By Beauty Damned

this isn't news by the way. Those of us in the reality based universe have known for years while Bush supporters screamed denials of "they WILL be found!"

What universe have you been living in? Most of the world believed Saddam had WMD. Heck, the UN passed over a dozen consecutive resolutions dealing specifically with Iraq and it's WMD.

Why is my money being spent in Iraq? Why is yours?

It's for the "greater good". You know, that "cause it's the right thing" you keep talking about. If you don't want us to be in Iraq, vote out Hillary next election. She voted to send us there.

Was it really just an innocent mistake that the forged document alleging that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium, was not discovered (or rather, admitted) to be a fake until after it had already been used to prop up justification for the war?

Speaking of forged documents, has Dan Rather been fired yet?

All your comment deleting is really messing up your comment count. Maybe you should stick to arguments you don't lose, like gardening?

Everybody just ignore the babbling psychopath in the corner. He's the resident evil. Lurks in shadows. A new kind of enemy. An axis of evil unto himself...he's the BLOG TERRORIST!!!!

Hahaa....

I'm the Superman of blogs, unveiling the failed arguments and lunatic ramblings of moonbats.

You're my current target.

.
You're right as rain, as usual, M'dear. Pay no attention to the twerps from far right field. They're on the Kool-Aid, y'know...
.

That's right Cosa. The Kool-Aid is known for inducing severe delusions of grandeur and bouts of rabid mindless conservatism.

Maria,

What is your position on invading a country for humanitarian reasons? Like ending genocide in Rwanda? or Bosnia?

.
Yup.
.

Rosemary:

I think a couple things about that:

If humanitarian reasons are our purpose for going in, I think we should handle things in a humanitarian manner, and I do believe we have a responsibility as the great nation that we are to help those around the world who are suffering. I do not believe that going into Rwanda or Bosnia to have a war with those who are making war on others is productive. It doesn't stop the killing, it perpetuates it.

When George Bush told the country we were going to war with Iraq, it was clear that humanitarian concerns were not enough of a reason to attack. In fact, humanitarian reasons seem to be the best argument for why we SHOULDN'T attack. Attacking people who are already suffering and telling them it's for their own good is senseless and cruel. He made a case that Saddam had weapons. He used falsified documents to further that case, even when it was clear they were falsified, he pushed it through. It was only later that he mentioned that even if they didn't have weapons, we had done the Iraqis a favor. But no matter how you spin it you can't help people by destroying their homes and lives and causing massive military devestation. That is the most inhumane way that I can possibly imagine going about approaching an issue of humanity. Which is why it is clear to me that the wellbeing of Iraqis has never been even close to Dubya's first concern. Because if you want people to be well, you just don't kill them.

We invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons because it has oil. We should invade for humanitarian reasons all countries that are under a cruel dictatorship if they have oil. We should do nothing about North Korea because North Korea has no oil. Do I have that right?
RGE

Maria,

I also believe we have a responsiblity to stop genocide. I would love to see us in Rwanda ending that horror. How do we go in and end it without killing those perpetuating the savage murder? We go in waving flags and singing - we assure ourselves of death. How would you approach the situation without killing the killers?

RGE,

You can think whatever you like but I was asking about Rwanda and Bosnia. I didn't say that we attacked Iraq for humanitarian reasons but there were humanitarian issues. We won't attack N.Korea because they have nukes and a nutjob that would use them. That's the reason.

Rosemary, why do you assume that I was responding to your remarks? I was merely making an observation. You are probably even right about Rwanda, but I wasn't dealing with that subject at the moment.
RGE

How would you approach the situation without killing the killers?

Rosemary, I didn't say that. I said you can't help people by killing the people that you're helping. It's different than defending others and being able to stop the others from killing. If you can, that's great, but you can't just go in like we did in Vietnam and have an endless war. It costs too much. In lives and money. There has to be better ways to solve those problems. We're civilized beings, do you really believe we are incapable of solving things without war?

The only exception I can personally think of (and I'm no history expert, so I dunno...) is Nazi Germany. We were able to go in and help the jews without killing thousands of them in the process, ya know? We just went in and bombed Baghdad. We went in and STARTED a war. That situation did not need to be handled that way. And I really don't believe that the humanitarian issues in Iraq were any greater than the ones in Darfur or in China or Rwanda and there's no way we can solve all of those problems either. Our leaders need to step forward and take a serious stand against violence everywhere, genocide, AIDS, hunger, all of these things. There are ways to focus effort and assistance in those matters without creating a war. Bush said Saddam had WMDs. That's why we went to Iraq. Supposedly. But he didn't have any. We don't set an example for anyone else in a fight against genocide and violence by being the most militant country in the world. We think our rules of engagement are so superior. We do things civilized while "the terrorists" are just animals. That's the perception that's being put out there. But us killing one human being in Iraq truly isn't different from one person killing another in Darfur.

I think that every conflict has a root cause. And if that root cause can be addressed, the conflict can be resolved without raising arms. People just prefer to fight than to find the root cause and compromise. But it doesn't actually help most of the time.

Like these articles here:

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20050112-094145-2875r.htm

http://allafrica.com/stories/200501130763.html

Almost every conflict can be resolved without war. I truly believe that.

*Speaking of forged documents, has Dan Rather been fired yet?*

Yes, what about Mushroom-Cloud Condi and Toxic-Trailer Colin?

We won't attack N.Korea because they have nukes and a nutjob that would use them.

HA! Isn't that the exact reason we invade Iraq Rosemary?

Drag Queen said: *What is your position on invading a country for humanitarian reasons? Like ending genocide in Rwanda? or Bosnia?*

No one bothered to invade Rwanda, remember?

In Bosnia, there was no effort to conquer the "bad people"; rather, the focus was to stop all sides from killing innocent civilians. It turns out of course that both the Islamic people who were being oppressed by the Serbian nationalists also committed their own atrocities. A one-sided "invasion" of Yugoslavia wasn't considered and wouldn't have been tolerated. Why? Too close to Berlin, Rome, and other nice places.

But to address your question directly, in addition to perforating its uninformed character, invasions to save others from tyranny would be a new develop in American policy. Usually, invasions are to prop up tyranny. The US supports tyrannical governments routinely (Philippines, Dominican Republic, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala), and usually works to topple democratic states (Chile, Argentina, most recently Venezuela), except when they are former Soviet puppet states (Poland, Czekoslovakia, and Ukraine)

Maria,

Iraq didn't have nukes. The reason we attacked was supposedly for WMDs and to prevent Saddam from obtaining and building nukes. I also understand that "Chas" is your father and you are gonna give him free reign but seriously does he need to insult and call me names?

Ok Rosemary, I see. So if they already HAVE nukes, then we can't attack them. But if they have the INTENTION to build nukes, we bomb the shit out of them. Ever heard of picking on someone your own size?

Yeah, I have. If they had nukes they'd use them and the destruction would be much larger. That is why we never bombed or invaded the Soviets. We can't invade N.Korea and it's not because they'd hit us, they wouldn't, it's because they'd hit S. Korea and anyone else that they could reach.

Same with Saddam. He wouldn't hit us but he would hit who he could reach and that would be parts of Europe and Israel. Preventing that is one of the reasons we went there and the reason for the 18 or so UN resolutions.

Rosemary, do you care to answer to the fact that George Bush used obviously forged documents and ignored contradictory intelligence to justify his bid for war? Because that's what this post is really about.