Obama: Bush Senior “did an excellent job when it came to the Gulf War"

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

so an anti-war stance is unintelligent?

and the only intelligent way to think is to see that war is unavoidable?

didnt say that... you continue to try and not answer the questions. you know, the tough questions a devout pacifist like you should be ready to answer easliy... but instead iof answering feel free to conintue to paint me as a republican ar monger


do you feel there have been any instances where military intervention was needed and just? if so what were they?

darfur for example?


you know abook, sometimes it is healthy to ask yourself the difficult questions...

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

didnt say that... you continue to try and not answer the questions. you know, the tough questions a devout pacifist like you should be ready to answer easliy... but instead iof answering feel free to conintue to paint me as a republican ar monger


do you feel there have been any instances where military intervention was needed and just? if so what were they?

darfur for example?


you know abook, sometimes it is healthy to ask yourself the difficult questions...

I've already answered it so many times in this thread. What the hell one more time won't hurt.

I'm anti-war which means I'm against the concept of war.

if you feel the urge to ask again...just refer back to this post.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I've already answered it so many times in this thread. What the hell one more time won't hurt.

I'm anti-war which means I'm against the concept of war.

if you feel the urge to ask again...just refer back to this post.

thats fine. i think thats wrong, but youre beliefs are no threat to me, so have a great life.

however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.

Abookamongstthemany

MrSmith wrote:

thats fine. i think thats wrong, but youre beliefs are no threat to me, so have a great life.

however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.

and some people suffer because you choose to justify war

Rhinocerous Surprise

MrSmith wrote:

thats fine. i think thats wrong, but youre beliefs are no threat to me, so have a great life.

however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.

Can you accept that a steady voice of strongly pacifist belief might be a good way of keeping in check those who would turn to war at the slightest opportunity?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Can you accept that a steady voice of strongly pacifist belief might be a good way of keeping in check those who would turn to war at the slightest opportunity?

in most situations, absolutely.

my2hands

MrSmith wrote:

however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.

with great power comes great reponsiblity


it is real easy to say "i am anti war" when there is a genocide going on... but how about the 1,000,000 million people murdered that you could have saved

Drowned Out

m2h - you seem to think yourself the resident expert on this topic, yet you have twice claimed (posts 83 and 180, probably more) that you posted the entire 'green light memo'....when in fact you posted only a few lines more (from a mainstream US source, of course) than the one line that you claim is being misrepresented. It is an 8 page transcript of a meeting. How is that any different than what you are complaining others are doing?

Here is a more complete version, in case you are actually willing to click a link:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/0DFD0DDB2BA34EF59F2570CE7EEE03C8.pdf

Note that the Times piece ommitted the preceding sentences, which changes the context once again:

SHE WISHED TO USE HER LIMITED TIME WITH THE PRESIDENT TO STRESS FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH’S DESIRE FOR FRIENDSHIP AND, SECOND, HIS STRONG DESIRE, SHARED WE ASSUME BY IRAQ, FOR PEACE AND STABILITY IN IRAQ. IS IT NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND FOREIGN MINISTER BOTH SAY PUBLICLY THAT KUWAITI ACTIONS ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF MILITARY AGGRESSION , AND THEN WE LEARN THAT MANY UNITS OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE BORDER?

They were playing both sides. She was sent there to further relations with Saddam. Bush was voting against Iraqi sanctions throughout the buildup to the war, and stating that this was an effort to continue diplomacy. But he was also buying underpriced oil from Kuwait, who were stealing it from Iraq...Glaspie misled congress and the decision to go to war, as always, was not an informed one. She gave the impression that she went to Iraq to talk tough, and if you read the transcript (which you obviously haven't), it shows that this was not the case at all.

As has been stated a thousand times in this thread, this was not a matter of Iraq simply waking up and deciding to take over Kuwait.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I've already answered it so many times in this thread. What the hell one more time won't hurt.

I'm anti-war which means I'm against the concept of war.

if you feel the urge to ask again...just refer back to this post.

cop out


a far too simplistic answer to a complicated world and complicated question...

you have the luxury of being against the conept of war sitting safelty in your suburban home typing on your keyboard. not everyone in the world has that luxury. burma comes to mind on that note... or Darfur... how is the anti war concept working out for the slaughtered innocents of darfur? while the world sits back and watches like pussies

sometimes non action is more heinous and depolorable then taking action

flywallyfly

my2hands wrote:

sometimes non action is more heinous and depolorable then taking action

Thank you.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrSmith wrote:

werent you like 4 years old at the time? the only people you knew were playing Sonic the Hedgehog and listening to NKOTB...

in 91? ...add 16 years...

