[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[Jack Bauer]

The central issue is not whether Hussein was a fuckin heartless bastard. Everyone agrees that the little asswipe deserves his own special VIP place in Hell. But the real issue at hand is whether pre-invasion Iraq posed any significant and immediate danger to the national security of the United States. This was the PRIMARY rationale (echoed by the Administration and its surrogates) for the preemptive operation against Hussein.

Now its pretty clear that our original intelligence was completely wrong about WMDs and the Al-Qaeda links. There's also strong evidence that the Administration fixed and exaggerated the intel in order to hype up the potential Iraqi threat. So the issue is about accountability, not about the relative conditions of Iraqis pre and post-war.

In addition to misleading the public into war, the Administration has also taken every step to undercut and hamper the post-war reconstruction and democratization process. The Pentagon and the State Department should write a fuckin manual about how to do nation building the COMPLETELY WRONG way.

So the case against President Bush and his cronies is two-fold: the lack of accountability about the flawed reationale for invasion and for utter incompetence in everything afterwards. Debating about whether Hussein was one level of cruel fucker as opposed to another is a strawman fallacy that distracts and distorts from the real argument.

And just because I despise George W. Bush doesn't mean I don't equally despise Saddam Hussein and every other crackpot third rate dictator out there (Kim Jong I'm looking right at you). But just because I rightfully hate a particular world leader doesn't mean its responsible for me to invade and depose him. If I had that mindset, I'd be clamoring to make Tehran a fuckin crater because of Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic remark last week.

[LordShaithis]

But look, we've reduced Iraqi heart attack deaths by 11% and infant deaths have decreased too! We're SAVIORS! Sarcasm, you swine!

[Chris OFarrell]

But look, we've reduced Iraqi heart attack deaths by 11% and infant deaths have decreased too! We're SAVIORS! Sarcasm, you swine!

Outstanding! Damn we've done such a good job here!

You know, I have to wonder what the histroy books will say about this in 100 years...

[KHL]

Ok I concede.

Iraq was better under Saddam.

Honestly man would it be that hard to do some research and back up your position? Get some information on Saddam's torture camps, his gassing of Kurds, the supression of rights of Shia, the swamp Arabs (yes Broomstick I heard of these through a documentary, they live on boats right?) and maybe some reconstruction efforts. But no, you quit. Maybe because your original opinion was based on nothing but Bush administration rhetoric, or maybe because you don't have the time or inclination to do some research, but from the way you're quitting it sure fucking looks like its the former and that you're a Republitard .

Actually, its the latter.

Besides, its hard enough to prove a point of view based on past events and I've been asked multiple times to prove future events so its really pointless.

Should my speculation prove to be correct down the road, maybe I'll revisit the debate as to whether Iraqis are better off pre/post Saddam's removal.

Fuck off dipshit, nobody said that the United States was "evil" or that democracy couldn't work in the Middle East. It's all about you trying to be a Bush apologist first by blaming Clinton then by spewing the same thing we hear on television about it being a "noble cause" without providing proof that Iraq is headed towards a better future. I don't know what's more vile, your identical position to Bush, or the fact that when pressed for evidence, you use dishonest debating tactics first by semantic whoring then "conceding" by sniping with a complex cause fallacy by associating "US is evil" with my and other people's argument when "US is evil" was totally unrelated to the argument.

Since you're quitting, thanks for the fun peabrain.

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush. As far as the U.S. being evil, or democracy not working in the middle east, thats exactly how I interpret many peoples comments here. Sorry if that upsets your delicate sensibilities jackass.

I fail to see how I can be using dishonest debate tactics by not debating...

I have given evidence for how things will be better, namely the resources of Iraq will be used to benefit Iraqis, and that Iraqis now have a bill of rights. Most respondents have then tried to point out that it mentions religion in the Iraqi constitution and ignore the protections that it provides.

[The Kernel]

Actually, its the latter.

Besides, its hard enough to prove a point of view based on past events and I've been asked multiple times to prove future events so its really pointless.

This is proof right here that you have an irrational mind. Don't you see that by drawing a definitive conclusion without any facts to back you up (and plenty of historical evidence against your fantasy) that you are drawing a conclusion based on what you want to happen rather than what is likely to happen?

Should my speculation prove to be correct down the road, maybe I'll revisit the debate as to whether Iraqis are better off pre/post Saddam's removal.

This is what you don't get, if you'd posted that you had a feeling that Iraq would get better and left it at that, no one would have bothered you. Sure, they might have politely pointed out that the facts didn't support your opinion, but that's it.

Intead, you decided to say that other people were flat out wrong ("brainwashed by Michael Moore" ) without any facts to support your position. Do you know what happens when someone tries to debate without any fact? They get flamed.

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush. As far as the U.S. being evil, or democracy not working in the middle east, thats exactly how I interpret many peoples comments here. Sorry if that upsets your delicate sensibilities jackass.

That's how you interpret many people's comments huh? Gee, no facts, no quotes, just your interpretation huh? And you think we're the ones Strawmanning your argument?

I fail to see how I can be using dishonest debate tactics by not debating...

You are using dishonest debate tactics by refusing to provide evidence for any of your assertions while simultaneously ignoring the evidence that others have presented.

I have given evidence for how things will be better, namely the resources of Iraq will be used to benefit Iraqis, and that Iraqis now have a bill of rights. Most respondents have then tried to point out that it mentions religion in the Iraqi constitution and ignore the protections that it provides.

A piece of paper isn't evidence shithead until it is supported by actions.

Let me give you an example, Congress passes many regulations related to environmental protection that are supposed to protect the environment. But since they have slashed the budget of the EPA so hard, the EPA is incapable of enforcing these laws. You see know how a piece of paper doesn't mean shit unless it is backed up? And until we see the population get behind it, it doesn't mean anything.

Or do you really think that Russia is a perfect example of Democracy because they have a Democratic Constitution?

[Edi]

Actually, its the latter.

Besides, its hard enough to prove a point of view based on past events and I've been asked multiple times to prove future events so its really pointless.

So, the little bitch doesn't bother to do even the most basic research into a subject he knows nothing about and gets pissy when people call him out on his bullshit. Gotcha. You made claims of fact, and you were asked to provide evidence, which you failed to do. And then you failed to concede the argument. And thus you are going to be flamed and insulted until you do.

Should my speculation prove to be correct down the road, maybe I'll revisit the debate as to whether Iraqis are better off pre/post Saddam's removal.

Can you backpedal any faster? First you were claiming your views as fact, now it's only speculation? And you still haven't made an honest concession. What a fucknugget you are.

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east.

Would you like some cheese with that whine? Discussing simply your goals and efforts for democracy in the ME is going to be a little fucking pointless without also discussing in detail the means being used to do it. And at that point it very much becomes about Bush, because he fucking chose an invasion based on lies as his primary means. And it backfired, just as all the opponents of the war said it would from the get-go.

Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush. As far as the U.S. being evil, or democracy not working in the middle east, thats exactly how I interpret many peoples comments here. Sorry if that upsets your delicate sensibilities jackass.

See above. It is about Bush because he caused the current fucked up situation, and your crying persecution because it's pointed out to you isn't going to work on anyone here. So fuck off and shove an electric cattleprod up your arse. Preferably sideways. Though how you'd fit it in with your head so deeply embedded there already, I sure as hell don't know...

I fail to see how I can be using dishonest debate tactics by not debating...

Like you're doing just now, not debating and not making any claims of persecution and repeatng your bullshit claims as fact while even simultaneously admitting you're just speculating? You can cut the passive-aggressive bullshit right now, it isn't going to amuse people very much. But if you do decide to keep on, I think I'll shortly have a lot of fun in the HoS making you look like the douchebag you are.

I have given evidence for how things will be better,

Where?

namely the resources of Iraq will be used to benefit Iraqis,

As of yet an unsubstantiated claim. The resources of Iraq have been blown to smithereens and are not being repaired. And anything that is, is either being blown up again by the insurgency in order to generate more resentment at the occupation, or being used to benefit the new powerbrokers and warlords.

and that Iraqis now have a bill of rights. Most respondents have then tried to point out that it mentions religion in the Iraqi constitution and ignore the protections that it provides.

That's your evidence? If you'd bothered to check your facts, moron, you'd have known that they already had a better bill of rights under Saddam, except that Saddam, being a dictator, chose to ignore it whenever he felt like it. The US could very well have kept the Saddam era Iraqi constitution which was far more liberal and secular than the new one. The only problem with going that route was that doing so would have exposed the bullfuckery the Bush administration used to sell the war in the first place as the mere smokescreen it was.

You really need to be titled...

Edi

[brianeyci]

HAHAHA, wow the retard decided to snipe again despite conceding.

