quote:

ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

My outlook would not have changed, I think it is immoral to invade people for their natural resources and there is a such thing as karma out there, and the worm will turn... and it really pisses me off that my son is going to be left with a nation that has the worm turning on it.

Sort of like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in what is now referred to as Gulf War I? Did you forget about GWI I wonder? Did you forget about The Iraqi dictator's murdering thousands of innocent Kurdish women and children with poison gas? Did you forget about the use of banned chemical weapons against defenseless people in your own special form of genocide? What of this man who had attacked his Islamic Iranian neighbors and used banned weaponry there too in his conquest... the man who had his own version of the Quran written in his own blood... this very special man minding his own very special business?

I can see how Saddam Hussein was not a threat in your eyes, but in the same token I do realize what a threat he was, and I helped kick his ass and run him back home in GWI. A mistake of GWI was to leave him in peace after running him back home from Kuwait.

As to whether or not the reasons you were told to justify the military action were just in your mind, I would ask that had you reviewed additional classified information would you have been any happier in the matter? Actually I doubt it because recreational message board posting and political bashing seems to be much more fun than knowing underlying factors of turmoil.

Did oil have anything to do with it? Hell yes, as it was also a factor in GWI when the sweet Hussein man invaded Kuwait and decided he would in fact decide what is best for other sovereign nations, and their allies.  Yep, sweet Mr Hussein is a real pussycat... and he has a real fondness for Reeses peanut butter cups too. His son's had a fondess for kidnapping brides at their weddings too, but they were real sweet harmless boys too... 

(edited for typos)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

My outlook would not have changed, I think it is immoral to invade people for their natural resources and there is a such thing as karma out there, and the worm will turn... and it really pisses me off that my son is going to be left with a nation that has the worm turning on it.

Sort of like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in what is now referred to as Gulf War I? Did you forget about GWI I wonder? Did you forget about The Iraqi dictator's murdering thousands of innocent Kurdish women and children with poison gas? Did you forget about the use of banned chemical weapons against defenseless people in your own special form of genocide? What of this man who had attacked his Islamic Iranian neighbors and used banned weaponry there too in his conquest... the man who had his own version of the Quran written in his own blood... this very special man minding his own very special business?

I can see how Saddam Hussein was not a threat in your eyes, but in the same token I do realize what a threat he was, and I helped kick his ass and run him back home in GWI. A mistake of GWI was to leave him in peace after running him back home from Kuwait.

As to whether or not the reasons you were told to justify the military action were just in your mind, I would ask that had you reviewed additional classified information would you have been any happier in the matter? Actually I doubt it because recreational message board posting and political bashing seems to be much more fun than knowing underlying factors of turmoil.

Did oil have anything to do with it? Hell yes, as it was also a factor in GWI when the sweet Hussein man invaded Kuwait and decided he would in fact decide what is best for other sovereign nations, and their allies.  Yep, sweet Mr Hussein is a real pussycat... and he has a real fondness for Reeses peanut butter cups too. His son's had a fondess for kidnapping brides at their weddings too, but they were real sweet harmless boys too... 

(edited for typos)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

BTW it is not GW1, it is GHWB (I just thought you should know that).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The reasons you give for our being in Iraq may seem correct to you.  I can give many reasons why the United States should have occupied Vietnam as well. 

A lot of countries on this planet practice genocide on their own populations, and we dont go around invading them.

But I am not really interested in debating the merits of invading Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

We had no UN mandate for this invasion, if we really have a problem with genocide there is currently one underway in Sudan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
One of the hallmarks of George W. Bush's administration is the search for justifications for a conclusion already made.  Rather than consider that the conclusion might be incorrect, they desperately work to figure out some way to justify what it is they have already decided to do.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy

quote:

Is "bullshit," then, a synonym for "lie"? Not exactly. Frankfurt asks us to consider an anecdote told about Ludwig Wittgenstein wherein the great philosopher phones a friend named Fania Pascal who's just had her tonsils removed. How are you, Wittgenstein asks. Like a dog that's been run over, Pascal answers. Wittgenstein then replies testily, "You don't know what a dog that has been run over feels like." In effect, Frankfurt argues, Wittgenstein is suggesting that Pascal is spouting bullshit. (A more reasonable person, Frankfurt concedes, would reach the charitable conclusion that Wittgenstein's friend is merely expressing herself through the use of allusive or at worst hyperbolic language.) Wittgenstein's grumpy outburst seems so absurd that very possibly the real bullshit here is the anecdote itself. But Frankfurt asks us to assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that the anecdote is true and that Wittgenstein's objection is rational and sincere.So: Wittgenstein thinks Pascal is bullshitting him. But why, Frankfurt asks,

does it strike [Wittgenstein] that way? It does so, I believe, because he perceives what Pascal says as being—roughly speaking, for now—unconnected to a concern with the truth. Her statement is not germane to the enterprise of describing reality. She does not even think she knows, except in the vaguest way, how a run-over dog feels. Her description of her own feeling is, accordingly, something that she is merely making up.

Is Pascal lying? No. She isn't trying to deceive Wittgenstein about how she really feels, and she isn't trying to deceive Wittgenstein about how a dog would feel if run over. Her error, Frankfurt concludes, isn't that she conducted a faulty inquiry into how a dog would feel if run over, but that she conducted no inquiry at all (in this case, because none is possible)."It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that I regard as the essence of bullshit."

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Tell me why Saddam's neighbors were not fearful of him when GW invaded? Because he was not a threat....

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Tell me why Saddam's neighbors were not fearful of him when GW invaded? Because he was not a threat....

Ummm.  The guy invaded and occupied Kuwait for their oil.  That to Me is a threat.  How easily you naysayers tend to forget things like this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy

If you are aware of a genocide currently taking place in Sudan, what if anything have you done about it? Have you expressed your outrage to your elected officials, and/or taken your concerns to the UN, or have you merely turned a blind eye while accusing the US and "dubya" (GB2) of invading a friendly sovereign nation merely for the sake of it's oil?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The thing about the US is that they have not been taking what is not theirs.  They move in, restore order and leave.