Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong -- You're Evil
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031101439.html

"People" are idiots.
If you choose not to reason, you are an animal.

Exactly what happens when extremists create so much animosity that it becomes difficult for the intelligent people to remain as moderates. That is what has happened in Israel to destroy the Oslo Accords. That is what happened when American extremists germander election districts so that only extremists can get elected. That is what happened when Hitler disparaged the bourgeois and intelligencia to obtain power. That is what Karl Rove has been so good at to make the lesser intelligent Americans even promote lies characterized by phrases such as "Freedom Fries".

Those with intelligence should have seen the expression "We are where we are" means - that we must destroy ourselves because that is what we are doing. And yet America is now become so dominated by extremist rhetoric (Limbaugh lies and some foolishly think Fox News is news) that ... well how many knew about soldiers lying in their own urine in Walter Reed ... known this almost a month ago. That too is no longer important. More important is the political agenda attached to that fact. So instead we deny it or blame it on the Army.

As if those enlisted men brought those dog collars with them to Abu Ghriad.

You assume that two people reasoning will come to the same conclusion. Not so. When reasoning, you take all the facts you can get, then apply reason and prejudice to come to a conclusion

Prejudice?.. that's not reasoning!

Sure is, reasoning means putting the facts together, but your experience, background and opinion, that's prejudice, causes you to weigh the facts differently.
While its true some facts are more important, and giving them all the same importance is wrong, just how you weigh them, rank them, depends on prejudice. :cool:

Anyone who supports the war in Iraq is simply a Goddamned pedophile...God told me so.

*ahem*...

You say that like it's a bad thing. :mg:

How did you come to the conclusion that I made that assumption?
That is a cool crystal ball ya' got there!

Yeah?!? Well God told me that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq is a Goddamned pedophile!

Pederast.

Actually, I'm not for or against the war. I just find those against the war so much more abrasive than those for it, so I usually take the other side.

XOXO,
Joe

Edit: Properly, I should say that I am much more abraded by those against the war than those for it.

Perhaps it's because they are the ones who are not getting their way. So they have more to complain about.

And perhaps their way makes a hell of a lot more sense.

I think that's a good part of it. There might be a lot of idiots out there who support the war, but for the most part the people that I see supporting it are old, calm, and rational. I'm exposed to many more idiots that oppose the war than those that support it.

I oppose passion and sicken at politics. In the current state, war opposers appear to instigate both. No judgment there, I'm not saying they shouldn't.

Shawnee: Supposing either side has the truth behind them, I think very few people manage to make sense.

--Joe

Um, yay for dispassionately killing Iraqis?

No way to say that the war isn't political, though.

Sure there is, I meant politics in a different sense. I think my view on national politics is pretty well summed with something I heard on the radio that went like this:

Politics is a race. Now, there's no rule against having a good, moral, and just candidate in office. In the competition to get votes, however, a soul is dead weight and a candidate that carries one simply can not win.

I should have said that I sicken at 'politicking'. When Republicans are in power, Democrats play dirty. When Democrats are in power, Republicans play dirty. Whether or not either side is right, they're both playing dirty and that's what I sicken at. Because the Republicans have the inertia, Democrats just have to play it more openly.

And, just to say it again, I don't support the war. . .or oppose it.

--Joe

Ah, yes. All those Democratic dirty tricks over the last decade.

Well, it's not like the Dems really have a great track record overall though.

You're apparently uninterested in understanding or responding to my posts. You still have your ineffectual jabs, however. Kudos.

--Joe

Edit: If you'd like to question my facts or reasons, I'm up for conversation.

Editmk2: Well that just went poorly. Sorry everyone. (;

You have nothing of substance in your posts to understand or respond to. You provide no fact or reasons to question. You pretty much said flat out that you have no opinion of your own, and you just take sides against whoever happens to be more vocal.

There's nothing in there thats worth more than a couple of snide jabs.

Perhaps I did not make the purpose of my post clear.

This thread is about the conflict between those who support the war and those who oppose it. I thought that I might aid this discussion by offering my outsider perspective.

Let me be clear. I do not support the war at any time, even when I am arguing against those who oppose it. I argue when I see irrationality.

Perhaps snide jabs are an acceptable convention in this community, but know that I will not receive them well.

