As you can clearly see from this picture the frencies are preparing a revenge against USA because we renamed french fries to freedom fries. They have build a large electro-state emitting doomsdays machine that will throw lightning over the entire US.
But what kind of defence is that? "Well you know we wanted to start this war so of course we lied a little bit to you. Gosh you really didn´t think we would lie to our allied? [/surprised face]"
Who said it was a defense?
I'm not sure it even needs defending. It's nothing special. They all lie all the time. Just because you have a particular partisan bitch doesn't mean it's actually any more important.
Quote:
If your administration actually thought the were bending the truth/lied and the allied would be able to look through that then why lie in the first place?
They would look like a world government, because all world governments lie to some extent.
How much did Bush lie? By the actual tangible evidence that he lied posted here apparently nothing extreme.
--
giant:
Quote:
No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.
First off, not all of the information they were providing has been shown to be incorrect, SOME of it has. So your first sentence is false. The second is likely true and I find nothing unique or compelling about that. That's what those intelligence services are there for, in reality.
Quote:
Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.
Prove to me that Iraq wasn't a threat!
Quote:
Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.
That's not the center of my argument at all. I would contend that the Bush Administration is somewhat fractured but in the end pushes an agenda and works within certain parameters to meet said agenda. Lying and obfuscation is within those parameters.
Quote:
So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.
Clinton is a perfectly valid subject, he was the US president for 8 years before Bush and his handling of the Iraq situation is 100% on-topic and relevant.
Besides, who was the first person in the thread to bring Clinton in? Not me. Not SDW. It was BR. Take it up with him.
Quote:
I'm not spanish, but I feel horrible for what my government coerced their's into.
How did we coerce them?
More strong accusations and indictments with no backing logic.
Quote:
Why?
Because in terms of human impact, containment is worse than war.
Quote:
Are you going to bring up the human toll due to our neglect in Congo?
Well, since Congo has ****-all to do with Iraq and my argument on the human impact front, no.
I don´t think Powell woke up that day and said "Today I want to lie to the SC". I think pressure was put on CIA and to deliver something that could be used. Then other parts of the administration picked out the most pessimistic analysis and gave it to Powell.
Noone lied but as a whole there was so little truth left that every person along the way knew he was a link in a chain that as a whole lied.
Hell even groverat agrees to some extent to this (and now he comes and say I have misunderstood him. He always do)
First off, not all of the information they were providing has been shown to be incorrect, SOME of it has.
such as?
Quote:
Prove to me that Iraq wasn't a threat!
Who controls Iraq? When has Iraq attacked the US? What did Iraq have that threatened the US?
See I'm not making a claim, I'm making a negation of a claim. I don't need to prove that pixies don't exist because the original claim affirming their existence is completely baseless.
The Bush admin made a claim and presented 'evidence' to try to support it. That 'evidence' doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all, therefore the claim is baseless.
The fact that the US now controls Iraq and that WMD were never used against Americans shows defintively that Iraq under Saddam was not a threat. Period.
If you have an affirmative claim, have some supporting evidence. I have more than enough evidence supporting my claim, and AO is filled with it.
Quote:
That's not the center of my argument at all. I would contend that the Bush Administration is somewhat fractured but in the end pushes an agenda and works within certain parameters to meet said agenda. Lying and obfuscation is within those parameters.
If the bush admin ignored mountains of intel and UN reports because of political beliefs, then it is either decietful or incompetent. Take your pick. They were either wrong or lying.
Quote:
Clinton
Clinton is out of office, and he does not determine the Bush admin's policies. Using his actions to justify what the bush admin is doing is BS.
Quote:
How did we coerce them?
I don't know, but it's clear that the upper levels of the spanish government did not act according to the will of the citizens, 90%+ of whom were against an attack on Iraq under any circumstances.
Quote:
Because in terms of human impact, containment is worse than war.
Sorry, but obviously the Iraq situation could have been handled without this war. This whole containment/war dichotomy is not realistic or honest. There is no doubt that Saddam could have been convicted in the ICC. We could have let the inspections go on longer. There were a variety of options. However, the war was portrayed as urgent because of the supposed danger of Saddam.
Quote:
Well, since Congo has ****-all to do with Iraq and my argument on the human impact front, no.
It has everything to do with it. If our military is really being used for humanitarian reasons, it should be in Congo right now. In reality, not even a small number are.
This revisionist argument that we attacked Iraq and killed thousands of Iraqis in order to do a great humanitarian act absolutely rediculous and has no basis whatsoever in reality. Revisionists just use it to try to justify their ignorant support for a needless and unprecidented war.
I don´t think Powell woke up that day and said "Today I want to lie to the SC". I think pressure was put on CIA and to deliver something that could be used.
This we know:
Quote:
At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bulls- -"
they obviously did. Bush cited a ficticious AIEA report to support his war, saying "what more justification do you need?" Then, when called on it by the IAEA, the white house claimed Bush was referring to yet another non-existent IAEA report. The Bush admin cited the nigerian document for months, but it only took the IAEA a few hours to see that it was FABRICATED.
And most recently, Bush has repeated claimed that 'we have found wmd' even though he is referring to british hydrogen generators and, guess what, NO WMD WERE FOUND IN THEM.
I have a full time job and go to school, and I knew what they were saying was fabricated. This is not only their job but their decisions determine the fates of hundreds of millions of people. If any single one of them is that incompetent that they did not know what they were saying was simply not true, they need to be removed immediately.
What some people seem to be forgetting is that the neo-cons and PNAC types have been writing for years about the various reasons why we needed to attack Iraq, and it had little if anything to do with WMD. Hell, the leader of the DEFENCE POLICY BOARD, someone who has been caught spying for Israel, is famous for his advocacy of an Iraq invasion for the good of Israel.
But every document has the obvious reason: the need to assert US dominance over the world while we can.
WMD were just a way to sell the war, and the Bush admin knew that.
What some people seem to be forgetting is that the neo-cons and PNAC types have been writing for years about the various reasons why we needed to attack Iraq, and it had little if anything to do with WMD. Hell, the leader of the DEFENCE POLICY BOARD, someone who has been caught spying for Israel, is famous for his advocacy of an Iraq invasion for the good of Israel.
But every document has the obvious reason: the need to assert US dominance over the world while we can.
WMD were just a way to sell the war, and the Bush admin knew that.
Exactly, forget the ulterior motivations of profit for the allready super-wealthy or the oil motive the real reason is the Pax Americana and the "road map" for the "Democracy Domino Effect"
. . . remember that other ideological expansionism that went along with the rubric of the "Domino Effect"?!?
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
There's a whole page of it in this speech transcript:
Hell even groverat agrees to some extent to this (and now he comes and say I have misunderstood him. He always do)
I disagree only to say that the Bush administration was most likely more aggressive about the data fudging. They would be stupid not to.
I don't think it's a chain of innocent blunders caused by an ambiguous atmosphere of pressure to find something. I think there were concerted efforts to bend the truth and I guaran-damn-tee you Powell knew about some of it.
You make it sound too nice and incidental. You're just too nice!
--
giant:
Quote:
such as?
What was proven incorrect? Haven't you been working your ass off on that one yourself?
Quote:
Who controls Iraq? When has Iraq attacked the US? What did Iraq have that threatened the US?
Hussein (did). Never (Germany didn't attack the US in WWII (not equating the two), bad logic). They may or may not have had a lot of threatening things.
Quote:
See I'm not making a claim, I'm making a negation of a claim. I don't need to prove that pixies don't exist because the original claim affirming their existence is completely baseless.
Pixies are baseless yes. Iraqi WMD have a long and well-documented history.
Quote:
The fact that the US now controls Iraq and that WMD were never used against Americans shows defintively that Iraq under Saddam was not a threat. Period.
How does that prove anything?
What would it mean even if it did?
Quote:
If the bush admin ignored mountains of intel and UN reports because of political beliefs, then it is either decietful or incompetent. Take your pick. They were either wrong or lying.
They were lying. As I've said one million ****ing times.
But what the hell does it matter?
Quote:
I don't know, but it's clear that the upper levels of the spanish government did not act according to the will of the citizens, 90%+ of whom were against an attack on Iraq under any circumstances.
And this indicates coercion... how?
Quote:
There is no doubt that Saddam could have been convicted in the ICC.
Then do what? Put him in jail?
Quote:
We could have let the inspections go on longer.
That's containment policy, genius.
Quote:
If our military is really being used for humanitarian reasons, it should be in Congo right now. In reality, not even a small number are.
If I am eating a McDonald's cheeseburger I should be eating a Burger King cheeseburger if I'm eating cheeseburgers?
This is the dumbest thing you've said all thread. There are quite a few humanitarian causes around the world for us to participate in militarily, just because we only do one or two doesn't mean those cease to be valid humanitarian causes.
Quote:
This revisionist argument that we attacked Iraq and killed thousands of Iraqis in order to do a great humanitarian act absolutely rediculous and has no basis whatsoever in reality. Revisionists just use it to try to justify their ignorant support for a needless and unprecidented war.
So I started the revisionism BEFORE the war?
Wow. I'm a ****ing psychic!
Sounds like someone is uncomfortable acknowledging the failure of "diplomacy" in this regard.
What was proven incorrect? Haven't you been working your ass off on that one yourself?
Everything I have heard has been demonstrated incorrect. But maybe I missed something. Take your pick.
Quote:
Hussein (did). Never (Germany didn't attack the US in WWII (not equating the two), bad logic). They may or may not have had a lot of threatening things.
Iraq was easy to take. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never posed a threat.
If you want to demonstrate that it was a threat go ahead. I have nothing to prove, except that your claim has no basis. So if you make the affirmative claim that Iraq was a threat, you have to back it up.
Quote:
Pixies are baseless yes. Iraqi WMD have a long and well-documented history.
And it's well-documented that the situation has changed dramatically.
Quote:
How does that prove anything?
What would it mean even if it did?
if Iraq isn't a danger to the US, then it's not a danger to the US.
Quote:
And this indicates coercion... how?
Just like Iraq was a threat, right groverat? Here's a hint: whatever you assume, it will turn out wrong.
So why did he go against the will of 90%+ of his citizens?
Quote:
Then do what? Put him in jail?
Many other courses of action, but the Bush admin said they would take too long and that the Iraq 'threat' was 'urgent'.
Quote:
That's containment policy, genius.
No it's not. It would only be containment if it was stagnant.
Quote:
If I am eating a McDonald's cheeseburger I should be eating a Burger King cheeseburger if I'm eating cheeseburgers?
