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 13  

post #481 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
6 months...no WMD's....which were supposedly 45minutes away from being deployed.....

I have a feeling they did have WoMDs. They were much more powerful than the RDF. And they actually used it on selective part of the european and american population. Funny enough that helped Bush and Blair convince their united population without them noticing them being used.

Weapons of Mental Distortion
post #482 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
I have a feeling they did have WoMDs. They were much more powerful than the RDF. And they actually used it on selective part of the european and american population. Funny enough that helped Bush and Blair convince their united population without them noticing them being used.

Weapons of Mental Distortion



lol
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
post #483 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
BRussell:



That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.


It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.

I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.

Don´t you know Grovy: You are either with us or you are GWBs genetically grow love child
post #484 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision.

When in doubt, go on the attack.

You said the world needed war to 'cleanse' Iraq of WMD. Rumsfeld disagrees with you.

Are you going to admit you were wrong?
"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 #485 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I never said that Saddam *had* WMD.

yes you did. Your second post in this thread. Look:

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.

So you claim that Iraq is armed with these weapons and war is the only way to change that.

Quote:
And past that, how does one deduce what the UN thinks?

Then stop citing it.

But you can't. Why not? Because all of the valid info on Iraq's CBN weapons programs come from there. However, if you actually studied that valid info, you would realize Iraq was not a threat. It doesn't matter if there are unanswered questions. Loose ends do not justify all out war. Legitimate threats justify war. This is why the UN did not vote for it.* 95% of the world's population (probably more) was able to acknowledge that Iraq was not a threat. I bring up the concept of the lemming because you bought into the idea that Iraq was a threat, and that idea was introduced by the Bush Admin. The Bush Admin at least tried to convince us with 'evidence,' which was necessary since the evidence that does exist does not make the case for a threat, something you would know if you actually studied it.

And there is nothing 'partisan' about condemning the action of the Bush regime. I'm not advocating that the Dems or the Greens are better or worse. I'm pointing out the facts as they are.

*Note that even if you think there was a conspiracy driving france and russia, the governments who would have voted against were backed by their citizens. On the other hand, prominant countries that supported it did so against the will of their citizens, notable SPAIN and britain.
post #486 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
BRussell:
That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.


It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.

I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.

So, I have tunnel-vision because you say patently absurd things and I merely point them out. Uh-huh. Keep trying.
post #487 of 631
Thread Starter 
You know, I wouldn't be surprised at all if something is planted. The Bush admin has no problem lying and misrepresenting intelligence. But more importantly, at this point they wouldn't have to find very much. Some barrels of mustard gas would allow them to say 'WMD!' and make it seem somewhat legit. Right now they are being criticized for not finding anything, but if just one small amount of chemical weapons are found, they would have a little something to rest on. All of the lemmings would feel vindicated, even though it still doesn't come close to presenting a threat or justifying war.

I say this because we already know that there was no big renewed weapons program as was claimed. Period. We also know that ALL of the US's intel was bad. Period. Look at each instance.

And if you don't think international conflicts can involved shady or planted evidence, well, then you live in la la land.

[edit]here's an article on the lowering of the standard of proof:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...406134772.html
post #488 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
We also know that ALL of the US's intel was bad. Period.


You have access to the same infromation as the CIA and NSA?

Really, giant---you know what what it is intended for you to know, and nothing more.
post #489 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
You have access to the same infromation as the CIA and NSA?

Unless you *do* have access to it, you can't claim that it wasn't bad, either. That argument cuts both ways.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #490 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Unless you *do* have access to it, you can't claim that it wasn't bad, either. That argument cuts both ways.

Cheers
Scott


OH BOLOGNA!!!!!


......are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?


.....besides, from those silly punters at the Financial Times:

"The new report by Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, revealed that Baghdad supplied information on its illicit weapons programmes up to the eve of military hostilities. But, even at the end, Iraq failed to alleviate fundamental suspicions that it had something to hide."



the punters

I respectfully ask all of you TO BITE ME.
post #491 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
OH BOLOGNA!!!!!