--Joe

Edit: Also, again to be clear, I said that I often side against the party that abrades me more, not the more vocal party.

How is the pro-war side suppose to be annoying?

They have nothing to complain about except for the people that oppose the war. The anti-war side is not getting what they want so they feel like they have to make their voice heard.

If you go to get your car fixed and they do a really good job with excellant service, how many people will you tell and how will you tell them? Now if you go to get your car fixed and they do a horrible job with horrible service, how many people will you tell and how will you tell them?

People like to complain and the anti-war side has something to complain about when the pro-war side doesn't so they will naturally be more annoying and in your face.

Because you accuse people that don't agree with you of not reasoning.
That makes for a crystal clear ball. :cool:

And yet how many Democratic 'dirty tricks' were to pervert the government of the United States? Some Democrats and Republicans did things to enrich themselves. But how many did it to subvert the power structure - the government (K-Street, Watergate) and to intentionally undermine other governments? Now the list becomes more one-sided.

I never stated that in my post.

I'd argue post-WW2 to the Civil Rights era...Thurmond, Dixiecrats, "Mississippi Burning," etc.

Both parties are shit, tw. Neither one has moral claim to being better than the other.

Did you notice name of a C-17 that Cheney was flying when meeting with so many Middle East leaders last weeks?
"Spirit of Strom Thurmond".

Spirit of Strom Thurmond carries Cheney into, out of hot spots

Any examples that didn't flip over to the Republicans during the Civil Rights movement?

The Senior Senator from West Virginia.

Isn't that like saying the Cellar is bad because a member is? :question:

HM, if we continue with your logic, it would only be fair to give the GOP their props for ending slavery and fighting to keep the country together.

No, that would be your logic, going back almost half a century for the D side of the D=R equation. My logic is that right now the dirty business is Republican. Right now the Democrats are better. Someday when they have power for a few terms, they'll probably get as corrupt as they were when they last lost power - which was nothing compared to the current Republican party in such a comparatively short time - but that's a someday. The Republicans are a right now.

I was just answering tw's question on dirty Democrats...he specified no timeframe. Though I'll add Jim Wright to Robert Byrd.

I don't see a difference between the two parties in terms of higher ground...to me, it's a matter of attention and amount of power. The GOP look like shit right now because they controlled two branches of government for 6 years. The Dems looked like shit in 1994 because they controlled two branches. As with Clinton and the GOP during their 6 years together, we'll now see an equal amount thrown at the two parties.

Even if the Democrats looked right now like they did in '94, they would be the higher ground.

Here's Jim Wright:
That scandal seems downright quaint compared to the past six years.

When you're partisan, you believe different facts. Don't forget William "Frozen Cash" Jefferson and Sandy "Document Pants" Berger. Plenty of shit to go around.

I didn't.

"Both Bad" does not mean "Equal".

"Stole a copy of an archive document" doesn't match up to "legalized torture".

Of course there is corruption on all sides. That does not mean that they are equal.

How about "interred American citizens based on their descent" and "outlawed dissent" and "targeted hundreds of thousands of civilians" and "tried to appoint extra Justices to the Supreme Court" and "only offensive use of The Bomb(*2)"?

"Stole a copy of an archive document" doesn't match up to "legalized torture".

That entirely depends on the intent of the theft, and the nature of the "legalized torture". (Since you added the scare quotes, I get to keep them.)

What if he stole documents to hide "legalizing torture"?

Did he? You could check the originals.

How about "over 50 years ago"?

So certain are you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

Who can be certain about anything? But there's no evidence to the contrary.

From the same page:
All of this says he was stealing printouts of digitally stored data. He stole 217, they printed out another, and he stole it again.

Presumably, they could have printed out a ream of 217s for him to steal. If he had taken originals, a simple inventory would have made that clear.

'Missing documents' is so obviously trivial by comparison that it is clearly only a debating tool to obfuscate the issue. Add Rostenkowski to the mix if we want to confuse all with the trivial. Where was any of this intended to subvert the American political system? Lies to protect drug company profits at the expense of $hundreds of billions? Peanuts compared to what George Jr is doing. Intentional lying and deceit intended to subvert the American political system, to openly create war for a self-serving political agenda, to literally encourage war in the Middle East (and I am not talking only about Iraq), and to intentionally destroy careers of any government body or person that was not working for a wacko extremist political agenda. ‘Missing papers’ is equivalent?

They intentionally perverted intelligence to create a war in Iraq. Where is this even Enron scale corruption? ‘Spying for the USSR for 20 years’ is trivial compared to lying for war. They almost did same to get America into war over a silly China spy plane because a political agenda was more important than the US government. Those same wackos were still living in a Cold War mentality back then. These people have that much contempt for the American system of government. Even uniltaterally break and destroy international agreements for a self serving agenda - no problem because corruption is now routine.

Foolishly, some here to claim ‘missing documents’ are somehow equivalent. Some here need to learn what the word ‘context’ means. Even torture is now routinely advocated. Yes, this government is so corrupt that international kidnapping and torture is not even a crime. Did Putin’s warnings about this American government mean nothing? Do you appreciate the threat of another Cold War only because this government is that corrupt – actually lies to create wars? Oh. That's not corruption. Taking some trivial papers is corruption.

Wow. I cannot believe some here are so brainwash as to associate pork by WV and AK senators with outright subversion of world stability for a self serving agenda. Wow. We just eliminate the word 'context' from the dictionary.

Whereas Halliburton ‘no bid contract’ at any other time would be a major scandal, well Halliburton is not even discussed or prosecuted. Whereas Enron would have probably gone unprosecuted if the state of OK had not filed suite – and that is not corruption at the highest levels of government? What other administration intentionally outs a CIA agent only for a self serving political agenda? What other adminstration intentionally fires civil servants – ie US Attorneys – to use the Attnorney General office to attack non-wacko extremists? What other administration repeatedly quashed investigations that would have exposed a major attack on the US (11 September)? None. None. None.

And what administration would let that attacker go free! No other administration was so corrupt as to not go after a bin Laden. How can anyone talk about corruption and not mention THE classic example of corruption by a President. When are we going after bin Laden? Why did we let bin Laden run free? If they tell you they tried, then they are lying again – like any corrupt government would.

They made zero effort to get bin Laden. A most treasonable crime and it is not mentioned here? bin Laden goes free because George Jr is that corrupt. How do we forget that fact? We talk about 'missing papers'. Context? Not relevant?

Richard Nixon also sent word to Ho Chi Minh to reject Johnson's cease fire so that Nixon could get elected. How silly these 'treasonist' accusations of some missing documents. How silly the crimes of Jim Wright by comparison. These did not intentionally pervert and destroy the US government for a self serving political agenda. What other administration would spy on its citizens in violation of the laws? Another who also tried to subvert the US government for his own personal agenda by doing same - J Edgar Hoover. And yet some here acutally endorse those actions today. Clearly some 'missing papers' is worse.

Lurkers - don't let them confuse you with above trivial and silly examples. It is Cheney's agenda: Enriching friends with government funds is trivial because intentional subversion of the US government is for a political extremist agenda. Those who can’t see that want you to “trip over gum on the sidewalk” – those irrelevant ‘missing documents’. How embarrassingly silly that we would talk about the subversion of the US government – and associate that with some missing papers.

When do we go after bin Laden? Want to talk about corruption? Everything else by comparison is legal, moral, ethical, righteous, ‘done for the glory of god’, etc. Why? Because #1 on the list of treasonable crimes – we made no effort to get bin Laden. And some here so hate America – are so corrupted - as to not even 'feel' that important. Instead of asking "when do we go after bin Laden" ... well there is no higher crime.

point made...

I think there was evil involved in the administrations decision. To have believed the administration wasn't evil. To want to cause a decent outcome isn't evil.

To be careless and gambling on a war and the fate of the Iraqi people, is wrong, wreckless and yes, in the end, evil.

e·vil Pronunciation (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic
In an evil manner.

Some quotes from the architects and dogs o' war and yep, you'll still surprised Dicky....

