[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[SirNitram]

How do you know a meteor won't rocket out of the sky and kill you while you sleep at night?

Obviously if either of the two scenarios you just named happens, then this endeavor WOULD have been a collosal failure. To declare it such at this point is extremely premature.

This reveals your mentality clearly: You declare the almost-definate expectation of all those who are looking at a situation objective is equal in chance to a, literally, billion to one chance. You are simply trolling at this point.

[brianeyci]

You are a fucking idiot and I won't allow you to continue on straw manning my arguments into something they aren't. This isn't about blamming Clinton it is about illustrating the fact that Regime change in Iraq as U.S. policy pre-dated the Bush administration. Is Bush responsible for actually following through on the policy? Yes he is.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! You A. Mentioned Clinton. B. Said this was US Policy leftover from the Clinton Administration. Connect A and B together and you get blame Clinton! Of course you're too much of a coward to say outright what you're thinking, and you backpedal when someone accuses you of it.

Building a democracy from scratch isn't easy and is rarely bloodless. The Benefits will be enjoyed to their fullest by future generations, but you have to start somewhere. Besides, just about anything we estbalish there will be better than Saddam's regime.

Prove that "anything" would be better.

The key word there being was. His statements now ARE armchair quarterbacking. Clinton used the military for his own ends, not to the extent that Bush has, but Clinton was no peacenik.

Regardless of the reasons we went in, we are there now working to establish a democracy. And to that end, establishing Democracy in Iraq is a noble cause.

So it was Clinton's Foreign Policy, but Clinton didn't execute it when he was President? Fuck off dipshit.

Brian

[Vendetta]

I'm beginning to question this seeming horror people have of Iraq "splitting apart".

If the choice is one nation in constant turmoil, or three smaller but stable nations the latter might well be the best alternative in the long run. The current map of the middle east is an outgrowth of 19th century colonialism and meddling from outside and the boundaries frequently do not follow natural lines of allegience such as ethnicity, religion, language, tribe, or other affiliations that dictated the maps of Europe and Asia where nations are much more stable in outline.

There are a few problems with it.

The first one is that the Sunni will be in crushing poverty, or more likely under Shia rule, as the Sunni provinces have few to no natural resources. The second is that a Kurdish state in the north will make Turkish Kurds push for more independence or even a united Kurdistan. That was why Turkey refused to allow forces to move through there to the northern front.

It will also be established through an intensified civil war, and Baghdad's central morgue is already reporting 1100 corpses a month (figure for July this year. Before the invasion there were 200 a month), most of those bodies showing evidence of torture, most of them from murders. The problems that Saddam brought to the people of Iraq haven't gonr away, they've just been thrown open to the free market, and everybody wants a slice.

But then, in a nation where kidnapping is an official police activity (people are arrested and not released unless huge bribes are paid), and there are entire ghost batallions in the army (estimates of roughly 80,000 troops who simply don't exist, whose salaries are funneled to their commanding officers).

"Establishing democracy" doesn't mean shit in Iraq right now, it's not what the Iraqi people need, they need law and order, electricity, and clean water, none of which they have.

[Ender]

People die doing their jobs every day. Thats just a sad fact of life.

If you believe wasting the lives of good men and women over a pack of lies is nothing more then a sad fact of life, I suggest you get some serious perspective.

[Coyote]

The proper way to discuss the "Iraq mess" and "which President was responsible?" is noy to compare and contrast Bush Jr's actions with Clinton's stated policy of regime change. The proper thing to bear in mind is that this is a mess that gathered over the course of many administrations, left and right.

Saddam came to power on his own, but, the US under Reagan supported him when he attacked the Iranians during the Hostage Crisis and established a working relationship with Saddam for a long time. Then came 1991, the Gulf War under Bush Sr., then the Clinton years of "small war" (no fly zones, embargoes, minor incidents, official regime change, etc) and finally Bush Jr.

A cast of hundreds brought us, lurching and stumbling, to this point. I think we were pointed almost unavoidably towards war there at some point, it is just a matter of whether we think Bush Jr has done a good job of dealing with it.

It is at that point I say, "No"...

[The Kernel]

Apparently you think things were better under Saddam. What "freedoms" pray tell did the populace have under this magnificant benefactor that they won't have under the new constitution?

The freedom from being gunned down in the street? Freedom from having your home blown up because the US military policy is that it isn't worth the potential loss of American life to clear a building of insurgents but instead to blast it?

You know, Saddam may have slaughtered a fair number of his revolting Kurdish population as well as his political enemies, but the agregate loss of life may well be greater due to US forces in the past two years than during Saddam's entire reign (depends on who you get your numbers from) so I hardly think that we are in the position of bitching about his rule. At least under his reign you wouldn't be killed as long as you kept your mouth shut about politics and weren't a Kurd.

