The right kick-starts the let’s have another stupid war machine.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Might as well. The left has already kick-started the “let’s surrender” machine…
Glad to see folks shining a light on what a dishonest loon that Hanson character is. Just another puffed-up right-winger waving the paranoid banner of hatred against mainstream America. May the banners ever be raised high, VDH!
It’s fascinating how advocating the use of diplomacy and sanctions constitutes advocating “surrender” to people like Farris. Yup, the only rational response of US policy to any country that even looks at us funny is to turn their entire country into radioactive glass. Naturally this is of course yet another example of American exceptionalism, because if anyone else were to apply the same thought process to us, well, they’d just be insane evil fascist warmongers!
I am starting to agree with one of the comments on the discussion thread on the linked Crooked Timber article; I think I’d feel safer right now if Iran actually had a few nukes.
Diplomacy = surrender. By that measure your beloved President Reagan was a hell of traitor for not nuking Moscow…
What does Ferris care, he isn’t going to actually fight in the war, it’s all other people going to fight (and die). It’s all just a game to people like that. Can we stop pretending his opinion matters?
It was working, and we were 2,300 people higher in our population.
did diplomacy work in Iraq kiddies?
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…….. it was working!
Ignoring TWELVE UN resolutions? Including the one that stated Iraq must PROVE destruction of its WMD’s (NEVER done…)
Committing genocide
shooting at allied pilots enforcing a UN NO FLY zone?
Abusing the oil-for-food program?
Starving the populace and not supplying medicine so you can build a new mansion?
THATS WORKING?
Holy crap, no wonder you guys can’t get elected…!
I guess that means diplomacy didn’t work Bill L., for Iraq at least. But then Bush & folk don’t have much use for it. By comparison though, diplomacy worked between Libya and Britain.
Was working? Try “did work until we invaded anyway.” Saddam went along with U.N. resolution 1441 and allowed inspectors in. No WMD’s were found and conventional missiles that exceeded range limits were destroyed. There is even evidence that the Baathist regime tried numerous times to avoid invasion through numerous diplomatic efforts.
This is particularly important to note as it says volumes about why Iran 1.)won’t simply broker a deal with Europe and the U.N. without U.S. involvement, and 2.)feels the need to get some nukes toot sweet to deter a U.S. attack.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be dangerous and nuts, but he isn’t stupid or blind.
And now you got a crapzone, DrDoper, you can’t even name any benefit the US got from the invasion. We have a long list of negatives.
It’s fascinating how advocating jurisprudence and worst-case scenario planning constitutes the “war machine”.
Iraq sanctions “were working”?!? Not even Kofi believes that anymore.
For the love of god do we have to go through all this again? Why is Bush even bothering to “build a case” for attacking Iran? Why are the right wing idiots even bothering to reshovel the same shit? It’s all so pathetically transparent.
We all know that war with Iran is the only thing that the Republicans have left to save them in November.
… And thet Bush will attack Iran no matter what. It’s all he’s got left. If we’ve learned one thing from Iraq it’s that Bush has already made up his mind what he’s going to do, facts be damned.
It’s all so tediously repetitive isn’t it?
Hussein wasn’t threatening any of his neighbors or our allies, certainly wasn’t a threat to America in any way, shape or form.
Weak, weak, weak. In fact, the “mantra” was that he was not a threat rising to the level of being worthy of this shit war you’ve gotten us into, not that he was no threat at all. Have fun fighting strawmen much?
yup, it sure is….no matter how you demonstrate Husseins support for terrorism, his absolute threat to our pilots enforcing a UN MANDATED no fly zone (sorry Ollie, did you forget about how much you care for our troops there?), his repeated threats to strike america in any way possible…the leftist apologist just keep repeating this tired old mantra “no threat here…!”
But what about the gliders!!!!!
The same argument used to keep us out of WWII as well Tom…thanks for sticking to the oldies but goodies.
The same argument used to keep us out of WWII
Refresh my memory. didn’t Japan attack us in 1941, and didn’t Japan, Germany and Italy declare war on us before we took any military action?
Are you saying that Iraq attacked us and declared war? When did these events take place?
Iraq wasn’t Nazi Germany, as if it wasn’t clear enough to the entire civilized world. But then again, it’s not my ideology that forces me to shoehorn every foreign policy decision into the Munich model.
yea pidgy-widgy…will you please float the Germany invading Poland analogy again…say in October?
Scheisskopf
You still can’t name one benefit the US has gotten out of this invasion. Now you want to pull the WWII card as if Hussein had the industrial might of Nazi Germany. Many would say the US invasion looks more like Germany invading Poland because of the shaky legitimacy.
drpedro Says:
April 17th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
did diplomacy work in Iraq kiddies?
———————————————-
Uh, it takes more than one party, and in any event, if the war was justified, why is Bush and Cheney going to be impeached for lieing the country into war? Not one of the reasons you mention, exaggerated as they are in your mouth, was used as an excuse or justification.
Not one was used to justify the invasion, because they were not good reasons. Lies were used.
Your logic and conclusions are pathetic, drpeon.
I’m sorry DrDoper, it’s not my favorite analogy either, but you righties keep comparing Iraq to the third reich (note strict qualification). It kind of forces the analogies into ones you might be able to understand. Would a comparison to the Spanish American war fit better for you, but instead of yellow journalism pushing the war we have Yellow Propaganda from a Yellow Administration.
The Spanish American War is probably a better analogy, as is the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as the events that started them never happened.
Mikmik….just so you can stop hyperventilating about what was said…here is the SOTUS 2002, emphasis mine….
“States like these (Iraq), and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred…….
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. “
Not that this will help your BDS, but I think the historical record should be straight.
But there was no peril, so logically it would be impossible for it to draw closer. I think the best analogy would be perhaps with the Burma of today: belligerent human rights abusers, certainly, but not threatening to us and not worth invading.
How would you feel about invading Equitorial Guinea, Pedro?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701368.html
How would you feel about invading Equitorial Guinea, Pedro?
BRING ‘EM ON!!
Anything that helps the average American learn geography, I favor.
We could clean up Durfan, or the DRC
Even more detail, if you need it.
Normally I just ignore Pedro’s rants (at least Frank seems to care enough to link to something on occasion, no matter how tenuous the connection to the discussion), but I imagine a number of people on the left also operate under the delusion that the no-fly zones are legal and supported by U.n. resolution.
Short version, They’re not.
uh, right. Read UN security council resolutions 678.687,688 yourself.
Okay, here’s a link to all the U.N. resolutions Saddam was believed or known to have violated.
Not one establishes a no-fly zone. Those zones were established by the U.S., Britain, and France initially, but France later withdrew its support.
Essentially, the U.S. has been bombing Iraq at will for the last 12 years.
UNSCR 1441 – November 8, 2002
Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons. — Was Saddam found to have prohibited weapons after Nov 2002? Nope.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents. — Thanks to Bush’s sabre-rattling, Saddam did grant access to anywhere the inspectors chose to look, at least until Bush decided to invade anyway.
Yeah. remember one day Bush changed from “Saddam must come clean to avoid a war” to “Saddam must leave Iraq in order to avoid a war”.
Correction, please: The “no – fly zone” came about, not as the result of a UN resolution, but from “the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991″
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html