Context police: What your read (BTW your link doesn't work)
...
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
...
That's really such a silly question I can't take you seriously. Certainly Iran, Syria and Libya are ready for "regime change". Which seem to be accelerated by Iraq being freed from Saddam. If you have to ask why Iraq over those other countries then you are not being intellectually honest. It's the weakest straw man around.
Hey, I know let's talk about clarke and what is on the record of him saying. if not then my point of this just being another "Bash Bush" thread is proven true.
Face it, the guy is a polotician who has us involved in an largely unpopular war.
I love this Democentric view of how wildly unpopular the war is. I think your assumption of peoples opinions of the war is wrong. Unpopular in Democratic circles yes, thats a given. But even this late in the game with all the dirt being thrown, in general polls still favor the majority thinking we did the right thing going in. Though it does seem that everyone agrees it costs too much.
The longer we stay there with no "big news" progress I think will favor the side of unpopularity however. Will be interesting to see what happens during/after all the 9/11 hearing stuff is finished.
Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.The reasons we gave for invading Iraq (every last reason) can be applied to the US, or any other country around the world for that matter. There is a political philosophy called MacBethism which means once I do unto another, I should expect the same to done unto myself.
Don't you think it'd be a bit redundant for China to invade us and set up a democratic government? I really think theyd be better off invading themselves to set up a democratic government don't you? Maybe you should send them a note about it.*
That's really such a silly question I can't take you seriously. Certainly Iran, Syria and Libya are ready for "regime change". Which seem to be accelerated by Iraq being freed from Saddam. If you have to ask why Iraq over those other countries then you are not being intellectually honest. It's the weakest straw man around.
I take exception to that. There are weaker strawmen out there. I asked the question rhetorically because the actual answer is Syria didn't have the name brand recognition as Iraq. Gadaffi had drifder from the radar years ago. Iran has a ineffectual elected president so justifying invasion would be tough. Iraq was easy. Iraq was in the radar prior to 911. That's why Iraq.
People here point to Iraq as the most evil regime in the history of the world when the reality is the fighting in the DRC has killed more people. N.Korea has killed more of its own people. The Ivory coast was a worse human tragedy. Rowanda was worse than Iraq, yet we fixated on this one insignificant two-bit dictator.
He "HAD" WMD and used them. Ok, did Reagan do anything to discourage that use? Did Reagan allow the UN to sanction Iraq? No. The Reagan admin was secretly supplying weapons to Iran, while outwardly backing Iraq (rember Ollie North). Reagan may or may not have had a hand in the dealsing, but his admin did and his admin is as culpable for SH as Bush I, and Clinton.
Iraq "had" weapons begs the question, from me at least as I was a physics major prior to convering to ME, as to which weapons did we claim SH STILL had. The logistics of WMD was discussed in another post by myself and other as related to nuclear weapons, but the end conclusion was WMD are a lot harder to obtain than people though or were led to beleive. Most of the chemicles needed to produce WMD have definate self lives and most were unavailable to SH.
So I put my weak straw man up again "Why Iraq, and not these other countries?'
Don't you think it'd be a bit redundant for China to invade us and set up a democratic government? I really think theyd be better off invading themselves to set up a democratic government don't you? Maybe you should send them a note about it.*
Don't you think it'd be a bit redundant for China to invade us and set up a democratic government? I really think theyd be better off invading themselves to set up a democratic government don't you? Maybe you should send them a note about it.*
*a ridiculous argument deserves ridiculous answer
Establishment of democracy was not the pint. Invasion for SELF protection (which is the argument we used and is the idea behind pre-emptive war) was.
I love this Democentric view of how wildly unpopular the war is. I think your assumption of peoples opinions of the war is wrong. Unpopular in Democratic circles yes, thats a given. But even this late in the game with all the dirt being thrown, in general polls still favor the majority thinking we did the right thing going in. Though it does seem that everyone agrees it costs too much.
The longer we stay there with no "big news" progress I think will favor the side of unpopularity however. Will be interesting to see what happens during/after all the 9/11 hearing stuff is finished.
I'm not a democrat. I'm a pissed off conservative.
Also, 32% of the population IS a large percentage.
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq.
Well for one, we couldn't afford to.
Quote:
More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Here's a question: IF SH had decent nuke gear at some point, where did it go? If I had nuke gear, I'd want to trade it for favors rather than tear it up. It seems off that only a year after invasion Iran and Lybia are in full blown confession mode. And yes, I'm sure they had programs before just recently.
Quote:
Once you cut through the spin and personal attacks you find that Clarke you find that Clarke is being praised by republicans and democratas on the 911 panel.
