REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

I told you so

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Friday, June 30, 2006 15:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6748
PAGE 2 of 3

Sunday, June 25, 2006 5:00 PM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
This is just a chance for everyone to try to get acknowledgement for 'being right'.

My entry:

There were no WMDs.


i think this war was less about wmd's and more about putting as many of the enemy in front of our weapons as possible. think about it- we do a b/s war to re-kick saddam's ass? not likely. But if all these insurgents, foreign fighters like saudis and syrians and iranians, can be wiped out over there before getting a chance to come over here, that's a good thing.
I wonder why we haven't nuked these people already- i mean, did Reagan use all our nukes somewhere without telling us? did we run out of bombs? no? so what are we waiting for? these people want to meet allah, we should be helping them by dropping 100 megaton greeting cards all over the mid east. i have to be careful; such strong opinions may land me in the troll room again- it seems the alliance that runs this site doesn't like dissencion........

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 25, 2006 5:08 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by brooklynbrowncoat:
i think this war was less about wmd's and more about putting as many of the enemy in front of our weapons as possible. think about it- we do a b/s war to re-kick saddam's ass? not likely. But if all these insurgents, foreign fighters like saudis and syrians and iranians, can be wiped out over there before getting a chance to come over here, that's a good thing.
I wonder why we haven't nuked these people already- i mean, did Reagan use all our nukes somewhere without telling us? did we run out of bombs? no? so what are we waiting for? these people want to meet allah, we should be helping them by dropping 100 megaton greeting cards all over the mid east. i have to be careful; such strong opinions may land me in the troll room again- it seems the alliance that runs this site doesn't like dissencion........


What you are conveniently forgetting is how the war was sold to the American people - that it was necessary because Saddam a) had WMD b) had ties to al Qaeda c) would give the WMD to al Qaeda who would attack us. This was billed as a necessary war.

[* edited to add: I recommend you read, "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind (which Signym has quoted from in previous posts in this thread). Cheney's one-percent doctrine, which he formulated and expected the CIA and other agencies to implement, was that any threat that had a one percent likelihood of being legitimate should be acted upon. Saddam having WMD and ties to al Qaeda and using al Qaeda as surrogates to attack the US with WMDs passed the one-percent test. So we attacked - just like the architects of the war had planned on doing before 9/11. But pretty much any threat you can dream up passes that one percent test. The question you need to ask yourself is if our government should be implementing foreign policy based on 100 to 1 odds. I don't think we should. Your mileage may vary].

And it's not that the people on this site don't like dissention. It's that they, (or maybe I should just speak for myself) I, have a problem with genocide as a foreign policy. And this is exactly what you are calling for when you fantasize about, "dropping 100 megaton greeting cards all over the middle east." I don't think my country should be engaging in genocide. You do. Does it make you a troll? No. Does it make you horribly misguided and showcase an appalling disregard for human life? Yes.

[* edited to add: Just to add a little detail on my use of the word genocide. Genocide, amazingly, is really too weak a word. There are approximately 290 million people living in what is considered the Middle East (190 million if you ignore Sudan and Egypt). It takes a pretty sick puppy to get off on the idea of killing 190 million people. It would be the single worst atrocity committed in the history of the world. Is that how you want your country to be remembered?]

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

i think this war was less about wmd's and more about putting as many of the enemy in front of our weapons as possible
So are you saying Bush lied? Because you seem to be saying that "we" would never invade Iraq if we knew the "real" reason, so Bush had to phony one up to stampede "us" in that direction. Right?

See below...





---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

edited to add: Just to add a little detail on my use of the word genocide. Genocide, amazingly, is really too weak a word. There are approximately 290 million people living in what is considered the Middle East (190 million if you ignore Sudan and Egypt). It takes a pretty sick puppy to get off on the idea of killing 190 million people. It would be the single worst atrocity committed in the history of the world. Is that how you want your country to be remembered?
Do you want Browncoats to be remembered as baby-killing mass murderers? Or... is broooklynbrowncoat REALLY an Alliance Operative?? Hmmm. Placed in that frame, his (or her) statements make more sense....



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 25, 2006 8:58 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you want Browncoats to be remembered as baby-killing mass murderers? Or... is broooklynbrowncoat REALLY an Alliance Operative?? Hmmm. Placed in that frame, his (or her) statements make more sense....



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.


Heh. Myself, I prefer to apply Occam's Razor to brooklynbrowncoat. If he walks like a sick puppy, and talks like a sick puppy, well then, by gum, he's a sick puppy. He very well could be a devious Alliance operative purposefully trying to sound like a sick puppy in order to try to tarnish the Browncoats by having them associated with his sick puppyhood. But I'm sticking with sick puppy. .

On a tangent... Signym, have you read "The One Percent Doctrine"? I just finished it last week and found it highly informative. I'm a bit suspicious of Suskind and his insistence on interpreting people's personalities (methinks there might be some projection going on) but, other than that minor quibble, the information he got from former members of the CIA was disturbing. I actually found myself feeling sorry for Tenet (although that was mitigated by my thoughts that he made some huge mistakes wrt torture and turning suspects over to foreign governments). The book gave me a lot to think about. Especially in conjunction with Greenwald's, "How Would a Patriot Act?" and Boehlert's, "Lapdogs" which I also recently finished. [* eta: although the lack of sourcing/footnotes/endnotes on Suskind's book is not cool - so I guess I have more than a minor quibble with the book].

* eta: To sort of get back to the topic at hand... I'm going to put out a claim for a potential future, "I told you so." I believe that when historians look back on this period of time, Bush will be seen as the absolute wrong man at the wrong time. That, in the opening years of the escalated conflict between organizations like al Qaeda and western democracies (as ushered in by the September 11 attack), his actions led to an escalation of the conflict and an increase in the size of the opposition. His decisions radicalized many moderates and pushed them into the camps of our enemies. Much in the same way that the cynical hyping of a brown invasion by Mexicans in the US led to a legitimization, based on presentation in the mainstream press, of beliefs that had previously only been spoken aloud by fringe white supremacists, the invasion and occupation of an Arab country reinforced in many peoples minds the claims made by fringe radical extremists that the US and other western democracies were engaged in a war against Arabs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 3:31 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So are you saying Bush lied? Because you seem to be saying that "we" would never invade Iraq if we knew the "real" reason, so Bush had to phony one up to stampede "us" in that direction. Right?


Who ever said the Iraq War was about WMDs and only WMDs.

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

Thanks to Wikipedia for the above.

The US found hundreds of prohibited chemical munitions...thats a "stockpile". You say they don't count because they were found in caches around the country. I'm sure that Saddam, idiot that he is, wanted to keep all his weapons in one big warehouse where UN inspectors or US missiles could find them. But for some reason he dispersed them around the country.

We also found a number of missiles whose range was greater then that allowed. If you recall several where launched at US bases in allied countries during invasion. (I'm sure some of you noted with surprise that many on the left are suggesting the US strike North Korea for having a long range missile. I think they are only saying this because the President has indicated that we will not strike the missile. If he'd said or done otherwise, they'd be against it. The difference here is North Korea, unlike Iraq, is under no treaty obligation not to develop such a weapon, thus the strike would be a warrantless act of war. However if they fire the missile over Japan, then we can respond as needed up to and including a military strike or invasion.)

We also know they bought prohibited weapons from both France and Germany using money from the 'Oil for Food' Program and an extensive series of bribes to high ranking government officials in those countries. Officials who later obstructed US efforts to establish a larger international coalition that could have forced a peaceful capitualtion of Saddam in the face of a unified world.

And poor Kuwait still awaiting money for damages and the return of several thousand prisoners taken north in late 1990. We know they were alive in 1991, they never returned and no trace was found in 2003 (except a mass grave near the prison).

We know Iraq refused to cooperate with Weapons Inspectors. Iraq also made numerous attacks on coalition aircraft in the UN sponsored 'no fly' zones. Iraq was a haven for terrorists including a man named Al Zarqawi who arrived in Iraq in 2002 and began efforts to coordinate Al Quada training and support against Kurdish insurgents in the north. And for the hindsight 20/20 crowd, turns out that Saddam was systematically raping, torchering, and murdering his own people by the tens of thousands...

There, all nice and wrapped up in a pink bow (for the ladies and more sensitive fellas on the left) and minus the emotional ranting that we have all gone in for and I'm sure some of you can't help but respond with.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 3:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wasn't this post a deadlock victim???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 3:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I love future "I told you so!"s. Nothing like putting your hypotheses on the line, eh? I think twenty years from now historians will look back on us a little like they look back on pre-1939 Germany: To mangle a phrase: "What were they thinking?"

No, didn't have time to read the book. I heard an extended review on the radio and read one in Salon. Real life is breathing down my neck this AM. TTUL.



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 4:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hero, this is just stoopid. Did Iraq pose a credible imminent threat to the United States? What were they going to do- lob spoiled Sarin canisters 120 miles in our direction?

EDITED TO ADD: That's a little like me throwing a rotten tomato in your direction from 3000 miles. Yeah, the pavement is going to get splattered with spoiled goods and everyone knows just how impotent Saddam is. Cleanup on aisle three.

And by the way, what does cached spoiled WMD gain Saddam? That's getting all the negatives (having the UN find them and perpetuating sanctions) without any of the positives (actually being able to use them). Saddam was a lot of things, but he wasn't as stupid as ...erm...

Hero: "But, but we were just enforcing the UN resolution."
Signy: " Which the UN did not ask us to do, despite Colin Powell's strenuous plea to the General Assembly"
Hero "The UN is constrained by international politics. They didn't respond to their duty to defang Iraq."
Signy: "To defang Iraq from being a threat to the USA? Havent' we both figured that's not likely?"
Hero: "From being a threat to his neighbors. A regional threat"
Signy: "That's what UNMOVIC was all about. Too bad we didn't let the inpsection team finish the job"
Hero: "UNMOVIC was ineffective. Look at all the weapons they missed."
Signy: "But the important point was that Iraq did not have ongoing- or even credible "leftover" WMD capability and certainly no delivery capability to the USA."
Hero: "They could threaten their neighbors?"
Signy: "With what? Spoiled goods? But tell me, who were we defending if not ourselves? Israel? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? UAE"
Hero: "{inaudible}"
Signy: "If we're defending Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE well then it pretty much comes down to oil doesn't it? If we're defending Israel then aren't we just reflecting the interests of the Zionists in our government: Perle, Feith, Wurmser, Abrams, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz?"
Hero: "Saddam was a tyrant"
Signy: "But so is the King of Saudi Arabia. In fact, so is President Musharaf of Pakistan. They imprison and torture people as well."
Hero: "Saddam was worse. He has mass graves all over Iraq."
Signy: "And Sudan President al-Bashir is even worse than that. Why aren't we invading HIM?"
Hero: "We only have so much military capability."
Signy: "Hmmm... yes. I wonder- will you remember that if Bush decides to bomb Iran? Doubtful.

But now that our imaginary conversation has wandered long and far... what does this have to do with 'But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.' and 'We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat'? As soon as the argument for WMD falls apart you shift to another argument- pretty much like the Bush administration. But the more you argue the OTHER arguments, the more obvious it becomes that Bush sold us a bill of goods."
Hero "......."
---------------------------------
Let me play devil's advocate. I think I can do a better job.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 4:22 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.



And poor Kuwait still awaiting money for damages and the return of several thousand prisoners taken north in late 1990. We know they were alive in 1991, they never returned and no trace was found in 2003 (except a mass grave near the prison).





So....Iraq holds prisoners illegally, kills a bunch of 'em, and rubs our face in the fact that it won't co-operate or follow the mandates- they get badder and badder, and we wait with thumbs securely inter-anal until...Oh my! That threat of destroying the WORLD TRADE CENTER!! It was REAL!!!
Hollow crap.

Hero, you have no logic, you follow blindly, you're an appologist and a lackey. And you won't stop for a second.
In your next life, on your deathbed a hundred years from now, you'll be saying that the beginning of the 21st Century was a glorious period, no matter what history says or how events played out.

I'm just posting to amuse myself now, some peeps never will get it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 7:08 PM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
So are you saying Bush lied? Because you seem to be saying that "we" would never invade Iraq if we knew the "real" reason, so Bush had to phony one up to stampede "us" in that direction. Right?


Who ever said the Iraq War was about WMDs and only WMDs.

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

Thanks to Wikipedia for the above.

The US found hundreds of prohibited chemical munitions...thats a "stockpile". You say they don't count because they were found in caches around the country. I'm sure that Saddam, idiot that he is, wanted to keep all his weapons in one big warehouse where UN inspectors or US missiles could find them. But for some reason he dispersed them around the country.

We also found a number of missiles whose range was greater then that allowed. If you recall several where launched at US bases in allied countries during invasion. (I'm sure some of you noted with surprise that many on the left are suggesting the US strike North Korea for having a long range missile. I think they are only saying this because the President has indicated that we will not strike the missile. If he'd said or done otherwise, they'd be against it. The difference here is North Korea, unlike Iraq, is under no treaty obligation not to develop such a weapon, thus the strike would be a warrantless act of war. However if they fire the missile over Japan, then we can respond as needed up to and including a military strike or invasion.)

We also know they bought prohibited weapons from both France and Germany using money from the 'Oil for Food' Program and an extensive series of bribes to high ranking government officials in those countries. Officials who later obstructed US efforts to establish a larger international coalition that could have forced a peaceful capitualtion of Saddam in the face of a unified world.

And poor Kuwait still awaiting money for damages and the return of several thousand prisoners taken north in late 1990. We know they were alive in 1991, they never returned and no trace was found in 2003 (except a mass grave near the prison).

We know Iraq refused to cooperate with Weapons Inspectors. Iraq also made numerous attacks on coalition aircraft in the UN sponsored 'no fly' zones. Iraq was a haven for terrorists including a man named Al Zarqawi who arrived in Iraq in 2002 and began efforts to coordinate Al Quada training and support against Kurdish insurgents in the north. And for the hindsight 20/20 crowd, turns out that Saddam was systematically raping, torchering, and murdering his own people by the tens of thousands...

There, all nice and wrapped up in a pink bow (for the ladies and more sensitive fellas on the left) and minus the emotional ranting that we have all gone in for and I'm sure some of you can't help but respond with.

H



Like I said, irradiate the bastards.

we have a very good contigency plan for people who attack and want to kill us-
kill them first
what ever happened to an America that was brave enough to pass around mushroom clouds?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 7:13 PM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:

Originally posted by brooklynbrowncoat:
i think this war was less about wmd's and more about putting as many of the enemy in front of our weapons as possible. think about it- we do a b/s war to re-kick saddam's ass? not likely. But if all these insurgents, foreign fighters like saudis and syrians and iranians, can be wiped out over there before getting a chance to come over here, that's a good thing.
I wonder why we haven't nuked these people already- i mean, did Reagan use all our nukes somewhere without telling us? did we run out of bombs? no? so what are we waiting for? these people want to meet allah, we should be helping them by dropping 100 megaton greeting cards all over the mid east. i have to be careful; such strong opinions may land me in the troll room again- it seems the alliance that runs this site doesn't like dissencion........


What you are conveniently forgetting is how the war was sold to the American people - that it was necessary because Saddam a) had WMD b) had ties to al Qaeda c) would give the WMD to al Qaeda who would attack us. This was billed as a necessary war.

[* edited to add: I recommend you read, "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind (which Signym has quoted from in previous posts in this thread). Cheney's one-percent doctrine, which he formulated and expected the CIA and other agencies to implement, was that any threat that had a one percent likelihood of being legitimate should be acted upon. Saddam having WMD and ties to al Qaeda and using al Qaeda as surrogates to attack the US with WMDs passed the one-percent test. So we attacked - just like the architects of the war had planned on doing before 9/11. But pretty much any threat you can dream up passes that one percent test. The question you need to ask yourself is if our government should be implementing foreign policy based on 100 to 1 odds. I don't think we should. Your mileage may vary].

And it's not that the people on this site don't like dissention. It's that they, (or maybe I should just speak for myself) I, have a problem with genocide as a foreign policy. And this is exactly what you are calling for when you fantasize about, "dropping 100 megaton greeting cards all over the middle east." I don't think my country should be engaging in genocide. You do. Does it make you a troll? No. Does it make you horribly misguided and showcase an appalling disregard for human life? Yes.

[* edited to add: Just to add a little detail on my use of the word genocide. Genocide, amazingly, is really too weak a word. There are approximately 290 million people living in what is considered the Middle East (190 million if you ignore Sudan and Egypt). It takes a pretty sick puppy to get off on the idea of killing 190 million people. It would be the single worst atrocity committed in the history of the world. Is that how you want your country to be remembered?]


im not forgetting anything- i agree Bush lied and they had all this planned already. but sometimes the end justifies the means. for a few years now we've had our armies killing insurgents and jihaddists, which is preferable to having them come over here killing us.

they seem to like to fly planes into buildings.
nasty habit, much worse than crack.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 7:21 PM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.



And poor Kuwait still awaiting money for damages and the return of several thousand prisoners taken north in late 1990. We know they were alive in 1991, they never returned and no trace was found in 2003 (except a mass grave near the prison).





So....Iraq holds prisoners illegally, kills a bunch of 'em, and rubs our face in the fact that it won't co-operate or follow the mandates- they get badder and badder, and we wait with thumbs securely inter-anal until...Oh my! That threat of destroying the WORLD TRADE CENTER!! It was REAL!!!
Hollow crap.

Hero, you have no logic, you follow blindly, you're an appologist and a lackey. And you won't stop for a second.
In your next life, on your deathbed a hundred years from now, you'll be saying that the beginning of the 21st Century was a glorious period, no matter what history says or how events played out.

I'm just posting to amuse myself now, some peeps never will get it Chrisisall


as much as i may find you to be a kick in the stomach, i have to agree

and your buddies a dumb tree hugging Canadian

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 7:21 PM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.



And poor Kuwait still awaiting money for damages and the return of several thousand prisoners taken north in late 1990. We know they were alive in 1991, they never returned and no trace was found in 2003 (except a mass grave near the prison).





So....Iraq holds prisoners illegally, kills a bunch of 'em, and rubs our face in the fact that it won't co-operate or follow the mandates- they get badder and badder, and we wait with thumbs securely inter-anal until...Oh my! That threat of destroying the WORLD TRADE CENTER!! It was REAL!!!
Hollow crap.

Hero, you have no logic, you follow blindly, you're an appologist and a lackey. And you won't stop for a second.
In your next life, on your deathbed a hundred years from now, you'll be saying that the beginning of the 21st Century was a glorious period, no matter what history says or how events played out.

I'm just posting to amuse myself now, some peeps never will get it Chrisisall


as much as i may find you to be a kick in the stomach, i have to agree

and your buddies a dumb tree hugging Canadian

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 8:39 PM

RIGHTEOUS9




brooklynbrowncoat -

we've lost over 2,500 soldiers in iraq and more than 10,000 have been injured. Is that the ends you're talking about? Making it easier for them to kill us over there so they don't have to come over here?

So many of our soldiers are just kids for christ sakes. How can you ignore them in the rhetoric of saying that this is making us safer?

Will you still be saying so after the number passes the 9/11 milestone?

I'm not even going to try to appeal to your compassion for the 100,000 Iraqis who have died by our hands, because you sound like a person that doesn't recognize humanity where he doesn't have to.

But the logic itself is astronomically flawed. We've only had one 9/11. How do you even know this has made us safer at home?

When the pentagon says we are creating more terrorists in the world, when the rest of the world is starting to trust us less and less, when our friends are getting fewer and farther between, why do you expect this to translate into less activity bent on hurting us and our country?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 8:51 PM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:


brooklynbrowncoat -

we've lost over 2,500 soldiers in iraq and more than 10,000 have been injured. Is that the ends you're talking about? Making it easier for them to kill us over there so they don't have to come over here?

So many of our soldiers are just kids for christ sakes. How can you ignore them in the rhetoric of saying that this is making us safer?

Will you still be saying so after the number passes the 9/11 milestone?

I'm not even going to try to appeal to your compassion for the 100,000 Iraqis who have died by our hands, because you sound like a person that doesn't recognize humanity where he doesn't have to.

But the logic itself is astronomically flawed. We've only had one 9/11. How do you even know this has made us safer at home?

When the pentagon says we are creating more terrorists in the world, when the rest of the world is starting to trust us less and less, when our friends are getting fewer and farther between, why do you expect this to translate into less activity bent on hurting us and our country?



All kidding aside (which is hard for me) i think you people are really missing the point.
Afghanistan had to be wiped up; nothing good was coming from the Taliban. Iraq was no Disneyland either. so we kick out Saddam and set up a firing range with our enemiy as the target. what's the problem? of course not all islamic people want us dead; just most of them. so i say nuke em all and let's steal all thier oil.
here here! just check out the brooklyn club scene; alot's changed since the days of Saturday night Fever...
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bryanbaskin/clubbing.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 9:03 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by brooklynbrowncoat:
im not forgetting anything- i agree Bush lied and they had all this planned already. but sometimes the end justifies the means. for a few years now we've had our armies killing insurgents and jihaddists, which is preferable to having them come over here killing us.

they seem to like to fly planes into buildings.
nasty habit, much worse than crack.


First off, I don't think our troops should be used as bait. That said, I'll look into the math behind what you are advocating.

The vast majority of the insurgents that our troops are fighting in Iraq are Iraqis (or, to put it another way, people who would not have carried out attacks on US soil) - 90% according to one estimate. Estimates of the number of insurgents are varied but I've seen the upper bound somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000. So that's 5,000 enemy combatants who are not Iraqi. Some smaller sub-set of this 5000 would have the means and the will to attempt attacks inside the US. Not very many (I have no clue so I'll just pull a number out of my ass - 20% - or, 1000).

So we're using more than 130,000 Americans to occupy a country of 29 million people, at least 50,000 of which are actively trying to kill our troops. And the reason we're doing this is to get a chance to take out the 1000 who might be a threat to the domestic security of our country. In the meantime, as Righteous9 pointed out, the number of people joining violent extremist organizations is growing (and probably a lot faster than we're killing the really dangerous ones).

It sounds like what you are advocating is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. The only problem, aside from the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of that process, is that the pounding on the floor is waking up a whole shitload of rats.

*edited slightly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 26, 2006 11:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Like I said, irradiate the bastards. we have a very good contigency plan for people who attack and want to kill us- kill them first
what ever happened to an America that was brave enough to pass around mushroom clouds?

WARNING- FLAMEBAIT. Not intended for actual discussion.

IF you'll notice, BBC's posts are long- but they're mostly quotes. He (or she) is just looking to get the maximum reaction from minimum effort.

WARNING- TROLL.

I find there are usually two ways to deal with trolls. One is to lance the psychological boil that makes them crave attention - especially negative attention. I an some friends managed to do that once but it's a low percentage response. The other is to deprive them of what they seek most- to feel superior by watching the ants scurry around their stick in the nest. (That's how BBC sees us.) Unless you're willing to deal with BBC in a COMPLETELY - and I meand COMPLETELY- dispassionate manner I suggest simply ignoring this one.

-------------------
WARNING- NOT INTENDED FOR ACTUAL DISCUSSION. SIMULATED OPINION ONLY.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:06 AM

SIMONWHO


At what point do people's political and religious beliefs stray into mental illness?

Denying reality, psychotic behaviour to the value of the lives of others, inability to think coherently...


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:52 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
we've lost over 2,500 soldiers in iraq and more than 10,000 have been injured. Is that the ends you're talking about? Making it easier for them to kill us over there so they don't have to come over here?


The idea is that you make the enemy come to you on ground of your own choosing. Rather then allowing these people to fight us or Isreal in piecemeal fashion in times and places of their own choosing, we have created this opportunity to for them to swarm into Iraq and die by the tens of thousands. Afganistan was a similar opportunity but was too remote to allow easy access for the enemy.

Every American casualty is unfortunate and tragic, such is the way with a society like ours that places such high value on individual life. But militarily speaking our casualty rates are extremely low given the scale of our undertaking. The most recent comparable episode when the Soviets invaded and occupied Chechnya has produced far more casualties in a far smaller scale conflict. Casualties are so remarkably low we could, if we chose, maintain our ability to continue to prosecute this conflict indefinately and without conscriptions practiced by the Soviets or by Americans in past conflicts.
Quote:


So many of our soldiers are just kids for christ sakes. How can you ignore them in the rhetoric of saying that this is making us safer?


Wars are always fought by the young. It aint fair, but war aint about being fair. Its about killing the enemy.

Americans are unique in that we don't go out of our way to tussle with anybody. We never would have fought Iraq in 1991 or 2003 if Saddam hadn't beat the snot out of our little buddy in 1990. That said I think the neither of the wars was avoidable. The reason is that even had Saddam never invaded Kuwait in 1990, his nature was such that he would have eventually done something to cause the war. I think this is especially true of the later conflict. Saddam pushed and pushed until we had no choice but to respond...and who can fault the President for choosing to launch the attack on Iraq in 1998? After 2001, the US changed from a policy of containment to one of libertation. Saddam failed to change from his policy of provocation to one of aquiessance (like Libya did). Thus 2003 was inevitable.
Will you still be saying so after the number passes the 9/11 milestone?
Quote:


I'm not even going to try to appeal to your compassion for the 100,000 Iraqis who have died by our hands, because you sound like a person that doesn't recognize humanity where he doesn't have to.


I think its tragic that so many deaths have been caused entirely by Saddam Hussein's failure to surrender and leave the country and lately by the deliberate actions of terrorists making war upon our Iraqi allies.
Quote:


But the logic itself is astronomically flawed. We've only had one 9/11. How do you even know this has made us safer at home?


We know its working because we have only had one 9/11. The Iraqi conflict is one part of a strategy in the war on terror and the failure of the enemy to lauch followup attacks is proof that the strategy is working. By your logic the lack of a WW2 Japanese invasion of Hawaii has nothing to do with their military defeat and occupation. Or how can we prove that the levy is working just because the river hasn't flooded since they put the levy in. That guy only murdered once, how do we know that putting him in jail made us any safer?

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY


"Mental illness" is relative, isn't it?

"Denying reality"--Reality is defined by political and religious beliefs. There is a God. There is no God. Both sides believe the other is denying reality.

"psychotic behaviour to the value of the lives of others"--Well, we're talking about war here. Both war and pacifism cost lives. Again, both sides believe the other is the merciless one who is willing to sacrifice the wrong lives.

"inability to think coherently... "--Whether someone makes sense is in the eye of the beholder as well, isn't it?

