Quit saying the main reason was the threat. That was one of many reasons given over and over.
There was a great possibility that SH would pass WMD or WMD technology onto terrorist group like al-qaeda, considering that they had just declared war on the US. That was the threat.
That was the ONLY reason that made it possible!
As far as passing weapons to Al Qaeda many countries could do that. But then there's that deployment thing again. And there is no evidence to support that. When going to war " would " and " did " are two very different things.
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far,
I guarantee that every last penny will be recouped. Always has.
ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq,
Don't care for these fictitious numbers. Saddam killed on order of magnitudes more. So who cares? Obviously not you.
In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right
And we acted on it. But they can keep their crocodile tears. Obviously they meant nothing.
but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world,
Judging their reaction, the US never had the respect you talk of to begin with. I bet the story is different today.
divided our own nation like never before,
The nation isn't divided. Though you'd like it to be so. It isn't. All it did is expose some liberal attention seeking bozos for what they are.
done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish,
Keeping an eye on Islamicist in the US, hasn't harmed anyone's freedoms. Obviously you're still around.
and now has weakened the United Nations
The UN needs to be scraped.
and NATO.
NATO has not been effected one way or the other. It was designed to deal with the Soviet threat. But why we still need to subsidize europe over NATO is beyond me. A waste of money at this point.
We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction
You obviously don't care for facts. So why bother.
even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East
Good. Lets start with the easy ones and work our way from there. The less we have of these Islamic theifdoms that threaten US interests the better.
The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did.
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far,
I guarantee that every last penny will be recouped. Always has.
ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq,
Don't care for these fictitious numbers. Saddam killed on order of magnitudes more. So who cares? Obviously not you.
In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right
And we acted on it. But they can keep their crocodile tears. Obviously they meant nothing.
but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world,
Judging their reaction, the US never had the respect you talk of to begin with. I bet the story is different today.
divided our own nation like never before,
The nation isn't divided. Though you'd like it to be so. It isn't. All it did is expose some liberal attention seeking bozos for what they are.
done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish,
Keeping an eye on Islamicist in the US, hasn't harmed anyone's freedoms. Obviously you're still around.
and now has weakened the United Nations
The UN needs to be scraped.
and NATO.
NATO has not been effected one way or the other. It was designed to deal with the Soviet threat. But why we still need to subsidize europe over NATO is beyond me. A waste of money at this point.
We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction
You obviously don't care for facts. So why bother.
even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East
Good. Lets start with the easy ones and work our way from there. The less we have of these Islamic theifdoms that threaten US interests the better.
The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did.
Tell that to Lybia.
But Bush gave up,
Bush got bored with it. Big difference.
WOMD ment for us was the reason it was possible. Without that there wouldn't have been enough support. If you'll recall support was marginal at best.
This has been sited many times on this board in various threads. I'm not going to dig it up again for people who haven't been paying attention.
Hell even the INC called it "nonsense." The document is a forgery, plain and simple.
I know you guys would just love to pin 9.11 on Iraq, but you really need to get it through your your head that there is more evidence for Canadian involvement than Iraqi.
Not every world event is immediately linked to every other one. I know that's hard for someone with a simplified world-view to comprehend, but that's the way to real world around you is working.
Then we have your comment about Salman Pak. I don't know where the hell you went wrong with that one, so let's just repost the whole section of hersh's article so you can go over it again.
Quote:
Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and ?Frontline,? the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ?was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,? and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
__In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
__Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war
You try to BS by saying there's misdirection when the only thing confusing you is your own imagination.
This is just another case where something typical is touted as proof of how Iraq is evil. Ask Naples about it; he got burned by the Kay report doing that to him.
But, hey, if you want to just chase the phantoms in your head, then go a right on. Hell, there are people that believe in UFOs, so you can go ahead and believe in Salman Pak even though no one with a clue does.
Edit: here's a copy of the whole hersh article for you:
Oh, and take the time to research some of the other false claims made by the INC defectors that you've invested in. You clearly haven't done so.
PS, I though I should add this:
Quote:
An internal assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors who were made available by the Iraqi National Congress was of little or no value, according to federal officials briefed on the arrangement.
In addition, several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said.
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far,
I guarantee that every last penny will be recouped. Always has.
It depends on how long US troops are involved in Iraq. Col. Hackworth has estimated decades. There are no estimations from the admin...the whole thing is open ended. At a rate of $1billion per WEEK to keep this thing going, tying up 150,000 troops in the field for the foreseeable future, there will be no recouping. It will be a $liability all the way. There's also a catch22 situation happening: So long as there is a foreign occupation, there will be an resistance. As long as there is a resistance, US troops will remain in Iraq because "the mission" hasn't yet been accomplished. Then they are taking casualties all the time...some months cost more US lives, some less....but all the while mounting up. More US troops lives have been lost in the first 8 months of this war as during the first THREE YEARS of the Vietnam war. Then there is the enormous and mounting $cost of taking care of the wounded, now and for decades into the future: so far the Pentagon has admitted to some 2700 troops being wounded in Iraq, but doctors at various military hospitals (Bethesda etc) have hinted the real injury toll is far greater....10,000 +. Even if the huge cost is ever recouped, it will not be in the lifetimes of the administration officials who authorized this fiasco.
Quote:
ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq,
Don't care for these fictitious numbers. Saddam killed on order of magnitudes more. So who cares? Obviously not you.
The incidents, causes, locations and numbers are there for you to see....currently running at between about 7500 and 9700 Iraqi civilians killed in 2003. This may be a "human rights promotion" site, apologies...but the Pentagon and admin. is unconcerned about collateral damage that they don't bother even attempting a tally. I did hear a quote from another "human rights promotion site" which has estimated that up to 50000 Iraqis (civilians and military) have been killed so far. It is very difficult to estimate numbers of dead in Muslim nations because it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours.
Saddam killed some >300,000 people in Iraq alone. Most of these murders were during the time Iraq was allied to the US under the Reagan and first 2 years of the Bush Sr. admins. Saddam was being coddled as he meted out death and destruction. When this maniac is finally hauled before a judge and jury, let us hope that all those who were accessories before, during and after his crimes against humanity are to be charged equally under the law.
Quote:
In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right
And we acted on it. But they can keep their crocodile tears. Obviously they meant nothing.
You haven't been reading the thread, or history. It wasn't Iraq, Iraqis or Saddam Hussein who attacked us on Sept 11. Or were you one of those 82% of the American public who supported the war because you were under the mistaken, FoxNews driven fantasy that there were Iraqis on those airplanes on 9-11, or one of the 55% who thought that Saddam orchestrated it all? If this war was supposed to be a response to 9-11 as a part of the War on Terror, to take out al qaeda, then we've just wasted the lives of some 560 coalition troops, thousands of innocent Iraqis and $200 billion so far by invading the wrong freaking country.
Quote:
but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world,
Judging their reaction, the US never had the respect you talk of to begin with. I bet the story is different today.
The world had far more respect for us pre 9-11, and universal sympathy for us in the immediate months afterwards, than exists now. Never has world opinion been at such a low point. But it looks as if people are able to discriminate beween America, the nation and it's people on the one hand, and the American Government on the other. That gives me hope.
