tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post114472148064565853..comments2023-12-31T21:33:59.433-05:00Comments on .: A RESPONSE To Comment On My Previous Post - GOOD DEBATE GOING HERESapphoria / Meganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17571870497797706534noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1162450788869309982006-11-02T01:59:00.001-05:002006-11-02T01:59:00.001-05:00Nice site!http://zyplvnqq.com/eajj/uzwl.html | htt...Nice site!<BR/>http://zyplvnqq.com/eajj/uzwl.html | http://qwtytfhw.com/jarq/gbwp.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1162450736289551822006-11-02T01:58:00.000-05:002006-11-02T01:58:00.000-05:00Great work![url=http://zyplvnqq.com/eajj/uzwl.html...Great work!<BR/>[url=http://zyplvnqq.com/eajj/uzwl.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://rkuyevgi.com/jscd/jtlu.html]Cool site[/url]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1146656189266140912006-05-03T07:36:00.000-04:002006-05-03T07:36:00.000-04:00Sub, welcome back. I don't mean to interrupt a co...Sub, welcome back. I don't mean to interrupt a comment of yours to Shane but I just wanted say a few things. First, I (as well as most here) will speak their mind, but you will always be welcome to share your thoughts and opinions freely here. Clearly you are a loyal and patriotic American. I respect that no matter what side of the aisle you are on. I do wish you would know of me and most on my side that dissenting does not mean we are un-American, un-Patriotic or against the soldiers.<BR/><BR/>We all want victory Sub, victory just means something different to all of us. Victory (in part) to me is to stop the cost in human life as soon as possible and yes this is fueled by the fact that I feel this is an ill-conceived war. Sub, I cannot just blindly support policy that I believe to be not only wrong but criminal. To do that would be wholly un-American.Sapphoria / Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17571870497797706534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1145854961635493902006-04-24T01:02:00.000-04:002006-04-24T01:02:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, Sub, but you seem to have a narrow view...I'm sorry, Sub, but you seem to have a narrow view. Yes, people have been thrown in prisons and fined over meaningless crap. The ones who haven't can't do the things Americans are meant to be free to do out of fear of imprisonment or other courses of punishment. I swear, America is getting more communist everyday. The greed and power trips are getting REALLY old.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1144952045546198612006-04-13T14:14:00.000-04:002006-04-13T14:14:00.000-04:00Ok, I am going to let go of a bit of my diplomacy ...Ok, I am going to let go of a bit of my diplomacy as you keep making little snarky comments.<BR/><BR/>Sub, I think the information I have pointed out casts sufficient doubt on your argument. See? We can both make the same claim. You may think that I am just unwilling to see the truth and I think you must be blind to the obvious truth.<BR/><BR/>You cloud good arguments with things like "If you are going to make the claim that neither of us actually can count or suggest how many civilian casualties there were, then how in the hell can you suggest there were any war crimes? If you aren't going to go in to court with evidence, then stop making foolish arguments." I was giving each of us some latitude here as we are not in Iraq, but since you took the gloves off....how many more reports and images of mothers carrying their dead babies out of destroyed buildings would you have needed to see to believe their were a shocking number of civilian deaths? Foolish arguments? Tell that to the families of the dead.<BR/><BR/>Who manipulated the intelligence? Do you not remember my original argument? Bush is guilty of launching an illegal war, committing war crimes. Lying, lying, lying. Now before you jump into yet another silly, Stepford like statement that I am generalizing and have not stated where and why I see violations of the law, go back and read my very specific claims that include Geneva articles, international law and specific dates.<BR/><BR/>Sub (let's try this again), the pre-war intelligence we were spoon fed was FALSE, UNTRUE, A SHAM, FLIM FLAM, BOGUS. No matter how many times you say "it is clear that the intelligence we received was accurate regarding what Saddam thought and directed", does not change the fact that is was F A L S E.<BR/><BR/>"No insult to you is intended, but if this type of joke makes you upset, you need to get a life." You grossly over-estimate your ability to upset me. I need no other life, mine is fine and even tho the comment was directed toward me, I only felt that it was silly and had nothing to do with our debate.<BR/><BR/>If you only commented here in an attempt to sway me, then you have made a mistake. I believe no matter what, it is the exchange of ideas that is important. If you are looking to "sell" someone, you are in the wrong spot.<BR/><BR/>Also, just as an fyi...Not that I don't just love being refered to as "dear" or "babe", but my name is Megan.Sapphoria / Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17571870497797706534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1144898749051285302006-04-12T23:25:00.000-04:002006-04-12T23:25:00.000-04:00Ok Subsunk, I will attempt some brevity here...(my...Ok Subsunk, I will attempt some brevity here...(my item numbers will not match yours, I am just taking each point and numbering them myself)<BR/><BR/>1. The Congress acted on manipulated intelligence. You can't fault anyone (including the American people who offered support) when they were armed with false information. <BR/><BR/>2. Regarding exhausting all other options. Should Saddam have violated 1441 or others and diplomacy and/or sanctions didn't work, of course I would agree with military action, but that is NOT what happened is it? NO, this administration lied their way into war by making false claims - completely unrelated charges. Bottom line lies....WMD and a completely falsified link between Saddam and Al Qaeda<BR/><BR/>3. On the bombing campaigns: Neither one of us can perform a body to body count on casualties. But really, you must know the cost in human life. Also, you know as well as I do that the palaces were hardly the single targets. This was a leveling of huge city. It was meant to be "shock and awe" and our cowboy lived up to it. <BR/><BR/>"refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;" <BR/><BR/>Yeah, I think a strong argument can be made here. Thank you but I do not need a link to the Geneva Conventions, I have read them. It is my opinion that anyone who has read them must realize there is a strong case to be made for this particular war crime.<BR/><BR/>4. "Since they are not civilian targets they are legal..." No Subsunk, it is not that simple. www.genevaconventions.org"<BR/><BR/>5. It is also very important to remember while discussing this that the threat assessments and intelligence (that justify this war and each individual attack and bombing campaign) were completely bogus.<BR/><BR/>6. Regarding the information you provide regarding... "(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". Agreed, we can go into that further another time. I have already stated that I believe this to be a sub-argument, if you will. (Considering that I feel going to war was illegal to begin with). <BR/><BR/>7. (Not being Military myself), I will say - of course there are perfectly legal military tribunals. However, they are to be performed with some transparency and due process. <BR/><BR/>8. Subsunk, regarding degrading treatment...come on. We already KNOW POW's have suffered degrading treatment. The cases of this are widely and well known. No question here.<BR/><BR/>9. "Sort of like asking a girl to dance with you the first time when you are the ugly kid in school. Guess you never got over that either, did you dear?" There is no need for personal attacks Subsunk. We are getting along so well, let's not resort to such childishness. My school experience (which I actually enjoyed very much) has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.<BR/><BR/>10. "Dogs used?" "Extremes of hot and cold"... I have never made an argument regarding dogs or temperature so I cannot comment here.<BR/><BR/>11. "This is war, not the trial of the US based Gambino crime family". I am sorry if it doesn't help to flame anger and a desire for vengeance, but even in war, the American process is supposed to be honorable. There are laws......and better yet a code of honor that sets Americans at war apart from other combatants. Do you really want to overlook that? Do you really want to toss that out the window and have this country's standard be "Hey, it's war."<BR/><BR/>12. "It would behoove you to actually read the language of the statute you quote before you cast a stone saying someone has violated it." Subsunk, do you really believe (given the conversation we have had so far) that I have not read this material? That would be an unintelligent assessment of your adversary. We might disagree on if laws have been broken, but don't assume for one minute that I utter one word without knowing the material and the facts.Sapphoria / Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17571870497797706534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1144861786498165202006-04-12T13:09:00.000-04:002006-04-12T13:09:00.000-04:00This really should not be about changing the other...This really should not be about changing the other's mind. And a fair exchange of ideas is never a waste of time. <BR/><BR/>A lot to take in here and I cannot reply this afternoon, but I will try to review again this evening and respond.Sapphoria / Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17571870497797706534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7772622.post-1144777359272103862006-04-11T13:42:00.000-04:002006-04-11T13:42:00.000-04:00I will take your points one by one:"Since Congress...I will take your points one by one:<BR/><BR/>"Since Congress saw the EXACT same intelligence reports..."<BR/><BR/>I understand this Subsunk, but my belief and my argument is that Congress saw manipulated intelligence. It is also my position that the evidence supports that theory. Here, we disagree on what the evidence tells us. Based on the information that Bush and his team did actually receive (from the UN inspectors, CIA, etc) I find his statements, his assessment of the threat and his rationale for taking us to war to be lies. <BR/><BR/>"how could they have come to the same conclusion and recommended war if he is lying or manipulating intel?"<BR/><BR/>They did so BECAUSE the manipulated intelligence (which we now KNOW was false) gave them a completely untrue representation of the situation.<BR/><BR/>"He says the regime has chemical and biological weapons and are attempting to pursue nuclear weapons. And they did and they were."<BR/><BR/>You cannot say "well Bush was right" by posing these superfluous arguments. The findings of the Presidential Commission tells us clearly that intelligence was "dead wrong" in the pre-war assessments of Iraq's weaponry. That is the truth, that is the way of it, that is inarguable. President Bush had no choice but to accept that and as soon as he knew there was no denying that, he shifted his public rationale for invading Iraq to "regime change" and "spreading democracy in the Middle East". <BR/><BR/>"Who is responsible for the failure of intelligence to know what Saddam Hussein's administration was up to? Saddam"<BR/><BR/>Subsunk I have to say, I have never before heard it argued that Saddam was responsible for the reliability of US intelligence. With that said...Saddam was a liar, a butcher, a brutal dictator and a horrific slice of world history, but Saddam's actions are not up for debate here, are they? We are debating President Bush's actions.<BR/><BR/>"Again, in 2002, tell me you would not have pursued vigorously the actions we took against Saddam, given what you just experienced on 9-11."<BR/><BR/>No. Then (in 2002) I wanted justice, yes. I wanted to believe my President. If you are asking me if I was duped like everyone else, yes, in large part I was. That was a time when this country was so closely knit in our grief. I complacently agreed with "doing something". My issues (then) were the constant changes in reasoning for military action. That seemed to change every time I flipped cable news channels. Also, as much as I tried, I could find no evidence linking Saddam / Iraq to Al Qaeda. Suspicions and nagging questions turned to anger, resentment and horror over the cost of human life, when the truth started coming out.<BR/><BR/>"Your generalizations about lying may end up using lots of bandwidth"<BR/><BR/>Generalizations??! Subsunk, just how much more specific could I have been?Sapphoria / Meganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17571870497797706534noreply@blogger.com