I myself am against the war, bitterly and passionately against the war. Yet I have close and dear friends who aren't far from Hero's position. I know them--they aren't mentally ill, anymore than I am.

The country is profoundly divided right now, and thanks to mass media harping on our differences, the chasm is growing ever deeper and wider. We are viciously attacking each other in an endless blame game.

In the end, what does that accomplish? Girls are still being raped in Thai and Indian brothels. Congolese are still being massacred and harvested for organs. Entire generations of Peruvians are still stunted because of inadequate nutrition. Street children in the USA are still being exploited. People worldwide are suffering and dying of cancer and countless diseases.

It is easier to point fingers and to lift them and DO something. The mom whose child is starving might think we are ALL mentally ill for believing our political and religious debates are worth a damn.

I liked the Serenity screenings. We DID something. We focused on what we had in common and DID something together. If we could have more of that, on a bigger scale as a country, that might be sane.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:34 AM

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:
we've lost over 2,500 soldiers in iraq and more than 10,000 have been injured. Is that the ends you're talking about? Making it easier for them to kill us over there so they don't have to come over here?


The idea is that you make the enemy come to you on ground of your own choosing. Rather then allowing these people to fight us or Isreal in piecemeal fashion in times and places of their own choosing, we have created this opportunity to for them to swarm into Iraq and die by the tens of thousands. Afganistan was a similar opportunity but was too remote to allow easy access for the enemy.

Every American casualty is unfortunate and tragic, such is the way with a society like ours that places such high value on individual life. But militarily speaking our casualty rates are extremely low given the scale of our undertaking. The most recent comparable episode when the Soviets invaded and occupied Chechnya has produced far more casualties in a far smaller scale conflict. Casualties are so remarkably low we could, if we chose, maintain our ability to continue to prosecute this conflict indefinately and without conscriptions practiced by the Soviets or by Americans in past conflicts.
Quote:


So many of our soldiers are just kids for christ sakes. How can you ignore them in the rhetoric of saying that this is making us safer?


Wars are always fought by the young. It aint fair, but war aint about being fair. Its about killing the enemy.

Americans are unique in that we don't go out of our way to tussle with anybody. We never would have fought Iraq in 1991 or 2003 if Saddam hadn't beat the snot out of our little buddy in 1990. That said I think the neither of the wars was avoidable. The reason is that even had Saddam never invaded Kuwait in 1990, his nature was such that he would have eventually done something to cause the war. I think this is especially true of the later conflict. Saddam pushed and pushed until we had no choice but to respond...and who can fault the President for choosing to launch the attack on Iraq in 1998? After 2001, the US changed from a policy of containment to one of libertation. Saddam failed to change from his policy of provocation to one of aquiessance (like Libya did). Thus 2003 was inevitable.
Will you still be saying so after the number passes the 9/11 milestone?
Quote:


I'm not even going to try to appeal to your compassion for the 100,000 Iraqis who have died by our hands, because you sound like a person that doesn't recognize humanity where he doesn't have to.


I think its tragic that so many deaths have been caused entirely by Saddam Hussein's failure to surrender and leave the country and lately by the deliberate actions of terrorists making war upon our Iraqi allies.
Quote:


But the logic itself is astronomically flawed. We've only had one 9/11. How do you even know this has made us safer at home?


We know its working because we have only had one 9/11. The Iraqi conflict is one part of a strategy in the war on terror and the failure of the enemy to lauch followup attacks is proof that the strategy is working. By your logic the lack of a WW2 Japanese invasion of Hawaii has nothing to do with their military defeat and occupation. Or how can we prove that the levy is working just because the river hasn't flooded since they put the levy in. That guy only murdered once, how do we know that putting him in jail made us any safer?

H


very well said

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:03 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
The idea is that you make the enemy come to you on ground of your own choosing. Rather then allowing these people to fight us or Isreal in piecemeal fashion in times and places of their own choosing, we have created this opportunity to for them to swarm into Iraq and die by the tens of thousands.


Except you continue to ignore the fact (and I've already posted it here once) that foreign fighters are amounting to less that 10% of the insurgency in Iraq. And the angrier you make the world, the happier people will be to choose other battlefields than that one. And, in case you hadn't noticed, Afghanistan is falling apart at the seams. When the puppet you put in power is saying you are doing a crappy job, it's a bad sign.


Quote:

But militarily speaking our casualty rates are extremely low given the scale of our undertaking. The most recent comparable episode when the Soviets invaded and occupied Chechnya has produced far more casualties in a far smaller scale conflict.

Militarily speaking the casualties have been enormous. They were extremely low in the actual shooting war, but they have continued to mount in the ensuing peace. And take Chechnya to its logical conclusion - the Russians have been dealing with terrorists and separatists there for years, with no potential end in sight. Do you WANT that for America? To be in a foreign country with no end in sight? And, in case you have forgotten, the separatists in Chechnya figured out rather quickly that they could blow shit up in other parts of the country for better effect - do you want the Iraqi insurgents to figure out the same? Idiot.

Quote:

Casualties are so remarkably low we could, if we chose, maintain our ability to continue to prosecute this conflict indefinately and without conscriptions practiced by the Soviets or by Americans in past conflicts.

Deaths are low. Injuries are high, and PTSD is reaching record numbers, including Vietnam vets having renewed trauma from watching footage, which has been happening lately. But hey, if you want to stay over there forever-just like Chechnya-I guess it'll all work out.


Quote:

Its about killing the enemy.

You can't even tell me who the enemy is. Which country's soldiers, exactly, are we fighting? Who, exactly, are we at war with? Give me a concrete name and place.

Quote:

Americans are unique in that we don't go out of our way to tussle with anybody.

Except this time. For no reason. And I saw you quoted resolutions up there in a post; earlier it was about WMD's, not it's about resolutions. But the US kicked out the inspectors before it could be discovered that Iraq had been compliant. By not finding any wmd's, it turns out Iraq WAS compliant with disarming under those resolutions. Sorry, but your reasons for war are evaporating faster than a sno-cone in August.


Quote:

After 2001, the US changed from a policy of containment to one of libertation. Saddam failed to change from his policy of provocation to one of aquiessance (like Libya did). Thus 2003 was inevitable.

Now it's liberation. It's gone from wmd's, to UN resolutions, to liberation in the space of a single thread. But "sit there while we drop these bomns and free the shit outta you" isn't working out real well, and we look foolish. People liberate themselves. And to hold that logic out to its inevitable lconclusion means that after we get done here, we have to go liberate oppressed people everywhere - next stop, 75 other countries!

Quote:

I think its tragic that so many deaths have been caused entirely by Saddam Hussein's failure to surrender and leave the country and lately by the deliberate actions of terrorists making war upon our Iraqi allies.

Dude, they caught Saddam well before most of those casualties occurred. The death rate counted by the Baghdad morgue, on average, in just that one city, has been over 1000 citizens a month since Bush declared Mission Accomplished. By declaring ourselves "liberators," we took responsibility for what happened after the war. We are responsible for those numbers.

Quote:

We know its working because we have only had one 9/11. The Iraqi conflict is one part of a strategy in the war on terror and the failure of the enemy to lauch followup attacks is proof that the strategy is working.

And I've got a magic rock in my pocket that protects me from tigers, because I havent been attacked by one yet. It was 8 years in between the Clinton tower incident and 9/11, so how is 5 years even a stretch yet? When it goes 9, maybe you'll have an argument. They just arrested a number of people in Florida for a plot to blow up the Sears Tower, which means your plan isn't working. They can still attack us here, unless we fight terror like it's supposed to be fought - with police, FBI, and planning. And the terror war has made it nearly impossible to travel abroad as safely as we once did

Quote:

That guy only murdered once, how do we know that putting him in jail made us any safer?
H


The guy did murder once (Kuwait, 1991). We put him in jail (sanctions, a no-fly zone, inspections). While in solitary, he tries to keep his security blanket (the possibility that he may be armed, so that the other prisoners he has hurt in the past - Iran- won't come and get him while he is weak). So, the wardens and the guards drag him out of his cell, beat the shit out of him mercilessly with batons, kick his sister (the Iraqi people) in the stomach when she comes to visit, and then toss them both out into the street in oncoming traffic and tell them to fend for themselves. Boy, sure makes me feel safer. Especially when that guy's family finds out what we did.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


A well worn phrase with me, but really - that's another load.

Yes, let's incite many many more previously-moderate Muslims to become Islamists targeting the US. That makes a LOT of sense.


In upside-down crazy-world.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The idea is that you make the enemy come to you on ground of your own choosing.
Oh, so the Iraq invasion was a "choice" and really didn't have anything to do with WMD? Or... did it? I don't know- you keep flip-flopping. Make up your mind- either stick with WMD or stick with the GWOT. You can't have both.

But if Iraq was our chosen battelground for the GWOT it was a VERY poor choice. Aside from the the 6000+ mile supply line, crappy infrastructure and personnel- and equipment- eating desert conditions, our choice of potential allies in Iraq consists of (a) secular Sunnis who hate our guts (b)religious Shiites who hate our guts, and (c) toadies that everyone hates.

NICE CHOICE GEORGE!
Quote:

Rather then allowing these people to fight us or Isreal
Israel? Where in the Constitution does it say that The Prez is supposed to be protecting Israel? Oy! (smacks forehead) The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves! Enough with the Israeli argument already!
Quote:

in piecemeal fashion in times and places of their own choosing
Wow, we couldn't have picked better for them if we did it ourselves. Oh... what? We did?
Quote:

we have created this opportunity to for them to swarm into Iraq and die by the tens of thousands.
You mean... the terrorist WEREN'T in Iraq BEFORE we invaded?
Quote:

Afganistan was a similar opportunity but was too remote to allow easy access for the enemy.
Oh yeah, and did I mention that George "chose" to fight in an area whose language and culture we don't understand, making it impossible for us to tell the foreign terrorist from the native insurgent?
Quote:

Americans are unique in that we don't go out of our way to tussle with anybody. We never would have fought Iraq in 1991 or 2003
What does 2003 have to do with 1991? Isn't that a a slow response?
Quote:

if Saddam hadn't beat the snot out of our little buddy in 1990.
Since when is Kuwait "our little buddy"?
Quote:

That said I think the neither of the wars was avoidable. The reason is that even had Saddam never invaded Kuwait in 1990, his nature was such that he would have eventually done something to cause the war.
So we beat him to the punch in 2003 by invading before he had a chance to even think about invading someone someday.



So to sum this all up- according to HERO:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMD because it was a war of "choice".

Nor was it caused by the presence of terrorists in Iraq, because they weren't there until AFTER we invaded. (They "swarmed in" afterwards)

It was simply a "convenient" place to invade (language, supply, terrain, and internal political difficulties notwithstanding) in order to protect (a) Kuwait, (b) Israel or (c) the USA from some unspecified future attack from (x) Saddam or (y) terrorists.

Wow, Hero! You made even less sense today than before. I didn't think that was even possible.



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:22 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
And I've got a magic rock in my pocket that protects me from tigers, because I havent been attacked by one yet.


If you were suddenly through no fault of your own attacked by a tiger and the next day aquired said magic rock as part of your overall anti-tiger attack strategy which included seeking out the tigers in your neighborhood and eliminating them, imprisoning people who feed the tigers (thus coaxing them into your community) and tagging and montitoring locations and movement of wild tigers, then yes, your rock is truly a wonderous thing.

The problem is the liberals are big on magic rocks and little on all the rest. Tigers don't have civil rights. They belong in a zoo...in Cuba...
Quote:


We put him in jail (sanctions, a no-fly zone, inspections). While in solitary, he tries to keep his security blanket (the possibility that he may be armed...


In Ohio we generally don't let our prisoners be armed. If we find out they have or are making illegal weapons...we generally take unilateral action to disarm them, most often without seeking prior approval from civil authorities, outside jurisdictions, or the United Nations. But I'll pass your suggestions (that we ask them nicely to disarm and then take their word for it that they've complied) on to our jail, those fellas need a good laugh. They don't smile enough down there.

Edited to add: The jailors note that allowing prisoners to be armed might make them dangerous to the guards and to the outside community, they recomend against it. The ACLU piped in the denying prisoners weapons violates their 2nd Amendment rights and a lawsuit is now pending along with one seeking to prevent the City police officers from carrying weapons because they can be used to violate a person's constitutional right to free expression when demanding money from local banks.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

If we find out they have or are making illegal weapons...we generally take unilateral action to disarm them, most often without seeking prior approval from civil authorities, outside jurisdictions, or the United Nations.
Back to WMD again? Didn't you JUST say our invasion was part of the GWOT and that Iraq was a convenient location for fighting terrorists and/or protecting Israel?



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:40 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Back to WMD again? Didn't you JUST say our invasion was part of the GWOT and that Iraq was a convenient location for fighting terrorists and/or protecting Israel?


I was talking about prisoners in jail, but now that you mention it properly disarmed and confined felons pose little additional threat of terrorism or pose a threat to Isreal. Perhaps we should have locked up Saddam after the Gulf War in '91...house arrest just didn't work very well.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


dbl post

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM,

Thanks for your posts. I've been noticing the self-contradictions but didn't tally them up.

Another one is the US is in Iraq to free Iraqis and spread democracy b/c of the deep humanitarian concern the US has for Iraqis. Then in the next breath Iraq is just a 'convenient' staging ground for the US GWOT and Iraqis are expendable.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So we can throw out your whole argument about WMD because you were REALLY talking about prisoners in jail? That's fine with me!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:50 AM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

Thanks for your posts. I've been noticing the self-contradictions but didn't tally them up.




It's amazing the circular logic that Hero and others like him use to defend the administration, after all of these errors (not just Iraq).

"It was about wmd's" --> Someone proves it wasn't --> "It was about resolutions" --> Someone proves it wasn't --> "It was about freedom" --> Someone proves it wasn't --> "It's about fighting terror" --> Someone points out it's making terror worse --> "Terror's not the problem! It's about wmd's!"

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hero, you sound like the kid caught without his homework:

Oh, you mean THIS Monday?
I didn't understand the assignment.
And I was sick.
And besides, the dog ate it.

So, here are the various reasons YOU claimed we invaded Iraq:

WMD
a convenient choice for fighting terrorists
depose Saddam
spread liberty
protect Israel and Kuwait
enforce the UN resolutions

Many of these "reasons" contradict each other- I dodn't even have to resort to outside facts (about which we might argue endlessly) in order to show their inherent logical contradictions.

Wouldn't the presence of a credible WMD threat make Iraq an exceptionally inconvenient choice for fighting terrorists? To make this pellucidly clear, why would Bush choose to invade a nation that he was convinced had real WMD in order to attack a secondary target? IF Bush "chose" Iraq as the flypaper, either he would had to have known ahead of time that Saddam didn't have WMD or he was willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

OTOH, invading Iraq as a surrogate for GWOT does not bode well for creating "liberty" while that nation is enmeshed in a proxy war.

Try as you might, these pieces just don't fit together. And we're on to your game of shifting the argument. Just so long as you know that we know that your logic- in a word- sucks.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:16 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
"It was about wmd's" --> Someone proves it wasn't --> "It was about resolutions" --> Someone proves it wasn't --> "It was about freedom" --> Someone proves it wasn't --> "It's about fighting terror" --> Someone points out it's making terror worse --> "Terror's not the problem! It's about wmd's!"


Why does it have to be about one thing? Its about the Resolutions, the WMDs, the war on terror, liberating Iraq, exposing and ending the UN's "Oil for Food" program...the largest fraud in human history, long term regional peace by promoting stable democracy, because nobody tries to kill an ex-President of the United States, oil, finding the remains of a long lost US pilot, killing as many Islamic militants as we can, and probably some other nice things and some really nasty ones too. My logic isn't circular, its all inclusive like a Caribean vacation...with more shooting and less alchohol (and ironically lots of dancing).

Now the liberals have tried to cherry pick this from the begining. For example, liberals seized on the WMD line and spent so much time focused on that they can't allow room for a multi-lateral reasoning for the invasion. It was no WMD's were found. There is evidence Saddam moved large amounts of materials and equipment to Syria before the invasion (similar to his evacuation of the Iraqi Air Force to Iran in 1990)...but we can't look there so it doesn't count. Oh and we found literally hundreds of munitions...but they're old so they don't count. Nothing counts, tree in the woods, fingers in the ears, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!" No WMDs. Resolutions? You never mentioned resolutions. You can't mention them now and don't show me you did cause you didn't it was WMDs, WMDs you never found. Never ever and even if you did Bush loves oil and Saudis and stole the election, yeah, stole just like he stole the WMDs he didn't find "LALALALALA! CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Liberals, going the wrong way on a one track mind.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Why does it have to be about one thing?
STRAW MAN. Nobody is saying that it has to be about "one thing". The problem is that only about two out of three reasons logically fit together, so you have to dump SOME of them.

WMD and the "flypaper" argument completely contradict each other, unless you're willing to say that GWB is willing to sacrifice tens if not hundreds of thousands of troops to WMD attacks while prosecuting a "war of choice".

Similarly, we can't be fighting a proxy war in Iraq and have a prayer of bringing "liberty" to that nation because the conditions will be too chaotic.

And it makes no sense for Saddam to be hiding degraded chemcial weapons because they would present a huge downside (risk of continued sanctions) with no possible upside (can't actually be used). OTOH- it makes no sense for Saddam to be hiding chemcial weapons if he moved them to Syria.


Try to bring some logic to your thought processes.



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:33 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Wouldn't the presence of a credible WMD threat make Iraq an exceptionally inconvenient choice for fighting terrorists? To make this pellucidly clear, why would Bush choose to invade a nation that he was convinced had real WMD in order to attack a secondary target? IF Bush "chose" Iraq as the flypaper, either he would had to have known ahead of time that Saddam didn't have WMD or he was willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American casualties.


I disagree and thankfully so did our strategic planners. Here's my strategery on the subject:

We know Saddam was reaching out to Al Queda, we know Al Queda was reaching out to Saddam. They never liked each other, but it was 'enemy of my enemy' stuff (they were in the touchy feely stage and looking longingly at Saddam's big brass bed). So our best bet was to get in between them and knock the stuffing out of the one with the biggest guns (Saddam) before he could share them out with all the little guys with the beards and crazy eyes.

Al Queda's best bet, at that point, would have been to pull back and approach the war from another direction...like over the Mexican border. But we had already neutralized most of their command and control, so the result was thousands of militants marching to the "sound of the guns" and for most its the last thing they hear. It might surprise people to consider AQ a strategically capable planner, but remember their response to the Afgan invasion was to try and trigger a war between India and Pakistan...and they almost succeeded.

Now it appears that the Taliban is faltering and Iraq is finally swinging back on its own, although with the US Marines standing behind them saying "you can do it!" (I know...LALALALA! CAN'T HEAR YOU!) AQ's best bet now is to go dark for a couple years and let America relax a bit, maybe elect a Democrat or two...then they can hit us here on a larger scale then 9/11 (whose biggest long term fallout could be to shatter America's post cold war mythe of invincibility). Our best bet is to keep up the pressure to break them before they can adopt any sort of coherant unified strategy and to set up strong and stable institutions of liberty to fight AQ at a social level.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


First of all- even BUSH disagrees with the Al Qaida-Saddam link.

But more importantly, if Saddam had WMD why didn't he use them?

Was he "saving them" for AQ- which you claim was only in the inital stages of touchy-feely? Did he send them packing to Syria because.... Oh, I dunno. He thought more about protecting Syria than protecting his *ss in Iraq? Stricken with sudden conscience?



---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:43 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Similarly, we can't be fighting a proxy war in Iraq and have a prayer of bringing "liberty" to that nation because the conditions will be too chaotic.


Worked in Korea, not so much in Vietnam. Worked in Kuwait in 1991.

Are you saying we can't liberate a nation we are using as a battlefield in a larger struggle?

History disagrees...historically speaking happens all the time. Heck, ever been to West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, Texas...

Battlefields are where the fighting happens, liberty (et all, since I don't want ya'll to forget all the other things we hope to achieve) is what the fighting will hopefully accomplish.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The battlefields you speak of (except Vietnam) were not "proxy" anything. Which just goes to show that "proxy" wars don't work.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Deadlock victims rise again!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:56 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But more importantly, if Saddam had WMD why didn't he use them?


He did use them...oh, you mean this time.

He had planes and didn't use them. He had troops and used them poorly.

I suspect, and I could be wrong here, but I really suspect that Saddam was in fact NOT a military genius. This is pure speculation, but from what I saw of his career against Isreal, Iran, Kuwait, and the US...he has the military IQ of a chimpanzie...and not one of the smart ones smoking and such, sure he might type 'War and Peace' but he's far more likely to just toss crap at you. (Which is why he was so popular with the French and not a few liberals).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


But he didn't get even ONE off??? Even tho he had a "massive stockpile" that was a presumed credible and imminent threat to somebody? And we never found them afterwards even tho they were supposedly ready to go?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:04 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

We know Saddam was reaching out to Al Queda, we know Al Queda was reaching out to Saddam.
REALLY! Unless you are using the royal 'we', or you are including the voices in your head, 'we' never thought so. And Hussein's 'big guns'? Which ones? The rusty degraded paper-weights?
Quote:

But we had already neutralized most of their command and control
Neutralized their command and control - you mean the US got ObL. And disrupted the sources of funding.
Quote:

thousands of militants marching to the "sound of the guns"
90-95% of insurgents are Iraqis, generated by the US.
Quote:

Now it appears that the Taliban is faltering
In case you're wondering, the US estimates appx 2/3 of Afghanistan is back under Taliban control, with the warlords paying opium protection money. The Taliban and mirror organization al Qaeda - are well-funded, well-armed, and eminently capable. And unlike you, when they think long-term, they look beyond 5 years.
Quote:

although with the US Marines standing behind them saying "you can do it!"
And Iraqis standing behind the US Marines, with guns. And the Iraqi government offering amnesty to anyone involved in 'legitimate resistance', and telling the US to get out. As for 'democracy' (previous post) - if it is legitimately elected by the people, I guess it's a democracy, though not in the western mold. But Iraq looks to be headed towards a theocracy with Sharia law.
Quote:

Our best bet is to keep up the pressure to break them before they can adopt any sort of coherant unified strategy
Do you believe that Iraq is anything more than a pimple on the ass of al Qaeda? It has bigger things in mind.


So your argument breaks down like this:

1) it was to keep (non-existant) WMDs from the hands of the
2) non-cooperative parties in order to
3) destroy the (resurgent and very healthy) Taliban and al Qaeda (who still have their leadership and funding intact, and are coincidentally bright enough to have a strategy but so stupid they're diverted by Iraq)
4) so the US can keep up 'pressure' on and be distracted by it's own effing decoy.


Brilliant.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, I'm still trying to make sense of Hero's WMD argument. Best I can tell, it goes like this:

Saddam had an active weapons program and a "massive stockpile" of WMD and medium-range missiles (120 miles range specifically) - enough to be a credible threat to Israel or Kuwait, if not to the USA directly. He was in the process of feeling out AQ in order to potentially transfer either some items or at least some knowledge to AQ in order to create extra difficulties for the USA. Bush invaded in order to interrrupt those plans. And Saddam, not being militarily gifted, did not manage to fire off even one canister, despite having a massive stockpile of deployed weapons. But Saddam was so clever that he managed to hide them in ways that we can't find anything but 15-year-old duds. Alternately, he shipped them off to Syria instead of using them to defend Iraq.

Hero, that isn't even an internally convincing story.

The magic eightball says: Try again.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:31 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Saddam had an active weapons program and a "massive stockpile" of WMD and medium-range missiles (120 miles range specifically) - enough to be a credible threat to Israel or Kuwait, if not to the USA directly. He was in the process of feeling out AQ in order to potentially transfer either some items or at least some knowledge to AQ in order to create extra difficulties for the USA. Bush invaded in order to interrrupt those plans. And Saddam, not being militarily gifted, did not manage to fire off even one canister, despite having a massive stockpile of deployed weapons. But Saddam was so clever that he managed to hide them in ways that we can't find anything but 15-year-old duds. Alternately, he shipped them off to Syria instead of using them to defend Iraq.


You make so much more sense when you're making my argument correctly. Hiding your light under a bush is far easier then shining it for the world to see. So much easier to hide it then to use it properly and I really suspect that the invasion caught him by surprise, its swift success surprised him again, and just for bonus, the fact we've stayed the course is surprising him still. I suspect when he feels a sudden jerk at the end of a rope, he'll be in for a surprise. Man's never had a sense of perspective.

He hid or shipped out the country a large portion of his arsenal of very expensive conventional weapons in 1991. But in 2003 he'd leave it all to be discovered. Lets not forget the numerous conventional weapons caches located in schools and mosques, missiles, planes buried in the sand, why not hide other things too...case in point the 500 artillery shells that we did find (and lets face it, they arent exactly forthcoming with this stuff so who knows what else they found and haven't declassified yet).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 1:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

He hid or shipped out the country a large portion of his arsenal of very expensive conventional weapons in 1991. But in 2003 he'd leave it all to be discovered. Lets not forget the numerous conventional weapons caches located in schools and mosques, missiles, planes buried in the sand, why not hide other things too...case in point the 500 artillery shells that we did find (and lets face it, they arent exactly forthcoming with this stuff so who knows what else they found and haven't declassified yet).
Well then, what IS your story? That Saddam had a whole stockpile of brand-spanking new weapons in 2003 and was too stupid to use them, but was so smart about hiding them that despite having a massive stockpile we can't find evidence of it anywhere, although we've found old stuff and lots of convential weapons? That our military actually FOUND new-vintage WMD but is keeping it a secret, although that would lay to rest the doubts and objections of the entire world?

Tell you what Hero- you lay out your story point by point... Pretend you're talking to a skeptical jury, make your best case. That is, if you have one.


---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So far, Hero has not made a case for WMD.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Still waiting....

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 4:07 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Zero,

How many people in the Bush administration have been in military combat? There was Powell, but he got out. And then there was .... I can think of ... none. Pehaps you can come up with a name or two. Otherwise, I'll say that republicowards are always ready for others to die, as long as they get more $$$
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Liberals, always willing to give you the shirt off of someone else's back.





Can I throw one in ?

Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni.... who resigned from a " super Ambassador " position in the Middle East after publicly stating that Bushs foreign policy ideas were " insane "

I wonder if we will ever really know why Powell resigned...




" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And meanwhile, "Hero" is notably absent from making a cogent case for WMD.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:26 - 12 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:13 - 3 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL