RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq

RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 10:17:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY FR: I can see that most of the usual, died-in-the-wool, head-in-the-sand, hear-nothing-but-what-they-want-to-believe people have successfully gathered. I've always said that the ultimate success or failure of the Iraq war couldn't be determined within a short span of time such as a few years, or perhaps even a few decades. Too much ideological and political hay to be made. Firm Nice backtracking again Firm, rather me with my head in the sand than you with yours up your arse. Lets say this again, loud and clear. BUSH and BLAIR have both agreed the intel was faulty. Worse still, it transpires intel experts told them as much PRIOR to the invasion. Hows the haymaking going ? No backtracking involved, thank you. My comments from the get go haven't been what some are portraying in this thread. I do think that you and the others are forgetting the maxim "Do not attribute to malice, that can more rightly be attributed to human stupidity or error.". And, regardless of which side of the question you are on, I've always held the opinion that unintended consequences often take a longer time to come out, and that most people here are lost in their own short-sighted, political view: regardless of the side they take. Firm

pogo4pres -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 2:31:59 PM)
FR Firm it is at about this point, that were we conversing in person, I'd ask you if you were a stupid fuck to your face. I did six years of military (USAF: 4 May 1977 to 11 Apr 1983) I was pretty damned sure the urge to invade Iraq was BULLSHIT. President Cheney and his pet macaque though "sold" the war to an american public still frightened by the specter of 9-11. I on the other-hand knew that 9-11 was no where near as bad as it could have been. I stopped worrying over the terrorists almost as quickly as it took for the smoke to clear. The rest of the nation it seems is still shitting their pants. Militarily, Some Knucklehead in NJ

Moonhead -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 3:07:38 PM)
You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 3:16:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Lets say this again, loud and clear. BUSH and BLAIR have both agreed the intel was faulty. Worse still, it transpires intel experts told them as much PRIOR to the invasion. Hows the haymaking going ? There was no intel that was conclusive that there were no WMDs prior to the invasion. Even Saddam maintained until the very last day that there were. Your bias is made clear by the use of "lies", when there were none.

Moonhead -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 3:24:11 PM)
Try googling "David Kelly". Nobody over here was under any impression that Hussein was tooled up, which is why Blair had the intelligence services fabricate the evidence the chimp was after. "Lies" might be too pallid a term, all things considered.

rulemylife -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 3:53:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Lets say this again, loud and clear. BUSH and BLAIR have both agreed the intel was faulty. Worse still, it transpires intel experts told them as much PRIOR to the invasion. Hows the haymaking going ? There was no intel that was conclusive that there were no WMDs prior to the invasion. Even Saddam maintained until the very last day that there were. Your bias is made clear by the use of "lies", when there were none. Because the Bush administration did not want conclusive information. Otherwise, they would have allowed the UN weapons inspectors to continue their job. And you are absolutely wrong (as usual) that Saddam maintained he had those weapons. But hey, you and Condi have fun trying to rewrite history that is so fresh in everyone's mind. *Saddam denies having weapons of mass destruction* Feb 5, 2003 President Saddam Hussein denied yesterday that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda, on the eve of a key US address to the UN Security Council laying out its case against Iraq. In an interview with British Socialist politician Tony Benn in Baghdad, Saddam said the United States and Britain were intent on war with Iraq to control oil in the Middle East. "There is only one truth, and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before, that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction," he said in a rare interview in Baghdad on Sunday and aired on British television's Channel Four news. The broadcast came on the eve of a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Security Council at 1530 GMT today, in which he has said he will show that Iraq is concealing banned weapons programmes from UN arms inspectors in defiance of the world community.

pogo4pres -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 4:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? Moon I'd ask you (and everyone else) to think for a minute about the devastation that could have been accomplished if the hijacker and plane count had been increased by a factor of 4 or 5, with 20 planes you don't think the Hoover & Grand Coulee dams would not be viable targets, and oh say in the east Indian River NY, Limerick and Peach Bottom PA , and Salem 1 & 2 NJ, nuclear generation plants. Think of what happens if all that electric generation goes off line. Additionally think of the damage from radioactive contamination, and the literally hundreds of thousands of deaths, that a strike like that would have caused. I won't even get into the down stream effects of the two dams being hit. Americans have since roughly 1814 NEVER been attacked by a foreign entity on home soil. 2001 changed that, but as Flt. 93 showed that paradigm is over, American's would rather sacrifice themselves than allow another attack like that to occur. About the most recent attempt via UPS, I was speculating on that about 8 1/2 years ago. That it has taken them so long to try tells me a whole lot. As did the "underpants" bomber. It tells me (and should the rest of this nation) that they are on the ropes and running out of ideas. We need to get Pakistan to cooperate real soon, since we seem to know bin-Laden is in the tribal area of that country stirring up shit. Pakistan is worrisome because they DO posess NUKES. Militarily, Some Knucklehead in NJ

