Yes, just like I've read every report put out by all of the inspection teams. It is an embarrassment for the administration.
Quote:
2. The al-queda link is there. Unclassified intel is the only thing you see. None of us do.
No it isn't. All of the Iraq info is public thanks in large part to the work of the UN. The pentagon set up the Office of Special Plans to take this open source infromation, primarily from the UN, and make a case. 99.999% of the intel was open source. The intelligence on Iraq is the greatest example of Open Source Intel, or OSINT. Even in normal operation 95% of intelligence sources used by the CIA are Open Source. As I said, I can provide a huge reading list for you on contemporary Intelligence operations, methods and agencies if you would like, but please don't come on here pretending you know something you so clearly have never studied.
Quote:
3. England stands behind the Intel on the yellowcake.
England does not. Only certain individuals in the British government claimed that they had other intelligence, which they clearly did not, as pointed out by everyone from the IAEA to US intel analysts. Furthermore, with regard to Niger, every individual step each scrap of intel took has been traced, and it is now well known that it is completely and totally physically impossible for Iraq to have obtained uranium in the way British accusation claimed.
Quote:
4. There are countless reports on how the Iraqis are welcoming all the help. Get real.
Quote:
5. They do and overtime that will pay off, but the bush adminb does not want to destablise a budding democracy by burdening it with huge debt. They don't really even have any kind of economy there. You can thank Saddam for that. A bank loans you money based on your ability to repay. That country is in shambles and most of it has nothing to do with this current war. So many things need to be rebuilt. There is no real ability for them to pay it back now.
I looked at your web page, and it's clear you have not studied any of these subjects. You are simply making inferences based on your limited and uninformed beliefs about scraps of info that periodically hit your eyes and ears.
Quote:
My experience has been that anyone that starts their argument with the word "Neoconservative" or "ulta left wing" is usually just a brainless partisan anyway. You have set yourself up as Uber Lefty.
Really? Have you read The City and Man? Have you read any of Irving Kristol? Do you know anything about Wohlstetter? Do you know who Thrasymacus was and why it's so revolutionary to say he was the real voice of the author?
NO. You don't! So you are wholly and totally unqualified to talk about anything regarding the neoconservative movement in american politics. I bet you haven't even read one paper put out by PNAC, while I, for one, have read every one I've been able to track down and have the entire site saved on a drive! Get a clue!
Quote:
By the way, since there is formal definition of 'Neoconservative' explain in what your definition of the word is.
Well, now I see that you are scholarly and I am so inadequate. Who was I to think that I could ever match minds with you. You have read so many books and you are so smart. I do not understand why you don't work for the UN or something the world would be such a better place with such a smart person to help.
RIGHT
I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.
You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?
So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.
So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.
You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.
Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.
You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.
Oh. Poor you. You made claims about things you don't know anything about and someone called you out on it. Poor you...
Quote:
You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed.
WTF are you even talking about? Are you just hitting random keys or are you actually going to discuss what I've actually said, as opposed to what you imagine I've said.
Quote:
I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.
What is this? A mental vomit? Coherence much?
Quote:
Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.
And this has to do with neoconservativism how? You are aware that I was dealing with the direct and most important elements in neoconservative theory, aren't you. Oh yeah, you aren't. Because you don't know anything about it.
Oh, and nice job coming up with a quote that doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Quote:
You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.
Actually, it's the neoconservatives that are philosophy junkies. Not me. I know a whole lot about it and have studied it for a long time, but find it boring. Me, I'm interested in computers, art, music, information gathering and dissemination, foreign policy, biking, good food, travelling...
Well, now I see that you are scholarly and I am so inadequate. Who was I to think that I could ever match minds with you. You have read so many books and you are so smart. I do not understand why you don't work for the UN or something the world would be such a better place with such a smart person to help.
RIGHT
I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.
You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?
So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.
So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.
You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.
Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.
You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.
My two cents...
Here, here!
Only, even with all his supposed read'n, he's really no intellectual. Not by a long shot. He's just a sad, angry old man.
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be.
You seem to know a lot about fertilization. You should go into mushroom farming. i think that would suit you.
Once again, from my limited experience, those who profess and protest too much are full of something.
You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.
I have read a lot of books and quite frankly I am ashamed that I wasted so much time when I should have just formed my own thoughts and views based on what I can observe myself.
Research is good, and I'm glad you did some, a lot, or whatever, but assuming that yours is the only viewpoint is just silly. You come across like you have researched all the angles of the geo-political soup that we live in, and yet you are in lock step with the far left movement in this country. You are even citing their flawed talking points.
Maybe I did not follow the 15 second rule, but it seems to me that you are just trying to propagate the far left agenda behind some self-proclaimed knowledge. You come across very pompous and biased, not to mention the whole know it all thing.
You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.
You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.
It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.
It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.
You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.
It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.
It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.
BTW: Frames were never cool.
What's really funny is that I did not attack anyone, I was merely defending the current president from your dishonest accusations and innuendoes . I simply put forth the fact that you come across as far left and I don't think that I mentioned the word liberal. As far as neoconservitism, I did not bring that up, you did, when you stated that POTUS and gang are neoconservitives. I asked you to define what your meaning of the word was. The word itself is widely misunderstood and has been used incorrectly in recent history.
This last post really unmasks your flawed tactics. I am neither defending or promoting one party or the other, for I am not affiliated with any political party. So please do not impute my motives. It will simply show your true colors.
I feel, as in life, there is room for both conservative and liberal viewpoints. One balances the other. I am married and have three children. I can put on a clinic in liberal vs. conservative give and take, as applies to dealing with kids and making a marriage last.
Your obvious bias only hinders your ability to appear reasonable and balanced. You will need that if you wish to win reasonable and balanced people over to your cause.
Oh, and the whole "you don't get it" thing is a result of a weak argument. Give me something reasonable to chew on and I may "get it". And I really like the snide comment about my website.
lefty note to self: "when argument is weak belittle your opponent." And I think frames are moderately neato and needed sometimes.
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
Maybe the american public doesn't make "granular" distinctions between terrorists, but they should, and as a matter of policy the United States must...
Your arguments seem to consist of citing the odd bit of inconclusive data to butress the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but failing that, you fall back on the notion that it doesn't really matter, an evil Muslim is an evil Muslim. After all, if we are engaged in a global war of cultures, why get hung up on a little thing like culpability?
And this is why: America's response to the threat of terrorism must reamain proportionate, targeted, and just, or we will become the global equivalant (if we haven't already) of the frightened National Guardsman in Tikrit, spraying automatic weapon fire in a 360 degree circle because he thought he heard a shot...
The result? Dead civilians, another family filled with rage and hatred for the United States and all it stands for. Not "freedom". Not "democracy". The wanton exercise of disproportionate power...
I made the point that terrorism is a strategy not because I don't think it dangerous, but because declaring "war" on it is absurd on the face of it...we can no more win a "war" on terrorism than we could win a war on hatred.
You would solve this problem by ascribing terror to transnational coalition of Islamic jihadists to which you attribute the capacities and motives of a more convential enemy, such as the Soviet Union or facist Germany. This is convenient for your argument, since it allows you to coopt the rhetoric of those struggles (appeasement is a proven failure, the dsitinction between Iraq and, well, some other terrorist outfit is of no more importance than the difference between Japan and Germany)...
This is the same self serving lie that made the cold war such a disaster for the "domino" states unlucky enough to serve as a battleground, overt or clandestine, for "freedom" vs. "tyrany". More importantly, it is a lie that can only lead to repeated "preemptive" attacks on countries within which the difference between military and civilian targets are impossible establish, since the "enemy" is any person or child who is willing to do violence to the US or her interests...
In other words, your world view requires the US to become a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Since the enemy is somehow simultaneously mighty, organized, diffuse and fluid, we have no choice but to set aside all standards of international relations and rules of engagement and wallop the bejezus out of anything tthat moves. After all, our very existence is threatened, so who could bame us?
And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.
Addabox:
Thanks for advancing the discussion beyond the ?he said/she said? to one of policy & principles.
One of the difficulties of dealing with widely diverse ideological viewpoints are there are implicit assumptions (stereotypes) made about an opponent?s line of argument, which prompts an inaccurate stock response. I think it might be helpful to first clarify my particular views:
To me, there is/was extensive evidence of links (or associations if you prefer) between Saddam Hussein and several terrorists and groups, some of it pretty well known when it comes to anti-Israeli organizations. However, there is almost no credible evidence, to my mind, of Saddam and al Qaeda coordinating or assisting one another in the attack of 9-11. And there has been some, perhaps more, murky links (associations) between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Usually the dialog gets derailed at this point, because some (like Giant) assume the argument is a defense brief - that if one cannot conclusively prove both the extent and nature of the links, the argument has ended (Giant: ?case closed?). Why the left adopts this narrow legalistic view is deserving of its own thread, but for ME it is the starting point to discuss the correct foreign policy goals and strategy based on what we DO KNOW.
So I start with several assumptions. First, that American foreign policy should serve our national interest, which may include, but is never limited to humanitarian and ?moral? goals. Second, in the ?game of nations? there is are no world policemen, no enforceable courts of law, no agreed upon body of laws that protect us, and no moral ?system? that will achieve justice. In other words, the world is not ruled by the consent of the governed and protected by world public safety departments and courts.
In this vigilante environment (some are democracies, more are not), if one wants to fight the local gang, or the Mafia, then one best do it with natural allies (other democracies) but if necessary, do it alone.
So ?in my world view?, politically Islamo-facist terrorism represents many different gangs of the same underworld. Yes, a few are ideologically opposite one another (Baathist and al Qaeda), but all of them are shaped and inspired by some combination of Isalamic culture, Pan Arabist imperialism, and fierce ethno-religious identity. Most importantly to us, they are also united in their long standing hated the West in general, and the U.S. and Israel in particular.
Examine the history of Muslim based terrorism, among the alphabet soup of organizations does one find a ?love? the west, or a respect for democracy, or are there natural allies for west among their families? True, with some we can have a truce (for a time), others may occasionally serve our interest, but in the long run, after 9-11 this is not security.
?In my world view? we should treat the ?gangs? of Islamic terrorist world as criminals to be contained or eliminated, not because they are always overt allies with one another, but because they already view us as their enemies and are already fighting that war. ?In my world view? our national interest is not to torment ourselves over ?which? gang is culpable for the latest atrocity, but to let all the gangs know that their actions, collectively, are inhumane and will be punished; and to hold any nation that harbors or supports them as accountable.
I understand your concern over proportionality and targeting ? nothing is to be gained by wantonly killing the innocent or unnecessarily alienating our friends. However, one should not confuse the wisdom of our tactics, or the moral parameters of our strategy, with the justice of our cause.
Was Iraq the second best place to start to defend our national security interests (the first being Afghanistan) ? well, I don?t know. Terrorism was but one of a constellation of Iraqi concerns which, in hindsight, seem less pressing. I doubt our wisdom in invading Iraq at this time, but I have little doubt of its Justice. Perhaps Saddam should not have been the second on the list, but we will have one less Frank Nitti and Al Capone will come soon enough.
Let me close by noting the long-standing political anxiety of many liberals; that to defend oneself will only bring more recrimination from other Muslims, that the "world will become a West Bank".
"9/11" already demonstrated that the United States is a West Bank. You can either pursue the spiritless half measures prior to 9-11 or you can pro-actively fight back. If, in the very unlikely event such defense galvanizes every Muslim nation their people to oppose us ? so be it, we are already at war.
Thanks for advancing the discussion beyond the ?he said/she said? to one of policy & principles.
Because we know you need it after saying such things as:
Quote:
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent?.
Sigh, wrong! He did?nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD,
Nice try at acting like such a little angel.
Quote:
yadda, yadda, yadda
You know, all you end up saying here is that the US needs to defend itself. Big fvcking news. How about you actually say something meaningful.
At least you only attack me in this post, rather than just simply ranting against 'liberals' as you typically do.
Quote:
and to hold any nation that harbors or supports them as accountable.
So you better get the Bush admin to start rather than invading Iraq.
Quote:
If, in the very unlikely event such defense galvanizes every Muslim nation their people to oppose us ? so be it, we are already at war.
Now, let me get this straight. First, you pretend to be excited to talk 'policy' rather than ?he said/she said? just because you ?he said/she said? attack on everyone bit you in the ass, and then you promote a ;policy,' if you can call it that, that says it's OK to piss off the most violent region on the globe. As they say, you really are a piece of work.
Oh, and these long-ass posts of yours don't substitute for content. In other words, quantity is no substitute for quality.
Anyway, the intelligent folks here on AO, like you and midwinter, certainly should get thanks for some of those sources. Where would I be without some of the insight of your posts?
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
Maybe, if you consider saying all women have penises is an opinion. In my world, that would be considered a falsehood. I guess that makes me fascist.
And what you see as 'pompous' really comes down to me being sick and tired of these rants consisting of attacks on 'liberals' sprinkled with flat-out falsehoods. And the second you avoid accountability by pretending that actually researching the topic is a bad thing, that's the second you lose all chance of getting leeway.
Here's a quick hint: the Iraq war was sold on falsehoods. Now, an interesting and realistic discussion would focus on what this was a result of. How much of it was due to the false translation of cold war nuclear strategy onto a complex world? How much of it has simply for the benefit of Israel? How much of it was financially motivated? How much of it was as a proving ground for Marshall's strategic theories? How much of it was to project US power? How much of it was to assert US dominance?
These are the questions that actually matter, and these are the ones being discussed in the US government and among the people that advise it. Meanwhile, the imbeciles falling for the Noble Lies rant about 'liberals.' Classic.
... Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time...
As for the claim that the the admin said the threat was "imminent" in his State of the Union President Bush said:
Quote:
... Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option...
In other words, by saying we should act before the threat became imminent (that's what the whole idea of preemptive action is all about) he clearly wasn't claiming the threat was imminent.
Your great intellectual mind is leaving out some things because you are so biased. You are so blinded by it you can't even see it.
Perhaps this government for any number of reasons decided to act to protect this country. Perhaps classified intel paints a more ominous picture that you or I know.
You imply that current intel that this government has is open source. So, if what you claim is true, then it would be pretty safe to say that terrorists and rogue states would also be able to access that information. This would totally compromise any 'war on terror'. Once again, I need not read any book to see that your theory is flawed. You may have studied countless books telling you that intel is open source for all to see, but logic would dictate otherwise. I will still stand by the fact that you do not know what current intel that this government has and it is presumptuous of you to assume that you do. The word 'classified' means just that. You do not have access to that info. So please don't imply that you do. It just makes you appear silly.
By jumping directly to accusing everyone of lying, you reveal your political bias. You can't possibly know all that you claim to know, you can't speak for every party involved. If you did you would not be on some apple lover forum site posting classified information. Once again, no books needed to reach that conclusion.
I did not say that research is bad, I just think you should consider both sides. As I said before, there in enough info from enough sources to come to a balanced conclusion. But if you only ingest, as you seem to have, the view from from only one radical side of the political spectrum, you come across that way. And you do.
Once again you are trying to imply that I am attacking liberals, I am not, just your insane statements.
You imply that current intel that this government has is open source.
Man, NaplesX must be new!
Anyway, you're probably getting an edge from some people because you're covering some ground that we've covered before. That means when you say something like what I've just quoted, some of us have already argued this to death.
Not that we don't want new ideas in discussions, we do. This one happens to be old hat though.
I'll guess that someone's going to show up and say that 95% of all the intel our government uses is open source. And I believe they're right.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
1. Read the preliminary Kay report?
Yes, just like I've read every report put out by all of the inspection teams. It is an embarrassment for the administration.
2. The al-queda link is there. Unclassified intel is the only thing you see. None of us do.
No it isn't. All of the Iraq info is public thanks in large part to the work of the UN. The pentagon set up the Office of Special Plans to take this open source infromation, primarily from the UN, and make a case. 99.999% of the intel was open source. The intelligence on Iraq is the greatest example of Open Source Intel, or OSINT. Even in normal operation 95% of intelligence sources used by the CIA are Open Source. As I said, I can provide a huge reading list for you on contemporary Intelligence operations, methods and agencies if you would like, but please don't come on here pretending you know something you so clearly have never studied.
3. England stands behind the Intel on the yellowcake.
England does not. Only certain individuals in the British government claimed that they had other intelligence, which they clearly did not, as pointed out by everyone from the IAEA to US intel analysts. Furthermore, with regard to Niger, every individual step each scrap of intel took has been traced, and it is now well known that it is completely and totally physically impossible for Iraq to have obtained uranium in the way British accusation claimed.
4. There are countless reports on how the Iraqis are welcoming all the help. Get real.
5. They do and overtime that will pay off, but the bush adminb does not want to destablise a budding democracy by burdening it with huge debt. They don't really even have any kind of economy there. You can thank Saddam for that. A bank loans you money based on your ability to repay. That country is in shambles and most of it has nothing to do with this current war. So many things need to be rebuilt. There is no real ability for them to pay it back now.
I looked at your web page, and it's clear you have not studied any of these subjects. You are simply making inferences based on your limited and uninformed beliefs about scraps of info that periodically hit your eyes and ears.
