Out of control? Out of context? The "Prince of Darkness" is one of the authors of US foreign policy. He knows exactly what he can say, and how far he can tread. He's not going to get fired because of some off the cuff comment made in the far east. The American people have already been told it was about WMD...over and over..so thats what the war was about. 41% of Americans believe that the WMD have already been found...such is the state of public (un)awareness. Who reads the Guardian over here anyway? If Iraq had no oil, you tell me what kind of invasion would have taken place?
Out of context???? sheeeesh...sounds like the kind of watered down spineless appeasement the current crop of "democrats" are serving up. Gimme a break!
Quote:
But can a member of this administration utter the words 'oil' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence without being fired?
Anyone recall those "No Blood For OIL" banners??????? 80%+ of the worlds population (5 billion) cant be wrong. Any antiwar activist worth their salt who had done some reading up on the subject would have told you precisely what the war was to be about before the Bush crew publicly started propagandizing about it.
If Wolfowitz is that blatant and honest, he gets some respect.
"Why Iraq?"
"Oil."
"You know there were no WMD, what about OIL!?"
"I said oil."
"Oh right you did... uh... well..."
Hilarious.
-
jimmac:
Quote:
Any occupation is a ruling body. But you claim we set them free.
There is a ruling body over you, are you not free?
Childish logic.
Quote:
The part you say the end justified the means doesn't wash. It was under false pretense. Don't you get it?
I think by saying the end justifies the means I acknowledges the false pretense. That's kind of the whole point of saying that the end justifies the means, acknowledging the means.
Do you get it?
Quote:
And guess what? There are still many dictators in the world.
Wow, that's relevant.
All situations are not the same.
Quote:
Bush picked this one for other reasons ( not the ones you have listed ). Listen if Clinton had done this I would be saying the exact same things. But you know that's not the way reality went.
Yeah, they were different, Clinton favored a good relationship with France over ousting Saddam.
If Wolfowitz is that blatant and honest, he gets some respect.
"Why Iraq?"
"Oil."
"You know there were no WMD, what about OIL!?"
"I said oil."
"Oh right you did... uh... well..."
Hilarious.
-
jimmac:
There is a ruling body over you, are you not free?
Childish logic.
I think by saying the end justifies the means I acknowledges the false pretense. That's kind of the whole point of saying that the end justifies the means, acknowledging the means.
Do you get it?
Wow, that's relevant.
All situations are not the same.
Yeah, they were different, Clinton favored a good relationship with France over ousting Saddam.
Bombing Iraq = ok.
Ousting Hussein = not ok.
Now you're clutching at straws. No amount twisted logic will change things. The thing about the other dictators is extremely relevent. Or don't you care about those people? The problem is why did we go after this one with all the others ( especialy the ones that pose a real threat )?
Caught in your own twisted logic. Give it up. I've got to go to work now but " I'll be back ".
The thing about the other dictators is extremely relevent. Or don't you care about those people? The problem is why did we go after this one with all the others ( especialy the ones that pose a real threat )?
Please tell me of these other dictators.
Tell me how they are a "real threat" and then tell me how the Hussein solution applied by Bush would apply to them in an advantageous way.
KJL in North Korea:
Do you think that an overthrow would take ~6,000 lives?
I happen to think 60,000 or even 600,000 is quite more likely. Have we tried 12 years of very aggressive "diplomatic" solutions with him?
Who else, jimmac, who else?
It's easy for you to speak in generalizations, let's see if you can provide me with some specifics.
This is the whole point. If you don't know, then you are in no position to make pretend informed judgements about what would be the best use of American money and power.
And what the hell is wrong with University of Texas that their student's understanding of global events is limited to front-page news stories? And this is a student who is actually interested in the subject!
This is the whole point. If you don't know, then you are in no position to make pretend informed judgements about what would be the best use of American money and power.
Educate me, giant. Who is the "real threat"?
Quote:
And what the hell is wrong with University of Texas that their student's understanding of global events is limited to front-page news stories? And this is a student who is actually interested in the subject!
If all you've got left is ad-hom sniping you're doing yourself a disservice by continuing to post.
Um, that's not exactly what we are talking about. BTW, the real threats aren't necessarily dictators.
But hey, here's a couple real threats, Pakistan and the rising forces in India. Directly concerning the US, the upper levels of Pakistani government actually has real connections to 9/11 (though this in no way makes it unique, and I don't mean Saudi Arabia)
And I'm not sure exactly what jimmac is referring to, but there certainly are regimes that are bigger threats to more people than Saddam's was. And Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.