I'm not sure what significance this panel really has---except for yet another round of good-cop bad-cop.
Quote:
He's angry with BushCo because of their fixation with Iraq. He's angry with BushCo because we invaded a soverign nation instead of focusing the required manpower on OBL.
This is almost certainly true, but then I find the "he should be focousing like a laser on OBL" misses part of the mideast problem
Quote:
What are you going to do when China decides to invade Tiawan pre-emptivly? Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.
We are too big a trading partner for China to do too much, and that is more true with each passing day.
Quote:
China may decide to attack us using the same logic we used in Iraq.
Too much money involved---Wal-Mart execs intervened when that EC-9(??) was forced down in China, I think when Mr. Walton speaks, China listens.
Quote:
So what is the point then? The administration came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. Not a five YO contengency plan but a full fledged ideological driven plan to turn the Middle East around.
that is almost certain
Quote:
The administration did not focus time and attention on Al Qua'ide as much as Clarke thought was necessary.
...yes, but he could be wrong.
Quote:
Clarke said that the 2002 release wasn't a lie, rather it was put out to excentuate the positives of BushCo while minimizing the negatives.
...this is the lynchpin with Clarke, he is too much a product of the system. Not very flattering. It's like the system produces a guy who, with his pension has every incentive to NOW be equaly diminishing of his former boss--not that he is lying---it's just that now it's become a "question of emphasis."
Quote:
Personal attacks don't minimize the general feeling among Americans (and this feeling is growing) that BushCo misplaced and mishandled the WOT by attacking SH.
This "feeling" is being fed to the public by a professional media junta that is ideologically opposed to Bush---and it's being fed to the public using every dirty marketing trick and every hard-core sales pitch in the book.
(But the public is breaking free of this, to some extent.)
Quote:
Will Iraq turn around and become a model society. Who knows, but we can look back at other "Model Societs" built in our image in that region and see that they have failed. Iran was not a religious dictatorship until the revolution in the late 70's. We, the US, placed a puppet government in power in Iraq which was overthrown some 4 years later which eventually led to SH taking the throne. We have a very poor record in reguards to nation building (Japan being the noted exception for extenuating circumstances like 40% of the male population was killed during WWII).
I will bet anyone on this thread that Iraq doesn't last 90 days after the troops leave. At the same time, I fear Islam is doomed to the same fate as the American Indian.
Quote:
Finally, if Clarke is such a liar then why are his comments in line with those made by O'Neil? Do you think O'Neil the former CEO of Alcoa needed the money? No. Did he do it for attention? No. Did he do it because he felt it was the right thing to do? Yes. Why is it that two high ranking exofficials would do this. Neither of them were meida hogs to begin with. Both had distinguished careers to begin with. Why?
I'll believe O'Neil before Bush, and Clarke least of all. I liked O'Niel, but he didn't want to play ball and Bush canned him. But then it is still a question of emphasis.
What did O'Neil say beside Bush wanted SH's ass mounted on the OO wall, and that he hated his management style?
What about the stuff that is on record of what clarke said?
Well, killer 51% is larger. Good job with the math, but depending on the day and location, polling numbers (floats around 40%) show that a large portion of the population--as I stated above--disagree. Again, dodge the issuse all of you. My long post addressed Clarke's credability, and his reasons. Fixate on the insignificant but 32% of a population disagreeing with a war is a large percentage.
You know a thing that has always bugged me is that opponents of the Iraq war rarely quote this speech. It almost seems that they avoid it, The SOU speech is dwelled on heavily.
This one is largely ignored.
Did you know that Clarke basically admitted that he lied for this and other admins?
Here's a question: IF SH had decent nuke gear at some point, where did it go? If I had nuke gear, I'd want to trade it for favors rather than tear it up. It seems off that only a year after invasion Iran and Lybia are in full blown confession mode. And yes, I'm sure they had programs before just recently.
What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.
Quote:
I'm not sure what significance this panel really has---except for yet another round of good-cop bad-cop.
Not contesting this, but members from both parties are still praising the man. They could just as easily attacked him in open session under oath as then did praise him.
Quote:
This is almost certainly true, but then I find the "he should be focousing like a laser on OBL" misses part of the mideast problem
Agreed; however, invading an Arab Nation on less than firm ground is also as dangerous.
Quote:
We are too big a trading partner for China to do too much, and that is more true with each passing day.
The point was if we did it on grounds of self protection, others can now use the same tactic. I also mentioned China invading Tiawan which is a very likely scenerio.
Quote:
...this is the lynchpin with Clarke, he is too much a product of the system. Not very flattering. It's like the system produces a guy who, with his pension has every incentive to NOW be equaly diminishing of his former boss--not that he is lying---it's just that now it's become a "question of emphasis."
Again, agreeed. I don't immediatly discredit the guy for speaking out though. Also, Clarke's statements are in line with what other expatriots have said.
Quote:
This "feeling" is being fed to the public by a professional media junta that is ideologically opposed to Bush---and it's being fed to the public using every dirty marketing trick and every hard-core sales pitch in the book.
Come'on the idea of liberal media bias shold be laid to rest.
Quote:
I will bet anyone on this thread that Iraq doesn't last 90 days after the troops leave. At the same time, I fear Islam is doomed to the same fate as the American Indian.
Again, I agree to some extent. Rember, Islam is not some fly-by-night religion. It's been around for some time now, and has a sizeable following.
Quote:
I'll believe O'Neil before Bush, and Clarke least of all. I liked O'Niel, but he didn't want to play ball and Bush canned him. But then it is still a question of emphasis.
Kudos. O'Neile had no real vested interest in releasing his documents for publication. He was old, and wealthy already.
Quote:
What did O'Neil say beside Bush wanted SH's ass mounted on the OO wall, and that he hated his management style?
I watched every minute of his testimony. And he basically said that he was asked to exaggerate or sell the bush standpoint and that this is just what you do when a president asks you to. He also said he has done this for other presidents.
I am not posting a link because his testimony is readily available and I don't want to participate in a "link" war that happens so many times.
Comments
Originally posted by faust9
Context police: What your read (BTW your link doesn't work)
...
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq. More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
...
That's really such a silly question I can't take you seriously. Certainly Iran, Syria and Libya are ready for "regime change". Which seem to be accelerated by Iraq being freed from Saddam. If you have to ask why Iraq over those other countries then you are not being intellectually honest. It's the weakest straw man around.
Originally posted by faust9
Face it, the guy is a polotician who has us involved in an largely unpopular war.
I love this Democentric view of how wildly unpopular the war is. I think your assumption of peoples opinions of the war is wrong. Unpopular in Democratic circles yes, thats a given. But even this late in the game with all the dirt being thrown, in general polls still favor the majority thinking we did the right thing going in. Though it does seem that everyone agrees it costs too much.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
The longer we stay there with no "big news" progress I think will favor the side of unpopularity however. Will be interesting to see what happens during/after all the 9/11 hearing stuff is finished.
Faust9 said
Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.The reasons we gave for invading Iraq (every last reason) can be applied to the US, or any other country around the world for that matter. There is a political philosophy called MacBethism which means once I do unto another, I should expect the same to done unto myself.
Don't you think it'd be a bit redundant for China to invade us and set up a democratic government? I really think theyd be better off invading themselves to set up a democratic government don't you? Maybe you should send them a note about it.*
*a ridiculous argument deserves ridiculous answer
Originally posted by Scott
That's really such a silly question I can't take you seriously. Certainly Iran, Syria and Libya are ready for "regime change". Which seem to be accelerated by Iraq being freed from Saddam. If you have to ask why Iraq over those other countries then you are not being intellectually honest. It's the weakest straw man around.
I take exception to that. There are weaker strawmen out there. I asked the question rhetorically because the actual answer is Syria didn't have the name brand recognition as Iraq. Gadaffi had drifder from the radar years ago. Iran has a ineffectual elected president so justifying invasion would be tough. Iraq was easy. Iraq was in the radar prior to 911. That's why Iraq.
People here point to Iraq as the most evil regime in the history of the world when the reality is the fighting in the DRC has killed more people. N.Korea has killed more of its own people. The Ivory coast was a worse human tragedy. Rowanda was worse than Iraq, yet we fixated on this one insignificant two-bit dictator.
He "HAD" WMD and used them. Ok, did Reagan do anything to discourage that use? Did Reagan allow the UN to sanction Iraq? No. The Reagan admin was secretly supplying weapons to Iran, while outwardly backing Iraq (rember Ollie North). Reagan may or may not have had a hand in the dealsing, but his admin did and his admin is as culpable for SH as Bush I, and Clinton.
Iraq "had" weapons begs the question, from me at least as I was a physics major prior to convering to ME, as to which weapons did we claim SH STILL had. The logistics of WMD was discussed in another post by myself and other as related to nuclear weapons, but the end conclusion was WMD are a lot harder to obtain than people though or were led to beleive. Most of the chemicles needed to produce WMD have definate self lives and most were unavailable to SH.
So I put my weak straw man up again "Why Iraq, and not these other countries?'
Originally posted by dviant
Don't you think it'd be a bit redundant for China to invade us and set up a democratic government? I really think theyd be better off invading themselves to set up a democratic government don't you? Maybe you should send them a note about it.*
*a ridiculous argument deserves ridiculous answer
Ha that was good.
Originally posted by dviant
Don't you think it'd be a bit redundant for China to invade us and set up a democratic government? I really think theyd be better off invading themselves to set up a democratic government don't you? Maybe you should send them a note about it.*
*a ridiculous argument deserves ridiculous answer
Establishment of democracy was not the pint. Invasion for SELF protection (which is the argument we used and is the idea behind pre-emptive war) was.
Originally posted by faust9
So I put my weak straw man up again "Why Iraq, and not these other countries?'
Maybe you missed this the first time around?
Originally posted by dviant
I love this Democentric view of how wildly unpopular the war is. I think your assumption of peoples opinions of the war is wrong. Unpopular in Democratic circles yes, thats a given. But even this late in the game with all the dirt being thrown, in general polls still favor the majority thinking we did the right thing going in. Though it does seem that everyone agrees it costs too much.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
The longer we stay there with no "big news" progress I think will favor the side of unpopularity however. Will be interesting to see what happens during/after all the 9/11 hearing stuff is finished.
I'm not a democrat. I'm a pissed off conservative.
Also, 32% of the population IS a large percentage.
Originally posted by faust9
Establishment of democracy was not the pint. Invasion for SELF protection (which is the argument we used and is the idea behind pre-emptive war) was.
We are not openly threatening any of those countries. That is the problem with your argument. SH did.
What about the subject of this thread?
Originally posted by NaplesX
We are not openly threatening any of those countries. That is the problem with your argument. SH did.
What about the subject of this thread?
51% percent is bigger. you lose.
What about the stuff that is on record of what clarke said?
Originally posted by faust9
Why didn't we invade Syria, or Iran, or Egypt, or Libya? They were all as culpible as Iraq.
Well for one, we couldn't afford to.
More importantly, Libya, and Iran HAD weapons programs that we didn't know about while Iraq didn't have the programs we said they did.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Here's a question: IF SH had decent nuke gear at some point, where did it go? If I had nuke gear, I'd want to trade it for favors rather than tear it up. It seems off that only a year after invasion Iran and Lybia are in full blown confession mode. And yes, I'm sure they had programs before just recently.
Once you cut through the spin and personal attacks you find that Clarke you find that Clarke is being praised by republicans and democratas on the 911 panel.
I'm not sure what significance this panel really has---except for yet another round of good-cop bad-cop.
He's angry with BushCo because of their fixation with Iraq. He's angry with BushCo because we invaded a soverign nation instead of focusing the required manpower on OBL.
This is almost certainly true, but then I find the "he should be focousing like a laser on OBL" misses part of the mideast problem
What are you going to do when China decides to invade Tiawan pre-emptivly? Or better yet what if China decides to invade the US premptively.
We are too big a trading partner for China to do too much, and that is more true with each passing day.
China may decide to attack us using the same logic we used in Iraq.
Too much money involved---Wal-Mart execs intervened when that EC-9(??) was forced down in China, I think when Mr. Walton speaks, China listens.
So what is the point then? The administration came into office with a plan to invade Iraq. Not a five YO contengency plan but a full fledged ideological driven plan to turn the Middle East around.
that is almost certain
The administration did not focus time and attention on Al Qua'ide as much as Clarke thought was necessary.
...yes, but he could be wrong.
Clarke said that the 2002 release wasn't a lie, rather it was put out to excentuate the positives of BushCo while minimizing the negatives.
...this is the lynchpin with Clarke, he is too much a product of the system. Not very flattering. It's like the system produces a guy who, with his pension has every incentive to NOW be equaly diminishing of his former boss--not that he is lying---it's just that now it's become a "question of emphasis."
Personal attacks don't minimize the general feeling among Americans (and this feeling is growing) that BushCo misplaced and mishandled the WOT by attacking SH.
This "feeling" is being fed to the public by a professional media junta that is ideologically opposed to Bush---and it's being fed to the public using every dirty marketing trick and every hard-core sales pitch in the book.
(But the public is breaking free of this, to some extent.)
Will Iraq turn around and become a model society. Who knows, but we can look back at other "Model Societs" built in our image in that region and see that they have failed. Iran was not a religious dictatorship until the revolution in the late 70's. We, the US, placed a puppet government in power in Iraq which was overthrown some 4 years later which eventually led to SH taking the throne. We have a very poor record in reguards to nation building (Japan being the noted exception for extenuating circumstances like 40% of the male population was killed during WWII).
I will bet anyone on this thread that Iraq doesn't last 90 days after the troops leave. At the same time, I fear Islam is doomed to the same fate as the American Indian.
Finally, if Clarke is such a liar then why are his comments in line with those made by O'Neil? Do you think O'Neil the former CEO of Alcoa needed the money? No. Did he do it for attention? No. Did he do it because he felt it was the right thing to do? Yes. Why is it that two high ranking exofficials would do this. Neither of them were meida hogs to begin with. Both had distinguished careers to begin with. Why?
I'll believe O'Neil before Bush, and Clarke least of all. I liked O'Niel, but he didn't want to play ball and Bush canned him. But then it is still a question of emphasis.
What did O'Neil say beside Bush wanted SH's ass mounted on the OO wall, and that he hated his management style?
Originally posted by NaplesX
51% percent is bigger. you lose.
What about the stuff that is on record of what clarke said?
Well, killer 51% is larger. Good job with the math, but depending on the day and location, polling numbers (floats around 40%) show that a large portion of the population--as I stated above--disagree. Again, dodge the issuse all of you. My long post addressed Clarke's credability, and his reasons. Fixate on the insignificant but 32% of a population disagreeing with a war is a large percentage.
Originally posted by dviant
Maybe you missed this the first time around?
Nope, its irrelevent. If you find it significant explian why.
Originally posted by dviant
Maybe you missed this the first time around?
You know a thing that has always bugged me is that opponents of the Iraq war rarely quote this speech. It almost seems that they avoid it, The SOU speech is dwelled on heavily.
This one is largely ignored.
Did you know that Clarke basically admitted that he lied for this and other admins?
Originally posted by dmz
Well for one, we couldn't afford to.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Here's a question: IF SH had decent nuke gear at some point, where did it go? If I had nuke gear, I'd want to trade it for favors rather than tear it up. It seems off that only a year after invasion Iran and Lybia are in full blown confession mode. And yes, I'm sure they had programs before just recently.
What if he DID destroy them? I'll reverse it. We contend that he didn't fully document the DESTRUCTION of the equipment, but we and Russia have also had accounting irregularites with regards to out own programs.
I'm not sure what significance this panel really has---except for yet another round of good-cop bad-cop.
Not contesting this, but members from both parties are still praising the man. They could just as easily attacked him in open session under oath as then did praise him.
This is almost certainly true, but then I find the "he should be focousing like a laser on OBL" misses part of the mideast problem
Agreed; however, invading an Arab Nation on less than firm ground is also as dangerous.
We are too big a trading partner for China to do too much, and that is more true with each passing day.
The point was if we did it on grounds of self protection, others can now use the same tactic. I also mentioned China invading Tiawan which is a very likely scenerio.
...this is the lynchpin with Clarke, he is too much a product of the system. Not very flattering. It's like the system produces a guy who, with his pension has every incentive to NOW be equaly diminishing of his former boss--not that he is lying---it's just that now it's become a "question of emphasis."
Again, agreeed. I don't immediatly discredit the guy for speaking out though. Also, Clarke's statements are in line with what other expatriots have said.
This "feeling" is being fed to the public by a professional media junta that is ideologically opposed to Bush---and it's being fed to the public using every dirty marketing trick and every hard-core sales pitch in the book.
Come'on the idea of liberal media bias shold be laid to rest.
I will bet anyone on this thread that Iraq doesn't last 90 days after the troops leave. At the same time, I fear Islam is doomed to the same fate as the American Indian.
Again, I agree to some extent. Rember, Islam is not some fly-by-night religion. It's been around for some time now, and has a sizeable following.
I'll believe O'Neil before Bush, and Clarke least of all. I liked O'Niel, but he didn't want to play ball and Bush canned him. But then it is still a question of emphasis.
Kudos. O'Neile had no real vested interest in releasing his documents for publication. He was old, and wealthy already.
What did O'Neil say beside Bush wanted SH's ass mounted on the OO wall, and that he hated his management style?
Something like that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
...Did you know that Clarke basically admitted that he lied for this and other admins?
Justify this.
For those about to agrue themselves senselss, I salute you!!
Originally posted by faust9
Justify this.
I watched every minute of his testimony. And he basically said that he was asked to exaggerate or sell the bush standpoint and that this is just what you do when a president asks you to. He also said he has done this for other presidents.
I am not posting a link because his testimony is readily available and I don't want to participate in a "link" war that happens so many times.