[NeoCon Newbie]

Saddam kills over a million of his people but Liberals don't care they dont want to help the people of Iraq Liberals are selfish bastards. If we wouldn't of gone to war what would we do stop saddam he isnt going to just step down if it wasnt for this war Saddam could of wiped out Israel and killed 16 milllion people not to mention millions more of his own people. So before yoy start crtizing this war remeber what we have done Liberated the people of Iraq from Saddam.

[cat's meow]

So that was the war on terror? I am confused again.

...so not having a government that works, having a mass exodus from the country, civil war, and numerous other problems that will not bring a democracy justifies 'freeing the Iraqi people'?

Quit mixing the Rye and the Vodka, water it down with some ice next time around :rolleyes: .

[FDRfollower]

You don't even care about learning to write correctly or even use proper grammar. :rolleyes:

[NeoCon Newbie]

So Cats meow Fdr you guys are against all kinds of war no matter what the situation is?

[Jane of Arc]

Once again Newbie, if you find such virtue in war ... why the hell haven't you enlisted? What's your reason? I'd really like to know.

[FDRfollower]

Saddam kills over a million of his people but Liberals don't care they dont want to help the people of Iraq Liberals are selfish bastards. If we wouldn't of gone to war what would we do stop saddam he isnt going to just step down if it wasnt for this war Saddam could of wiped out Israel and killed 16 milllion people not to mention millions more of his own people. So before yoy start crtizing this war remeber what we have done Liberated the people of Iraq from Saddam.


Hmmm. I just read an old 2004 issue of National Geographic which has an article about the Shiites of Iraq.

It makes the point, that the murdering of them by Saddam was done because the US encouraged them to revolt, but didn't back them up in any way, leaving them to be slaughtered by the Republican Guard. (pun intended)

[cat's meow]

So Cats meow Fdr you guys are against all kinds of war no matter what the situation is?
Honestly, what kind of dumbass question is this?

[Wafflepudding]

Not too much of a dumbass question considering we have extreme pacifists (sounds like an oxymoron) like Jennifer here.

But enough of playing devil's advocate.

NeoconNewbie: I do not consider myself a liberal, if anything I have a mix of liberal and conservative views, but let me just say outright, "liberals don't care" is pretty ludicrous. If anything I consider you guys care too much, like the depleted uranium business, or trying to rehabilitate everyone in jail, etc. etc. Maybe you should spend some time with Jack Thompson, I'm pretty sure he could teach you what NOT to do when you're trying to convey a message, by dumbass example.

The accusation is made all the more ludicrous because it comes from a republican, a member of the "screw-public-healthcare-I'm-saving-my-tax-money" party. Where's republican compassion for the families that have to stop working to qualify for health care assistance? where's that "care"?

Who in the GOP "cares" about the abuses commited by our troops in Iraq? where are the voices inside the party demanding with righteous anger that the people that defend our constitution abide by it as well? that we show that we are better than the enemy we're trying to defeat? that we will not indiscriminately attack targets regardless of how it might affect non-combatants?

When did Bush show that he cared about the victims of Katrina?

How much did conservatives "care" about the erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments under the PATRIOT act? are they any less critical than the 2nd?

How much do you care that you (and I) are going to be paying for this war until we're retired? and "patriotic" corporate America is getting tax breaks that should be going to the American public?

I'm not liberal, but I do know what I care about, and I know some people here that identify themselves as liberal share my concerns. When I say "we", I'm talking about these persons, regardless of how we might disagree in other issues (and we frequently do).

We care that we're acting against everything we're supposed to represent. Instead of freedom, most people associate our military forces and our flag with oppresion. I care that this administration has marred democracy, and made FUBAR after FUBAR in the name of our safety.

We care about congruency. Despite Bush's declaration to fight Islamic extremism, genocide and civil wars are raging across Africa and the Balkans while our troops fight in Iraq because of Al-Qaeda links and WMDs that were not there. How about preventing all those kids (the ones that won't be executed anyways) from growing up indoctrinated and becoming the terrorists of tomorrow?

We care about our constitution. All amendments are precious to our freedom.

We care about freedom of speech. I personally care enough, that I'd rather have to deal with ethnic slurs (and I do get them ocassionally) than support knee-jerk hate speech legislation.

And we all care so much for differing opinions, that no one has banned you or suggested banning you (as far as I know), and the only reason you have negative karma is because you often make things personal.

[cat's meow]

Not too much of a dumbass question considering we have extreme pacifists (sounds like an oxymoron) like Jennifer here.

But enough of playing devil's advocate.

NeoconNewbie: I do not consider myself a liberal, if anything I have a mix of liberal and conservative views, but let me just say outright, "liberals don't care" is pretty ludicrous. If anything I consider you guys care too much, like the depleted uranium business, or trying to rehabilitate everyone in jail, etc. etc. Maybe you should spend some time with Jack Thompson, I'm pretty sure he could teach you what NOT to do when you're trying to convey a message, by dumbass example.

The accusation is made all the more ludicrous because it comes from a republican, a member of the "screw-public-healthcare-I'm-saving-my-tax-money" party. Where's republican compassion for the families that have to stop working to qualify for health care assistance? where's that "care"?

Who in the GOP "cares" about the abuses commited by our troops in Iraq? where are the voices inside the party demanding with righteous anger that the people that defend our constitution abide by it as well? that we show that we are better than the enemy we're trying to defeat? that we will not indiscriminately attack targets regardless of how it might affect non-combatants?

When did Bush show that he cared about the victims of Katrina?

How much did conservatives "care" about the erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments under the PATRIOT act? are they any less critical than the 2nd?

How much do you care that you (and I) are going to be paying for this war until we're retired? and "patriotic" corporate America is getting tax breaks that should be going to the American public?

I'm not liberal, but I do know what I care about, and I know some people here that identify themselves as liberal share my concerns. When I say "we", I'm talking about these persons, regardless of how we might disagree in other issues (and we frequently do).

We care that we're acting against everything we're supposed to represent. Instead of freedom, most people associate our military forces and our flag with oppresion. I care that this administration has marred democracy, and made FUBAR after FUBAR in the name of our safety.

We care about congruency. Despite Bush's declaration to fight Islamic extremism, genocide and civil wars are raging across Africa and the Balkans while our troops fight in Iraq because of Al-Qaeda links and WMDs that were not there. How about preventing all those kids (the ones that won't be executed anyways) from growing up indoctrinated and becoming the terrorists of tomorrow?

We care about our constitution. All amendments are precious to our freedom.

We care about freedom of speech. I personally care enough, that I'd rather have to deal with ethnic slurs (and I do get them ocassionally) than support knee-jerk hate speech legislation.

And we all care so much for differing opinions, that no one has banned you or suggested banning you (as far as I know), and the only reason you have negative karma is because you often make things personal.
My dealing with the question is this:

For the first time in American military history this is the first unprovoked, pre-emptive take over of a sovereign country...ever! This is the problem, and there is a laundry list of problems being perpetuated by this war. I really don't care about talking in reference to other military action; it is completely superfluous when talking about this one. If one cannot be able to distinguish this Iraq War from other military action the U.S. has taken then God save you...you really do have problems. And, especially with the fact Bin Laden has never been taken down (Clinton found, tried, and convicted the 1st WTC bombers in 6 months and did not invade a country to do it…put that in you pipe and smoke it folks).

Hence, it is a very dumb question to ask me in the first place...it really does show a great amount of stupidity and callousness to the situation. WP...I do not hammer on you about this, your expanation is thoughtful (thanks) but this IS A DUMB F*CKING QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE! This guy is an idiot and I cannot put it any other way, sorry.

[Wafflepudding]

Actually, it isn't the first time something like this happens. Read up on your Cuban history, that's how Cuba started. We went in, guns blazing, and pretty much controlled the island (along with the maffia) until Castro sprung up. Rather ironic isn't it? our own puppet state would become one of the greatest thorns on our side during the cold war, and precipitated the missile crisis that almost ended in a complete nuclear exchange.

It's just that usually instead of outright taking over with the army, we funded brutal, anticommunist dictators to protect our interests and win the cold war. It doesn't make much of a difference to me at least, whether we do the job ourselves (as in Iraq) or outsource it to lesser thugs (South Vietnam, Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, etc.)

I'd like to be as shocked and indignant as you but unfortunately this isn't without precedent. "Yankee go home" has been the rallying cry of the third world for quite some time now, and not without reason. And as much as Bush has worsened the situation, I think it's rather naive to blame solely him.

