AURaptor I have a question...

POSTED BY: RiveR6213
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:09
VIEWED: 19104
PAGE 3 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 2:57 AM

Now you're just revising history , for no god damn reason what so ever.

I'm tired of this pointless discussion now.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 3:43 AM

Quote:
We waited 10+ yrs. That was enough time.

So in other words it was a completely pointless decision? The reason was... just because?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Saddam and his sons were actually thoughtful fellows. After they would kidnap and rape their young schoolgirl of the day, they would always place a thank-you card to the parents inside the box they'd leave on the front doorstep, containing the young lady's severed head. Only tender and caring men would leave a note. Who would want to kill such teddy-bears as these? Another example of their generous kindness were the mutiple mass graves we uncovered. Row after row, pit after pit, thousands upon thousands of dead civilians, women & children, all buried in perfect geometric balance to the surrounding environment. The Heusseins were quite Green, to the surprise of many. Again, why kill people who were just trying to heal the Earth. And of course, every town had their own police station, where their local pride shown brightly in the form of torture rooms and rape rooms. Nothing wrong here folks. Certainly nothing that anyone who values human life would even care a scintilla about, for sure. Saddam's payments for decades to Palestinian suicide bombers...just a myth dontcha know. Sum it all up, big mistake to take out Saddam. All the goodness he created, and the wonderful society of millions of people he molded, will now forever be a vanished mystery for the ages. Maybe PBS can do another Nova episode where they go back and revisit the ancient land of the fertile crescent, trying to recapture the joy and fun times of the lost Huessein era.

Ummm, Jongstraw, have you converted to the looney lefty liberal plague which supports these dictatorships? Oh, I get it, you're being condescending.
Good of you to point out who and what the Party of Tolerance and Divisivness supports and protects - and still to this day defends, as seen in this thread. But I was hoping you'd mention the wonderful USA exportation of woodchipping machines direct to Saddam, and how he learned that it's much less effective to lower his dissidents in head first, because the screaming is so much more brief.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:30 AM

BSCM - I've been trying to keep up with the massive amount of posts in this thread, and have been resisting the urge to reply in hope of not hijacking it.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
...and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

Have you picked up an outlandish partisan view on history here? I've heard historians dismiss this idea.

Heads should roll

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the looney lefty liberal historians dismiss many truths unflattering to FDR, LBJ, Jiminy Cotta, Slick Willie, and the Obamination, but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.
Yes, FDR was elected in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. You may have heard rumors that Nazi Germany (under Hitler) had invaded other sovreign Nations, and begun extermination of Jews, prior to 1940, and that England was sure to fall without direct US combat intervention. Hitler was fighting war on 5 fronts, and winning on every one of them, Japan was making progress in Pacific and all of Asia they wanted. Most have read that FDR understood all this, and knew the US must enter the war, but still campaigned as an Isolationist, promising to not enter the war even if we were the last nation on Earth not a Axis Power - because winning election was more impotant than saving the lives of Yurpeens and Jews. After winning election in 1940, he then needed to convince the American public that we needed to enter the war - which he had just won re-election by promising not to. Most sensible people now know that our cryptographers had broken the Japanese codes and had known several days before 7 Dec that the Japanese Navy was going to attack Pearl Harbor. FDR also knew this, and had also been told the same by Churchill in a phone conversation 11 days before the attack. FDR chose to not inform Admiral Kimmel, or anybody else in Hawaii, so that many American servicemen could be sacrificed and US citizens would be convinced to support the entering into the war. Kimmel was the scapegoat, and in 1999 the US Senate passed a resolution to exonerate Adm Kimmel.
After 50 years of classification, the documents became public in 1991, exposing FDR's deceit.
In the election of 1944, the GOP candidate was informed, upon selection as the candidate, that the code had been broken, and FDR had sacrificed the lives and ships at Peral Harbor. With this information, he could have exposed FDR for the conniving weasel that he was and ensured victory in the election, but he would have been endangering the lives of Americans in the Pacific (Marines and Sailors) by letting the Japanese know we were reading their secret messages. With the choice of endangering the servicemen and prolonging the war, or keeping quiet about FDR's betrayal and just hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to re-elect FDR, Gov Dewey chose the honorable option and kept the cryptography program a secret.
He lost the election by being honorable, just as FDR won by being the coniving deceitful weasel.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:35 AM

Quote:

So in other words it was a completely pointless decision? The reason was... just because?

17 UN Resolutions, 15-0 Security council vote, breaking of existing cease fire agreements, and this is all you see?

No wonder there's such a disconnect here.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:46 AM

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Saddam and his sons were actually thoughtful fellows. After they would kidnap and rape their young schoolgirl of the day, they would always place a thank-you card to the parents inside the box they'd leave on the front doorstep, containing the young lady's severed head.

To quote Geezer's favorite phrase...

"Cites, please?"

