wonderwench

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

bodymassage3

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.

wonderwench

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.

apeman

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

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

wonderwench

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.

roachboy

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???

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

analog

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).

almostaugust

Well said buddy. I agree wholeheartedly.

wonderwench

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.

Dragonlich

"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.

wonderwench

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.

Kadath

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

__________________
it's quiet in here

wonderwench

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.

analog

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.

cthulu23

Islamic fundamentalists?

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

wonderwench

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

cthulu23

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?"

wonderwench

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.

wonderwench

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.

SLM3

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

wonderwench

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

cthulu23

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.

wonderwench

And I believe those people are dangerous nutcases.

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

analog

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.

cthulu23

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.

kutulu

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"

SLM3

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

ARTelevision

kutulu:

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

Thanks for clearing that up.

__________________
create evolution

tecoyah

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.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

kutulu

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".

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

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.

wonderwench

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.

tecoyah

Thank you....that was very helpful.


Bingo!

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

cthulu23

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.

wonderwench

Snide, but not unsurprising.

cthulu23

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."

wonderwench

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.

wonderwench

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

matteo101

BINGO