My experience has been that anyone that starts their argument with the word "Neoconservative" or "ulta left wing" is usually just a brainless partisan anyway. You have set yourself up as Uber Lefty.
Really? Have you read The City and Man? Have you read any of Irving Kristol? Do you know anything about Wohlstetter? Do you know who Thrasymacus was and why it's so revolutionary to say he was the real voice of the author?
NO. You don't! So you are wholly and totally unqualified to talk about anything regarding the neoconservative movement in american politics. I bet you haven't even read one paper put out by PNAC, while I, for one, have read every one I've been able to track down and have the entire site saved on a drive! Get a clue!
By the way, since there is formal definition of 'Neoconservative' explain in what your definition of the word is.
You have a lot to learn.
RIGHT
I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.
You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?
So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.
So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.
You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.
Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.
You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.
My two cents...
Originally posted by NaplesX
Blah, blah, blah
Oh. Poor you. You made claims about things you don't know anything about and someone called you out on it. Poor you...
You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed.
WTF are you even talking about? Are you just hitting random keys or are you actually going to discuss what I've actually said, as opposed to what you imagine I've said.
I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.
What is this? A mental vomit? Coherence much?
Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.
And this has to do with neoconservativism how? You are aware that I was dealing with the direct and most important elements in neoconservative theory, aren't you. Oh yeah, you aren't. Because you don't know anything about it.
Oh, and nice job coming up with a quote that doesn't have anything to do with anything.
You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.
Actually, it's the neoconservatives that are philosophy junkies. Not me. I know a whole lot about it and have studied it for a long time, but find it boring. Me, I'm interested in computers, art, music, information gathering and dissemination, foreign policy, biking, good food, travelling...
My two cents...
I'd say it's worth less than that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, now I see that you are scholarly and I am so inadequate. Who was I to think that I could ever match minds with you. You have read so many books and you are so smart. I do not understand why you don't work for the UN or something the world would be such a better place with such a smart person to help.
RIGHT
I really could care less about any neo-conservitive or neo-(insert title here) movement. So, don't bother quoting any thing to enlighten me.
You are pretty full of yourself, I can see that anyway. Can I call officially call you "Mr. Fancy Philosopher Pants"?
So what you are saying is that the more books you read the smarter and more correct your thinking is. (by the way, you say you read my website and from that you get what books I have read? I am not sure how you assume anything from my website other than that I am qualified to work on your computer. You truly are talented...) Do you think that throwing around book titles and quotes makes you more intelligent? There are so many books and so many authors, one could easily find a book to back up just about any viewpoint, crazy or not. Titles and quotes only impress people who think titles and quotes are impressive.
So, you need books to tell you right from wrong and truth from lies. I think most of us pretty much knew all that from at least 6 or so.
You seem to imply that this president and all involved, including the UN and the rest of the world thought Iraq was seeking WMD for many years and now all that is suddenly made up information. Your line of thinking is flawed. I don't need to read "The City and Man" to see that. Did Irving Kristol help plan this big lie, maybe he conspired with George G.W. Bush to take over Iraq and steal it's riches. Oh, wait that's right. Saddam already did that. Last I heard we were trying and succeeding in rebuilding that country.
Wasn't it Aristotle that said, "We make war that we may live in peace." ? That is the premise that this war was based on, that's pretty much what Mr. Bush said.
You see, if you and your ilk had real leadership and vision, you would do something about what you think is wrong instead of attempting to impute the motives of those who have tried to take the bull by the horns. It seems you have no plan of action other than to attack this president. Go back to France or Germany and read some more philosophy books for quotes to impress your socialite lefty friends.
My two cents...
Here, here!
Only, even with all his supposed read'n, he's really no intellectual. Not by a long shot. He's just a sad, angry old man.
Originally posted by aapl
Here, here!
Only, even with all his supposed read'n, he's really no intellectual. Not by a long shot. He's just a sad, angry old man.
Look. Mika thinks the reason he has no sense is because he's a little kid. How cute.
Originally posted by giant
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be.
Go then, spread the good word.
Originally posted by giant
I see you typing away you next rant there nipplesXXX. You think you could hurry it up? I've got places to be.
You seem to know a lot about fertilization. You should go into mushroom farming. i think that would suit you.
Once again, from my limited experience, those who profess and protest too much are full of something.
You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.
I have read a lot of books and quite frankly I am ashamed that I wasted so much time when I should have just formed my own thoughts and views based on what I can observe myself.
Research is good, and I'm glad you did some, a lot, or whatever, but assuming that yours is the only viewpoint is just silly. You come across like you have researched all the angles of the geo-political soup that we live in, and yet you are in lock step with the far left movement in this country. You are even citing their flawed talking points.
Maybe I did not follow the 15 second rule, but it seems to me that you are just trying to propagate the far left agenda behind some self-proclaimed knowledge. You come across very pompous and biased, not to mention the whole know it all thing.
Hey wait is this ... Howard Dean? Just joking.
Give us all a break.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You seem to want everyone to know how smart you are. That is what's really important to you, right? That everyone know how book-smart you are? You seem like you are pretty intelligent, misguided, but intelligent.
You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.
It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.
It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.
BTW: Frames were never cool.
Originally posted by giant
You don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with you attacking 'liberals' about neoconservatism when you clearly know nothing about it.
It really is too bad that your attempt to attack chu_bakka backfired on it. You could have been somebody.
It's pretty amusing how people like you try to act all bigshot attacking 'liberals' and as soon as your BS gets exposed you whine and cry about how 'giant must be a pompous jerk! boo hoo!' because I actually bother to learn about things before forming an opinion. Grow up.
BTW: Frames were never cool.
What's really funny is that I did not attack anyone, I was merely defending the current president from your dishonest accusations and innuendoes . I simply put forth the fact that you come across as far left and I don't think that I mentioned the word liberal. As far as neoconservitism, I did not bring that up, you did, when you stated that POTUS and gang are neoconservitives. I asked you to define what your meaning of the word was. The word itself is widely misunderstood and has been used incorrectly in recent history.
This last post really unmasks your flawed tactics. I am neither defending or promoting one party or the other, for I am not affiliated with any political party. So please do not impute my motives. It will simply show your true colors.
I feel, as in life, there is room for both conservative and liberal viewpoints. One balances the other. I am married and have three children. I can put on a clinic in liberal vs. conservative give and take, as applies to dealing with kids and making a marriage last.
Your obvious bias only hinders your ability to appear reasonable and balanced. You will need that if you wish to win reasonable and balanced people over to your cause.
Oh, and the whole "you don't get it" thing is a result of a weak argument. Give me something reasonable to chew on and I may "get it". And I really like the snide comment about my website.
lefty note to self: "when argument is weak belittle your opponent." And I think frames are moderately neato and needed sometimes.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Go then, spread the good word.
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
Actually he's just well read.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
That has nothing to do with whether or not he knows what he's talking about.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by addabox
Max:
Maybe the american public doesn't make "granular" distinctions between terrorists, but they should, and as a matter of policy the United States must...
Your arguments seem to consist of citing the odd bit of inconclusive data to butress the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but failing that, you fall back on the notion that it doesn't really matter, an evil Muslim is an evil Muslim. After all, if we are engaged in a global war of cultures, why get hung up on a little thing like culpability?
And this is why: America's response to the threat of terrorism must reamain proportionate, targeted, and just, or we will become the global equivalant (if we haven't already) of the frightened National Guardsman in Tikrit, spraying automatic weapon fire in a 360 degree circle because he thought he heard a shot...
The result? Dead civilians, another family filled with rage and hatred for the United States and all it stands for. Not "freedom". Not "democracy". The wanton exercise of disproportionate power...
I made the point that terrorism is a strategy not because I don't think it dangerous, but because declaring "war" on it is absurd on the face of it...we can no more win a "war" on terrorism than we could win a war on hatred.
You would solve this problem by ascribing terror to transnational coalition of Islamic jihadists to which you attribute the capacities and motives of a more convential enemy, such as the Soviet Union or facist Germany. This is convenient for your argument, since it allows you to coopt the rhetoric of those struggles (appeasement is a proven failure, the dsitinction between Iraq and, well, some other terrorist outfit is of no more importance than the difference between Japan and Germany)...
This is the same self serving lie that made the cold war such a disaster for the "domino" states unlucky enough to serve as a battleground, overt or clandestine, for "freedom" vs. "tyrany". More importantly, it is a lie that can only lead to repeated "preemptive" attacks on countries within which the difference between military and civilian targets are impossible establish, since the "enemy" is any person or child who is willing to do violence to the US or her interests...
In other words, your world view requires the US to become a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Since the enemy is somehow simultaneously mighty, organized, diffuse and fluid, we have no choice but to set aside all standards of international relations and rules of engagement and wallop the bejezus out of anything tthat moves. After all, our very existence is threatened, so who could bame us?
And the answer to that question is: the next generation of terrorists.
Addabox:
Thanks for advancing the discussion beyond the ?he said/she said? to one of policy & principles.
One of the difficulties of dealing with widely diverse ideological viewpoints are there are implicit assumptions (stereotypes) made about an opponent?s line of argument, which prompts an inaccurate stock response. I think it might be helpful to first clarify my particular views:
To me, there is/was extensive evidence of links (or associations if you prefer) between Saddam Hussein and several terrorists and groups, some of it pretty well known when it comes to anti-Israeli organizations. However, there is almost no credible evidence, to my mind, of Saddam and al Qaeda coordinating or assisting one another in the attack of 9-11. And there has been some, perhaps more, murky links (associations) between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Usually the dialog gets derailed at this point, because some (like Giant) assume the argument is a defense brief - that if one cannot conclusively prove both the extent and nature of the links, the argument has ended (Giant: ?case closed?). Why the left adopts this narrow legalistic view is deserving of its own thread, but for ME it is the starting point to discuss the correct foreign policy goals and strategy based on what we DO KNOW.
So I start with several assumptions. First, that American foreign policy should serve our national interest, which may include, but is never limited to humanitarian and ?moral? goals. Second, in the ?game of nations? there is are no world policemen, no enforceable courts of law, no agreed upon body of laws that protect us, and no moral ?system? that will achieve justice. In other words, the world is not ruled by the consent of the governed and protected by world public safety departments and courts.
In this vigilante environment (some are democracies, more are not), if one wants to fight the local gang, or the Mafia, then one best do it with natural allies (other democracies) but if necessary, do it alone.
So ?in my world view?, politically Islamo-facist terrorism represents many different gangs of the same underworld. Yes, a few are ideologically opposite one another (Baathist and al Qaeda), but all of them are shaped and inspired by some combination of Isalamic culture, Pan Arabist imperialism, and fierce ethno-religious identity. Most importantly to us, they are also united in their long standing hated the West in general, and the U.S. and Israel in particular.
Examine the history of Muslim based terrorism, among the alphabet soup of organizations does one find a ?love? the west, or a respect for democracy, or are there natural allies for west among their families? True, with some we can have a truce (for a time), others may occasionally serve our interest, but in the long run, after 9-11 this is not security.
?In my world view? we should treat the ?gangs? of Islamic terrorist world as criminals to be contained or eliminated, not because they are always overt allies with one another, but because they already view us as their enemies and are already fighting that war. ?In my world view? our national interest is not to torment ourselves over ?which? gang is culpable for the latest atrocity, but to let all the gangs know that their actions, collectively, are inhumane and will be punished; and to hold any nation that harbors or supports them as accountable.
I understand your concern over proportionality and targeting ? nothing is to be gained by wantonly killing the innocent or unnecessarily alienating our friends. However, one should not confuse the wisdom of our tactics, or the moral parameters of our strategy, with the justice of our cause.
Was Iraq the second best place to start to defend our national security interests (the first being Afghanistan) ? well, I don?t know. Terrorism was but one of a constellation of Iraqi concerns which, in hindsight, seem less pressing. I doubt our wisdom in invading Iraq at this time, but I have little doubt of its Justice. Perhaps Saddam should not have been the second on the list, but we will have one less Frank Nitti and Al Capone will come soon enough.
Let me close by noting the long-standing political anxiety of many liberals; that to defend oneself will only bring more recrimination from other Muslims, that the "world will become a West Bank".
"9/11" already demonstrated that the United States is a West Bank. You can either pursue the spiritless half measures prior to 9-11 or you can pro-actively fight back. If, in the very unlikely event such defense galvanizes every Muslim nation their people to oppose us ? so be it, we are already at war.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Thanks for advancing the discussion beyond the ?he said/she said? to one of policy & principles.
Because we know you need it after saying such things as:
I never cease to marvel at the selective memory of the politically passionate, even regarding the events that occurred less than a year ago. Have extensively discussed and debated these issues with many of my peers over the last year, and participated in numerious posts, it astounds me that how quickly axe grinding revisionism can recast history, namely that Bush lied, that he "told us the threat was imminent?.
Sigh, wrong! He did?nt. Nor did his administration, nor his mainstream supporters. What he and his supporters did say that it was very uncertain just how close Saddam was to developing and/manufacturing WMD,
Nice try at acting like such a little angel.
yadda, yadda, yadda
You know, all you end up saying here is that the US needs to defend itself. Big fvcking news. How about you actually say something meaningful.
At least you only attack me in this post, rather than just simply ranting against 'liberals' as you typically do.
and to hold any nation that harbors or supports them as accountable.
So you better get the Bush admin to start rather than invading Iraq.
If, in the very unlikely event such defense galvanizes every Muslim nation their people to oppose us ? so be it, we are already at war.
Now, let me get this straight. First, you pretend to be excited to talk 'policy' rather than ?he said/she said? just because you ?he said/she said? attack on everyone bit you in the ass, and then you promote a ;policy,' if you can call it that, that says it's OK to piss off the most violent region on the globe. As they say, you really are a piece of work.
Oh, and these long-ass posts of yours don't substitute for content. In other words, quantity is no substitute for quality.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually he's just well read.
I like to learn. So kill me, right?
Anyway, the intelligent folks here on AO, like you and midwinter, certainly should get thanks for some of those sources. Where would I be without some of the insight of your posts?
Originally posted by NaplesX
The other assumption you make is that I have not learned anything before forming my opinion, just because it differs from yours. You sir, seem to personify the word pompous.
Maybe, if you consider saying all women have penises is an opinion. In my world, that would be considered a falsehood. I guess that makes me fascist.
And what you see as 'pompous' really comes down to me being sick and tired of these rants consisting of attacks on 'liberals' sprinkled with flat-out falsehoods. And the second you avoid accountability by pretending that actually researching the topic is a bad thing, that's the second you lose all chance of getting leeway.
Here's a quick hint: the Iraq war was sold on falsehoods. Now, an interesting and realistic discussion would focus on what this was a result of. How much of it was due to the false translation of cold war nuclear strategy onto a complex world? How much of it has simply for the benefit of Israel? How much of it was financially motivated? How much of it was as a proving ground for Marshall's strategic theories? How much of it was to project US power? How much of it was to assert US dominance?
These are the questions that actually matter, and these are the ones being discussed in the US government and among the people that advise it. Meanwhile, the imbeciles falling for the Noble Lies rant about 'liberals.' Classic.
Originally posted by giant
Check out Bush's Cincinnati address, which was the one where he detailed the threat for the american people:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3711.htm
He claimed it was urgent
Actually, he said:
... Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time...
As for the claim that the the admin said the threat was "imminent" in his State of the Union President Bush said:
... Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option...
In other words, by saying we should act before the threat became imminent (that's what the whole idea of preemptive action is all about) he clearly wasn't claiming the threat was imminent.
Perhaps this government for any number of reasons decided to act to protect this country. Perhaps classified intel paints a more ominous picture that you or I know.
You imply that current intel that this government has is open source. So, if what you claim is true, then it would be pretty safe to say that terrorists and rogue states would also be able to access that information. This would totally compromise any 'war on terror'. Once again, I need not read any book to see that your theory is flawed. You may have studied countless books telling you that intel is open source for all to see, but logic would dictate otherwise. I will still stand by the fact that you do not know what current intel that this government has and it is presumptuous of you to assume that you do. The word 'classified' means just that. You do not have access to that info. So please don't imply that you do. It just makes you appear silly.
By jumping directly to accusing everyone of lying, you reveal your political bias. You can't possibly know all that you claim to know, you can't speak for every party involved. If you did you would not be on some apple lover forum site posting classified information. Once again, no books needed to reach that conclusion.
I did not say that research is bad, I just think you should consider both sides. As I said before, there in enough info from enough sources to come to a balanced conclusion. But if you only ingest, as you seem to have, the view from from only one radical side of the political spectrum, you come across that way. And you do.
Once again you are trying to imply that I am attacking liberals, I am not, just your insane statements.
My two cents,,,,
Originally posted by NaplesX
You imply that current intel that this government has is open source.
Man, NaplesX must be new!
Anyway, you're probably getting an edge from some people because you're covering some ground that we've covered before. That means when you say something like what I've just quoted, some of us have already argued this to death.
Not that we don't want new ideas in discussions, we do. This one happens to be old hat though.
I'll guess that someone's going to show up and say that 95% of all the intel our government uses is open source. And I believe they're right.