Politesub53 -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 5:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy There was no intel that was conclusive that there were no WMDs prior to the invasion. Even Saddam maintained until the very last day that there were. Your bias is made clear by the use of "lies", when there were none. Use a dictionary, lies means someone not telling the truth, Bush wasnt, Blair wasnt, both knew it. Lies doesnt mean bias.

rulemylife -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 7:42:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres Americans have since roughly 1814 NEVER been attacked by a foreign entity on home soil. 2001 changed that,..... Pearl Harbor. quote: ..... but as Flt. 93 showed that paradigm is over, American's would rather sacrifice themselves than allow another attack like that to occur. Pogo, we are usually on the same page, but this is one of the problems we have in this country. We want to turn everyone into these larger-than-life heroes. The passengers on Flight 93 had made calls and were aware of what happened. They knew they were going to die if they did not take action. I would guess what was going through their minds was self-preservation, not protecting the nation.

eihwaz -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 8:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I've always said that the ultimate success or failure of the Iraq war couldn't be determined within a short span of time such as a few years, or perhaps even a few decades. Too much ideological and political hay to be made. What, in your view, do "success" and "failure" look like wrt the Iraq war? Why is a "long view" necessary to determine whether the war's outcome constitutes one or the other? A quick mental survey of wars involving the United States gives me the impression that the criteria for "success" and "failure" were pretty clear even before the respective conflict's end -- unless, perhaps, the rationale for the war was weak, false, or confused in the first place. So, can you provide historical examples of where the outcome -- in terms of success or failure -- of a war was ambiguous initially and only became apparent with time? Now we have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place. --John F. Kennedy, 1961 I see light at the end of the tunnel. --Walt W. Rostow, National Security Adviser, Dec. 1967

luckydawg -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 8:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy There was no intel that was conclusive that there were no WMDs prior to the invasion. Even Saddam maintained until the very last day that there were. Your bias is made clear by the use of "lies", when there were none. Use a dictionary, lies means someone not telling the truth, Bush wasnt, Blair wasnt, both knew it. Lies doesnt mean bias. actually you might want to check your dictionary, because you are wrong. Lying requires an intentional attempt to decieve. It does not simply mean telling an untruth or being wrong.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/15/2010 10:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy There was no intel that was conclusive that there were no WMDs prior to the invasion. Even Saddam maintained until the very last day that there were. Your bias is made clear by the use of "lies", when there were none. Use a dictionary, lies means someone not telling the truth, Bush wasnt, Blair wasnt, both knew it. Lies doesnt mean bias. Lies means saying something that you know isnt true. Bush didnt, Blair didnt, both believed there were WMDs. Your use of "lies" without the slightest shred of evidence that they believed there were WMDs shows your bias quite clearly...as if we needed yet another demonstration of it.

Moonhead -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 4:43:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? Moon I'd ask you (and everyone else) to think for a minute about the devastation that could have been accomplished if the hijacker and plane count had been increased by a factor of 4 or 5, with 20 planes you don't think the Hoover & Grand Coulee dams would not be viable targets, and oh say in the east Indian River NY, Limerick and Peach Bottom PA , and Salem 1 & 2 NJ, nuclear generation plants. Think of what happens if all that electric generation goes off line. Additionally think of the damage from radioactive contamination, and the literally hundreds of thousands of deaths, that a strike like that would have caused. I won't even get into the down stream effects of the two dams being hit. Americans have since roughly 1814 NEVER been attacked by a foreign entity on home soil. 2001 changed that, but as Flt. 93 showed that paradigm is over, American's would rather sacrifice themselves than allow another attack like that to occur. About the most recent attempt via UPS, I was speculating on that about 8 1/2 years ago. That it has taken them so long to try tells me a whole lot. As did the "underpants" bomber. It tells me (and should the rest of this nation) that they are on the ropes and running out of ideas. We need to get Pakistan to cooperate real soon, since we seem to know bin-Laden is in the tribal area of that country stirring up shit. Pakistan is worrisome because they DO posess NUKES. Militarily, Some Knucklehead in NJ They wouldn't even have needed to increase the hijack count that much. They could have taken out two plants (the one in New York state is the obvious target) and three dams with the planes they did hijack if they hadn't been fixated on usurers and the Pentagon. As for Pakistan, they have nukes, but they don't have missiles up to launching an intercontinental strike, and really, they only have the nuclear capability in the first place to compete with India. Those are also one thing that their government is hellbent on keeping control of and preventing from falling into the hands of the taliban. They might be a bunch of incompetent fuckwits who have largely given up on controlling the border with Afghanistan, but I think that's something they're probably up to as they're finished as a governing body (or an unelected military dictaorship, if you prefer) if they can't.

allthatjaz -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 7:30:02 AM)
Well we all learnt one thing. We now understand the true meaning of government propaganda. Actions that manipulate us into backing the invasion of a country we had no rational reason for invading. All the American government needed was a good sales pitch.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 9:18:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres Firm it is at about this point, that were we conversing in person, I'd ask you if you were a stupid fuck to your face. Which would say more about you than me, I'm afraid. quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres I did six years of military (USAF: 4 May 1977 to 11 Apr 1983) shrugs So? I have you beat all hands down on military experience, both directly and indirectly. What's your point? quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres I was pretty damned sure the urge to invade Iraq was BULLSHIT. President Cheney and his pet macaque though "sold" the war to an american public still frightened by the specter of 9-11. I on the other-hand knew that 9-11 was no where near as bad as it could have been. I stopped worrying over the terrorists almost as quickly as it took for the smoke to clear. The rest of the nation it seems is still shitting their pants. Glad to met you, oh Omniscient one. I'm glad that you are so certain about everything. The weight of your intellect and knowledge must be crushing at times. The rest of us walk through life with a little less certainty in life, I suspect. quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres Some Knucklehead ... Interesting sig. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 9:23:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You do wonder what might have happened in 2001 if OBL had been more interested in causing serious damage than a couple of token strikes at mediapathic targets. Dams or nuclear plants, do you reckon? I dunno. Thousands of people murdered, and sending the US economy into a downturn, costing billions (trillions?) or dollars sounds like a pretty successful terrorist attack to me. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 9:30:56 AM)
Yeah, and the resulting knee-jerk invasion under absolutely dishonest circumstances exacerbated those same things, in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with it and was an massive victory for those terrorists.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 9:45:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I've always said that the ultimate success or failure of the Iraq war couldn't be determined within a short span of time such as a few years, or perhaps even a few decades. Too much ideological and political hay to be made. What, in your view, do "success" and "failure" look like wrt the Iraq war? Why is a "long view" necessary to determine whether the war's outcome constitutes one or the other? A quick mental survey of wars involving the United States gives me the impression that the criteria for "success" and "failure" were pretty clear even before the respective conflict's end -- unless, perhaps, the rationale for the war was weak, false, or confused in the first place. So, can you provide historical examples of where the outcome -- in terms of success or failure -- of a war was ambiguous initially and only became apparent with time? Good post. Thank you. What, in your view, do "success" and "failure" look like wrt the Iraq war? Success for the Iraq war is general: 1. The removal of Hussein and the structure of his terrorist state, and 2. Changing the expectations and regional dialog about what is required/expected/possible when it comes to the type of governments that Arabic and Muslim peoples can entertain for themselves, to the favor of Western liberal democratic systems. Further success is if the US is able to then maintain ties with an ally in the region other than Israel to continue to have a positive impact in the region. Each of these is gist for a book or two, and are just bare summaries, but you can get the basic idea. Why is a "long view" necessary to determine whether the war's outcome constitutes one or the other? Very few analysis conducted in the heat of partisan anger are very accurate. A quick mental survey of wars involving the United States gives me the impression that the criteria for "success" and "failure" were pretty clear even before the respective conflict's end. Really? I think a large part of the problem in this case is the very partisan atmosphere that we are also discussing. Most of the partisans who were "anti-anything Bush" would give you a very short, concise description of the "failure" of anything associated with the Iraq war. A very narrow view, involving "WMD's", and ignoring all the other causes and reasons given. The "WMD excuse" for the war may have loommed large in many people's mind, but it was perhaps only the most newsworthy, and one that required the least amount of thought, but that doesn't mean it was the only, or even the most important reason for the war. So, can you provide historical examples of where the outcome -- in terms of success or failure -- of a war was ambiguous initially and only became apparent with time? How about the Revolutionary War? Firm

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 9:45:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres President Cheney and his pet macaque though "sold" the war to an american public still frightened by the specter of 9-11. It was easy enough to do. Just repeat the phrases "Saddam Hussein" and "9/11" together every night for two years, and every drooling idiot glued to Fox "news" (and even some who watched Bush pulling this on legit news channels) began thinking that Iraq had attacked us. This is still the most underappreciated con job in the modern information era. Even most of the troops in Iraq thought they were there "retaliating against Saddam Hussein for his role in the 9/11 attacks". And people wonder why the rest of the world looks on us with a mixture of awe and pity at our stupidity (collectively speaking). That Rice would even show her face in public again after that performance is just breathtaking in its gall. Imagine how you all would feel if a million Americans died due to some foreign invasion based on exaggerations and lies - and seven years later the perpetrators were walking around free, casually giving TV interviews and mulling over their next career moves.

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq (12/16/2010 9:56:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Lies means saying something that you know isnt true. Bush didnt, Blair didnt, both believed there were WMDs. Your use of "lies" without the slightest shred of evidence that they believed there were WMDs shows your bias quite clearly...as if we needed yet another demonstration of it. Our media almost completely censored this story, but you may recall a brief blip about it. The rest of the world heard quite a bit about it, which is why they have a clearer view on what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo quote: The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875