RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/14/2006 10:51:30 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Hans Blix had said, all the evidence was pointing to Iraq not having WMD. Chirac and Schroder both said they didn't believe Iraq had WMD, that intelligence they had seen didn't even start to support the idea there was WMD in Iraq or that Iraq were giving aid to terrorists.

How does that square with the French, German, Russian, Italian intelligence agencies saying, before the war, that there were WMDs?
How does that square with the Clinton Administration saying they believed Iraq was furiously working on WMDs?
How is it that it's BUSH who lied about WMDs and not all the rest of them? How?
Just answer the question.

I can receive British, Dutch, Belgian, French and German news on my TV and I understand all of them and I watch them for different perspectives, especially when their is something big happening on the international scene and I don't recall any politicians from the above countries saying they believed Iraq had WMD. I do remember them using diplomatic language and not calling Bush a liar or saying he (America) had shown them no intelligence of significance. I remember them being less kind and diplomatic about Tony Blair, almost to the point of calling his view on the world, warped. The French were particularly cruel about him and with some reason I thought.

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 61

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/14/2006 2:49:39 PM

ArtCatDom

Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
In necessary wars you don't absolutely need exit strategies. You do what you have to do. If we have to leave Iraq in ruins, we're still better off than when we had a mad dictator lusting after WMDs and terrorist connections. Same goes for Iran, by the way.

Leaving Afghanistan in ruins after we promised to help them rebuild worked so well didn't it?

How can you advocate this when you are so strongly against allowing situations that brew terrorism? Destroying a country and leaving it in economic and physical shambles is the surest way to have a new generation raised with hatred of the US and Western nations, ready to commit acts of terrorism.

*meow*

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 62

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/14/2006 5:40:14 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
In necessary wars you don't absolutely need exit strategies. You do what you have to do. If we have to leave Iraq in ruins, we're still better off than when we had a mad dictator lusting after WMDs and terrorist connections. Same goes for Iran, by the way.

Leaving Afghanistan in ruins after we promised to help them rebuild worked so well didn't it?

How can you advocate this when you are so strongly against allowing situations that brew terrorism? Destroying a country and leaving it in economic and physical shambles is the surest way to have a new generation raised with hatred of the US and Western nations, ready to commit acts of terrorism.

*meow*

What is so hard to understand about "If we have to leave Iraq in ruins, we're still better off than when we had a mad dictator lusting after WMDs and terrorist connections. Same goes for Iran, by the way."??

Yes, it's the worst-case scenario. Yes, it will lead to the same conditions that hurt us in the past. Yes, we want to avoid that. But if we can't avoid it, it's still better than ... I'm not going to repeat it three times.

You know what the worst-case scenario would be in Iraq? We leave and they have an atrocity-filled civil war. You know what happens then? The Shi'ites pound the Sunni population into the ground, men, women, children. Masscres everywhere. The Shi'ites are highly unlikely to support terrorism. Neither will the Kurds. So tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands? more than a million? -- Sunnis die instead of Americans. I don't like it, but better Sunnis than Americans.

It still works out to a net plus for us, for most Iraqis and for the world as a whole.

And on to Iran.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to ArtCatDom)

Post #: 63

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/14/2006 7:05:01 PM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Come on Caitlyn, how many political leaders has the US tried to assassinate?

The US has made assassination as a legitimate extension of diplomacy.

I'm not the "Polyanna Politics" type.

The world is a wicked place ... I started learning that when I was about five, and have seen very little to convince me otherwise. What the United States has done, is only important if someone is strong enough to do anything about it.

That's not being an "Ugly American" ... its just the world we live in, where the strong hyper-abuse the weak and then feel the need to justify it. I'm told Saddam was once a noble leader, fighting a brave struggle against the evil Iranians. Now, we are to believe he himself is evil incarnate.

I'm sure that very soon there will be some other evil person we have to kill ... and in all this, we are never the evil ones. We aren't evil because our military says we aren't. Don't worry that we will miss out on bring evil though ... some time down the road, probably after we are all gone, someone else will be the most powerful nation, and we will get our chance to the evil ones.

Ok ... this is a depressing post ... been that sort of day.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 64

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/14/2006 9:52:54 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
I can receive British, Dutch, Belgian, French and German news on my TV and I understand all of them and I watch them for different perspectives, especially when their is something big happening on the international scene and I don't recall any politicians from the above countries saying they believed Iraq had WMD. I do remember them using diplomatic language and not calling Bush a liar or saying he (America) had shown them no intelligence of significance. I remember them being less kind and diplomatic about Tony Blair, almost to the point of calling his view on the world, warped. The French were particularly cruel about him and with some reason I thought.

CHIRAC:

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002, Interview, L'Orient-Le Jour (seems to be a Lebanese newspaper)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1016chirac.htm

French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right ... in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed."
Sorry, I don't have the direct source, but I found the quote here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36952

ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS IS WHY IT'S CALLED THE AXIS OF WEASELS:

Statement by Chirac at a news conference June 5, 2004, from the Web site of the French Embassy in Washington:
I've always said that I had no information leading me to think that there were or that there weren't. [WMDs in Iraq] And that’s the truth. We had no information on this point allowing me to decide the matter. This is why I've always said, particularly to President Bush, that I was incapable of giving an opinion on the existence or non-existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2004/chirac_bush060504.asp

GERMAN AND FRENCH INTELLIGENCE
There have been plenty of references IN AMERICA by officials -- EVEN OFFICIALS OPPOSED TO THE IRAQ WAR that various European intelligence agencies believed there were WMDs in Iraq. Some of the statements:

From David Kay's testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee (September, 2002)[emphasis added]:

Iraq's pre-war nuclear accomplishments have ensured that if it can acquire fissionable nuclear material from any outside source it will be able to fabricate at least a crude, improvised nuclear device in months, not years. For Iraq, just like every other aspirant to nuclear status, the key obstacle is the acquisition of fissile material. Iraq had a viable weapon design and the capacity to produce all the elements of a weapon. If Iraq has to rely on its own efforts to produce nuclear material, one can do little better than the public estimate by German intelligence authorities last year which, citing major Iraqi procurement efforts that the Germans had knowledge of, determined that Iraq could, in the worst case, have a nuclear weapon in 3-6 years. Given the insecurity of nuclear stockpiles in the former Soviet Union, the direct acquisition of nuclear materials remains a serious possibility and one for which there is likely to be little warning with even the best of intelligence.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-10kay.html

From Francis Fukuyama's op-ed piece on why he no longer supports the war (emphasis added):

I know that many on the left believe that the prewar estimates about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were all a deliberate fraud by the Bush administration, but if so, it was one in which the U.N. weapons inspectors and French intelligence were also complicit.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-fukuyama9apr09,0,4101567.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

From a question-and-answer session after a speech by Iraqi-War OPPONENT Col Lawrence Wilkerson on Oct. 29, 2005:
…I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 [in Colin Powell's speech] was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. I don’t know – and people say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR [the U.S. State Department intelligence service] dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios….
Page 14 (of 30) on this PDF transcript of his speech:
http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_File_2644_1.pdf

From a May 3, 2004 speech by U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas):
Before the war, there was very little difference of opinion between U.S., British, German, Israeli, Russian, the UN and French, yes, even the French, intelligence with regard to whether or not Iraq had WMD. It is my view this was clearly an intelligence failure as opposed to alleged manipulation. When asked if they had any evidence that any of the 1,400 members of the Iraq Survey Team had been pressured to change their judgements, both Dr. David Kay and Charles Duelfer, the current team leader, stated the analysts were NOT pressured to make certain their pre-war intelligence reports conformed to a White House agenda on Iraq. These views are also consistent with the findings of our committee staff who have interviewed over 200 analysts throughout the Intelligence Community.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:_qm5L50JE1IJ:www.mediarelations.ksu.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/robertslandontext50404.html+%22French+intelligence+%22+Iraq+-Curveball+prewar+WMD&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=24&ie=UTF-8

Wednesday, January 28, 2004
(CNN) -- Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testified Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee about efforts to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Following is a transcript of Kay's opening remarks before committee members began questioning him.
KAY: [SNIP] ... Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.
Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

HANS BLIX:
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, during a press conference last week, said "Many months before [the] Iraqi action, I met [the] predecessor of [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Hans Blix in Warsaw ... He told me [a] very important thing: that Saddam had these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons. Because to have such [an] impression that he has mass destruction weapons is a part of his doctrine, to keep ... power in Iraq and to be strong in the region. So I think it's very difficult today to judge how it was when he ... decided to continue this project of mass destruction weapons ... Absolutely, Iraq is ready to produce if it's necessary to keep the power of and dictatorship of Saddam and to play such [an] important role in the region."
from a February 5, 2004 column by Larry Elder here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36952

BILL CLINTON:
In October 2003, months after the Iraq war began, former President Bill Clinton visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. Durao Barroso said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36952

Former President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998, stated, "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again ..."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36952

Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, "... t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36952

< Message edited by DelightMachine -- 5/14/2006 10:11:01 PM >

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 65

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/14/2006 11:10:18 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

If isolated quotes prove a person's opinion I could prove Bush had every intention of invading Iraq before 9/11 and before he was president. Politicians waffle for all sorts of diplomatic reasons because they don't like to call allies and even potential enemies liars to prevent esculating situations. The overall view in Europe and particularly in France and Germany was that Iraq having WMD was fantasy. That was why Chirac and Schroder wouldn't have anything to do with the invasion and why 70% of the British public was against the war and 4% of the British public actually demonstrated against the war on a single day, the biggest demonstration in Britain's history. Blair won the last British election by default because the British election system is crap, in the lowest turnout for a general ever, I believe and received less 1 in 4 of the potential votes. Hardly a ringing endorsement. From the public up, the vast majority of people thought he was lying before the invasion was supposed to be certain because just about everyone believed WMD didn't exist and for whatever reason WMD was just an excuse being used by the US administration for their own reasons.

The qoutes you supply are at best unequivical and you seem to use the Bush tactic of saying something long enough and loud enough and it will be true. I repeat, the atomosphere in Europe was that WMD was an invention of the Bush administration. In fact the term WMD was an invention of the Bush administration. No one had heard of that term before Bush, certainly not this side of the Atlantic anyway.

Hmm Having just read WorldNetDaily.com, it hardly seems the font of independent thought.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 5/14/2006 11:21:13 PM >

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 66

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 5:00:36 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

The op seemed to suggest that the only way to judge the value or 'rightness' of a war is when one can gather all the effects of that war and evaluate them. Since then a majority of the posts have been concerned with whether this or that set of details makes this or that sort of war justifiable.
I would suggest that two things have been conflated here....the reson for going to war is not the same thing as history's judgement of it. Sometimes the two things coincide, but very rarely. We are dealing with two seperate judgements here, foresight and hindsight. It is best if our leaders have both, but if they only have one then I'd suggest foresight is the more useful.
As a final point I would like to associate myself with the comments made earlier that war always has bad consequences. If the world can ever wrap its head round that then it'll be a safer place.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 67

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 5:29:18 PM

SirCumSpank

Posts: 9
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

A lot of people on these message boards think that because you can hit the mark with a criticism against a govenment fighting a war, that means either we never should have fought the war or we're losing, or we're winning a Pyrrhic victory.

Well, you could do the same with any war. Here's how one writer imagines World War II could have been criticized in just the same way:

"May 21, 1945—After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed 'island hopping.'

"Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a 'bunch of dead-enders,' was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history."

The whole thing is worth reading:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzRjMGE2MGViZGE3NDcyMmZhYzY3MWJjOTc1OTc3YmQ=

My point: You have to put EVERYTHING in the mix when looking back and judging whether it was worth fighting a war. All the results, all the things that you no longer have to worry about because you fought the war, the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful.

First I must look at the reason for war...Japan bombed us, war was a result of counterstrike.

Iraq was a bunch of people in the dessert with sheets and no real technology and of course their own religion and views of life. Had it been a war like Japan, it would have been over quickly, but since we had to change horses in the middle of the stream, several times as I recall, we had to strategically pick our moves. And it reflects another war which still raises the hair on the back of my neck.

As for the pros and cons that we, as a nation are to gain from this, well lets see.....
Our free country has less freedom
Our Liberty is taxed to the brink
Those who ran into war, have profitted rediculously while the country had to sit back and pay for their profits. However, we do have a man we claim is responsible for the deaths of over 600 lives. Let's not forget, this same group who rushed to war against him put him in power. Now let's get back to those 600 he killed, it only cost close to ten times that to catch him. Anybody seeing the mathematics in this.

