RISK is not JUSTAFIABLE to go to WAR. How many times do you have to hear that. They never once posed a threat to the states..sure they "could have"...but any country "could" pose a risk...but unless they say they will, why invade? Oh yes, because Bush is a "war president"..he even claimed it himself.

That is where you and I differ. A reasonable risk is a justification to do what is necessary to protect our national security. If the government isn't willing to handle that responsibility, what is it good for?

There's just one small difference between the Revolutionary War and Iraq. We fought for OUR independence. How many Iraqi's joined our fight?

How many Iraqis fought to keep Saddam in power? The ease with which his regime was conquered is the telling fact.

Re: ...
 

As kutulu said, the US fought for their independence; they weren’t invaded and told this is how you will live from now on (I'd say that was a huge difference). You might like your way of life, but not everyone in the world wants it.

new thread instead

You are demonstrating a shocking lack of logic. Let's boil your statement down to its essence. "the simplest explanation for anyone doing anything is whatever they tell you the reason is."

In fact, according to your interpretation of Occam's razor, if Occam's razor is to be taken as a valid postulation, lying cannot exist.

I don't buy it ;)

In fact, I would argue that a simpler reason for going to war than the one Bush gave us is that "Bush wanted to."



You can find these in North Korea, China, Haiti, etc etc etc. Why did we go after Iraq and not one of these?

You can find THESE in dozens of countries as well.

Plus, this and the bit about mass graves is irrelevant. Bush said we were going to war because Saddam had WMD's. You can rape and kill all the people you want without necessarilly having WMD's. You are suggesting that because he is guilty of these two crimes, he must be guilty of what we accuse him of. Your logic here suggests that I am a murderer because I once got a speeding ticket.

Please cite your sources, because the "small amounts of WMD's" to which I assume you refer are defunct, non-functional remnants of a time in which Saddam was not forbidden to have them.

And ignoring the fact that the proof is fabricated doesn't make it true.

Please provide proof that the U.S. fabricated the mass graves, torture & rape rooms, the small amounts of WMDs that have been discovered, and Saddam's sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel.

TIA.

First of all, what the fuck? Your original reference to "ignoring the proof" dealt with the WMD's, not the other things, so why are you crawling up Shakran's ass about graves and rapes?

You brought the WMD's up, you bear the burden of proof. Besides, the "small amount" which you yourself stated exists exists has been discussed already.

Since Shakran and I's last posts are pretty much exactly identical, I am doubly curious why neither have been argued against. Instead, we're getting doublespeak about gravesites and WMD issues we've already argued about, and now you're tossing in a suicide bomber sponsorship which has not existed in the context of this debate, and is off-topic anyway.

So... in all sincerity... what exactly are you trying to prove or get across to us, other than your blind love of Bush? Because honestly that's all I'm seeing.

And this is why I now just sit and watch........Pity.

I have seen nobody refute the Congress' concurrence that the analysis of intelligence data made Saddam's regime a reasonable threat. Instead, what has been done is to try to isolate and pick apart the various elements.

This is not a criminal trial in which proof is required beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is needed is an assessment of a reasonable risk. The combined criteria provided this reasonable doubt to hundred of elected officials. If you disagree with their judgement, you may express yourself at the polls in November.

I intend to express my opinion that we are doing the right thing by engaging in a serious response to a declaration of war by Islamofascists.

Wonderwrench I've heard various versions of what people think; I just wanted to be clear on what areas you view as the conspiracy theory area; thanks.

Just a quick note: whether or not I agree or disagree I find the political discussions worthy time consumers. As do many or there would obviously be no debate/conversation. It sucks when they are closed down by the mods because of the direction they take. Although its understandable and IMO justifiable. The conversation truly starts to take on its own negative entity when personal swipes begin formulating. They start out subtle like the questioning of someone's intellect or courses like stating their comments belong in the humor section.

Anyone’s case is of course stronger when they have proof to back up what they state; but what exactly is considered proof. Is it a universal definition understood by everyone? Is it a source that is considered valid by some and not by others? Is it a website? Is it a quote from a book? Is it an excerpt from documentation http://www.loc.gov/ or http://www.archives.gov/records_of_congress/

or

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/005177.html

http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=1409

?

If suspicion that the very source are providing the foundation of proof the one seeks as being self served with other motives then validation is not achieved leaving the reason why time, energy, and emotion was devoted to hopefully making a point.

The net brings everything. All masters of google giving birth to avenues such as http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1412.htm
where proof is questioned.

History is selected interpretation. Unless one was there they rely on the documented events from sources who bear the same mindset. Not good news, not bad new; just the news.

