Quote:
Quoting FUBAR:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
It is just slightly hypocritical, IMHO.

There's nothing slight about it, Hal.

I see nothing hypocritical.  I figure liberals aren't always peaceniks as conservatives aren't always war mongerers.

Certainly your opinion, but when someone argues "US invasion of Iraq BAD" but "US invasion of Pakistan GOOD" when the reasons for the US entering either country are virtually identical, that's hypocracy in my view.  It has little to do with liberals being peaceniks or conservatives being war mongers.  What it has to do with is situational ethics voiced by people on either end of the spectrum.  Someone can't argue on one hand that the US is wrong to interfere in Iraq but it's ok to interfere in Pakistan.

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting FUBAR:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
It is just slightly hypocritical, IMHO.

There's nothing slight about it, Hal.

I see nothing hypocritical.  I figure liberals aren't always peaceniks as conservatives aren't always war mongerers.

Certainly your opinion, but when someone argues "US invasion of Iraq BAD" but "US invasion of Pakistan GOOD" when the reasons for the US entering either country are virtually identical, that's hypocracy in my view.  It has little to do with liberals being peaceniks or conservatives being war mongers.  What it has to do with is situational ethics voiced by people on either end of the spectrum.  Someone can't argue on one hand that the US is wrong to interfere in Iraq but it's ok to interfere in Pakistan.

Where are you reading that I said anything like "US invasion of Iraq BAD" but "US invasion of Pakistan GOOD"? 

I DID NOT say anything like what you are suggesting I did.  Therefore I haven't said anything hypocritical, have I?

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Snark:

Here's the problem with your thinking. It's easy to play armchair quarterback since hindsight is 20/20 always. we now know historically that FDR carefully led this country to war in World War II, not only wisely but in hopes that a war footing would shake the country out of our economic doldrums. We know that LBJ invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident. We know a lot of things that are historically important and even interesting, but it is not for condemnation that we note these things. the democrats have hda a hard on fro George Bush from Day One, with all sorts lies and very few truths, including "stealing" not one but TWO elections. Shall I point at Nancy Pelosi and say that it was she who over two years ago promised to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump, and instead oversaw driving it through the ROOF, and then ask why in god's name would you vote for these people. Shall I point at the absolutely absurd comments made by Jack Murtha, not to mention his public conviction of Marines WITHOUT a trial, and wonder why in God's name would you democrat. Shall I point at the two-faced person who is your candidate for President who says one thing to the face of Pennsylvania and then belittle them at a fund-raiser in San Francisco with his fellow elitists, and wonder why in God's name would you be willing to vote for such a character-less personality. Should i wonder why, despite the evidence of corrupt land dealings in Nevada involving Senator Harry Reid why you would support this party. Or Congressman Jefferson caught with $90,000 in marked FBI funds in his FREEZER and yet still serves as a Congressman and continues to insult the intelligence of the American public by claiming innocence......PUHLEASE, amigo.

The Republican Party generally disposes of it's own trash, either voluntarily or involuntarily as the case warrants. Neither Party is politically or morally pure. But one party talks a good game about ethics and throws out al;l the lovely platitudes, and points out things that are broken and need to be fixed, but NEVER does anything, nor will they EVER do anything that runs counter to their own appetitie for infinite power, even IF it is good for the country. I will be the very first to stand up and condemn ANY Reublican misdeeds, including the two jerks in California who have been caught trying to register illegal voter registration cards, if they are guilty throw them in the slammer and let them contemplate their navels for awhile. But even their misdeeds pale in comparison to ACORN and the numerous other occassions in elections where similar Democrat misdeeds have not only been alleged but documented going back over 50 years or more, including one of the closest elections in history which we know was stolen.

So, please stop the rote condemnation and talking points. You are much smarter than that, my friend. Neither party has clean hands, to pretend otherwise is simply absurd.

Skip

Well Skip, the thing is its not hindsight.  Leaving aside the question of WHY for a moment, most of what's unfolded in post-invasion Iraq was forseeable from day one. 

I am not sure why you think I'm trying to "condemn" anyone.  I'm merely expressing my opinion that it was a mistake in judgement that unfortunately both sides signed off on. 

As far as Bush goes, I didn't think much of him from long before the election. His history in Texas had more than enough reason for me to be concerned about his judgement.  I was seriously disappointed when he won the Republican nomination in 2000.  I would have happily voted for McCain back then.  Gore was not up to the job.  But times aren't what they were and McCain isn't the man he was.

I don't vote ANY party line Skip. Congressionally I'm voting Republican, but they have a snowball's chance in hell at getting elected in this state with the economy in the toilet.

I'll always vote for the better person for the job.  (Or I as I tend to think of it, I vote against the worse man for the job.) I am not happy with a lot of what Obama advocates, but in this case he is the better man for the situation at hand. Unfortunately He will give me a lot to complain about. (His advocacy abolishing of secret ballots for union votes leaps to mind) McCain is simply not a viable choice this time around.  He's got no clue on the economy or national security and IMO his judgment is seriously in question at this point.  Besides... as many times as he's tried to reinvent himself this campagn he should have multiple slots on the ballot.

  ( ) John McCain - War Hero
  ( ) John McCain - Maverick
  ( ) John McCain - To the rescue (Of the economy)
  etc.

If he can't come up with a reasonably consistent message he's not qualified for the job.

You are absolutely correct that neither party is pure, but you're giving the Repulicans too much credit I think for "disposing of the trash".  Ted Stevens, who is still in office, is just as much as a waste of flesh as Jefferson. (IMO both of them need to be thrown into a hole, never to be seen again.) Both sides will carry their guilty parties as far as they can get away with it.  If you seriously believe otherwise you're fooling yourself.  Personally, I won't defend the ethics of either party.  There are simply too many examples for either party that proves how pointless that would be.

Both sides in this mess suck and I don't see any likehood that either party will put someone up for the job that's actually fit for it in my lifetime.

And rest easy Skip, once Obama takes office I'll be right there with ya calling him on his BS just as much as I did with Bush and Clinton.  (Just don't expect that we'll always agree on what his BS actually is.  )

Quote:
To: Hal

I don't think it is as clear, as you think it is, regarding who you believe is being hypocritical.  I took it as a parting shot by you to me.  I do concede now that you likely meant it to be addressed to US Liberals in general, or maybe also to Obama.  This just proves how statements can be misconstrued and that great care must be given to sentence structure, as well as not separating ideas into different sentences as it can raise questions as to where the emphasis was intended.  My sincerest apologies.

Boy, I really wish I had paid more attention in school when grammar was being taught. 

My apologies to kdh1949 as I now realize he also likely didn't mean I was being a hypocrite.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Just how many times did you expect Saddam's utter contempt for the United Nations to be ignored. At the time of the invasion, there had been no fewer than 17 UN resolutions levied against Iraq, all of which were ignored by Hussein. There was never a peace treaty signed at the close of Gulf War I, a CEASE-FIRE wasa signed, every tenet of which was ignored for 13 years, we could have gone back in at any point due to any of those violations. I think both the US and the UN showed an inordinate amount of patience for this madman's behavior. This is not a very hard concept to understand

Skip

Well Skip, that was up to the UN to decide.  Not us.  If my neighbor plays his music too loud and gets 17 citatons from the police for noise pollution I don't get to go break his stereo on the 18th time.  The authority being defied in that case is that of the law, not mine.

And of course he didn't defy them all, did he?  We went to the UN and they made a "final check or else" resolution which he DID comply with. 

We simply didn't want to wait for the time it would take UNMOVIC to verify compliance.

So you're right, it's not at all hard to understand.

A case can be made that the invasion was justified based on what was believed at the time  (You kind of have to squint and tilt your head while looking at the 'evidence' however) but ignoring the UN isn't one of them.

Quote:
Good god, man, who do you think the UN is?  And who do you think would have to enforce those UN mandates if not the US and Britain?  I also don't think most of those other countries would appreciate your "nickel and dime" characterization much.