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
BSCM - I've been trying to keep up with the massive amount of posts in this thread, and have been resisting the urge to reply in hope of not hijacking it.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
...and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

Have you picked up an outlandish partisan view on history here? I've heard historians dismiss this idea.

Heads should roll

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the looney lefty liberal historians dismiss many truths unflattering to FDR, LBJ, Jiminy Cotta, Slick Willie, and the Obamination, but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.
Yes, FDR was elected in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. You may have heard rumors that Nazi Germany (under Hitler) had invaded other sovreign Nations, and begun extermination of Jews, prior to 1940, and that England was sure to fall without direct US combat intervention. Most have read that FDR understood all this, and knew the US must enter the war, but still campaigned as an Isolationist, promising to not enter the war even if we were the last nation on Earth not a Axis Power - because winning election was more impotant than saving the lives of Yurpeens and Jews. After winning election in 1940, he then needed to convince the American public that we needed to enter the war - which he had just won re-election by promising not to. Most sensible people now know that our cryptographers had broken the Japanese codes and had known several days before 7 Dec that the Japanese Navy was going to attack Pearl Harbor. FDR also knew this, and had also been told the same by Churchill in a phone conversation 11 days before the attack. FDR chose to not inform Admiral Kimmel, or anybody else in Hawaii, so that many American servicemen could be sacrificed and US citizens would be convinced to support the entering into the war. Kimmel was the scapegoat, and in 1999 the US Senate passed a resolution to exonerate Adm Kimmel.
After 50 years of classification, the documents became public in 1991, exposing FDR's deceit.
In the election of 1944, the GOP candidate was informed, upon selection as the candidate, that the code had been broken, and FDR had sacrificed the lives and ships at Peral Harbor. With this information, he could have exposed FDR for the conniving weasel that he was and ensured victory in the election, but he would have been endangering the lives of Americans in the Pacific (Marines and Sailors) by letting the Japanese know we were reading their secret messages. With the choice of endangering the servicemen and prolonging the war, or keeping quiet about FDR's betrayal and just hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to re-elect FDR, Gov Dewey chose the honorable option and kept the cryptography program a secret.
He lost the election by being honorable, just as FDR won by being the coniving deceitful weasel.

I understand that 2 of the British code breakers wrote a book years ago about the Pearl Harbor attack. They said exactly what you are saying here. But, I do not believe it for one second. If even the premise was true, that FDR was looking for a way to mobilize Americans to want to join the war, he certainly could/would have taken some steps to reduce the enormous scope and total devastation we sufferered. Some of the battleships on Battleship row could have been sent out to sea back in the direction of the mainland. Why would FDR sacrifice our entire Pacific Fleet? It doesn't make any sense. It took us years to recover from that, and by then Japan had extended it's control over all of Asia and the Pacific. Also, it seems a bit of a strecth to think that a secret as deep and dark as this could have been kept by all those who were in the know all these years. The Japanese " Tanaka Plan " had been widely known for years, just like Bin Laden's desire to crash planes into buildings had been known for years. I think Pearl Harbor was just a case of us knowin

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:35 PM

Quote:
The Japanese " Tanaka Plan " had been widely known for years, just like Bin Laden's desire to crash planes into buildings had been known for years. I think Pearl Harbor was just a case of us knowing of a possible threat, but not taking it serious.

Bingo. All the rest is just so much conspiracy theory.

Did we "know" the Japanese were likely to attack us? Well, we knew there was that possibility, because we'd essentially backed them into a corner with our embargoes. That in no way should suggest that we didn't have our reasons for such actions, or that we were unwarranted in blocking trade with the Japanese, but that by doing so, we were in effect forcing their hand. They struck at Pearl Harbor not to destroy the United States or to utterly defeat us, but in the hope of crippling us militarily so that they would be able to demand more favorable terms to resume the "peace" with us.

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

KPO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
17 UN Resolutions, 15-0 Security council vote, breaking of existing cease fire agreements, and this is all you see?

Iraq was an open sore, no question. So is North Korea and zimbabwe at the moment, and other regimes throughout history - is invasion always justified, whenever the US and allies see fit? Or did the iraq situation reach a tipping point? You kind of hint that 9-11 shifted this tipping point, but can you say what it was? if not the decision to go to war is still arbitrary, don't you see?

Which I'm afraid is how your judgement is, arbitrary, emotional - that if a nation obstructs the will of the USA long enough, then it's 'got it coming', and outraged patriots such as yourself are best placed to say when that moment has truly arrived:

Quote:
We waited 10+ yrs. That was enough time.

Which isn't cowboy diplomacy so much as angry bear/incredible hulk diplomacy - that if a hostile nation jabs you enough times with a stick you just SNAP, and no UN fact-finding mission can hold you back, or slow you down?

Do you think that the rest of the civilised world can respect you like this, or do you care?

Heads should roll

RIPWASH

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:38 PM

Not that this entirely answers your question or that you'll find this information credible. But here is a report (a "working document") from the UNMOVIC that states what they found and they're major concerns.

www.nti.org/db/profiles/iraq/fulltext/unmovic_jan6.pdf

And this from Hans Blix:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html

Neither are glowing accounts of Iraq's cooperation OR compliance with previous resolutions or demands from the other organization (UNSOCOM I think it was?). In fact, the UNMOVIC report has an assesment section of each area they were accountable for and almost every one of those sections contain wording similar to: "Iraq has failed to provide adequate documentation" or "Iraq's numbers don't add up and there may be more out there we're not aware of." And to say Saddam couldn't for fear of invasion from Iran is a sad excuse. It's because of his neglect and shameful pride that caused the world to discredit him and any "word" he gave. Almost like a used car salesman. "TRUST ME!" with that big fake smile on his face.

Say what you want, Sigy, but I'm not even sure 3 months or 6 months would have made a difference. It only would have given Saddam more time to twiddle around and laugh at everyone while he did his own thing. Despite Hans Blix's words at the end that the committee was getting bigger and better all the time . . . there is absolutely NO guarantee that Saddam would not have thrown them out when he tired of their intervention like he did numerous times before.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:45 PM

Quote:

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the looney lefty liberal historians dismiss many truths unflattering to FDR, LBJ, Jiminy Cotta, Slick Willie, and the Obamination, but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.

Or, read another way, through the same lens of history:

Yes, I'm sure we have all heard the right-wing whackos dismiss many truths unflattering to GWB, GHWB, and Ronnie "Ray-Gun", but the facts still remain if you choose to think for yourself and read about history.

Bush was warned specifically about Osama Bin Laden's plans to fly planes into buildings, and he chose to do nothing about it - if fact, he chose to LET HIM DO IT, if not outright help him pull it off. And this was all put in place dating back to Reagan's support of terrorists in Afghanistan and radical revolutionaries in Iran, with whom he'd had numerous negotiations even prior to the 1980 election.

Quote:
...hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to re-elect FDR, Gov Dewey chose the honorable option and kept the cryptography program a secret.
He lost the election by being honorable, just as FDR won by being the coniving deceitful weasel.

Can also be read,

"...hoping the American voter wasn't too stupid to elect Dubya Bush, Vice President Al Gore lost the election by being honorable, just as Dubya won by being the connniving, deceitful weasel."

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 1:49 PM

Quote:

Do you think that the rest of the civilised world can respect you like this, or do you care?

Or, to be even more blunt, why do you accept this kind of behavior from your own government when you would never accept it from another country?

Are you one of those "My country right or wrong" people, who believe that if his country does it, it CAN'T be wrong?

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 4:21 PM

Awww, shit... my whole post went into the ether! Ah well...

Quote:
17 UN Resolutions, 15-0 Security council vote, breaking of existing cease fire agreements, and this is all you see? No wonder there's such a disconnect here.

Rapo, the impression I get out of your answers is that GWB spent 4000+ American lives, 100,000 Iraqi lives, three trillion dollars, and the goodwill of the vast portion of the world to GET WHAT HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN FOR FREE FROM UNMOVIC: THE ASSURANCE THAT SADDAM NO LONGER HAD WMD. On that basis, it seems a brainless decision.

I can think of only ONE security reason to invade Iraq, and that is the concern that Saddam might use oil money to re-arm himself in secret. I had a whole post as to why was was not going to happen, but I've run out of time and I'll have to get back to you later.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 4:28 PM

Quote:
Say what you want, Sigy, but I'm not even sure 3 months or 6 months would have made a difference. It only would have given Saddam more time to twiddle around and laugh at everyone while he did his own thing.

Which was....? Producing more chemical weapons? Er, no. Creating nuclear bombs? Eh- wrong aqain! Devising bioweapons? No, not that either! Whatever Saddam was doing, it didn't have anything to do with creating WMD.

Quote:
Despite Hans Blix's words at the end that the committee was getting bigger and better all the time . . . there is absolutely NO guarantee that Saddam would not have thrown them out when he tired of their intervention like he did numerous times before.

In which case the United States could have made a VERY powerful argument for invasion.

I guess what I'm loooking for is a focused discussion of our interests (not hand-waving rhetoric) , the interests of others, and how we can achieve our goals in the long-run.

Since we supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, and aided and abetted Saddam's production and use of WMD in the 1980s, the lesson that I'm getting in REAL realpolitik is "what goes around comes around". I would like to see us avoid the mistakes of the past when confronting our current dilemmas.