My my my. How long can this go on? When will you anti American anti Bush anti freedom people figure it out? Most Americans don't care if the weapons are found or if they ever existed. The liberals and the Euros will whine for decades about this, but the people who really matter to Bush are on his side. The majority of voting Americans support the President and his policy. We wanted S.H. out for the good of the World. Let the people of Iraq live without torture chambers and rape rooms. Let freedonm ring! Let the oil flow!
Friedman has an editorial about the different reasons for war:
Quote:
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ? a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ? and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ? got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states ? young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others ? and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ? are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.
The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
Giant doesn't even go to the best school in Chicago
UC has always been there if I wanted it. I like where I live better, though. Even though I have extended family in the UC admin, Northwestern is sort of tradition in my nuclear one (same with my ladyfriend and her family).
Oh, and I work at NU and don't take classes because I need to. Thanks.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime.
Well, the neo-cons churned out a good number of article on this in the build-up, but most everyone considers it pretty damn risky.
But more importantly, when we start talking about 'real' anything, especially concerning 9/11, people seem to have ignored that no real investigation has been done, so any foreign policy decisions have been based off of assumptions.
Of course, I thought this was perhaps one of the most interesting quotes I've read in a while:
Quote:
For the first time in history, America is searching for the reason we went to war after the war is over.
Um, that's not exactly what we are talking about. BTW, the real threats aren't necessarily dictators.
Advice:
Before you start co-opting what other people say and make them your allies under a banner of "us v. groverat" why not try reading what they write.
And if you can't understand what they write or don't like what they write don't use it for yourself.
That should be directed at jimmac, not me.
Quote:
But hey, here's a couple real threats, Pakistan and the rising forces in India. Directly concerning the US, the upper levels of Pakistani government actually has real connections to 9/11 (though this in no way makes it unique, and I don't mean Saudi Arabia)
Pakistan, while corrupt and not nice, has helped us quite a bit in our war on terror. Again, make the case that they are a "real threat". Please.
And just saying "rising forces in India" is 300x more ambiguous than Bush's WMD spiel. Spell it out.
I'm still waiting for that hammer of truth to be brought down on my troglodyte head. Do you have any substance or just insults about my education?
Quote:
And I'm not sure exactly what jimmac is referring to, but there certainly are regimes that are bigger threats to more people than Saddam's was. And Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.
Like who?
And who among those who is a worthy candidate for war using my criteria ("choose war or aggressive diplomacy according to which causes the least humanitarian problems")?
Bring that hammer down, my well-educated friend. Smite me with your fantastic Northwestern education.
--
bunge:
Quote:
Well, he evidently disarmed himself since there were no WMD prior to the war. So, will you finally admit that you were wrong?
Pakistan, while corrupt and not nice, has helped us quite a bit in our war on terror. Again, make the case that they are a "real threat". Please.
Well, having high government officials and an entire intel service directly involved in the 9/11 kind of constitutes a threat, don't you think? Oh and considering al-qaeda is an arm of the ISI, I wonder where al-qaeda would get nuclear weapons. Funny how North Korea also has nuclear weapons because of Pakistan.
Quote:
And just saying "rising forces in India" is 300x more ambiguous than Bush's WMD spiel. Spell it out.
Considering a full 7th of the world's population lives there and it has been the focus of much attention due to its conflict with Pakistan (one that could easily change the world much more dramatically than sept 11), I find it funny that the high profile and powerful political shift in India over the past few years has passed under your radar. You want to see America get involved in a dangerous conflict?
Friedman has an editorial about the different reasons for war:
I can't disagree with this editorial. I think that all of the reasons to do this were valid, but perhaps he should have focused on the others a bit more. In other words, I believe they'll find weapons (actually, I'd argue they have already), but they probably shouldn't have focused so intently on them as a justification for war.
The thing I agree most with in the article is this:
Quote:
he only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ? and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ? got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
I think this is completely accurate. One thing that came out of this is that neighbor states saw we ****ing mean business. We also debunked Al-jazeera and its anti-western propoganda for a lot of folks. One man was quoted on April 9th (in Egypt) as saying "No one will ever believe Al-jazeera again". As I've said before, I'm convinced the administration came to a determination that although we might enflame Arab setiment, things were already so bad (in terms of perception of the US) that it couldn't get too much worse. Essentially, it's the old "at least they'll respect raw American power" idea. A few months ago, my father said to me "the only thing these people respect is raw power". Despite being generalized, I see his point. We demonstrated some "serious shit" over there.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
What are you holding your breath for, young man?
I didn't even realize you said this. You're a college boy, aren't you?
Originally posted by BRussell
Wolfowitz is out of control.
Is there any chance that this quote is BS?
Originally posted by giant
I didn't even realize you said this. Jimmac is quite a bit older than you, isn't he?
