|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:18 pm Post subject: Former supporter joins foes over war |
 |
|
It's not such a long article as all that, but I'll just post a link, and I'll quote the whole damn thing because they require registration to access it ...
Former supporter joins foes over war
Speaks for peace after son's death
By Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent | June 5, 2005
Two years ago, Brian T. Hart, an avid supporter of the American military mission in Iraq, wrote to the Board of Selectmen in Bedford to complain about a 20-foot banner strung from the front of the First Parish church that read, ''Speak Out For Peace."
Today, Hart, now a blistering critic of the campaign in Iraq, plans to return to the church on the town green to speak out for peace at the pulpit.
The reason for his transformation: His son, Private First Class John D. Hart was killed outside Kirkuk, Iraq, in October 2003 when insurgents firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades attacked his unarmored Humvee.
''I don't care if they call me un-American," Brian Hart said Friday as he ignored a tall glass of iced tea sitting before him on the back porch of his home in Bedford. ''I've come full circle in saying the best way to support the troops today is to give them a plan to exit Iraq."
Hart, 46, grew up in a conservative Texas family, served as president of the Republican club at the University of Texas, and voted for President Bush in 2000. His daughters, Rebecca, 18, and Elizabeth, 14, are members of the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps at Bedford High School.
The peace banner went up in early 2003. That July, John Hart saw the sign as he prepared to leave for Iraq on his first tour of duty with his unit, the 173d Infantry Brigade. John asked his father to help get the sign removed.
Brian Hart wrote to the Board of Selectmen, contending that the peace banner violated the town's historic zoning codes. At a board meeting, he threatened to file a lawsuit. John Eric Gibbons, the Unitarian minister whose congregation had hung the blue-and-white banner, agreed to take it down. Hart was pleased.
Three months later, John was dead, one month past his 20th birthday. First Lieutenant David R. Bernstein of Phoenixville, Pa., was also killed in the attack. Bernstein was 24.
Days later, at Bernstein's graveside, Hart said an Army sergeant told him that US troops were lacking supplies. At his son's funeral, Hart said a soldier who had been in the Humvee during the fatal attack also told him that their Army unit lacked armor and ammunition.
Hart began studying the way the Army supplies its soldiers. He met with US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, spoke with other members of Congress, and developed contacts with military suppliers and service members. What he learned about Humvee armor disturbed him, he said.
''Congress was being told that the plants were at full capacity," Hart said. ''They were just lied to. Hundreds of kids died from over this issue alone."
Gibbons and Hart have grown closer since they clashed over the banner two years ago. Now, they discuss the war.
''It seems to me that Brian's quest, like that of any father, is to make meaning of his son's death," Gibbons said. ''And it seems to me that his quest has been for the truth and to make sure that he knows and the American people know the conditions that we're asking young people to fight in."
Hart's cousins and uncles in Texas no longer speak to him, he said.
And he worries that some in Bedford, home of Hanscom Air Force Base, may turn against him.
He never considered himself an activist. He laughs at the notion. ''Isn't that ironic?" Hart said. ''I mean, I'm no pacifist, that's for certain, but this is not right. Where we're at today is not right. It's not right for America. It's not right for the troops. It's not right for the Iraqis."
US Representative Martin T. Meehan, who is also scheduled to speak at the church today, said Hart helped him to secure $700 million in funding for Humvee armor.
Now, Hart is backing Meehan's plan to gradually withdraw US troops from Iraq.
''Oftentimes, when you work on military issues, political charges are that you're not being patriotic or you're not being American or you're not supporting the troops," said Meehan, Democrat of Lowell. ''The opportunity to work with Brian is a great opportunity because those arguments are particularly hollow. He's a military person through and through, and no one can question his love for his country."
Hart said he hopes to ignite a discussion, starting in the small church he once challenged.
''Active Army officers are afraid to have this conversation in public, politicians are afraid to have this conversation in public," Hart said. ''So I wanted to start this discussion, and hopefully see where this leads."
The point I 'm making with this is that opposition to this war is not in any way synonymous with dierespect or lacking in support for the troops - in fact, it is quite the opposite, it is this administration that has not supported our soldiers by their failure to give them the materiel they need and by refusing to set the conditions that will indicate a successful mission, and a timetable to bring them back.
Last edited by The Bobster on Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not anti US to be against the war. It is anti US to condemn the US for its war but not condemn the insurgents for their war.
It is anti US to not want the US to be any more powerful than it is. It is anti US to feel that any strategic gains the US truly achieves as ill gotten gains that must be returned.