Whatever. There is something whose veracity/reliablity/truthfulness is by its very nature secret and unknown by either of us.

My point is that, given that condition, you CANNOT say that your ideas about it are any more valid/accurate/right than someone else's.

Were you meaning to be ironic when you asked "are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?" and then pointed us to a link about intelligence from a news source?

Interestingly, though, I'm curious what the difference is between an "illicit" weapons program and a WMD program. And what's the difference between a WMD and a Weapon of not quite Mass Destruction? Is there a line somewhere that the UN draws? I've never seen a definition.

And I don't plan on biting you any time soon.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #492 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Whatever. There is something whose veracity/reliablity/truthfulness is by its very nature secret and unknown by either of us.

My point is that, given that condition, you CANNOT say that your ideas about it are any more valid/accurate/right than someone else's.

Were you meaning to be ironic when you asked "are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?" and then pointed us to a link about intelligence from a news source?

Interestingly, though, I'm curious what the difference is between an "illicit" weapons program and a WMD program. And what's the difference between a WMD and a Weapon of not quite Mass Destruction? Is there a line somewhere that the UN draws? I've never seen a definition.

And I don't plan on biting you any time soon.

Cheers
Scott


....those are good points, especially the irony part---It does get a bit circular.
post #493 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena

......are you REALY going to tell me that the CIA and NSA intelligence gathering operations are transparent via the press?

I read somewhere that 95% of their intelligence comes from the free press. So in that case, use, it's pretty transparent.
"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 #494 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I read somewhere that 95% of their intelligence comes from the free press. So in that case, use, it's pretty transparent.

I would imagine that there's an awful lot of really pretty pictures taken from space, too.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #495 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
You have access to the same infromation as the CIA and NSA?

It's called the Open Source Intelligence shift. Intelligence is out in the open. It's a fact of the modern world that is widely discussed in intel circles. But since you are so unaware of such a high-profile global shift, it's really strange that you somehow think you are qualified to comment.

Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I read somewhere that 95% of their intelligence comes from the free press.

You read correctly. That's why companies like stratfor exist these days.

The strength of intel services is their ability to interpret information, almost all of which is freely available.

But here's the big one: anyone that has looked at the UN reports and looks at the Bush claims knows that the Bush admin has never really citing anything beyond what the UN states. If you want a good run-down look here:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

All they have done is take the UN info, turn it into sound bytes, blow it out of proportion and ignore everything that discredits it. They know most folks aren't going to really look into it and will just buy into what they say.

And maybe you didn't notice the HUGE number of intel analysts and policy makers speaking out right now.

As for everything else, Hersh wrote a good article:
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

Basically, ena, until you have some knowledge of the state of information retrieval and appraisal, do yourself a favor and refrain from commenting. Leave that to those of us that are not only trained in it but actually make a living doing it.

Of course, when talking about Iraq's WMD, all you really need to do is inform yourself, which you don't need any sort of information specialist training to do.
post #496 of 631
If uninformed arguments was to be removed from AO then we would have less posts than the suggestion forum. Look at the "Hassan hates Blair" thread for reference.
post #497 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
So, I have tunnel-vision because you say patently absurd things and I merely point them out. Uh-huh. Keep trying.

I say you have tunnel-vision because you lie about what others say to prop up your arguments. It's a Nixon-like paranoid behavior.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #498 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I say you have tunnel-vision because you lie about what others say to prop up your arguments. It's a Nixon-like paranoid behavior.


Look, they haven't found them. They aren't going to ether. The fact that you say it doesn't matter, doesn't matter. They lied or at the best bent the truth to get this war going. That's wrong in my book ( it'll be wrong in a lot of voters books also ). The fact that you say it doesn't matter, doesn't matter. The end didn't justify the means. What they did was Nixon like behavior. The only lie here is from our government. That's about it in a nutshell. No amount of spin doctoring or obfuscation on your part ( or theirs ) will change that. Acts like these cheapen and tarnish the whole meaning of our country and it's values. Shame on you for supporting it.
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 #499 of 631
jimmac:

Quote:
The end didn't justify the means.

