Was the war in Iraq worth the costs?

[John Reynolds]

And our nation was in an uproar about this? Strange, i didn't notice anyone who cared...maybe this is just an example of what i was refering to

-btw my comment was meant to saw Perhaps what is lacking in their media has us shaking our heads.

I figured as much, but my reference to Mrs. Nasty's wardrobe malfunction and the sheer amount of media coverage it received was a sly wink to my belief that we should be shaking our heads over the entire situation.

 

[pax]

Worth the costs yes. Worth the risk no. But both remain to be seen...

 

[Legion]

And our nation was in an uproar about this? Strange, i didn't notice anyone who cared...maybe this is just an example of what i was refering to

-btw my comment was meant to saw Perhaps what is lacking in their media has us shaking our heads.

I figured as much, but my reference to Mrs. Nasty's wardrobe malfunction and the sheer amount of media coverage it received was a sly wink to my belief that we should be shaking our heads over the entire situation.

Ah, as you see, yellow journalism in the works.

THey way i took was:

Media: LOOK AT THIS!!! LOOK PEOPLE LOOK!!! PAY ATTENTION TO US SENSATIONALIZING NONSENSE SO WE HAVE SOMETHINGTO TALK ABOUT!

 

[Humus]

What a worthless question. You simply take it for granted that peace, democracy and freedom and <<enter random meaningless political epithet>> will be the result of the war. Dude, what do you think you are? A freaking prophet?

He asked "if". If it turned out that way, would it then be worth it? If it didn't reach any of the goals, then I'm sure everyone would agree that it wasn't worth it.

I say, yes, it would be worth it. Mostly because I'm not paying anything for it, so for me it's absolutely worth it. Maybe I would think otherwise if I was american, but even then I think I would think it was worth it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Media: LOOK AT THIS!!! LOOK PEOPLE LOOK!!! PAY ATTENTION TO US SENSATIONALIZING NONSENSE SO WE HAVE SOMETHINGTO TALK ABOUT!

Tell me about it....

I saw two headlines today relating to the current "gay marriage" stuff:

1) Bush "troubled" by Gay Vows
2) Laura Bush Says Gay Marriage "shocking"

A pretty specific picture that paints, right?

Then when you actually read the CONTENT, we find this:

1) Pres. Bush: "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."
2) Laura Bush says gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people.

Quite a different picture, wouldn't you say? But the real context just isn't "sensational" enough...so let's just invent a new context...

 

[Humus]

The question was: Was it worth the cost?

And i'm sorry, with a fraction of what the USA and the UK spent on the war on Iraq, hunger in Africa would not EXIST. And the HIV/AIDS issue there would greatly benefit too. A fraction of the cost.

How could anyone ignore that and say it was worth it is just beyond me.

How long would hunger not exist? How would it take until they would be back at square one? World starvation isn't solved that way. Certainly not with all the responsible dictatorships around.

 

[Legion]

Tell me about it....

I just want them to admitt they are no better then Star, National Enquirer, etc.

I just want them to come out and flat out lie to me. I want to enjoy the show damnit!

Tell me what i want to hear this from Tom Brokaw:

"Alien baby, born of californian prostitute, more at 11:00."

I want to see. I want to see the straight look on his face when he tells me about Michael Jackson's affair with Macauley Culkin.

I saw two headlines today relating to the current "gay marriage" stuff:

1) Bush "troubled" by Gay Vows
2) Laura Bush Says Gay Marriage "shocking"

A pretty specific picture that paints, right?

Then when you actually read the CONTENT, we find this:

1) Pres. Bush: "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."
2) Laura Bush says gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people.

The definition of Lie:

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

the definiation of a Liar:

li·ar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lr)
n.
One that tells lies.

I am sure if Michael Moore and Bill Clinton are ready this page now they are thinking to themselves the definitions are subjective

Quite a different picture, wouldn't you say? But the real context just isn't "sensational" enough...so let's just invent a new context...

I know exactly what you mean. I still remember spin doctors' defense of CLinton lying under oath.

"but well, wouldn't you lie?"

Yes news agency, please try and break this down to a more "human" level all the while never having any news that actually relates to real people.

Yes maybe i would lie but i'd go to jail, loose my job, and all sense of self respect.

 

[L233]

1) Bush "troubled" by Gay Vows

[...]

Then when you actually read the CONTENT, we find this:
1) Pres. Bush: "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."

I find the actualy quote much more troubling than the headline. Defaming judges as "activist" because their findings are not to the right's liking seems to be the new fad. Reinforcing wight wing paranoia as a means to motivate and radicalize your followers has always been popular. So now it's the supposed "activist judges" who want to destroy America by not playing along. Scary.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I find the actualy quote much more troubling than the headline. Defaming judges as "activist" because their findings are not to the right's liking seems to be the new fad.

Um, a court actually "ordering a legislature" to reword a law to include same sex marriage seems to be a pretty clear case of "activisim" to me. Or worse, a city Mayor deciding all on his own to perform same sex marriages, depsite recognizing written law to the contrary, is just beyond scary.

 

[Legion]

1) Bush "troubled" by Gay Vows

[...]

Then when you actually read the CONTENT, we find this:
1) Pres. Bush: "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."

I find the actualy quote much more troubling than the headline. Defaming judges as "activist" because their findings are not to the right's liking seems to be the new fad. Reinforcing wight wing paranoia as a means to motivate and radicalize your followers has always been popular. So now it's the supposed "activist judges" who want to destroy America by not playing along. Scary.

I am not troubled by either as i do not know the context of what he said. What does he mean he is "troubled" by it?

No l233 i dont' think this is a left wing/right wing thing. I feel that in many cases politicians are over stepping their bounds in radical activism. Lets not forget the gay movement contains left and right wingers....and a lot of gay people...

 

[ByteMe]

You would have to be an immoral callus ass to not think so. 25 million people are getting a chance at freedom. For those that don't think so I hope the next time you need some help no one does.

It is funny that some of the liberal tree hugging do anything to save the spotted owl habitat at any cost thinks of human life so lowly.

THAT is one of the biggest downfalls of the america. We have too many of these dorks.

 

[Sazar]

You would have to be an immoral callus ass to not think so. 25 million people are getting a chance at freedom. For those that don't think so I hope the next time you need some help no one does.

It is funny that some of the liberal tree hugging do anything to save the spotted owl habitat at any cost thinks of human life so lowly.

THAT is one of the biggest downfalls of the america. We have too many of these dorks.

I'll throw it right back @ you.. what about north korea/pakistan/saudi arabia/libya/iran @ the time we attacked iraq?

they obviously posed a far greater risk to global security per the criterion set... and at least in the case of nortk korea the people are in FAR worse condition than they were in Iraq... hell its almost like the Gulag's over there with the number of people in slavery...

what callous people these trigger-happy republicans are fighting a war to make themselves look good w/o considering the millions of north koreans...

the downfall of america is showmanship and politics based on people who only ask "what have you done for me lately"

IF the population is better education and informed about what is going on as it should be instead of having all this "need to know basis" crap than we are indeed doing well... instead we are too busy cheering on the trista and ryan wedding and other bogus crap on tele... THATS what the masses in america want...

btw since the republicans have such an excellent war on terrorism record please explain the continued growth of al qaeda in afghanistan and the lack of action v/s pakistan...

 

[epicstruggle]

The question was: Was it worth the cost?

And i'm sorry, with a fraction of what the USA and the UK spent on the war on Iraq, hunger in Africa would not EXIST. And the HIV/AIDS issue there would greatly benefit too. A fraction of the cost.

How could anyone ignore that and say it was worth it is just beyond me.

How long would hunger not exist? How would it take until they would be back at square one? World starvation isn't solved that way. Certainly not with all the responsible dictatorships around.

Very true, I would even wager that putting 100 billion into solving africas problem would help very few there. why? because the govermnents are so corrupt its not even funny. It would be interesting to findout how many of their "presidents" are billionaires, with their illgotten money hidden away in swiss banks.

later,
epic

 

[Legion]

I'll throw it right back @ you.. what about north korea/pakistan/saudi arabia/libya/iran @ the time we attacked iraq?

And i will throw it right back...

What about them? NK will certainly be far more difficult to invade an maintain then Iraq. i'd say it would take considerable planning and staging before an attack could go underway.

they obviously posed a far greater risk to global security per the criterion set... and at least in the case of nortk korea the people are in FAR worse condition than they were in Iraq... hell its almost like the Gulag's over there with the number of people in slavery...

Interesting that you suggest that at least NK is far worse then Iraq and yet the world community has done so little to aid their situation.

Again the level of difficulty of removing Kim will undoubtedly be higher then removing Saddam.

what callous people these trigger-happy republicans are fighting a war to make themselves look good w/o considering the millions of north koreans...

Have the historically myopic american leftists forgotten the Bill Clintons Cruise Missle Crusade in the middle east? What was the point of that onslaught? Oh yeah, an attempt at saving Clinton's career.

Did his missle tirade accomplish his goals? I have yet to see evidence...

Have they also forgotten how little Clinton did to help the NKs way back when before Kim was as missle capable as he is today? Clinton was certainly better able at the time to remove Kim do to his lack of preperation for a US invasion.

btw since the republicans have such an excellent war on terrorism record please explain the continued growth of al qaeda in afghanistan and the lack of action v/s pakistan...

Explain if the dems had such a good tract record why Osama Ben Ladin was allowed to escape so many times during Clinton's regime?

 

[Sage]

money is an easy cost to justify

I'd like to see how you justify 10,000 innocent lives

 

[Joe DeFuria]

money is an easy cost to justify

I'd like to see how you justify 10,000 innocent lives

Is any war justified to you?

 

[Sage]

money is an easy cost to justify

I'd like to see how you justify 10,000 innocent lives

Is any war justified to you?

nope.

 

[RussSchultz]

money is an easy cost to justify

I'd like to see how you justify 10,000 innocent lives

Is any war justified to you?

nope.

Dictators rejoice!

 

[Sage]

<-- very deeply Buddhist.

 

[John Reynolds]

I'll throw it right back @ you.. what about north korea/pakistan/saudi arabia/libya/iran @ the time we attacked iraq?

they obviously posed a far greater risk to global security per the criterion set... and at least in the case of nortk korea the people are in FAR worse condition than they were in Iraq... hell its almost like the Gulag's over there with the number of people in slavery...

what callous people these trigger-happy republicans are fighting a war to make themselves look good w/o considering the millions of north koreans...

the downfall of america is showmanship and politics based on people who only ask "what have you done for me lately"

IF the population is better education and informed about what is going on as it should be instead of having all this "need to know basis" crap than we are indeed doing well... instead we are too busy cheering on the trista and ryan wedding and other bogus crap on tele... THATS what the masses in america want...

btw since the republicans have such an excellent war on terrorism record please explain the continued growth of al qaeda in afghanistan and the lack of action v/s pakistan...

I absolutely could not agree more with everything you wrote in this post. If I were gay I'd propose we hop a flight to SF.

j/k