Obama says 'authorized' targeted US strikes on Iraq

[Denny Crane]

So you don't feel that Democrats who opposed the war based on the merits of the case for war (or lack thereof, in their opinion), or due to principles like non-intervention or pacifism, were traitorous?

I agree that some Democrats played politics with the war, for partisan gain. But what about those against the war who weren't doing that?

There weren't that many.

Kucinich. A few others perhaps.

But anyone who voted for the war resolution and spoke out about how they saw the Intel and that Saddam had to be remove? You bet.

You remember tdizzle? I encouraged him to post his daily antiwar blog-like posts. Even gave him his own sub forum for it. I didn't suggest he was being a traitor.

 

[Minstrel]

There weren't that many.

There were plenty, especially among non-politicians, whom you derided as traitors too.

 

[Denny Crane]

There were plenty, especially among non-politicians, whom you derided as traitors too.

To this day, ~40% of the people think the invasion was not a mistake.

But back then?

The problem you have is that more than 23% are claiming they disapproved initially. Liars, every one of them.

 

[Denny Crane]

And these people, in particular, are well documented:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Because we helped Saddam gain and stay in power. We didn't do anything like that in those other places. If the UN or NATO voted to go into those places, we'd be obligated by treaty. Maybe UN and/or NATO should have gotten involved.

I wonder how hoojacks would sweet talk a vicious mass murderer into stopping or changing his ways.

Let's take a trip down to Crawford and find out

 

[Denny Crane]

Let's take a trip down to Crawford and find out

It's easy to take potshots at whatever anyone does.

There was no better option. It is unfortunate.

 

[barfo]

I think reparations are due in a lot of places. It doesn't make sense to go into Iran to overthrow the Shah. The Iranians did that on their own.

Eventually. Maybe the Iraqis would have eventually overthrown Saddam? Why not wait like we did in Iran?

According to the Denny Doctrine, should we have gone into Iran years ago to overthrow the Shah?

I'm not talking about trading with or even arming these dictators. I'm talking about the CIA giving them Intel to defeat an enemy in a war.

Yeah, I'm just sure that Iraq is unique in that. Certainly the CIA has otherwise behaved itself admirably around the globe.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Eventually. Maybe the Iraqis would have eventually overthrown Saddam? Why not wait like we did in Iran?

According to the Denny Doctrine, should we have gone into Iran years ago to overthrow the Shah?



Yeah, I'm just sure that Iraq is unique in that. Certainly the CIA has otherwise behaved itself admirably around the globe.

barfo

We did wait. Sanctions for 10 years, no fly zones, encouraged rebellion. The result was Saddam's imperial guard and army massacred people, and he gassed entire towns. He took the oil for food money and built palaces while his people suffered for lack of food and medicine. And we were the ones buying most of his oil.

Iran overthrew the Shah, but he was dying anyway. Jimmy Carter gave him asylum here and the result was a year+ hostage crisis and poor relations with Iran ever since. If anything, barfo, you fuel my argument. Thanks.

I don't say we stop with Iraq, but each situation is also unique. You don't have to overthrow a dictator that's long dead and a democratically elected government is in place now. Instead, we might consider trading on favorable terms with them, giving them assistance to build hospitals and schools and that sort of thing.

I ultimately want all the troops home. Most can come home now, in fact. But you can't set up a Hitler and concentration camps and then walk away from it. We have a moral obligation to right that sort of wrong.

So I always said we should go into Iraq and arrest Saddam and leave. That's not what we did. It is what GHW Bush did in Panama, though. Panama seems to be our friends now.

 

[barfo]

Iran overthrew the Shah, but he was dying anyway.

He wasn't always dying. Doesn't the Denny Doctrine say we have gone in with guns ablazing sometime before he got old and weak?

We have a moral obligation to right that sort of wrong.

The Denny Doctrine says we have a moral obligation to make things worse for anyone we've harmed.
I expect you'd make reparations to the Native Americans by giving everyone on the reservation free meth.

So I always said we should go into Iraq and arrest Saddam and leave. That's not what we did.

It's vastly different than what we did. Yet you seem to support what we did.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I don't want to see us get involved anywhere. Not syria, not libya, not afghanistan, not iraq, not anywhere.

Is that plain enough for you?

I don't say we stop with Iraq

Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

So I always said we should go into Iraq and arrest Saddam and leave. That's not what we did.

There was no better option.

Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again.

You can cut and paste from the sentences and paragraphs I made and turn it into some other meaning. Seems that's what you did.

I don't know of any other highly militarized nation where we installed a brutal dictator and propped him up for decades. I do know of nations we interfered with in the past, and I suggested economic reparations, not war.

I'm consistently consistent, regardless of your choice of edits.

 

[Denny Crane]

He wasn't always dying. Doesn't the Denny Doctrine say we have gone in with guns ablazing sometime before he got old and weak?



The Denny Doctrine says we have a moral obligation to make things worse for anyone we've harmed.
I expect you'd make reparations to the Native Americans by giving everyone on the reservation free meth.



It's vastly different than what we did. Yet you seem to support what we did.

barfo

It's vastly different, indeed. I did not support occupying Iraq. The guy you voted for did.

You speak from both sides of your mouth.

 

[barfo]

Re: The USA is Bombing Iraq Again.

You can cut and paste from the sentences and paragraphs I made and turn it into some other meaning. Seems that's what you did.

I don't know of any other highly militarized nation where we installed a brutal dictator and propped him up for decades. I do know of nations we interfered with in the past, and I suggested economic reparations, not war.

I'm consistently consistent, regardless of your choice of edits.

I don't think I took those comments out of context. Feel free to explain how you didn't mean what you said, though.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't say we stop with Iraq, but each situation is also unique. You don't have to overthrow a dictator that's long dead and a democratically elected government is in place now. Instead, we might consider trading on favorable terms with them, giving them assistance to build hospitals and schools and that sort of thing.

This is the post you deliberately butchered.

Where did I say we should go to war anywhere else?

We can hospital and school them to death in barfo land.

We can provide reparations and do right by the people we wronged in the past.

 

[barfo]

This is the post you deliberately butchered.

Where did I say we should go to war anywhere else?

We can hospital and school them to death in barfo land.

We can provide reparations and do right by the people we wronged in the past.

Yes, I see, I misunderstood. You are saying that Iraq is unique in that it had a dictator. Everyplace else we've done bad things now has a dead dictator or a democracy, so we can right our wrongs by just throwing money at them.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, I see, I misunderstood. You are saying that Iraq is unique in that it had a dictator. Everyplace else we've done bad things now has a dead dictator or a democracy, so we can right our wrongs by just throwing money at them.

barfo

Pretty much. If there are bad guys still in power, I still don't think war and occupation is a way to go.

For the 2nd or 3rd time now, what GHW Bush did with Noriega will do. Small military force went in and arrested him. They put him on trial and in jail. He was extradited to France and served time there. He was extradited back to Panama, and will die in prison there. It was over in a matter of days.

That picture of Bush, mission accomplished was after ~3 weeks of combat against Saddam's army. His army was defeated, and he was deposed. The war was over. We should have brought the troops home after arresting Saddam and handing him over to the Haig or the Iraqis.

How much clearer do I have to be? Or are you intent on twisting this into something else I did not write or imply or advocate.

 

[barfo]

Pretty much. If there are bad guys still in power, I still don't think war and occupation is a way to go.

For the 2nd or 3rd time now, what GHW Bush did with Noriega will do. Small military force went in and arrested him. They put him on trial and in jail. He was extradited to France and served time there. He was extradited back to Panama, and will die in prison there. It was over in a matter of days.

That picture of Bush, mission accomplished was after ~3 weeks of combat against Saddam's army. His army was defeated, and he was deposed. The war was over. We should have brought the troops home after arresting Saddam and handing him over to the Haig or the Iraqis.

How much clearer do I have to be? Or are you intent on twisting this into something else I did not write or imply or advocate.

No, no, it's very clear. Saddam is the one and only dictator that we needed to, or ever will need to, remove with an army. Everyplace else is Panama, where we just arrest the bad guy. And Iraq should have been like that, but wasn't, but that's totally ok.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, no, it's very clear. Saddam is the one and only dictator that we needed to, or ever will need to, remove with an army. Everyplace else is Panama, where we just arrest the bad guy. And Iraq should have been like that, but wasn't, but that's totally ok.

barfo

I didn't say much of that, but OK, barfo. All I can tell from this is that you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[maxiep]

All I'm saying is that the popular rebellion against Assad, which was a direct result of the Arab Spring, aren't ISIS/al-Qaeda.

I'm reminded of a corollary, a short story about the Spanish Civil War called "Blanco y Negro" (Black & White). Two people are having a conversation on a park bench, one person saying "Blanco", the other "Negro". Their discussion gets more heated, until they are screaming at each other "Blanco!" and "Negro!". Finally, a third person comes in and calmly says "Amarillo" (Yellow). The two protagonists look at each other, and then kill the guy that offered the compromise.

The moral of the story is the only thing that the extremes agree upon is that the middle must be killed.