Do the Democrats want to win the war in Iraq? - Page 11

Iriemon · 09-17-07, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Wait did Bush only give one reason in that state of the Union speach or are you cherrypicking your argument
...

According to Bush, only one reason mattered:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President George W. Bush, November 8, 2002

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush, March 6, 2003

Reverend_Hellh0und · 09-17-07, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Which State of the Union speech? I never watch them anyway, so you'll have to be specific so I can go do a word search "find" on the transcripts.

No thanks. I really prefer to refrain from listening to idiots like him as much as possible.

When he comes on TV, I change the channel. God I love cable.

Besides, his "explanations" change with the day of the week. I give them little credence. But it seems you do give them credence.

You don't think the Iraq government can do without us even though THEY think they can? Why would we refuse to accept the judgement and wishes of the very people we are supposedly there to "help"?

So in otherwors you get your information from 3rd and 4th hand sources and choose to only consider leftwing sources.

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't understand. Did we invade their country and kill the leader of their government without any provocation? If so, then no... i wasn't "on board" with that either.

You don't remember Milosevic? Nato bombings, his trial, etc?

rivrrat · 09-17-07, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

So in otherwors you get your information from 3rd and 4th hand sources and choose to only consider leftwing sources.

You don't remember Milosevic? Nato bombings, his trial, etc?

Odd. I don't believe you answered any of my questions. Only made wild leaps in speculation instead.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 09-17-07, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Odd. I don't believe you answered any of my questions. Only made wild leaps in speculation instead.

There was so much "I don't watch, I turn the channel" addmissions of willful ignorance I must have missed them.

Please list your questions And I will be happy to anwer them. Leave the fluff out of it.... Thanks

mpg · 09-17-07, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

According to Bush, only one reason mattered:

"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President George W. Bush, November 8, 2002

"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush, March 6, 2003

I don't make a habit of watching presidential speeches so I didn't realize that Bush said that. I'm surprised that he agrees with me so much. People gave various reasons for the regime change, but IMO the biggest reason was that Saddam repeatedly violated the conditions of the ceasefire. That's why it wasn't a preemptive war. When Bush called it a preemptive war, that was a major PR error.

rivrrat · 09-17-07, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

There was so much "I don't watch, I turn the channel" addmissions of willful ignorance I must have missed them.

Ah yeah, cause I just miss so much by not watching State of the Union speeches.

I'm so lost in this world!!! Bush, please come help clarify the world for me by giving me a boring speech!

Sorry, but Bush's state of the union speeches aren't where I get my news, no.

Quote:

Please list your questions And I will be happy to anwer them. Leave the fluff out of it.... Thanks

They were the sentences 2 posts up (of mine) that have the question marks after them. One of these: ? I add those cause it makes it so much easier for folks to see when I'm asking a question.

Iriemon · 09-17-07, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpg

I don't make a habit of watching presidential speeches so I didn't realize that Bush said that. I'm surprised that he agrees with me so much. People gave various reasons for the regime change, but IMO the biggest reason was that Saddam repeatedly violated the conditions of the ceasefire. That's why it wasn't a preemptive war. When Bush called it a preemptive war, that was a major PR error.

Except Iraq didn't have the WMDs, just like they said.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 09-17-07, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Ah yeah, cause I just miss so much by not watching State of the Union speeches.

I'm so lost in this world!!! Bush, please come help clarify the world for me by giving me a boring speech!

Sorry, but Bush's state of the union speeches aren't where I get my news, no.

No, just pointing out that you are choosing not to hear a certain pov because of overwhelming bias.

Quote:

They were the sentences 2 posts up (of mine) that have the question marks after them. One of these: ? I add those cause it makes it so much easier for folks to see when I'm asking a question.

There are 4 questions there.....

Which 2?

I am going to assume these 2. Let me know if I got the wrong questions.

[quote]
You don't think the Iraq government can do without us even though THEY think they can? Why would we refuse to accept the judgement and wishes of the very people we are supposedly there to "help"?[quote]

1. Not at this point no, Also I don't see where they think they can absolute do you have a link?

2. I don't see any evidence of this, but lets pretend its true. Answer, because so far historically they haven't been able to and seem reluctant to do so.

Now adress mine?

rivrrat · 09-17-07, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

No, just pointing out that you are choosing not to hear a certain pov because of overwhelming bias.

Incorrect. I'm choosing not to watch a speech because I find them incredibly boring. But thanks for the unfounded assumptions again.

Quote:

There are 4 questions there.....

Which 2?

I said 2 posts up. Not 2 questions in my post. But it's okay, I realize you're being deliberately contrary in an effort to divert the conversation away from questions you cannot or do not want to answer.

Quote:

1. Not at this point no, Also I don't see where they think they can absolute do you have a link?

Did they not say we could leave any time now?

Quote:

2. I don't see any evidence of this, but lets pretend its true. Answer, because so far historically they haven't been able to and seem reluctant to do so.

Historically? How so?
Reluctant? Is that really our problem? If someone is reluctant to defend we think they should defend, isn't that perhaps a sign that they don't wish to defend the same things WE do? Perhaps we should let them defend, or NOT defend, what they wish. That would more respectful to the Iraqi people, instead of assuming we know what's best for them.

And, what question(s) of your are you refering to? Regarding Serbia? I don't recall us invading Serbia and ousting their leader, installing our own government for them, and then continuing to occupy them indefinitely. If we did, then I would not have supported that. I don't believe we did though. I don't recall the US declaring war on Serbia. As such, I'm not sure why you would compare it to Iraq.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 09-17-07, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Incorrect. I'm choosing not to watch a speech because I find them incredibly boring. But thanks for the unfounded assumptions again.

Deliver the Good Reverend from darkness. Where do you get your information from.

Quote:

I said 2 posts up. Not 2 questions in my post. But it's okay, I realize you're being deliberately contrary in an effort to divert the conversation away from questions you cannot or do not want to answer.

There were 4 questions, Did you want me to answer all 4? If so I had a problem with 1 and 4.

Quote:

Did they not say we could leave any time now?

You made the claim, back it up.

Quote:

Historically? How so?
Reluctant? Is that really our problem? If someone is reluctant to defend we think they should defend, isn't that perhaps a sign that they don't wish to defend the same things WE do? Perhaps we should let them defend, or NOT defend, what they wish. That would more respectful to the Iraqi people, instead of assuming we know what's best for them.

So in otherwords, we go in, liberate said country, power vacumme ensues and we should just pack up and go?

How genocidal of you!

Quote:

And, what question(s) of your are you refering to? Regarding Serbia? I don't recall us invading Serbia and ousting their leader, installing our own government for them, and then continuing to occupy them indefinitely. If we did, then I would not have supported that. I don't believe we did though. I don't recall the US declaring war on Serbia. As such, I'm not sure why you would compare it to Iraq.

Simple, Nato (US led) bombed the hell out of the country until milosivec was so weak that the peoples overthrew him. he was tried as hussein was, remember.

Why are you avoiding the question. As it played out in this thing the Good Reverend calls reality, did you support or not, Klintons wars in the balkans?