You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: Your attempt at defending this is pretty weak, but at least you have [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Your attempt at defending this is pretty weak, but at least you have
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 02:36 AM by TheWatcher
conviction.

It deserves a response. Point by Point.

A. If the President hadn't LIED to get us to go to war and actually told the truth, gone through truthful reasons why the war was in fact inevitable (I believe it was) then I may have supported it.


How exactly was this war inevitable? How was Iraq a threat? They had no weapons, they did not attack us, they had nothing to do with 9/11, and exactly HOW were they going to start an "inevitable war" with us. Do explain. This should be fascinating. What reasons did they have that were reasonable to you?



B. If the congress hadn't LIED about a free war "we'll pay for it from the oil they sell" I might have supported it.

This statement alone is baffling. You would have been willing to support something that is destrying our economy that was comlpetely unnecessary? The economic costs of this have already been devastating, and THEY AREN'T DONE. The TRUE COST of this war isn't even known, and will not be known for some time.

C. If the President hadn't LIED about the time frame for the war I might have supported it.

What has the time frame for an unecessary war got to do with anything. ?NO time frame for this was justifiable. It should not have been done in the first place.

D. If the President hadn't LIED about it being part of the "war on terror" I might have supported it.

For what reason? What WOULD have been a justification?

I had to give up after this, sorry. There simply isn't a defense for something that should not have been done in the first place. I defy anyone to come up with something reasonable that suggests we had no other chice than to do this. You can't.


"We will see more of this coming in the next 3 years. All the president needs to do is scare up some more troops.

How? Recruitment is at an all time low. And with the way things are going, you would actually WANT to send more troops into this unecessary meat grinder?

You actually seem to think this is a winnable situation.

Simple question.

HOW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC