Lies and the Presidency

1202123252628

Comments

  • Reply 441 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    bunge:



    Quote:

    The argument is really if they were disarmed to the point of no longer being a threat. I think we're finding out that Iraq was not a threat, and thus, effectively disarmed.



    "effectively disarmed"?



    Did you make that up yourself?
  • Reply 442 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    bunge:







    "effectively disarmed"?



    Did you make that up yourself?




    He didn't have to. It's common sense.
  • Reply 443 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    So effectively disarmed that they sent inspectors back in.
  • Reply 444 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Exactly. It's all semantics with ceratin posters here. There is no one person today that can say with a straight face that Iraq disarmed cooperatively and fully. That is the only real issue here. The UN didn't back its resolutions with any credibility. Iraq demonstrated clearly its contempt for inspectors and its lack of total cooperation. More time and/or more inspectors were therefore uttelry useless notions. The UN couldn't back its resolutions, so we did. This WAS a justification for the war. So was the imminent threat of Iraq giving WMD to al-Queda. So was the fact that Iraq targeted and fired upon our aircraft literally every single day. So was the brutality of the regime. Pfflam, giant, jimmac and tonton: You can try and paint the picture the way you'd like. All of these reasons were given. It wasn't just WMD.



    Now this by BR:







    Some slippery arguments are valid. I don't feel yours is.



    Your statement about Iran and Syria is pretty unbelievable. Essentially, you are comparing these nations to the US. That's insane. Iran and Syria are suspected, possibly even known to support terrorists which delibrately target civilians, national landmarks and treasures, etc in the United States. For all our faults, we don't do those things. We are not on the same moral level as these countries (specifically, the governments of these countries). You know as well as I do that if Iran and Syria were stable nations that didn't support international terrorism, we wouldn't be invoking the possibility of preemption. In other words, preemption on our part is a response to a significant threat. There has to be some reason (as in the case of Iraq), some provocative action on the part of the nation to be preempted in order to invoke the policy. But, I'm sure in your eyes the US is no better than those two nations. To you, we're on the same moral ground. That's where we disagree. Iran and Syria do NOT have the right to lauch an attack on us, because we are the ones responding to THEIR support of terror.



    As far as the policy itself, I'd like to ask you to show us a better one. I'm not willing to let another 9/11 happen, are you? Despite what you may think, we weren't attacked because " a lot of the world doesn't like us right now". That's idiotic. We were attacked by a sect of Islam that would still attack us no matter what foreign policy we engaged in. The goal of this groups(s) is literally to destroy "the infidels". Guess who that is? These people cannot be appeased. No amount of negotiation or change in foreign policy is going to change that fact. They must be destroyed. Period. If it takes preemptive military action against governments who support these terror groups and/or seek to provide them with WMD, then so be it.







    It's been fun fighting/talking with everyone, but I'm done now.

    My support of the war isn't going to change. I still don't think the Administration lied. I still think we'll probably find WMD in Iraq. And, most importantly I say anyone who actually thinks Saddam didn't have any weapons within months of the war is forming a position which flies in the face of all logic and reason.



    Have fun all! It's break time for SDW!






    Fair enough but, still in check.
  • Reply 445 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    So effectively disarmed that they sent inspectors back in.







    And they found nothing.
  • Reply 446 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    jimmac:



    Quote:

    He didn't have to. It's common sense.



    If you can find that in anything official at all relating to Iraq's disarmament that would be great.



    Quote:

    And they found nothing.



    Again you show your ignorance of how this works. They aren't supposed to FIND a damned thing. Iraq is supposed to answer every question they have.



    They are not hunters.



    Blix:



    3/7/03 Report:

    Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.



    On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively little tangible progress to note.



    However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work (al-Samoud) has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break.




    One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.



    --



    And as I've told you freaks dozens of times; the issues of disarmament and threat status are not inextricably linked.



    One can be "disarmed" and still be a threat. (Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed)

    One can be non-threatening and still not be disarmed. (No one can prove a damned thing either way on this with WRT Iraq)



    If Bush can't say that Iraq was a threat then you can't say Iraq wasn't. The best you idiots can do is say that Bush was lying/wrong/stupidhead when he said they were a threat.



    And you've called a politician a liar. WOOHOO!
  • Reply 447 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    And they found nothing.





    Exactly, that is what the UN was "anxious" about.
  • Reply 448 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    jimmac:







    If you can find that in anything official at all relating to Iraq's disarmament that would be great.







    Again you show your ignorance of how this works. They aren't supposed to FIND a damned thing. Iraq is supposed to answer every question they have.



    They are not hunters.



    Blix:



    3/7/03 Report:

    Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.



    On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively little tangible progress to note.



    However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work (al-Samoud) has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break.




    One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.



    --



    And as I've told you freaks dozens of times; the issues of disarmament and threat status are not inextricably linked.



    One can be "disarmed" and still be a threat. (Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed)

    One can be non-threatening and still not be disarmed. (No one can prove a damned thing either way on this with WRT Iraq)



    If Bush can't say that Iraq was a threat then you can't say Iraq wasn't. The best you idiots can do is say that Bush was lying/wrong/stupidhead when he said they were a threat.



    And you've called a politician a liar. WOOHOO!






    You mean how you think it should work. Well what Bush has done is past. Now we'll see if he pays for it. And make no mistake one always pays for lying. One way or the other. I guess you never learned that lesson.
  • Reply 449 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    Exactly, that is what the UN was "anxious" about.



    You mean that's what everybody's yawning about. There's obviously nothing to find. This was a contrived, blown up situation. Constructed for Bush's advantage.
  • Reply 450 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    This was a contrived, blown up situation. Constructed for Bush's advantage.



    Even as late as November?
  • Reply 451 of 560
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat



    Did you make that up yourself?




    How was Iraq a threat? It wasn't.



    You, like Bush, trivialize war. It's a very strange and dangerous way of thinking.
  • Reply 452 of 560
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Interesting read.
  • Reply 453 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    One can be "disarmed" and still be a threat. (Iraq wasn't anywhere close to disarmed)

    One can be non-threatening and still not be disarmed. (No one can prove a damned thing either way on this with WRT Iraq)



    Speaking about hypothetical states doesn't matter. Iraq was not a threat. Plain and simple.



    As far as you citing the UN, I've already pointed out numerous times that the UN did not approve and would not have approved the invasion and occupation. Blix himself has been a very vocal critic of the war.



    While nothing can be definitvely proven, when all available evidence points in one direction logic dictates that that is the most likely scenario. Rumsfeld tried to circumvent this by creating the specter of 'unknown unknowns'



    Quote:

    If Bush can't say that Iraq was a threat then you can't say Iraq wasn't.



    Wrong. all evidence pointed to Iraq not being a threat. The bush admin had to flat out make up 'evidence' (add to the long list powell's 'this is a chem facility') to try to create the image of threat.
  • Reply 454 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    jimmac:



    Quote:

    You mean how you think it should work.



    No, how the UN-SC said disarmament would be handled in all of the relevant resolutions. I would do the work in going through the resolutions AGAIN but I doubt you'll pay any attention to it. (Try UNSC resolutions 686, 687, 1153, 1154, 1175, 1284 & 1441 or Blix's reports to the SC if you're interested in actually knowing what the hell you're talking about.)



    Iraq was supposed to destroy proscribed weapons in front of inspectors. It didn't. Just before the war the cluster document outlined all the issues. click



    Iraq wasn't anywhere near disarmed, nowhere close and the "threat" issue is a white elephant WRT the UN-SC.



    You've got Bush lying, that's it. That's all you have.



    "Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

    - George the war-monger Bush or Hans Blix?



    ---



    bunge:



    Quote:

    How was Iraq a threat? It wasn't.



    You can prove Iraq wasn't a threat?



    ---



    giant:



    Quote:

    Speaking about hypothetical states doesn't matter. Iraq was not a threat. Plain and simple.



    Says who? In what sense?



    What "hypothetical states" are you talking about?



    Quote:

    As far as you citing the UN, I've already pointed out numerous times that the UN did not approve and would not have approved the invasion and occupation. Blix himself has been a very vocal critic of the war.



    I never said the war was UN approved and Blix has no bearing at all on whether or not to make war. His concerns are disarmament, that's all.



    Nice job beating up that straw man.



    Quote:

    Wrong. all evidence pointed to Iraq not being a threat.



    What evidence? What kind of threat?



    The hypocrisy here is just astounding.
  • Reply 455 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    blah blah blah





    you know, I found the following post really telling:



    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Come on, tonton, if you've been backed into a corner surely you can admit it. If I've been anything I've been consistent.



    What about 1998? What about Desert Fox?



    You know me, man, the boot stays on the throat if you start attacking, baby!



    see, you obviously don't care about participating in an exchange of ideas and information. To you this is a battle, and either you win or lose. But that is exactly what has made you a loser in this discussion. Meanwhile, those of us in the real world go on living while you continue believing that you can make the world flat just by arguing that it is.
  • Reply 456 of 560
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Your statement about Iran and Syria is pretty unbelievable. Essentially, you are comparing these nations to the US. That's insane. Iran and Syria are suspected, possibly even known to support terrorists which delibrately target civilians, national landmarks and treasures, etc in the United States. For all our faults, we don't do those things. We are not on the same moral level as these countries (specifically, the governments of these countries). You know as well as I do that if Iran and Syria were stable nations that didn't support international terrorism, we wouldn't be invoking the possibility of preemption. In other words, preemption on our part is a response to a significant threat. There has to be some reason (as in the case of Iraq), some provocative action on the part of the nation to be preempted in order to invoke the policy. But, I'm sure in your eyes the US is no better than those two nations. To you, we're on the same moral ground. That's where we disagree. Iran and Syria do NOT have the right to lauch an attack on us, because we are the ones responding to THEIR support of terror.