[cat's meow]

Actually, it isn't the first time something like this happens. Read up on your Cuban history, that's how Cuba started. We went in, guns blazing, and pretty much controlled the island (along with the maffia) until Castro sprung up. Rather ironic isn't it? our own puppet state would become one of the greatest thorns on our side during the cold war, and precipitated the missile crisis that almost ended in a complete nuclear exchange.

It's just that usually instead of outright taking over with the army, we funded brutal, anticommunist dictators to protect our interests and win the cold war. It doesn't make much of a difference to me at least, whether we do the job ourselves (as in Iraq) or outsource it to lesser thugs (South Vietnam, Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, etc.)

I'd like to be as shocked and indignant as you but unfortunately this isn't without precedent. "Yankee go home" has been the rallying cry of the third world for quite some time now, and not without reason. And as much as Bush has worsened the situation, I think it's rather naive to blame solely him.
Uh...nope, WE did not do anything in Cuba except fund it (we have funded things like this…sure). This was under the wire, and the CIA dealt with this operation. It was not a 'declared' action taken to violate the sovereignty of another country by U.S. Armed Forces. Neither is necessarily right but there is a big difference, we did not use OUR conventional military force and this was made to look like Cubans were taking back their country. The invasion of Iraq is in no way the same thing.

The 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion (also known in Cuba as the Playa Girón after the beach in the Bay of Pigs where the landing took place) was an unsuccessful attempted invasion by armed Cuban exiles in southwest Cuba, planned and funded by the United States.

[Wafflepudding]

Who said I was talking about the bay of pigs?

I'm talking about the Spanish American war of 1898, which ended with the creation of Cuba as an "independant" (but occupied by American troops and ruled for the next 5 decades by pro-American governments) nation, and the de facto annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the rest of the Spanish overseas posessions. We didn't "fund" it, we sent the navy and the army and beat the Spanish.

Then there was the subsequent Philippine-American war, where the army and navy crushed the early Phillipine independence movement (Since we had just "bought" it from Spain for a pittance in the aftermath of the past war).

And before all that, the Mexican-American war, and the Texas annexation (American colonists declared independance from Mexico, to join the union the same year. Funny huh?)

And these are all "wars", not even counting how many times our forces were deployed in support of friendly (to Washington that is) regimes.

By the way, I fail to see your big difference. In one case we admit what we're trying to do and in the other we fund and wage a dirty war by proxy? Hell the latter is worse because at least, we're not screwing around pretending we got nothing to do with the carnage. I can at least assure you that to the people in those countries, there isn't a difference.

[cat's meow]

Nope again, the attack on the U.S.S. Maine was the flashpoint there.

In January 1898, the USS Maine was sent to Havana, Cuba, to protect U.S. interests during a time of local insurrection and civil disturbances. The mysterious sinking of the battleship USS Maine on February 15, 1898, at 9:30 p.m. in Havana Harbor was attributed, by Spanish scientists, to an internal and accidental explosion; but in 1898 a Naval inquiry reported that it was caused by submarine mine and one month later the war was declared.

[Wafflepudding]

You could argue that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the flashpoint for the current wars as well, that's how it's going to go down in history.

When has there not been a flashpoint? When has there not been WMDs, or a gulf of Tonkin, or some crap like that? the flashpoints are irrelevant, there's always a flashpoint, or an excuse, or a rationale.

A "flashpoint" is only good for igniting powderkegs already sitting and waiting to blow. In the case of the Spanish American war, there was a media campaign (sucessful at that) to inflame the public with stories about Spanish atrocities (which didn't happen).

Hell, even better, what makes you think the navy didn't just provide what was needed? we're talking pre-forensics, and back then they could pretty much lie their asses off to justify whatever measures they wanted to take (and they did, look at the WW1 era antisedition laws).

Considering you pulled that word for word from Wikipedia, let me remind you that right after what you pasted came this paragraph:

"(A total of four investigations looked into the causes of the explosion with the investigators coming to different conclusions. An investigation conducted in 1976 by scientists concluded that the explosion was most likely the result of an internal combustion in a coal bunker that was situated next to a powder magazine; a 1999 investigation commissioned by National Geographic Magazine and carried out by Advanced Marine Enterprises disagreed, concluding that “it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and the detonation of the magazines.”)"

The outrage which is "unprecedented" here, as I see it, is the violation of sovereignty, and if you're saying the Platt amendment and the leeway it provided for ocupation and control wasn't a blatant violation of sovereignty for the nascent Cuba, nothing is.