And need I remind you that talking about US policy towards Iraq buys you jack shit? The US fully endorsed Iraq during Saddam's worst periods and we knew full well what was going on. Hell, we gave him the weapons he used to do most of the things you are complaining about.

Or perhaps you feel that we should impose a completely Western style democracy because the one the Iraqi's are forming doesn't fit with your view of how it should be.

Something which is already being emposed. If the Iraqi's were left to their own devices, you'd have a theocracy identical to Iran. That's what we liked about Saddam in the first place, he was smart enough to force a secular state and to promote the idea of a highly educated population.

I'm not going to argue with you any further. You needlessly denigrate into insults. You engage in poisoning the well tactics by equating everything I say with Bush as an effort to discredit me. And I've got no time for it.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You're new, but this is a flagrant violation of Debate Rule 7:

7. If you dismiss an argument because of its use of profanity, you can be instantly banned.

So unless you plan on being banned, I suggest you do not dismiss on the ground of profanity.

[fgalkin]

The casualty rate is low, compared to other conflicts, say the Second Chechen war, which had 40,000 Russian troops dead.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[SirNitram]

The casualty rate is low, compared to other conflicts, say the Second Chechen war, which had 40,000 Russian troops dead.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You know, it's very intellectually dishonest to compare occupation with outright war. I've heard similar about the Somme; note that the insurgency does not have machineguns and hold the high ground over a marsh.

[The Kernel]

The casualty rate is low, compared to other conflicts, say the Second Chechen war, which had 40,000 Russian troops dead.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You know, it's very intellectually dishonest to compare occupation with outright war. I've heard similar about the Somme; note that the insurgency does not have machineguns and hold the high ground over a marsh.

I'd also say it's dishonest not to include the number of civilians killed in this war when considering the cost. Do Iraqi civilians suddenly not count for anything anymore?

Unfortunately since the US military refuses to give official kill numbers, the estimates vary pretty wildly.

[fgalkin]

The casualty rate is low, compared to other conflicts, say the Second Chechen war, which had 40,000 Russian troops dead.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You know, it's very intellectually dishonest to compare occupation with outright war. I've heard similar about the Somme; note that the insurgency does not have machineguns and hold the high ground over a marsh.

Technically, most of the Chechen campaign was "occupation" with constant skirmishes with the guerillas, and the occasional major offensive.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

The casualty rate is low, compared to other conflicts, say the Second Chechen war, which had 40,000 Russian troops dead.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You know, it's very intellectually dishonest to compare occupation with outright war. I've heard similar about the Somme; note that the insurgency does not have machineguns and hold the high ground over a marsh.

I'd also say it's dishonest not to include the number of civilians killed in this war when considering the cost. Do Iraqi civilians suddenly not count for anything anymore?

Unfortunately since the US military refuses to give official kill numbers, the estimates vary pretty wildly.

The article was about the 2,000 dead US soldiers.

Speaking of civiliians, should we include those killed by the insurgents into the cost of the war as well?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Kernel]

The article was about the 2,000 dead US soldiers.

I wasn't accusing you directly, I was commenting on the general focus of only concentrating on US troop deaths when trying to decide if we are justified in the cost of human life.

Speaking of civiliians, should we include those killed by the insurgents into the cost of the war as well?

If you invade a place and spark a civil war, I'd say that should be included in the cost/benefit analysis yes. Responsibility for the death is totally irrelevent; those deaths were caused directly by the toppling of the Saddam government and have to be factored in.

[MKSheppard]

You know, if 2,000 troop deaths are such a bad thing, really, why should we fight wars with boots on the ground? With modern guided weapons, we can remove a country from the map of civilized nations in a single day by destroying every strategic target with guided weapons, dropping every bridge, and so on, and then proceed to go home, leaving the enemy to descend into anarchy.

[brianeyci]

You know, if 2,000 troop deaths are such a bad thing, really, why should we fight wars with boots on the ground? With modern guided weapons, we can remove a country from the map of civilized nations in a single day by destroying every strategic target with guided weapons, dropping every bridge, and so on, and then proceed to go home, leaving the enemy to descend into anarchy.

Ah yes I was waiting for this . Are you suggesting that two thousand deaths is not a bad thing?

Two thousand deaths would be bad in any case, no matter what. Two thousand troop deaths as a consequence of an elaborate lie is revolting.

Troops don't go home without cleaning up their mess because they have a moral responsibility, a duty, to help the people's country they wrecked. Humanitarian, compassionate reasons, ones that you seem to not understand.

Brian

[Plekhanov]

You know, if 2,000 troop deaths are such a bad thing, really, why should we fight wars with boots on the ground? With modern guided weapons, we can remove a country from the map of civilized nations in a single day by destroying every strategic target with guided weapons, dropping every bridge, and so on, and then proceed to go home, leaving the enemy to descend into anarchy.

