or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 8  

post #281 of 631
Thread Starter 
poor groverat. Trying to divert the discussion.

1. what part of this is so hard to understand?

Quote:
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize several of Iraqs industries. [Heritage Foundation, 9/25/02; Observer, 11/3/02; Washington Post, 4/21/03; Wall Street Journal, 5/1/03] This would have a significant impact on Iraqs workforce, 75% of which had previously relied upon Saddams government or military for employment. A May 5, 2003 article in the New York Times revealed that the U.S. authority in Iraq had done little to absorb former government employees. The article reported that in Baghdad, thousands of Iraqis [were] begging for work from the newly arrived American administrators. In one instance, reported the newspaper, hundreds of angry Iraqis swarmed into the lobby of the Palestine Hotel ... and protested for hours about their inability to get work from the American administrators, who ... have their headquarters inside the marble halls of the Republican Palace. ... Outside ..., soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications. [New York Times, 5/5/03]

2.
As for the future of the Iraqi economy, there is a lot more involved than employment rates (which is what we are talking about). Where do you get the idea that the lifting of sanctions is going to be this wonderful cure from Iraq's economic woes? Many countries have enough trouble without sanctions, and you can bet Iraq will continue to be one of them. Considering manufacturing has all but died, the country has a long way to go. This becomes even more of a problem if foriegners are being brought in taking the jobs created by the need to rebuild the country and get it running again.

Anyway, quit with these BS attempts to change your argument. You have done it time and time again and it really is sad to watch.
post #282 of 631
giant:

Quote:
1. what part of this is so hard to understand?
Quote:
Numerous documents suggest that the U.S. is determined to privatize ... snip ... soldiers turned away hundreds of Iraqis begging to put in job applications. [New York Times, 5/5/03][/b]

The real work of reconstructing work has yet to begin. For Christ's sake it hasn't even been a month since the statue fell and you're expecting a vibrant economy?

As the economy of Iraq gets on its feet jobs will come, what the hell is so hard to understand about that?

Quote:
As for the future of the Iraqi economy, there is a lot more involved than employment rates (which is what we are talking about).

Am I the one who brough up employment rates? Hmm.

Quote:
Where do you get the idea that the lifting of sanctions is going to be this wonderful cure from Iraq's economic woes?

Before sanctions, Iraq had a strong economy.
With sanctions, Iraq had a very weak economy.
Iraq has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the entire world.
Oil is one of the most important economic items on the planet.

You know... this really isn't rocket science.

Quote:
Many countries have enough trouble without sanctions, and you can bet Iraq will continue to be one of them. Considering manufacturing has all but died, the country has a long way to go.

Manufacturing?

OIL

How's the manufacturing biz in Qatar lately? How about Kuwait?

Hmm... how do they get their money? Oh yeah... OIL!

How did Iraq become so powerful before the Gulf War? Hmmm oh yeah.... OIL!

Manufacturing? heh... you're not even trying are you?

Quote:
This becomes even more of a problem if foriegners are being brought in taking the jobs created by the need to rebuild the country and get it running again.

Who is being brought in to take the jobs created to rebuild the country? Are we going to be shipping in millions of Americans? Did I miss a memo?

Quote:
Anyway, quit with these BS attempts to change your argument. You have done it time and time again and it really is sad to watch.

Change it from what to what?
It seems a lot easier for you to accuse me of it than to lay out how I have done it.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #283 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
SJO:d compare between Saddam w/out curfews and curfews w/out Saddam if you would and tell me how this is worse (knowing that it is temporary).

Oh really? You an architect of Iraqi policy, or have an 'in' with the PNAC, the Pentagon and the White House?

Quote:
"before the sanctions"

You're moving the goalposts, SJO, we are talking about lies to go to war, not to impose sanctions. The sanctions lies were not GeeDub's. Those were his daddy's and Clinton's.

GeeDub has been 'president' for 18 months nearly...does that not count?...perhaps because he wasn't legally elected? Sanctions are *still* in effect....there hasn't been any time during GeeDub's tenure that there haven't been sanctions against Iraq.

Quote:
If you can show one instance of me ever citing FoxNews for anything I'd love to see it. The fact that you rely on such an easy attack shows how amazingly weak your position is.

Lies from the administration or no, Iraq is in a much better position for progress than it was before the war.

I can't...your position on the whole issue smacks of regurgitating administration propaganda...just as spewed out by Fox..et al. perhaps I should have qualified that one more clearly.

--

Quote:
Cluster bombs:
Bad stuff, but sanctions killed 274 a day.

Are you, or have you been in favor of sanctions? I haven't, because that was a mechanism that helped keep Hussein in power.

Quote:
Again, your sources never cease to amaze me. I find it endlessly amusing that you attack my credibility with ludicrous accusations of relying on FoxNews when your sources are mostly paranoia sites. (For God's sake one is called LIBERALSLANT.COM!)

So what? Why complain about that one, when I also included 2 articles from right-wing/Libertarian sites, one from an Israeli site and several from regular corporate sites. Gooff.com ....just because they include material that doesn't get aired on the networks doesn't mean they have any less credibility. If anything.......

Quote:
For every one of your amazingly biased opinion pieces I can find 5 stories of Saddam's horrible deeds, it's really a pointless action you undertake to hide the fact that this operation has been a tremendous success.

Oh dear. Saddam was a horror story (still may be)....I have no disgareement with you on that fact. Then remind yourself
...Saddam Hussein did his worst stuff, involving chemical/bio weapons, and a bunch of other horrific stuff....when he was a US buddy and ally. Never forget that the US (specially under Reagan) helped him with funding, weapons and intelligence when he was using chemical weapons against Iran. Stupid, short-sighted foreign policy that predictably came back to haunt us.

Of course the missiles-shooting-bombing-killing operation was a "success" in that it prevailed over the Iraqis missiles-shooting etc operation. This "war" was no contest. $400 billion defense budget takes on $1billion. Highly trained soldiers take on a ragtag army of conscripts and poorly equipped regulars, with no navy, no marines and no air force. This motley crew were apparently a huge and imminent danger to the USA, enough to warrant $75-$150 billion of taxpayer funds, which we don't have... jeez...gimme a freakin' break!!!

It is hard to reconcile how the failure of negotiation, the breakdown of communications and the breach of international and constitutional law could be somehow construed in anyone's imagination as being "successful".

Quote:
There's chaos in a city whose government has just been removed, HOW SHOCKING!
IraqBodyCount.net tells us ~2500 civilians have been killed to this point. That's less than 10 days of sanctions that George W. Bush removed.

He hasn't removed them!!!! Aren't the sanctions there because of IUraq's WMDs..which the Admin *still insists* are in Iraq?

Quote:
"BUT! BUT! What about the opinion piece from LIBERALSLANT.COM!?!?!"



Oh...if you are paying any attention, groverat, READ THIS

Liberation....try again
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #284 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Cluster bombs:
Bad stuff, but sanctions killed 274 a day.

Why do you insist on continuing to lie about this when you were the one that provided the link that disproved your beliefs?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #285 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
OIL!

Creates a centralized economy, with a high disparity in income. It seems highly unlikely that in the long run oil income will be distributed evenly through a highly socialist system in a country with such rifts between groups. Maybe you should learn a little about the problems with being a rentier state, and specifically an oil one, and why democracy is greatly hindered before you make more of a fool of yourself.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/world_p.../53.3ross.html
and scroll down here for a short version:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnec...mes/economics/

As for the other gulf states you mentioned, their economies are supported by populations of foreigners that are larger than the population of citizens, which are very small. In Bahrain, the citizen income to foreign is over 3 to 1, with the others in the same ballpark.

Groverat, I don't mind helping you get out of your fantasy-land world view, but your whole act really makes you look like a fool. Especially now that your factually accuracy rating is right down there with fellowship and sdw.

Iraq doesn't need an oil economy in order to get on its feet, it needs a fully diversified one, which it probably won't get.
post #286 of 631
SJO:

Quote:
Oh really? You an architect of Iraqi policy, or have an 'in' with the PNAC, the Pentagon and the White House?

Well I'm just assuming we're not going to be running dissidents through plastic shredders feet first or operating myriad torture chambers throughout the country. Silly me.

Quote:
GeeDub has been 'president' for 18 months nearly...does that not count?...perhaps because he wasn't legally elected? Sanctions are *still* in effect....there hasn't been any time during GeeDub's tenure that there haven't been sanctions against Iraq.

They are in the process of being removed and they really have no future. At the very least GeeDub has called for their removal and oppossed their existence and taken very real steps to get them removed.

The point still applies, this thread is about war, not sanctions, and there's no way in hell you can blame sanctions on GeeDub. He (obviously) can't control the UN.

Quote:
I can't...your position on the whole issue smacks of regurgitating administration propaganda...just as spewed out by Fox..et al. perhaps I should have qualified that one more clearly.

Yes or No: Is Iraq in a better position for progress now than it was before the war?

Quote:
Are you, or have you been in favor of sanctions?

You obviously haven't been paying attention.
No and no.

Quote:
So what? Why complain about that one, when I also included 2 articles from right-wing/Libertarian sites, one from an Israeli site and several from regular corporate sites. Gooff.com ....just because they include material that doesn't get aired on the networks doesn't mean they have any less credibility. If anything.......

Because they were mainly opinion pieces with no real facts, just conspiracy.
The only real facts shown were the cluster bomb deaths, other than that it's all editorial. That's of no use.

Quote:
...Saddam Hussein did his worst stuff, involving chemical/bio weapons, and a bunch of other horrific stuff....when he was a US buddy and ally.

Oh my God that is so relevant!

Quote:
Of course the missiles-shooting-bombing-killing operation was a "success" in that it prevailed over the Iraqis missiles-shooting etc operation.

I guess you want to ignore the many predictions of weeks of fighting in the streets in Baghdad, tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of civilian casualties. A "quagmire". "Another Vietnam".

That's why it was a surprise, it went faster and less bloody than anyone expected. (Except Bill Clinton, who said it would only take a couple of days. That Bill, ever the optimist!)

Quote:
It is hard to reconcile how the failure of negotiation, the breakdown of communications and the breach of international and constitutional law could be somehow construed in anyone's imagination as being "successful".

Breach of constitutional law?

Quote:
He hasn't removed them!!!! Aren't the sanctions there because of IUraq's WMDs..which the Admin *still insists* are in Iraq?

He's trying to remove them, it's the anti-war lot who is keeping them on.
Easier to bash the US than to recognize whose fault those sanctions really are at this point, eh?

Quote:
Oh...if you are paying any attention, groverat, READ THIS

How in God's name does that refute the idea that they were liberated? Because they're ambivalent?

---

giant:

Quote:
Creates a centralized economy, with a high disparity in income. It seems highly unlikely that in the long run oil income will be distributed evenly through a highly socialist system in a country with such rifts between groups. Maybe you should learn a little about the problems with being a rentier state, and specifically an oil one, and why democracy is greatly hindered before you make more of a fool of yourself.

Who had a better life before the war, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis, Qatar(ians?)(is?) or Iraqis?

List in order.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #287 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
...there's no way in hell you can blame sanctions on GeeDub. He (obviously) can't control the UN.

Why do you insist on continuing to lie about this when you were the one that provided the link that disproved your beliefs?

Obviously a U.S. veto can control the effect of the sanctions and that's what the U.S. did. Obviously. Thanks to your link.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #288 of 631
bunge:

Quote:
Why do you insist on continuing to lie about this when you were the one that provided the link that disproved your beliefs?

Wasn't your dispute that the negative effects of the sanctions were all the US's fault at first?
And now they are that the sanctions never had negative effects?

Find it.

UNICEF says sanctions have killed 500,000 Iraqi children. But again you can post no logic or fact to dispute the negative effects of the sanctions.

Whatever is convenient, eh bunge?

Quote:
Obviously a U.S. veto can control the effect of the sanctions and that's what the U.S. did. Obviously. Thanks to your link.

Tell me, bunge, how does one veto something that's already passed?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #289 of 631
God! Is groverat still at it? Ah, still trying to prove the pointless. But, what can you expect from someone who thinks lieing is exceptable. Geez I didn't even think that about Clinton!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #290 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


List in order.

Can you believe this guy has the nerve to bark orders? Your inadequacy has been thoroughly demonstrated. Suck it up.
post #291 of 631
Quote:
Your inadequacy has been thoroughly demonstrated. Suck it up.

That's ok, giant, I know not to expect content or rational logic from you.

The disparate economies of the Middle Eastern oil countries are mainly attributable to autocracies and the huge bureaucratic messes they entail, something mentioned in the article you posted but you failed to address because it kicks your argument in the balls. Iraq isn't becoming an autocracy, it's most likely shaping into some form of a capitalist democracy which would naturally encourage a diversified economy.

Perhaps if Iraq does make motions towards an autocracy like Saudi Arabia you'll have a point, but until then you might be the one who needs to "suck it up" or stop selectively quoting your own sources.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #292 of 631
jimmac:

Quote:
God! Is groverat still at it? Ah, still trying to prove the pointless. But, what can you expect from someone who thinks lieing is exceptable. Geez I didn't even think that about Clinton!

Do you vote?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #293 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:



Do you vote?

Of course. Do you? But just because politicians lie and I vote for them doesn't mean I endorse lieing ( like you do ). You'll have to do better than that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #294 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
groverat: The disparate economies of the Middle Eastern oil countries are mainly attributable to autocracies and the huge bureaucratic messes they entail...

Interesting. Did you miss my last post? Oh, look, you quoted the exact passage a couple posts back, though somehow you neglected to read it.

As for child-like understanding of arabian peninsula, it would probably be better to start with the basics before you try to tackle this heavy stuff. You can start here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...la&sa=N&tab=iw
post #295 of 631
Thread Starter 
To return to the topic (if only for a moment) remember that boeing that was touted as being used for training terrorists?
Quote:
Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britains MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison, the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplanewhich appeared to be used for counter-terrorism trainingwhen they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. Thats Hollywood rinky-dink stuff, the former agent said. They train in basements. You dont need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.

from the hersh article.

It reminded me of why Americans are so willing to fall for this fantasy stuff put out by the Bush admin.
post #296 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Tell me, bunge, how does one veto something that's already passed?

The sanctions are analogous to guns. If used properly no one gets hurt. If abused and everyone could die. The U.S. abused the sanctions and as a result many died.

I just wish you would clarify your rhetoric instead of trying to hide behind it. Did people die because of the sanctions or because of how the sanctions were abused, mainly by the U.S. and Britain?

You pretend that those options are the same but they're not.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #297 of 631
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #298 of 631
jimmac:

Quote:
Of course. Do you? But just because politicians lie and I vote for them doesn't mean I endorse lieing ( like you do ). You'll have to do better than that.

What do you mean by "endorse" and how do I do it?

I say I don't care if they lie as long as the results are good, obviously you feel the same. Your only problem is you can't recognize the hole in your logic and shut up about it.

---

giant:

How then do you reconcile the fact that the problems in the ME related to oil and social welfare states are attributable to autocratic government with the idea that Iraq is apparently earmarked to be a democracy of the capitalist bent? (If you buy into the idea that the US went in to take Iraq's oil, that's what would happen.)

Or do you want to have your cake and eat it, too?

---

bunge:

Quote:
The sanctions are analogous to guns. If used properly no one gets hurt. If abused and everyone could die. The U.S. abused the sanctions and as a result many died.

Please cite any authority to back you up on this. Any at all. Please.

Because every human rights organization and liberal thinker across the world has, for the last decade, decried the sanctions as a "blunt instrument". The only people I can think of who share your point of view are conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh.

Here's a nice quote you always love to ignore:
An emergency commodity assistance program like oil-for-food, no matter how well funded or well run, cannot reverse the devastating consequences of war and ten years of virtual shutdown of Iraq's economy ... The deterioration in Iraq's civilian infrastructure is so far-reaching that is can only be reversed with extensive investment and development efforts.
- Human Rights Watch (August 4, 2000)

Proving that you don't know what you're talking about is a bit like proving Pauly Shore is a bad actor; but as easy as it is I still think it's great fun.

Quote:
Did people die because of the sanctions or because of how the sanctions were abused, mainly by the U.S. and Britain? You pretend that those options are the same but they're not.

How are they not?

Do you have ANY backing at all for the idea that the sanctions the UN agreed to place on Iraq were inherently harmless? Answer this question.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #299 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Proving that you don't know what you're talking about is a bit like proving Pauly Shore is a bad actor; but as easy as it is I still think it's great fun.

You do a good job at proving you're an idiot by ignoring questions that you can't truthfully answer without reversing your positions.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #300 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

How then do you reconcile the fact that the problems in the ME related to oil and social welfare states are attributable to autocratic government with the idea that Iraq is apparently earmarked to be a democracy of the capitalist bent? (If you buy into the idea that the US went in to take Iraq's oil, that's what would happen.)

