what's going on . .. every post is more incomprehensible and illogical than the next . . . are you having diabetic shock or too much coffee?
Thanks for derailing a thread.
BTW, you have said nothing of any consequence besides attack me as a wannabe artist (which is part of my profession . . . so Im not sure about the wannabbe part)
Did you even read the post on what I mean by ideology?!
During the Cold War, the usage of the term was standard practice to imply a Socialistic/Communistic ideologically driven agenda . . . whereas those using the terms thought of themselves as somehow taking reality into account and having flexible ideas about the wsay things worked . .. . is there really a problem with that definition?
and what the hell was that about the soldier blogs?!?!? Could you try to write sentences that make sense please . . . all I could wring from that was that you were saying that I don't in fact support the troops . . . why didn't you just say that?
I think it is possible to 'support the troops' without believing that all uses that they are put to are good uses: if not then it wouldn't be troop support it would be support only for the purposes, irregardeless of the troops involved . . . and it is the people I support . .. as well as the country from which they come . . . not any and all uses that they couldbe put to.
You type long winded responses and want people to actually read them, then you should do the same . . . read before you flippantly and incoherently react
what's going on . .. every post is more incomprehensible and illogical than the next . . . are you having diabetic shock or too much coffee?
Thanks for derailing a thread.
BTW, you have said nothing of any consequence besides attack me as a wannabe artist (which is part of my profession . . . so Im not sure about the wannabbe part)
Did you even read the post on what I mean by ideology?!
During the Cold War, the usage of the term was standard practice to imply a Socialistic/Communistic ideologically driven agenda . . . whereas those using the terms thought of themselves as somehow taking reality into account and having flexible ideas about the wsay things worked . .. . is there really a problem with that definition?
and what the hell was that about the soldier blogs?!?!? Could you try to write sentences that make sense please . . . all I could wring from that was that you were saying that I don't in fact support the troops . . . why didn't you just say that?
I think it is possible to 'support the troops' without believing that all uses that they are put to are good uses: if not then it wouldn't be troop support it would be support only for the purposes, irregardeless of the troops involved . . . and it is the people I support . .. as well as the country from which they come . . . not any and all uses that they couldbe put to.
You type long winded responses and want people to actually read them, then you should do the same . . . read before you flippantly and incoherently react
I'm sorry. Your post was totally incomprehensible. I'll do my best.
You read soldier blogs.
You say soldier blogs blame liberals and terrorists for problem.
You consider yourself to be at least one of those. (I'll let you pick which one)
You consider them disconnected from reality because they believe this.
You declare you support them and that their reality is wrong.
The problem with this is... they are fighting in reality. You are typing from a keyboard.
So it is you who are disconnected from reality. They say your support is hostile. They are the one's dealing with the reality of Iraq so they are correct. You, they guy giving assurances from behind a keyboard, are not.
He makes a contention. He declares other points wrong because he declares the to be ideology.
When he resorts to little things like "facts" I'll be happy to waste time on him.
Nick
Alright. I wouldn't do this for just anyone, but I'll help you a out a bit.
Which of Harald's disputed facts to you disagree with? We'll go through them one by one so that you can contest each one in turn. Like this, together we can make your argument impregnable from accusations that your personal political ideology is influencing you to ignore received truths. OK?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
PNAC documents say "Take out Saddam."
This one?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
People who wrote said docs get into power.
This one?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
People in power say to intelligence, "Find us a reason to take out Saddam." Bush says, "Is that the best you've got?" (quote according to Woodward).
This one?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
People who wrote said docs get into power.
This one?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Bush goes to war with Saddam, killing 10000 civilians.
This one?
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Nothing is found to justify the stated cause for war.
This one?
All you have to do is to say which of these statements isn't factual, and explain why. Then we can move the argument along a bit from a position of strength!
Ah, Nick. While I was typing my previous post, you responded to pfflam's, and you call it 'incomprehensible'. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you overlooked his clarification of the usage of 'ideology.' He wrote:
Quote:
[/i]originally posted by pfflam/i]
During the Cold War, the usage of the term was standard practice to imply a Socialistic/Communistic ideologically driven agenda . . . whereas those using the terms thought of themselves as somehow taking reality into account and having flexible ideas about the wsay things worked . .. . is there really a problem with that definition?
This was the point of his post, no? Now, you don't want to be accused of ducking an argument, I'm sure, so what you should do here is say why this is 'incomprehensible', or, if you did actually read it, why you disagree with it and how the Bush administration is exempt from the charge that Harald and pfflam have made.
We're going to get those bastards on the run, me and you!
Alright. I wouldn't do this for just anyone, but I'll help you a out a bit.
Which of Harald's disputed facts to you disagree with? We'll go through them one by one so that you can contest each one in turn. Like this, together we can make your argument impregnable from accusations that your personal political ideology is influencing you to ignore received truths. OK?
This one?
This one?
This one?
This one?
This one?
This one?
All you have to do is to say which of these statements isn't factual, and explain why. Then we can move the argument along a bit from a position of strength!
As I said, those are all contentions. None of them has been backed. They read like the long conspiracy theory they are.
You declare you support them and that their reality is wrong.
The problem with this is... they are fighting in reality. You are typing from a keyboard.
So, which of the following would you classify as being the most supportive of US troops?
1) Supporting policies that prevent life and limb from being lost in poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly conceived wars?
2) Saying "Atta boy!" to whatever Rush/Coulter/Hannity drivel that some soldier parrots in his blog?
The reality of being "on the ground" in the middle of the fighting certainly brings an important viewpoint to the table, but it doesn't automatically bestow any special insight into the politics that put a soldier into battle in the first place.
Ah, Nick. While I was typing my previous post, you responded to pfflam's, and you call it 'incomprehensible'. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you overlooked his clarification of the usage of 'ideology.' He wrote:
This was the point of his post, no? Now, you don't want to be accused of ducking an argument, I'm sure, so what you should do here is say why this is 'incomprehensible', or, if you did actually read it, why you disagree with it and how the Bush administration is exempt from the charge that Harald and pfflam have made.
We're going to get those bastards on the run, me and you!
Here is what pfflam said...
Quote:
I use it to mean that someone has an IDEAL that they will not let go of and that they would rather force reality to conform.
Pfflam was remarking that the soldier blogs he read didn't get the reality that he supported them. Instead they felt unsupported. He had a problem with their reality claiming it was driven by ideology.
Quote:
I spent some time recently perusing Soldier Blogs and ultra-right wing blogs and it saddens me that all of them could only see the enemy as being 'Lefties' and the Iraqi terrorists . . . .
He claims this cannot be true because of this...
Quote:
I 'support' the troops, I come from a family with three Marine siblings, including a drill Sargent, and a decorated Col father, and still I am the enemy?!?!?
He has military in his family. How can his views be seen as the enemy? These people MUST be ideological to the point of being divorced from reality.
However it is he who is divorced. The people doing the actual fighting know who their friends and enemies are and label them appropriately. The fact that pfflam labels himself as a friend while they according to his own words label him as the enemy is because he is divorced from reality and cannot see past his own ideology.
So, which of the following would you classify as being the most supportive of US troops?
1) Supporting policies that prevent life and limb from being lost in poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly conceived wars?
2) Saying "Atta boy!" to whatever Rush/Coulter/Hannity drivel that some soldier parrots in his blog?
The reality of being "on the ground" in the middle of the fighting certainly brings an important viewpoint to the table, but it doesn't automatically bestow any special insight into the politics that put a soldier into battle in the first place.
1) Contention, opinion, unsupported blathering.
2) Ad-hominem attacks
The reality is that not all viewpoints are valid nor even equal. I can continually call myself your friend while punching you in the face repeatedly. If I claimed your face, nose, and specifically your view were no more valid than mine in determining if mine was a true friendship, I think you would disagree.
The people doing the actual fighting know who their friends and enemies are and label them appropriately. The fact that pfflam labels himself as a friend while they according to his own words label him as the enemy is because he is divorced from reality and cannot see past his own ideology.
Nick, you are in absolutely no position to be making the comments you are making, and your comments have nothing to do with anyone currently in Iraq, as some of my family and friends are.
Damn. It didn't work. And it didn't work for you either.
Makes about as much sense as your other posts.
And remember, when others claim gravity is actually attraction, you can just always call them ignorant, uninformed, ill-read, etc. I mean you have so much practice at it.
I'm still with you on this one, Nick. I'm with you right to the bitter end.
Harald's first disputed fact is that the Project for the New American Century was calling for a military invasion of Iraq in the late '90s. You contest this. The PNAC website, 1999-2000 documents. Look at the essay 'How to Attack Iraq' first.
Explain how Harald is wrong in his contention.
Harald's second disputed fact is that the people who wrote these documents are now in power. From the PNAC website, here are the signatories to the Statement of Intent:
Quote:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen __ Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky __ Steve ForbesAaron Friedberg __ Francis Fukuyama __ Frank Gaffney __ Fred C. IkleDonald Kagan __ Zalmay Khalilzad __ I. Lewis Libby __ Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle __ Peter W. Rodman __ Stephen P. Rosen __ Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld __ Vin Weber __ George Weigel __ Paul Wolfowitz
If you look, you will see the Vice President, the Defense Secretary, the President's brother, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Explain how Harald is wrong in his contention.
Harald's third disputed fact is that George Bush asked 'find us a reason to take out Saddam. Now, sources are a little less obvious and ridiculously easy to find here, so we can argue, I don't know, Woodward is a turncoat, a traitor, a sellout, wrote it for the money and that should do it.
Harald's fourth disputed fact is that Bush went to war and 10,000 civilains have died. Current independent figures say that Harald is right, but I'm sure you have an answer as to why Harald is wrong, so knock yourself out! Let's have it!
Harald's final contested fact is that no evidence for the stated aim of the war (Saddam's weapons of mass destruction) has been found. Could you post the evidence you have?
Nick, you are in absolutely no position to be making the comments you are making, and your comments have nothing to do with anyone currently in Iraq, as some of my family and friends are.
You are welcome to state whatever authority above your own opinion you believe valid. To me, you are talking out your butt just like everyone else. Are you Clinton's former National Security Advisor or in some other position that you believe gives you some authority to which we should honor your opinion above others? We can all have informed opinions on this matter and still disagree. The fact that you can't see that is your own limitation.
(Nick, it's just that you said that 'none' of his facts had been 'backed', and we want to establish the true facts free of ideologically-influenced notion of what's factual or not, no?)
You say harald's statements have no backing, yet there is no question that they do. No question whatsoever. His statements are so well documented we could fill pages and pages of this thread with documents that demonstrate it to be true, and we have done so here already.
So when you say they have no backing, you are making a statement wholly contrary to reality.
Hell, the last time we had a conversation on Iraq you admitted you know very little about it. So just go on and meet Al Bundy for your NO MAAM meeting.
I'm still with you on this one, Nick. I'm with you right to the bitter end.
Harald's first disputed fact is that the Project for the New American Century was calling for a military invasion of Iraq in the late '90s. You contest this. The PNAC website, 1999-2000 documents. Look at the essay 'How to Attack Iraq' first.
Explain how Harald is wrong in his contention.
Well there is that whole logical leap from paper to power. In between you sort of forget all the U.N. resolutions, the actual votes of our own Congress, etc. You basically make it sound like Bush came into office and acted alone. He had the votes of many others, including John Kerry supporting his Iraq actions.
The second contention, that they are now in power, assumes the U.S. has some sort of monarchy. Easy to see how this mistake can be made considering your own background. Congress reserves the war powers and Bush got a resolution from Congress to take the action he did.
So that is what is wrong with the second contention. Being in "power" as the president only give the power to make a request. Congress has the power to grant that request and they did so.
Quote:
Harald's third disputed fact is that George Bush asked 'find us a reason to take out Saddam. Now, sources are a little less obvious and ridiculously easy to find here, so we can argue, I don't know, Woodward is a turncoat, a traitor, a sellout, wrote it for the money and that should do it.
You want me to address a supposed quote in a Woodward book. Would that be first hand, second hand, third hand? I think it would be Woodward's quoting of what Bush said from at minimum a secondary source. Since Bush hasn't confirmed it himself. Get me less than say a third or forth hand source and I will consider wasting my time with it.
Quote:
Harald's fourth disputed fact is that Bush went to war and 10,000 civilains have died. Current independent figures say that Harald is right, but I'm sure you have an answer as to why Harald is wrong, so knock yourself out! Let's have it!
That site has no authority but that of its own making. Secondly it adds this...
Quote:
This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.
So some terrorists blow up a car bomb. The U.S. is responsible. Insurgents blow up a generator which cuts off power to a hospital causing a higher risk during an operation which results in death, the U.S. is responsible. The cow jumps over the moon, the U.S. is responsible.