ETA: Of course, in order to avoid the mistakes of the past we have to decide whether or not something WAS a mistake, and if it was we have to acknowledge it.... not keep defending it.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:37 PM

SignyM

Rap has serious emotional problems. He can't follow a train of logic b/c his problems will not allow him to think certain things.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Say what you want, Sigy, but I'm not even sure 3 months or 6 months would have made a difference. It only would have given Saddam more time to twiddle around and laugh at everyone while he did his own thing.
Which was....? Producing more WMD? Er, no. Creating nuclear bombs? Eh- wrong aqain! Devising bioweapons? No, not that either! Whatever Saddam was doing, it didn't have anything to do with creating WMD.
Quote:
Despite Hans Blix's words at the end that the committee was getting bigger and better all the time . . . there is absolutely NO guarantee that Saddam would not have thrown them out when he tired of their intervention like he did numerous times before.
In which case the United States could have made a VERY powerful argument for invasion.

I guess what I'm loooking for is a focused discussion of our interests, the interests of others, and how we can achieve our goals in the long-run.

Since we supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, and aided and abetted Saddam's production and use of MWD in the 1980s, the lesson that I'm getting in REAL realpolitik is "what goes around comes around". I would like to see us avoid the mistakes of the past when confronting our current dilemmas.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

There's no telling WHAT his own thing would have been, but I can tell ya it wasn't planting a garden or teaching his sons how to be polite, thoughtful human beings. But he DID have a history of pursuing that type of program. He gave us absolutely NO reason to think that he wouldn't have done anything other than what he'd done in the past and that was to procure knowledge, information and material to produce WMD's. And the UNMOVIC report shows clearly that Iraq wasn't even in compliance with the previous regulations set against them; that required paperwork was missing or destroyed, and that former claims didn't match current ones, that material listed as coming from domestic sources actually came from overseas, etc. And then we should trust Saddam's word that he had no connections or dealings with any terrorists EVER? Please.

And your persistant claim that the UNMOVIC assured that there were no WMD'S. The report I linked to does say that also, but they also say a slew of other things that raised their suspicions about what was actually done with the components to those devices. Separately, they're harmless, but combined? Deadly.

I agree completely that we should avoid the mistakes of the past, but sometimes action must be taken pre-emptively to avoid a possible catastrophe and you simply have to hope for the best outcome. Seeing as how the previous administration did absolutely nothing when we were attacked three times (and even passed on the opportunity to eliminate Bin Laden on three different occassions), we needed to make a stand this time around at even a hint of possible agression by a dictator with a history of pursuing WMD's and even using them against his own people. Just my opinion. The world fiddled around with him for long enough, if you ask me. Urgency in terms of the possibility of a threat is there, he's not complying, it's time to let him know we mean business and the time for "time outs" (which were all the resolutions and sanctions against him really were) have passed. So what if he was facing a threat from Iran? Weigh the options . . . "Iran or the US? If I comply with the US I might get UN help against Iran. If I lie to the US in order to save face with Iran, the US may kick my butt. Hmmmmmm. Decisions, decisions." Pride made him chose the "saving face option."

Basically, it's Saddam Hussein who is to blame for all of this because he kept screwing around, didn't do as he was ordered to do by the UN's first task force, lied, cheated, etc. The death of our troops, our debt, etc. all lay squarely on his shoulders because of his prideful actions.

Zoe: "Get it running aga

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:33 PM

"SignyM

Rap has serious emotional problems. He can't follow a train of logic b/c his problems will not allow him to think certain things."

This coming from Rue...

Hehhehheheh HAHAHAHAHAHAHBAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, but c'mon. As if ALL the regular posters here don't...

(including YOU, Rue)

Lol

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 7:34 PM

WULF- Rue pursues all relevant facts.

RIP- thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Quote:
There's no telling WHAT his own thing would have been, but I can tell ya it wasn't planting a garden or teaching his sons how to be polite, thoughtful human beings.

Agreed. But can we also agree that calling Saddam an "imminent", "urgent" "immediate" "growing" threat was hogwash, and that the real concern was in the realm of what Saddam MIGHT do in the intermediate future?

Quote:
But he DID have a history of pursuing that type of program. He gave us absolutely NO reason to think that he wouldn't have done anything other than what he'd done in the past and that was to procure knowledge, information and material to produce WMD's.

Part of my ether-eaten post dealt with this. The fear is that Saddam would do what he'd done in the 1980s: Burst on a horrified world with previously unsuspected, covertly-produced WMD capability.

But that did NOT happen. "The world" may not have know what Saddam was up to, but our intelligence and military people certainly did. Saddam's WMD program was fostered under the protective wing of Reagan and Rumsfeld. They KNEW Saddam had chemical weapons, in fact, they helped him choose targets. When Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds, our State Department ran interference for him at the UN with its patently fabricated "Iran too" claims.

Quote:
On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". ... not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

If we were horrified at the prospect of Saddam using chemical weapons, what does that say about us? We helped him build and target them. Are we any better? Should we then fear ourselves? But aside from the psychological and ethical understanding that we helped create the monster and therefore it should be familiar, I think there is another lesson to be learned: I don't think it's possible for ANY nation or organization to create meaningful amounts of WMD without flags going up on someone's radar. THIS is the critical point, not only to decide whether invasion was a mistake, but also to determine our level of concern about any other rogue nation.