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

and some people suffer because you choose to justify war

You cannot justify what is unjustifiable. And when they do so, people set up recurring consequences that pour back on them. They cannot see outside the mindsets that keep them locked in the cycles. It's like speaking a different language to them. They continue violence and killing. They are violent.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

...

however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.

The person who creates suffering and acts out upon another is always the one responsible for the suffering meted out.

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

...however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.

Are you saying that to act along with one's strict personal moral code is "wrong"? Are you suggesting that to go against one's moral code is the "right" thing to do in any situation?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

Are you saying that to act along with one's strict personal moral code is "wrong"? Are you suggesting that to go against one's moral code is the "right" thing to do in any situation?

Maybe i used the wrong phrase there. not so much acting against one's moral code, but realising that code isn't the right one and changing it when faced with reality instead of foolishly latching on to it even harder. If you think there is one divine rule that is applicable to every situation even when faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, i would define that as fundamentalism and yeah, its wrong.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

The person who creates suffering and acts out upon another is always the one responsible for the suffering meted out.

the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible, even if the only way to prevent that suffering is through the use of violence..

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

Maybe i used the wrong phrase there. not so much acting against one's moral code, but realising that code isn't the right one and changing it when faced with reality instead of foolishly latching on to it even harder. If you think there is one divine rule that is applicable to every situation even when faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, i would define that as fundamentalism and yeah, its wrong.

Are you saying that one "should" change their moral code because someone else is suggesting they do? Obviously Abook, for example doesn't feel your "mountain of evidence" is valid. Should she change her moral code based on your opinion or her own?

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

2 completely different conflicts. the current iraq war is immoral and illegal in my opinion. the fiorst was not.

besides sitting on top of the world 2nd largest oil reserves?

they have slightly more than kuwait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iraq
raq claims to have the world's fourth largest reserves of oil at approximately 115 billion barrels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait

Kuwait has the world's fifth largest proven oil reserves[5] and is the fourth richest country in the world per capita. (104 billion barrels)

and make up your minds...first you say there was no way for us to have prevented him from invading Kuwait (which also opened them to allowing US bases there) then you say he was our puppet in our pocket...it seems if that were the case we could've easily have prevented it!

saddam was broke from the war w/ iran and owed us a lot of money as it was

i didn't see anyone answer this question, but if an ally were amassing troops on the border of israel do ya think we'd just sit be and do nothing or do something, like talk to them and tell them we'd have to react if they invaded?

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

but i am not suprised. most anyone has around here anymore is a cute quote or a link


what the fuck would you have done? how do you proprose the world should have convinced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait? but dont worry of you dont answer it, i dont expect you to, because you cant.

and by the way folks, kuwait really was invaded and about to be occupied by an aggresive foreign enemy. so maybe you can remeber that when you are posting quotes from gandhi or not answering the question


and lets not also forget Gandhi was killed by an extremist


do you guys want some other situations that i felt military action was justified or needed? how about Rwanda in 1994 when pussy ass bill clinton sat back and watched 1 million people get slaughtered in front of the world... i guess you guys think collective consience could have aved those people? well guess what, it didnt. the only thing that could have saved them was military intervention

i think we could've talked to, who you said was, our puppet in our pocket when we saw him amassing troops on the iraq/kuwait border. it was obvious what was about to happen...the congress even realized and held a hearing asking the state dept what was going on and would we be obligated to commit anything if iraq invaded. their reply was 'of course not' and the next day saddam went in....are you telling me there was nothing we could've possibly have done??

i hope i deciphered that reply of yours well enough to answer what you wanted

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

Are you saying that one "should" change their moral code because someone else is suggesting they do? Obviously Abook, for example doesn't feel your "mountain of evidence" is valid. Should she change her moral code based on your opinion or her own?

she can do what she wants. its a free country and she isnt hurting me. she seems nice enough to me. But i would. i dont know how else one changes one's mind on anything except through taking in new information.