The Cost

[estesbob]

john1863:

Remember, the original intent of this war was not Iraqi freedom but the elimination of a perceived threat of WMD. Personally, I would have preferred a much more surgical approach.

John

Simply not true. You might try actually reading the Congressional resolution authorizing the war. Among other things it said:

*Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; *

In reality we needed no addtl reasons to go to war with Iraq-we were already at was with then and had been s since 1990. There was no peace treay after the 1990 War-merely a cease fire. EVERYONE is in agreement that Saddam repeatedly violated that cease fire agreement. IMO the problem is not the 2003 militray action-its that we waited so long to do it.

 

[john1863]

estesbob, An Ibi,

Sorry, I don’t have the time to respond in detail today. Suffice it to say that I have read not only the resolution but many of Gilliam’s posts. I will post more specifics later.

Regarding the ad hominem…what rubbish.

Oh john, john, john. You haven’t read gilliams links yet, have you?

**Oh, is this hard to understand? ** By research I don’t mean deciding what you think and then skimming the google list to find articles which agree with you. Did you think that was what I meant?

That’s a direct questioning of my intelligence and my research methodology…that’s condescension by anyone’s definition. My listing of my short resume was to demonstrate that I know every bit as much about research as you and that we are likely not very culturally divergent.
Remember, we really don’t know each other.I do have to admit that I’m not as skilled at forum debate as many I have read on this board. I guess I’m better at the personal approach.
For my weaknesses along those lines, my apologies.

Gotta go, St. Patrick’s Day awaits. :irish1:

Slainte,

John

 

[Robert_Bay]

**General Reminder:

**The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content before clicking the “Submit” button. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[gilliam]

john1863:

Gotta go, St. Patrick’s Day awaits. :irish1:

Happy St. Patties day!

Don’t drink too much

 

[Rebecca_New]

The Lives-Priceless.

I read an article three years ago that said the terrorists do not have to win the war militarily-they just need to bankrupt us. Now we see the tactics-

 

[gilliam]

Rebecca New:

The Lives-Priceless.

I read an article three years ago that said the terrorists do not have to win the war militarily-they just need to bankrupt us. Now we see the tactics-

1, How much did 9/11 cost us?

1. How much would a bigger 9/11 cost us?

BTW: I suspect you are mistaken. What the terrorists need to do is get us to loose our nerve and give up. Don’t give them that victory.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john1863:

estesbob, An Ibi, Sorry, I don’t have the time to respond in detail today. Suffice it to say that I have read not only the resolution but many of Gilliam’s posts. I will post more specifics later.

Later is good.

john1863:

Regarding the ad hominem…what rubbish.

Rubbish? How charitable is that? In what way is it rubbish?

john1863:

That’s a direct questioning of my intelligence and my research methodology…that’s condescension by anyone’s definition.

It is not a questioning of your intelligence.

john1863:

My listing of my short resume was to demonstrate that I know every bit as much about research as you and that we are likely not very culturally divergent.

How much you know about research is not relevant to the discussion. That is why I said that your approach was an ad hominem. You are asking us to cede to your qualifications. We are asking you to provide research, explication, and logical argumentation. It is what you say that is relevant, not who you are. My :twocents:

 

[gilliam]

Saddam Hussein at his trial yesterday: During one exchange [he] described the US coalition as “criminals who came under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction and the pretext of democracy instead of dictatorship” [my italics].

 

[john1863]

To all,
I read the above warning about the tone of the discussion and am taking it to heart. I truly did not want to get involved in a war of ideologies, just a discussion about priorities.
Ani Ibi, estesbob, gilliam…etal, thank you. You’ve been challenging and have given me a clearer view of alternate positions to my own. I will continue to monitor your threads and hopefully learn more in the process.
All my very best,

John

 

[estesbob]

john1863:

estesbob, An Ibi,

.

That’s a direct questioning of my intelligence and my research methodology…that’s condescension by anyone’s definition. My listing of my short resume was to demonstrate that I know every bit as much about research as you and that we are likely not very culturally divergent.

Slainte,

John

it is not ad hominem to point out the errors in your post. You claim, for instance, we went to war solely over weapons of mass destruction. That is simply not true. It gave the obvious impression that you had never read the congressional resolution authorizing the war. I don’t think pointing this out to you as an attack in any way.

 

[estesbob]

Saddam Hussein at his trial yesterdayuring one exchange [he]
described the US coalition as “criminals who came under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction and the pretext of democracy instead of dictatorship” [my italics].

So I wonder what name he is posting in CA under. Do you think he posts in the Huffington blog? You think maybe he wrote George Clooney’s acceptance speech? If found innocent I think he can find a job writing editorials for the New York Times.