Or one can put IMO in front of every statement they make, and put a source THEY VIEW as being valid in form of every comment made- 2 actions I don’t think any of us will see in any thread. That of course is MO. I'm guilty of losing my cool; and my power in the fight to make someone think like me. Im glad to have been humbled; it reminded me that everyone has an opinion thats important to them, and if I didnt care to hear such I have no business devoting time in a setting such as this.

Asking respectfully as a fellow member of the forum; please try and keep the personal attacks out of the discussions; or even masking them through other means; its obvious to all and it gets the thread closed.

UN Report

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

Here is an article and corresponding UN report regarding WMD's other than the one's referenced in this thread.

I don't have an opinion either way yet because, while the "facts" look solid, I am in no way familiar with "World Tribune".

Considering the sources are not from the United States, does this have any effect on this debate?

The one thing that keeps me from pointing at the article and saying, "look, over here, here are the WMD's" is the fact that I haven't heard anything other than this article.

One would think this article would be all over Bush's website (it may be, I haven't checked).

Can anybody tell me if this is a legitimate source?

O.K., I found another article, from another source, related to this UN Report. This one, I think, is better written.

http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/j...c_report.shtml

I am starting to lean towards the validity of the report. I started to read it, but I will have to finish tomorrow.

The gist, that I am getting, is that "prohibited" components are being discovered in numerous places throughout the world (the source of the items apparently Iraq).

All I can really get from this is the UN saying, "we are investigating this further" (my quote).

I haven't been able to find any other "mainstream" articles relating to this UN report. I will sit myself down tomorrow and try and read the whole report.

is anyone disputing the mass graves and torture rooms? not that i've noticed

i haven't heard the suicide bombers in Israel bit, but it wouldn't suprise me, no-one likes the Israelis over there, so i'll accept that too

it's this WMD thing that we can't take seriously

In the end none of this matters. Some are convinced that WMDs and Saddam's ability to strike the US are the only reasons we went to war. Others believe these were parts of the reason, while still others believe they had little to nothing to do with the invasion.

Even if we found a cache of wmds built two years ago with video of Saddam stamping the shells out himself the argument will be turned to "but the shells couldn't have struck the US".

At this point it doesn't matter. The best available intelligence from a dozen or more countries pointed to wmds in Iraq. Saddam gambled and through his speeches, actions, and games tried to make it appear that he had them (probably for very good reasons like not wanting to appear weak to his neighbors). The gamble failed and we are in Iraq. Nothing will convince some that it was a just cause. Nothing will convince others that it wasn't.

Americans are "Ph*cKED"!!!
We as a group dont know our asses from our elbows.
It takes a personal history (like being African American or another minority group...try homosexual this time around) of being victim of INJUSTICE to really have a good perspective of the world events taking place today.
There is no proof or dis-proof.
There is no real reason to believe that the CONGRESS cares about us citizens.
There is no real reason to believe what anyone reports to you...EVEN MICHAEL MOORE himself.
Like religon and the bible/torah/koran (spell??) people tell the story their way to manipulate the readers.
GO WITH YOUR HEART.

My heart tells me that people over there are dying for no logical reason.

two articles on todays developments--now it seems the cia knew the wmd programs had been shut down/dismantled, but they didnt tell anyone.

i dont present this as definitive proof of anything, but as one more index of how things really stand on the matter at hand in this thread.

it seems that the isolation of certain bits of information combined with the effort to pin blame on agencies internal to the state rather than actually accepting it as Individuals----is central to how the administration is choosing to deal with this. that strategy seems to run directly agains the moralizing language of bushworld.

btw--i include a link to an article on the same information that appeared in today's le monde as well--the reason for it is you'll get an sense of the extent to which the ny times is even now softpedalling things if you compare the two--it is in french.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/po...06INTE.html?hp

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-371672,0.html


you can find articles concerning blair's now-routine mantra concerning the wmd question in todays guardian....i didnt link them simply because there is no information--more a note about yet another occaision that required blair to defend himself.

Regarding WMDs - there was a large consensus among many nations that Saddam possessed WMDs. To some, only Bush is lying. I don't get it.

Sun Tzu - The conspiracy theories to which I refer have a common theme: despite the stated reasons for going to war, the "hidden agenda" was to profit the Friends of Bush. The other commonality is that no proof is provided - only accusations.

If one was to watch this movie, it would definately shed some light on how and why one would think that he did it to help his friends make lots of money, in turn helping himself. The keywords there are "watch this movie."

Accusations are a start. Accusations are suspicions made known. Do you think that any person in any of these high-ranking jobs/positions are going to say "Alright, guys; You caught me!"

I got it from BT 2 days ago, and I might have to watch it again...but I don't remember him even accusing them (flat out saying, "Hey, you guys did this!") of any foul play, or starting the war to make money. I don't follow Moore or what he or any other individual says day after day, and I wouldn't doubt that he's made flat-out accusations or given speeches on this just based on the fact of who he is and what he stands for; However, in *this* movie he did not. The attitude I got from the movie was "Isn't this funny how all of these people relate?" If I got a different copy, somebody let me know. What I saw was him (Moore) showing people who worked where, who was friends with who, and how that related to how things went down. That should make ANYONE stop and think "hmm...wait a second..."

Watching the movie would only be helpful if I suspended my values, rational thought and ignored history.

Right. Don't both 1 and 2 consist of you, and many others, agreeing that one should know what they're debating and/or discussing before doing so? I wouldn't go to the movies (or even download and watch for free) that The Notebook movie or whatever it is that just came out. Not only would I not like *that* movie, but I don't like the genre in general. However, you wouldn't see me posting criticism and degrading the movie, beyond "I don't like that type of movie." You are entitled to not watch the movie for a number of reasons, including type, genre, director, writers, actors/actresses, etc., but don't try to argue the content of it without doing so.

The perception about WMDs is affected by more than just Moore; he is but one voice in the Greek Chorus of liberal media spin.

The liberal media has consistently distorted two key points:

- The use of the word "imminent". Bush said we needed to act before the threat posed by Saddam became imminent. The press has created a fictionalized version in which they claim Bush said the threat was imminent. (For Bush's exact wording, I refer you to the 2003 State of the Union Address.)

- The liberal media has also promoted two versions of why we went to war: WMDs (and their imminent threat) and It Was All About Oil. They conveniently jump back and forth between the two when evidence is presented which contradicts one of these myths.

not true! we think Tony Blair was lying too if that's any consolation :)

You are perfectly free to ignore the evidence to the contrary.

The U.N. thought he had weapons.
Putin thought he had weapons.
Blair thought he had weapons.
60 nations joined the coalition.

Fortunately for the world, some leaders have accurately perceived the threat to Civilization posed by medieval barbarians intent on spreading Islamofascism. The fact that we are all able to debate on this message board is due to those who are willing to make the tough calls to protect our freedom.

remarkable.
look, the problem was not whether in general hussein had weapon systems--it was whether bushclaims about the status of those systems were true at the point when the americans decided to go outside the un process and declare a functionally unilateral pre-emptive war.
the coalition is itself a questionable entity--but that is a different issue. if you actually read the ny times article, it says clearly that the americans in general knew that the un claims about the wmd systems were correct--they are trying now to argue that the information got bottled up with the cia.
i do not see where this is even a subject open to argument any longer.
it does not bode well for bushworld, this information, but there is no point in pretending that it does not exist.

"mideval barbarians"....."islamofascism"????...wtf???

So now that you say "thought", are you admitting there were none? I'm confused by your change in stance.

Also, to no one in particular, this is not another Michael Moore thread. Stay on topic please.

And Sun Tzu is right on the money- keep it civil and nothing gets locked (unless it strays horribly off-topic).

Well said buddy. I agree wholeheartedly.

You continue to mistake the burden of reasonable risk for that of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Intelligence is not perfect. It requires dealing with questionable people with questionable methods - an aspect of living in a less than perfect world.

The analysis of intelligence is based upon considering a broad spectrum of facts and understanding the nature of the enemy. Nobody here has adequately refuted the assessment that Saddam posed a reasonable risk given the available information and his history.

"Thought" as in: "were convinced that there were things". Or how about "were pretty sure there were things, for lack of any proof to the contrary". How is that admitting there were none?

In international intelligence, it is pretty rare that one is *sure* about things. One can only make educated guesses, which, combined with inherently inaccurate data, give a certain probability that something is true. Therefore, if a world leader and his/her intelligence agency say "I think Saddam has WMDs", then they're pretty damn sure of it. If more than one (rival) countries agree, then there's a good probability that it might be true. You can then deny it, or even claim it cannot be proven beyond a doubt, but that's hardly relevant. The only "proof" in this instance would have been an Iraqi WMD killing thousands.

I'm surprised at your last comment. Given that you are an historian, I would have thought you would understand that Islamic Civilization has declined greatly over the past few centuries. Comparing themselves to the West's ascendency is one of the drivers in the terrorist movement.

It is Islamofascism. They wish to subordinate the world to an Islamic state in which individuals have no rights.