This is the dumbest thing you've said all thread. There are quite a few humanitarian causes around the world for us to participate in militarily, just because we only do one or two doesn't mean those cease to be valid humanitarian causes.
Actually, you have that backwards since that's the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Iraq was a situation that could have been dealt with in a different manner. The only justification for IMMEDIATE military invasion was the fabrication of an 'urgent threat.' Congo, on the other hand, needs a substantial military force right now in order to keep the peace.
Quote:
So I started the revisionism BEFORE the war?
You bought into the WMD propaganda. There's a whole thread on page 2 of AO where you state that war is the only way to disarm Iraq. As soon as you realized that was not true, you focused on 'humanitarian' reasons.
Everything I have heard has been demonstrated incorrect. But maybe I missed something. Take your pick.
Oh, you're looking for something that Bush said re:WMD that wasn't a lie.
Ok.
He said repeatedly that Iraq was in violation of key disarmament resolutions and that they hadn't disarmed. That is 100% truth.
Quote:
Iraq was easy to take. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never posed a threat.
To the continental US? Likely not. To our interests in the region? Unclear at best.
Quote:
So if you make the affirmative claim that Iraq was a threat, you have to back it up.
How about unaccounted-for biological weapons and a recent history of territorial aggression?
Quote:
And it's well-documented that the situation has changed dramatically.
Is it well-documented? Are we counting op-ed pieces?
If you know that Iraq destroyed items in the Cluster document please contact UNMOVIC.
Quote:
So why did he go against the will of 90%+ of his citizens?
Why did Blair go against the will of his citizens?
1) Opinion polls are bullshit ploys used by a particular side only when it suits them.
2) No leader should run his nation on opinion polls. We'll see if he gets re-elected. That's the indication.
Again, giant, why be so melodramatic with garbage like "coerced" when you have absolutely no backing?
Quote:
Many other courses of action, but the Bush admin said they would take too long and that the Iraq 'threat' was 'urgent'.
Ok, so he's convicted by the ICC, then what? Then what? Please answer. Then what?
Quote:
No it's not. It would only be containment if it was stagnant.
If Iraq can't/won't answer the questions in the Cluster document, what do you do?
How long do you give them?
Quote:
You bought into the WMD propaganda. There's a whole thread on page 2 of AO where you state that war is the only way to disarm Iraq. As soon as you realized that was not true, you focused on 'humanitarian' reasons.
And as I told bunge at the time, disarmament and threat status aren't linked. Someone can be a threat but meet all UN arms requirements (see: US), another can lack threat but not be disarmed (see: Iraq).
So the only "WMD propaganda" I bought into was the UN's.
Also, could you send me that thread as I've asked multiple times? [email protected] if you please.
I actually need two posts to be allowed to fit it all in:
Quote:
Actually, that's the opposite of the truth. All available evidence points to disarmament and discontinuation of weapons programs.
That is patently false. The evidence points to Iraqi deception in order to get the world off its back. They did destroy *some* weapons. They also gave the inspectors problems for 12 years. They also produced banned delivery systems for said weapons. We know. Your very precious UN inspectors found them BEING produced. When someone has a track record like Saddam, ANY violation is a major one. Any lack of cooperation...any banned, undelcared weapons, any omissions in the delclaration itself, etc. These ALL came to pass....and your telling us Iraq had disarmed.
Quote:
I don't see why it is so damn difficult for people to post specific information that was cited by the Bush admin as a threat that justified war. Violation of UN resolutions in itself is not a justification for war. The violations in this instance were portrayed as a THREAT TO THE US. This is why this war happened. Not because Iraq had more sloan valves than it was allow. This war happened because the Bush admin portrayed Iraq and it's violations as a threat.
Violation of 17 UN resolutions IS a justification for war. Otherwise, there is no consequence or "teeth" to the resolutions in the first place. Iraq was a threat because even small amounts of these weapons could easily have been given to a group like Al-Queda, which we have since proven were present in Iraq. Bush never argued or stressed that Saddam might eminently lauch an Biologically loaded ICBM at us. That wasn't the point.
Do you deny the possibiltiy of a hostile, anti-US dicator with a history of WMD use giving such WMD to a terrorist organization?
Quote:
So, again, what specifically was a threat to the US? Can anyone here that supported the war on those terms actually answer that question, or do you guys just hide behind vague and unsubstantiated statements like SDW?
I just answered that. As far as my statements being unsubstantiated, that's your opinion. I maintain that there is no reaosn to think that Saddam gave up his programs. There's no evidence he did...at all.
Quote:
But any discussion of anthrax should also point out that the US (and every terrorist on earth) knows FROM EXPERIENCE that anthrax is not a threat to the US. It's probably one of the most inefficient terror weapons imaginable. So you probably shouldn't get too hung up on it if your goal is to try to make Iraq look like a threat.
Especially since Iraq's anthrax, if any was left, was not nearly as effective as what was in the letters. Hell, it wasn't even dried, so it couldn't be airborne.
There's nothing here that even remotely resembles a threat.
That's a highly unqualified opinion. It's also laden with the supposition that Iraq probably didn't have any Anthrax left, which there is no evidence of.
Quote:
what you have been asking for is a perfect world. Unfortunately for you, in the physical world there is actually a process that people need to go through to get things done. All evidence demonstrates Iraqi compliance on this issue. Period.
Process? Process? how about the ridiculous UN inspection process which, depsite thousands of Iraqi violations, had no consequences. How about 17 resoltutions with NO results? And there you go again..."all evidence points to Iraqi compliance". Hmmm...I think I see where is deluded thinking is going.....
Quote:
You definition doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that all evidence points to Iraqi compliance on this issue and you can provide no evidence otherwise. End of story.
And there it is! Iraq doesn;t ahve any WMD!! Iraq has disarmed! He actually believes this!
Quote:
No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.
Yet another stop on giants twisting of all reality. He has no basis for this statement. None.
Quote:
Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.
Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.
If the Bush admin really is that dramatically incompetent, Bush needs to be taken out of power immediately and a massive review of our government needs to be conducted.
As for Clinton, I think he was a crook. Better than Bush, but a crook. So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.
It just keeps getting better. See, giant knows better than the thousands of intelligence professionals working for the US and UK intelligence services, all of whom have the most sophisticated technology available, not to mention vast financila resources and intelligence networks. After all, if we haven't physically found the wepaons, they must not be there! Incompetence, I say!!! Additionally, even IF the CIA, NSA and Military Intel and British Intel were blatantly wrong, that doesn't necessarily represent "The Bush Administration".
Quote:
See I'm not making a claim, I'm making a negation of a claim. I don't need to prove that pixies don't exist because the original claim affirming their existence is completely baseless.
We're not talking about pixies. We're talking about weapons we knew he at least had at one point because he used them. In other words, existence of said weapons has been demonstrated, irrefutably, at least one time.
Or rather, if we WERE talking about pixies: Once their existence is demonstrated, it's awfully hard to prove they don't exist. WMD did, in fact, exist in Iraq and there was no reason to think they didn't anymore. I suppose Saddam just complied, changing his nature completely? I suppose his lying regime, complete with such figures as Baghdad Bob, just turned over a new leaf with no real reason to do so...AND, no EVIDENCE of them doing so?
Quote:
The Bush admin made a claim and presented 'evidence' to try to support it. That 'evidence' doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all, therefore the claim is baseless.
The fact that the US now controls Iraq and that WMD were never used against Americans shows defintively that Iraq under Saddam was not a threat. Period.
If you have an affirmative claim, have some supporting evidence. I have more than enough evidence supporting my claim, and AO is filled with it.
1) Ahhh, now the burden of proof argument. He's not there yet, though....
2) "Shows definitively" ? Why? There couldn't be another reason....like we completely disprupted their command and control facilities? It doesn't show a damn thing. I could easily make the argument that Saddam was/is concerned with his place in Arab history, and didn't want to look bad by using the weapons he said he didn't have.
If the bush admin ignored mountains of intel and UN reports because of political beliefs, then it is either decietful or incompetent. Take your pick. They were either wrong or lying.
Oh! I see! Those are the choices! Nice strategy there. It can't be that the weapons were so well hidden after five years of no inspectors? It can't be that they have been moved to Syria? It can't be that they HAVEN'T covered every sqaure inch of terriotry, underground bunker, etc. in a country the size of California?
Quote:
I don't know, but it's clear that the upper levels of the spanish government did not act according to the will of the citizens, 90%+ of whom were against an attack on Iraq under any circumstances.
And why do you think that is? I suppose it can't be because the government decided it was necessary regardless of public opinion? No, I suppose you'd argue that we bullied Spain. This despite the fact that Mexico didn't go along with us, even though we are the only reason on this Earth they exist economically. This, despite the fact that Canada opposed our policy...even though they are our single biggest trading partner. Yeah...we pressured them.
Quote:
Sorry, but obviously the Iraq situation could have been handled without this war. This whole containment/war dichotomy is not realistic or honest. There is no doubt that Saddam could have been convicted in the ICC. We could have let the inspections go on longer. There were a variety of options. However, the war was portrayed as urgent because of the supposed danger of Saddam.
giant, now you are arguing for containment? What? The inspectors could have gone on longer....WHY? They already found Iraq in breach. They weren't getting total cooperation. They went on for 12 years and 17 resolutions....and it became obvious from moment one that Iraq wasn;t going to cooperate this time, either.
Quote:
It has everything to do with it. If our military is really being used for humanitarian reasons, it should be in Congo right now. In reality, not even a small number are.
I have to agree we should be.
Quote:
This revisionist argument that we attacked Iraq and killed thousands of Iraqis in order to do a great humanitarian act absolutely rediculous and has no basis whatsoever in reality. Revisionists just use it to try to justify their ignorant support for a needless and unprecidented war.
It's only revisionist if one cites it as the primary reason for war. I have no doubt it was a major reason, as it should have been.
Quote:
have a full time job and go to school, and I knew what they were saying was fabricated. This is not only their job but their decisions determine the fates of hundreds of millions of people. If any single one of them is that incompetent that they did not know what they were saying was simply not true, they need to be removed immediately.
giant, I'll just keep saying it. Though we haven't found stockpiles of WMD, that doesn't mean they aren't there. In addition, and as I said several times before: Any person who, upon looking at the facts and historical context, comes to the conclusion that Saddam was "clean" of WMD...is not operating in reality.
You bought into the WMD propaganda. There's a whole thread on page 2 of AO where you state that war is the only way to disarm Iraq. As soon as you realized that was not true, you focused on 'humanitarian' reasons.
War WAS the only way. Inspections didn't work. Sanctions didn't work. Limited military strikes didn't work. Threats of more military force didn't work. Tell me, what was the way?
I noticed that too. It went from "We are 100% certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" to "We are 100% certain they had weapons programs." What's next? "We are 100% sure they were thinking about having weapons programs?"
The Bush administration has never, ever played by the rules. Why would they start now? Moving the goal posts is dishonest, but it's not the most blatantly dishonest thing they've done.
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
quote:
As you can clearly see from this picture the frencies are preparing a revenge against USA because we renamed french fries to freedom fries. They have build a large electro-state emitting doomsdays machine that will throw lightning over the entire US.
BEST POST EVER!!!!
But what kind of defence is that? "Well you know we wanted to start this war so of course we lied a little bit to you. Gosh you really didn´t think we would lie to our allied? [/surprised face]"
Who said it was a defense?
I'm not sure it even needs defending. It's nothing special. They all lie all the time. Just because you have a particular partisan bitch doesn't mean it's actually any more important.
If your administration actually thought the were bending the truth/lied and the allied would be able to look through that then why lie in the first place?
They would look like a world government, because all world governments lie to some extent.
How much did Bush lie? By the actual tangible evidence that he lied posted here apparently nothing extreme.
--
giant:
No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.
First off, not all of the information they were providing has been shown to be incorrect, SOME of it has. So your first sentence is false. The second is likely true and I find nothing unique or compelling about that. That's what those intelligence services are there for, in reality.
Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.
Prove to me that Iraq wasn't a threat!
Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.
That's not the center of my argument at all. I would contend that the Bush Administration is somewhat fractured but in the end pushes an agenda and works within certain parameters to meet said agenda. Lying and obfuscation is within those parameters.
So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.
Clinton is a perfectly valid subject, he was the US president for 8 years before Bush and his handling of the Iraq situation is 100% on-topic and relevant.
Besides, who was the first person in the thread to bring Clinton in? Not me. Not SDW. It was BR. Take it up with him.
I'm not spanish, but I feel horrible for what my government coerced their's into.
How did we coerce them?
More strong accusations and indictments with no backing logic.
Why?
Because in terms of human impact, containment is worse than war.
Are you going to bring up the human toll due to our neglect in Congo?
Well, since Congo has ****-all to do with Iraq and my argument on the human impact front, no.
Noone lied but as a whole there was so little truth left that every person along the way knew he was a link in a chain that as a whole lied.
Hell even groverat agrees to some extent to this (and now he comes and say I have misunderstood him. He always do)
Originally posted by groverat
First off, not all of the information they were providing has been shown to be incorrect, SOME of it has.
such as?
Prove to me that Iraq wasn't a threat!
Who controls Iraq? When has Iraq attacked the US? What did Iraq have that threatened the US?
See I'm not making a claim, I'm making a negation of a claim. I don't need to prove that pixies don't exist because the original claim affirming their existence is completely baseless.
The Bush admin made a claim and presented 'evidence' to try to support it. That 'evidence' doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all, therefore the claim is baseless.
The fact that the US now controls Iraq and that WMD were never used against Americans shows defintively that Iraq under Saddam was not a threat. Period.
If you have an affirmative claim, have some supporting evidence. I have more than enough evidence supporting my claim, and AO is filled with it.
That's not the center of my argument at all. I would contend that the Bush Administration is somewhat fractured but in the end pushes an agenda and works within certain parameters to meet said agenda. Lying and obfuscation is within those parameters.
If the bush admin ignored mountains of intel and UN reports because of political beliefs, then it is either decietful or incompetent. Take your pick. They were either wrong or lying.
Clinton
Clinton is out of office, and he does not determine the Bush admin's policies. Using his actions to justify what the bush admin is doing is BS.
How did we coerce them?
I don't know, but it's clear that the upper levels of the spanish government did not act according to the will of the citizens, 90%+ of whom were against an attack on Iraq under any circumstances.
Because in terms of human impact, containment is worse than war.
Sorry, but obviously the Iraq situation could have been handled without this war. This whole containment/war dichotomy is not realistic or honest. There is no doubt that Saddam could have been convicted in the ICC. We could have let the inspections go on longer. There were a variety of options. However, the war was portrayed as urgent because of the supposed danger of Saddam.
Well, since Congo has ****-all to do with Iraq and my argument on the human impact front, no.
It has everything to do with it. If our military is really being used for humanitarian reasons, it should be in Congo right now. In reality, not even a small number are.
This revisionist argument that we attacked Iraq and killed thousands of Iraqis in order to do a great humanitarian act absolutely rediculous and has no basis whatsoever in reality. Revisionists just use it to try to justify their ignorant support for a needless and unprecidented war.
Originally posted by Anders
I don´t think Powell woke up that day and said "Today I want to lie to the SC". I think pressure was put on CIA and to deliver something that could be used.
This we know:
At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bulls- -"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/9intell.htm
Noone lied..
they obviously did. Bush cited a ficticious AIEA report to support his war, saying "what more justification do you need?" Then, when called on it by the IAEA, the white house claimed Bush was referring to yet another non-existent IAEA report. The Bush admin cited the nigerian document for months, but it only took the IAEA a few hours to see that it was FABRICATED.
And most recently, Bush has repeated claimed that 'we have found wmd' even though he is referring to british hydrogen generators and, guess what, NO WMD WERE FOUND IN THEM.
I have a full time job and go to school, and I knew what they were saying was fabricated. This is not only their job but their decisions determine the fates of hundreds of millions of people. If any single one of them is that incompetent that they did not know what they were saying was simply not true, they need to be removed immediately.
But every document has the obvious reason: the need to assert US dominance over the world while we can.
WMD were just a way to sell the war, and the Bush admin knew that.
Originally posted by giant
What some people seem to be forgetting is that the neo-cons and PNAC types have been writing for years about the various reasons why we needed to attack Iraq, and it had little if anything to do with WMD. Hell, the leader of the DEFENCE POLICY BOARD, someone who has been caught spying for Israel, is famous for his advocacy of an Iraq invasion for the good of Israel.
But every document has the obvious reason: the need to assert US dominance over the world while we can.
WMD were just a way to sell the war, and the Bush admin knew that.
Exactly, forget the ulterior motivations of profit for the allready super-wealthy or the oil motive the real reason is the Pax Americana and the "road map" for the "Democracy Domino Effect"
. . . remember that other ideological expansionism that went along with the rubric of the "Domino Effect"?!?
Bush:
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
There's a whole page of it in this speech transcript:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3711.htm
Hell even groverat agrees to some extent to this (and now he comes and say I have misunderstood him. He always do)
I disagree only to say that the Bush administration was most likely more aggressive about the data fudging. They would be stupid not to.
I don't think it's a chain of innocent blunders caused by an ambiguous atmosphere of pressure to find something. I think there were concerted efforts to bend the truth and I guaran-damn-tee you Powell knew about some of it.
You make it sound too nice and incidental.
--
giant:
such as?
What was proven incorrect? Haven't you been working your ass off on that one yourself?
Who controls Iraq? When has Iraq attacked the US? What did Iraq have that threatened the US?
Hussein (did). Never (Germany didn't attack the US in WWII (not equating the two), bad logic). They may or may not have had a lot of threatening things.
See I'm not making a claim, I'm making a negation of a claim. I don't need to prove that pixies don't exist because the original claim affirming their existence is completely baseless.
Pixies are baseless yes. Iraqi WMD have a long and well-documented history.
The fact that the US now controls Iraq and that WMD were never used against Americans shows defintively that Iraq under Saddam was not a threat. Period.
How does that prove anything?
What would it mean even if it did?
If the bush admin ignored mountains of intel and UN reports because of political beliefs, then it is either decietful or incompetent. Take your pick. They were either wrong or lying.
They were lying. As I've said one million ****ing times.
But what the hell does it matter?
I don't know, but it's clear that the upper levels of the spanish government did not act according to the will of the citizens, 90%+ of whom were against an attack on Iraq under any circumstances.
And this indicates coercion... how?
There is no doubt that Saddam could have been convicted in the ICC.
Then do what? Put him in jail?
We could have let the inspections go on longer.
That's containment policy, genius.
If our military is really being used for humanitarian reasons, it should be in Congo right now. In reality, not even a small number are.
If I am eating a McDonald's cheeseburger I should be eating a Burger King cheeseburger if I'm eating cheeseburgers?
This is the dumbest thing you've said all thread. There are quite a few humanitarian causes around the world for us to participate in militarily, just because we only do one or two doesn't mean those cease to be valid humanitarian causes.
This revisionist argument that we attacked Iraq and killed thousands of Iraqis in order to do a great humanitarian act absolutely rediculous and has no basis whatsoever in reality. Revisionists just use it to try to justify their ignorant support for a needless and unprecidented war.
So I started the revisionism BEFORE the war?
Wow. I'm a ****ing psychic!
Sounds like someone is uncomfortable acknowledging the failure of "diplomacy" in this regard.
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
What was proven incorrect? Haven't you been working your ass off on that one yourself?
Everything I have heard has been demonstrated incorrect. But maybe I missed something. Take your pick.
Hussein (did). Never (Germany didn't attack the US in WWII (not equating the two), bad logic). They may or may not have had a lot of threatening things.
Iraq was easy to take. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never posed a threat.
If you want to demonstrate that it was a threat go ahead. I have nothing to prove, except that your claim has no basis. So if you make the affirmative claim that Iraq was a threat, you have to back it up.
Pixies are baseless yes. Iraqi WMD have a long and well-documented history.
And it's well-documented that the situation has changed dramatically.
How does that prove anything?
What would it mean even if it did?
if Iraq isn't a danger to the US, then it's not a danger to the US.
And this indicates coercion... how?
Just like Iraq was a threat, right groverat? Here's a hint: whatever you assume, it will turn out wrong.
So why did he go against the will of 90%+ of his citizens?
Then do what? Put him in jail?
Many other courses of action, but the Bush admin said they would take too long and that the Iraq 'threat' was 'urgent'.
That's containment policy, genius.
No it's not. It would only be containment if it was stagnant.
If I am eating a McDonald's cheeseburger I should be eating a Burger King cheeseburger if I'm eating cheeseburgers?
This is the dumbest thing you've said all thread. There are quite a few humanitarian causes around the world for us to participate in militarily, just because we only do one or two doesn't mean those cease to be valid humanitarian causes.
Actually, you have that backwards since that's the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Iraq was a situation that could have been dealt with in a different manner. The only justification for IMMEDIATE military invasion was the fabrication of an 'urgent threat.' Congo, on the other hand, needs a substantial military force right now in order to keep the peace.
So I started the revisionism BEFORE the war?