Quote:
And the UNMOVIC report shows clearly that Iraq wasn't even in compliance with the previous regulations set against them; that required paperwork was missing or destroyed, and that former claims didn't match current ones, that material listed as coming from domestic sources actually came from overseas, etc. And then we should trust Saddam's word that he had no connections or dealings with any terrorists EVER?

The word "trust" doesn't belong the same breathe as "international politics". Every nation has its own interests and secrets. Like Reagan said: Trust but verify.

It goes back to whether or not our surveillance programs can detect covert WMD production. The phrase "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" is commonly used. However, it's also true that you can't PROVE a negative. I have yet to definitively decide whether our surveillance programs can rule out covert WMD production beyond a reasonable doubt. (Not beyond an SHADOW of a doubt, 'cause someone will always find a way of introducing doubt, if they really want to.)

---------------------------------
It's the end of the

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:06 PM

I reject the term 'cowboy diplomacy'. It's based on a false image of what a cowboy is, thanks to silly Hollywood stereo types from movies.

Cowboys are resourceful, hard working and simply want to be left to live their own lives. Anyone who uses the term 'cowboy diplomacy' as to mean anyone being rash, irresponsible, and aggressive is simply an idiot, who has no clue of what they're talking about, and just wants to trash America.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:16 PM

Sig,

UNMOVIC or who ever wasn't going to get rid of Saddam. THAT was the problem, and it should have been taken care of back in '91. But because of legitimate concerns about the coalition breaking a part if we pushed any further,( and because of Powell's bleeding heart ) we called off the dogs of war. Then we screwed ourselves at the bargaining table. I believed back then what so many said at the time, that leaving Saddam in power only meant we'd be back 10 yrs later. And we were dead on right.

Saddam was absolutely going to reconstitute anything that the U.N. didn't confiscate as soon as he was 'free' to do so. There's no question Saddam was going to pick up right where he left off, and we weren't going to allow that to happen.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM

Rap has serious emotional problems. He can't follow a train of logic b/c his problems will not allow him to think certain things.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I can, and usually do follow a logical train of thought. But the fact that I'm not beholden to your Left wing indoctrination is not tantamount to me having "emotional problems". You simply don't like my answers, and can't logically reply to them, so instead, you offer up nonsensical ad hominem attacks.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:26 PM

Quote:
UNMOVIC or who ever wasn't going to get rid of Saddam. THAT was the problem

But WHY was it a problem??? Was Saddam a bad man and a vicious tyrant? Sure. But there are plenty of vicious tyrants in the world whom we haven't deposed. So why Saddam specifically?
Did he have a history of making and using WMD? Yes, but only with our active particpation. And there are plenty of other rogue nations which already have WMD, so why Iraq specifically?
Did he invade Kuwait? Yeah, but only after we gave him the go-ahead. And there are plenty of other nations involved in cross-border incursions, so why Iraq specifically?

I saw no reason to trust Saddam, but no reason to invade either. You keep saying the same thing over and over again: Saddam had to be removed. I keep keep asking WHY? And so far, you haven't given me one, except to repeat your mantra... again... and again... and again.

So please fill in the blanks. Try to provide a FOCUSED expression of your SPECIFIC concerns, either because of what Saddam was doing at the time, or what you think he might do in the future.

We had to remove Sadam because ________ would __________.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

What the hell is that suppose to even mean? Do you even KNOW ?

It means you prolly want to err on the side of established authority rather than individuals or small groups.

Quote:
It's my OPINION, and has not one damn thing to do w/ anything remotely "authoritarian" .

Wrong.

Quote:
That's just a clever way you attempt to dismiss my views.

Nothing clever about it, merely a substantive observation.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
tantamount

Big word for a small thinker.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Did he invade Kuwait? Yeah, but only after we gave him the go-ahead.

Oh Signy, don't even go there...that's a whole 'NOTHER branch of denial. With crocks even.
Factual satellite evidence of our knowledge of his advance in that direction won't hold up to Far-Right revisionism, you MUST know that.

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:01 PM

He had a history of using WMD not JUST with our participation, but also w/ other countries as well.

The claim we gave Saddam " the go ahead " to invade Kuwait is dubious , at best. We may have telegraphed him a message that he could use force to some extent, but I doubt we thought he'd go for a full scale invasion.

Clinton thought Saddam should be removed, but meekly just passed an E.O. on the issue, and didn't do much more.