Quote:
divided our own nation like never before,
The nation isn't divided. Though you'd like it to be so. It isn't. All it did is expose some liberal attention seeking bozos for what they are.
I beg to differ. There is a yawning opinion chasm as regards the Bush doctrine.
Quote:
done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish,
Keeping an eye on Islamicist in the US, hasn't harmed anyone's freedoms. Obviously you're still around.
I am not an "Islamicist" whatever the fvck that is. That's a moronic and wholly insulting assumption. I despise those who use religion as a government tool by which to shove people around. And "Islamicists" presumably do just that. Regarding our diminishing freedoms, don't you recall ArI Fleischer, former WH press sec. calmly instructing that "Americans had better watch out what they are saying". Perhaps you don't recall that Gen Tommy Franks last month said that he expected the US Constitution to be "finished" should there be another major terror attack here. Perhaps you should be aware that the FBI are going after people with political opinions that run counter to that of the Bush Administration. if you exercise your "right to free speech and expression or freedom of assembly" you may easily end up on the FBI's no-fly list, which numbered some 5500 ordinary people, not criminals or terrorist suspects. What an effective way of snuffing out dissent: America is a large country, and what better way to disable visible liberal-oriented activists by imposing arbitrary travel restrictions, just as the Kremlin did in the USSR. Then there's the "Patriot Act" and secret military tribunals...this kind of stuff, kangaroo trials and detention without cause or defense reminds me of...Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Shall I go on...because that is the tip of the iceberg as projected by Bush and co. Many people are very keen to get tough and look macho...but whenever this ugly kind of stuff backfires on their kind, as sometimes happens, then they are the first to start bleating.
Quote:
and now has weakened the United Nations
The UN needs to be scraped.
Or you don't like Kofi Annan perhaps?
So, UN resolution 1441, so often bandied around by Bush, Rice and Powell etc is/was irrelevant to you, and therefore that sole, threadbare, ragged "justification" to go to war carried no weight. Huh?
The world needs an international forum to air it's problems and communicate. It is communication that keeps the peace going, and lack of liaison that causes misunderstandings and wars. and, don't forget....if you think the United Nations is such a bad thing....the UN Charter is largely based on the US Constitution. That is good enough for me. What would *you* prefer it to be based on? the Bible? Ayn Rand? Mein Kampf? pray tell.
Quote:
and NATO.
NATO has not been effected one way or the other. It was designed to deal with the Soviet threat. But why we still need to subsidize europe over NATO is beyond me. A waste of money at this point.
NATO remains an effective means of liaising with our allies, Soviet Threat or otherwise. It needs to be maintained..and European members who are not pulling their financial responsibities should end up with a bill. I dont approve of the US taxpayer bailing European nations who are shirking their $$responsibilities.
Re. lack of USSR...Threats do crop up...the world can change very quickly...as we recently discovered.
Quote:
We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction
You obviously don't care for facts. So why bother.
What the hell are you blathering about? What reasons did the US go to war against Iraq other than WMD? Even the Bush admin has admitted that that was the sole reason on which they could get consensus. Every other reason quoted since then is beside the point. The "liberation of Iraqis from Saddam" is utter BS...a bunch of PR which conveniently gives an aura of "compassion" to an administration for which "human rights and social justice" is a very very low priority on their pecking order.
Quote:
even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East
Good. Lets start with the easy ones and work our way from there. The less we have of these Islamic theifdoms that threaten US interests the better.
Usually it's better to leave hornets buzzing round their nests. If you go poking sticks and interfering with others' affairs...people can get extremely angry....and an unrelated domestic problem in some far flung region can suddenly became our national security nightmare. Just ask anyone who has designs on building an empire. Force should be used as the last resort, not the first option. For every action comes an equal and opposite reaction...it works in politics as well as classical/newtonian physics.
Quote:
The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did.
Tell that to Lybia.
Inspectors are there now....on Libya's invitation. Libya wants to re-enter the world community. Ghadafi is a pragmatist. He knows the score.
re. Syria: Bashar Assad has proposed a number of times that the entire Mid East should disarm itself of WMD. Problem...Ariel Sharon, leader of the only mid east nation with nuclear weapons, and who is a loose enough cannon to possibly even use them, would never be a part of this. Peace isn't a part of Sharon's vocabulary, just like it's not part of Hamas or Al Qaida's either.
Quote:
But Bush gave up,
Bush got bored with it. Big difference.
Perhaps "gave up" is being too kind. The plan to invade Iraq was hatched way before Bush was appointed President...and the inspections were a way of misleading the world into thinking that this administration respects international law. In reality, they were going to war no matter what. Perhaps you are correct...Bush was bored...he wanted some fireworks so he could strut around the world stage like the cowboy he is. War was the program, and it was "legitimized" by 9-11. Without 9-11, the entire PNAC agenda would be dead in the water...rational politicians would never, ever, have stood for something as potentially destructive and counter productive.
The incidents, causes, locations and numbers are there for you to see....currently running at between about 7500 and 9700 Iraqi civilians killed in 2003. This may be a "human rights promotion" site, apologies...but the Pentagon and admin. is unconcerned about collateral damage that they don't bother even attempting a tally. I did hear a quote from another "human rights promotion site" which has estimated that up to 50000 Iraqis (civilians and military) have been killed so far. It is very difficult to estimate numbers of dead in Muslim nations because it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours.
I really don't care to patronize your propaganda sites. They can increase their counter clicks without me. I already know these kind of numbers are grossly inflated. Like the 5000 claimed killed in the Israeli operation in Jenin. When in reality it was around 70 killed, and 90% of these were active fighters. You people have no credibility what so ever.
Saddam killed some >300,000 people in Iraq alone. Most of these murders were during the time Iraq was allied to the US under the Reagan and first 2 years of the Bush Sr. admins. Saddam was being coddled as he meted out death and destruction. When this maniac is finally hauled before a judge and jury, let us hope that all those who were accessories before, during and after his crimes against humanity are to be charged equally under the law.
We also "coddled" the Soviets when they helped us fight the Nazis. So what? We had a greater common threat. It was an alliance of convenience. And Saddam overstepped his bounds once too many a time.
You haven't been reading the thread, or history. It wasn't Iraq, Iraqis or Saddam Hussein who attacked us on Sept 11. Or were you one of those 82% of the American public who supported the war because you were under the mistaken, FoxNews driven fantasy that there were Iraqis on those airplanes on 9-11, or one of the 55% who thought that Saddam orchestrated it all? If this war was supposed to be a response to 9-11 as a part of the War on Terror, to take out al qaeda, then we've just wasted the lives of some 560 coalition troops, thousands of innocent Iraqis and $200 billion so far by invading the wrong freaking country.
So now it's already 200 billion. Tomorrow maybe 400 billion? Btw, how did you even get to 172 billion? The figures I heard mentioned were around 70 billion. And those were more of an estimation than real actual costs.
Anyhow, in the nebulous world of islamic criminals, I, and I think most intelligent people, really couldn't care less trying to differentiate who did what and when. They are all guilty. The more members of this criminal Islamic fraternity that we bring down the better. And as was already pointed out to you countless of times, Iraq and Iraqi agents were implicated in trying to assassinate President Bush. They were implicated in the first and failed attempt to bring down the WTC prior to 9/11. And now, more and more evidence is coming out that connects Saddam's agents to the Islamicists of 9/11. I even started a thread on this very issue and linked to a leaked CIA memo. Published in the Weekly Standard, it points the finger at Saddam. But what do facts matter? Saddam is an innocent fall guy.
The world had far more respect for us pre 9-11, and universal sympathy for us in the immediate months afterwards, than exists now. Never has world opinion been at such a low point. But it looks as if people are able to discriminate beween America, the nation and it's people on the one hand, and the American Government on the other. That gives me hope.
Good. I'm sure Anders and his crowd will get over it. And when Bush is re-elected in what will be possibly the widest margin in American history, Anders and his crowd can work on that differentiation all the more.
I beg to differ. There is a yawning opinion chasm as regards the Bush doctrine.
You're talking hypotheticals and theoreticals. People care about results. And Bush delivered. And will continue to deliver.
I am not an "Islamicist" whatever the fvck that is.
Maybe. But you are an Arab apologist. And it's a very slippery slope from there, considering the current state of Arab politics.
That's a moronic and wholly insulting assumption. I despise those who use religion as a government tool by which to shove people around. And "Islamicists" presumably do just that.
What do you mean "presumably"? You mean you're still not sure? Who fsck are you trying to fool here?
Regarding our diminishing freedoms, don't you recall ArI Fleischer, former WH press sec. calmly instructing that "Americans had better watch out what they are saying".
So? How does that limit your freedom?
[i] Perhaps you don't recall that Gen Tommy Franks last month said that he expected the US Constitution to be "finished" should there be another major terror attack here. [/]
You can restart that idiotic thread if you want to. Obviously it fits your agenda.
Perhaps you should be aware that the FBI are going after people with political opinions that run counter to that of the Bush Administration. if you exercise your "right to free speech and expression or freedom of assembly" you may easily end up on the FBI's no-fly list, which numbered some 5500 ordinary people, not criminals or terrorist suspects. What an effective way of snuffing out dissent: America is a large country, and what better way to disable visible liberal-oriented activists by imposing arbitrary travel restrictions, just as the Kremlin did in the USSR. Then there's the "Patriot Act" and secret military tribunals...this kind of stuff, kangaroo trials and detention without cause or defense reminds me of...Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Shall I go on...because that is the tip of the iceberg as projected by Bush and co. Many people are very keen to get tough and look macho...but whenever this ugly kind of stuff backfires on their kind, as sometimes happens, then they are the first to start bleating.
Start a thread. Bring some meat into the subject. So far all I hear from you are empty accusations.
Or you don't like Kofi Annan perhaps? In other words, UN resolution 1441, so foten bandied around by Bush, Rice and Powell etc is/was irrelevant to you, and therefore that sole, threadbare, ragged "justification" to go to war carried no weight. Huh?
It has nothing to do with Kofi Anan. It has everything to do with 90% of it's membership being comprised of illegitimate regimes, and the UN lending legitimacy to these regimes.
The world needs an international forum to air it's problems and communicate.
There are plenty of ways to accomplish this without the UN. 50 plus years of disfunctionality is more than enough.
It is communication that keeps the peace going, and lack of liaison that causes misunderstandings and wars. and, don't forget....if you think the United Nations is such a bad thing....the UN Charter is largely based on the US Constitution. That is good enough for me. What would *you* prefer it to be based on? the Bible? Ayn Rand? Mein Kampf? pray tell.
Yeah. The soviets had a wonderful constitution as well. Too bad the thing wasn't worth paper it was written on. Just empty words.
NATO remains an effective means of liaising with our allies, Soviet Threat or otherwise. It needs to be maintained..and European members who are not pulling their financial responsibities should end up with a bill. I dont approve of the US taxpayer bailing European nations who are shirking their $$responsibilities.
Why do we still need to defend Europe from a phantom threat? And if it's about maintaining liaison with Europe, let the diplomatic core handle it. It's about time they earn their keep.
What the hell are you blathering about? What reasons did the US go to war against Iraq other than WMD? Even the Bush admin has admitted that that was the sole reason on which they could get consensus. Every other reason quoted since then is beside the point. The "liberation of Iraqis from Saddam" is utter BS...convenient PR which conveniently gives an aura of "compassion" to an admin. for which "human rights and social justice" is a very very low priority on their pecking order.
I'm talking about a whole laundry list of reasons, of which WoMD is just one.
Usually it's better to leave hornets buzzing round their nests. If you go poking sticks and interfering with others' affairs...people can get extremely angry....and what used to be unattached domestic problem in some far flung region can sudenly became a national security nightmare. Just ask anyone who has designs on building an empire. Force should be used as the last resort, not the first option. For every action comes an equal and opposite reaction...it works in politics as well as classical/newtonian physics.
No one cares about building an empire - other than your friendly neighborhood Islamicist. Ever ask yourself how hell Arabs get North Africa? What the hell compelled them to reach for Southern Europe? What the hell are they doing in Judea? In fact, what the hell are they doing outside Arabia?!!
Inspectors are there now....on Libya's invitation. Libya wants to re-enter the world community. Ghadafi is a pragmatist. He knows the score.
Good. Hopefully the rest of your pan-Arab revolutionaries will come to similar conclusions.
re. Syria: Bashar Assad has proposed a number of times that the entire Mid East should disarm itself of WMD. Problem...Ariel Sharon, leader of the only mid east nation with nuclear weapons, who is a loose enough canon to possibly even use them, would never be a part of this. Peace isn't a part of Sharon's vocabulary, which is just like the way members of Hamas or Al Qaida feel.
Assad's proposal is such a crude trojan horse, that anyone of even the most minimal intelligence can see it for that. Israel is swimming in a sea of hate. Why would Israel give up on the only strategic advantage it has over the Arabs.
Perhaps "gave up" is being too kind. The plan to invade Iraq was hatched way before Bush was appointed President...and the inspections were a way of misleading the world into thinking that this administration respects international law. In reality, they were going to war no matter what. Perhaps you are correct...Bush was bored...he wanted some fireworks so he could strut around the world stage like the cowboy he is. War was the program, and it was "legitimized" by 9-11. Without 9-11, the entire PNAC agenda would be dead in the water...rational politicians would never, ever, have stood for something as potentially destructive and counter
"I really don't care to patronize your propaganda sites. They can increase their counter clicks without me. I already know these kind of numbers are grossly inflated. Like the 5000 claimed killed in the Israeli operation in Jenin. When in reality it was around 70 killed, and 90% of these were active fighters. You people have no credibility what so ev"
As far as I am concerned, this statement alone demonstrates that arguing with majorspunk fits the old "teaching a pig to sing" bromide. "I won't even click on the link you supplied because no matter what it says I refuse to believe it!" How can you argue with someone like that? Does that link have well-researched and supported facts? Does it give references to sources spunk *would* trust? Honestly, I don't know, nor does it matter - the fact that by his own admission he will not even bother to click the link demonstrates a stubborn refusal to try and get at the truth.
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that these guys don't really want to debate. They want to win. As such their way of doing that is not really listening to the other side. That's why we find ourselves repeating stuff for them so much. That's why I don't go around looking up lots of data. As it's a one sided conversation it would be a waste of my time.