    As far as the policy itself, I'd like to ask you to show us a better one. I'm not willing to let another 9/11 happen, are you? Despite what you may think, we weren't attacked because " a lot of the world doesn't like us right now". That's idiotic. We were attacked by a sect of Islam that would still attack us no matter what foreign policy we engaged in. The goal of this groups(s) is literally to destroy "the infidels". Guess who that is? These people cannot be appeased. No amount of negotiation or change in foreign policy is going to change that fact. They must be destroyed. Period. If it takes preemptive military action against governments who support these terror groups and/or seek to provide them with WMD, then so be it.




    Convenient how you overlook the India-Pakistan situation or the Russia-Chechnia (sp) situation.



    Does India have the right to preemptively strike Pakistan or vice versa? Hmm? We set the precedent. They could use it to justify nuclear war.
  • Reply 457 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    You know, I have been waiting for someone, anyone, to point out what the Bush admin claims about Iraq's chemical weapons really are. It seems no one that supports the bush admin has ever really looked at the claim.



    Really the only substantial claim made by the Bush admin regards a stockpile of 100-500 tons of chemical weapons. Doesn't anyone wonder where this number comes from?



    Really it all comes from one 'Air Force Document' that had a different accounting of number of bombs dropped in the war with Iran.



    One document!



    But let's just assume that it is correct, the Bush admin still talks about VX, Sarin, etc. There are chemicals that would have been in these warheads. HOWEVER, Iraq never produced any stable agents except for mustard gas. Mustard gas would only have been a percentage of these weapons, assuming that they actually exist.



    So no matter what, anyone familiar with the actual sources of the claims sees that even the most solid of Bush admins accusations is in fact entirely decietful. The fact of the matter is that the nerve agents couldn't last 15 years, so Bush citing them as a threat is a downright lie!



    PS: groverat, even that document you keep citing (but haven't really read) says this.
  • Reply 458 of 560
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Your statement about Iran and Syria is pretty unbelievable. Essentially, you are comparing these nations to the US. That's insane. Iran and Syria are suspected, possibly even known to support terrorists which delibrately target civilians, national landmarks and treasures, etc in the United States. For all our faults, we don't do those things.



    If we go just back a very short time in history we will find that we supported, and quite heavily, groups that we would now call 'terrorists':



    in fact we worked with an Iranian terrorist group in an assasination attempt that blew up a crowd outside of a mosque in Lebanon, missing its target and killing 25 civilians . . . this was right before the Marines explosion.



    And then there was the very heavy support of Iraq.



    And also, in Bolivia, Chile, and Guatamala and El Salvadore: heavy support for paramilitary groups that regularly targetted civilians in campaigns of intimidation . . .

    argue with that if you will . . . but years later our own government acknowledged our complicity and apologized



    Anyway, yes we are supposed to be on another moral level entirely . . .and I would say that we are . . . however, usually that moral level would discount the notion of pre-emptively invading a country.

    The jury is still out but I just want to be a burr in the side of the self-appointed righteousness that seems to permeate everything these days . . .
  • Reply 459 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    jimmac:







    No, how the UN-SC said disarmament would be handled in all of the relevant resolutions. I would do the work in going through the resolutions AGAIN but I doubt you'll pay any attention to it. (Try UNSC resolutions 686, 687, 1153, 1154, 1175, 1284 & 1441 or Blix's reports to the SC if you're interested in actually knowing what the hell you're talking about.)



    Iraq was supposed to destroy proscribed weapons in front of inspectors. It didn't. Just before the war the cluster document outlined all the issues. click



    Iraq wasn't anywhere near disarmed, nowhere close and the "threat" issue is a white elephant WRT the UN-SC.



    You've got Bush lying, that's it. That's all you have.



    "Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

    - George the war-monger Bush or Hans Blix?



    ---



    bunge:







    You can prove Iraq wasn't a threat?



    ---



    giant:







    Says who? In what sense?



    What "hypothetical states" are you talking about?







    I never said the war was UN approved and Blix has no bearing at all on whether or not to make war. His concerns are disarmament, that's all.



    Nice job beating up that straw man.







    What evidence? What kind of threat?



    The hypocrisy here is just astounding.




    We're talking about why the president said we should go to war. Remember? His main reason was WOMD and a threat to us from Iraq. If it had been for any other reason he wouldn't have got past go.



    Why are you still trying?



    You lost this argument a long time ago.
  • Reply 460 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    So, if Iraq had disarmed, who fooled the UN Security Council in November into thinking they hadn't?
Sign In or Register to comment.