Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion
    #2572832 - 04/18/04 03:40 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party:

Quote:


George Bush, Lying, & the Dogs of War

by Harry Browne
March 26, 2004
"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war."
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

Before the Iraqi war, the Bush administration cried "Havoc!" and used a number of lies to justify setting the dogs of war loose.

The non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the phony uranium purchases from Niger weren't the only falsehoods. There also were lies about Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, aluminum tubes, Hussein kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq, unmanned airplanes that could attack the East Coast of America, mobile bioweapon laboratories, and on and on and on.

Once the war was underway, the folks who brought us death and destruction peddled further lies: the triumphant toppling of the Hussein statue, the Jessica Lynch story (she actually got a medal for bravery despite not doing anything), the bogus stories to explain the killing of civilians, and more.
It Never Stops

Now that the war is over, the discredited prewar lies have been discarded, and the administration is resorting to new claims, such as:

* The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone.

* The Iraqi people are finally free.

* Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator.

* "The defense of freedom is always worth it," as George Bush said last week.

Character Assassination

And we need to add to these prevarications the character assassination the administration fires at anyone who exposes its lies by relating personal experiences within the administration. Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke have felt the full force of the government-press partnership.

The moment Clarke went public with statements that Bush was determined to blame 9-11 on Iraq, and that Bush was much more eager to attack Iraq than attack Al-Qaeda, the administration redirected the dogs of war from Hussein to Clarke.

Top administration officials have already appeared on numerous national news shows. Condoleezza Rice showed up on all five national morning shows (on NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and CNN). The attack dogs said very little about the actual charges, preferring to attack Clarke personally as a hypocrite who previously praised President Bush's response to terrorism.

Providing their usual support for big government, TV and press reporters repeated and discussed statements Clarke made in 2001 and 2002?statements that seemed to back up the charge that Clarke was an opportunistic hypocrite.

But did you notice that every reporter showed us exactly the same statements from Clarke? Some of the apparent "statements" weren't even complete sentences. Why did everyone who commented on Clarke's apparent flip-flop focus on exactly the same fragments?

They did so because those were the only fragments they had to work with. The quotes were all provided by the Bush administration?and they're the only quotes available. If the reporters had possessed the original documents, some of them would have picked out other statements or fragments from those documents.

It is very, very, very important to realize that . . .

Virtually everything we think we know about a foreign-policy issue is only what the government tells us.

We have no way of knowing whether the fragments are actually true statements Clarke once made. Nor do we know in what context the fragments appeared originally. All we know is that this is what the administration wants us to believe.

Even if every fragment is true and indicative of Clarke's previous opinions, it doesn't mean he's a hypocrite. What he said in 2001 or 2002 may have seemed true to him at the time, but has since been refuted by reality.

For example, Clarke supposedly said in 2002 that the Bush administration "changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." But that doesn't mean the strategy did change. Politicians continually make statements promising revolutionary improvements that never come to pass. One year after making that statement, Clarke quit working for the government?partly, we presume, because Bush's actions didn't match his promises.

Fox TV News has provided a complete transcript of a press briefing Clarke gave in 2002?from which the above quote was taken. You can search the entire transcript and not find unequivocal praise for George Bush.

We have no way of knowing what Clarke really thought about Bush in 2001 and 2002, because we have mostly only out-of-context fragments of statements Clarke made?fragments that have been carefully selected and released by the Bush administration in order to discredit Clarke. And the press dutifully publicizes those statements without pointing out that they are necessarily only small, out-of-context pieces of the puzzle.

So let me repeat what you should never forget . . .

Virtually everything we think we know about a foreign-policy issue is only what the government tells us.

Other Postwar Lies

What about the Bush administration's postwar lies? . . .

* The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone.

Is it really?

Tell that to the 200 people who died in Spain two weeks ago?or to their families. Tell it to the Israelis who continue to be killed in Palestine suicide attacks. Tell it to the Palestinians who continue to be killed in Israeli military attacks. Tell it to the people in America who have been jailed without formal charges, without benefit of an attorney, without a speedy trial or the opportunity to confront their accusers.
Free At Last!, Thank God Almighty, We Are Free at Last!

* The Iraqi people are finally free.

Oh really?

The country is occupied by a foreign power.

Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.

Its citizens must carry ID cards, and submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.

They must be in their homes by curfew time.

Many towns are ringed with barbed wire.

The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves?making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common.

The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.

Families are held hostage until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters?much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.

Public protests are outlawed.

Private homes are raided or demolished?with no due process of law.

Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers.
Brutality

* Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator.

So what?

Is it the duty of the American people to give their resources?and maybe their lives?to topple every dictator in the world and make sure the Bill of Rights is enforced in every country (except, perhaps, the United States)?

And if toppling dictators is so important, why is George Bush cozying up to brutal dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan?

If George Bush wants to donate his own money to revolutionary movements in oppressed countries, he has a right to do so. If he wants to quit his job and go fight in one of those revolutionary movements, he has a right to do so.

But he has no constitutional authority to commit American money and American lives to the fight for freedom in other countries.

Even the claims of Hussein's brutality are suspect, because they come mostly from the same administration that has already discredited itself. The "human shredder" atrocity story has already been refuted, and who knows how many more of George Bush's favorite horrors will be exposed as lies eventually?
Say What?

When confronted with the charge that he misled the American people about the need to go to war with Iraq, President Bush replied, "The defense of freedom is always worth it."

Is that right?

Worth what?

The loss of more of our freedoms in America?

A cost of hundreds of billions of dollars paid by Americans for the freedom of people in foreign countries?

And worth it to whom?

Obviously, the Iraqi war was worth it to George Bush. (At least it seemed so until now.)

But was it worth it to the hundreds of Americans who died?

Was it worth it to the thousands of Iraqis who died?

Was it worth it to the families of those who died?

And what freedom are we talking about?

The U.S. was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. He had no capability to attack America, and he never indicated any desire to attack America.

In short, American "freedom" was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. So why is an unprovoked attack on another country considered to be a "defense of freedom"?
The Dogs of War

So the lies continue.

And the dogs of war are unleashed on anyone who threatens to expose those lies and seems to have the public forum in which to do so.




--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xochitl]
    #2572851 - 04/18/04 03:56 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

The non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the phony uranium purchases from Niger weren't the only falsehoods. There also were lies about Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, aluminum tubes, Hussein kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq, unmanned airplanes that could attack the East Coast of America, mobile bioweapon laboratories, and on and on and on.

Strange, this libertarian says the reasons for launching war were bullshit while "libertarians" like pinkie, hagbard etc insist the war was totally legal and justified.

Maybe the libertarians are getting misrepresented on this board.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xlea321]
    #2573481 - 04/18/04 11:51 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:

Strange, this libertarian says the reasons for launching war were bullshit while "libertarians" like pinkie, hagbard etc insist the war was totally legal and justified.

Maybe the libertarians are getting misrepresented on this board.




One exception: Evolving, who has been vocal against the war. Mushmaster as well, to some extent, although he seems to flip-flop a bit.

I think we need to start distinguishing between genuine libertarians and those crypto-Republicans who use libertarian rhetoric as a smokescreen for various sociopathic tendencies such as Social Darwinism, American exceptionalism, so-called "benevolent" imperialism, and all the rest.

Eh, labels never meant much anyway.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 9,805
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 23 hours, 26 minutes
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xlea321]
    #2573648 - 04/18/04 01:09 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Alex, are you sure about that?

Unless I mistakenly mispoke, I have always claimed only that I agree with libertarians more than anyone else. I don't recall ever declaring myself full fledged member who ascribes to all of their philosophies.