Ok I concede.

Iraq was better under Saddam.

Honestly man would it be that hard to do some research and back up your position? Get some information on Saddam's torture camps, his gassing of Kurds, the supression of rights of Shia, the swamp Arabs (yes Broomstick I heard of these through a documentary, they live on boats right?) and maybe some reconstruction efforts. But no, you quit. Maybe because your original opinion was based on nothing but Bush administration rhetoric, or maybe because you don't have the time or inclination to do some research, but from the way you're quitting it sure fucking looks like its the former and that you're a Republitard .

Actually, its the latter.

HAHAHAHA what a goof, you think that vindicates you? If you're not willing to do research or don't have the time, you shouldn't have started a thread to debate in the first place. I fail how to see a little bit of reading would have been too onerous for a great intellect such as yourself.

Besides, its hard enough to prove a point of view based on past events and I've been asked multiple times to prove future events so its really pointless.

HAHAHAHA, you fucking fool, ever hear of something called the scientific method and scientific models which give predictions? The fundamental difference between the creatonist definition of scientific theory and real scientific theory is that the real deal can predict new phenomenon! You jackass, nobody was asking you to prove all possibilities, just one possibility that was better under the Americans than Saddam! Hahahahaha .

Should my speculation prove to be correct down the road, maybe I'll revisit the debate as to whether Iraqis are better off pre/post Saddam's removal.

In other words you have nothing, so you go for what's possible rather than what's plausible. Ever heard of Occam's Razor and the concept of parsimony? It's possible I'm watching what you're doing right now and you can't detect me because I have sophisticated equipment, but that's not plausible and you'd be a moron to believe that, just like you're a moron to believe other possibilities rather than plausibilities.

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush. As far as the U.S. being evil, or democracy not working in the middle east, thats exactly how I interpret many peoples comments here. Sorry if that upsets your delicate sensibilities jackass.

Hahahaha you reject, you mention that the current US Foreign Policy was leftover from Clinton, and you think I'm making it about Bush? You made it about Bush by saying it was about Clinton you weedhead, or don't you remember that?

I fail to see how I can be using dishonest debate tactics by not debating...

Maybe by sniping at the end with the "holier than thou" attitude rather than just conceding normally you idiot, and not giving evidence when asked for your theory that Iraq will get "better".

I have given evidence for how things will be better, namely the resources of Iraq will be used to benefit Iraqis, and that Iraqis now have a bill of rights. Most respondents have then tried to point out that it mentions religion in the Iraqi constitution and ignore the protections that it provides.

Eat shit dickface, the only reason why I counter gave my counter rebuttal in the form of criticizing the constitution was because that was the only information you have to support your theory! If your "theory" consists of just the constitution and Bush administration rhetoric, it's fucking weak. Sure there's a constitution, and compared with the last one it may or may not be better, now show how that constitution will affect the daily lives of ordinary Iraqis, particularly the Shia majority. I can bring up the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which member countries like Syria are supposed to aspire to, but guess what, Syria is a gross violator of human rights! Guarantees are good in principle but if not practised is terrible, and if people selectively snip parts of the constitution out like the "no law contradicting Islam" and ignore others, the result is justification by the highest document of the land of even further repression! That is the question you failed to answer even with a token gesture, if there was any practical indication of the so-called better life.

Hahahaha what a cumstain, I wish Republitards/Bush Apologists/Bush Zombies showed up more often here so I could bash them, but sadly you are a shadow of what I expected. Too bad Bush wasn't as lame as you in forging his argument for war.



Brian

[brianeyci]

Hahahaha, I realized that this is Order 66's thread, so started a thread should be started a post in my first counter point, but the point is the same anyway. I apologize to Order 66 for starting this shitstorm, but the Bush apologism couldn't go unchallenged.

Hahahahaha what a riot, I never knew that Bushbies (Bush Zombies) were so fun to play with . Worse than a Bush apologist, because a Bush apologist or Republitard at least tries to defend his arguments, a Bushbie doesn't even go beyond the propaganda campaign of the Bush's rhetoric hahaha.

Brian

[KHL]

Hahahaha, I realized that this is Order 66's thread, so started a thread should be started a post in my first counter point, but the point is the same anyway. I apologize to Order 66 for starting this shitstorm, but the Bush apologism couldn't go unchallenged.

