I notice you erased some how that attempt to marginalize me.
I am not affiliated with any political party or position. I am simply trying to argue from a commonsense POV. I do lean to the conservative side but am open to all thoughts if they make sense.
As far as lies, you are pushing it. Mistakes we all make those. But you see, you are push this OSI thing past absurdity. Do us all a favor and make brief bulleted list of what you know for sure about WMD so that in the next few months as intel is released to the public we all can see what you really knew and did not. This way we can judge for ourselves if you have some special insight on the subject.
Then you can shut us all up with your superior intellect. Simple.
As president you would have to do what would best protect this country based on information that is given you. To assume that the president did otherwise is what makes conspiracy theories thrive.
All the things you seem you hang onto as lies from this president were things that the world community has known for years as true. So they were lying to their people and going along with the whole thing. Instead of arguing the wether or not he lied, try this.
Let's assume you are barking up the right tree here. To what gain did this president and the rest of the world do this?
I'll tell you what: before a president sends American boys and girls into one of the most dangerous places in the world, he'd by God better show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his accusations" about the country we're attacking. Even more, before a president uses the American military to launch a PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE against another sovereign country, he'd batter damned well show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his" claims that this is the thing we need to do.
Bush did neither.
I couldn't agree more.
And too add to this, there simply was no accurate intel to back up the Admin's claims of WMD. It came down to the whole "things you don't know you don't know" ultra-paranoid view of intel on Iraqi wmd. The argument was that the lack of evidence was the evidence. Amazing. You could even see the same idiotic argument here on AO with every supporter of the war.
And too add to this, there simply was no accurate intel to back up the Admin's claims of WMD. It came down to the whole "things you don't know you don't know" ultra-paranoid view of intel on Iraqi wmd. The argument was that the lack of evidence was the evidence. Amazing. You could even see the same idiotic argument here on AO with every supporter of the war.
That and the fact that dick cheney cherry picked his iraq info in an all to scary real life version of jedi mind trick to scare us into war.
Low-Mid Level CIA officals: Ummm...there is no evidence linking iraq to 9-11 or WMD...
Cheney: These aren't the droids you are looking for...
Low-Mid Level CIA officals: These aren't the droids we are looking for...
It is very frustrating trying to discuss things with you because you change focus at the drop of a hat. Cheney is a whole other subject matter.
Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
The world went along with all of the premises, all the way up to but not including going to war.
It is very frustrating trying to discuss things with you because you change focus at the drop of a hat. Cheney is a whole other subject matter.
The second in command is a whole other subject matter?
Quote:
Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
Well, the iranians did that just as much.
And you are aware that the army war college study on the Iran-Iraq war concluded that it was Iran that was responsible for Halabja. I think this is wrong, but it goes to show that 1) it's not as clear cut as you would like to think and 2) there have been two opposing official US accounts, depending on the political climate.
Quote:
SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to.
I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
The second in command is a whole other subject matter?
Well, the iranians did that just as much.
And you are aware that the army war college study on the Iran-Iraq war concluded that it was Iran that was responsible for Halabja. I think this is wrong, but it goes to show that 1) it's not as clear cut as you would like to think and 2) there have been two opposing official US accounts, depending on the political climate.
I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
I will give you this, you have mastered the art of diversion.
Let's assume you are barking up the right tree here. To what gain did this president and the rest of the world do this?
Please try to make some sense here.
Buddy, I *am* making sense. I'm being clear as a bell. But here you go:
Why would Bush have done this against the will of the people? Why would he have cherry-picked intel to back up fabricated claims?
Because, as I said in my earlier post, this is a neo-conservative administration, and Iraq is CENTRAL to the neo-con plan for the middle east. Democratize and Westernize Iraq and then all the other countries in the region fall in line once they see how cool it is to be "free." This has NOTHING to do with relieving the suffering of the poor Iraqi people or deposing a tyrant. That was frosting for the rubes. This is about establishing lines of communication. This is about what you have to do when global markets and sanctions still don't force people to play nice. There was an EXCELLENT essay in Harper's a while back about this very thing. Odd that it was in the unabashedly lefty Harper's, and very disturbing to many of its readers because the thing made a lot of sense. I'll dig around and see if I can find a link to it or a PDF to make available to anyone who might want it.