If you oppose the war cause one thinks that is a bad strategic move for the US then your reason is just .
If you oppose the war cause you don't want the US to be better off as a result of it then go to hell.
That one is afraid that the US might be better off as a result is not a legitmate reason to oppose US actions in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
(Sigh) Talk about your non-sequiteur responses ... but this is no less than what we have come to expect.
| Quote: |
| That one is afraid that the US might be better off as a result is not a legitmate reason to oppose US actions in Iraq. |
The US is not better off due to the mendacity of our invasion, nor have any of the atrocities we've committed done any good for us either, and there are few or no indications that we will receive any benefit in the future.
From the article :
''I mean, I'm no pacifist, that's for certain, but this is not right. Where we're at today is not right. It's not right for America. It's not right for the troops. It's not right for the Iraqis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
(Sigh) Talk about your non-sequiteur responses ... but this is no less than what we have come to expect.
| Quote: |
| That one is afraid that the US might be better off as a result is not a legitmate reason to oppose US actions in Iraq. |
The US is not better off due to the mendacity of our invasion, nor have any of the atrocities we've committed done any good for us either, and there are few or no indications that we will receive any benefit in the future.
From the article :
''I mean, I'm no pacifist, that's for certain, but this is not right. Where we're at today is not right. It's not right for America. It's not right for the troops. It's not right for the Iraqis." |
The results are not in.
It has clearly been expensive for the US but we really don't know if it will turn out good for the US , but for the Iraqis it is good because Saddam was as bad as Idi Amin , and his sons were coming up next. Furthermore it is clearly good for other countires in the region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| It has clearly been expensive for the US but we really don't know if it will turn out good for the US , but for the Iraqis it is good because Saddam was as bad as Idi Amin , and his sons were coming up next. Furthermore it is clearly good for other countires in the region. |
Tell me why I should care as an American about what is good for Iraq? Tell me why you, as an American, care about what is good for the countries in the region.
And whether Iraq is better off is arguable, not definite as you seem to be claiming.
The US is not making the world safer for itself - we are creating more and more people who are convinced it is a war of Christianity vs Islam, millions more who hate us than was true in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Tell me why I should care as an American about what is good for Iraq? Tell me why you, as an American, care about what is good for the countries in the region. |
You don't , just please don't say you oppose the war on humanitarian grounds which you seem to sometimes do.
| Quote: |
| And whether Iraq is better off is arguable, not definite as you seem to be claiming. |
very strong case based on not only what Saddam had done but what he would do and what his sons would do.
| Quote: |
| The US is not making the world safer for itself - we are creating more and more people who are convinced it is a war of Christianity vs Islam, millions more who hate us than was true in the past. |
The reason for the hate is that mideast regimes , their clerics , elites and media teach it for their own reasons.
Remember the street overthere never got made when mideast regimes or groups did far worse things for far less justifable reasons than the US has done.
between 20,000 and 120,000 trained in Al Qaida camps in Afganistan during the 1990s. Before Iraq , before Gitmo. All the while when the US was defending muslims.
Al-Qaeda camps 'trained 70,000'
| Quote: |
Thousands are said to have joined al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan
Some 70,000 people received weapons training and religious instruction in al-Qaeda camps, German police say. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4146969.stm
The real reason for the hate is because it is taught and encouraged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Tell me why I should care as an American about what is good for Iraq? Tell me why you, as an American, care about what is good for the countries in the region. |
You don't , just please don't say you oppose the war on humanitarian grounds which you seem to sometimes do. |
But I guess it's okay for you and the other war-lovers to use the humanitarian angle ... I point to your comment above, "Saddam was as bad as Idi Amin , and his sons were coming up next."
I don't know how anyoine can be in favor of this war and say it is because they love America - this war is bad for America, and will become worse for us as it continues. Invariably, though, it is those of us who speak out against it who have their patriotism put in question.
| Quote: |
| The reason for the hate is that mideast regimes , their clerics , elites and media teach it for their own reasons. |
The reasons were there before the hate started getting preached. If the reasons had not existed all the preaching would have fallen on deaf ears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But I guess it's okay for you and the other war-lovers to use the humanitarian angle ... I point to your comment above, |
that is not only the humanitarian angle but also tells what Saddam would do if he got free. that is why I use it.
| Quote: |
| I don't know how anyoine can be in favor of this war and say it is because they love America - this war is bad for America, and will become worse for us as it continues. Invariably, though, it is those of us who speak out against it who have their patriotism put in question. |
Well cause the mideast the way it was was a threat to the US.
| Quote: |
| The reasons were there before the hate started getting preached. If the reasons had not existed all the preaching would have fallen on deaf ears.[ |
You got people in the mideast saying that Pokeman is a anti muslim conspriacy or something like that.
Anyway what reasons?
We know all Bin Ladens mantra but also be aware of his other complaints
According to Bin Laden the US is responsible for Chinas' persecution of muslims , and Russias' war in Chechnia and for low oil prices.
What are U going to do when he says alternative energy is a plot against islam?
Bin Ladens group also wants spain back, and Timor back and South East Asia and South Asia and Africa , and 600 trillion dollars
In the 1990s the US was defending muslims.
All the US enemies in the mideast or South Asia have killed muslims . Bin Laden killed muslims , Saddam killed muslims, Assad killed muslims, and Khomeni killed muslims. Not many in the mideast ever cared. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But I guess it's okay for you and the other war-lovers to use the humanitarian angle ... I point to your comment above, |
that is not only the humanitarian angle but also tells what Saddam would do if he got free. that is why I use it. |
It's disingenuous and insincere. Especially when you claim that antiwar arguments on humanitarian grounds contain hypocrisy - you have no reason to care aabout the wselfare of Iraqis and I feel pretty confident that you do not, not very much, and yet you can get away with the same thing you save your derision when your opponents employ it.
Who, really, is practicing hypocrisy here?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't know how anyoine can be in favor of this war and say it is because they love America - this war is bad for America, and will become worse for us as it continues. Invariably, though, it is those of us who speak out against it who have their patriotism put in question. |
Well cause the mideast the way it was was a threat to the US. |
Non sequiteur and irrelevant response. Find something beneficial to the USA that has or is likely to come out fo this mess, and you might have a leg to hobble with.
It's not likely.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The reasons were there before the hate started getting preached. If the reasons had not existed all the preaching would have fallen on deaf ears.[ |
Anyway what reasons? |
Many and several.
The lines on the map in the ME were drawn by Europeans, not by the people living there.
The Shah of Iran was installed after a CIA-led coup that ousted the democratically-elected Mossadegh.
We shot an airbus containing pilgrims on their way to Mecca in the early 80s, and it took most a decade for the US to make reparations for it.
Israel would collapse overnight without the billions we put in their mailbox.
Our number two aid reecipient in the region is Egypt, a corrupt one-party dictatorship that tortures its own citizens in addition to the ones we send them to torture on our behalf.
Most of the govts in the region were either installed by the US or are heavily supported in one way or another - and they are seen by extremists as enemies of Isalm as well.
The Saudi royal family is old old pals with the Bush clan and has been for decades - and it is a big prioty for extremists to end their dominion over the country that contains Mecca.
Most of what bin Laden and the other extremists say about the US is bogus ... but I'm afraid you are equally bogus to suggest that none of the grievances of muslims against the West carry any validity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's disingenuous and insincere. Especially when you claim that antiwar arguments on humanitarian grounds contain hypocrisy - you have no reason to care aabout the wselfare of Iraqis and I feel pretty confident that you do not, not very much, and yet you can get away with the same thing you save your derision when your opponents employ it. |
No it isn't you are the one making humanitarian argument and so does your author
| Quote: |
| It's not right for the Iraqis." |
and the case is weak.
besides it is not only Iraqis but others Saddam wasn't only a threat to Iraqis.
I have nothing against Iraqis - infact I wish them well. It affects my whole perception of the war I am confident that they are in fact better off as a result of US actions.
| Quote: |
| Who, really, is practicing hypocrisy here? |
You - don't make the humanitarian arguement anymore cause you got a weak case.
And when I bring up Saddam's record it is not only on humanitairna grounds but also it shows what Saddam would do with power.
| Quote: |
| Non sequiteur and irrelevant response. Find something beneficial to the USA that has or is likely to come out fo this mess, and you might have a leg to hobble with. |
How so is it a "Non sequiteur and irrelevant response"
cause you say so?
First Saddam is gone and the US doesn't have to contain Saddam anymore.
The US gets bases in Kurdistan and that way it can threaten nations in the region into stoping hate and cracking down on Al Qada.
many of them are irrational and have nothing to do with the US.
| Quote: |
| The lines on the map in the ME were drawn by Europeans, not by the people living there. |
Ok
| Quote: |
| The Shah of Iran was installed after a CIA-led coup that ousted the democratically-elected Mossadegh. |
yes but the US also helped keep the Soviets out of Iran.
| Quote: |
| We shot an airbus containing pilgrims on their way to Mecca in the early 80s, and it took most a decade for the US to make reparations for it. |
An accident - while Iran was supporting terror.
but your facts are better than they were before on this incident.
One reason the US was late was that maybe they were afraid the Iranian government was going to steal the money . Khomeni wasn't above doing something like that.
| Quote: |
| Israel would collapse overnight without the billions we put in their mailbox |
.
Israel has a 100 billion dollar economy, the US gives Israel 3 Billion the US ought not to do so - but it would not collapse overnight. Tell how it would collapse overnight? Indeed the US about the same money on South Koreas' defense.
| Quote: |
| Our number two aid reecipient in the region is Egypt, a corrupt one-party dictatorship that tortures its own citizens in addition to the ones we send them to torture on our behalf. |
Egypt is actually less oppressive than many mideast regimes. Why don't they get angry about the others with worse records.
| Quote: |
| Most of the govts in the region were either installed by the US or are heavily supported in one way or another - and they are seen by extremists as enemies of Isalm as well. |
Tell us which govts were installed? Tell us how the US supports them- you mean the US gives countires like Jordan foreign aid?
| Quote: |
| The Saudi royal family is old old pals with the Bush clan and has been for decades - and it is a big prioty for extremists to end their dominion over the country that contains Mecca. |
Yes the US has had a trading relationship with the Saudis. So what? Should the US not trade with them because fascists hate the govt there?
Besides the Saudis have paid the extermists off there. Indeed the extremists don't hate the royal family so much. Indeed one of the clerics calling for Jihad against the US freaked out when his son went to fight the US in Iraq and what do you know he was able to get the Saudi security services to get his son back.
| Quote: |
| Most of what bin Laden and the other extremists say about the US is bogus ... but I'm afraid you are equally bogus to suggest that none of the grievances of muslims against the West carry any validity. |
Most of what they say is bogus and a lot of it is distortions.
And you leave out that the US has also defended muslims.
You don't see people getting upset at much worse things done by mid east govts do you?
Here is Robert Fisk. He is biased against the US -more now than he used to be but here he does speak the truth
| Quote: |
| As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone �� allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities �� could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm
that tells you the truth of the mideast right there |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Who, really, is practicing hypocrisy here? |
You - don't make the humanitarian arguement anymore cause you got a weak case. |
The hypocrisy is that you think war-lovers have the right to "care" about he Iraqi people, but others do not.
| Quote: |
| And when I bring up Saddam's record it is not only on humanitairna grounds but also it shows what Saddam would do with power. |
Saddam is gone from power now and he won't be back. This is only part of what makes your position ridiculous. And hypocritical.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't know how anyoine can be in favor of this war and say it is because they love America - this war is bad for America, and will become worse for us as it continues. Invariably, though, it is those of us who speak out against it who have their patriotism put in question. |
Well cause the mideast the way it was was a threat to the US. |
Non sequiteur and irrelevant response. Find something beneficial to the USA that has or is likely to come out fo this mess, and you might have a leg to hobble with. |
How so is it a "Non sequiteur and irrelevant response" |
it is so because it ignores trhe question as presented - this is what non sequiteur and irrelevant mean, you know.
The war has already damaged America more than Saddam ever did - he did practically nothing to us - and it has damaged the US far more than he was able, or would have been able to do. These are the true facts of the world - he had no WMDs, nor was he likely capable of getting them, and there remains to this day no evidence of complicity with Al Queda or any group that actuall did any damage to us.
These are the facts : Iraq = no damage to the US --> Iraq War = much damage to the US.
Are we clear on that?
Your reply is also nonresponsive in that it does not address the question posed about why people who "support" the war (despite the documented evidence of the Pentagon's lack of material support) are said to love America more than those of us who want to bring the troops home.
You wave the flag and therefore you love our country more - ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bob
| Quote: |
| The hypocrisy is that you think war-lovers have the right to "care" about he Iraqi people, but others do not. |
fact is you have a weak case on humanitarian grounds.
Bob
| Quote: |
| Saddam is gone from power now and he won't be back. This is only part of what makes your position ridiculous. And hypocritical. |
Saddam is gone cause of US actions -how is it hypocritical?
BOB
| Quote: |
| it is so because it ignores trhe question as presented - this is what non sequiteur and irrelevant mean, you know. |
Just cause you say so doesn't mean anything.
Mideast regimes can stop the hate if they choose to do so. If they won't then they need to be forced.
