View Poll Results: What Best Describes Your Positions?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • I supported the invasion of Iraq and I support the Libyan Intervention

    18 29.51%
  • I opposed the Invasion of Iraq, I support the Libyan Intervention

    16 26.23%
  • I supported the Invasion of Iraq, I oppose the Libyan Intervention

    9 14.75%
  • I opposed both.

    18 29.51%
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 103

Thread: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

  1. #81
    Sage
    soccerboy22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    A warm place
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    10,723

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    It is unfair for me to judge the two because during the year 2002 I was either in the 7th or 8th grade. If I wanted to watch the U.S. military blow **** up I just played Red Alert II or Yuri's Revenge.

  2. #82
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?
    I supported the war in Afghanistan,Iraq and now this intervention in Libya. Perhaps the death of the Lockerbie bomber will be as a result of our intervention in Libya .
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #83
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,976

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    If the law is incorrect, the correct process is to alter the law, not break it.
    A simple answer by someone who thinks inside the intellectual box. I guess as soon as nations like China or Russia or the many others who don't represent their people tell us its ok to change the laws that protect them, then we are clear to change it? In the meantime, we in the free West will heed to ancient laws of dictator preservation no matter the cost of future consequence?

    The rest of what you posted was just more of the same defense of a ****ed up position where you want to believe -in vain- that each one of these unnatural borders on the map matter to the regional problem at large. I call it intellectual habit, which is the fear of thinking outside of the box that the status quo hasn't provided for you. It's the same level of thought that thought nothing of a silly religious group called Al-Queda before 9/11 when they were merely murdering military personnel. Or the notion that three hundred years of European colonialism and Cold War prescription couldn't possilble have unintended consequences. Or the notion that the fall of the Berlin Wall meant that "our wars were over." Or the notion that every single one of these Frankenstein's Monster Arab nations aren't tied almost absolutely to the same phenomena that would create 9/11s.

    The correct process is to insist that surgery be performed by 21st century standards and not the standard of surgeons in the 18th century. International behaviors are no different. Why would international rules of soveriegnty made by dictators like kings, czars, and kaisers be outdated in the democratic 21st century? As you should have been able to pick up since Clinton rolled into Bosnia, nobody really cares about these international laws until they suit the political need of action or inaction. Don't get caught defending what no one takes serious anymore. Have younot seenthejoke about Libya yet? How it is being defended as "right" because theirs an international coalition? I guess beside the approval of the decrepit UN, which looked away as blacks were massacred in Rwanda and Sudan, Iraq only needed France to make it a true coalition. Outdated International law "upheld" by the security council of France, Russia, and China is a joke and you are struggling to defend a losers argument.

    Behind your keyboard courage you know absolutely what I'm talking about. You just like to pretend otherwise because deep down you merely want to argue that blind selfishness and a roll of the dice should be our international policies - (just as long as your family members aren't in any New York standing towers, right?)

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #84
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,976

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    ....., but your point about each being a separate issue and needs to be assessed independently is spot on...
    It's only half the truth. The other half of the truth is that all of these regional events are unitedly themed and very much about the same problems. The decrepit politicians and diplomats who are pretending that each event from Tripoli through to Islamabad is so very different will only ensure that those, who are actually tasked with dealing with these "individual" issues, will have a far deadlier and tougher time.

    We fought an entire 45 year Cold War that themed all of our international issues around the same communist beast. I would submit that this poorly named "War on Terror" is also very wide and absolutely themed. Where once our enemy was Moscow we now face Riyadh. Where once we denied ourselves invasion into the Soviet Union and fought "wars" in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc., we now deny ourselves invasion into Saudi Arabia as we fight "wars" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #85
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Where once we denied ourselves invasion into the Soviet Union and fought "wars" in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc., we now deny ourselves invasion into Saudi Arabia as we fight "wars" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.
    The difference us that we denied ourselves invasion of the Soviets because of the threat of nuclear retaliation. We deny ourselves invasion of Saudi Arabia because of the business interests of our political class.

  6. #86
    
    TheGirlNextDoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-14 @ 02:31 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,033
    Blog Entries
    21

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?
    I thought LONG ago that GW #1 should have taken Saddam out the first time we were over there. Why would we leave an evil dictator in a position of power IF that was our motivation to invade Iraq? Bingo. It wasn't. We went looking for Bin Laden and our beef was with Afghanistan. I supported that effort, I did not support the invasion of Iraq.

    Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?
    I am standing firmly on the side of non-intervention. I feel badly for the people of Libya and I wish them the best. However - we have enough problems here in our own country that we should be addressing and we should NOT be involved with Libya - I get so sick and tired of the United States being pegged the world's police every time something goes awry. If our motive was pure, that would be one thing. But the only message this sends to me is that we are not over there for the people of Libya. There is another reason.

    Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan?
    My position has always been one of "take care of our home front first" and while showing humanitarian concern and support is important among the world community - that does NOT necessarily mean we need to invade every time there is a wrong committed. Why aren't we involved in the political chaos in Africa if we are so humanitarian in our invasion efforts?

  7. #87
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    I opposed the military action in Iraq and I oppose the intervention in Libya. That's not how I voted though, because it's early and I hit the wrong button.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #88
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?
    I opposed the invasion of Iraq. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq because it proposed that Saddam Hussein's regime was acquiring weapons of mass destruction with which to target the United States.

    This was a lie. I do not support the U.S. military being sent to conflicts based on lies.

    If the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq based on the internal killings of Iraq's citizens by it's government, then Bush should have garnered support that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?
    I am standing in support of U.S. operations in Libya to protect the citizens from the Khaddafy regime. I also support UN or NATO peacekeepers to protect citizens from Opposition militias should in-fighting occur. I do not support the U.S. taking unilateral action in Libya; however, I support multilateral action instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan?
    My positions are not blindly partisan. Bush sent us into Iraq based on a lie, and the military operations in Afghanistan, which was where Bin Laden attacked the U.S. from, suffered for it. If Bush wanted justice for 9/11, he should have focused on Afghanistan to bring down Al-Quaeda and the Taliban first. Instead, they focused on Iraq based on a lie.

    If Bush wanted to take on Iraq because of internal human rights violations, then he should have based his case on that. If Bush had focused solely on the plight of the Iraqi people and done so after we had more success in Afghanistan then I may be less critical of the Bush Administration's actions.

    I am not as critical as Obama pursuing military operations in Libya. The reason for this is because Obama is not sending our military there based on a lie and our other military actions elsewhere, such as in Afghanistan, won't suffer too much because of it.

    If Obama did then I would be more critical of him and his actions.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  9. #89
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGirlNextDoor View Post
    I thought LONG ago that GW #1 should have taken Saddam out the first time we were over there. Why would we leave an evil dictator in a position of power IF that was our motivation to invade Iraq? Bingo. It wasn't. We went looking for Bin Laden and our beef was with Afghanistan. I supported that effort, I did not support the invasion of Iraq.
    To be fair to GHW Bush, he wanted to go in and take out Hussein. However, he had formed an international coalition that included many Arab states with the understanding that he didn't.

    The reason why the Arab states did this was because they didn't want the West to develop a taste for initiating regime changes in the Middle East. Those Arab states favored the liberation of Kuwait, but did not want Iraq to be the first domino to fall to Western powers.

    So in order for GHWB to get the endorsement of the rest of the Middle East's Arab nations and to get them to work with Israel he had to hold back on actually invading Iraq.

    It wasn't his fault, and there was little he could do about it. If he had, we probably would have had an entirely different set of problems from the other Arab nations as a result of it.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  10. #90
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    There are distinctions between our intervention in Iraq versus our intervention in Libya.

    For one, the U.N. authorized the intervention in Libya by “all means necessary” short of the introduction of ground troops to protect the civilian population; not so for the intervention in Iraq.

    Contrast:


    With this:


    While the U.N. is not the boss of us, it does provide legitimacy of our action. When America is perceived to act unilaterally people around the world see it as a threat and tyrant; when it acts in league with a wide (read, authentic) coalition it is perceived as a principled advocate for democracy and self determination.
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •