O'Reilly & Moore

[Ed]

Is yours a cozy airmchair?

Pehaps Iraq is the War on Terrorism's own Operation Market Garden, an over-reaching mission flawed from the start.

History will tsk-tsk better than we ever could.

Maybe. Or, maybe, a democratic Iraq could signal a sea change in the middle east. I'll let you know in 100 years or so.

 

[pgwenthold]

I wouldn't let my kid go to the store if I knew it was going to get him killed...

What if you knew that by going to the store, your kid would prevent someone from detonating a nuclear device that would destroy the city and kill 1 million people?

 

[Ed]

I wouldn't let my kid go to the store if I knew it was going to get him killed...

You don't know that and if your kid enlists you have zero to say about it.

 

[Tmy]

Lets change the question.

Would you voluteer and join the military to fight the Nazis in WW?

Would you volunteer and join the military to fight Saddam?


I think Id join in WW2.
I will not join for the current war in Iraq.

 

[pgwenthold]

You might as well stay in bed tomorrow because every time you get in a car, you are risking your life and others.

christ.

Do you not understand the concept of cost vs benefit?

 

[Snide]

This argument is old and tired.

You might as well stay in bed tomorrow because every time you get in a car, you are risking your life and others.

And for what, pgwenthold? For WHAT!?

This type of response is older and more tired.

 

[c0rbin]

christ.

Do you not understand the concept of cost vs benefit?

Are you asking me or are you asking Christ?



Anyway, this is a question a person should ask before they decide to join the military.

 

[pgwenthold]

You don't know that and if your kid enlists you have zero to say about it.

But suppose you did have a say? Would you send your kid to the store if you knew they were going to get killed?

Usually not, one would figure.

 

[Sane]

What if you knew that by going to the store, your kid would prevent someone from detonating a nuclear device that would destroy the city and kill 1 million people?

Isn't that why the US is fighting this war?

Originally posted by Ed
You don't know that and if your kid enlists you have zero to say about it.

I was merely addressing pgwenthold's following scenario... (which seems rhetorical but I addressed it anyhow). But the part that struck me was the given implication that you know they would die.

Would you send them to Falujiah knowing they are at the risk of being killed? (Moore's question even implies that you know they would die, which is a lot harsher criteria)

 

[pgwenthold]

Are you asking me or are you asking Christ?



Anyway, this is a question a person should ask before they decide to join the military.

Even so, one joining the military has to be able to trust that the commander-in-chief does it, too, and can make a sensible judgement.

But keep in mind, the question does not say I am in the military. My child is in the military. In that case, I most certainly insist that the commander-in-chief makes a properly informed decision, considering the cost and the benefits. If the commander-in-chief cannot convince me that my child's life will be lost for a cause sufficient to justify the loss of that life, then I cannot support the action.

Thus, the point of the question. If I would not be willing to sacrifice my child for Falujiah, if the overall benefit from his/her sacrifice does not justify the cost, then how can I support the commander-in-chief sending our soldiers into that situation?

 

[pgwenthold]

Isn't that why the US is fighting this war?

Or so it was claimed. Of course, there were plenty who were skeptical, but their voices weren't heard.

OTOH, what really happened was that while we were told sending our kid to the store to die would prevent someone from setting off a nuclear device that would kill a million people, what we found was an 8 year old with a firecracker.

 

[Sane]

Or so it was claimed. Of course, there were plenty who were skeptical, but their voices weren't heard.

OTOH, what really happened was that while we were told sending our kid to the store to die would prevent someone from setting off a nuclear device that would kill a million people, what we found was an 8 year old with a firecracker.

Were those who were skeptical merely emotional about going to war? Or did they have some evidence that in no way or no how did Iraq possess WMD?

Or how about this. The store is a super walmart and we're not done searching the place.

I'll be just as disappointed as you when, after searching every inch of Iraq, there are no WMDs found.

 

[rikzilla]

christ.

Do you not understand the concept of cost vs benefit?

Aha! I knew it! You're a bureaucrat aren't you?!

Look, Moore was asking a highly emotionally charged rhetorical question that had nothing to do with anything other than making the questionee look either stupid or heartless.

The truth is no one ever gets to make such specific decisions. Let's take for example Pat Tillman. A man who after 9/11 felt so strongly about the WOT he gave up $4,000,000 of NFL contract money and joined the green machine.

Pat Tillman was KIA in Afghanistan during a "friendly fire" mistake.

I can just see MM asking Tillman's father: "So, Mr. Tillman, how do you justify sending your son to Afghanistan to die in an f-up?"

Of course the answer, the only answer, is Pat Tillman died in defense of his country. Any other answer is not only incorrect factually, but also heaps dishonor upon the choice of an honorable man. Fate stepped in and changed his plans. Guess what? The rest of us are at the mercy of it too.

The only good thing in Moore's rhetoric is that he implies that life is too precious to throw away. It is. Our soldiers are placing that incomparable gift...their lives....on the line in defence of this country. You may not think so,...but they certainly disagree. You may disagree with GWB, but he's the President. The Congress and Senate backed his plan to go to war in both places. Pretending that this is all one man's war as MM does is plain idiocy. Dishonoring the troops in death by implying that they died in vain is not only hideously wrong of Moore...it's downright evil.