The media is full reasons why this is "American" even though they criticize small deeds. Somehow or another they are always smoothed out. So while my point of view is probably very uncommon, that never really mattered much to me. Saying what I feel has always been who I am. And be dooly noted even though I myself have been in war, and had enemies, I see no profit for mankind at the eve of hatred. I love everyone equally, something that some leaders better start looking at. In most of the rest of the world, we are now despised. Funny but I see their point.

Nothing but love for all....Have a good evening

_____________________________

SirCumSpank

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 68

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 6:21:46 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirCumSpank
Iraq was a bunch of people in the dessert with sheets and no real technology and of course their own religion and views of life.

After Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facility, and after more information came to light about it, Western governments and experts were shocked at how far Iraq had gotten. If another couple of years had gone by, they later estimated, Saddam's government would have had nukes.

As to their own religion and views of life, I doubt that includes torturing and killing people by pushing them into bottle crushers as their families watched, as Saddam did. That kind of behavior is actually frowned upon by most Arabs, as is terrorism.

It's true, there are a lot of Arabs who read their Koran as saying they have to be antagonistic toward non-Muslims. So it's not going to be easy having troops in the Mideast. But it's easier than giving terrorists a safe haven to plot against us. It's also easier to deal with than having a Mideast government with a big WMD research budget pal around with terrorist groups. Much easier.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to SirCumSpank)

Post #: 69

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 7:09:14 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
The op seemed to suggest that the only way to judge the value or 'rightness' of a war is when one can gather all the effects of that war and evaluate them. Since then a majority of the posts have been concerned with whether this or that set of details makes this or that sort of war justifiable.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. My point is that you take the details as a whole and get as broad a look as it's possible before you make a judgment.

quote:

I would suggest that two things have been conflated here....the reson for going to war is not the same thing as history's judgement of it. Sometimes the two things coincide, but very rarely.

They may never coincide, which is beside the point. My point is, you try to look at the broadest possible picture before deciding to get into a war and you do the same thing when you look back on one. Those who look at a few details and jump to a conclusion are acting foolishly.

quote:

We are dealing with two seperate judgements here, foresight and hindsight. It is best if our leaders have both, but if they only have one then I'd suggest foresight is the more useful.

Good suggestion, but irrelevant.

quote:

As a final point I would like to associate myself with the comments made earlier that war always has bad consequences. If the world can ever wrap its head round that then it'll be a safer place.

You either have to agree that it is justifiable to enter some wars or say that no war has ever resulted, ultimately, in mankind being better off. Or am I missing something here?

Personally, I think that eliminating the Nazi regime and the Imperial Japanese regime were ultimately better for the world.

If you want to say that starting a war is hardly ever a good idea, I agree. Keep in mind though that the Iraq War is only a part of the overall War on Terror and we didn't start it, we're only defending ourselves in it. By attacking the regimes that support terrorism and lust after WMDs, we're doing the most humane, most efficient thing we can do to end this war and get ourselves to the best possible outcome.

And if you think that our not fighting the terrorists and the regimes that support them is going to end this war, you're mistaken.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to philosophy)

Post #: 70

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:12:01 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

FIRST, A REVIEW OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DEBATING

Excuse me, meatcleaver, but I've answered your objections and now you're ignoring both what you said and what I said. Let's review:
You said (and I'm adding boldface emphasis to make it clearer):

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Hans Blix had said, all the evidence was pointing to Iraq not having WMD. Chirac and Schroder both said they didn't believe Iraq had WMD, that intelligence they had seen didn't even start to support the idea there was WMD in Iraq or that Iraq were giving aid to terrorists.

My reply:

quote:

How does that square with the French, German, Russian, Italian intelligence agencies saying, before the war, that there were WMDs?
How does that square with the Clinton Administration saying they believed Iraq was furiously working on WMDs?
How is it that it's BUSH who lied about WMDs and not all the rest of them? How?
Just answer the question.

Then you said:

quote:

I can receive British, Dutch, Belgian, French and German news on my TV and I understand all of them and I watch them for different perspectives, especially when their is something big happening on the international scene and I don't recall any politicians from the above countries saying they believed Iraq had WMD. I do remember them using diplomatic language and not calling Bush a liar or saying he (America) had shown them no intelligence of significance. I remember them being less kind and diplomatic about Tony Blair, almost to the point of calling his view on the world, warped. The French were particularly cruel about him and with some reason I thought.

As of this point, I contended that it was difficult to believe Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq because so many others, including the French and German intelligence agencies, believed the same thing, as did Clinton.

And you contended that Blix, Chirac and Schroder said there was no evidence of WMD, that they didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq (I assume you meant to include Blix in this, but I don't think it ultimately matters), and that intelligence they'd seen didn't support the idea of WMD in Iraq.

Then I gave you a dozen quotes from varied sources, including three quotations from Chirac, two of which indicated he thought there was a very good possibility that there were WMD in Iraq, and the third one contradicting the other two.

Your response was ... inadequate.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 71

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:19:26 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

Here's how your response was inadequate, meatcleaver:

1. You "don't recall any politicians from the above countries saying they believed Iraq had WMD." I showed Chirac saying something very, very close to that. Very close. Certainly, he was saying that it was a reasonable assumption that Saddam had WMD.
That's enough to support my original point that Bush had good reason to believe it.

2. You say "If isolated quotes prove a person's opinion I could prove Bush had every intention of invading Iraq before 9/11 and before he was president."

But I didn't have "isolated quotes," I had quotes from all over. I had quotes from Chirac, I had quotes from opponents of the war such as Fukuyama and Wilkerson. I had more than one source for most of the points made in those quotes. Lots of people in the know seem to believe that those intelligence agencies thought there was WMD in Iraq.

I have evidence.

What do you have, meatcleaver?

3. "The qoutes you supply are at best unequivical." You mean equivocal. Actually, they're pretty convincing. You, of course, have produced no evidence, which leads to the next point.

4. "Hmm Having just read WorldNetDaily.com, it hardly seems the font of independent thought."
More independent than the lapdog French mdeia or the thoroughly biased German media. Actually, the quotes stand independently of the person quoting them at WorldNetDaily and, as you well know, not all the quotes came from there. I quoted government transcripts, foreign media, U.S. media, opponents and proponents. For you to quibble about one source among many is disingenuous. It's hard to get a broader set of sources than I had.

5. "Politicians waffle for all sorts of diplomatic reasons" you say, but you also say, " The overall view in Europe and particularly in France and Germany was that Iraq having WMD was fantasy. That was why Chirac and Schroder wouldn't have anything to do with the invasion and why 70% of the British public was against the war and 4% of the British public actually demonstrated against the war on a single day, the biggest demonstration in Britain's history."

Maybe, just maybe, politicians waffled (or worse) about there being WMDs in Iraq because their public didn't want to believe it?

6. "you seem to use the Bush tactic of saying something long enough and loud enough and it will be true."

No I present evidence to back up my conclusions. Have you?

By the way, are you aware that it was the official U.S. government position, not just of the Bush and Clinton administrations, but based on measures that passed both houses of Congress that the United States was to do what it could to overthrow Saddam's regime? This was all public and it was true for years before 9/11, never mind before we invaded Iraq.

You should either admit that it's likely that George W. Bush was not lying or give evidence to the contrary. You should concede that my evidence helps prove that or you should say why it doesn't.

meatcleaver, are you closed-minded or are you open-minded? Was I wrong to try to reason with you and take you seriously?

< Message edited by DelightMachine -- 5/15/2006 8:28:25 PM >

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 72

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:20:35 PM

skosterow

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

Yeah, but Clinton didn't invade a country without the support of the United Nations, forcing out the weapons inspectors, who.. by the way, were reporting that there was no evidence of weapons, as did the IAEA, and a large portion of our own intelligence... Only W did that..

Maybe no evidence of weapons, but they were being led around by their noses by the Iraqis, who made it look awfully damn suspicious, like they did indeed have something to hide.

As for the UN...... I am a supporter of it. But it is flawed... just look at it allowing countries like Libya and the Sudan to sit on the Human Rights council.... so, it is not the be-all, end-all of wisdom. So, just because we didn't have their support is not reason enough to not move ahead.

Don't take what I'm saying as a case of me being particularly gung-ho about us going into Iraq, I wasn't.

I have to agree with this pholosohpy that irag made it look suspicious - but do you read? Suddam had and now we have Iran sitting at the border, wich has historical claims on Iraq. Dont you think he was bluffing, knowing that if he show's PROOF POSITIVE that he has no WMD's that iran wouldnt have invaded? and you think that bush wasnt betting on this?

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 73

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:21:39 PM

skosterow

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

And a parting question before I turn in for bed....... for those of you who think we should not have went into Iraq, what do you think should have been done?

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 74

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:32:43 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Dont you think he was bluffing, knowing that if he show's PROOF POSITIVE that he has no WMD's that iran wouldnt have invaded?

skosterow, Iran was in no position to invade. It doesn't want to irritate its own people quite that much. The last war they had with Iraq was incredibly unpopular and most Iranians hate their government.

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to skosterow)

Post #: 75

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:39:17 PM

skosterow

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
This current fiasco was started on the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was funneling things to terrorists. We get there... oops... no WMD.

I remember something else from WW2 -- Einstein and others warned that the Nazis were trying to create an atomic bomb. They didn't have one yet, and we didn't declare war until after Japan attacked us and Germany then declared war against us. Now, Einstein didn't warn that the Nazis HAD nukes, just that they were trying to build them and that it was possible to create them.

If we have to wait until a country actually HAS weapons of mass destruction that would be kind of ... stupid, wouldn't it? A lot of history is being rewritten by the Left on this. There were multiple reasons for going to war and Bush was criticized for giving one reason and then another and then another. For political reasons the Bush administration thought they should concentrate more on the WMD reason, and they thought they had a good case for that. But it mattered more that Saddam LUSTED after WMDs -- see my 1-4 list in my post to Caitlyn just above.

Man - you really need to READ history! while Einstein did indeed worn about the nazi threat, that WAS NOT THE REASON WE joined the war! Churchill was begging America to join the war. Roosevelt on the same hand was agreeing. It was the public opinion that held us out as long as it did. It was only after we wera attacked - wich conensidently were now finding evidence that we may have KNOWN about those attacks prior to them happening, by way of japanees radio tranmissions and fleet movements, did America rise up again the worlds greatest foe.

Stop spinning history! it is what the german people did while hitler was handing out his edicts!

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 76

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:44:57 PM

skosterow

Posts: 6
Joined: 2/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

Dont you think he was bluffing, knowing that if he show's PROOF POSITIVE that he has no WMD's that iran wouldnt have invaded?

skosterow, Iran was in no position to invade. It doesn't want to irritate its own people quite that much. The last war they had with Iraq was incredibly unpopular and most Iranians hate their government.

man you really need to get ut more - they have those - i forget the iranian name for it - but the idiots that run at gun nests with NO WEAPON - with the thought that they will overrun them, just because of shear numbers. they also have this little key around there neck that gives them access to the holy land, when their cut down by US Marines. Did you know there numbers are up by 50%? or does the FACTS blind you?

(in reply to DelightMachine)

Post #: 77

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 8:57:32 PM

JohnWarren

Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: skosterow

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

And a parting question before I turn in for bed....... for those of you who think we should not have went into Iraq, what do you think should have been done?

Allow the inspectors to do their job and generally contain the bastard. The problem with getting rid of bastards who run countries is there are just so damned many of them. As Bush said during his campaign for president, the United States shouldn't be in the business of regime change,

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to skosterow)

Post #: 78

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 9:52:41 PM

IronBear

Posts: 9008
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Beenleigh, Qld, Australia
Status: offline

One of the issues we'll always see in any type of discussion like this is the difference between those who comment from a permanent civilian position (never having had military service or at least no combat experience) and those who have and are vets.. Nothing like feeling the dirt kick up in you face or the rounds whistling about you and seeing mates die to give you a whole new outlook on war...

DM, I'd like to offer for thought four quotes (sorta) from four different areas of thinking for your perusal and I'm sure you and others will be able to enjoy them....

The First is on the Glory of War...

“He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
    And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
    Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
    But he'll remember, with advantages,
    What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.”
  St. Crispen's Day Speech (Excerpt)
William Shakespeare, 1599

The second is a joke emailed to me. Lets call it the Treachery of Politicians

A farmer went out one day and bought a brand new stud rooster for his
chicken coop. The new rooster struts over to the old rooster and
says, "OK old fart, time for you to retire."
The old rooster replies, "Come on, surely you cannot handle ALL of
these chickens. Look what it has done to me. Can't you just let me
have the two old hens over in the corner?" The young rooster says,
"Beat it: You are washed up and I am taking over.." The old rooster
says, "I tell you what, young stud. I will race you around the
farmhouse. Whoever wins gets the exclusive domain over the entire
chicken coop." The young rooster laughs. "You know you don't stand a
chance, old man. So, just to be fair, I will give you a head start."
The old rooster takes off running. About 15 seconds later the young
rooster takes off running after him. They round the front porch of
the farmhouse and the young rooster has closed the gap.
He is only about 5 feet behind the old rooster and gaining fast. The
farmer, meanwhile, is sitting in his usual spot on the front porch
when he sees the roosters running by. He grabs his shotgun and - BOOM
- he blows the young rooster to bits. The farmer sadly shakes his
head and says,
"Darn.....third gay rooster I bought this month."
Moral of this story? ...
Don't mess with the OLD FARTS - age, skill, and treachery will always
overcome youth and arrogance!
(Farmer being the pubilc and military Rooster being the Political body)

Thirdly the Diplomat

The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on; nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel; half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
(Omah Khayyam)

Lastly some valid combat truths:

MURPHY’S LAWS OF COMBAT

You are not Superman.
If it’s stupid, but works - it’s not stupid.
Don’t look conspicuous - it draws fire.
When in doubt, empty your magazine.
Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are.
Remember: &#160 - Your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
If your attack is going really well, it’s an ambush.
No plan survives the first contact intact.
All 5-second grenade fuses will burn out in 3 seconds.
Try to look unimportant. The enemy may be low on ammo.
If you are forward of your position, the artillery will always fall short.
The important things are always simple.
If you are short of everything except enemy, you’re in combat.
When you have secured an objective, don’t forget to let the enemy know about it.
Incoming fire has right of way.
If the enemy is in range - SO ARE YOU.
No combat ready unit passed inspection.
Beer Math: 2 beers times 37 men = 49 cases.
Body Count Math: 2 guerillas + 1 portable (dunny) + 2 pigs = 37 enemy KIA.
Things that must be together to work, usually can’t be shipped together.
Radios will fail as soon as you need fire support desperately.
Anything you do can get you shot, including doing nothing.
Tracers work both ways.
The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.
If you take more than your fair share of objectives, you will have more than your fair share of objectives to take.
When both sides are convinced that they are about to loose, they are both right.
Professional soldiers are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs.
Murphy was a grunt.

< Message edited by IronBear -- 5/15/2006 9:53:53 PM >

_____________________________

Iron Bear

Master of Bruin Cottage

http://www.bruincottage.org

Your attitude, words & actions are yours. Take responsibility for them and the consequences they incur.

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

(in reply to JohnWarren)

Post #: 79

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/15/2006 10:26:48 PM

DelightMachine

Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

One of the issues we'll always see in any type of discussion like this is the difference between those who comment from a permanent civilian position (never having had military service or at least no combat experience) and those who have and are vets.. Nothing like feeling the dirt kick up in you face or the rounds whistling about you and seeing mates die to give you a whole new outlook on war...

DM, I'd like to offer for thought four quotes (sorta) from four different areas of thinking for your perusal and I'm sure you and others will be able to enjoy them....

You haven't said this but others have come very close to it: That I have no right to advocate war if I haven't been in one.

There is only one response to that, and there can be only one response to that: Bullshit.

If your point were that I haven't been sensitive enough to the horrors of war, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what I said in the earlier pages of this thread.

And if that is your point, then I have a counterpoint to that: You aren't sensitive enough to the horrors of "peace." And I've made clear what many of those horrors are in this thread and others.

Honestly, half the people who post in these threads haven't read what the other side is saying.

If I'm misreading you, please feel free to tell me how.

Edited to add: No I haven't read your full post, IB, but I'm printing it out and will read it tomorrow. Now, finally, to bed.

< Message edited by DelightMachine -- 5/15/2006 10:28:39 PM >

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to IronBear)

Post #: 80

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094