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #2573769 - 04/18/04 01:55 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I don't recall anyone here claiming total agreement with any party. Sadly, accuracy isn't one of Alpo's strong points.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #2573937 - 04/18/04 02:52 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

you're not the only one:

"I personally remain unconvinced it was correct to depose him by force at this time"

-pinksharkmark


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: ]
    #2573983 - 04/18/04 03:06 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Having spent the last few days arguing with Pinky Id say he pretty much supports the War.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: GazzBut]
    #2573998 - 04/18/04 03:12 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Having spent the last few days arguing with Pinky Id say he pretty much supports the War.




Just because somebody expends thousands of words defending a President or a war doesn't necessarily mean he supports them.

















:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2574066 - 04/18/04 03:34 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Sounds like a twisted version of fuzzy logic to me!!  :grin:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,772
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 minute, 9 seconds
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xochitl]
    #2574233 - 04/18/04 04:13 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I voted for Harry Browne for Pres back in '96.

He didn't win.




--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: BLC - I Don't Wanna Go



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2574620 - 04/18/04 06:11 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

If I criticised Hitler for attacking the moon and you pointed out that Hitler never attacked the moon would that mean you love Hitler?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,808
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2574648 - 04/18/04 06:17 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
If I criticised Hitler for attacking the moon and you pointed out that Hitler never attacked the moon would that mean you love Hitler?



Clever lil' fella.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xlea321]
    #2574968 - 04/18/04 09:35 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Maybe the libertarians are getting misrepresented on this board.

from a libertarian perspective, considering hussein's record, the only thing determining whether it was justified to remove hussein from power using our armed forces is if hussein's regime posed a threat to the united states, and if military action would reduce that threat.

some libertarians might think that military action was proper and necessary to eliminate a threat, some might think that hussein's regime wasn't a threat (or at least less of a threat posed by the fallout of military action) and so military force was unjustified.

there really is no 'libertarian' yay or nay on the war. consider my own flip-flopping on the issue. as i've considered and reconsidered the threat, my opinion on the war has gone back and forth.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: ]
    #2575285 - 04/18/04 10:19 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

as it should for anyone analyzing new information, maintaining
flexibility in their positions and perceptions.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2575637 - 04/18/04 11:39 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
If I criticised Hitler for attacking the moon and you pointed out that Hitler never attacked the moon would that mean you love Hitler?




If Hitler had attacked the moon and I was still claiming he hadn't, that would suggest that I have a pretty perverse political agenda, regardless of whether I "loved" him or not.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: ]
    #2575773 - 04/19/04 12:07 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

from a libertarian perspective, considering hussein's record, the only thing determining whether it was justified to remove hussein from power using our armed forces is if hussein's regime posed a threat to the united states, and if military action would reduce that threat.

I see your point, but supporting war absent positive proof (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) of a threat is just plain stupid from any political position with the exception of imperialism.

Please stop to consider that, historically, the greatest engine of the growth of the federal government's size and power has always been war and so-called "national security": the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, the "War on Drugs", and now the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq. During each of these conflicts the size, spending, and intrusiveness of government all increased while individual liberties were whittled away. Most importantly, after they ended (and of course some never end) government did not return to its previous powers and dimensions.

I hate to have to break this to you, but the current size of government has less to do with some cabal of liberals who pull the strings behind the scenes and very much to do with the way that politicians of all political stripes use perceived threats to manipulate frightened populations into handing them more power.

Defense is a legitimate and essential function of government, but it is also the one that is potentially the most dangerous and oppressive. It cuts right to the heart of the whole issue of government tyranny, and therefore the electorate, if it is vigilant about anything at all, should be most vigilant about how, when, where, and to whom its government inflicts violence. To be a libertarian and to condone the war State is to shoot oneself in the foot. Evolving seems to understand that; I wonder when the rest of you will wake up.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2575976 - 04/19/04 12:52 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

I see your point, but supporting war absent positive proof (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) of a threat is just plain stupid from any political position with the exception of imperialism.

If "positive proof" is the standard, so much for the arguments of all on this forum complaining that the 9/11 plot could have been stopped absent a massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties. Ah, the irony.

The reason I still remain unconvinced it was correct for the coalition to depose by force Hussein at the time they did is not that I believe they had no right to do so, or that they broke any "international law" by doing so, but because I believe Hussein himself posed a relatively minor threat to the security of the US. Yes, he slaughtered over a million Muslims during his rule, both inside and outside Iraq, and imprisoned and tortured even more. So what? Not the problem of the coalition members -- the victims were just foreigners, after all.

Yes, he aided terrorists who might later attack the US or other coalition countries. Yes, he also sheltered known terrorists inside Iraq, but can we know for a fact that those terrorists would ever again even leave Iraq's borders, let alone visit the US or other coalition countries? No, we cannot know that to a certainty. Yes, he maintained WMD programs, but would Hussein himself have ever used WMDs against the US or other coalition countries? I find it hard to believe he would have. Is it possible he could have supplied others who might attack the US or other coalition countries with them? Yes, it is certainly possible. Is it probable? Who knows?

On the other hand, I have been wrong before, and I don't have access to classified intel from the various intelligence gathering organs of the USA and the other coalition member countries. Maybe he really was more of a threat than I personally, from my limited knowledge, perceived him to be.

The reason I remain unconvinced it was the correct thing to do at the time it was done by the people who did it is that taxpayer dollars were used to accomplish it. If he really was a threat to the taxpayers of the countries in the coalition, then it was the correct thing to do. But was he really a significant threat? I remain unconvinced he was an urgent threat to the people of those countries.

I also remain unconvinced the US government had any business using taxpayer dollars to send a dozen men to walk on the moon. But that's because I'm a Laissez-faire Capitalist.

I can tell you for a fact that the Rwandans weren't a threat, nor the Somalis, nor the Bosnians nor the Kosovars nor the Haitians nor the Viet Namese nor the North Koreans back in 1950 (although the NoKos of today are a different breed of cat). Nor, for that matter, was the Kaiser in 1917 or even Hitler in 1944. Alex123 says the Soviets didn't need the assistance of the Allies in order to defeat Hitler. Maybe Alex is right about that.

I wouldn't have been upset if Hussein had been left alone to continue murdering more Muslims. Not my problem. But I also wouldn't have been upset if the US had allowed Hitler to continue murdering Jews and other "undesirables" over in Europe. Again, the victims were just foreigners, after all. Not my problem.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 9,805
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 23 hours, 26 minutes
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2576039 - 04/19/04 01:07 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I see your point, but supporting war absent positive proof (as opposed to circumstantial evidence) of a threat is just plain stupid from any political position with the exception of imperialism.

Damn, pinky beat me to it. However if we were to adopt this policy, at least the prisons would far less populated. How many criminals do you think get convicted with "positive proof" against them?

Please stop to consider that, historically, the greatest engine of the growth of the federal government's size and power has always been war and so-called "national security": the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, the "War on Drugs", and now the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq. During each of these conflicts the size, spending, and intrusiveness of government all increased while individual liberties were whittled away. Most importantly, after they ended (and of course some never end) government did not return to its previous powers and dimensions.

For the most part I would agree. Every oppourtunity that arises to provide these people a power grab, is one they won't miss. However, just because this is a byproduct of the action, doesn't neccesarily mean the action was unjustified.


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Phred]
    #2576540 - 04/19/04 03:34 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

If "positive proof" is the standard, so much for the arguments of all on this forum complaining that the 9/11 plot could have been stopped absent a massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties. Ah, the irony.

Huh? Have you gone and flipped your lid?

Do you realize that there is a significant difference between invading another country and taking precautionary measures to prevent a terrorist attack within your own country? Do you realize that? I'm not sure you do, because practically every single post you've been making recently implies that you really don't have a clue.

What on earth makes you think that the hijackers were such invincible masterminds that nothing short of a "massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties" would have stopped 9/11? InfidelGod was right, that is one of the most asinine statements made on this forum in a long time, if not the most. Do you realize how many things had to go right for the terrorists for them to strike as successfully as they did? I have posted in numerous other threads sane and sensible measures, none of which involve "massive and prolonged violation of civil rights," that could have stopped those planes from flying into their targets. You have yet to address a single one of them, and I've really just about had it with your utterly dishonest characterization of the situation. Not only are you a sucker for Bush's excuses and prevarications, you disseminate them every chance you get. Pathetic.

Yes, he aided terrorists who might later attack the US or other coalition countries.

Which were those? The families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Yeah, I'm sure they would be getting visas to visit DisneyWorld. Any others?

Yes, he also sheltered known terrorists inside Iraq, but can we know for a fact that those terrorists would ever again even leave Iraq's borders, let alone visit the US or other coalition countries?

There are more terrorists in Iraq now than before. And they don't need shelter from anybody, including the US, because the US has no control over the situation. 70 soldiers have died in the last two weeks alone.

Yes, he maintained WMD programs, but would Hussein himself have ever used WMDs against the US or other coalition countries?

Oh, you mean those WMD that are nowhere to be found?

On the other hand, I have been wrong before, and I don't have access to classified intel from the various intelligence gathering organs of the USA and the other coalition member countries. Maybe he really was more of a threat than I personally, from my limited knowledge, perceived him to be.

Ah, yes, making appeals to "classified intel" once again, just as you did in the run-up to the war. The Bushies already tried that bullshit, making claims about all sorts of classified info that they were going to release showing links to al-Qaeda, proof of WMD, blah blah blah, but even now a full year after Saddam's fall we haven't seen a shred of it. Just how willfully gullible are you planning to be here in order to try to help Bush get a second term?

I wouldn't have been upset if Hussein had been left alone to continue murdering more Muslims. Not my problem. But I also wouldn't have been upset if the US had allowed Hitler to continue murdering Jews and other "undesirables" over in Europe. Again, the victims were just foreigners, after all. Not my problem.

Give me a break, pinky. Your insinuation that those of us who oppose the war do so because we don't give a shit about foreigners (or whatever it is you're trying to insinuate) is hypocritical bullshit, to say the least. The money being spent on this war could supply everybody on the planet with clean drinking water, among other things. There are ways to help people without occupying their countries, killing thousands of them in the process of "liberating" them, and not even being able to provide them security at the end of the day. But of course, you're categorically opposed to other, non-lethal means of helping people with taxpayer money, whereas you're still "undecided" about an action that has killed thousands and, if anything, has made Americans less safe. If your judgment were any worse than it already is, you too would perhaps make a good candidate for Prez, your Canadian citizenship notwithstanding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2576572 - 04/19/04 03:48 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I think we need to start distinguishing between genuine libertarians and those crypto-Republicans who use libertarian rhetoric as a smokescreen for various sociopathic tendencies such as Social Darwinism, American exceptionalism, so-called "benevolent" imperialism, and all the rest.

Good point Echo.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush: Iraq Part of 'Global Democratic Revolution' SquattingMarmot 423 1 11/06/03 06:51 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Tens of Bush Iraq War Supporters Take to the Streets mabus 1,462 17 03/16/04 09:39 PM
by Strumpling
* George Bush was right about what?????
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 2,933 37 03/16/05 08:39 AM
by Innvertigo
* letter from a soldier in iraq
( 1 2 all )
ricyjo 1,609 24 11/07/04 10:18 PM
by Divided_Sky
* Barack Obama Op-Ed on Iraq
( 1 2 all )
Madtowntripper 2,538 27 07/22/08 12:14 AM
by dill705
* Bush on Record fft2 890 11 07/01/04 09:25 AM
by GazzBut
* All Hail Emperor Bush!
( 1 2 all )
delian 3,189 36 06/27/01 08:31 AM
by Innvertigo
* Bush=Hitler
( 1 2 all )
FeliusAndromeda 2,153 32 10/06/02 03:00 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
4,037 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.148 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.