Hahahahaha what a riot, I never knew that Bushbies (Bush Zombies) were so fun to play with . Worse than a Bush apologist, because a Bush apologist or Republitard at least tries to defend his arguments, a Bushbie doesn't even go beyond the propaganda campaign of the Bush's rhetoric hahaha.

Brian

You are a fucking tard.

You sure have a hard on for Bush. That is the only explanation for your blatant obsession for Bush constantly injecting him into a post that has very little to do with Bush whatsoever. This post had absolutely nothing to do with Bush and had everything to do with the creation of Democracy in Iraq.

It had nothing to do with the reason for invading Iraq.

It had nothing to do with Bush as a person.

All that matters at this point is the establishment of a democratic state and it really doesn't matter who the president is. Fact is, this will outlive Bush.

As an aside,

I've always wondered why people feel that they can type things in a post that, if said to someone in a conversation in real life would cause their teeth to be knocked out.

Did you/do you get made fun of alot in School Brian? Does it make you feel like a big man to come here and run your mouth?

I'd be glad to debate you and ONLY you. Start a thread bucko and state your case regarding the creation of a democracy in Iraq.

Points off though if you mention Bush in any capacity other than as a historical footnote.

[The Kernel]

I've always wondered why people feel that they can type things in a post that, if said to someone in a conversation in real life would cause their teeth to be knocked out.

Did you/do you get made fun of alot in School Brian? Does it make you feel like a big man to come here and run your mouth?

You are new here so I'll tell you how this works. He doesn't have to be nice to you, nor does anyone else on the board. We use profanity, insults, and evidence around here, so get used to it.

I'd be glad to debate you and ONLY you. Start a thread bucko and state your case regarding the creation of a democracy in Iraq.

Points off though if you mention Bush in any capacity other than as a historical footnote.

You obviously don't understand so let me make it clear: You do not make the rules here. Tha means that you don't decide what constitutes a debate, nor do you have the right to ignore rebuttals a continue to harp on about shit that was debunked pages ago.

[KHL]

I've always wondered why people feel that they can type things in a post that, if said to someone in a conversation in real life would cause their teeth to be knocked out.

Did you/do you get made fun of alot in School Brian? Does it make you feel like a big man to come here and run your mouth?

You are new here so I'll tell you how this works. He doesn't have to be nice to you, nor does anyone else on the board. We use profanity, insults, and evidence around here, so get used to it.

I was simply posing a question I wasn't asking anyone to be nice to me. I think it would be an interesting psycological study to look at how some of these web board big shots are in real life. Perhaps it has become the culture of this board for many here to launch into insults before giving the other side a chance to state their case.

I'd be glad to debate you and ONLY you. Start a thread bucko and state your case regarding the creation of a democracy in Iraq.

Points off though if you mention Bush in any capacity other than as a historical footnote.

You obviously don't understand so let me make it clear: You do not make the rules here. Tha means that you don't decide what constitutes a debate, nor do you have the right to ignore rebuttals a continue to harp on about shit that was debunked pages ago.

Who the fuck is trying to make rules? I'm simply challenging Brian here to a debate 1 on 1. Every post I make in this thread is attacked by 5 individuals before I'm able to make a case. Debating under these conditions is not possible for me because I don't have the time to read nor answer each and every one of them. However I can certainly handle a single person in an open debate. If Brian isn't up to the challenge, maybe someone else will step in for him. I really don't care.

[Nephtys]

KHL, reading back... wow.

You're right. It's not about Bush. It's about your inability to rationally percieve facts. You instead, buy into pre-made propaganda. How can you tell if something is propaganda? If it's slanted for the sole purpose of making you sympathetic to the producer.

Yes. Listening to press releases and speaches is propaganda. No information of value can come from such. Yes, Michael Moore films propaganda. Blah blah blah. Try reading alternate sources, or backing up your claims.

Finally. The issue is not Bush. It's the administration, which... GOLLY GEE, look whose' the head of it. The reason we even have a president is accountability. If he cannot be held accountable for the government's actions, then the entire point of our government is nullified.

[Surlethe]

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush.

Either provide evidence, from the PR campaign prior to the war, the primary reason for the war was establishing democracy in the middle east, or concede defeat. You are making baseless assertions. Furthermore, provide evidence Bush neither championed nor made a case for war in Iraq, in order to demonstrate the war in Iraq does not involve Bush -- oh wait; you can't do that, because the war in Iraq has BUSH written all fucking over it.

[KHL]

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush.

Either provide evidence, from the PR campaign prior to the war, the primary reason for the war was establishing democracy in the middle east, or concede defeat. You are making baseless assertions. Furthermore, provide evidence Bush neither championed nor made a case for war in Iraq, in order to demonstrate the war in Iraq does not involve Bush -- oh wait; you can't do that, because the war in Iraq has BUSH written all fucking over it.

You see?

Now people have spun this out to portray me as debating the original reasons for the Iraq War. I'm fucking sick of people trying to strawman my case into an unwinnable situation.

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The original reasons for invasion are irrelevent to my point. The fact is we are there now and we shouldn't pull out at this point simply because the original reasons for the war weren't what they were stated to be.

The foundations for my case are thus:

The removal of Saddam was official U.S. policy since the Clinton administration. We've known about his evil deeds for some time now. It doesn't matter if we "put him there" or "supported him in the past". Those were mistakes. It doesn't matter if Clinton advocated the use of force by the U.S. or not. Military aide was proscribed in the Iraqi Freedom Act, so even if Clinton wasn't for direct U.S military intervention, he certainly wasn't against the removal of Saddam by somebody via force.

Yes Bush "lied" or "was wrong" about WMDs which were the given reason for debating Iraq. It doesn't matter if we were "justified" in the invasion. Our forces aren't over there currently for WMDs and had their been WMDs in the first place, they still wouldn't be over there currently for WMDs. Our forces are acting in a peackeeping role as they have done numerous times throughout history, for far less noble reasons than this.

It is my stated position that Iraqis will be better off in the long run under a democractic government such as the one being established now, then they were/would have been under Saddam. I'll be glad to go into detail for my reasons why in a later post.

[brianeyci]

You are a fucking tard.

Hahahaha, and you're a raving loon, you should quit while you're ahead and concede, there's no shame it it newbie, I've lost debates before and I never sniped like you did with a snide remark rather than a real concession.

You sure have a hard on for Bush. That is the only explanation for your blatant obsession for Bush constantly injecting him into a post that has very little to do with Bush whatsoever. This post had absolutely nothing to do with Bush and had everything to do with the creation of Democracy in Iraq.

When you mention US Foreign Policy, the buck stops at the top pal.

It had nothing to do with the reason for invading Iraq.

Sure it does. People have mentioned that the deaths of 2000 people for a lie is a tragedy. You go on with your democracy in Iraq turdpile, so you need to show how the so-called democracy in Iraq will outweigh the cost of 2000 lives for your "noble cause" bullshit to be taken seriously.

It had nothing to do with Bush as a person.

No, it didn't, but that doesn't mean you're not a Bush Zombie for believing his democracy in Iraq spin without looking into it yourself.

All that matters at this point is the establishment of a democratic state and it really doesn't matter who the president is. Fact is, this will outlive Bush.

It will outlive Bush, Bush Zombie, but that doesn't change the fact that when pressed for evidence, you quit with a snide snipe rather than a real concession, and it looks like your opinion has been all along based on Bush's democracy in Iraq rant rather than an objective look at the situation.

As an aside,

I've always wondered why people feel that they can type things in a post that, if said to someone in a conversation in real life would cause their teeth to be knocked out.

Hahahaha dickhead, did you just threaten me with physical violence? Or is that a genuine question? I'm only currently active in this forum, so I follow the traditions and good humor of this forum, including flaming. And you deserved to be flamed for your cowardly snide weeny snipe "concession" from the dark, thinking you could get away with it without anybody noticing. The coward who "concedes" with a holier than thou attitude calls me a coward for calling him out hahahaha.

No, in a formal setting I wouldn't act like that, but this isn't a formal setting, and I'm not friends with you, and from your irrationality and WOI doesn't sound like I would like you. Grow a brain.

Did you/do you get made fun of alot in School Brian? Does it make you feel like a big man to come here and run your mouth?

Do you wake up hurting when you try to think pissbreath? I bet it's really hard to do a little bit of reading, to back up your opinion. Or, to concede honestly without a snobbish comment.

I'd be glad to debate you and ONLY you. Start a thread bucko and state your case regarding the creation of a democracy in Iraq.

Hahahaha, don't worry asshole. You can use this thread, start with my last post, try and counter my points (last one before the one with Order 66 in it). If you think you're outnumbered, just answer my posts. My points are much the same that others have brought up anyway. I hardly have the strongest argument here, but you seem to pick me off as having a weak argument because I started flaming you when you acted holier than thou? Hahahaha, give me your best shot moron. Hahahaha usually one picks the strongest argument to demolish, maybe you think I have the strongest argument, but I suspect I hit a nerve with my flaming.