“And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Richard Perle, 9/22/03]

“We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” [Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

“I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is — we did it right. What I am saying is it’s an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible.” [Douglas Feith, 7/13/05]

“I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue. … And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January.” [Steven Hadley, 7/22/03]

“We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly.” [Elliot Abrams, 2/25/03]

“[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, 4/23/03]

“President Bush understands that the need to disarm Saddam Hussein is necessary. He has made that case to the United Nations Security Council. He’s made that case to the United States Congress. The entire world rallied behind this resolution that gives him one last chance. He has that chance, but time is running out.” [Dan Bartlett, 1/26/03]

Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Mitch Daniels, Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003, 1/10/06]

“It’s a slam dunk case.” [george Tenet, CIA Director, 4/19/04]

“You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” [Colin Powell in Bob Woodward's, Plan of Attack]

“You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” [Rummy the Great, 12/9/04]

“We did not know at the time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency — but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.” [Condi Rice, 6/8/03]

“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Cheney, 6/20/05]

“Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]

Well I'm pretty sure that administration doesn't have morals very high on their list...

Posted were classic examples of morality. Extremist morality. Only their morality is the 'righteous' morality. Therefore Dominicans murdered Jesuits for the glory of god. God told George Jr to attack Iraq. Strongest supporters of George Jr's "Mission Accomplished" are evangelical Christians. That is clearly a superior morality. Must be. We elected them twice because we so approve of their morality.

Even those who are 'most moral' tell us it is so - when they swear on the Bible to tell the whole truth and then intentionally lie in Federal Court - More Intelligent Design

Morality is a term that wackos use to justify their actions. The righteous cannot be wrong. "Bring 'em on". Clearly those 400 prisioners in Guantanamo - all but maybe as few as 14 are innocent ... well nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Clearly legalized torture is also acceptable - because they are moral - as defined by a political agenda called evangelical Christianity and Republican extremism.

piercehawkeye45, why be so nice? It is what it is and they are what they are. Rumsfeld taught us that. And if you are not sure what they are really saying, then ask Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. They will be so happy to tell us the truth.

Yes, but they have to know that what they are doing is hurting America as a whole, not helping it. Of course they think they are doing the right thing, but they should know they are not doing their job.

Who on this thread is the holder of the popcorn. Please pass it my way, thanks.

In the same moral vein, evangelicals support Israel's expansion in the West Bank. Why? Well, a war between Israel and Arab nations would be Armageddon. As a result, Christ will return, most Jews will dies, and those who live will convert to Christianity. To evangelicals, this is good.

Well this help the world? Well what happens when Christ does not arrive? Oh. That could not happen. After all, they were doing good by enabling a second coming of Christ. Of course they are moral?

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either. Cardinal Fang! The cushy pillow. Even torture can be moral?

Here you go Merc. :corn: Hope you like it with garlic.

Oh you have got to be frigging kidding me. Who the hell is feeding you this bull shit?:D

More butter for the popcorn please. :fumette:

I just like to make democracy's -- and thus humanity's -- enemies squeal like piggies, eee, eee.

And then there's that intellectual fifth column that doesn't want America to win one for humanity -- there's one of them writing in this thread, first initial t -- they can squeal like a piggie too.

The impossibility of arguing against an attempt at replacing a dictatorship with a democracy without also arguing in favor of a dictatorship and all its concomitant effects and results seems less than evident to those who make those arguments. This seems to me evidence either of a fundamentally fascistic nature, or of a two-digit IQ. Not exactly good either way, is it?

Okay......you wanted to give Iraq freedom....so why is it that the first thing the coalition did was dismantle the Iraqi's entire civil infrastructure and then hope that 'something' would magically replace it, remove all 'barriers' to trade and allow American corporations to come in and skim off most of the profits? Also, the only law remaining on the statute books from Saddam's time is the one outlawing trade unions. Doesn't sound much like freedom to me.

Y'know UG....'freedom' and 'democracy' are two entirely different words. They are not synonymous. Democracy is not the sole province of the United States of America....by which I mean, your brand of democracy is exactly that, your brand. There are other kinds of democracy. What you attempted to drop onto Iraq at the business end of a bomb, was the American way: laissez faire economics, a lack of social safety nets and corporations more powerful than the government. There are, and have always been, other equally valid ways of organising society. Just because your country has spent the last fifty odd years trying to impose/encourage/mould other nations into that style of democracy does not make it the only, or the right, way.

1. That never happened.

2. That part is very true.

1. Yes it did.

Ok, citations and proof please. I am open to discussion.