Tell me, jimmac, what was the end you are talking about?

In a system as complex and inherently corrupt and self-interest-driven as international politics the end can certainly justify the means; we don't live in a world governed by the Tao te Ching, we live in the real world.

If someone lies to remove a corrupt dictator and remove a slaughter, whether or not that's the liar's goal it is a worthy end. For you to say it is better to sacrifice 1.2 million more Iraqi lives at the bungling hand of the UN Security Council than to pervert some ambiguous idea is on the level of a sociopathic monster.

In the ideal, the US should stand for freedom, that should be the value. And under Saddam and the UN's method of keeping him and power there was no freedom. Now there is a chance for freedom.

You choose international politik over freedom, jimmac, and if you cannot face that you are lying to yourself. To constantly harp on the fact that a politician lied shows a glaring lack of reason and foresight in your position.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #500 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You said the world needed war to 'cleanse' Iraq of WMD. Rumsfeld disagrees with you.

Are you going to admit you were wrong?

I guess Groverat, you're not going to admit it?
"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 #501 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I guess Groverat, you're not going to admit it?

I'm tired of being fake quoted, bunge, so quote a statement that I made that you think is wrong. Don't paraphrase me in your own words.

Do a little legwork.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #502 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Do a little legwork.

So you are unwilling to admit it?
"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 #503 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

In a system blah, blah, blah...

The game you are playing is dangerous. No matter how many times the brick hits you in the head, you keep trying to concoct a explaination to convince yourself that that either you aren't getting hit or that somehow the wounds are good for you. Basically, you went out on a limb and thought your support somehow was helping people, but you were let down.

But denial of reality is exactly how such suffering gets justified. If you really want to help people, stop playing games with yourself, be a man and realize that you've been had. Don't you realize how far you are grasping for anything that helps you avoid facing the facts?

I see two possible explainations for your posts. Vanity or denial
post #504 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I'm tired of being fake quoted, bunge, so quote a statement that I made that you think is wrong. Don't paraphrase me in your own words.

Do a little legwork.

does this help?
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.

It's your second post in this thread
post #505 of 631
Ok, now how was I wrong?

Note: Iraq isn't disarmed.
Note: The anti-war nations want inspections (and wanted continued sanctions) to continue.
Note: After 12 years of inspections and a mere two weeks before war, UNMOVIC released a 170+ page report detailing disarmament issues Hussein still hadn't resolved.

So tell me, bunge, how was Iraq going to be disarmed? (8200 people killed every month waiting for that answer)
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #506 of 631
giant:

Quote:
Basically, you went out on a limb and thought your support somehow was helping people, but you were let down.

No, just like your opposition didn't mean a damned thing neither did my support. I just support(ed) war because it was the right thing.

Quote:
But denial of reality is exactly how such suffering gets justified.

What reality? I think denying the reality of what the anti-war movement advocated is one of the more glaring instances of hypocrisy I've ever seen.

You supported sanctions slaughter over war. That's fact, if it's too uncomfortable for you to face that's your problem.

I knew what I was supporting when I advocated war, did you know what you advocated? Or do you think posting "blah blah blah" absolves you?

Quote:
on't you realize how far you are grasping for anything that helps you avoid facing the facts?

What facts? That Bush lied? BIG ****ING DEAL. Never once has Bush's honesty been a factor in any of my decisions, as I've been saying since 6 months before the goddam war started.

Here are a couple of facts you'll love to ignore ("blah blah blah"):
The 1 month war took ~6000 lives.
1 month of sanctions (which you advocated over war): 8200

Not only that, but your preferred route would've taken 8200 lives every month until your ambiguous and non-specific solution came to fruition. But they are over now.

So what was the price of war in human terms?
What was the price of "diplomacy" in human terms?

6,000 v. 1.2 million?

I like my side more.

"blah blah blah"
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #507 of 631
Thread Starter 
You are playing games. Iraq was not a threat. Period. War was not justified.

You really need to stop citing that document until you understand it.