Points off though if you mention Bush in any capacity other than as a historical footnote.

Hahahahaha Bush Zombie I'll mention Bush as much as I fucking please, at least until you provide evidence for your opinion other than a blind appeal to the virtues of democracy which come from the mouth of Bush himself.

BushbushbushbushbushbushbushbushbushbushbushBUSHBUSH

And for fun I'll throw in a famous picture of Bush (no not the kind of bush you're thinking of)



CNN.com
Brian

[Plekhanov]

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush.

Either provide evidence, from the PR campaign prior to the war, the primary reason for the war was establishing democracy in the middle east, or concede defeat. You are making baseless assertions. Furthermore, provide evidence Bush neither championed nor made a case for war in Iraq, in order to demonstrate the war in Iraq does not involve Bush -- oh wait; you can't do that, because the war in Iraq has BUSH written all fucking over it.

You see?

Now people have spun this out to portray me as debating the original reasons for the Iraq War. I'm fucking sick of people trying to strawman my case into an unwinnable situation.

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The original reasons for invasion are irrelevent to my point.

If this is the case then why is Clinton’s alleged support for removing Saddam by force (a point incidentally that has been comprehensively trashed in this thread sadly your wall of ignorance wasn’t penetrated though) one of the “foundations for your case”? “The original reasons for invasion are irrelevent to” your point then what relevance is Clinton’s policy to anything?

<snip yet more unsubstantiated, illogical rhetoric>.

Once more you post empty rhetoric which isn’t even rational never mind backed up by EVIDENCE, until you stop doing that you’ll continue to have a hard time here.

[brianeyci]

However I can certainly handle a single person in an open debate. If Brian isn't up to the challenge, maybe someone else will step in for him. I really don't care.

Draw thy sword and steel thyself! . I don't see why you're worried about a dogpile, you can silence three or four people with a single post since everybody's asking the same thing, for evidence for your claim that Iraq will be better later.

In good spirit, here's a chance to redeem yourself. What evidence is there the future Iraq will be have more democratic freedoms than the past Iraq? No more weaseling out of it with a "infinite possibilities", just straight out what is your opinion based on? Just the constitution?

Brian

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yes Bush "lied" or "was wrong" about WMDs which were the given reason for debating Iraq. It doesn't matter if we were "justified" in the invasion.

Garbage. If we were not justified, then the invasion is nothing more than a gigantic mass murder.

Our forces aren't over there currently for WMDs and had their been WMDs in the first place, they still wouldn't be over there currently for WMDs. Our forces are acting in a peackeeping role as they have done numerous times throughout history, for far less noble reasons than this.

So we wreck their country, we keep what's left from quite collapsing into total chaos and civil war ( for our benefit ), and that makes us "noble".

It is my stated position that Iraqis will be better off in the long run under a democractic government such as the one being established now, then they were/would have been under Saddam. I'll be glad to go into detail for my reasons why in a later post.

A Sharia government and/or a multisided civil war are unlikely to be an improvment over Saddam. I seriously doubt that a "democracy" imposed at gunpoint like this will last.

And no, Germany and Japan are not good counterexamples; in both cases their previous systems failed horribly and started wars that they lost. In this case, a big bully came along and beat them up without justification. We don't have the moral authority we had in Germany and Japan.

Sure it does. People have mentioned that the deaths of 2000 people for a lie is a tragedy. You go on with your democracy in Iraq turdpile, so you need to show how the so-called democracy in Iraq will outweigh the cost of 2000 lives for your "noble cause" bullshit to be taken seriously.

Don't forget tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, plus lots of property damage. If we're going to claim the invasion helped the Iraqis, those little details count.

[Plekhanov]

However I can certainly handle a single person in an open debate. If Brian isn't up to the challenge, maybe someone else will step in for him. I really don't care.

Draw thy sword and steel thyself! . I don't see why you're worried about a dogpile, you can silence three or four people with a single post since everybody's asking the same thing, for evidence for your claim that Iraq will be better later.

In good spirit, here's a chance to redeem yourself. What evidence is there the future Iraq will be have more democratic freedoms than the past Iraq? No more weaseling out of it with a "infinite possibilities", just straight out what is your opinion based on? Just the constitution?