Seeing as how the current post facto justification for invading Iraq is spreading "freedom and democracy" not "anarchy" i'd say your plan needs a little work.

Also it's kind of hard to import oil from country that's been deliberately sent back to the stoneage.

[Metatwaddle]

Historian turned boot licking Bush apologist Victor Davis Hanson offers his wonderful insight into Iraq with an absolutely brilliant oratory that calls upon everyone to put the Iraq casualties into "context".

By "context," does he mean "compared to the number of Iraqi noncombatants killed"?

Because then he might have a point.

...No, on second thought, he still doesn't have a point.

[Darth Wong]

You know, if 2,000 troop deaths are such a bad thing, really, why should we fight wars with boots on the ground? With modern guided weapons, we can remove a country from the map of civilized nations in a single day by destroying every strategic target with guided weapons, dropping every bridge, and so on, and then proceed to go home, leaving the enemy to descend into anarchy.

"The enemy?" So all of the Iraqi people are "the enemy" now? Please try to make up your mind about whether we are supposed to be liberators, self-defenders, or simply mad-dog killers. We don't want to get dizzy.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

I'm not going to argue with you any further. You needlessly denigrate into insults. You engage in poisoning the well tactics by equating everything I say with Bush as an effort to discredit me. And I've got no time for it.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Have you read the rules of SDN yet?

[KHL]

You are a fucking idiot and I won't allow you to continue on straw manning my arguments into something they aren't. This isn't about blamming Clinton it is about illustrating the fact that Regime change in Iraq as U.S. policy pre-dated the Bush administration. Is Bush responsible for actually following through on the policy? Yes he is.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum! You A. Mentioned Clinton. B. Said this was US Policy leftover from the Clinton Administration. Connect A and B together and you get blame Clinton! Of course you're too much of a coward to say outright what you're thinking, and you backpedal when someone accuses you of it.

Don't blame me for your ridiculous leaps in logic. All I was saying was that removal of Saddam was official U.S. policy that pre-dated the Bush Administration.

Building a democracy from scratch isn't easy and is rarely bloodless. The Benefits will be enjoyed to their fullest by future generations, but you have to start somewhere. Besides, just about anything we estbalish there will be better than Saddam's regime.

Prove that "anything" would be better.

Key words from that statement: WE establish. It isn't perfect, but the groundwork has been laid.

The key word there being was. His statements now ARE armchair quarterbacking. Clinton used the military for his own ends, not to the extent that Bush has, but Clinton was no peacenik.

Regardless of the reasons we went in, we are there now working to establish a democracy. And to that end, establishing Democracy in Iraq is a noble cause.

So it was Clinton's Foreign Policy, but Clinton didn't execute it when he was President? Fuck off dipshit.

Brian

Yes

[brianeyci]

Don't blame me for your ridiculous leaps in logic. All I was saying was that removal of Saddam was official U.S. policy that pre-dated the Bush Administration.

Too bad dickbrain, that's dishonest. You know that Clinton's policy did not involve military invasion and forceable removal of regimes. Take a look at what you said dipshit,

...the establishment of a democracy in Iraq has been U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration.

You post in a thread about 2000 deaths some bullshit about the current foreign policy dating back to Clinton, which is a lie as SirNitram pointed out and you refused to concede.

Building a democracy from scratch isn't easy and is rarely bloodless. The Benefits will be enjoyed to their fullest by future generations, but you have to start somewhere. Besides, just about anything we estbalish there will be better than Saddam's regime.

Prove that "anything" would be better.

Key words from that statement: WE establish. It isn't perfect, but the groundwork has been laid.

Aww. Semantic whoring. Well guess what mutha-fucka, prove that "anything we establish" would be better, if you need it spelt out to you like you're a baby.

So it was Clinton's Foreign Policy, but Clinton didn't execute it when he was President? Fuck off dipshit.

Brian

Yes

Another blatant lie. Removing regimes by invasion, the "You're with us or you're against us", the "Axis of Evil" are not representations of Clinton's foreign policy. At the best they're gross misrepresentations, given Clinton didn't condone invasion of other countries based on the principle of preemptive strike. Too bad troll, you lose.

Brian

[KHL]

I'm not going to argue with you any further. You needlessly denigrate into insults. You engage in poisoning the well tactics by equating everything I say with Bush as an effort to discredit me. And I've got no time for it.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You're new, but this is a flagrant violation of Debate Rule 7:

7. If you dismiss an argument because of its use of profanity, you can be instantly banned.

So unless you plan on being banned, I suggest you do not dismiss on the ground of profanity.

Many have pointed to this, but have missed the point entirely. I'm posting this for all of you.

I'm not "dismissing" anything on the basis of profanity. I don't mind profanity see: shit damn fuck cocksucker motherfucker...