BOB
| Quote: |
| The war has already damaged America more than Saddam ever did |
It wasn't only Saddam. The way the mid east is was a threat to the US. Saddam was part of that equation.
BOB
-
| Quote: |
| he did practically nothing to us |
The way the mideast is is why the US was attacked on 9-11
BOB
| Quote: |
- and it has damaged the US far more than he was able, or would have been able to do. These are the true facts of the world - he had no WMDs, nor was he likely capable of getting them, and there remains to this day no evidence of complicity with Al Queda or any group that actuall did any damage to us. |
again the way the way the mid east is is why the US was attacked on 9-11.
Futhermore Saddam did have contacts with Al Qaida and he did intend to rearm.
but Bathsims, Khomenism and Bin Ladenism are a threat to the US. They are the reason for the hate and they are the reason for the terror.
BOB
| Quote: |
| These are the facts : Iraq = no damage to the US --> Iraq War = much damage to the US. |
The fact the way the mideast is did damage to the US on 9-11.
and containing Saddam was a cost to the US.
| Quote: |
The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.
But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.
The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.
Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.
Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.
The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.
But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.
This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.
So that is our cost. |
BOB
| Quote: |
Are we clear on that? |
Are we clear on that.
| Quote: |
| Your reply is also nonresponsive in that it does not address the question posed about why people who "support" the war (despite the documented evidence of the Pentagon's lack of material support) are said to love America more than those of us who want to bring the troops home. |
It it is not anti US to be against the war. It is anti US to condemn the US for its war but not condemn the insurgents for their war.
It is anti US to not want the US to be any more powerful than it is. It is anti US to feel that any strategic gains the US truly achieves as ill gotten gains that must be returned.
If you oppose the war cause one thinks that is a bad strategic move for the US then your reason is just .
If you oppose the war cause you don't want the US to be better off as a result of it then go to hell.
That one is afraid that the US might be better off as a result is not a legitmate reason to oppose US actions in Iraq.
BOB
| Quote: |
| You wave the flag and therefore you love our country more - ridiculous. |
Not about flag waving it is about being worried that the US is too powerful.
Condemning the actios of the US but not condeming the war of the insurgents. and what is worse giving a most sympathetic description of their struggle. ( Fighting for their homes and families?) More like fighting to rule Iraq.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=29718&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90
BOBSTER SAID:
| Quote: |
What I have said about international law in the past - as you well know - is that the insurgents probably do not care very much about it, and that if I were in their place I would not care either. Whether they believe Allah will take them to paradise or not, people who are fighting for their homes and their families against a foreign invading army do not CARE about international law, GB - they care about getting the job done.. |
BOBSTER SAID
| Quote: |
Gonna gently suggest that you do not know what you would do in the event that massively armed invading armies marched down the street of the town or city where you resided as a boy. Would you compromise and collaborate with the invaders or do something else? I have no idea what you would do, and so I will make no judgments, but I have a feeling that if you were to do anything less than complete opposition then you just might regret it at some point in your life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Bob
| Quote: |
| The hypocrisy is that you think war-lovers have the right to "care" about he Iraqi people, but others do not. |
fact is you have a weak case on humanitarian grounds. |
Would that it were so. The behavior of our Iraq has only been an improvement in a quantitative sense, a difference in degree, not in kind.
Gitmo. Rendition to third countries so that torture can be done but so that we can claim deniability. Abu Ghraib. The carnage perpetrated on women, children and the elderly, including mass graves, in Fallujah.
| Quote: |
Bob
| Quote: |
| Saddam is gone from power now and he won't be back. This is only part of what makes your position ridiculous. And hypocritical. |
Saddam is gone cause of US actions -how is it hypocritical? |
Hypocritical because the abuses just outlined all took place after Saddam's fall, of course. And you claim only the pro-war position can claim the humanitarian position. This is hypocritical.
| Quote: |
BOB
| Quote: |
| The war has already damaged America more than Saddam ever did |
It wasn't only Saddam. The way the mid east is was a threat to the US. Saddam was part of that equation. |
The way the mideast was ... and the way it is NOW is an improvement. Please support that notion, please do.
| Quote: |
BOB
-
| Quote: |
| he did practically nothing to us |
The way the mideast is is why the US was attacked on 9-11 |
Non sequiteur and repetitious, therefore as useless as any conversation that involves you around here.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| - and it has damaged the US far more than he was able, or would have been able to do. These are the true facts of the world - he had no WMDs, nor was he likely capable of getting them, and there remains to this day no evidence of complicity with Al Queda or any group that actuall did any damage to us. |
again the way the way the mid east is is why the US was attacked on 9-11.
Futhermore Saddam did have contacts with Al Qaida and he did intend to rearm. |
Yawn, I think you have this stuff programmed into a quick-key to same you typing it so many times. The Bush Administration has said many times that they found no connections between Saddam and 9/11 - they know it, so why don't you?
My suggestion is that you find something new to say, something relevant to the thread, and something that has not already been refuted countless times, both by people here and by the subsequent events of the world.
The rest of what you say is predictable enough, nothing new, including attempts to discredit my own person with quotes taken out of context from a discussion on a far-removed subject ... A discussion in which you yourself offered such gems as "The Klan hates Bush just like you." How quaint.
As if anything The Bobster said months ago about the insurgency has any relevance to whether the US is better off in Iraq or whether we should declare victory now and come home. I stand by what I said there, but there is no relevance to what we are talking about here, you know it and you have made no attempt to tie anything together.
I always hoped we would have found WMDs, by the way - it would have helped me think there was something useful to all this, but of course there is not. It is all simply causing damage to my country with little or no likely benefit in the future.
My suggestion for you is to actually discuss the ideas present on this thread, read the OP and talk about that - there is nothing new that you have said which you have not said many times, and which has not been refuted many times. Claiming otherwise is useless - non sequiteur, nonresponsive and irrelevant to the present discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Would that it were so. The behavior of our Iraq has only been an improvement in a quantitative sense, a difference in degree, not in kind. |
still you have a weak case
| Quote: |
| Gitmo. Rendition to third countries so that torture can be done but so that we can claim deniability |
.
that is not Iraq , and defeating al Qauda is a good thing
better than Saddam .
| Quote: |
| The carnage perpetrated on women, children and the elderly, including mass graves, in Fallujah. |
Mass graves? You prove it.
Fighting the insurgents also saves lives. They would kill many more if they had the chance.
| Quote: |
Hypocritical because the abuses just outlined all took place after Saddam's fall, of course. And you claim only the pro-war position can claim the humanitarian position. This is hypocritical. |
But taking down Saddam saved lives and their is a very strong argument that keeping US forces in Iraq makes the nation better than just leaving it to disorder.
| Quote: |
| The way the mideast was ... and the way it is NOW is an improvement. Please support that notion, please do. |
saddam is gone, Khadddy disarmed and the results for the rest are not in.
| Quote: |
Non sequiteur and repetitious, therefore as useless as any conversation that involves you around here. |
Bob's way of saying he doesn't have a good answer.
| Quote: |
| [Yawn, I think you have this stuff programmed into a quick-key to same you typing it so many times. The Bush Administration has said many times that they found no connections between Saddam and 9/11 - they know it, so why don't you? |
but Saddam did have contacts between Al Qaida and he did support terror and he wasn't in complience
| Quote: |
My suggestion is that you find something new to say, something relevant to the thread, and something that has not already been refuted countless times, both by people here and by the subsequent events of the world. |
You couldn't refute anything. the fact is your description of the facts' isn't accurate.
| Quote: |
| The rest of what you say is predictable enough, nothing new, including attempts to discredit my own person with quotes taken out of context from a discussion on a far-removed subject ... A discussion in which you yourself offered such gems as "The Klan hates Bush just like you." How quaint. |
it tells where you stand and what your views are.
| Quote: |
| As if anything The Bobster said months ago about the insurgency has any relevance to whether the US is better off in Iraq or whether we should declare victory now and come home. I stand by what I said there, but there is no relevance to what we are talking about here, you know it and you have made no attempt to tie anything together. |
No you denounce US actions but you don't denounce the insurgents for their war.
| Quote: |
| I always hoped we would have found WMDs, by the way - it would have helped me think there was something useful to all this, but of course there is not. It is all simply causing damage to my country with little or no likely benefit in the future. |
Saddam wasn't in complience, and even if they found WMDs that would not be the real reason for the war. and the threat to the US from the mideast because it is the way it is is much more than WMDS.
| Quote: |
| My suggestion for you is to actually discuss the ideas present on this thread, read the OP and talk about that - there is nothing new that you have said which you have not said many times, and which has not been refuted many times. Claiming otherwise is useless - non sequiteur, nonresponsive and irrelevant to the present discussion.[ |
Your opinons on the subject of the insurgency and the actions of states hostile to the US answers many the questions about you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I missed those Joo-Bob exchanges. Nice to see they're back.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