Brian

Don't you get it though Brian a constitution is all you need, look at Weimar Germany for example they had a lovely democratic constitution which as we all know guaranteed that Germany put it's authoritarian ways behind it and became a beacon of peace and prosperity admired the world over.

[The Kernel]

The removal of Saddam was official U.S. policy since the Clinton administration. We've known about his evil deeds for some time now. It doesn't matter if we "put him there" or "supported him in the past". Those were mistakes. It doesn't matter if Clinton advocated the use of force by the U.S. or not. Military aide was proscribed in the Iraqi Freedom Act, so even if Clinton wasn't for direct U.S military intervention, he certainly wasn't against the removal of Saddam by somebody via force.

Idiot, we've explained to you a million times that there is a difference between the Iraqis rising up and replacing Saddam and the US doing it directly. Bush Sr. wanted the Kurds to supplant Saddam and encouraged them to do so, yet he never sent troops into Baghdad.

Yes Bush "lied" or "was wrong" about WMDs which were the given reason for debating Iraq. It doesn't matter if we were "justified" in the invasion.

Yes it does. If Bush wanted the invasion to push an agenda that is not conductive to a healthy Iraq (draining oil profits, using US taxpayer money for no-bid recontruction contracts, etc) then it is directly relevent to any kind of future Iraq.

Our forces aren't over there currently for WMDs and had their been WMDs in the first place, they still wouldn't be over there currently for WMDs. Our forces are acting in a peackeeping role as they have done numerous times throughout history, for far less noble reasons than this.

This isn't about some short-term peacekeeping mission like in Somalia, this is Colonialism.

It is my stated position that Iraqis will be better off in the long run under a democractic government such as the one being established now, then they were/would have been under Saddam. I'll be glad to go into detail for my reasons why in a later post.

You have already tried to argue this but you have provide ZERO PROOF for this assertion.

[Surlethe]

God damn are you ever thick headed. This was never about Bush. It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush.

Either provide evidence, from the PR campaign prior to the war, the primary reason for the war was establishing democracy in the middle east, or concede defeat. You are making baseless assertions. Furthermore, provide evidence Bush neither championed nor made a case for war in Iraq, in order to demonstrate the war in Iraq does not involve Bush -- oh wait; you can't do that, because the war in Iraq has BUSH written all fucking over it.

You see?

Now people have spun this out to portray me as debating the original reasons for the Iraq War. I'm fucking sick of people trying to strawman my case into an unwinnable situation.

Have you considered maybe it's not a strawman?

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The original reasons for invasion are irrelevent to my point. The fact is we are there now and we shouldn't pull out at this point simply because the original reasons for the war weren't what they were stated to be.

You've never heard of "sunk costs", have you?

The foundations for my case are thus:

The removal of Saddam was official U.S. policy since the Clinton administration. We've known about his evil deeds for some time now. It doesn't matter if we "put him there" or "supported him in the past". Those were mistakes. It doesn't matter if Clinton advocated the use of force by the U.S. or not. Military aide was proscribed in the Iraqi Freedom Act, so even if Clinton wasn't for direct U.S military intervention, he certainly wasn't against the removal of Saddam by somebody via force.

How do you think you can use the official US policy during the Clinton era as justification for continuing direct US military intervention as evidence when you explicitly admit Clinton opposed direct US military intervention?

Yes Bush "lied" or "was wrong" about WMDs which were the given reason for debating Iraq. It doesn't matter if we were "justified" in the invasion. Our forces aren't over there currently for WMDs and had their been WMDs in the first place, they still wouldn't be over there currently for WMDs. Our forces are acting in a peackeeping role as they have done numerous times throughout history, for far less noble reasons than this.

I used to think as you do now; however, what you fail to realize is if we are not justified by WMD, then we invaded for no reason. This "noble cause" is merely an ad hoc post facto rationalization, which will keep US troops in harm's way dying for the indefinite future. The insurgency has shown no signs of flagging: this isn't peacekeeping; this is guerrilla warfare.

It is my stated position that Iraqis will be better off in the long run under a democractic government such as the one being established now, then they were/would have been under Saddam. I'll be glad to go into detail for my reasons why in a later post.

Let's see evidence for this assertion, then: demonstrate the insurgency is abating; demonstrate the new Iraqi constitution will be democratic and not Sharia; demonstrate why chaos and possible civil war once the United Staes leaves is better than before under Saddam.