How about this. Give me one piece of evidence that Iraq had a weapon that was a threat to the US.
post #508 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
[groverat's feeble attempt at trying to rejustify the war in human rights terms now that his WMD argument has crumbled]

I guess I have to repost what I posted earlier:

Quote:
Giant, from the previous page:
Do people not think through anything? Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq. If the goal is to make life as pleasant as possible for the most people, or for the people that are suffering the most, there are many places that are MUCH more in need of our help than Iraq. Like...oh, maybe...Afghanistan. Or have you forgotten along with everyone else? Or have you just not noticed that Afghanistan is getting little substantial help from the US, and certainly nothing close to the scale of Iraq. Maybe you are unaware of what going on in Congo. Hell, we could go down a whole list of regions that make Iraq seem like disneyland.

Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists? Isn't it ironic that perhaps one of the biggest human rights offenses the regime committed in the last year was to release the prisoners?!?!

And how is it that someone in one of the last developed countries to execute prisoners is condemning another nation for doing the same thing?


PS: I should also remind you that those large mass graves in the south were very much our fault, too, since we prompted the uprising and basically handed them to the Iraqis. Also those deaths happened in the context of a civil war, of which there are many [that result in millions of deaths] that we never get involved in.

The piss-poor attempt to paint this as a great humanitarian mission is sick and deceitful.
post #509 of 631
giant:

Quote:
You are playing games. Iraq was not a threat. Period. War was not justified.

Since when did I say the justification for the war hinged on Iraq's status as a threat?

Quote:
You really need to stop citing that document until you understand it.

I understand it. It is a list of a metric assload of very important question Hussein never answered.

Quote:
How about this. Give me one piece of evidence that Iraq had a weapon that was a threat to the US.

How about this, give me one piece of evidence that I give a shit about WMD and said they were there and your demand will make sense.

Quote:
Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq.

That is a false dichotomy.
You cannot disprove the very real human suffering there by saying "there's suffering other places, too."
It's bad logic.

Quote:
Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists?

More than 200,000 people went missing under Saddam...
The Guardian

Yeah, this guy wasn't all that bad after all! You're right, giant, definitely not a problem worth dealing with seriously.

I think defending Hussein is the sickest thing one can do in this debate.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #510 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It is a list of a metric assload of very important question Hussein never answered.

Not really. why not provide examples that constitue a threat.

Quote:
How about this, give me one piece of evidence that I give a shit about WMD and said they were there and your demand will make sense.

For the umpteenth time:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


[War is] the only way to disarm Iraq.

Quote:
That is a false dichotomy.
You cannot disprove the very real human suffering there by saying "there's suffering other places, too."

If we are waging war to ease human suffering, Iraq is not the best way to do it.

But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.
post #511 of 631
giant:

Quote:
Not really. why not provide examples that constitue a threat.

So disarmament is connected somehow to threat status? If so you might want to inform the UN-SC of your new insight into geo-politics, such a caveat for disarmament hasn't made its way into a single document or resolution they have produced.

Quote:
If we are waging war to ease human suffering, Iraq is not the best way to do it.

Waging a war on human suffering in Iraq is best done by removing both Hussein and the sanctions. Which is what war did. You'll notice I didn't say we're going to fix Congolese rebellion by ousting Hussein.

You build straw men to tear them down, you are not good at this.

Quote:
But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.

Reality doesn't matter because a politician lied.

Moral victories abound!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #512 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by giant

But it doesn't matter, because the war was sold on the idea of WMD being a threat! Democracy fails when you have leaders starting wars by lying to the people. Period.

YES. Lets focus on this instead of what Grovy said or didn´t say. The importent thing is what the prez said to defend the war and not what some goat beard growing Marylin Manson listening individual said.

On a side note: I think Grovy got his ass covered here. But no matter what he do he can´t cover Georgies ass.
post #513 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Waging a war on human suffering in Iraq is best done by removing both Hussein and the sanctions. Which is what war did. You'll notice I didn't say we're going to fix Congolese rebellion by ousting Hussein.

But why in Iraq. If we can save more people in much more dire situations by focusing elsewhere, then why start a war in Iraq?
post #514 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
So disarmament is connected somehow to threat status?

Yes. Note that the US, through the UN, focused on Weapons of Mass Destruction (as you did, if you need a refresher go to the beginning of the thread) because they are threat. Not because they are environmentally unsound. Not because they ruin the decor. The are targeted because of the threat.

Why do I have to dumb this down so much for you. Are you just playing stupid?
post #515 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Reality doesn't matter because a politician lied.

Moral victories abound!

Reality matters and should have been explained.

"No we don´t know if he has WoMD but we want him away from the power solely because of what he does to his people"

Explain it like it is and get backing based on the truth.

If politicians lie to invade a country and put servicemens life in danger something is very wrong.
post #516 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
Reality matters and should have been explained.

Then the war wouldn't have happened. Look at how much everyone here was attacked when we were posting the PNAC and Perle docs explaining the motivations in their own words. Those who supported the war couldn't deal with the truth then and they apparently can't deal with it even with it beating them over the head.
post #517 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Then the war wouldn't have happened.

Sccchy. I wanted Grovie to say that
post #518 of 631
Thread Starter 
Groverat, check out what Wolfowitz says about your argument:

Quote:
criminal treatment of the Iraqi people...is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.

http://dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20...ecdef0223.html

Sorry groverat, but your flawed belief structure crumbles around you.

So why did we go to war, Wolfowitz?

Quote:
there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.
post #519 of 631
Anders:

Quote:
YES. Lets focus on this instead of what Grovy said or didn´t say. The importent thing is what the prez said to defend the war and not what some goat beard growing Marylin Manson listening individual said.

What I say doesn't matter and as far as I am concerned absolutely nothing GeeDub says matters. Never has, never will.

Actions are what count when it comes to leaders, not what you say to the press.

Quote:
On a side note: I think Grovy got his ass covered here. But no matter what he do he can´t cover Georgies ass.

1 - I don't want to cover GeeDub's ass. I don't care about his ass.
2 - There's no ass-covering here, just me speaking my opinion. If others refuse to read an opinion that doesn't fit into a stock mold that's their own problem.

Quote:
Reality matters and should have been explained.

It was, Bush and Blair (mostly Blair) both made outlines of the humanitarian case. It wasn't the cornerstone and it wasn't the main thrust. Choosing to focus on WMD is one's own choice. I never really gave a shit about them and don't today, even thought GeeDub tried to sell me on it.

Funny how that works.

WRT to the "the war wouldn't have happened". It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator. A sad, self-interested world indeed.

--

giant:

Quote:
But why in Iraq. If we can save more people in much more dire situations by focusing elsewhere, then why start a war in Iraq?

"focusing elsewhere"?
Did the world stop turning while we fought in Iraq? We don't do everything we could but it's borderline braindead to look at it in "one thing at a time" terms.

Also, we could fix the Iraq situation with war, other problems require different solutions.

And beyond that, we aren't as interested in other nations as Iraq.

Quote:
Yes. Note that the US, through the UN, focused on Weapons of Mass Destruction (as you did, if you need a refresher go to the beginning of the thread) because they are threat. Not because they are environmentally unsound. Not because they ruin the decor. The are targeted because of the threat.

So if the anti-war nations didn't consider Iraq a threat why have they pushed so hard for disarmament? Because threat status has little to do with disarmament.

hmmmm

Quote:
Groverat, check out what Wolfowitz says about your argument:

If I don't give a good goddam what the president says why would I give a shit about the Secretary of State's personal secretary has to say about what goal is worth what price?

Why would Wolfowitz's words disprove anything I say?

My backing sources are UNICEF, CASI, WHO, UN and the like. If you can find me using the administration as a source then go ahead, but until then shut the **** up with your administration bullshit.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #520 of 631
OK, actually groverat claimed that the administration didn't use terrorism to justify the war.

Groverat you can flail around and insult people all you want, like you do when you make dumb arguments and get backed into your own corner, but you have zero credibility on this issue.
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