From my post you claimed had nothing but contentions and was 'conspiracy theory,' please post which contention you are referring to and your evidence to prove they ARE contentions, not fact.
You say harald's statements have no backing, yet there is no question that they do. No question whatsoever. His statements are so well documented we could fill pages and pages of this thread with documents that demonstrate it to be true, and we have done so here already.
So when you say they have no backing, you are making a statement wholly contrary to reality.
Hell, the last time we had a conversation on Iraq you admitted you know very little about it. So just go on and meet Al Bundy for your NO MAAM meeting.
Cooperative Reseach, is 404 error no found on who they are.
However we have this...
Quote:
This project attempts to avoid adopting a single theoretical lens through which to view the issues addressed by our website. The reason for this is that narrow interpretations would likely marginalize those people who may have different theoretical and philosophical assumptions, but who nonetheless share similar criticisms about the current state of the world. In these times, fragmentation and infighting should be avoided among those fighting against the war of disinformation being waged by the governments and the corporate media. The only way that we can effectively work to undermine the belligerency of corporate rule, current U.S. foreign policy and the like, is to transcend such differences and unite in a common struggle for true democracy. To that end, this website has attempted to accommodate opinions from both the ?left? and the ?right?.
We take the pieces and try to put them together to put them together into one whole that is different than any other espoused view by news organizations or governments. Others would call these conspiracies but you can't because we claimed we are accomodating the left and right, really we claimed it I swear. Also this guy with the handle giant quotes us so we are "all good."
Who are "we." What is "true democracy" since it cannot be obtained from or the information given by "corporate media" or "governments" is false?
He had the votes of many others, including John Kerry supporting his Iraq actions.
Context. Go back and learn the sequence of events and how congress was pressured politically. Easiest place to start are at the letters NIE, but that's just the tip.
Not that you would do this since it you force you to learn something about it.
Comments
what's going on . .. every post is more incomprehensible and illogical than the next . . . are you having diabetic shock or too much coffee?
Thanks for derailing a thread.
BTW, you have said nothing of any consequence besides attack me as a wannabe artist (which is part of my profession . . . so Im not sure about the wannabbe part)
Did you even read the post on what I mean by ideology?!
During the Cold War, the usage of the term was standard practice to imply a Socialistic/Communistic ideologically driven agenda . . . whereas those using the terms thought of themselves as somehow taking reality into account and having flexible ideas about the wsay things worked . .. . is there really a problem with that definition?
and what the hell was that about the soldier blogs?!?!? Could you try to write sentences that make sense please . . . all I could wring from that was that you were saying that I don't in fact support the troops . . . why didn't you just say that?
I think it is possible to 'support the troops' without believing that all uses that they are put to are good uses: if not then it wouldn't be troop support it would be support only for the purposes, irregardeless of the troops involved . . . and it is the people I support . .. as well as the country from which they come . . . not any and all uses that they couldbe put to.
You type long winded responses and want people to actually read them, then you should do the same . . . read before you flippantly and incoherently react
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Now, this is a good short post with a sensible sentence construction, and I understand it perfectly.
The poster, unfortunately, does not make a point. He makes a contention, but offers nothing to support it.
How, exactly, is Harald in the wrong here? What exactly does he say that is incorrect?
He makes a contention. He declares other points wrong because he declares the to be ideology.
When he resorts to little things like "facts" I'll be happy to waste time on him.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
Trumpt . . .
what's going on . .. every post is more incomprehensible and illogical than the next . . . are you having diabetic shock or too much coffee?
Thanks for derailing a thread.
BTW, you have said nothing of any consequence besides attack me as a wannabe artist (which is part of my profession . . . so Im not sure about the wannabbe part)
Did you even read the post on what I mean by ideology?!
During the Cold War, the usage of the term was standard practice to imply a Socialistic/Communistic ideologically driven agenda . . . whereas those using the terms thought of themselves as somehow taking reality into account and having flexible ideas about the wsay things worked . .. . is there really a problem with that definition?
and what the hell was that about the soldier blogs?!?!? Could you try to write sentences that make sense please . . . all I could wring from that was that you were saying that I don't in fact support the troops . . . why didn't you just say that?
I think it is possible to 'support the troops' without believing that all uses that they are put to are good uses: if not then it wouldn't be troop support it would be support only for the purposes, irregardeless of the troops involved . . . and it is the people I support . .. as well as the country from which they come . . . not any and all uses that they couldbe put to.
You type long winded responses and want people to actually read them, then you should do the same . . . read before you flippantly and incoherently react
I'm sorry. Your post was totally incomprehensible. I'll do my best.
You read soldier blogs.
You say soldier blogs blame liberals and terrorists for problem.
You consider yourself to be at least one of those. (I'll let you pick which one)
You consider them disconnected from reality because they believe this.
You declare you support them and that their reality is wrong.
The problem with this is... they are fighting in reality. You are typing from a keyboard.
So it is you who are disconnected from reality. They say your support is hostile. They are the one's dealing with the reality of Iraq so they are correct. You, they guy giving assurances from behind a keyboard, are not.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
He makes a contention. He declares other points wrong because he declares the to be ideology.
When he resorts to little things like "facts" I'll be happy to waste time on him.
Nick
Alright. I wouldn't do this for just anyone, but I'll help you a out a bit.
Which of Harald's disputed facts to you disagree with? We'll go through them one by one so that you can contest each one in turn. Like this, together we can make your argument impregnable from accusations that your personal political ideology is influencing you to ignore received truths. OK?
Originally posted by Harald
PNAC documents say "Take out Saddam."
This one?
Originally posted by Harald
People who wrote said docs get into power.
This one?
Originally posted by Harald
People in power say to intelligence, "Find us a reason to take out Saddam." Bush says, "Is that the best you've got?" (quote according to Woodward).
This one?
Originally posted by Harald
People who wrote said docs get into power.
This one?
Originally posted by Harald
Bush goes to war with Saddam, killing 10000 civilians.
This one?
Originally posted by Harald
Nothing is found to justify the stated cause for war.
This one?
All you have to do is to say which of these statements isn't factual, and explain why. Then we can move the argument along a bit from a position of strength!
[/i]originally posted by pfflam/i]
During the Cold War, the usage of the term was standard practice to imply a Socialistic/Communistic ideologically driven agenda . . . whereas those using the terms thought of themselves as somehow taking reality into account and having flexible ideas about the wsay things worked . .. . is there really a problem with that definition?
This was the point of his post, no? Now, you don't want to be accused of ducking an argument, I'm sure, so what you should do here is say why this is 'incomprehensible', or, if you did actually read it, why you disagree with it and how the Bush administration is exempt from the charge that Harald and pfflam have made.
We're going to get those bastards on the run, me and you!
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Alright. I wouldn't do this for just anyone, but I'll help you a out a bit.
Which of Harald's disputed facts to you disagree with? We'll go through them one by one so that you can contest each one in turn. Like this, together we can make your argument impregnable from accusations that your personal political ideology is influencing you to ignore received truths. OK?
This one?
This one?
This one?
This one?
This one?
This one?
All you have to do is to say which of these statements isn't factual, and explain why. Then we can move the argument along a bit from a position of strength!
As I said, those are all contentions. None of them has been backed. They read like the long conspiracy theory they are.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You declare you support them and that their reality is wrong.
The problem with this is... they are fighting in reality. You are typing from a keyboard.
So, which of the following would you classify as being the most supportive of US troops?
1) Supporting policies that prevent life and limb from being lost in poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly conceived wars?
2) Saying "Atta boy!" to whatever Rush/Coulter/Hannity drivel that some soldier parrots in his blog?
The reality of being "on the ground" in the middle of the fighting certainly brings an important viewpoint to the table, but it doesn't automatically bestow any special insight into the politics that put a soldier into battle in the first place.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Ah, Nick. While I was typing my previous post, you responded to pfflam's, and you call it 'incomprehensible'. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you overlooked his clarification of the usage of 'ideology.' He wrote:
This was the point of his post, no? Now, you don't want to be accused of ducking an argument, I'm sure, so what you should do here is say why this is 'incomprehensible', or, if you did actually read it, why you disagree with it and how the Bush administration is exempt from the charge that Harald and pfflam have made.
We're going to get those bastards on the run, me and you!
Here is what pfflam said...
I use it to mean that someone has an IDEAL that they will not let go of and that they would rather force reality to conform.
Pfflam was remarking that the soldier blogs he read didn't get the reality that he supported them. Instead they felt unsupported. He had a problem with their reality claiming it was driven by ideology.