I merely pointed that out to show he was being an asshole. The real reason I've stopped responding to his posts are because his constant use of "poisoning the well" tactics and engaging in blatant ad hominem attacks. He knows full well that if he can peg me as a "Bush apoligist" that it instantly calls my credibility into question and gives him an advantage in any debate. Maybe he feels this is a "smart tactic" but I'm not interested in it.

Apparently, unless you feel that American endeavors in Iraq are either a failure, or destined for failure, you are a "Bush apologist". Well my apologies then

Bottom line: I've said all I have to say on the matter and I don't feel like repeating myself. If he feels that things were better under Saddam then they are going to be once the new government gets established, then that is his oppinion.

[Darth Wong]

So because he used the word "apologist", you don't have to answer his points? Answer the man's fucking points, you worthless lying little piece of shit. If you try to pull this "I don't have to answer his points because he called me an apologist" bullshit any longer, you're history.

[brianeyci]

Many have pointed to this, but have missed the point entirely. I'm posting this for all of you.

I'm not "dismissing" anything on the basis of profanity. I don't mind profanity see: shit damn fuck cocksucker motherfucker...

Good shitstain I'm glad we agree about something .

I merely pointed that out to show he was being an asshole. The real reason I've stopped responding to his posts are because his constant use of "poisoning the well" tactics and engaging in blatant ad hominem attacks. He knows full well that if he can peg me as a "Bush apoligist" that it instantly calls my credibility into question and gives him an advantage in any debate. Maybe he feels this is a "smart tactic" but I'm not interested in it.

You lied, or at best misintepreted the current US Foreign Policy as being a leftover from the Clinton era. Go cry me a river, you deserved to be called a Bush apologist.

Apparently, unless you feel that American endeavors in Iraq are either a failure, or destined for failure, you are a "Bush apologist". Well my apologies then.

A lie, because you've said that the current US Foreign Policy which includes removal by force of regimes and preemptive strike is leftoever from the Clinton era. Sure, everybody from here to Kansas wanted to get rid of Saddam, that doesn't mean shit cockstain.

Bottom line: I've said all I have to say on the matter and I don't feel like repeating myself. If he feels that things were better under Saddam then they are going to be once the new government gets established, then that is his oppinion.

Again I repeat my challenge. Prove that "anything we establish" (we as in referring to the Americans) would be better than Saddam.

Brian

[brianeyci]

I'm particularly interested in how you're going to prove that anything the Americans do with Iraq is better than Saddam KHL. In fact this is a rather common argument used by anybody who was pro-war (now that the Americans are in they better fucking stay to fix problems), and it seems to be always taken at face value that anything would be better, without any proof given. I don't particularly care about any other points, if you want to just focus on this point alone KHL then fine, no more semantic whoring, just prove to me that "anything we establish" will be better.

Brian

[KHL]

Don't blame me for your ridiculous leaps in logic. All I was saying was that removal of Saddam was official U.S. policy that pre-dated the Bush Administration.

Too bad dickbrain, that's dishonest. You know that Clinton's policy did not involve military invasion and forceable removal of regimes. Take a look at what you said dipshit,

Kosovo

...the establishment of a democracy in Iraq has been U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration.

You post in a thread about 2000 deaths some bullshit about the current foreign policy dating back to Clinton, which is a lie as SirNitram pointed out and you refused to concede.

What is there to concede?

Answer me this Yes or No: Was or was it not U.S. policy to
seek regime change in Iraq prior to the Bush Administration assuming power?

The point I was trying to establish is that our goal was the removal of a tyranical dictator and the creation of a democractic government. I also wanted to express my view that the 2000 deaths weren't "thrown away" for nothing, rather they were heroic deaths in the service of a noble cause.

Key words from that statement: WE establish. It isn't perfect, but the groundwork has been laid.

Aww. Semantic whoring. Well guess what mutha-fucka, prove that "anything we establish" would be better, if you need it spelt out to you like you're a baby.

Other key words Just about.

You do know that it is implausible to expect someone to "prove" something which has infinite hypotheticals. I'll point to what we are doing as an example of something that is better than Saddam's government. As with all great works, it will have its bumps along the road, but as they say Rome wasn't built in a day...

Another blatant lie. Removing regimes by invasion, the "You're with us or you're against us", the "Axis of Evil" are not representations of Clinton's foreign policy. At the best they're gross misrepresentations, given Clinton didn't condone invasion of other countries based on the principle of preemptive strike. Too bad troll, you lose.

Brian

Blatant strawman. Where did I say any of those policys were representation of Clinton's foreign policy? How are they even relevant to this discussion?

It really doesn't matter whether Clinton condoned the invasion of Iraq. The fact remains that regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy signed into law during the Clinton administration. The ultimate goal was the same even if the methods by which they would seek to achieve it may differ.