Since Thegelding flee out AO, i fear that i am one of the only old things around here.
Originally posted by BRussell
Wolfowitz is out of control.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...970334,00.html
I'm sure it's out of context to some extent.
Out of control? Out of context? The "Prince of Darkness" is one of the authors of US foreign policy. He knows exactly what he can say, and how far he can tread. He's not going to get fired because of some off the cuff comment made in the far east. The American people have already been told it was about WMD...over and over..so thats what the war was about. 41% of Americans believe that the WMD have already been found...such is the state of public (un)awareness. Who reads the Guardian over here anyway? If Iraq had no oil, you tell me what kind of invasion would have taken place?
Out of context???? sheeeesh...sounds like the kind of watered down spineless appeasement the current crop of "democrats" are serving up. Gimme a break!
But can a member of this administration utter the words 'oil' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence without being fired?
Anyone recall those "No Blood For OIL" banners??????? 80%+ of the worlds population (5 billion) cant be wrong. Any antiwar activist worth their salt who had done some reading up on the subject would have told you precisely what the war was to be about before the Bush crew publicly started propagandizing about it.
"Why Iraq?"
"Oil."
"You know there were no WMD, what about OIL!?"
"I said oil."
"Oh right you did... uh... well..."
Hilarious.
-
jimmac:
Any occupation is a ruling body. But you claim we set them free.
There is a ruling body over you, are you not free?
Childish logic.
The part you say the end justified the means doesn't wash. It was under false pretense. Don't you get it?
I think by saying the end justifies the means I acknowledges the false pretense. That's kind of the whole point of saying that the end justifies the means, acknowledging the means.
Do you get it?
And guess what? There are still many dictators in the world.
Wow, that's relevant.
All situations are not the same.
Bush picked this one for other reasons ( not the ones you have listed ). Listen if Clinton had done this I would be saying the exact same things. But you know that's not the way reality went.
Yeah, they were different, Clinton favored a good relationship with France over ousting Saddam.
Bombing Iraq = ok.
Ousting Hussein = not ok.
Originally posted by groverat
If Wolfowitz is that blatant and honest, he gets some respect.
"Why Iraq?"
"Oil."
"You know there were no WMD, what about OIL!?"
"I said oil."
"Oh right you did... uh... well..."
Hilarious.
-
jimmac:
There is a ruling body over you, are you not free?
Childish logic.
I think by saying the end justifies the means I acknowledges the false pretense. That's kind of the whole point of saying that the end justifies the means, acknowledging the means.
Do you get it?
Wow, that's relevant.
All situations are not the same.
Yeah, they were different, Clinton favored a good relationship with France over ousting Saddam.
Bombing Iraq = ok.
Ousting Hussein = not ok.
Now you're clutching at straws. No amount twisted logic will change things. The thing about the other dictators is extremely relevent. Or don't you care about those people? The problem is why did we go after this one with all the others ( especialy the ones that pose a real threat )?
Caught in your own twisted logic. Give it up. I've got to go to work now but " I'll be back ".
The thing about the other dictators is extremely relevent. Or don't you care about those people? The problem is why did we go after this one with all the others ( especialy the ones that pose a real threat )?
Please tell me of these other dictators.
Tell me how they are a "real threat" and then tell me how the Hussein solution applied by Bush would apply to them in an advantageous way.
KJL in North Korea:
Do you think that an overthrow would take ~6,000 lives?
I happen to think 60,000 or even 600,000 is quite more likely. Have we tried 12 years of very aggressive "diplomatic" solutions with him?
Who else, jimmac, who else?
It's easy for you to speak in generalizations, let's see if you can provide me with some specifics.
Originally posted by groverat
Who else, jimmac, who else?
This is the whole point. If you don't know, then you are in no position to make pretend informed judgements about what would be the best use of American money and power.
And what the hell is wrong with University of Texas that their student's understanding of global events is limited to front-page news stories? And this is a student who is actually interested in the subject!
This is the whole point. If you don't know, then you are in no position to make pretend informed judgements about what would be the best use of American money and power.
Educate me, giant. Who is the "real threat"?
And what the hell is wrong with University of Texas that their student's understanding of global events is limited to front-page news stories? And this is a student who is actually interested in the subject!
If all you've got left is ad-hom sniping you're doing yourself a disservice by continuing to post.
Dig that hole, baby, dig it deep.
Originally posted by groverat
Educate me, giant. Who is the "real threat"?
Um, that's not exactly what we are talking about. BTW, the real threats aren't necessarily dictators.
But hey, here's a couple real threats, Pakistan and the rising forces in India. Directly concerning the US, the upper levels of Pakistani government actually has real connections to 9/11 (though this in no way makes it unique, and I don't mean Saudi Arabia)
And I'm not sure exactly what jimmac is referring to, but there certainly are regimes that are bigger threats to more people than Saddam's was. And Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.
Originally posted by groverat
How else will Iraq be disarmed?
Well, he evidently disarmed himself since there were no WMD prior to the war. So, will you finally admit that you were wrong?
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
Educate me, giant. Who is the "real threat"?
If all you've got left is ad-hom sniping you're doing yourself a disservice by continuing to post.
Dig that hole, baby, dig it deep.
Giant doesn't even go to the best school in Chicago
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ? a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ? and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ? got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states ? young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others ? and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ? are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.
The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
Originally posted by Scott
Giant doesn't even go to the best school in Chicago
UC has always been there if I wanted it. I like where I live better, though. Even though I have extended family in the UC admin, Northwestern is sort of tradition in my nuclear one (same with my ladyfriend and her family).
Oh, and I work at NU and don't take classes because I need to. Thanks.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime.
Well, the neo-cons churned out a good number of article on this in the build-up, but most everyone considers it pretty damn risky.
But more importantly, when we start talking about 'real' anything, especially concerning 9/11, people seem to have ignored that no real investigation has been done, so any foreign policy decisions have been based off of assumptions.
Of course, I thought this was perhaps one of the most interesting quotes I've read in a while:
For the first time in history, America is searching for the reason we went to war after the war is over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04DOWD.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...0ARE%20CLEARED
Um, that's not exactly what we are talking about. BTW, the real threats aren't necessarily dictators.
Advice:
Before you start co-opting what other people say and make them your allies under a banner of "us v. groverat" why not try reading what they write.
And if you can't understand what they write or don't like what they write don't use it for yourself.
That should be directed at jimmac, not me.
But hey, here's a couple real threats, Pakistan and the rising forces in India. Directly concerning the US, the upper levels of Pakistani government actually has real connections to 9/11 (though this in no way makes it unique, and I don't mean Saudi Arabia)
Pakistan, while corrupt and not nice, has helped us quite a bit in our war on terror. Again, make the case that they are a "real threat". Please.
And just saying "rising forces in India" is 300x more ambiguous than Bush's WMD spiel. Spell it out.
I'm still waiting for that hammer of truth to be brought down on my troglodyte head. Do you have any substance or just insults about my education?
And I'm not sure exactly what jimmac is referring to, but there certainly are regimes that are bigger threats to more people than Saddam's was. And Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.
Like who?
And who among those who is a worthy candidate for war using my criteria ("choose war or aggressive diplomacy according to which causes the least humanitarian problems")?
Bring that hammer down, my well-educated friend. Smite me with your fantastic Northwestern education.
--
bunge:
Well, he evidently disarmed himself since there were no WMD prior to the war. So, will you finally admit that you were wrong?
He disarmed? Did you tell Blix?
UNMOVIC must be notified!
Originally posted by groverat
Pakistan, while corrupt and not nice, has helped us quite a bit in our war on terror. Again, make the case that they are a "real threat". Please.
Well, having high government officials and an entire intel service directly involved in the 9/11 kind of constitutes a threat, don't you think? Oh and considering al-qaeda is an arm of the ISI, I wonder where al-qaeda would get nuclear weapons. Funny how North Korea also has nuclear weapons because of Pakistan.
And just saying "rising forces in India" is 300x more ambiguous than Bush's WMD spiel. Spell it out.
Considering a full 7th of the world's population lives there and it has been the focus of much attention due to its conflict with Pakistan (one that could easily change the world much more dramatically than sept 11), I find it funny that the high profile and powerful political shift in India over the past few years has passed under your radar. You want to see America get involved in a dangerous conflict?
Originally posted by BRussell
Friedman has an editorial about the different reasons for war:
I can't disagree with this editorial. I think that all of the reasons to do this were valid, but perhaps he should have focused on the others a bit more. In other words, I believe they'll find weapons (actually, I'd argue they have already), but they probably shouldn't have focused so intently on them as a justification for war.
The thing I agree most with in the article is this:
he only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ? and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ? got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
I think this is completely accurate. One thing that came out of this is that neighbor states saw we ****ing mean business. We also debunked Al-jazeera and its anti-western propoganda for a lot of folks. One man was quoted on April 9th (in Egypt) as saying "No one will ever believe Al-jazeera again". As I've said before, I'm convinced the administration came to a determination that although we might enflame Arab setiment, things were already so bad (in terms of perception of the US) that it couldn't get too much worse. Essentially, it's the old "at least they'll respect raw American power" idea. A few months ago, my father said to me "the only thing these people respect is raw power". Despite being generalized, I see his point. We demonstrated some "serious shit" over there.