This black and white fantasy of yours is just that. Why do you have such resistance to actually studying that which you comment on? You act like democracy is a specific, unvaried thing. You do realize that Iran has a type of democracy, do you not? And you realize that in order for your fantasy of even oil wealth distribution you have to stay pretty far away from privatization, don't you? Rememer how you ridiculed me a few posts ago for bringing up manufacturing?
Let me remind you:

Quote:
Manufacturing?

OIL

How's the manufacturing biz in Qatar lately? How about Kuwait?

I've already pointed out why this is rediculous, and how these countries are supported by a foriegn work force much larger than the actual population of citizens and living at a much lower level. In order for Iraq to function as a representative democracy of some just sort while providing a high standard of living for all Iraqi people, the economy needs a whole lot more than oil.
post #301 of 631
bunge:

Quote:
You do a good job at proving you're an idiot by ignoring questions that you can't truthfully answer without reversing your positions.

What question did I ignore? Please, unlike you I'll be glad to answer any questions you put before me.

Care to answer mine or is your intelligent repartee going to rely solely on calling me an idiot?
Come on, bunge, diversify.

------

giant:

Quote:
This black and white fantasy of yours is just that. Why do you have such resistance to actually studying that which you comment on?

I read your links, what more do you want?
I'm going off what they say now.

Quote:
You act like democracy is a specific, unvaried thing.

No, no I don't.

Sez me:
...it's most likely shaping into some form of a capitalist democracy...

"some form of" = "specific, unvaried"?
Hmmm, indeed!

Quote:
You do realize that Iran has a type of democracy, do you not?

Iran is an autocracy.
A few sheepshow democratic organizations with a controlling autocracy does not a form of democratic government make. The real decisions aren't made in any sort of democratic way, so no dice.

And beside that, which government has the US specifically said Iraq's will not resemble? That's right, Iran's! Tell me, Clouseau, what's the point of bringing Iran up?

Quote:
And you realize that in order for your fantasy of even oil wealth distribution you have to stay pretty far away from privatization, don't you?

Quote:
Rememer how you ridiculed me a few posts ago for bringing up manufacturing?

You brought up manufacturing as evidence that Iraq would remain a weak economy even after sanctions were lifted and cited the drop in manufacturing as evidence.

Manufacturing will not be and never was their main economic drive, oil was and will be. A heavy oil presence does not automatically assume an oil-based social welfare autocracy, don't be silly.

A strong private economy, even if fueled by oil, will grow and be diverse if you set up the right system, and by all accounts that's the direction Iraq is heading.

Quote:
I've already pointed out why this is rediculous, and how these countries are supported by a foriegn work force much larger than the actual population of citizens and living at a much lower level.

My point is that even if Iraq becomes an oil-spigot dictator social welfare oil state the people will have a much better standard of living. And by all accounts not even that is going to happen.

To say this war and the lifting of sanctions will not help the people is just stupid.

Quote:
In order for Iraq to function as a representative democracy of some just sort while providing a high standard of living for all Iraqi people, the economy needs a whole lot more than oil.

Why the hell would they ONLY have oil and what indication do you have that Iraqis are incapable of anything else?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #302 of 631
Here's an article about the man the US (that is, the White House and the Pentagon) want to install as Iraq's leader. This guy is a crook....convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court for thieving $Sixty Million. I wonder if he knows Ken Lay?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #303 of 631
By groverat,
What do you mean by "endorse" and how do I do it?

I say I don't care if they lie as long as the results are good, obviously you feel the same. Your only problem is you can't recognize the hole in your logic and shut up about it.

---

Sounds like an endorsement to me and I think you should follow your own advice.

By the way. How do I obviously feel the same? If you're going site my support of Clinton when he lied ( not his infidelity with Monica ) he did the wrong thing. If he could have run again I wouldn't have voted for him because at that moment he put his own needs above the good of the country. And god look what it lead to. My problem with him was that he lied as president to the people. His private life is just that and another matter entirely. As is Bush. A whole different magnitude of lieing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #304 of 631
If I had been Clinton I would have lied about this too. Its none of anyone elses buisness (well beside his family but thats up to his own conscious).

Clinton didn´t ask to be asked about his sexual escapades so it would be unfair to compare the Starr show with Jerry Springer. When Jerry Springer has his guests in the show they are not forced to do it so they are as much to blame as Springer himself (and whatever network it is on). Clinton wasn´t interviewed by Starr because he wanted but because he had to. Whatever "shame" this has put on the white house reputation is entirely to blame on Starr. Notice that its only in US people feel this is shameful for the US. The rest of the world couldn´t care less. Here Clinton is the president that was good for the economy and tried to reform the healtcare system but failed because of huge economical interests.
post #305 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
If I had been Clinton I would have lied about this too. Its none of anyone elses buisness (well beside his family but thats up to his own conscious).

Clinton didn´t ask to be asked about his sexual escapades so it would be unfair to compare the Starr show with Jerry Springer. When Jerry Springer has his guests in the show they are not forced to do it so they are as much to blame as Springer himself (and whatever network it is on). Clinton wasn´t interviewed by Starr because he wanted but because he had to. Whatever "shame" this has put on the white house reputation is entirely to blame on Starr. Notice that its only in US people feel this is shameful for the US. The rest of the world couldn´t care less. Here Clinton is the president that was good for the economy and tried to reform the healtcare system but failed because of huge economical interests.

Anders,

I think we're mostly together on this one. Maybe Clinton should have said " No Comment ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #306 of 631
"Hunt" for WMDs now being scaled down...probably because the criminal lying scumbags in this administration knew all along they didn't exist, and sold the war on the scare factor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003May10.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...591673364.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=405122

One of Bush's greatest allies: the short attention span of Americans.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #307 of 631
Thread Starter 
What's also interesting about the Hersh article is the bits on the Straussians (name any neo-con) and their take on intelligence, notably the ideas of deciet:

Quote:
Strausss idea of hidden meaning, Shulsky and Schmitt added, alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception.

Hersh elaborates on this in the Q&A:

Quote:
Another very interesting figure in your article is the late political philosopher Leo Strauss. What does Strauss have to do with intelligence?

Normally, you would think not much, beyond the fact that a lot of people in this government are Straussians. They include Abram Shulsky and some of the men with whom he works, like Wolfowitz and Stephen Cambone, who is the Under-Secretary of Intelligence. But Shulsky actually co-wrote an article about Strauss and intelligence that did make the connection. Shulsky's article involves Strauss's theory of esoteric writing, in which he notes that great philosophers, hesitant to tell the whole story of what they believed, used concealed messages in their writing. Only the very wise could understand the real truth. This also brings in Plato's concept of the noble lie. This is, of course, a great simplification. But what's interesting in terms of Iraq is Strauss's complaint that, as Shulsky writes, nobody quite understood the extent of deception that exists in the world, or its role in politics. This includes deception by Saddam Hussein, who deceived us about what his real intentions and goals were. But you can also extrapolate from that. This idea may help to explain how the people in Special Plans rationalized whatever concerns they had about the quality of the day-to-day intelligence about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01

Shulsky is the head of the Office of Special Plans, the group set up by Rumsfeld to dig up anything to create a justification for attack on Iraq and the sole 'intelligence' source providing the ideas leading up to the war.
post #308 of 631
jimmac:

Quote:
If you're going site my support of Clinton when he lied ( not his infidelity with Monica ) he did the wrong thing. If he could have run again I wouldn't have voted for him because at that moment he put his own needs above the good of the country.

So you're saying that prior to the 1996 election Clinton didn't lie and was therefore worthy of your vote?

Does lying before he was even elected count? Where he said he experimented "2 or 3 times" in England with weed and then at another time said he never inhaled?

Clinton was a prolific liar, a more capable and skilled liar than any president I have ever had the privelege to witness or study. It was his gift, his forte.

Quote:
My problem with him was that he lied as president to the people. His private life is just that and another matter entirely. As is Bush. A whole different magnitude of lieing.

And Clinton's WMD lies used to explain his bombing the absolute hell out of Iraq in 1998? Or for blowing up a Sudanese aspirin factory?

Or is it more fun to act like Clinton never dropped any bombs?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #309 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Or is it more fun to act like Clinton never dropped any bombs?

It'd all be more fun if you would show some reason why you believe Clinton lied about the bombings.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #310 of 631
Thread Starter 
So rather than officially admit you've been decieved you retreat to,' well he did it first!' Talk about lack of focus.

Fact: Bush admin lied to start a war that dramatically transformed the political structure of our planet.

Fact: certain folks on here ate it up uncritically.

I really don't see how groverat, someone who has thoroughly demonstrated his inability to critically digest information, is in any position to comment objectively on truth or deciet.
post #311 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:



So you're saying that prior to the 1996 election Clinton didn't lie and was therefore worthy of your vote?

Does lying before he was even elected count? Where he said he experimented "2 or 3 times" in England with weed and then at another time said he never inhaled?

Clinton was a prolific liar, a more capable and skilled liar than any president I have ever had the privelege to witness or study. It was his gift, his forte.



And Clinton's WMD lies used to explain his bombing the absolute hell out of Iraq in 1998? Or for blowing up a Sudanese aspirin factory?

Or is it more fun to act like Clinton never dropped any bombs?


No I didn't say that. But once again you're missing the point. You're such a blowhard!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #312 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo


One of Bush's greatest allies: the short attention span of Americans.


True, true
post #313 of 631
bunge:

Quote:
It'd all be more fun if you would show some reason why you believe Clinton lied about the bombings.

Well the stated reason to bomb the shit out of Iraq (coincidentally right before his impeachment, go figure) was to hinder Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, I hope you'll be as willing to label that WMD cry a lie as you have GeeDub's.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

...
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
...
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

George W Bush or William Jefferson Clinton?

-----

giant:

Quote:
So rather than officially admit you've been decieved you retreat to,' well he did it first!' Talk about lack of focus.

"officially admit"?
Do you want an engraved and notarized announcement or will you just continue to ignore what I say anyway?

The WoMD excuse was weak and it has yet to be proven or disproven. The documents from Niger were forged, sure, I recognize that.

Bush lies. Clinton lied. Bush's dad lied. Reagan lied. Carter lied. Ford lied. Nixon lied. Kennedy lied.... all politicians lie. Most people lie.

Was I decieved? That's a little different because it assumes that I believed something in the first place. Since I don't usually believe anything any presidential administration says in the first place I fail to see how I have been decieved.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #314 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


Inspections have not worked and there is no indication that they will.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


How else will Iraq be disarmed?

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Almost a month later and the only progress on disarmament is the destruction of a couple-dozen missiles.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

If it's not clear to you by now that we can't disarm Saddam without force then I don't know what else to say to you. I guess for you all of history starts with every new breath.

\
post #315 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


12 years of history show very very clearly that Hussein will not ever fully cooperate and that without full cooperation we cannot fully disarm Iraq. But I guess that's not compelling enough for some.

Quote:
Bunge: If the goal is disarmament, I think at the very least we have time to find out if we can successfully disarm Iraq without war.

Would there ever be a point that you decide that we can't?

Your logic is circular and ignorant of history.

Somehow I have the funny feeling that there actually were alternatives.
post #316 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
...I hope you'll be as willing to label that WMD cry a lie as you have GeeDub's.

My opinion on the WMD were that they probably existed. Looks like Bush is proving me wrong.

Did Bush lie to start a war? Yes, it looks like he did.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #317 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
My opinion on the WMD were that they probably existed. Looks like Bush is proving me wrong.

Did Bush lie to start a war? Yes, it looks like he did.


Hey they haven't found them yet. I also believe that Iraq had WOMD......at one time. Did they have a suffcient quantity or means to deliver them to us? So they would be considered an viable threat worth this war and what it's cost both sides? Probably never.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #318 of 631
Thread Starter 
Looks like everyone is starting to wake up:

Quote:
"We can conclude that the large number of deployed chemical weapons the administration said that Iraq had are not there. We can also conclude that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was not nearly as sophisticated as the administration claimed," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former U.N. nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq.

Bush's claim:

Quote:
Bush in an October 2002 speech said, "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

Reuters, 5.12

we now know that this is not true.

Whether or not a small amount of chemicals are found, the claims made by the Bush admin did not stand up.
post #319 of 631
The fact that Iraq produced thousands of tons of chemical agents that were never accounted for is an indisputable fact.

click for big pdf

So from this statement blue=truth and red=questionable:

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

Can the second sentence be proven or disproven? I don't think so.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #320 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The fact that Iraq produced thousands of tons of chemical agents that were never accounted for is an indisputable fact.

click for big pdf

So from this statement blue=truth and red=questionable:

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons."

Can the second sentence be proven or disproven? I don't think so.

That's a dead horse you're beating there. They also said they that he had the weapons and was a threat. Their whole push was based on making Saddam disarm. You can't beat this one with semantics. And if it's so tenuous why have a war?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war