As I've said elsewhere, this is a HUGE risk, and 9/11 gave us "cause" to do it. I outlined the steps in this process earlier; I suggest you go back and read them. Giant has given you a link to the most excellent cooperativeresearch.org, which is frankly one of the most thorough and well-documented resources on the web for things like this. I suggest you go to the PNAC's web site and read the papers there on the middle east. You'll get a clearer picture of what the people in this admin think. Does anyone have a link to that Wolfowitz paper that was really the defining moment for the neo-con agenda? I can't seem to find it.
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
The world went along with all of the premises, all the way up to but not including going to war.
Thats something I could respect. Going out and debate the issue based on what Saddam did in the 80s and the Un resolutions. That would not have been enough for me to agree with the war but it would have been a fair debate. So the question for me is why the administration had to sent Powell into UN and tell all those stories based on very inaccurate intel/lies? It puts the administration in a very bad light when afterwards.
BTW: welcome to AO. It looks like you are a very cool headed person that are able to look at issues from an informed POW. We surely could use more of your type on both sides.
Does anyone have a link to that Wolfowitz paper that was really the defining moment for the neo-con agenda? I can't seem to find it.
It was never released in full and is still classified. But the key points can be found in the NYT article: Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival.'
New York Times ; New York, NY; Mar 8, 1992; Section 1; Part 1; Page 14; Column 1; Foreign Desk
You can also just do a google search for 1992 Defense Planning Guidance and find some of the excerpts.
I did read your previous post. And I have read some of the other stuff you mention, but I do not want to read 30 articles to get to a point.
Ok let me try to make this a little easier to digest:
So, part of the Bush plan for the middle east is to encourage democracy, thus encouraging peace in the region. I am not sure where the problem is with that.
This is basically what you are saying here, right? Got it.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Democratize and Westernize Iraq and then all the other countries in the region fall in line once they see how cool it is to be "free."
So you think that this is the mentality behind this admin, to promote coolness? What is wrong with promoting democracy? No-one hid the fact the we were going to try to spread democracy. But as far as westernizing the ME that has been stated by this admin as exactly opposite of what they would like to see.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
This has NOTHING to do with relieving the suffering of the poor Iraqi people or deposing a tyrant. That was frosting for the rubes.
Um, in case you forgot, these were equal points in the reasoning given by the administration for aggression. I will argue that the humanitarian reasons were enough as recent news is showing what a murderer he was. Once again though, the administration used this in it's reasoning to resume aggression. Oh yeah and the UN did also agree upon that, along with other human rights organizations. Rubes? Oh you mean the, what was it, around 75% of the american people that approved of the war, Not to mention the majority of congress.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
This is about establishing lines of communication.
Please clarify.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
This is about what you have to do when global markets and sanctions still don't force people to play nice.
Ok and once again I see no real problem with that.
So far I am not seeing a underlying pattern of deception. Maybe I am missing something. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I did read your previous post. And I have read some of the other stuff you mention, but I do not want to read 30 articles to get to a point.
Well, reading them would help you understand where we're all coming from with our arguments.
Quote:
Ok let me try to make this a little easier to digest:
So, part of the Bush plan for the middle east is to encourage democracy, thus encouraging peace in the region. I am not sure where the problem is with that.
This is basically what you are saying here, right? Got it.
No. Not "encourage democracy"; topple the existing government and install a democratic one.
Quote:
So you think that this is the mentality behind this admin, to promote coolness? What is wrong with promoting democracy? No-one hid the fact the we were going to try to spread democracy. But as far as westernizing the ME that has been stated by this admin as exactly opposite of what they would like to see.
The problem is that this is NOT what we were told. The admin did NOT lay out the standard neo-con line of reasoning (domino theory and all that). Had they done that, they most likely would not have been able to generate public support for the invasion. INSTEAD, they trotted out "evidence" that was quickly de-bunked, made claims about the immediacy of the threat to national security and freedom Iraq presented, and effectively LIED to the people about both the reason we were going there and the level of threat Iraq posed.
That's the point.
Quote:
Um, in case you forgot, these were equal points in the reasoning given by the administration for aggression. I will argue that the humanitarian reasons were enough as recent news is showing what a murderer he was. Once again though, the administration used this in it's reasoning to resume aggression. Oh yeah and the UN did also agree upon that, along with other human rights organizations. Rubes? Oh you mean the, what was it, around 75% of the american people that approved of the war, Not to mention the majority of congress.
This doesn't make sense. If, for instance, the humanitarian issue was SOOOO urgent that we must invade, why wait so long? Bush was in office for what, 18 months by the time we invaded? If it was such a pressing matter, why not invade earlier?
As for SH being a murderer. Sure. But he'd been a murderer for what, twenty-odd years? Why not go get him from day one?
And yes, those people who approved of the war because the bought the humanitarian line from the admin were rubes, I think. But it's not their fault. They were hit with a constant barrage of pro-invasion messages from the largest propaganda machine on the planet: the White House. There's a reason why something like 65% of the US public believes Iraq was behind 9/11.
Quote:
So far I am not seeing a underlying pattern of deception. Maybe I am missing something. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
You are missing something. I'm trying to be as clear as possible. Here it is:
The Admin could not sell the REAL reason for invading Iraq to the American people, and so they LIED by yoking Iraq to 9/11, then lied about the WMD, then lied about the immediacy of threat SH posed to us.
So does this mean we won't be discussing the actual topic, as you pointed out, Iraqi WMD capabilities?
I would love to if you could stay on-task and hit things point by point. I mean, come on. In the middle of one discussion, you throw in a, "GWB is gay and the CIA covered it up" kind of thing, that requires a comment to point out the absurdity of the whole thing. Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
I did read your previous post. And I have read some of the other stuff you mention, but I do not want to read 30 articles to get to a point.
This what is so sad about how people deal with knowledge in their everyday lives. It's like saying, "I want to understand the republic, but I'm not going to read it."
I don't understand why people feel compelled to come to conclusions with little or no info on a given subject.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
I notice you erased some how that attempt to marginalize me.
I am not affiliated with any political party or position. I am simply trying to argue from a commonsense POV. I do lean to the conservative side but am open to all thoughts if they make sense.
As far as lies, you are pushing it. Mistakes we all make those. But you see, you are push this OSI thing past absurdity. Do us all a favor and make brief bulleted list of what you know for sure about WMD so that in the next few months as intel is released to the public we all can see what you really knew and did not. This way we can judge for ourselves if you have some special insight on the subject.
Then you can shut us all up with your superior intellect. Simple.
You gotta love that last line.
All the things you seem you hang onto as lies from this president were things that the world community has known for years as true. So they were lying to their people and going along with the whole thing. Instead of arguing the wether or not he lied, try this.
Let's assume you are barking up the right tree here. To what gain did this president and the rest of the world do this?
Please try to make some sense here.
Are we safer NOW than we were BEFORE the war in Iraq?
Originally posted by NaplesX
All the things you seem you hang onto as lies from this president were things that the world community has known for years as true.
Such as? And I want figures.
Oh, BTW: Cheney's a crook. You would do good to figure that out.
Really, the hardest part in detailing it is where to start.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
Originally posted by midwinter
I'll tell you what: before a president sends American boys and girls into one of the most dangerous places in the world, he'd by God better show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his accusations" about the country we're attacking. Even more, before a president uses the American military to launch a PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE against another sovereign country, he'd batter damned well show me "absolute indisputable proof to support his" claims that this is the thing we need to do.
Bush did neither.
I couldn't agree more.
And too add to this, there simply was no accurate intel to back up the Admin's claims of WMD. It came down to the whole "things you don't know you don't know" ultra-paranoid view of intel on Iraqi wmd. The argument was that the lack of evidence was the evidence. Amazing. You could even see the same idiotic argument here on AO with every supporter of the war.
Originally posted by giant
I couldn't agree more.
And too add to this, there simply was no accurate intel to back up the Admin's claims of WMD. It came down to the whole "things you don't know you don't know" ultra-paranoid view of intel on Iraqi wmd. The argument was that the lack of evidence was the evidence. Amazing. You could even see the same idiotic argument here on AO with every supporter of the war.
That and the fact that dick cheney cherry picked his iraq info in an all to scary real life version of jedi mind trick to scare us into war.
Low-Mid Level CIA officals: Ummm...there is no evidence linking iraq to 9-11 or WMD...
Cheney: These aren't the droids you are looking for...
Low-Mid Level CIA officals: These aren't the droids we are looking for...
Originally posted by giant
Such as? And I want figures.
Oh, BTW: Cheney's a crook. You would do good to figure that out.
Really, the hardest part in detailing it is where to start.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
It is very frustrating trying to discuss things with you because you change focus at the drop of a hat. Cheney is a whole other subject matter.
Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
The world went along with all of the premises, all the way up to but not including going to war.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It is very frustrating trying to discuss things with you because you change focus at the drop of a hat. Cheney is a whole other subject matter.
The second in command is a whole other subject matter?
Do you accept that SH used WMD on his own people and on the Iranians or is that just hype too?
Well, the iranians did that just as much.
And you are aware that the army war college study on the Iran-Iraq war concluded that it was Iran that was responsible for Halabja. I think this is wrong, but it goes to show that 1) it's not as clear cut as you would like to think and 2) there have been two opposing official US accounts, depending on the political climate.
SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to.
I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
Originally posted by giant
The second in command is a whole other subject matter?
Well, the iranians did that just as much.
And you are aware that the army war college study on the Iran-Iraq war concluded that it was Iran that was responsible for Halabja. I think this is wrong, but it goes to show that 1) it's not as clear cut as you would like to think and 2) there have been two opposing official US accounts, depending on the political climate.
I said figures, didn't I? Or have you not actually looked into the sources of those claims, right down to the individual documents?
I will give you this, you have mastered the art of diversion.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's assume you are barking up the right tree here. To what gain did this president and the rest of the world do this?
Please try to make some sense here.
Buddy, I *am* making sense. I'm being clear as a bell. But here you go:
Why would Bush have done this against the will of the people? Why would he have cherry-picked intel to back up fabricated claims?
Because, as I said in my earlier post, this is a neo-conservative administration, and Iraq is CENTRAL to the neo-con plan for the middle east. Democratize and Westernize Iraq and then all the other countries in the region fall in line once they see how cool it is to be "free." This has NOTHING to do with relieving the suffering of the poor Iraqi people or deposing a tyrant. That was frosting for the rubes. This is about establishing lines of communication. This is about what you have to do when global markets and sanctions still don't force people to play nice. There was an EXCELLENT essay in Harper's a while back about this very thing. Odd that it was in the unabashedly lefty Harper's, and very disturbing to many of its readers because the thing made a lot of sense. I'll dig around and see if I can find a link to it or a PDF to make available to anyone who might want it.
As I've said elsewhere, this is a HUGE risk, and 9/11 gave us "cause" to do it. I outlined the steps in this process earlier; I suggest you go back and read them. Giant has given you a link to the most excellent cooperativeresearch.org, which is frankly one of the most thorough and well-documented resources on the web for things like this. I suggest you go to the PNAC's web site and read the papers there on the middle east. You'll get a clearer picture of what the people in this admin think. Does anyone have a link to that Wolfowitz paper that was really the defining moment for the neo-con agenda? I can't seem to find it.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by NaplesX
The US sold him WMD to fight Iran and he used them since on the kurds. Intel sources know roughly what he had at that point and and knew he was trying to acquire and make more. SH did not account for the known quantities of WMD and has yet to. This has been accepted as truth by the world community as evidenced by UN resolutions on the matter.
The world went along with all of the premises, all the way up to but not including going to war.
Thats something I could respect. Going out and debate the issue based on what Saddam did in the 80s and the Un resolutions. That would not have been enough for me to agree with the war but it would have been a fair debate. So the question for me is why the administration had to sent Powell into UN and tell all those stories based on very inaccurate intel/lies? It puts the administration in a very bad light when afterwards.
BTW: welcome to AO. It looks like you are a very cool headed person that are able to look at issues from an informed POW. We surely could use more of your type on both sides.
Originally posted by midwinter
Does anyone have a link to that Wolfowitz paper that was really the defining moment for the neo-con agenda? I can't seem to find it.
It was never released in full and is still classified. But the key points can be found in the NYT article: Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival.'
New York Times ; New York, NY; Mar 8, 1992; Section 1; Part 1; Page 14; Column 1; Foreign Desk
You can also just do a google search for 1992 Defense Planning Guidance and find some of the excerpts.
Originally posted by midwinter
I'll dig around and see if I can find a link to it or a PDF to make available to anyone who might want it.
Please do if it's available. I think I heard about that article, but I don't have a real subscription here at work for some reason.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I will give you this, you have mastered the art of diversion.
So does this mean we won't be discussing the actual topic, as you pointed out, Iraqi WMD capabilities?
Originally posted by giant
Please do if it's available. I think I heard about that article, but I don't have a real subscription here at work for some reason.
You mean this one?
Ok let me try to make this a little easier to digest:
So, part of the Bush plan for the middle east is to encourage democracy, thus encouraging peace in the region. I am not sure where the problem is with that.
This is basically what you are saying here, right? Got it.