[Darth Wong]

There's no point even bothering to argue with this idiot; you can show him 20 times how a particular claim is wrong (such as his "regime change has been US policy since Clinton" claim, which is based on a deliberate fudging between "gee, it would be great if Saddam were gone" and "let's invade right now to remove him"), but he'll ignore you and keep repeating the claim as if no one ever dealt with it.

Pure broken-record behaviour (which is actually against the rules, so we'll have to see whether he smartens up before something happens).

[Broomstick]

It was about our efforts and the goal of establishing democracy in the middle east. Ofcourse everyone wants to make it about Bush.

Bush is the Cheif Executive Officer of the United States. He supposed to be responsible for the actions of the government, including the military. How can Bush not be involved in this?

I'm fucking sick of people trying to strawman my case into an unwinnable situation.

Next next, don't self impose a Kobiyashi Maru test on yourself.

(Did I spell that correctly?)

The original reasons for invasion are irrelevent to my point.

The original reasons for invasion are extremely relevant to the situation over there - what point, exactly, are YOU attempting to make that doesn't connect with invading a country that was no direct threat to us on false pretenses?

Do you think you can build an honest and just government on a foundation of lies while holding a country at gunpoint? If so, why?

The fact is we are there now and we shouldn't pull out at this point simply because the original reasons for the war weren't what they were stated to be.

On the other hand, if we can't win and we can't fix the current problems... maybe withdrawal would be the lesser of two evils. There is precedent, after all, but maybe you're too young to have heard of "Viet Nam".

If this is a quagmire I'd rather pull at a death toll of 2,000 than a death toll of 50,000

Yes Bush "lied" or "was wrong" about WMDs which were the given reason for debating Iraq. It doesn't matter if we were "justified" in the invasion.

Yes, those reasons do matter - particularly in a region like the Middle East where memories are long and grudges last centuries. Not everyone has the short attention span and memory of the average American such as yourself.

Our forces are acting in a peackeeping role as they have done numerous times throughout history, for far less noble reasons than this.

Our "peacekeeper" track record is abysmal.

It is my stated position that Iraqis will be better off in the long run under a democractic government such as the one being established now

Maybe I'm just not convinced "democracy" is what's being established over there at present.

[Broomstick]

I've always wondered why people feel that they can type things in a post that, if said to someone in a conversation in real life would cause their teeth to be knocked out.

Um... because you can't punch someone over a modem?

From what's been posted in the past some of the guys here are pretty damn big in real life - maybe out in the real world folks don't want to risk taking them on.

Naw... can't be - I'm short, myself, and I'll still get in your face.

I was simply posing a question I wasn't asking anyone to be nice to me.

Not directly, no, but you are asking them to pull their verbal punches.

I think it would be an interesting psycological study to look at how some of these web board big shots are in real life.

Well, I'm arrogant as all hell and a know-it-all... the difference between you and me is that I actually do know what the hell I'm talking about or else have the wit to keep my mouth shut.

Perhaps it has become the culture of this board for many here to launch into insults before giving the other side a chance to state their case.

Nope.

My first series of posts here I came out swinging against a long-term board member. Instead of whining "you're being mean to me" I stood my ground and backed up my position.

Get a grip, KHL, and consider the possibility that you might not win this debate - be an adult about it, at the very least. The guys here have a a hell of a lot more respect for someone who says "Alright, I can't back up my position" or "I fucked up" or whatever horrible phrase of concession is appropriate than someone who keeps fucking whining about how MEAN they are. We've all been wrong about something before, get over it.

[KHL]

There's no point even bothering to argue with this idiot; you can show him 20 times how a particular claim is wrong (such as his "regime change has been US policy since Clinton" claim, which is based on a deliberate fudging between "gee, it would be great if Saddam were gone" and "let's invade right now to remove him"), but he'll ignore you and keep repeating the claim as if no one ever dealt with it.

Pure broken-record behaviour (which is actually against the rules, so we'll have to see whether he smartens up before something happens).

I've never disputed that Bush took the regime change policy to the next level. The point I was trying to establish was that we wanted Saddam out of power. As time went on, the chances of that actually happening by means other than direct intervention became less likely. I have explained this before but given the veritable swarm of posts I can understand why it may have been over looked.

Again, this was more or less background information. The issue I want to debate and have been trying to debate is that Iraqis will be better off long term under this new government then they were/would have been under the old.