|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote: Bill Sornson wrote: Raptor wrote: This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the available information knew that. Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards... They have been proved right. They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL No, they voted to authorize the president to use force, or "all means necessary" or somesuch. AAMOF, it was an abdication of responsibility by the Congress. Sanity was in short supply in February 2003. -- -- Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall Conservative dictionary: Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes. |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Bill Sornson wrote:
Raptor wrote: Bill Sornson wrote: wrote: Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior - our *principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And when we violate our own principles, we need to call those who do it on the carpet. We do. And did. The second you cite "their" behavior as mitigating, you betray yourself. Where did I cite "their" behavior at all? Based on your recent flurry of posts, I'm curious as to what you're reading! A quick check of the records immediately available doesn't show that you've written anything remotely justifying "our" worst behavior by pointing to "their" worst behavior. You've talked around the subject a great deal, but never crossed that line. To this extent, I stand corrected. -- -- Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall Conservative dictionary: Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Bill Sornson wrote:
G.T. wrote: "Bill Sornson" wrote in message ... Raptor wrote: Bill Sornson wrote: Raptor wrote: This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the available information knew that. Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards... They have been proved right. They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL Because they were told that Iraq had ICBMs ready to hit the US. With that kind of propaganda how could they not vote for it? So like Mark has pointed out, some how that "idiot" Bush was supposed to see through all that apparently iron-clad intelligence from multiple sources (including UN inspectors, BTW) and decipher the truth when no one else could. The ONLY logical conclusion based on the evidence of the day was that we had no evidence that Saddam had any WMDs on hand, let alone the means to deliver them. Anything else was incorrect. The fact is that, if the war /and aftermath/ had gone well, everyone would be patting themself on the back for their keen insight. Just because it's turned out to be much more difficult and troublesome than anticipated doesn't change the initial reasons and eventual hoped-for outcome. Only a premature withdrawal can accomplish that. I happen to agree with your last statement. We leave prematurely at our peril. The damage we are taking is tolerable. It is, after all, a war. The plan currently in place shows every sign of working, eventually. I for one would have stuck to my position, that it was a very bad idea, regardless of the outcome. It was a pretty safe bet that it was going to be a horrible mess given the singleminded rush to war and all the snake oil being spouted. Had it worked out as well as it possibly could have (for this version, just listen to Dick Cheney even today), I would've breathed a sigh of relief that it actually worked. -- -- Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall Conservative dictionary: Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote: Mark Hickey wrote: I see plenty of indignation over any legitimate abuse that occurred at AG. Heck, it was front page on the New York Times for weeks. Fortunately, those who are responsible are being punished appropriately - that's how our system works. I should point out that the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make being stacked naked look like a picnic. OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG. Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop - all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen? The only passes I see being handed out are by people who actually try to argue that we're so much better. It's NOT about them. It's NOT about who our enemy is. It is about US: you, me, our country. Which is why the guards who did it are now in prison. That's how our system works, and I am glad of it. What's your point? That any individual action by any one individual in the military is your fault personally? What about the civilian contractors who ordered - or suggested - the abuse? What about the commander of the unit? What about everyone who knew about it? What about the commander in chief who orders his legal staff to find out whether our forces are or should be constrained to the Geneva Conventions? WHO are we? WHAT do we stand for? WHAT is this war about, again? The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it look "not so bad" is flat wrong. To do so is to deny your sense of honor and discipline, if indeed you have any. To refrain from swooping down like an avenging angel on this cancer that has invaded the ranks of our military is a source of shame to all Americans, whether we ever wore the uniform or not. Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". Who do you know that says what went on in AG *IS* acceptable? What more do you want the military to do? Decapitate the guards involved? I just have a problem any time someone tries the old, "Well, they're so much worse," line, like you have. Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be "the good guy." We are not. So let me get this straight - the actions of a few bonehead guards in Iraq cancel out anything else positive the US has done. Where it counts most, on the muslim street, they come pretty damn close. This is just another example of our ahem leaders leading us astray. Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress. OK - I'll give you a chance to prove you're not just another misguided blog-poisoned soul. Show me some evidence that the abuse of common criminals in AG was orchestrated by the administration, or of the administration condoning that behavior. Surely after your rant above, this shouldn't prove difficult. Put your facts where your opinion is... See the Geneva Convention topic above. -- -- Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall Conservative dictionary: Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Bill Sornson wrote:
Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS powerful! Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective delivery systems. -- -- Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall Conservative dictionary: Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
"Mark Hickey" wrote in message ... Raptor wrote: cc wrote: I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above points, but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our media is biased toward the left wing. It is owned by transnational corporations, whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our so-called two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of dissident opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much reflects the interests of its owners. It would be instructive for some to research the organization backing the Sean Hannity radio show. Ummmm, that would be the sponsors. It would be easier to research the sponsors of Air America though (since it's such a small group). ;-) Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame Mark, Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands for is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a big girl riding a scooter, it is fun to watch though. I've been to Iraq several times in the past few years (and many other places where we are "oppressing" the local innocents. We aren't the bad guys in this equation and the majority of the thinking people in the world know it. Marty |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote: Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS powerful! Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective delivery systems. Then why did the UN ever impose sanctions and keep them on for all those years? Check out the March 2003 UNMOVIC (weapons inspection) report if you really want to know what they thought Iraq had. I'll warn you it'll disagree with the blog you are reading now (the one that claims none of the intelligence agencies or UN thought Saddam had WMD). http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.pdf It's OK to have different opinions about what should have happened regarding Iraq, but those opinions should all be based on fact. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Raptor wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote: Raptor wrote: Bill Sornson wrote: Raptor wrote: This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the available information knew that. Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards... They have been proved right. They all voted FOR the war, so I guess you're correct! LOL No, they voted to authorize the president to use force, or "all means necessary" or somesuch. AAMOF, it was an abdication of responsibility by the Congress. Sanity was in short supply in February 2003. I agree that - if your claim that there was no evidence that Saddam had WMD was true - the Congress was insane to vote as they did. The Congress are a lot of things - partisan, petty, self-serving, and sanctimonious... but they, as a group, are NOT insane. A few of the individuals OTOH.... ;-) Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
"Marty" wrote:
Mark, Arguing with people who so obviously hate this country and what it stands for is without purpose. You're not going to change their minds. But, like a big girl riding a scooter, it is fun to watch though. I'm not sure anything I've ever done has been compared to a "big girl riding a scooter" before... I'm going to try to NOT keep that mental picture in my mind when I do this in the future... ;-) I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion when I participate in these threads. My goal is to correct factual misperceptions, and there are a HOST of them. The problem is that when people have seriously flawed understanding of the actual historical facts involved (like "Raptor's" belief that none of the pre-war intelligence suggested Iraq had WMD), the person has no choice but to extend that reasoning to other events (and in his case, that would include the Congress acting in an "insane" manner and the UN imposing over a decade of sanctions for no reason, for example). It's a complex issue, but one that can only be intelligently discussed once we all agree on the facts. There's still room for plenty of differing opinions about what should have happened, but starting from a factual basis means that the discussion could be worthwhile. Otherwise we may as well discuss how Frodo should have handled the whole ring thing. ;-) I've been to Iraq several times in the past few years (and many other places where we are "oppressing" the local innocents. We aren't the bad guys in this equation and the majority of the thinking people in the world know it. I wish our media would focus in a balanced manner on the positive and negative things happening in Iraq. It's the mantra of those who are actually there - that there IS so many good things going on, but that those things never reach the eyes and ears of the public. I don't think this is so much because of bias in the media, but because "good news doesn't sell". It's much the same in domestic news, though the local news broadcasts / newspapers tend to take at least some time for "good news". Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.
Raptor wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: Raptor wrote: It is about US: you, me, our country. Which is why the guards who did it are now in prison. That's how our system works, and I am glad of it. What's your point? That any individual action by any one individual in the military is your fault personally? What about the civilian contractors who ordered - or suggested - the abuse? What about the commander of the unit? What about everyone who knew about it? She got busted big-time. I don't recall if she was put in prison for being involved, or just demoted for not knowing what was happening. As I recall, the findings were that she was an inept manager rather than being involved in the abuse. What about the commander in chief who orders his legal staff to find out whether our forces are or should be constrained to the Geneva Conventions? He's a mountain biker? What about him? Why wouldn't he ask that question - it's a very valid question. You are aware, aren't you, that the discussion about the GC resulted in the administration ordering that our personnel stay well within the limits of acceptable treatment of prisoners, right? Maybe not... The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it look "not so bad" is flat wrong. snip Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". Who do you know that says what went on in AG *IS* acceptable? What more do you want the military to do? Decapitate the guards involved? I just have a problem any time someone tries the old, "Well, they're so much worse," line, like you have. Ummmmm..... I've read the above a few times, and have NO idea what you're talking about. I didn't even mention "them". I asked who you think HAS condoned the behavior of the AG guards. Are you dodging the question? Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be "the good guy." We are not. So let me get this straight - the actions of a few bonehead guards in Iraq cancel out anything else positive the US has done. Where it counts most, on the muslim street, they come pretty damn close. You share that with them then - that the overwhelming good behavior and support of a hundred thousand plus sincere American troops can be erased by a half-dozen prison guards. You can believe that's logical if you like (though it dooms you to never being able to believe in any organization larger than a couple dozen individuals). This is just another example of our ahem leaders leading us astray. Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress. OK - I'll give you a chance to prove you're not just another misguided blog-poisoned soul. Show me some evidence that the abuse of common criminals in AG was orchestrated by the administration, or of the administration condoning that behavior. Surely after your rant above, this shouldn't prove difficult. Put your facts where your opinion is... See the Geneva Convention topic above. Thanks for verifying that "you got nuthin'". I knew you couldn't find anything at all, but wondered how you'd respond. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Roadside Tour Funny Guys | Michael | Racing | 18 | July 7th 04 06:22 PM |
Fat guys bike and bike seat. | Walter | General | 95 | November 15th 03 04:46 AM |
Question for the anti-helmet guys | Mike S. | Techniques | 3 | September 29th 03 07:19 AM |
Planning on getting my first Unicycle.... what do you guys think of this one?!? | CETME | Unicycling | 6 | August 18th 03 09:43 PM |
I finally got my Rhoades Car fixed so I can tell you guys how it rides | Russell Kanning | Recumbent Biking | 6 | June 30th 03 07:27 AM |