Bobdammit!
You are either an idiot or on a different planet from the one I'm on. and I'm realy confused as to how you can be so oblivious to what is staring you in the face.
Are you trying to say that Bush went to war with Iraq because they had WMD's, were going to get WMD's, because they wanted to get rid of Sadaam or what FFS? Or none of that and it was all a media plot to destroy someone elses country?
All of this blither about media/government obfuscation has turned your brain to noodles, I swear.
I think you must read the speeches that these ******* make and manage to completely re-organise the words and sentences into something that suits your own personal view of whats going on. And it somehow sets hard in your head, like cement, and no matter how often that it is pointed out that what it says is (a), you will continue to insist that it says (b) because that is what suits your paranoid world view. 'Cherry picking' I think is what it was called when Rumsfeld was doing the same thing.
It makes for incredibly frustrating debate.
A lot like arguing with a 'creation scientist', in fact.
Just so as I know what the answer is once and for all, Why, in your opinion, did Bush and Cheney et al, take the USA to war in Iraq?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We are in Iraq because of oil !!
We are in Iraq because of oil !!Follow
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Jophiel wrote:
Of course Powell was citing other reports. Does it only count if Powell went to Iraq and looked for the weapons himself? The only information he's going to have is the information collected by others which he, in turn, presents as factual and evidence to build his case.
Yeah. You know. The declassified photos and surveillance that Powell presented. I'm sorry, but to me when I think of "information Powell prestented to the UN" I think of those photos and surveilance recordings and the conclusions that Powell derived as a result of those things.
I do *not* put much stock or hold him much accountable for the portions of the presentation which were simple re-stating things that other UN organizations had already stated. He didn't assemble that infomation. He didn't dig through piles of intelligence (ok, his staff did it) to get it. He simply repeated the conclusions from other sources.
Silly me for talking about the actual infomation he presented to the UN, Maybe you just think differently, but to me that's what was significant. And that information (with one minor mistake) was spot on correct.
Quote:
Look, just admit that you're wrong.
How about you stop playing semantic games.
Ultimately a single sentence in a speech by Bush, or a single paragraph here or there in the middle of a long presentation given by Powell do not consitute the "sole reason we went to war with Iraq".
I'm right on this. We did not go to war for that reason and that reason only. What's happend during the lead up to the war is the exact same thing that you are doing right now. You're focusing on one paragraph. One sentence. One statement. Meanwhile you're ignoring the whole body of words surrouding those things. You looked for one statement by Powell about knowing that Iraq had weapons, because that's all you cared about. Meanwhile you missed the entire point of the excersize: That this was not the *only* reason cited, and in fact was not even near the top of the list.
Are you prepared to argue that that was the *only* statement made by Powell to the UN? Are you even prepared to argue that the statement(s) made by him that you quoted were even a significant portion of the presentation he gave? Were they actually part of his argument? Or just window dressing?
You and most of the anti-war crowd have literally missed the forest for the trees. You're so caught up in looking for mistakes and mistatements, and things that don't add up, that you miss completely that the actions taken were still the correct ones to take. All your blustering and whining about this sentence, that word, and that other paragraph don't change that fundamental truth.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Ultimately a single sentence in a speech by Bush, or a single paragraph here or there in the middle of a long presentation given by Powell do not consitute the "sole reason we went to war with Iraq".
That was a nice strawman though. Can't admit that you didn't know shit about what Powell said so quick! Change the topic to debating whether or not it was the only thing Powell said!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
You and most of the anti-war crowd have literally missed the forest for the trees. You're so caught up in looking for mistakes and mistatements, and things that don't add up, that you miss completely that the actions taken were still the correct ones to take. All your blustering and whining about this sentence, that word, and that other paragraph don't change that fundamental truth.
Because, as good Americans, we should ignore all the fallacies and failures in policy that were made, and just take whatever our figureheads spout wholesale. Got it.
How many times do we have to keep going through the motions to understand that occupying Muslim countries and forcing western-styled puppet governments don't work?
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
Again. Did members of the Bush administration believe that Iraq "had WMDs"? Yup. And so did members of the Clinton administration. So did members of Congress including most of the Democrat leadership (at the same time as the Bush administration). Does that automatically mean that this one aspect of the WMD issue as a whole is the single and entire justification for war? Absolutely not.
To be honest, even the French Prime minister (Rafarrin) of that time said he believed that Saddam had WMD's.
If only I could find that link again, it was a French text too though.
The 45 minutes business was indeed something a bit different than I thought, Blair wrote it, not said it.
Edited to add: this is a nice quote from Blair's speech btw
Tony Blair wrote:
Our primary purpose was to enforce UN resolutions over Iraq and WMD.
Edited, Jul 11th 2007 5:03pm by Zieveraar
Zieveraar wrote:
To be honest, even the French Prime minister (Rafarrin) of that time said he believed that Saddam had WMD's.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
How about you stop playing semantic games.
Indeed, Joph. You and your semantic games bring down any political discussion here.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
How about you stop playing semantic games.
Indeed, Joph. You and your semantic games bring down any political discussion here.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
But didn't Rafa's Foreign Sec (De Villepain) take a contrary view, insisting that Blix needed 2 more weeks to say one way or the other
De Villepin was indeed quite anti-war. He made a couple of good statements along the lines of "don't start a war if you can't rebuild the peace".
Zieveraar wrote:
"don't start a war if you can't rebuild the peace".
Yes, I'm that nerdy I own his anthology
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
Not as good as his poems
Yes, I'm that nerdy I own his anthology
Yes, I'm that nerdy I own his anthology
To be honest, he did put it a lot better than I did. Merely rephrasing as I didn't want to dig out the site I found it on, I'm quite lazy that way actually.
No idea whatsoever that he's a poet. A politician poet, there's something I hadn't heard of. (and soon convict politician poet if the rumours are true, or at least convicted)
Edited, Jul 11th 2007 11:26pm by Zieveraar
Zieveraar wrote:
To be honest, he did put it a lot better than I did. Merely rephrasing as I didn't want to dig out the site I found it on, I'm quite lazy that way actually.
Quote:
L'option de la guerre peut apparaître a priori la plus rapide. Mais n'oublions pas qu'après avoir gagné la guerre, il faut construire la paix.
A ****, but a loquacious ****
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Nobby wrote:
A ****, but a loquacious ****
And he's got nice hair.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Nobby wrote:
A ****, but a loquacious ****
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Nobby wrote:
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Nobby wrote:
A ****, but a loquacious ****
All we can do is make cute speeches at the UN.
So, we prioritise.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Nobby wrote:
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Nobby wrote:
A ****, but a loquacious ****
All we can do is make cute speeches at the UN.
So, we visit a hairdresser as an alternative to rationalising policy
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Debalic wrote:
Because, as good Americans, we should ignore all the fallacies and failures in policy that were made, and just take whatever our figureheads spout wholesale. Got it.
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that we should not focus purely on one single "failure" and exagerate it such that it becomes the single and only thing that matters.
Everyone believed that Iraq did indeed have some number of usable WMDs. That ended up not being true. Get over it.
The question you have to ask is: Did the existence of those weapons (in usable form) actually make any real difference in terms of the decision to invade Iraq? If we had known that Iraq didn't actually have any usable WMDs, but was still trying really hard to build them, hiding every bit of material they could, still keeping all the needed facilities, building new rockets and missiles designed to deliver said weapons if/when they were able to build them, still maintaining ties to several terrorist groups, and still generally refusing to comply with the terms of the cease fire they signed back in 1991, would the US and other nations still have had adequate justification to invade?
If the answer is "yes" (and I believe that it is), then the issue of whether or not those weapons physically existed in usable form is moot. It's utterly irrelevant to the decision itself and serves only to provide a cheap and easy attack on the decision itself.
Had Bush claimed that Saddam wore women's underwear, and the anti-war crowd chosen to raise that issue as their rallying cry, would you today be arguing that our invasion was unjust because it turned out that Saddam in fact did not wear women's underwear? Same deal. Just because a statement was made that later turned out to be incorrect does not automatically mean that the decision to invade was wrong or unjust. It just means that that statement that everyone believed to be true wasn't.
I can make some very strong arguments that the existence of usable WMDs by Iraq was *not* a primary justification for the invasion. To me, that's the most important determination.
Quote:
How many times do we have to keep going through the motions to understand that occupying Muslim countries and forcing western-styled puppet governments don't work?
Er? Not sure how that's relevant. The objective isn't to occupy a Muslim nation. That was simply a required step. Invading and removing an oppressive ruler from power most certainly "works" in terms of preventing that person from growing to become a future threat to ourselves and to others in the region. It does kinda help if you stick to arguing the correct objectives here...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Everyone believed that Iraq did indeed have some number of usable WMDs.
No. everyonefucking didn't.
You did. Because you're a gullible ****.
Didnt bother with the rest of your post.
Edited, Jul 12th 2007 3:20am by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
gbaji wrote:
Had Bush claimed that Saddam wore women's underwear, and the anti-war crowd chosen to raise that issue as their rallying cry, would you today be arguing that our invasion was unjust because it turned out that Saddam in fact did not wear women's underwear? Same deal.
Yeah, women's underwear, WMDs, same deal.
Did you drink an extra can of smart this morning?
Quote:
Invading and removing an oppressive ruler from power most certainly "works" in terms of preventing that person from growing to become a future threat to ourselves and to others in the region. It does kinda help if you stick to arguing the correct objectives here...
Yeah!
As opposed to women's underwear...
Recent Visitors: 171
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (171)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We are in Iraq because of oil !!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC