that you chose not to explain why our pre-emptive invasion was necessary - specifically when bush chose to invade. when you dodge direct questions like that and resort to partisan rhetoric, and claim that you're always right, you lose credibility my friend.

[Comrade]

We haven't explained why the invasion was necessary? Really? You mean in the last three months I haven't posted 25+ posts on the subject?

It is simply amazing that people can continue to say nobody has given reasons for why the war is necessary and then claim that their opposition is the one, "losing credibility." It is amazing that people can start a thread insulting the intelligence of people who dissent and claim that conservatives are the ones claiming to always be right. What hypocrisy.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by bishop, how do you know that i haven't been in the same situation myself?

Maybe because you think raising the minimum wage is a good thing?

[bishop]

It is simply amazing that people can continue to say nobody has given reasons for why the war is necessary and then claim that their opposition is the one, "losing credibility."

no.. you have given reasons for why we should invade. you point to instances of noncompliance, recite the grand scheme of "democracy in the middle east", etc.. but when it comes to explaining the following items, you have never answered them. but, we do get to read lots of hot air from you on a daily basis. so, here are some specific questions for you. i hope that you can answer them in an intelligent manner. i expect, however, that some/most of your response will be mired in the same sort of inpatience that led us to rush into iraq to begin with. hopefully you'll prove my expectations wrong.

1. were we under the threat of imminent attack?
2. why did we have to invade at the specific time that bush chose to invade?
3. what would we have lost by waiting 6 more months?
4. why wasn't winning broader international support important?
5. should the public simply forget all the pre-war intelligence claims that formed the basis of bush's war?

[bishop]

Originally posted by Comrade,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop, how do you know that i haven't been in the same situation myself?

Maybe because you think raising the minimum wage is a good thing?[/b][/quote]

i do think it's a good thing, but i don't see how that's relavent to my prior circumstances whatsoever. save your flame for someone who's impressed.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by bishop, 1. were we under the threat of imminent attack? No, what does this have to do with why war is necessary? North Korea wasn't going to attack us. North Vietnam wasn't going to attack us, yet we deemed it necessary to intervene. Useless counter-arguement. 2. why did we have to invade at the specific time that bush chose to invade? "If not now, when?" 3. what would we have lost by waiting 6 more months? We would've lost six months of our time and gotten nowhere. We had been dealing with Saddam for 12 years. 4. why wasn't winning broader international support important? Burden of proof. Why is international support important? France and Germany and Russia certainly couldn't do much help and they did not WANT democracy in Iraq. Loss of their support isn't Bush's fault. It wasn't because Bush wasn't persuasive enough, it was because the governments of those countries decided it wasn't in their best interest to support us. 5. should the public simply forget all the pre-war intelligence claims that formed the basis of bush's war? We are still on "WMDs were the only reason we went to war?" Maybe you just can't read.

Hot air, well, I guess that IS an convenient way to avoid reality.

So, let me get this straight. What, exactly, would make a war necessary? Some nonsense about "A Just War" that high minded idealists have tried to come up with?
There is no such thing as "necessary" war. If we had taken the hint from Pearl Harbor and acquiesced, that would've saved a lot of American lives, right? WW2 wasn't a "necessary" war. "Necessary" war is an asinine notion. Yet, even in the terms of "necessary" the war in Iraq is supported.

We went to war because of 9-11. Invariably, anti-war people try to pass off "Saddam wasn't complicit in 9-11" as an arguement that deposing Saddam wasn't "justified," another inane notion. You said pre-emptive yourself. Can't you see the big picture? Do you think the war in Iraq is ONLY about Iraq? I'm sure you do, it is the only way any of your ideas get any credibility.

The war in Iraq was "necessary" because without the intervention of the military, Saddam would have NEVER been removed, thus the process of democratizing the Middle East could never begin. I have said this before, I have said it a bunch, but apparantly, it is just "hot air" (i.e. bishop has nothing).

[bishop]

1. were we under the threat of imminent attack? No, what does this have to do with why war is necessary? North Korea wasn't going to attack us. North Vietnam wasn't going to attack us, yet we deemed it necessary to intervene. Useless counter-arguement.

hardly useless.. by law, we cannot attack another country unless they either attack us first, if we face the threat of imminent attack or if the u.n. security council approves military action. north korea was sanctioned by the u.n., our ambassador's vote represented the american vote. vietnam was a bogus war that should never have happened. smells like red herring to me, but you answered the question at least - no, we were not under the threat of imminent attack.

2. why did we have to invade at the specific time that bush chose to invade? "If not now, when?"

lots of us former bush supporters, myself included, felt that bush was right to push for renewed inspections in iraq.. but when he decided that he was going to invade, many of us were left asking ourselves - why now? why not wait a bit? you'll have to try harder. i need to see a response from an "intellectual" to better help me understand. you did not answer my question.

3. what would we have lost by waiting 6 more months? We would've lost six months of our time and gotten nowhere. We had been dealing with Saddam for 12 years.

the good ol' 12 years argument.. well, i did expect your response to include the impatient attitude. what, exactly do you mean by "gotten nowhere"? what did the inspectors fail to find that we've found? despite the occassional hiccups, they were doing their job. maybe could it be that the "nothing else but war" crowd always feared that they might not find anything, and then they couldn't get their war on?

4. why wasn't winning broader international support important? Burden of proof. Why is international support important? France and Germany and Russia certainly couldn't do much help and they did not WANT democracy in Iraq. Loss of their support isn't Bush's fault. It wasn't because Bush wasn't persuasive enough, it was because the governments of those countries decided it wasn't in their best interest to support us.

international support helped us substantially in desert storm and in the balkans. it took a great deal of financial stress off of american taxpayers. i guess that doesn't matter to you? if bush chose to compromise a bit, he very well could have won more support. the anti-war countries simply did not agree that rushing into a war was the best thing to do - aside from their economic interests.

5. should the public simply forget all the pre-war intelligence claims that formed the basis of bush's war? We are still on "WMDs were the only reason we went to war?" Maybe you just can't read.

maybe you weren't paying attention. wmd's were the MAIN reason why we went to war. you believe in the grand agenda as being the main reason, unfortunately all of the legal documents don't back up that assertion. you probably find yourself frustrated on this particular bit because the majority of the public believes that wmd's and links to al qaeda were the primary reasons for going into iraq. of course, bush morphed his story several times as events progressed, so i suppose that latching onto the most intangible claim is the safest - because there is no implied burden of proof.


and as far as links to terrorism is concerned - study after study shows that saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. and he did not support al qaeda. this is what bipartisan research has shown, not simply the anti-war crowd. i suggest you leaf through the senate's report on pre-war intelligence - i've mentioned this to you several times already.

[Comrade]

Originally posted by bishop, hardly useless.. by law, we cannot attack another country unless they either attack us first, if we face the threat of imminent attack or if the u.n. security council approves military action. north korea was sanctioned by the u.n., our ambassador's vote represented the american vote. vietnam was a bogus war that should never have happened. smells like red herring to me, but you answered the question at least - no, we were not under the threat of imminent attack. This is the exact "Just War" nonsense that I was talking about. lots of us former bush supporters, myself included, felt that bush was right to push for renewed inspections in iraq.. but when he decided that he was going to invade, many of us were left asking ourselves - why now? why not wait a bit? you'll have to try harder. i need to see a response from an "intellectual" to better help me understand. you did not answer my question. I said your question was immaterial. the good ol' 12 years argument.. well, i did expect your response to include the impatient attitude. what, exactly do you mean by "gotten nowhere"? what did the inspectors fail to find that we've found? despite the occassional hiccups, they were doing their job. maybe could it be that the "nothing else but war" crowd always feared that they might not find anything, and then they couldn't get their war on? If I didn't know better I'd think, after reading this, that Saddam was complying with the inspections. By the way, do you know what unfalsifiable means? international support helped us substantially in desert storm and in the balkans. it took a great deal of financial stress off of american taxpayers. i guess that doesn't matter to you? if bush chose to compromise a bit, he very well could have won more support. the anti-war countries simply did not agree that rushing into a war was the best thing to do - aside from their economic interests. Sure, international support could help, but it isn't mandatory, which you seem to be suggesting. And that is NOT why the anti-war countries opposed removing Saddam. We've already been through Oil-For-Fool and France, the oil contracts with Russia, etc. etc.... maybe you weren't paying attention. wmd's were the MAIN reason why we went to war. you believe in the grand agenda as being the main reason, unfortunately all of the legal documents don't back up that assertion. you probably find yourself frustrated on this particular bit because the majority of the public believes that wmd's and links to al qaeda were the primary reasons for going into iraq. of course, bush morphed his story several times as events progressed, so i suppose that latching onto the most intangible claim is the safest - because there is no implied burden of proof. The "main" reason? Bush himself has said that we would still have gone into Iraq, knowing he didn't have any WMDs. I find myself frustrated on this bit? Really? I'm frustrated that Bush haters continue to say "but WMDs were the MAIN reason/SELLING point/whatever else," which is simply a straw man, sure. and as far as links to terrorism is concerned - study after study shows that saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. and he did not support al qaeda. this is what bipartisan research has shown, not simply the anti-war crowd. i suggest you leaf through the senate's report on pre-war intelligence - i've mentioned this to you several times already. Al Qaida is our only enemy? I thought Islamic fundamentalism was our enemy. This is what I meant when I said "the bigger picture." And if Saddam wasn't supporting Al Qaida why were there Ansar al-Islam, an Al Qaida arm, training camp near Baghdad? And Hussein was funding Islamic terrorists in Palestine.

You are one of these people who would wait for another 3000 dead Americans before we took out the NEXT terrorist group to come along. We can mow the weeds over and over and over but they aren't going to go away until we pull up the root. Why is this so hard to understand?

And I'm really tired of the useless, "When war is legal." There is no such thing as legality when it comes to war. No illegal, no legal. The UN has no authority, that is just silly. You say either "when we have been attacked, or when we are about to be attacked."
You may be willing to wait until it is too late, but I'm certainly not. Pre-emption is perfectly fine with me, probably because I don't have fantasies about how the world is a bureaucracy and everyone must file legal claims with foreigners in order to gain "legitimacy," yet another entirely irrelevant, meaningless buzzword.

It is from the type of thinking you subscribe to that we get weak policies like "measured response" and an utter unfamiliarity with concepts like deterrence. Your type of thinking is why Carter was so weak.

Form is more important to substance, according to you, and I disagree.

[waterfalllife]

Once again, I will re-iterate, THERE WERE NO TIES WITH AL-QAEDA!

SADDAM was in favor of a SECULAR society. One in which Islamic Fundamentalism COULD NOT influence. He PROTECTED religions, (look at whats happening to the Christian churches now that Saddam isnt in power).

OSAMA was MAD at Saddam for BEING secular based. He thought that government and theology should go hand in hand. He was also mad that Saddam had BROUGHT AMERICA INTO THE MOST HOLY CITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA! We had then started building bases during Operation Desert Shield and Storm. HE HAD BROUGHT THE AMERICAN PIGS INTO HOLY LANDS!

Now, I am not saying that they didnt meet, which DID occur. Saddams military advisor met with Osamas guy a couple of times, probing into the idea of joining forces, but they realized that they were in direct ideological conflict with each other.

Two people so alike in hate against America, but could not put aside differences to try and destroy us. Sounds like some connection to me.

[Comrade]

And you said Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida, which is false, and I'm suprised to see some people persist in trying to propogate it with claims that Saddam was "secular" and that Osama (you, waterfall, knowing him personally) hates Saddam. It simply isn't true.

And once again, I have to point to "the bigger picture." This war isn't only about Iraq.

[waterfalllife]

Show me proof that Saddam wasnt secular and I will retract my statement. Until that time, I have plenty of source material at home (Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward, hundreds of websites etc.) that will back me up. Find me the source comrade, and maybe I will begin to take you seriously.

[Comrade]

I didn't say Saddam wasn't secular. I was saying that Saddam being secular meaning he wouldn't support Osama, or that Osama wouldn't work with Saddam, is a non sequitur.

Oh, I'd be really devastated if you didn't take me seriously, my existence depends on your opinion.

[bishop]

This is the exact "Just War" nonsense that I was talking about.

no it isn't.. and note, i'm not arguing that congress had to sanction the war. and, if we were under the threat of imminent attack, i would have completely supported going to war. to call it nonsense is to show that you aren't interested in debating the details.

I said your question was immaterial.

that's the intellectual response eh?

If I didn't know better I'd think, after reading this, that Saddam was complying with the inspections. By the way, do you know what unfalsifiable means?

are you suggesting that there was never any way to validate saddam's disarmament? now you're getting into contradictions.. on one hand you say that saddam wasn't complying. now when you toss out "unfalsifiable", you suggest that there was never any way to validate his disarmament. hard to understand what you're trying to say when you contradict yourself like that.

Sure, international support could help, but it isn't mandatory, which you seem to be suggesting. And that is NOT why the anti-war countries opposed removing Saddam. We've already been through Oil-For-Fool and France, the oil contracts with Russia, etc. etc....

international support would help, not could help. try not to be so arrogant. what taxpayer wouldn't want to see our burden shared by our allies? if we were under the threat of imminent attack, i.e. if the war truly was necessary, then getting international support would've been much less important. however, in the case of iraq, we were never under the threat of imminent attack, which you agreed upon. the anti-war bloc was interested in maintaining their contracts, no secret about that - and through bush's imperialism, he's stolen all of them as war booty. however, if you actually read the statements made by the members of that bloc, they explained in great detail non-economic reasons why patience was the better course of action. i get the feeling that you haven't read their alternative point of view either.

The "main" reason? Bush himself has said that we would still have gone into Iraq, knowing he didn't have any WMDs. I find myself frustrated on this bit? Really? I'm frustrated that Bush haters continue to say "but WMDs were the MAIN reason/SELLING point/whatever else," which is simply a straw man, sure.

wmd's were the main reason.. it'll be interesting to see one of your allies support you on that one. you seem to be completely alone on that one.

Al Qaida is our only enemy? I thought Islamic fundamentalism was our enemy. This is what I meant when I said "the bigger picture." And if Saddam wasn't supporting Al Qaida why were there Ansar al-Islam, an Al Qaida arm, training camp near Baghdad? And Hussein was funding Islamic terrorists in Palestine.

ansar al-islam was fighting the kurds and were never found to be conspiring in plots against america. you want to go after terrorists? how about iran, syria, suadi arabia, palestine, syria, pakistan, kashmire, chechnyia, etc.? if we're going to go it alone, the least we could do is go after groups that are actively plotting against us!

And I'm really tired of the useless, "When war is legal." There is no such thing as legality when it comes to war. No illegal, no legal. The UN has no authority, that is just silly. You say either "when we have been attacked, or when we are about to be attacked." You may be willing to wait until it is too late, but I'm certainly not. Pre-emption is perfectly fine with me, probably because I don't have fantasies about how the world is a bureaucracy and everyone must file legal claims with foreigners in order to gain "legitimacy," yet another entirely irrelevant, meaningless buzzword.

nobody cares if you're getting tired. the u.n. does have authority because congress ratified its charter - it is the law of our land. now, if we legislate to remove ourselves from the u.n., then that's a different story.

and waiting until it's too late? another contradiction since you yourself admitted that we were never under the threat of imminent attack. who should be next on our list? we can't afford to wait, we must kill them all as fast as we can. only after we've killed all of our enemies, then we'll finally be safe.

And once again, I have to point to "the bigger picture." This war isn't only about Iraq.

so much for being opposed to nation building.

constant flip-flopping like that is what's eroded the conservative intellectual base.

[Comrade]

[quote=bishop,]

no it isn't.. and note, i'm not arguing that congress had to sanction the war. and, if we were under the threat of imminent attack, i would have completely supported going to war. to call it nonsense is to show that you aren't interested in debating the details.

If that's what it "shows"...

that's the intellectual response eh?

It would be like me asking why you haven't cured cancer yet.


are you suggesting that there was never any way to validate saddam's disarmament? now you're getting into contradictions.. on one hand you say that saddam wasn't complying. now when you toss out "unfalsifiable", you suggest that there was never any way to validate his disarmament. hard to understand what you're trying to say when you contradict yourself like that.

I was talking about YOUR theories, not verifying Saddam's disarmament

international support would help, not could help. try not to be so arrogant. what taxpayer wouldn't want to see our burden shared by our allies? if we were under the threat of imminent attack, i.e. if the war truly was necessary, then getting international support would've been much less important. however, in the case of iraq, we were never under the threat of imminent attack, which you agreed upon. the anti-war bloc was interested in maintaining their contracts, no secret about that - and through bush's imperialism, he's stolen all of them as war booty. however, if you actually read the statements made by the members of that bloc, they explained in great detail non-economic reasons why patience was the better course of action. i get the feeling that you haven't read their alternative point of view either.

Three countries supported a vicious dictator over democracy. You are saying that because Americans would have to pay all of the bill, we should let ourselves be held hostage to the whims of France.
And bishop, there is a point where you have to stop being a pansy and show that you mean business. If countries like Saddam's Iraq know that we are never going to back up our leverage, which we would never do under your "rules of engagement," then why would they ever stop?

wmd's were the main reason.. it'll be interesting to see one of your allies support you on that one. you seem to be completely alone on that one.
Once again, you missed the point. It is a straw man. If WMDs were the only reason we went to war, then yes, lack of (lots, he did have some chemical weapons and the program to produce more, but those are inconvenient facts) of WMDs would invalidate this war. Even then, we've already been through what information was available at the beginning of the war.

ansar al-islam was fighting the kurds and were never found to be conspiring in plots against america. you want to go after terrorists? how about iran, syria, suadi arabia, palestine, syria, pakistan, kashmire, chechnyia, etc.? if we're going to go it alone, the least we could do is go after groups that are actively plotting against us!

Since when are we not? You'd think a country as powerful as America would be able to multi-task at least TWO things at once, but I guess not on your planet.


nobody cares if you're getting tired. the u.n. does have authority because congress ratified its charter - it is the law of our land. now, if we legislate to remove ourselves from the u.n., then that's a different story.

and waiting until it's too late? another contradiction since you yourself admitted that we were never under the threat of imminent attack. who should be next on our list? we can't afford to wait, we must kill them all as fast as we can. only after we've killed all of our enemies, then we'll finally be safe.

What? This arguement makes no sense. Do you not understand what pre-emption is all about? It is about removing potential threats BEFORE they become an imminent threat.

so much for being opposed to nation building.
Another meaningless buzzword(phrase)

constant flip-flopping like that is what's eroded the conservative intellectual base.
What flip flopping? You just started creating non sequiturs and putting words in my mouth, also known as making shit up.[quote]