"Islamofascism" is along the same lines as "Bushwar" -- a term invented for purposes of propaganda.

Then please provide a better term for a movement which seeks to force a Islamic-based totalitarian form of government upon the rest of the world.

I will happily use whatever term conveys the concept.

You continue to ignore direct questions to your direct statements. I cannot debate against the same blind rhetoric in every single post.

Saying they "thought" they were there is one thing, and now you're saying that the methods aren't perfect, etc. Again, I ask, if you aren't now admitting that there were no WMD's, what are you saying? You allude to the possibility and when called on it, you give me more fluff, not a response.

We've debated this for 4 pages now. I am not the only one who has made a case against the "small amount" (your own words) of WMD's found as being completely impotent of use, and worthless as evidence upon which to build a case for war. WMD's were always the main selling point to us, the American people and, indeed, the world. I love the "well if Bush is a liar then the other 60 coalition countries are lying too!" bullshit. Finger-pointing and diverting attention at its best- not to mention another non-answer.

This thread is about WMD's- not whether we should have gone to war over all of Saddam's exploits. You can prattle on about funding Israeli suicide bombers (you had to reach to pull that one out, i'm sure), torture and rape, etc., etc., etc., all you want, but many things remain directly questioned by me (and others), and thoroughly ignored by you.

Islamic fundamentalists?

Edit: my suggestion for a less "Michael Savagey" term for, well, Islamic fundamentalists....

This phrase does not incorporate the political agenda of the movement.

Sure it does...religious fundamentalists want to see their beliefs enacted as law. we can see this in the action of Christian fundamentalists as well. Or should I call them "christofascists?"

It is not blind rhetoric. The burden and nature of proof are the germaine issues. The justification for war was one of dealing with a reasonable risk. The commonality of the attacks upon the justification is a perspective that we have not proven the existence of vast stores of WMDs beyond a reasonable doubt.

One: the discovery process is far from over.

Two: the risk assessment was made based upon the best available intelligence and analysis available at the time.

Quote:

Saying they "thought" they were there i one thing, and now you're saying that the methods aren't perfect, etc. Again, I ask, if you aren't now admitting that there were no WMD's, what are you saying? You allude to the possibility and when called on it, you give me more fluff, not a response.

I am saying we have found some WMDs and that the process of discovery is far from over. The existence of some refutes the claims that there are none and that Saddam was not in violation of the UN resolutions.

Quote:

We've debated this for 4 pages now. I am not the only one who has made a case against the "small amount" (your own words) of WMD's found as being completely impotent of use, and worthless as evidence upon which to build a case for war. WMD's were always the main selling point to us, the American people and, indeed, the world. I love the "well if Bush is a liar then the other 60 coalition countries are lying too!" bullshit. Finger-pointing and diverting attention at its best- not to mention another non-answer. This thread is about WMD's- not whether we should have gone to war over all of Saddam's exploits. You can prattle on about funding Israeli suicide bombers (you had to reach to pull that one out, i'm sure), torture and rape, etc., etc., etc., all you want, but many things remain directly questioned by me (and others), and thoroughly ignored by you.

Incorrect. The WMDs were not the main selling point; the main selling point was the risk Saddam's regime posed to our national security for a combination of reasons. The liberal media fixated upon this one element for their own spin.

I would call them Christofascists if they engaged in a campaign of terrorism, had openly declared war on the U.S. and stated that the infidels should be put to death.

Which political movement are you referring to? That of fundamentalist Islam? Do you not see the contradiction there? Are you a student of Islam? Be careful what you say.


SLM3

I am careful. Islamofascism is the ideology of the extreme fanatics - not that of mainstream Muslims. I am quite consistent on this point.

Under the Christian umbrella you can find some pretty kooky guys. The Army of God has engaged in terroristic actions, the Christian Identity movement wishes to overthrow the government and start a race war and a surprising number of nuts want to see the enactment of biblical law, including stoning as a punishment for homosexuality. Death to the infidels, indeed.

And I believe those people are dangerous nutcases.

Fortunately, they seem to be mostly marginalized in our society.

Functionally impotent pieces of metal are not WMD's.

If the best available intelligence said there were stockpiles of the stuff, and he could launch in 45 minutes' notice, where the fuck are they now?

Wow. Everyone check your Politics Thread BINGO cards, someone just blamed the "liberal media".

Well, that makes BINGO for me. I was sure it wasn't going to come to that. I'm done.

So does the term "christofascist" apply or do we stick with the more convential term "christian fundamentalist?" Christofascist certainly does roll off of the tongue.

Exactly when have they tried to force the world into an Islamic state? Trying to keep Islamic states in their region and keep western ideals out of their region is way different that trying to force the world into an Islamic state.

"Chistofascists" is actually a pretty good word for the Bush Administration.

They are the ones eroding freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, imprisonment without trial or representation from a lawyer, torture, trying to outlaw pornography, new "descency standards" that apply only to people against Bush (not Oprah of course), and establishing "free speech zones"

I'm sorry, but this term, "islamofacism", just doesn't make sense to me. To blindly state that Islam is the source of political authority is indeed a stretch. The top thinkers on the subject (Mawdudi and Qutb on the fundamentalist side to the moderates that emerged in the 19th and 20th Century) have always argued the validity of Islam as a source for political authority. They haven't reached a conclusion. Neither should you.

Your simple statement flies in the face of all this commentary. Further, I don't understand how you profess to speak for their cause. Have you studied the figures I named above? Do you really know what they want?


SLM3

kutulu:

Oh, I get it now: we are the enemy.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Okay wonderwench, lets try this.
Please, answer the following with your understanding of the truth.

Sadam was incapable of a direct attack on the United States with a military strike: True or False

Iraq was working directly with Osama Bin Laden to plot an attack on the United States through Terrorist means: True or False

Weapons of Mass Destruction, in quantities and quaility, matching the defined "Stockpiles" stated by our current administration have been proven to exist in Iraq:True or False

Chemical, Biological, or any form of usable WMD's have been proven to exist in Iraq: True or False

The United States is a far more secure country, due primarily to the pre-emptive attack, and occupation of Iraq: True or False

I do not intend this as an attack or hope in any way to heat up the obvious anamosity between us.....I simply wish to understand you, and your line of reasoning.

If you would please answer these questions for me, it would be of great help in this regard, thank you.

Typical conservative spin. Ignore the content and say that the liberal "hates america"
I'm not the one who brought up removing individual rights.

Looks like I just scored a BINGO also!

Remember, it's the conservatives saying that we need to do this so that we can be "safer".

um---i am really not sure why you would bother to appeal to my academic role, as if that would help your position. i refer to it in order to explain why the way i write sometimes gets dense, but in general i am not working out of that space here. for example, if i were in that mode, i could hand you a long list of texts that would demolish your basic categories, and i could be in a relation where i could actually encourage you to address questions when they are posed to you. and inasmuch as i would like to do both at times, i made a prior decision to be here as myself in more or less citizen mode.

what exactly is "islamic civilization"?

there are something like 6 billion people (maybe more--i am working from memory, am in transit at the moment)--what they have in common is a belief system, a religion. that belief system necessarily involves one for or another relation to classical arabic as a function of strictures against translating the koran--however the ways in which this relation is articulated varies wildly place to place. like any huge, diverse group of people, the people who share this belief system they operate in many many different contexts----the largest population is in indonesia, for example.

so when you try to make arguments about a hallucination you call "islamic civilzation" you will understand why i do not know what you are talking about. when you throw around categories like "mideval barbarians" to categorize the people who you imagine to live within this entity, you will understand why i think the line that seperates how you talk from racism is really really
fine.

note: HOW YOU TALK...not you as a person.

when you use the word fascism--i remember across threads, for better or worse---it is obvious that you dont mean anything in particular except that you do not like the person or group that you designate by the term. it is like the way the term functions in "the short course of the history of the soviet communist party"--hitler was a fascist--trotsky was a fascist--everybody was a fascist that opposed the order being legitimated through the text.
you have referred to hillary clinton as a fascist. you use the term here. (a:b::b:a---that's the logic here) so you will understand if in this case as well i do not understand what you are talking about.


i am going back to dormant mode on this thread--i found the articles i posted earlier to be interesting, so i came back in.

o and bushwar i made up. it is a private shorthand. i dont know if others might use it, if i copied it, if they copied me, if it is just an obvious term to use and if many folk have converged on it.

That depends upon how one defines a direct attack. If one defines it in terms of launching ICBMs - then False. If one defines it as using a terrorist network to deploy chemical and biological agents - then True.

False - The justification for war never included a direct collaboration between OBL and SAdam.

Indeterminate and not relevant. The issue was complete compliance with the UN resolutions - for which Saddam has been proven to be in violation.

True

True. The front line for the War Declared Upon Western Civilization by Islamofascists has been moved back to the Mid-East.

I take umbrage at being called a racist.

I am not. It is not racist to make an objective assessment of the decline of Islamic civilization while the West has developed.

Thank you....that was very helpful.


Bingo!

I've never seen evidence to back this up.

But the connection was used to sway the opinions of the American people.

Quote:

Indeterminate and not relevant. The issue was complete compliance with the UN resolutions - for which Saddam has been proven to be in violation.

And we respect the sanctity of UN opinion so much that we invaded over it's objections. I consider the UN resolution argument meaningless because of this obvious disconnect.

Quote:

True. The front line for the War Declared Upon Western Civilization by Islamofascists has been moved back to the Mid-East.

This "flypaper theory," popularized by Andrew Sullivan, only works if there is a finite amount of Islamic terrorists. Given that the invasion of a Middle Eastern country will undoubtedly create new extremists, this value of this idea is null.

Snide, but not unsurprising.

I've seen little evidence of objectivity from anyone in this thread. When someone speaks of "objective politics," what they are really saying is "my politics."

It was the reason Senator Feinstein provided for why Congress approved the war - the concern that Saddam could easily hand off chemical and/or biological weapons to terrorist cells.


No. The opposition to the war has spun a myth that the justification for war was a direct link between OBL and Saddam. I refer you to the 2003 State of the Union Address to refresh your memory regarding the four stated reasons. Such a connection is not mentioned.

You are ignoring the fact that the UN Resolutions concerned the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War, to which the U.S. is an interested party. The unwillingness of the Oil For Food Bribed members of the UNSC to enforce the resolutions left us no choice but to act to protect our interests without UN involvement.

This is in the spirit of blaming the victim. The terrorists need no excuse. Our very existence is their main objection; the goal is our obliteration. It is better to create a nexus within the Mid-East to draw out the poison than to have their efforts concentrated upon U.S. territory.

Ignoring the stated ideology, objectives and methodology will not make Islamofascism go away.

BINGO

Hey, when the entire board is against you, don't you just kinda think to yourself "maybe, just maybe" I might not be right this time...maybe the other 99 perecnt of the people might have something going...maybe they know something that I dont?

And this has what to do with my comment?

A mob forming to shout me down it not going to cause me to question my well-founded beliefs.

Again:

And what was her evidence? I still see none mentioned.

Quote:

No. The opposition to the war has spun a myth that the justification for war was a direct link between OBL and Saddam. I refer you to the 2003 State of the Union Address to refresh your memory regarding the four stated reasons. Such a connection is not mentioned.

Please....the SOTU 2003 may not have mentioned it, but the administration played up the connection at many other events. Hell, Cheney is still defending the link.

Quote:

You are ignoring the fact that the UN Resolutions concerned the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War, to which the U.S. is an interested party. The unwillingness of the Oil For Food Bribed members of the UNSC to enforce the resolutions left us no choice but to act to protect our interests without UN involvement.

Ok, so we went in for our own interests. Fine. Let's just end this "we had to enforce the UN resolution" bullshit. The US has flouted innumerable resolutions and the Republicans typically have nothing but contempt to heap on the UN.

Quote:

This is in the spirit of blaming the victim. The terrorists need no excuse. Our very existence is their main objection; the goal is our obliteration. It is better to create a nexus within the Mid-East to draw out the poison than to have their efforts concentrated upon U.S. territory.

In no way is it "blaming the victim." Should we ignore the realities of the situation? Only a fool could think that military action won't create any resentment in the target area. We might be "drawing out the poison" for decades.

You question the objectivity of identifying the enemy's identity, ideology and objectives.

What do you call someone who declares war upon the U.S.?

What do you call someone who has a goal of complete annhilation of those who do not adopt his ideology?

What do you call the state of being completely annhilated?

These are not abstracts. We have a real enemy intent on destroying us. Minimizing the threat by crying "politics" doesn't make it any less real.

This has nothing to do with all that. I'm questioning the objectivity of your own opinions. Your haven't exactly used journalistic caution in your pronouncments.

Edit: I love the statement:

Quote:

What do you call the state of being completely annhilated?

I call it hyperbole.

Whether or not Bush went in to save the world from the evilest country in the world, a country with "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction, a country with biological and chemical weapons..a country that will pose a "Risk" to our country..or whether he went in with oil on the mind..etc etc...it doesnt really matter..what matters is that 864 troups have died...thousands have risked there lives..and well...i think alot of people are trying to justify this war any way they can..I mean hell, why wouldnt they..this war should be justified..look at all the people that have died...this war better damn well have been justified..some people will go to lengths to justify the war...thats just what I have noticed.

What nation declared war on the US?

It's not like some ragtag group of terrorists is going to be able to annihilate all the non-muslims. That's just the republican "scare the public" tactics.

....you mean to tell me that we're still rehashing the same damn arguments as when I stopped posting here a few months ago? Look, guys, get over yourselves, all of you. wonderwench, God bless you because you're dealing with a lot of stuff that I just gave up on because I saw no point in debating with these guys, they're not going to change their minds and I doubt very seriously that you are too. All you other peoples, the bingo thing was cute for like two seconds, now it's just annoying. Can we get some facts presented here, or are we going to continue to bicker and nit pick at the language we all use?

Look, we felt we had enough credible intelligence to go into Iraq. Intelligence linking Saddam to al Qaeda (NOT for 9/11, but in general, the two are linked). Saddam had WMD at one point in time, and they were not all accounted for, and they are still unaccounted for, Bill Clinton has even said that statement. If it ends up that we don't ever find WMD that Saddam had, then fine, I'll be one of the first to decry Bush, because I will feel betrayed, I won't support Kerry, but I'll probably just end up not voting unlike I had planned on. How many of you can definitely say that there are NO WMD? If you can definitely say that, then apply for a job at the CIA, because they need the help, and you know something we don't. How many of us can definitely say that there ARE WMD? I can't, I know I can't because I'm not privy to that kind of information. However, I can say that there is a lot of evidence suggesting that Saddam had these things, and not a lot of evidence to the contrary, credible evidence anyways. I firmly believe that he had them, and had the will to use them. I will point out, as I am sure that it has before, that the Russian FSB sent it up the line to Putin that Saddam had plans for striking the United States in a form of terror. That is now three intelligence agencies, and three agencies that are of high prestige in that community (CIA, British Secret Service, and Russian FSB) that believed Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States, and I am for one glad that we have toppled that dictator, and I believe that we are safer because of the fall of the dictatorial regime. There, that's the facts that I would like to point out, because I feel that there needed to be a refocus on this topic, it was getting out of hand.

OBL declared war upon the U.S. in the late 90s (can't recall if it was in '96 or '98). Other islamic terrorist organizations have joined the jihad.

Is Osama Bin Laden Iraq? Or even is there a relation between Osama Bin Laden in Iraq? Ile let you answer these questions yourself...

I've had said it several times already. Here we go again.

The justification for the war on Iraq was an assessment made by the Executive Branch and approved by Congress that a combination of factors made Saddam reasonable risk to our national security (please see 2003 SOTUS).

A major concern considered by Congress was the very real possibility that Saddam could channel biological and chemical weapons to terrorists cells. It is possible that one of these could distribution vehicles could have been AQ - there is no concrete proof for this. Congress could not rule out such a relationship in the future. I heard this from a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The relevance of the declaration of war is that it was a rallying cry to other Islamic terrorist groups to join the jihad. Further evidence of this union is now demonstrated in the concerted efforts to thwart the development of democracy in Iraq.

Here's a famous, fun clip from SOTUS 2K3:

Quote:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Which is a truthful statement.

British intelligence provided information that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa. The yellow cake found in Europe last year which was sourced from Iraq is tangible evidence.

The germaine point, however, is that Bush referred to shared intelligence from another nation. A prudent leader takes such things into account.

how about those aluminum tubes? That was a hoot! "Evidence" at it's best!

The document in question is a laughable forgery and any serious examination would have precluded the use of it as evidence.

Whatever the case, the sheer number of innaccurate statements regarding the justification for war should cast a shadow of doubt over the Administration's ability to choose intelligence and it's truthfulness in justifying the invasion. I think that suspicion is a justifiable reaction given how wrong Bush and Co. have been so far.

Edit: Germaine for whom? I don't really think that talking to foreign leaders is a laudable act for a world leader, but given how far Bush has lowered the bar, perhaps we should be proud that he can dress himself. Maybe one day the 'lil guy will learn how to pronounce "nuclear"

Woah. I go to work for 8 hours and the thread explodes. Damn!

Please provide EVIDENCE (not "my mom told me" or anything like that) that the media is liberal. Because I frankly don't see it, and I work in it. If the media is so damn liberally biased, why did they help to crucify Clinton? Why did CNN run Dean's "YEAAHHHH!" outburst 277 times in 24 hours - a move that helped derail his campaign? Why are they not nailing Bush to the wall for his missteps?

Number one, bullshit. He said the threat WAS imminent, not that it could BECOME imminent. See, "urgent" is interchangeable with "imminent" Observe in the next section:


"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

(note that in that one, he bypasses imminent, which means "it's gonna happen very soon" and says that he IS a threat.)

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03




OK. I have to ask. Do you actually know what the hell you're saying? Because I'm starting to have trouble figuring it out. BUSH said we went to war over WMD's. Not the media. Bush. Conservative Bush. I have yet to see a NEWS story (not a jackass political talk show host on AM radio, but a real NEWS story produced by JOURNALISTS) that said we went to war to get oil. What are your sources? So far you're flinging about 3 tons of bullshit out there and you have no evidence for any of it.


What the hell are you talking about? If anything, it's Americans that are forcing their form of government on the world. Or hadn't you noticed that we went in and removed Iraq's government and installed a form that we like a lot better?


Yes, and you've made statements and have failed totally to provide ANY proof for them. The burden of proof is on you, and you're dropping the ball.

And since the "reasonable risk" was that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's that he was just itching to launch on poor innocent Americans, I'd say proving their existance would go a long way toward proving the reasonable risk, wouldn't you?

Oh please, Don't be so naiive. We've been swarming over that country since February of 2003, and we haven't found ONE of the jillions of WMD's he was supposed to have had? Our troops should have been tripping over them if there were as many as the American people were duped into thinking there were.


Well see there's the problem. In the State of the Union 2003 that you referred us to, Bush told us that we had good intelligence that Iraq had tried to get yellowcake uranium from Africa. Trouble is, he had already been told that those reports were false, yet he left 'em in there. That doesn't sound like he's making threat assessments on the best intelligence available to him at the time. Sounds more like he's making shit up as he goes along.


And the rational world is saying we have not. That's like taking an empty can of Coke and trying to convince me that it's materially the same thing as a full can of Coke. No one with the slightest amount of common sense is gonna believe it.

And just how long must we wait for the discovery process to be over? It's been nearly one and a half years, and NO evidence has surfaced. Do you recall Cheney saying that we knew exactly where the WMD's were - in an area outside Baghdad and Tikrit? Remember all the pretty photos Colin Powell showed the UN? Gee, if we knew where all this shit was, why haven't we found it yet?

I'm glad you said that. I wanted hamburgers for dinner tonight, but all I have is the empty package from the ones I had 3 days ago. I'm glad that, according to your logic, I still have hamburgers. Now I don't have to settle for a hot dog.







What were the other elements? What was he going to do to us if he wasn't going to get us with WMD's? Throw sticks at us?

Don't say the "liberal media" fixated on this element for their own spin. Bush & his cohorts repeated the WMD mantra for MONTHS before the war started. He drove it into everyone's skull every opportunity he got. HE is the one who fixated on it.


sheesh. I'm not saying convert to the democratic party. All I'm saying is THINK about what you are saying before you say it, because you're not making one whit of sense.

The same thing happened to me on another thread, also heavily featuring wonderwench, our new staunch conservative/Bush supporter/Archnemesis of Islamofascism. I think it's because she answers each different poster's question in a separate post, sometimes racking up three or four posts in a row. Regardless.
No War in Iraq! No War...oh. Too late. Shit. Nothing to do now but vote him out.

Shakran thankyou, thankyou so much.

There is no point in addressing your very long post.

You are ignoring the four points in the 2003 SOTUS.

Bush adopted a policy of pre-emption to prevent Saddam from becoming an imminent threat. An imminent threat is one which one identifies to late in order to address - the damage is done or in process.

this is crazy.
back to dormant.

wonder, if you will not engage the first thing about what i say, there is no conversation happening.
particularly when you get snippy about something that i specifically warned you away from taking personally, use that as an excuse to avoid the whole thrust of the argument....
there is no conversation.
there is no debate.
lyotard called this kind of stuff a "differend" but thats not right because he referred to the way formally correct arguments can just slide by each other. this is different.

dormancy then.

RB - I am tired of having to repeat myself. Despite my passion and belief system, even I am feeling my energy wane.

The repetition that Bush did not go to war for the stated reasons and the claims that WMDs are not WMDs are wearisome; I have no more interest in refuting them. My comments so far in this thread will stand.

Enough.

well, I'll have to say I agree with Wonderwench on that one. It's difficult to have a debate when the conservative side stuffs her fingers in her (figurative) ears and pretends no one is talking but her. Since there's no debate, I'm done with this thread - unless some other conservative wants to actually discuss the issue rather than loudly preaching the same thing over and over while offering no proof? ;)

Closing this.

The problem of continually repeating one's positions is - in fact - a problem.
Once one states one's opinions several times, there is really nothing gained from continued reiteration.
There is also not a need for creating new threads on subjects that have run their course.
Some judgment calls have to be made.
That's what we're doing.
This forum will improve.
We are committed to that.