Opposite Thread

[Chevy]

Consider this a chance to prove your mettle - Take the opposite side of one of our many arguments. That is, Patters and the Libs must argue the point of the Right, while our esteemed NeoCons (C) must go lefty.

But what topic .... Hmmm ...

Ahh ... Here we go ...

The reasoning for the war in Iraq

Please, if you're going to participate, keep it civil-ish, back up your posts with verifiable sources, but most of all be serious. One of the best way to resolve an issue is to have to take the other side.

[PatsWickedPissah]

I'll give the non-Moonbat version...
The reasoning for the war in Iraq was flawed from the beginning, based on faulty intelligence and the administration's group think mentality predisposed to believe what they wanted to believe about Saddam. Coupled with presidential advisors' intrinsic neocon philosophy about interventionist nation building and desire to transform the Middle East, people incapable of sharing our democtatic philosophy.

The rush to war was precipitous as Saddam posed no real threat to the US at the time. He had no covert alliance with Islamic Terror. The UN could have controlled him enough to prevent damage to Western interests. No broad consensus for invasion was formed.

[gomezcat]

Originally Posted by Chevy

Consider this a chance to prove your mettle - Take the opposite side of one of our many arguments. That is, Patters and the Libs must argue the point of the Right, while our esteemed NeoCons (C) must go lefty.

But what topic .... Hmmm ...

Ahh ... Here we go ...



Please, if you're going to participate, keep it civil-ish, back up your posts with verifiable sources, but most of all be serious. One of the best way to resolve an issue is to have to take the other side.

I think your idea is an excellent one. Once you get to see the other side's point of view, you tend to see the merits of it and drift a little to the centre. I think we should also do it with abortion, gay marriage, Church and state, taxation and so on.


This is a tricky one as I am a liberal who was in favour of going into Iraq. OK, I will argue that we were still right to do so. Here goes:

I accept that no WMDs may have been found there, but we know the following: we know that Saddam HAD used WMDs in the past, in Halabjah, we know that he intended to get more WMDs, we know that he invaded Kuwait in the early 90s and that he repressed his people. Admittedly, the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was faulty but that is not the fault of the Administration. The Butler report (from Lord Butler) and others have shown that the Administration and Tony Blair did not lie about WMDs. It is a fact that other Intelligence agencies believed the same thing and that Iraq was under sanction from the United Nations.

In terms of the problems that have happened post-occupation, I believe that they are a necessary price to pay for restoring democracy to Iraq. Of course, it is tragic that people have lost their lives, but let's not forget that Saddam repressed, tortured and killed many of his own people. He would have carried on doing so, had he not been stopped.

The Iraqi people have been clear in embracing democracy despite the thuggish attempts to stop them. The Shia and the Kurds have been given a voice that was denied them in Saddam's reign and will go from strength to strength. The example of Iraq will show others in the Middle East that democracy is the way forward. This can only be a good thing for us in the West, as it is in our economic and political interests to have a stable Middle East.

I should also point out that we have taken the War on Terror to the terrorists. They have been diminished as a result and the West is safer for it.

[gomezcat]

Originally Posted by PatsWickedPissah

I'll give the non-Moonbat version...
The reasoning for the war in Iraq was flawed from the beginning, based on faulty intelligence and the administration's group think mentality predisposed to believe what they wanted to believe about Saddam. Coupled with presidential advisors' intrinsic neocon philosophy about interventionist nation building and desire to transform the Middle East, people incapable of sharing our democtatic philosophy.

The rush to war was precipitous as Saddam posed no real threat to the US at the time. He had no covert alliance with Islamic Terror. The UN could have controlled him enough to prevent damage to Western interests. No broad consensus for invasion was formed.

Where is the evidence for the administration's group think mentality? Are you relying on the word of a disaffected arse coverer in the form of Richard Clarke, on whose watch 9/11 occurred? The word interventionist is loaded in this sense. I find it insulting that you think that we could not bring democracy to the Middle East.

Saddam's record is enough to show the threat that he presented.

[Harry Boy]

1 I love Uncle Teddy, he is such a wonderful person, if only we could of had him as our president, I get goose bumps when he speaks.

2 I believe we should have a "Muslim President" & a "Somalian Vice President".

3 I also believe that teen agers should be allowed to have sex on the school bus, depriving them of this violates their "civil liberties".

4 I believe that Fox News should be shut down by the Government and Ann Coulter should be publicly exacuted, live, on CNN. These people should have no civil liberties. (they are against us)

5 Jimmy Carter should be sworn in as the Supreme Leader of America's Armed Forces.

6 Death row inmates should all be released from prison and awarded a New Home, a 1000 lbs of Cocaine and a brand new Cadillac because they all say they are innocent and I believe them.

7 Michale Jackson should be appointed as "Czar In Charge" of America's Child Welfare program.

8 All christian churches should be destroyed and replaced with "Muslim Mosques"

9 Religious Christian symbols throughout the country should be destroyed and replaced with Statues of Hillary Clinton.

10 Rush Limbaugh and the whole Bush Family should face a firing squad on a Saturday morning in Central Park, Dan Rather should be allowed to give the order to "FIRE"

I'm joining the Peace Corp tomorrow, I want to go to Africa and help all those people that poop in the street and have little kids with flys walking around on their faces.
Gee, gosh darn it I love everybody, "justice and equality for all"
God Bless the "Black Panthers"

[Patters]

Neocon: I disagree with the more isolationist beliefs of my predecessors and believe the United States has an important role to play in spreading freedom and democracy. We have a historic chance to replace a corrupt and abusive Iraqi government with one that will turn Iraq into a beacon of hope for everyone in the Middle East. Iraq will turn into the prototype state for the modern Arab nation, and in turn we'll have a strong ally who will quickly forgive whatever damage and harm we've done.

Conservative: Iraq was still part of the Russian and French axis, and as result we were deprived of economic opportunities and control over our energy needs. Plus, whether Iraq had WMDs or not, it's clear that Saddam wanted them badly and would stop at nothing to hurt the United States. By attacking Iraq, we not only take out an enemy, we build our defense industry, and open the Iraqi market to American products and services. Although there are considerable risks, the short term gains for our economy are almost guaranteed.

[Chevy]

Patters - you talked about selective moderation earlier ... Harry Boy's post (#7) is a prime candidate for pruning ...

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

Why didn't we focus on convincing Saddam that posession of WMD's wasn't a good thing? Where he may have spread more fear throughout the region, he would have gained no respect, and instead made him a target of nations far more powerfull than he.

Properly applied sanctions - like restricting the Food for Oil program, could have convinced him.

[Harry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chevy

Patters - you talked about selective moderation earlier ... Harry Boy's post (#7) is a prime candidate for pruning ...

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

Why didn't we focus on convincing Saddam that posession of WMD's wasn't a good thing? Where he may have spread more fear throughout the region, he would have gained no respect, and instead made him a target of nations far more powerfull than he.

Properly applied sanctions - like restricting the Food for Oil program, could have convinced him.

How come, no swearing, no name calling, just politics, I know why, I'm a "Neo Con", hateful Neo Libs first weapon of defense is "Censorship" YUP

[Chevy]

I'm only a Neo-Lib for the purpose of this exercise. However, Left or Right, many would agree that your post mocks the spirit of this thread. It was intended to be a catalyst for learning. Now, if you'd like to participate and make some serious posts, by all means do so. Otherwise, we'd appreciate it if you would refrain from further disruption.

[Harry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chevy

I'm only a Neo-Lib for the purpose of this exercise. However, Left or Right, many would agree that your post mocks the spirit of this thread. It was intended to be a catalyst for learning. Now, if you'd like to participate and make some serious posts, by all means do so. Otherwise, we'd appreciate it if you would refrain from further disruption.

I would like to see Statues of Bill Clinton erected in all government ladies rooms.