However the torrential downpour of falsehoods and obfuscation needs addressing from time to time.
I have been doing a little thinking and come up with some things:
This debate, i think rages as a result of two schools of thought
School 1; (Old School) believes in total multilateral and multinational discussions and negotiations can take the place of any scenarios involving war. Alumni from this school also tend to mistrust their own government, scared of the awesome power it can bring to bear. These people will call into question their own government and it's leaders before questioning the motives of known evildoers. They also believe that diplomacy can work in every situation and is just as powerful as the threat of force. They will always suggest "one more chance" or "just a little longer", and the cycle has no tipping point.
School 2; (post 9/11 new school) Believes using multilateral mechanisms as one of many tools to achieve their goal. This school teaches it's students that rules and resolutions without the threat of enforcement project weakness and invite aggression. The alumni of this school know that it is important to draw the line and not shrink from their resolve. They also know that not dealing with threats in a timely fashion will only bread more threats.
As far as I am concerned, this statement alone demonstrates that arguing with majorspunk fits the old "teaching a pig to sing" bromide. "I won't even click on the link you supplied because no matter what it says I refuse to believe it!" How can you argue with someone like that? Does that link have well-researched and supported facts? Does it give references to sources spunk *would* trust? Honestly, I don't know, nor does it matter - the fact that by his own admission he will not even bother to click the link demonstrates a stubborn refusal to try and get at the truth.
I might as well visit the 'Flat Earth Society' web site. It will be just as informative, if a little more amusing.
I have been doing a little thinking and come up with some things:
This debate, i think rages as a result of two schools of thought
School 1; (Old School) believes in total multilateral and multinational discussions and negotiations can take the place of any scenarios involving war. Alumni from this school also tend to mistrust their own government, scared of the awesome power it can bring to bear. These people will call into question their own government and it's leaders before questioning the motives of known evildoers. They also believe that diplomacy can work in every situation and is just as powerful as the threat of force. They will always suggest "one more chance" or "just a little longer", and the cycle has no tipping point.
School 2; (post 9/11 new school) Believes using multilateral mechanisms as one of many tools to achieve their goal. This school teaches it's students that rules and resolutions without the threat of enforcement project weakness and invite aggression. The alumni of this school know that it is important to draw the line and not shrink from their resolve. They also know that not dealing with threats in a timely fashion will only bread more threats.
There's one thing that doesn't change much over time what ever school your from. That is governments are made up of human beings and as such can be corrupted. These humans can fall prey to their own petty desires just as much as anyone else.
This is why it's foolish to blindly trust your government.
It's also foolish to think that you can go around policing the world and still hold onto the image of a benificient, yet powerful, democracy. Because others certainly won't be looking at you that way.
Acctually your depiction of the new school sounds like it came directly from a WWII set of values. So to me you sound like you've got them reversed.
" Walk quietly and carry a big stick " is an old way of thinking better suited to a world that hasn't graduated to the reality that we really are one world. One planet. And very dependent on each other.
Well, spunk, I guess that demonstrates why it is a waste of time to argue with you. If you want to have a reasonable debatre about something, you have to be willing to actually debate. But if you refuse to even look at their sources before dismissing them, it simply shows an intellectual laziness that makes debate pointless.
What, you say the Kay report says something I don't like? Bah! I dismiss that with a wave of my hand, because I know kay is a liar. Conservative newspaper? No way - I won't give them the clicks!
Well, spunk, I guess that demonstrates why it is a waste of time to argue with you. If you want to have a reasonable debatre about something, you have to be willing to actually debate. But if you refuse to even look at their sources before dismissing them, it simply shows an intellectual laziness that makes debate pointless.
What, you say the Kay report says something I don't like? Bah! I dismiss that with a wave of my hand, because I know kay is a liar. Conservative newspaper? No way - I won't give them the clicks!
I would agree with you in theory. But as it concerns this specific example, I think the site speaks for itself. All you have to do is read its internet address tittle. Of course nothing is certain in life and we all work off probabilities. But I already know the odds are that this is yet another ruse presented by Sammi Jo and Company. There are plenty of threads they left answered after lobbying their verbal grenades. That's what they do. They throw grenades hopping one or two will go unnoticed as you're busy diffusing the others. Really what we're dealing with here are debate terrorists. So I wouldn't give them more respect than they deserve.
so, based on the site name you know they have no credible info?
I am afraid that is PRECISELY the analogy. Institute for Creation Research? The name of the site speaks for itself - I do not need to see it to rebut what it says - they have an agenda!
It weakens your arguments and calls your credibility into question when you simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. If you look at it and say "well, their methods are flawed because blah blah blah...", then that means somehting. But if you actually want to exchange ideas and learn the truth, you need to participate. That helps both those who argue with you (they may learn something from your criticism) and you too. Otherwise, it isn't debating, it is just masturbating.
so, based on the site name you know they have no credible info?
I am afraid that is PRECISELY the analogy. Institute for Creation Research? The name of the site speaks for itself - I do not need to see it to rebut what it says - they have an agenda!
It weakens your arguments and calls your credibility into question when you simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. If you look at it and say "well, their methods are flawed because blah blah blah...", then that means somehting. But if you actually want to exchange ideas and learn the truth, you need to participate. That helps both those who argue with you (they may learn something from your criticism) and you too. Otherwise, it isn't debating, it is just masturbating.
Not at all. If you think I'm going to relate seriously to every crackpot internet site that Sammi Jo and Company throw my way, I got news for you. If the figure is legitimate, then they should be able to provide a legitimate news source to back it up. Until then, any prudent person would view that number as suspect. I don't have the time, not the inclination, to debunk the credibility of crackpot internet sites. But maybe you do. So be my guest.
Not at all. If you think I'm going to relate seriously to every crackpot internet site that Sammi Jo and Company throw my way, I got news for you. If the figure is legitimate, then they should be able to provide a legitimate news source to back it up. Until then, any prudent person would view that number as suspect. I don't have the time, not the inclination, to debunk the credibility of crackpot internet sites. But maybe you do. So be my guest.
Not at all. If you think I'm going to relate seriously to every crackpot internet site that Sammi Jo and Company throw my way, I got news for you. If the figure is legitimate, then they should be able to provide a legitimate news source to back it up. Until then, any prudent person would view that number as suspect. I don't have the time, not the inclination, to debunk the credibility of crackpot internet sites. But maybe you do. So be my guest.
The Iraq Body Count site has been linked to from the CNN and Yahoo news pages. I don't know what your qualification is for a "crackpot" site, but if you go look at http:www.iraqbodycount.net
you will find that the sources they get their figures from are as follows:
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
Where's all the "crackpot" sources! Oh hang on a second...what do we have here.... I just saw one...lookie here now.....FOX NEWS!!!!
Oh jeez...the whole site is bunk...
iraqbodycount should be a little more careful with their sources.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Quit saying the main reason was the threat. That was one of many reasons given over and over.
There was a great possibility that SH would pass WMD or WMD technology onto terrorist group like al-qaeda, considering that they had just declared war on the US. That was the threat.
That was the ONLY reason that made it possible!
As far as passing weapons to Al Qaeda many countries could do that. But then there's that deployment thing again. And there is no evidence to support that. When going to war " would " and " did " are two very different things.
Originally posted by sammi jo
.
.
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far,
I guarantee that every last penny will be recouped. Always has.
ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq,
Don't care for these fictitious numbers. Saddam killed on order of magnitudes more. So who cares? Obviously not you.
In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right
And we acted on it. But they can keep their crocodile tears. Obviously they meant nothing.
but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world,
Judging their reaction, the US never had the respect you talk of to begin with. I bet the story is different today.
divided our own nation like never before,
The nation isn't divided. Though you'd like it to be so. It isn't. All it did is expose some liberal attention seeking bozos for what they are.
done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish,
Keeping an eye on Islamicist in the US, hasn't harmed anyone's freedoms. Obviously you're still around.
and now has weakened the United Nations
The UN needs to be scraped.
and NATO.
NATO has not been effected one way or the other. It was designed to deal with the Soviet threat. But why we still need to subsidize europe over NATO is beyond me. A waste of money at this point.
We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction
You obviously don't care for facts. So why bother.
even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East
Good. Lets start with the easy ones and work our way from there. The less we have of these Islamic theifdoms that threaten US interests the better.
The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did.
Tell that to Lybia.
But Bush gave up,
Bush got bored with it. Big difference.
Originally posted by majorspunk
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far,
I guarantee that every last penny will be recouped. Always has.
ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq,
Don't care for these fictitious numbers. Saddam killed on order of magnitudes more. So who cares? Obviously not you.
In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right
And we acted on it. But they can keep their crocodile tears. Obviously they meant nothing.
but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world,
Judging their reaction, the US never had the respect you talk of to begin with. I bet the story is different today.
divided our own nation like never before,
The nation isn't divided. Though you'd like it to be so. It isn't. All it did is expose some liberal attention seeking bozos for what they are.
done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish,
Keeping an eye on Islamicist in the US, hasn't harmed anyone's freedoms. Obviously you're still around.
and now has weakened the United Nations
The UN needs to be scraped.
and NATO.
NATO has not been effected one way or the other. It was designed to deal with the Soviet threat. But why we still need to subsidize europe over NATO is beyond me. A waste of money at this point.
We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction
You obviously don't care for facts. So why bother.
even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East
Good. Lets start with the easy ones and work our way from there. The less we have of these Islamic theifdoms that threaten US interests the better.
The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did.
Tell that to Lybia.
But Bush gave up,
Bush got bored with it. Big difference.
WOMD ment for us was the reason it was possible. Without that there wouldn't have been enough support. If you'll recall support was marginal at best.
This has been sited many times on this board in various threads. I'm not going to dig it up again for people who haven't been paying attention.
And once again there was no WOMD found.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
blah..blah..blah
Kid, you have some real reading comprehension problems.
First, you act like the newsweek article had anything in it to support your theory. It doesn't.
Take the time to read it again, maybe two or three times if you need to:
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id...7C%7C%7C%7C003
Hell even the INC called it "nonsense." The document is a forgery, plain and simple.
I know you guys would just love to pin 9.11 on Iraq, but you really need to get it through your your head that there is more evidence for Canadian involvement than Iraqi.
Not every world event is immediately linked to every other one. I know that's hard for someone with a simplified world-view to comprehend, but that's the way to real world around you is working.
Then we have your comment about Salman Pak. I don't know where the hell you went wrong with that one, so let's just repost the whole section of hersh's article so you can go over it again.
Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and ?Frontline,? the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ?was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,? and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
__In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?
__Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war
You try to BS by saying there's misdirection when the only thing confusing you is your own imagination.
This is just another case where something typical is touted as proof of how Iraq is evil. Ask Naples about it; he got burned by the Kay report doing that to him.
But, hey, if you want to just chase the phantoms in your head, then go a right on. Hell, there are people that believe in UFOs, so you can go ahead and believe in Salman Pak even though no one with a clue does.
Edit: here's a copy of the whole hersh article for you:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052803H.shtml
Oh, and take the time to research some of the other false claims made by the INC defectors that you've invested in. You clearly haven't done so.
PS, I though I should add this:
An internal assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors who were made available by the Iraqi National Congress was of little or no value, according to federal officials briefed on the arrangement.
In addition, several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/991267/posts
Originally posted by majorspunk
The war is being fought, at phenomenal expense in monetary terms, $172BILLION so far,
I guarantee that every last penny will be recouped. Always has.
It depends on how long US troops are involved in Iraq. Col. Hackworth has estimated decades. There are no estimations from the admin...the whole thing is open ended. At a rate of $1billion per WEEK to keep this thing going, tying up 150,000 troops in the field for the foreseeable future, there will be no recouping. It will be a $liability all the way. There's also a catch22 situation happening: So long as there is a foreign occupation, there will be an resistance. As long as there is a resistance, US troops will remain in Iraq because "the mission" hasn't yet been accomplished. Then they are taking casualties all the time...some months cost more US lives, some less....but all the while mounting up. More US troops lives have been lost in the first 8 months of this war as during the first THREE YEARS of the Vietnam war. Then there is the enormous and mounting $cost of taking care of the wounded, now and for decades into the future: so far the Pentagon has admitted to some 2700 troops being wounded in Iraq, but doctors at various military hospitals (Bethesda etc) have hinted the real injury toll is far greater....10,000 +. Even if the huge cost is ever recouped, it will not be in the lifetimes of the administration officials who authorized this fiasco.
Quote:
ongoing coalition military casualties, up to 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq,
Don't care for these fictitious numbers. Saddam killed on order of magnitudes more. So who cares? Obviously not you.
Go to http://www.iraqbodycount.net
The incidents, causes, locations and numbers are there for you to see....currently running at between about 7500 and 9700 Iraqi civilians killed in 2003. This may be a "human rights promotion" site, apologies...but the Pentagon and admin. is unconcerned about collateral damage that they don't bother even attempting a tally. I did hear a quote from another "human rights promotion site" which has estimated that up to 50000 Iraqis (civilians and military) have been killed so far. It is very difficult to estimate numbers of dead in Muslim nations because it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours.
Saddam killed some >300,000 people in Iraq alone. Most of these murders were during the time Iraq was allied to the US under the Reagan and first 2 years of the Bush Sr. admins. Saddam was being coddled as he meted out death and destruction. When this maniac is finally hauled before a judge and jury, let us hope that all those who were accessories before, during and after his crimes against humanity are to be charged equally under the law.
Quote:
In Sept. 2001 we had the sympathy and alliance of the whole world, and had our very best chances of putting some of the worlds problems to right
And we acted on it. But they can keep their crocodile tears. Obviously they meant nothing.
You haven't been reading the thread, or history. It wasn't Iraq, Iraqis or Saddam Hussein who attacked us on Sept 11. Or were you one of those 82% of the American public who supported the war because you were under the mistaken, FoxNews driven fantasy that there were Iraqis on those airplanes on 9-11, or one of the 55% who thought that Saddam orchestrated it all? If this war was supposed to be a response to 9-11 as a part of the War on Terror, to take out al qaeda, then we've just wasted the lives of some 560 coalition troops, thousands of innocent Iraqis and $200 billion so far by invading the wrong freaking country.
Quote:
but 18 short months later due to some insanely shortsighted and misguided foreign policy decisions, (penis waving) the Bush Administration has trashed all the good will after 9-11, earned the disrespect of a large part of the civilized world,
Judging their reaction, the US never had the respect you talk of to begin with. I bet the story is different today.
The world had far more respect for us pre 9-11, and universal sympathy for us in the immediate months afterwards, than exists now. Never has world opinion been at such a low point. But it looks as if people are able to discriminate beween America, the nation and it's people on the one hand, and the American Government on the other. That gives me hope.
Quote:
divided our own nation like never before,
The nation isn't divided. Though you'd like it to be so. It isn't. All it did is expose some liberal attention seeking bozos for what they are.
I beg to differ. There is a yawning opinion chasm as regards the Bush doctrine.
Quote:
done bin Laden a big favor by helping him in his goal of denying Americans the freedoms he wants to demolish,
Keeping an eye on Islamicist in the US, hasn't harmed anyone's freedoms. Obviously you're still around.
I am not an "Islamicist" whatever the fvck that is. That's a moronic and wholly insulting assumption. I despise those who use religion as a government tool by which to shove people around. And "Islamicists" presumably do just that. Regarding our diminishing freedoms, don't you recall ArI Fleischer, former WH press sec. calmly instructing that "Americans had better watch out what they are saying". Perhaps you don't recall that Gen Tommy Franks last month said that he expected the US Constitution to be "finished" should there be another major terror attack here. Perhaps you should be aware that the FBI are going after people with political opinions that run counter to that of the Bush Administration. if you exercise your "right to free speech and expression or freedom of assembly" you may easily end up on the FBI's no-fly list, which numbered some 5500 ordinary people, not criminals or terrorist suspects. What an effective way of snuffing out dissent: America is a large country, and what better way to disable visible liberal-oriented activists by imposing arbitrary travel restrictions, just as the Kremlin did in the USSR. Then there's the "Patriot Act" and secret military tribunals...this kind of stuff, kangaroo trials and detention without cause or defense reminds me of...Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Shall I go on...because that is the tip of the iceberg as projected by Bush and co. Many people are very keen to get tough and look macho...but whenever this ugly kind of stuff backfires on their kind, as sometimes happens, then they are the first to start bleating.
Quote:
and now has weakened the United Nations
The UN needs to be scraped.
Or you don't like Kofi Annan perhaps?
So, UN resolution 1441, so often bandied around by Bush, Rice and Powell etc is/was irrelevant to you, and therefore that sole, threadbare, ragged "justification" to go to war carried no weight. Huh?
The world needs an international forum to air it's problems and communicate. It is communication that keeps the peace going, and lack of liaison that causes misunderstandings and wars. and, don't forget....if you think the United Nations is such a bad thing....the UN Charter is largely based on the US Constitution. That is good enough for me. What would *you* prefer it to be based on? the Bible? Ayn Rand? Mein Kampf? pray tell.
Quote:
and NATO.
NATO has not been effected one way or the other. It was designed to deal with the Soviet threat. But why we still need to subsidize europe over NATO is beyond me. A waste of money at this point.
NATO remains an effective means of liaising with our allies, Soviet Threat or otherwise. It needs to be maintained..and European members who are not pulling their financial responsibities should end up with a bill. I dont approve of the US taxpayer bailing European nations who are shirking their $$responsibilities.
Re. lack of USSR...Threats do crop up...the world can change very quickly...as we recently discovered.
Quote:
We sent our people to war against Iraq because we were told Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction
You obviously don't care for facts. So why bother.
What the hell are you blathering about? What reasons did the US go to war against Iraq other than WMD? Even the Bush admin has admitted that that was the sole reason on which they could get consensus. Every other reason quoted since then is beside the point. The "liberation of Iraqis from Saddam" is utter BS...a bunch of PR which conveniently gives an aura of "compassion" to an administration for which "human rights and social justice" is a very very low priority on their pecking order.
Quote:
even though Iraq was probably the most "disarmed" country in the Middle East
Good. Lets start with the easy ones and work our way from there. The less we have of these Islamic theifdoms that threaten US interests the better.
Usually it's better to leave hornets buzzing round their nests. If you go poking sticks and interfering with others' affairs...people can get extremely angry....and an unrelated domestic problem in some far flung region can suddenly became our national security nightmare. Just ask anyone who has designs on building an empire. Force should be used as the last resort, not the first option. For every action comes an equal and opposite reaction...it works in politics as well as classical/newtonian physics.
Quote:
The way of finding and disarming nations with WMD is to send in the inspectors, which is what the UN did.
Tell that to Lybia.
Inspectors are there now....on Libya's invitation. Libya wants to re-enter the world community. Ghadafi is a pragmatist. He knows the score.
re. Syria: Bashar Assad has proposed a number of times that the entire Mid East should disarm itself of WMD. Problem...Ariel Sharon, leader of the only mid east nation with nuclear weapons, and who is a loose enough cannon to possibly even use them, would never be a part of this. Peace isn't a part of Sharon's vocabulary, just like it's not part of Hamas or Al Qaida's either.
Quote:
But Bush gave up,
Bush got bored with it. Big difference.
Perhaps "gave up" is being too kind. The plan to invade Iraq was hatched way before Bush was appointed President...and the inspections were a way of misleading the world into thinking that this administration respects international law. In reality, they were going to war no matter what. Perhaps you are correct...Bush was bored...he wanted some fireworks so he could strut around the world stage like the cowboy he is. War was the program, and it was "legitimized" by 9-11. Without 9-11, the entire PNAC agenda would be dead in the water...rational politicians would never, ever, have stood for something as potentially destructive and counter productive.
Originally posted by sammi jo
.
.
... Even if the huge cost is ever recouped, it will not be in the lifetimes of the administration officials who authorized this fiasco.
Fiasco. The election will tell, wont it?
Go to http://www.iraqbodycount.net
The incidents, causes, locations and numbers are there for you to see....currently running at between about 7500 and 9700 Iraqi civilians killed in 2003. This may be a "human rights promotion" site, apologies...but the Pentagon and admin. is unconcerned about collateral damage that they don't bother even attempting a tally. I did hear a quote from another "human rights promotion site" which has estimated that up to 50000 Iraqis (civilians and military) have been killed so far. It is very difficult to estimate numbers of dead in Muslim nations because it is the custom to bury their dead within 24 hours.
I really don't care to patronize your propaganda sites. They can increase their counter clicks without me. I already know these kind of numbers are grossly inflated. Like the 5000 claimed killed in the Israeli operation in Jenin. When in reality it was around 70 killed, and 90% of these were active fighters. You people have no credibility what so ever.
Saddam killed some >300,000 people in Iraq alone. Most of these murders were during the time Iraq was allied to the US under the Reagan and first 2 years of the Bush Sr. admins. Saddam was being coddled as he meted out death and destruction. When this maniac is finally hauled before a judge and jury, let us hope that all those who were accessories before, during and after his crimes against humanity are to be charged equally under the law.
We also "coddled" the Soviets when they helped us fight the Nazis. So what? We had a greater common threat. It was an alliance of convenience. And Saddam overstepped his bounds once too many a time.
You haven't been reading the thread, or history. It wasn't Iraq, Iraqis or Saddam Hussein who attacked us on Sept 11. Or were you one of those 82% of the American public who supported the war because you were under the mistaken, FoxNews driven fantasy that there were Iraqis on those airplanes on 9-11, or one of the 55% who thought that Saddam orchestrated it all? If this war was supposed to be a response to 9-11 as a part of the War on Terror, to take out al qaeda, then we've just wasted the lives of some 560 coalition troops, thousands of innocent Iraqis and $200 billion so far by invading the wrong freaking country.
So now it's already 200 billion. Tomorrow maybe 400 billion? Btw, how did you even get to 172 billion? The figures I heard mentioned were around 70 billion. And those were more of an estimation than real actual costs.
Anyhow, in the nebulous world of islamic criminals, I, and I think most intelligent people, really couldn't care less trying to differentiate who did what and when. They are all guilty. The more members of this criminal Islamic fraternity that we bring down the better. And as was already pointed out to you countless of times, Iraq and Iraqi agents were implicated in trying to assassinate President Bush. They were implicated in the first and failed attempt to bring down the WTC prior to 9/11. And now, more and more evidence is coming out that connects Saddam's agents to the Islamicists of 9/11. I even started a thread on this very issue and linked to a leaked CIA memo. Published in the Weekly Standard, it points the finger at Saddam. But what do facts matter? Saddam is an innocent fall guy.
The world had far more respect for us pre 9-11, and universal sympathy for us in the immediate months afterwards, than exists now. Never has world opinion been at such a low point. But it looks as if people are able to discriminate beween America, the nation and it's people on the one hand, and the American Government on the other. That gives me hope.
Good. I'm sure Anders and his crowd will get over it. And when Bush is re-elected in what will be possibly the widest margin in American history, Anders and his crowd can work on that differentiation all the more.
I beg to differ. There is a yawning opinion chasm as regards the Bush doctrine.
You're talking hypotheticals and theoreticals. People care about results. And Bush delivered. And will continue to deliver.
I am not an "Islamicist" whatever the fvck that is.
Maybe. But you are an Arab apologist. And it's a very slippery slope from there, considering the current state of Arab politics.
That's a moronic and wholly insulting assumption. I despise those who use religion as a government tool by which to shove people around. And "Islamicists" presumably do just that.
What do you mean "presumably"? You mean you're still not sure? Who fsck are you trying to fool here?
Regarding our diminishing freedoms, don't you recall ArI Fleischer, former WH press sec. calmly instructing that "Americans had better watch out what they are saying".
So? How does that limit your freedom?
[i] Perhaps you don't recall that Gen Tommy Franks last month said that he expected the US Constitution to be "finished" should there be another major terror attack here. [/]
You can restart that idiotic thread if you want to. Obviously it fits your agenda.
Perhaps you should be aware that the FBI are going after people with political opinions that run counter to that of the Bush Administration. if you exercise your "right to free speech and expression or freedom of assembly" you may easily end up on the FBI's no-fly list, which numbered some 5500 ordinary people, not criminals or terrorist suspects. What an effective way of snuffing out dissent: America is a large country, and what better way to disable visible liberal-oriented activists by imposing arbitrary travel restrictions, just as the Kremlin did in the USSR. Then there's the "Patriot Act" and secret military tribunals...this kind of stuff, kangaroo trials and detention without cause or defense reminds me of...Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Shall I go on...because that is the tip of the iceberg as projected by Bush and co. Many people are very keen to get tough and look macho...but whenever this ugly kind of stuff backfires on their kind, as sometimes happens, then they are the first to start bleating.
Start a thread. Bring some meat into the subject. So far all I hear from you are empty accusations.
Or you don't like Kofi Annan perhaps? In other words, UN resolution 1441, so foten bandied around by Bush, Rice and Powell etc is/was irrelevant to you, and therefore that sole, threadbare, ragged "justification" to go to war carried no weight. Huh?
It has nothing to do with Kofi Anan. It has everything to do with 90% of it's membership being comprised of illegitimate regimes, and the UN lending legitimacy to these regimes.
The world needs an international forum to air it's problems and communicate.
There are plenty of ways to accomplish this without the UN. 50 plus years of disfunctionality is more than enough.
It is communication that keeps the peace going, and lack of liaison that causes misunderstandings and wars. and, don't forget....if you think the United Nations is such a bad thing....the UN Charter is largely based on the US Constitution. That is good enough for me. What would *you* prefer it to be based on? the Bible? Ayn Rand? Mein Kampf? pray tell.
Yeah. The soviets had a wonderful constitution as well. Too bad the thing wasn't worth paper it was written on. Just empty words.
NATO remains an effective means of liaising with our allies, Soviet Threat or otherwise. It needs to be maintained..and European members who are not pulling their financial responsibities should end up with a bill. I dont approve of the US taxpayer bailing European nations who are shirking their $$responsibilities.
Why do we still need to defend Europe from a phantom threat? And if it's about maintaining liaison with Europe, let the diplomatic core handle it. It's about time they earn their keep.
What the hell are you blathering about? What reasons did the US go to war against Iraq other than WMD? Even the Bush admin has admitted that that was the sole reason on which they could get consensus. Every other reason quoted since then is beside the point. The "liberation of Iraqis from Saddam" is utter BS...convenient PR which conveniently gives an aura of "compassion" to an admin. for which "human rights and social justice" is a very very low priority on their pecking order.
I'm talking about a whole laundry list of reasons, of which WoMD is just one.
Usually it's better to leave hornets buzzing round their nests. If you go poking sticks and interfering with others' affairs...people can get extremely angry....and what used to be unattached domestic problem in some far flung region can sudenly became a national security nightmare. Just ask anyone who has designs on building an empire. Force should be used as the last resort, not the first option. For every action comes an equal and opposite reaction...it works in politics as well as classical/newtonian physics.
No one cares about building an empire - other than your friendly neighborhood Islamicist. Ever ask yourself how hell Arabs get North Africa? What the hell compelled them to reach for Southern Europe? What the hell are they doing in Judea? In fact, what the hell are they doing outside Arabia?!!
Inspectors are there now....on Libya's invitation. Libya wants to re-enter the world community. Ghadafi is a pragmatist. He knows the score.
Good. Hopefully the rest of your pan-Arab revolutionaries will come to similar conclusions.
re. Syria: Bashar Assad has proposed a number of times that the entire Mid East should disarm itself of WMD. Problem...Ariel Sharon, leader of the only mid east nation with nuclear weapons, who is a loose enough canon to possibly even use them, would never be a part of this. Peace isn't a part of Sharon's vocabulary, which is just like the way members of Hamas or Al Qaida feel.
Assad's proposal is such a crude trojan horse, that anyone of even the most minimal intelligence can see it for that. Israel is swimming in a sea of hate. Why would Israel give up on the only strategic advantage it has over the Arabs.
Perhaps "gave up" is being too kind. The plan to invade Iraq was hatched way before Bush was appointed President...and the inspections were a way of misleading the world into thinking that this administration respects international law. In reality, they were going to war no matter what. Perhaps you are correct...Bush was bored...he wanted some fireworks so he could strut around the world stage like the cowboy he is. War was the program, and it was "legitimized" by 9-11. Without 9-11, the entire PNAC agenda would be dead in the water...rational politicians would never, ever, have stood for something as potentially destructive and counter
Yeah. Entirely a PNAC agenda. Get real: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html
As far as I am concerned, this statement alone demonstrates that arguing with majorspunk fits the old "teaching a pig to sing" bromide. "I won't even click on the link you supplied because no matter what it says I refuse to believe it!" How can you argue with someone like that? Does that link have well-researched and supported facts? Does it give references to sources spunk *would* trust? Honestly, I don't know, nor does it matter - the fact that by his own admission he will not even bother to click the link demonstrates a stubborn refusal to try and get at the truth.
However the torrential downpour of falsehoods and obfuscation needs addressing from time to time.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
"us" vs. "them"
If you say so......
This debate, i think rages as a result of two schools of thought
School 1; (Old School) believes in total multilateral and multinational discussions and negotiations can take the place of any scenarios involving war. Alumni from this school also tend to mistrust their own government, scared of the awesome power it can bring to bear. These people will call into question their own government and it's leaders before questioning the motives of known evildoers. They also believe that diplomacy can work in every situation and is just as powerful as the threat of force. They will always suggest "one more chance" or "just a little longer", and the cycle has no tipping point.
School 2; (post 9/11 new school) Believes using multilateral mechanisms as one of many tools to achieve their goal. This school teaches it's students that rules and resolutions without the threat of enforcement project weakness and invite aggression. The alumni of this school know that it is important to draw the line and not shrink from their resolve. They also know that not dealing with threats in a timely fashion will only bread more threats.
Originally posted by fishdoc
As far as I am concerned, this statement alone demonstrates that arguing with majorspunk fits the old "teaching a pig to sing" bromide. "I won't even click on the link you supplied because no matter what it says I refuse to believe it!" How can you argue with someone like that? Does that link have well-researched and supported facts? Does it give references to sources spunk *would* trust? Honestly, I don't know, nor does it matter - the fact that by his own admission he will not even bother to click the link demonstrates a stubborn refusal to try and get at the truth.
I might as well visit the 'Flat Earth Society' web site. It will be just as informative, if a little more amusing.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have been doing a little thinking and come up with some things:
This debate, i think rages as a result of two schools of thought
School 1; (Old School) believes in total multilateral and multinational discussions and negotiations can take the place of any scenarios involving war. Alumni from this school also tend to mistrust their own government, scared of the awesome power it can bring to bear. These people will call into question their own government and it's leaders before questioning the motives of known evildoers. They also believe that diplomacy can work in every situation and is just as powerful as the threat of force. They will always suggest "one more chance" or "just a little longer", and the cycle has no tipping point.
School 2; (post 9/11 new school) Believes using multilateral mechanisms as one of many tools to achieve their goal. This school teaches it's students that rules and resolutions without the threat of enforcement project weakness and invite aggression. The alumni of this school know that it is important to draw the line and not shrink from their resolve. They also know that not dealing with threats in a timely fashion will only bread more threats.
There's one thing that doesn't change much over time what ever school your from. That is governments are made up of human beings and as such can be corrupted. These humans can fall prey to their own petty desires just as much as anyone else.
This is why it's foolish to blindly trust your government.
It's also foolish to think that you can go around policing the world and still hold onto the image of a benificient, yet powerful, democracy. Because others certainly won't be looking at you that way.
Acctually your depiction of the new school sounds like it came directly from a WWII set of values. So to me you sound like you've got them reversed.
" Walk quietly and carry a big stick " is an old way of thinking better suited to a world that hasn't graduated to the reality that we really are one world. One planet. And very dependent on each other.
What, you say the Kay report says something I don't like? Bah! I dismiss that with a wave of my hand, because I know kay is a liar. Conservative newspaper? No way - I won't give them the clicks!
Originally posted by fishdoc
Well, spunk, I guess that demonstrates why it is a waste of time to argue with you. If you want to have a reasonable debatre about something, you have to be willing to actually debate. But if you refuse to even look at their sources before dismissing them, it simply shows an intellectual laziness that makes debate pointless.
What, you say the Kay report says something I don't like? Bah! I dismiss that with a wave of my hand, because I know kay is a liar. Conservative newspaper? No way - I won't give them the clicks!
I would agree with you in theory. But as it concerns this specific example, I think the site speaks for itself. All you have to do is read its internet address tittle. Of course nothing is certain in life and we all work off probabilities. But I already know the odds are that this is yet another ruse presented by Sammi Jo and Company. There are plenty of threads they left answered after lobbying their verbal grenades. That's what they do. They throw grenades hopping one or two will go unnoticed as you're busy diffusing the others. Really what we're dealing with here are debate terrorists. So I wouldn't give them more respect than they deserve.
I am afraid that is PRECISELY the analogy. Institute for Creation Research? The name of the site speaks for itself - I do not need to see it to rebut what it says - they have an agenda!
It weakens your arguments and calls your credibility into question when you simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. If you look at it and say "well, their methods are flawed because blah blah blah...", then that means somehting. But if you actually want to exchange ideas and learn the truth, you need to participate. That helps both those who argue with you (they may learn something from your criticism) and you too. Otherwise, it isn't debating, it is just masturbating.
Originally posted by fishdoc
so, based on the site name you know they have no credible info?
I am afraid that is PRECISELY the analogy. Institute for Creation Research? The name of the site speaks for itself - I do not need to see it to rebut what it says - they have an agenda!
It weakens your arguments and calls your credibility into question when you simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. If you look at it and say "well, their methods are flawed because blah blah blah...", then that means somehting. But if you actually want to exchange ideas and learn the truth, you need to participate. That helps both those who argue with you (they may learn something from your criticism) and you too. Otherwise, it isn't debating, it is just masturbating.
Not at all. If you think I'm going to relate seriously to every crackpot internet site that Sammi Jo and Company throw my way, I got news for you. If the figure is legitimate, then they should be able to provide a legitimate news source to back it up. Until then, any prudent person would view that number as suspect. I don't have the time, not the inclination, to debunk the credibility of crackpot internet sites. But maybe you do. So be my guest.
Originally posted by majorspunk
Not at all. If you think I'm going to relate seriously to every crackpot internet site that Sammi Jo and Company throw my way, I got news for you. If the figure is legitimate, then they should be able to provide a legitimate news source to back it up. Until then, any prudent person would view that number as suspect. I don't have the time, not the inclination, to debunk the credibility of crackpot internet sites. But maybe you do. So be my guest.
Maja what u up to?
Fellas
Originally posted by majorspunk
Not at all. If you think I'm going to relate seriously to every crackpot internet site that Sammi Jo and Company throw my way, I got news for you. If the figure is legitimate, then they should be able to provide a legitimate news source to back it up. Until then, any prudent person would view that number as suspect. I don't have the time, not the inclination, to debunk the credibility of crackpot internet sites. But maybe you do. So be my guest.
The Iraq Body Count site has been linked to from the CNN and Yahoo news pages. I don't know what your qualification is for a "crackpot" site, but if you go look at http:www.iraqbodycount.net
you will find that the sources they get their figures from are as follows:
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
Where's all the "crackpot" sources! Oh hang on a second...what do we have here.... I just saw one...lookie here now.....FOX NEWS!!!!
Oh jeez...the whole site is bunk...
iraqbodycount should be a little more careful with their sources.