matteo101

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?

cthulu23

And this has what to do with my comment?

wonderwench

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

kutulu

Again:

cthulu23

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.

wonderwench

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.

cthulu23

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.

matteo101

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.

kutulu

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.

archer2371

....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.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

wonderwench

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.

matteo101

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

wonderwench

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.

cthulu23

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."

wonderwench

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.

kutulu

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

cthulu23

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"

shakran

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.

Kadath

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.

__________________
it's quiet in here

matteo101

Shakran thankyou, thankyou so much.

wonderwench

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.

roachboy

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.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

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.

shakran

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?

ARTelevision

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.

__________________
create evolution