Originally posted by midwinter
Democratize and Westernize Iraq and then all the other countries in the region fall in line once they see how cool it is to be "free."
So you think that this is the mentality behind this admin, to promote coolness? What is wrong with promoting democracy? No-one hid the fact the we were going to try to spread democracy. But as far as westernizing the ME that has been stated by this admin as exactly opposite of what they would like to see.
Originally posted by midwinter
This has NOTHING to do with relieving the suffering of the poor Iraqi people or deposing a tyrant. That was frosting for the rubes.
Um, in case you forgot, these were equal points in the reasoning given by the administration for aggression. I will argue that the humanitarian reasons were enough as recent news is showing what a murderer he was. Once again though, the administration used this in it's reasoning to resume aggression. Oh yeah and the UN did also agree upon that, along with other human rights organizations. Rubes? Oh you mean the, what was it, around 75% of the american people that approved of the war, Not to mention the majority of congress.
Originally posted by midwinter
This is about establishing lines of communication.
Please clarify.
Originally posted by midwinter
This is about what you have to do when global markets and sanctions still don't force people to play nice.
Ok and once again I see no real problem with that.
So far I am not seeing a underlying pattern of deception. Maybe I am missing something. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I did read your previous post. And I have read some of the other stuff you mention, but I do not want to read 30 articles to get to a point.
Well, reading them would help you understand where we're all coming from with our arguments.
Ok let me try to make this a little easier to digest:
So, part of the Bush plan for the middle east is to encourage democracy, thus encouraging peace in the region. I am not sure where the problem is with that.
This is basically what you are saying here, right? Got it.
No. Not "encourage democracy"; topple the existing government and install a democratic one.
So you think that this is the mentality behind this admin, to promote coolness? What is wrong with promoting democracy? No-one hid the fact the we were going to try to spread democracy. But as far as westernizing the ME that has been stated by this admin as exactly opposite of what they would like to see.
The problem is that this is NOT what we were told. The admin did NOT lay out the standard neo-con line of reasoning (domino theory and all that). Had they done that, they most likely would not have been able to generate public support for the invasion. INSTEAD, they trotted out "evidence" that was quickly de-bunked, made claims about the immediacy of the threat to national security and freedom Iraq presented, and effectively LIED to the people about both the reason we were going there and the level of threat Iraq posed.
That's the point.
Um, in case you forgot, these were equal points in the reasoning given by the administration for aggression. I will argue that the humanitarian reasons were enough as recent news is showing what a murderer he was. Once again though, the administration used this in it's reasoning to resume aggression. Oh yeah and the UN did also agree upon that, along with other human rights organizations. Rubes? Oh you mean the, what was it, around 75% of the american people that approved of the war, Not to mention the majority of congress.
This doesn't make sense. If, for instance, the humanitarian issue was SOOOO urgent that we must invade, why wait so long? Bush was in office for what, 18 months by the time we invaded? If it was such a pressing matter, why not invade earlier?
As for SH being a murderer. Sure. But he'd been a murderer for what, twenty-odd years? Why not go get him from day one?
And yes, those people who approved of the war because the bought the humanitarian line from the admin were rubes, I think. But it's not their fault. They were hit with a constant barrage of pro-invasion messages from the largest propaganda machine on the planet: the White House. There's a reason why something like 65% of the US public believes Iraq was behind 9/11.
So far I am not seeing a underlying pattern of deception. Maybe I am missing something. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
You are missing something. I'm trying to be as clear as possible. Here it is:
The Admin could not sell the REAL reason for invading Iraq to the American people, and so they LIED by yoking Iraq to 9/11, then lied about the WMD, then lied about the immediacy of threat SH posed to us.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by giant
So does this mean we won't be discussing the actual topic, as you pointed out, Iraqi WMD capabilities?
I would love to if you could stay on-task and hit things point by point. I mean, come on. In the middle of one discussion, you throw in a, "GWB is gay and the CIA covered it up" kind of thing, that requires a comment to point out the absurdity of the whole thing. Then in the middle of that one you do it again, and BAM we are all out on some tangent.
It make me a little woozy.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I did read your previous post. And I have read some of the other stuff you mention, but I do not want to read 30 articles to get to a point.
This what is so sad about how people deal with knowledge in their everyday lives. It's like saying, "I want to understand the republic, but I'm not going to read it."
I don't understand why people feel compelled to come to conclusions with little or no info on a given subject.