I spent some time recently perusing Soldier Blogs and ultra-right wing blogs and it saddens me that all of them could only see the enemy as being 'Lefties' and the Iraqi terrorists . . . .
He claims this cannot be true because of this...
I 'support' the troops, I come from a family with three Marine siblings, including a drill Sargent, and a decorated Col father, and still I am the enemy?!?!?
He has military in his family. How can his views be seen as the enemy? These people MUST be ideological to the point of being divorced from reality.
However it is he who is divorced. The people doing the actual fighting know who their friends and enemies are and label them appropriately. The fact that pfflam labels himself as a friend while they according to his own words label him as the enemy is because he is divorced from reality and cannot see past his own ideology.
Not ducked, now run for cover.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
None of them has been backed.
And gravity makes things rise off the ground.
Damn. It didn't work. And it didn't work for you either.
Originally posted by shetline
So, which of the following would you classify as being the most supportive of US troops?
1) Supporting policies that prevent life and limb from being lost in poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly conceived wars?
2) Saying "Atta boy!" to whatever Rush/Coulter/Hannity drivel that some soldier parrots in his blog?
The reality of being "on the ground" in the middle of the fighting certainly brings an important viewpoint to the table, but it doesn't automatically bestow any special insight into the politics that put a soldier into battle in the first place.
1) Contention, opinion, unsupported blathering.
2) Ad-hominem attacks
The reality is that not all viewpoints are valid nor even equal. I can continually call myself your friend while punching you in the face repeatedly. If I claimed your face, nose, and specifically your view were no more valid than mine in determining if mine was a true friendship, I think you would disagree.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The people doing the actual fighting know who their friends and enemies are and label them appropriately. The fact that pfflam labels himself as a friend while they according to his own words label him as the enemy is because he is divorced from reality and cannot see past his own ideology.
Nick, you are in absolutely no position to be making the comments you are making, and your comments have nothing to do with anyone currently in Iraq, as some of my family and friends are.
Originally posted by giant
And gravity makes things rise off the ground.
Damn. It didn't work. And it didn't work for you either.
Makes about as much sense as your other posts.
And remember, when others claim gravity is actually attraction, you can just always call them ignorant, uninformed, ill-read, etc. I mean you have so much practice at it.
Nick
Harald's first disputed fact is that the Project for the New American Century was calling for a military invasion of Iraq in the late '90s. You contest this. The PNAC website, 1999-2000 documents. Look at the essay 'How to Attack Iraq' first.
Explain how Harald is wrong in his contention.
Harald's second disputed fact is that the people who wrote these documents are now in power. From the PNAC website, here are the signatories to the Statement of Intent:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen __ Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky __ Steve ForbesAaron Friedberg __ Francis Fukuyama __ Frank Gaffney __ Fred C. IkleDonald Kagan __ Zalmay Khalilzad __ I. Lewis Libby __ Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle __ Peter W. Rodman __ Stephen P. Rosen __ Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld __ Vin Weber __ George Weigel __ Paul Wolfowitz
If you look, you will see the Vice President, the Defense Secretary, the President's brother, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Explain how Harald is wrong in his contention.
Harald's third disputed fact is that George Bush asked 'find us a reason to take out Saddam. Now, sources are a little less obvious and ridiculously easy to find here, so we can argue, I don't know, Woodward is a turncoat, a traitor, a sellout, wrote it for the money and that should do it.
Harald's fourth disputed fact is that Bush went to war and 10,000 civilains have died. Current independent figures say that Harald is right, but I'm sure you have an answer as to why Harald is wrong, so knock yourself out! Let's have it!
Harald's final contested fact is that no evidence for the stated aim of the war (Saddam's weapons of mass destruction) has been found. Could you post the evidence you have?
I believe in you. We can do it.
Originally posted by giant
Nick, you are in absolutely no position to be making the comments you are making, and your comments have nothing to do with anyone currently in Iraq, as some of my family and friends are.
You are welcome to state whatever authority above your own opinion you believe valid. To me, you are talking out your butt just like everyone else. Are you Clinton's former National Security Advisor or in some other position that you believe gives you some authority to which we should honor your opinion above others? We can all have informed opinions on this matter and still disagree. The fact that you can't see that is your own limitation.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Makes about as much sense as your other posts.
Sorry, I forgot you need it spelled out for you.
You say harald's statements have no backing, yet there is no question that they do. No question whatsoever. His statements are so well documented we could fill pages and pages of this thread with documents that demonstrate it to be true, and we have done so here already.
So when you say they have no backing, you are making a statement wholly contrary to reality.
Hell, the last time we had a conversation on Iraq you admitted you know very little about it. So just go on and meet Al Bundy for your NO MAAM meeting.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'm still with you on this one, Nick. I'm with you right to the bitter end.
Harald's first disputed fact is that the Project for the New American Century was calling for a military invasion of Iraq in the late '90s. You contest this. The PNAC website, 1999-2000 documents. Look at the essay 'How to Attack Iraq' first.
Explain how Harald is wrong in his contention.
Well there is that whole logical leap from paper to power. In between you sort of forget all the U.N. resolutions, the actual votes of our own Congress, etc. You basically make it sound like Bush came into office and acted alone. He had the votes of many others, including John Kerry supporting his Iraq actions.
The second contention, that they are now in power, assumes the U.S. has some sort of monarchy. Easy to see how this mistake can be made considering your own background. Congress reserves the war powers and Bush got a resolution from Congress to take the action he did.
So that is what is wrong with the second contention. Being in "power" as the president only give the power to make a request. Congress has the power to grant that request and they did so.
Harald's third disputed fact is that George Bush asked 'find us a reason to take out Saddam. Now, sources are a little less obvious and ridiculously easy to find here, so we can argue, I don't know, Woodward is a turncoat, a traitor, a sellout, wrote it for the money and that should do it.
You want me to address a supposed quote in a Woodward book. Would that be first hand, second hand, third hand? I think it would be Woodward's quoting of what Bush said from at minimum a secondary source. Since Bush hasn't confirmed it himself. Get me less than say a third or forth hand source and I will consider wasting my time with it.
Harald's fourth disputed fact is that Bush went to war and 10,000 civilains have died. Current independent figures say that Harald is right, but I'm sure you have an answer as to why Harald is wrong, so knock yourself out! Let's have it!
That site has no authority but that of its own making. Secondly it adds this...
This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.
So some terrorists blow up a car bomb. The U.S. is responsible. Insurgents blow up a generator which cuts off power to a hospital causing a higher risk during an operation which results in death, the U.S. is responsible. The cow jumps over the moon, the U.S. is responsible.
Nick
From my post you claimed had nothing but contentions and was 'conspiracy theory,' please post which contention you are referring to and your evidence to prove they ARE contentions, not fact.
Feel free to use Hassan's breakdown.
Thanks!
Originally posted by giant
Sorry, I forgot you need it spelled out for you.
You say harald's statements have no backing, yet there is no question that they do. No question whatsoever. His statements are so well documented we could fill pages and pages of this thread with documents that demonstrate it to be true, and we have done so here already.
So when you say they have no backing, you are making a statement wholly contrary to reality.
Hell, the last time we had a conversation on Iraq you admitted you know very little about it. So just go on and meet Al Bundy for your NO MAAM meeting.
Cooperative Reseach, is 404 error no found on who they are.
However we have this...
This project attempts to avoid adopting a single theoretical lens through which to view the issues addressed by our website. The reason for this is that narrow interpretations would likely marginalize those people who may have different theoretical and philosophical assumptions, but who nonetheless share similar criticisms about the current state of the world. In these times, fragmentation and infighting should be avoided among those fighting against the war of disinformation being waged by the governments and the corporate media. The only way that we can effectively work to undermine the belligerency of corporate rule, current U.S. foreign policy and the like, is to transcend such differences and unite in a common struggle for true democracy. To that end, this website has attempted to accommodate opinions from both the ?left? and the ?right?.
We take the pieces and try to put them together to put them together into one whole that is different than any other espoused view by news organizations or governments. Others would call these conspiracies but you can't because we claimed we are accomodating the left and right, really we claimed it I swear. Also this guy with the handle giant quotes us so we are "all good."
Who are "we." What is "true democracy" since it cannot be obtained from or the information given by "corporate media" or "governments" is false?
Good questions that would reveal an agenda.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
He had the votes of many others, including John Kerry supporting his Iraq actions.
Context. Go back and learn the sequence of events and how congress was pressured politically. Easiest place to start are at the letters NIE, but that's just the tip.
Not that you would do this since it you force you to learn something about it.