-z

 

[pgwenthold]

Were those who were skeptical merely emotional about going to war? Or did they have some evidence that in no way or no how did Iraq possess WMD?

Ask Scott Ritter.

Oh wait, his opinion doesn't count (although he was right on the mark).

Let's just say that I think a lot of people who were opposed to going to war (me included) were skeptical of the claims that Iraq had massive WMD capability, and are not at all surprise that little has been discovered, and did not think there was any reason to believe that Iraq was much of a threat to national security, much less the most important one to concentrate on.

As for "merely emotional about going to war," I think you will find many if not most opposed to the war in Iraq support the actions in Afghanistan. I'm not anti-war. I am anti-unnecessary war.

 

[Tmy]

I think Moores point is that we were hoodwinked into going into Iraq.

Thats a valid point. Right now the govt is shelling out the "bad intelligence" excuse. That is incredibly lame.

Now we dont know the details of that intel. Or how credible the sources are. Only Bush n company know that.

Think of how judges issue warrents. The police come to them with intel of a crime. Intel comes from a cops first hand view thats really reliable. If it comes from the local crazy crack head, thats not so reliable. Bush was the judge. Who knows if he mad a bad decison or not.

 

[corplinx]

I think Moores point is that we were hoodwinked into going into Iraq.

Thats a valid point.

We were hoodwinked into thinking that there were large stockpiles of unaccounted for WMD? They are still officially unaccounted for.

Were we hoodwinked when the president said that Iraqis deserved freedom?

Were we hoodwinked when they claimed Iraq supports terrorism?

Were we hoodwinked when they claimed Iraq had links to Al Quaeda?

It appears the only person who hoodwinked us was VP candidate John Edwards who actually called Iraq an imminent threat.

Good job at riding that whole herd mentality thing though Tmy.

 

[pgwenthold]

The truth is no one ever gets to make such specific decisions.

The decision to go to war against Iraq was made by George W. Bush. Now, if you want to call him "no one," I will only laugh. But it was his decision. So don't give me this crap about "no one gets to make this decision."

I can just see MM asking Tillman's father: "So, Mr. Tillman, how do you justify sending your son to Afghanistan to die in an f-up?"

It was a terrible cost, but the goal is worthy. Friendly fire happens. If it with the right intentions, I can accept it, even it if were my son.

Of course the answer, the only answer, is Pat Tillman died in defense of his country.

Did Gunnery Sergeant Jeff Bohr, who was killed by a sniper in Baghdad, die in defense of his country?

He most certainly died while doing his military duty, as a good soldier will always do. But I have yet to see any reason to think that the military mission he was on had anything to do with defense of the country. Being the top soldier he was, he did his duty as he was told, and his opinion on whether or not he was doing anything to defend the country was not relevent to him. He did what he was supposed to do. I admire him for it, and am proud to have known him.

Unfortunately, he died in an activity that had little to do with defending our country.

 

[Tmy]

We were hoodwinked into thinking that there were large stockpiles of unaccounted for WMD? They are still officially unaccounted for.

Were we hoodwinked when the president said that Iraqis deserved freedom?

Were we hoodwinked when they claimed Iraq supports terrorism?

Were we hoodwinked when they claimed Iraq had links to Al Quaeda?

It appears the only person who hoodwinked us was VP candidate John Edwards who actually called Iraq an imminent threat.

Good job at riding that whole herd mentality thing though Tmy.

Lets see,


-No WMD's found. wink

-we werent welcomed as Heros. wink

-mission NOT accomplished. wink

-Iraq does not support terror VS AMERICA. Thats a hoodwink. (they supported it against Isreal. but the implication in the cleverly worded "support Terrorism" is to hoodwink americans into thinking 911=Saddam) wink.

-Links to ALqueda. Just as above, a cleverly worded line to imply that Saddam =911. THe "link" is little more than some AL Q dudes takin a ◊◊◊◊ in Baghadad Airport. The implication was that Saddam would hand over WMD's to Al Q. The realtionship with AL Q was no were near that level. wink.

Oh and dont forget "to be paid for with Iraqi oil money." BIG FAT WINK!

 

[fishbob]

We were hoodwinked into thinking that there were large stockpiles of unaccounted for WMD? They are still officially unaccounted for.

Them is weasel words. You have turned the question from immediate danger to US to bad bookkeeping.

An accounting problem should not be justification for our incursion into Iraq. What might possibly be a bookkeeping error has resulted in way too much death and destruction. Some low level bureaucrats can't count so we are justified in preemptive invasion?

 

[pgwenthold]

Them is weasel words. You have turned the question from immediate danger to US to bad bookkeeping.

An accounting problem should not be justification for our incursion into Iraq. What might possibly be a bookkeeping error has resulted in way too much death and destruction. Some low level bureaucrats can't count so we are justified in preemptive invasion?

I don't think so much it is an issue of they can't count, it is that they didn't do the paperwork. Government is all about have the proper paperwork.

They probably just destroyed the weapons without filling out the proper paperwork.