You bought into the WMD propaganda. There's a whole thread on page 2 of AO where you state that war is the only way to disarm Iraq. As soon as you realized that was not true, you focused on 'humanitarian' reasons.
Everything I have heard has been demonstrated incorrect. But maybe I missed something. Take your pick.
Oh, you're looking for something that Bush said re:WMD that wasn't a lie.
Ok.
He said repeatedly that Iraq was in violation of key disarmament resolutions and that they hadn't disarmed. That is 100% truth.
Iraq was easy to take. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never posed a threat.
To the continental US? Likely not. To our interests in the region? Unclear at best.
So if you make the affirmative claim that Iraq was a threat, you have to back it up.
How about unaccounted-for biological weapons and a recent history of territorial aggression?
And it's well-documented that the situation has changed dramatically.
Is it well-documented? Are we counting op-ed pieces?
If you know that Iraq destroyed items in the Cluster document please contact UNMOVIC.
So why did he go against the will of 90%+ of his citizens?
Why did Blair go against the will of his citizens?
1) Opinion polls are bullshit ploys used by a particular side only when it suits them.
2) No leader should run his nation on opinion polls. We'll see if he gets re-elected. That's the indication.
Again, giant, why be so melodramatic with garbage like "coerced" when you have absolutely no backing?
Many other courses of action, but the Bush admin said they would take too long and that the Iraq 'threat' was 'urgent'.
Ok, so he's convicted by the ICC, then what? Then what? Please answer. Then what?
No it's not. It would only be containment if it was stagnant.
If Iraq can't/won't answer the questions in the Cluster document, what do you do?
How long do you give them?
You bought into the WMD propaganda. There's a whole thread on page 2 of AO where you state that war is the only way to disarm Iraq. As soon as you realized that was not true, you focused on 'humanitarian' reasons.
And as I told bunge at the time, disarmament and threat status aren't linked. Someone can be a threat but meet all UN arms requirements (see: US), another can lack threat but not be disarmed (see: Iraq).
So the only "WMD propaganda" I bought into was the UN's.
Also, could you send me that thread as I've asked multiple times? [email protected] if you please.
[20th Century Fox fanfare]
It's giant's absurdity parade!
I actually need two posts to be allowed to fit it all in:
Actually, that's the opposite of the truth. All available evidence points to disarmament and discontinuation of weapons programs.
That is patently false. The evidence points to Iraqi deception in order to get the world off its back. They did destroy *some* weapons. They also gave the inspectors problems for 12 years. They also produced banned delivery systems for said weapons. We know. Your very precious UN inspectors found them BEING produced. When someone has a track record like Saddam, ANY violation is a major one. Any lack of cooperation...any banned, undelcared weapons, any omissions in the delclaration itself, etc. These ALL came to pass....and your telling us Iraq had disarmed.
I don't see why it is so damn difficult for people to post specific information that was cited by the Bush admin as a threat that justified war. Violation of UN resolutions in itself is not a justification for war. The violations in this instance were portrayed as a THREAT TO THE US. This is why this war happened. Not because Iraq had more sloan valves than it was allow. This war happened because the Bush admin portrayed Iraq and it's violations as a threat.
Violation of 17 UN resolutions IS a justification for war. Otherwise, there is no consequence or "teeth" to the resolutions in the first place. Iraq was a threat because even small amounts of these weapons could easily have been given to a group like Al-Queda, which we have since proven were present in Iraq. Bush never argued or stressed that Saddam might eminently lauch an Biologically loaded ICBM at us. That wasn't the point.
Do you deny the possibiltiy of a hostile, anti-US dicator with a history of WMD use giving such WMD to a terrorist organization?
So, again, what specifically was a threat to the US? Can anyone here that supported the war on those terms actually answer that question, or do you guys just hide behind vague and unsubstantiated statements like SDW?
I just answered that. As far as my statements being unsubstantiated, that's your opinion. I maintain that there is no reaosn to think that Saddam gave up his programs. There's no evidence he did...at all.
But any discussion of anthrax should also point out that the US (and every terrorist on earth) knows FROM EXPERIENCE that anthrax is not a threat to the US. It's probably one of the most inefficient terror weapons imaginable. So you probably shouldn't get too hung up on it if your goal is to try to make Iraq look like a threat.
Especially since Iraq's anthrax, if any was left, was not nearly as effective as what was in the letters. Hell, it wasn't even dried, so it couldn't be airborne.
There's nothing here that even remotely resembles a threat.
That's a highly unqualified opinion. It's also laden with the supposition that Iraq probably didn't have any Anthrax left, which there is no evidence of.
what you have been asking for is a perfect world. Unfortunately for you, in the physical world there is actually a process that people need to go through to get things done. All evidence demonstrates Iraqi compliance on this issue. Period.
Process? Process?
You definition doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that all evidence points to Iraqi compliance on this issue and you can provide no evidence otherwise. End of story.
And there it is! Iraq doesn;t ahve any WMD!! Iraq has disarmed! He actually believes this!
No. The information they were providing was incorrect, fabricated and skewed, and they were criticised by their own intel services. Both the British and US admins pressured intel services to skew or fabricate information. Period.
Yet another stop on giants twisting of all reality. He has no basis for this statement. None.
Yes it does. All evidence pointed to Iraq being benign. If our government is so dramatically incompetent that they ignore all available evidence, then they should not be in power.
Which brings us to the center of your argument, that the Bush admin is incredibly incompetent. I will agree with you that Bush himself is, but the Admin that consists of many people is not.
If the Bush admin really is that dramatically incompetent, Bush needs to be taken out of power immediately and a massive review of our government needs to be conducted.
As for Clinton, I think he was a crook. Better than Bush, but a crook. So stop with this SDW bullshit where you try to retreat to criticisms of someone that is irrelevant in the actions of the Bush admin.
See I'm not making a claim, I'm making a negation of a claim. I don't need to prove that pixies don't exist because the original claim affirming their existence is completely baseless.
We're not talking about pixies. We're talking about weapons we knew he at least had at one point because he used them. In other words, existence of said weapons has been demonstrated, irrefutably, at least one time.
Or rather, if we WERE talking about pixies: Once their existence is demonstrated, it's awfully hard to prove they don't exist. WMD did, in fact, exist in Iraq and there was no reason to think they didn't anymore. I suppose Saddam just complied, changing his nature completely? I suppose his lying regime, complete with such figures as Baghdad Bob, just turned over a new leaf with no real reason to do so...AND, no EVIDENCE of them doing so?
The Bush admin made a claim and presented 'evidence' to try to support it. That 'evidence' doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all, therefore the claim is baseless.
The fact that the US now controls Iraq and that WMD were never used against Americans shows defintively that Iraq under Saddam was not a threat. Period.
If you have an affirmative claim, have some supporting evidence. I have more than enough evidence supporting my claim, and AO is filled with it.
1) Ahhh, now the burden of proof argument. He's not there yet, though....
2) "Shows definitively" ? Why? There couldn't be another reason....like we completely disprupted their command and control facilities? It doesn't show a damn thing. I could easily make the argument that Saddam was/is concerned with his place in Arab history, and didn't want to look bad by using the weapons he said he didn't have.
3)...he's getting closer!!!
End Part 1
If the bush admin ignored mountains of intel and UN reports because of political beliefs, then it is either decietful or incompetent. Take your pick. They were either wrong or lying.
Oh! I see! Those are the choices! Nice strategy there. It can't be that the weapons were so well hidden after five years of no inspectors? It can't be that they have been moved to Syria? It can't be that they HAVEN'T covered every sqaure inch of terriotry, underground bunker, etc. in a country the size of California?
I don't know, but it's clear that the upper levels of the spanish government did not act according to the will of the citizens, 90%+ of whom were against an attack on Iraq under any circumstances.
And why do you think that is? I suppose it can't be because the government decided it was necessary regardless of public opinion? No, I suppose you'd argue that we bullied Spain. This despite the fact that Mexico didn't go along with us, even though we are the only reason on this Earth they exist economically. This, despite the fact that Canada opposed our policy...even though they are our single biggest trading partner. Yeah...we pressured them.
Sorry, but obviously the Iraq situation could have been handled without this war. This whole containment/war dichotomy is not realistic or honest. There is no doubt that Saddam could have been convicted in the ICC. We could have let the inspections go on longer. There were a variety of options. However, the war was portrayed as urgent because of the supposed danger of Saddam.
giant, now you are arguing for containment? What? The inspectors could have gone on longer....WHY? They already found Iraq in breach. They weren't getting total cooperation. They went on for 12 years and 17 resolutions....and it became obvious from moment one that Iraq wasn;t going to cooperate this time, either.
It has everything to do with it. If our military is really being used for humanitarian reasons, it should be in Congo right now. In reality, not even a small number are.
I have to agree we should be.
This revisionist argument that we attacked Iraq and killed thousands of Iraqis in order to do a great humanitarian act absolutely rediculous and has no basis whatsoever in reality. Revisionists just use it to try to justify their ignorant support for a needless and unprecidented war.
It's only revisionist if one cites it as the primary reason for war. I have no doubt it was a major reason, as it should have been.
have a full time job and go to school, and I knew what they were saying was fabricated. This is not only their job but their decisions determine the fates of hundreds of millions of people. If any single one of them is that incompetent that they did not know what they were saying was simply not true, they need to be removed immediately.
giant, I'll just keep saying it. Though we haven't found stockpiles of WMD, that doesn't mean they aren't there. In addition, and as I said several times before: Any person who, upon looking at the facts and historical context, comes to the conclusion that Saddam was "clean" of WMD...is not operating in reality.
You bought into the WMD propaganda. There's a whole thread on page 2 of AO where you state that war is the only way to disarm Iraq. As soon as you realized that was not true, you focused on 'humanitarian' reasons.
War WAS the only way. Inspections didn't work. Sanctions didn't work. Limited military strikes didn't work. Threats of more military force didn't work. Tell me, what was the way?
..does an empty keg count as a flotation device?
You gunna make fun of Bush for 'moving the goal posts' since he's now talking about finding a WMD program rather than the WMD themselves?
With their existence cut short, and their tales cut long. Oh where, oh where can they be?
For a good time click on this.
http://www.gwbush.com/home.shtml
Originally posted by tonton
I noticed that too. It went from "We are 100% certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" to "We are 100% certain they had weapons programs." What's next? "We are 100% sure they were thinking about having weapons programs?"
The Bush administration has never, ever played by the rules. Why would they start now? Moving the goal posts is dishonest, but it's not the most blatantly dishonest thing they've done.
I CALL TUCK RULE!