davin wrote:
"And he says this where? Or is this just a reductio ad hominem again... Or is it that anyone who disagrees with this war was pro-saddam... Yer either Wit us or Agin us?"

To which Tom replied:
"It would be more accurate to say "pro-status quo" than "pro-Saddam." If I am armed, and idly stand by while watching a girl get raped, this does not necessarily make me pro-rape. What it does make me isn't a lot better."

No, Tom, it doesn't work that way. One can be against the status quo and against war at the same time. Also, your analogy is ludicrous in the sense that the 'rape' we were supposed to be stopping (transfer of Chemical, Nuclear and Bilogoical weapons to anti-american Al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups) never was taking place at all.

To kill a man (or in this case several 1000 men women and children) to stop a crime that was a fabrication, without CHECKING BEFOREHAND if said crime was taking place is what? If you say MURDER, the you might be honest.

You were a party to murder.

"I'm not picking a color for you. I'm asking you to name a color. ANY color.

We've been through this before. I will admit to a "False Dichotomy" if you can come up with ANY workable alternative other than removing Saddam and Sons by force, or leaving him in power to continue imprisoning kids, killing citizens, gassing Kurds, raping girls, etc."

Tom, this is again absurd.

The very fact that our government and intelligence apparatus was convinced of terrorist connections that DO NOT EXIST and Chemical and nuclear programs that DO NOT EXIST indicates that we were not 'On the ball' in Iraq, did not know what was really going on. If we had been doing our job we MIGHT have been able to see another way out. But we were not doing our job or were INTENTIONALLY not doing our job. A BETTER course of action would have to really find out what was going on in Iraq and take actions based on FACT and NOT FICTION.

Furthermore it is really bloody insane that you paint this as "WAR or STATUS QUO AD INFINITUM" that is a lie. I suggest that wew were only looking for reasons for war, and the empirical evidence bears this out.

Lastly, its an ignorant fabrication that war HAD to be done to stop the atrocities. There are plenty of nations commiting atrocities on their own people- raping the women you claim to care so much about, killing the kids you claim to care so much about, gassing the ethnic minorities you claim to care so much about- yet you don't give a damn about them? You don't insist war is the only option for dealing with them? But Iraq, because bush pointed his finger and told us they were bad? Do you have any dignity Tom?

"We've been through this before. I will admit to a "False Dichotomy" if you can come up with ANY workable alternative other than removing Saddam and Sons by force,"

Tom, this is like telling me to prove mathematicallyt that a certain particle exists or else you will throw out The Standard Model, or quantum physics. I can't, its not within my skill set, and you know it... You throw out a fake and easy option- claim it is the solution (which it has not been so far- 5 dead soldiers this week in Iraq and no sign of stability or peace even on the horizon)

Tom, this is the equivalent of saying PROVE UFOS DON'T EXIST AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU. I can't, you can't, nobody can, you know it, so you are safe.

Besides the point, modal arguments (should, if we would take hypothetical action X in hypothetical context A etc) have nearly impossible proof conditions, but I bet you know this too, and are just hiding behind Highshool debate-team rhetoric.

Tom wrote:
"Anti-war types can make a legitimate argument that it is not our place to be world policeman, and that it's not our job to pry tyrants loose. But they can't argue that one consequence of a hands-off policy is the continuation of the torment of millions of people."

I find your selective application of ending tyranny JUST in iraq JUST through the use of force to be hypocritical.

Tom wrote:
"This isolationism on the part of the Left is a relatively recent phenomenon, considering their enthusiastic support of almost any armed insurrection against tyranny across the globe, as long as it was Communist."

This makes no sense. You often argue that the 'leftis socialists' like carter, etc appeased communism. What color is your boogeyman?

Tom wrote:
"Frankly, I'm beginning to think there SHOULD be a "world policeman." "

Funny, when "your guy" does it, its okay. But when the "other guy" does it its intolerable. Hypocritical I think.

Bullshit- tom, all of it, and you know it. You just don't want to fess up that you bought a steaming bowl (bowel maybe?) full of lies and lapped it up.

Davin