We had to remove Sadam because IT WAS BELIEVE BY THE BUSH ADMIN AND MANY OTHERS IN THE PREVIOUS ADMIN THAT Saddam would likely sell/share his WMD info w/ terrorist or hostile nations. Saddam had already invaded or attacked 4 of his neighbors, including launching Scuds at Israel, which was completely outside of the conflict, and had no role what so ever in the invasion of Iraq.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:04 PM

Quote:
likely sell/share his WMD info w/ terrorist or hostile nations

But one must have WMD to share or sell.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Oh Signy, don't even go there...that's a whole 'NOTHER branch of denial. With crocks even.
Factual satellite evidence of our knowledge of his advance in that direction won't hold up to Far-Right revisionism, you MUST know that.

The laughing Chrisisall

So, you'll buy satellite imagery when it supports what ever dubious claim you have, that we gave Saddam the green light, but you'll dismiss it, totally out of hand, when it shows suspicious activity at supposed WMD sites.

I see how it works now.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
likely sell/share his WMD info w/ terrorist or hostile nations
But one must have WMD to share or sell.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Saddam had WMD. Ask the Kurds.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:16 PM

HAD. The operative word is HAD. As in "Yesterday I HAD $1000."

The question was: Did he CURRENTLY have WMD?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HAD. The operative word is HAD. As in "Yesterday I HAD $1000."

The question was: Did he CURRENTLY have WMD?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

And the merry-go-round circles back again.

*sigh*

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:21 PM

Only because you refuse to get off.

Rapo, I can't sell or give away what I don't HAVE. A non-existant WMD is no threat to ... anyone. So what is your concern?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Only because you refuse to get off.

Rapo, I can't sell or give away what I don't HAVE. A non-existant WMD is no threat to ... anyone. So what is your concern?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Sig, at issue is whether or not he HAD them. Everyone, based on the intel we had, knew Saddam had them or had the means ( and more importantly, the intent ) to make them. This is why I find this topic so GOD DAMN tedious. You simply refuse to accept history and blindly cling to the UN for all your answers.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:29 PM

Okay, so your problem with Saddam was his demonstrated INTENT. Do you feel, then, that at the point of invasion he was toothless in the WMD-department? That your concern was NOT that he constituted an immediate threat, but that he would be a threat in the future?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:49 PM

We know that once apone a time Saddam had Chemical and Biological weapons, after all we've still got the bill of sale.

He didn't have any at the time of the invasion though, so claiming he 'had' them being a legitimate reason to invade, is tantamount to a lie .

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 9:57 PM

Aww...the poor widdle parrot is delirious. He's speakin' nonsense again.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:04 PM

Could you answer my question please? I feel like I'm FINALLY getting a handle on your concerns, I'd like to know if I'm going off-track.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Aww...the poor widdle parrot is delirious. He's speakin' nonsense again.

Yeah, but recognising that is the first step to dealing with your problem

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so your problem with Saddam was his demonstrated INTENT. Do you feel, then, that at the point of invasion he was toothless in the WMD-department? That your concern was NOT that he constituted an immediate threat, but that he would be a threat in the future?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

I contend that after the MONTHS long lead up to the invasion, Iraq very well may have been free of WMD. Doesn't matter. I say what ever Saddam had was buried and / or ferreted out of the country , likely to Syria. Point is, Saddam gambled, and lost - BIG time.

*NOTE* Over a week since River posted this thread , and not once has there been ANY reply. Curious, that.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:07 PM

Christ....

Saddam had enough evidence that the current (at the time) administration could hogswallow the country into warring with them.

How hard is that to understand? Did he have WMD's? Maybe. Maybe not.

But thats not the point.

The point is always so simple that I cant believe people dont get it.

You kill 1 of us... we kill 100 of you. Period.

For every U.S. citizen that dies, 100 of yours die.

Look at Vietnam, Korea, ect ect.

It may sicken the weaker of our citizens, but its still true.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:26 PM

Wulf ?

An eye for an eye till everyone is blind ?

That's ridiculous, it's an endless cycle, we kill mossdeigh, they lynch the shah, we prop up saddam, back and forth, back and forth like a pair of three year olds playing tug of war with a toy in the sandbox screamin and cryin ?

Someone has to be an adult here.

Besides which, most of the folk we're killin hated that bastard as much or more than we did, and NOW hate *us* even worse cause our actions have heaped more misery on em than the bastard we swung from a rope.

It sounds impressive, most feelgood pieces do - but it falls apart completely when held up to the realities of the situation.

That's not to say I woulda had that much an issue with dropping a Tomahawk cruise missile right smack on his podium during one of his little speeches even with a wince over collateral damage.

THAT message woulda been cheaper, more pointed, and quite easily understood with a minimum of casualties incurred.

Never for a moment forget who propped that bastard up in the first place, either.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I contend that after the MONTHS long lead up to the invasion, Iraq very well may have been free of WMD. Doesn't matter. I say what ever Saddam had was buried and / or ferreted out of the country , likely to Syria. Point is, Saddam gambled, and lost - BIG time.

And why would the man who would defiantly use those weapons, send them to another country when the one time he needed them came a knocking? So he could say "ha, take that America"? Would that be before or after he was executed?

So he had them, but he was so adversed to using them, he hid them in Syria? If he finds the idea of using these weapons so distasteful he wouldn't even use them on enemy troops invading his country, the question would be, why was the invasion necessary? It obviously wasn't to stop him using the weapons, since he was so desperate not to use them he sent them to Syria.

You can find illogical conspiracy theories in all sorts of places. The "Saddam's WMD's are buried under a berry bush in Syria" one is right up there with Kennedy being assassinated by aliens, though well above the "9/11 was an inside job" one.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:02 PM

Quote:
I contend that after the MONTHS long lead up to the invasion, Iraq very well may have been free of WMD. Doesn't matter. I say what ever Saddam had was buried and / or ferreted out of the country , likely to Syria. Point is, Saddam gambled, and lost - BIG time.

Oy. So, at the time that we invaded the WMD were off in Syria? Or buried? C'mon rapo. This is just far off the charts and into fantasyland. Even Rumsfeld didn't say that. HE thought they were deployed! (They can't be in three places at once, can they???

) And if they were in Syria they were out of Saddam's cotnrol. So... WHY did we invade, again?

Look, WMD decay. We've been through this before. Why would anyone want to send degraded Sarin or VX and spoiled liquid anthrax to Syria? Or bury them, for that matter? It's not like they would do anyone any good, or any harm. In order for Saddam to have meaningful amounts of WMD... enough to pose a security threat to anyone... he had to have been producing them through late 1990s and early 2000s. Anything else... pphhffffttt!

So, honestly, truly, what was your REAL concern again? If you want to say that you thought that Saddam would re-arm himself as soon as possible with all that oil money, just come out and say so. Do REALLY want to point to 1980s-vintage WMD as a significant problem????

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:05 PM

WULF

Quote:
You kill 1 of us... we kill 100 of you. Period.

Even if I accept that... did Saddam or his soldiers KILL any of us????

Eh... no.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so your problem with Saddam was his demonstrated INTENT. Do you feel, then, that at the point of invasion he was toothless in the WMD-department? That your concern was NOT that he constituted an immediate threat, but that he would be a threat in the future?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

[snark]
Well, saying "Saddam Hussein is an eventual threat" in the State of the Union Address just wouldn't have conveyed the urgency that the Bush Administration didn't feel...

I don't know how come you don't GET this, Signy!

[/snark]

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Aww...the poor widdle parrot is delirious. He's speakin' nonsense again.

Yes, you are speaking nonsense. Again.

Same as it ever was...

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Christ....

Saddam had enough evidence that the current (at the time) administration could hogswallow the country into warring with them.

How hard is that to understand? Did he have WMD's? Maybe. Maybe not.

But thats not the point.

The point is always so simple that I cant believe people dont get it.

You kill 1 of us... we kill 100 of you. Period.

For every U.S. citizen that dies, 100 of yours die.

Look at Vietnam, Korea, ect ect.

It may sicken the weaker of our citizens, but its still true.

And speaking of "simple"... Does anyone ever say "Dee-dee-dee" to you, Wulfie?

How is it that almost eight years after 9/11, you STILL think that Osama = Saddam? How many of "us" did Saddam kill on 9/11?

And you might want to check yourself on your examples. "Look at Vietnam, Korea, etc." - you DO realize that none of your examples listed were actual victories for the U.S., right? One (Korea) was a stalemate (and still technically is in limbo); the other, we lost. Not putting your love of going to war with Iraq in too good a light, not even by your own examples!

Mike

Just lying smiling in the dark,
Shooting stars around your heart,
Dreams come bouncing in your head
pure and simple every time.
Now you're crying in your sleep;
I wish you'd never learnt to weep.
Don't sell the dreams you should be keeping
pure and simple every time.
"Pure", by Lightning Seeds

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:48 PM

Anyway rapo, so far your "reasons" for invading Iraq have been

Saddam's time was up
He had WMD in the 1980s

So, REALLY, what was your concern again?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:48 PM

They can't be in three places at once, can they???

You're right. Weapons can only be located all in one place. I forgot.

Why would anyone want to send degraded Sarin or VX and spoiled liquid anthrax to Syria?

Why do you assume they were degraded ? And even if they were, Saddam wasn't going to have them sitting there , in his country , to be found by the U.S. He'd only be making our case for us. Don't underestimate the lengths a tyrant would go to. He did light off over 700 oil wells.

I think you're crazy, Sig. Seriously. You keep asking the same question over and over, even after the answer has been given.

Seek professional help.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

So, you'll buy satellite imagery when it supports what ever dubious claim you have, that we gave Saddam the green light, but you'll dismiss it, totally out of hand, when it shows suspicious activity at supposed WMD sites.

Not a bit of it.

At this point I'm jus' feeding the troll.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:00 AM

Quote:
Why do you assume they were degraded ?

Uh... because modern science tells me so? Just like it tells me that tubes made for uranium centrigfuges need high tensile strength? But, FYI- I worked on a chemical weapons detection project a while back. Got to talk with the experts from Maryland. Yep, they degrade. Any more questions?

Quote:
And even if they were, Saddam wasn't going to have them sitting there , in his country , to be found by the U.S.

DING! DING! DING!

WE HAVE A WINNER!

And even if they degraded, Sadam wouldn' be sitting on them PERIOD. Why move your trash to another nation? Why would the other nation accept it? Why bury it? It's just a liability.

Quote:
He'd only be making our case for us. Don't underestimate the lengths a tyrant would go to. He did light off over 700 oil wells.

One thing I'm NOT underestimating is the apparent lengths to which you will go to confabulate. Sending off or burying degraded WMD is just crazy. So either Saddam was crazy... or you are.

Quote:
I think you're crazy, Sig. Seriously. You keep asking the same question over and over, even after the answer has been given.

Problem is, I keep expecting an answer that makes sense. When will you come up with something that you've at least glancingly screened for plausibility?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:12 AM

Sig, you mistake me for being some hell bent apologist for Bush, some sort of PR spin doctor for his cause.

I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be. Sorry, but you have me confused w/ someone else.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:34 AM

Quote:
Sig, you mistake me for being some hell bent apologist for Bush, some sort of PR spin doctor for his cause. I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be. Sorry, but you have me confused w/ someone else.

Sorry, but I never said you were an apologist for Bush. I just can't believe that you really believe what you're saying. You appear to have had a deep-seated and sincere desire to invade Iraq. But when I ask "Why?" you seem to have no fundamental reasons.

Yanno, if you ask someone "Why" long enough, by about the fifth or sixth "Why?" people either reach insight or they run out of reasons. You? You can't even get past the second "Why"! Every reason you suggest falls apart on simple questioning. Surely, you must have something more than that on which to base such a momentous decision, such an expenditure of human lives and money! And if you don't, you might want to ask yourself "Why not"?

And in the fuure, you might want to sit down and ask YOURSELF- Why do I think that? And after you answer THAT question, ask yourself And why do I think THAT? and just keep going. You don't need to tell anyone else but yourself the answers, but at least you'll learn something.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for participating.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:40 AM

This conversation, no, this ISSUE has been done to death, raised, killed off again, and raised and killed again.

I've said all I have to say on the issue, many times over. I don't know why you want keep badgering me on all this. Honestly, what the hell is it to you now , 6 yrs after the fact ?

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:52 AM

Because I still keep expecting you to make logical, factual, or strategic sense.

Shall I repeat to you what you've said?

Quote:
paraphrased
Saddam had aluminum tubes. (Yeah, but the wrong ones)
There were many UN Resolutions.
The process was tiresome.
His time was up.
He had WMD back in 1980.
He shipped his WMD to Syria, or buried it.
He showed intent.

All of this... except that last reason which has some predictive value... is restrospective, historical. But yanno, you can't change history. You can only affect current circumstances to hopefuly change the future. I am assuming that you thought invasion was necessary because you were attempting to avoid something in the future, or create something for the future. Maybe I used the wrong word when I asked for a reason. What I'm looking for, hoping for, is a PURPOSE. So, I guess I'm going to ask you one last time (Please fill in the blank)

"We had to invade Iraq because otherwise _________ would ___________" Or, rephrased into a more proactive tone We had to invade Iraq and depose Saddam in order to ____________"

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 9, 2009 1:06 AM

Are you capable of filling in those blanks?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 9, 2009 3:00 AM

Quote:
Got to talk with the experts from Maryland.

Hope you took a shower after, those are some of the creepiest, slimiest folk I've ever met in my life, and their safety precautions are somewhat less than sterling besides...
*shudder*

I do NOT like those people - at least the ones down at Aberdeen have some excuse to be semi-slapdash mad scientist types, but there's no room for it when dealing with stuff that can spread lethality outside of the test range.

-F

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Are you capable of filling in those blanks?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

I already played this game once. Maybe you missed this reply ?

Quote:
We had to remove Sadam because IT WAS BELIEVE BY THE BUSH ADMIN AND MANY OTHERS IN THE PREVIOUS ADMIN THAT Saddam would likely sell/share his WMD info w/ terrorist or hostile nations. Saddam had already invaded or attacked 4 of his neighbors, including launching Scuds at Israel, which was completely outside of the conflict, and had no role what so ever in the invasion of Iraq.

I no longer am playing. You have your answers.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 9, 2009 1:35 PM

Well, I guess in the flurry of answers it was a little hard to pick out THE answer, so thank you for that.

Is this a true statement of YOUR purpose, or is this what you think BUSH'S goal was? I just want to be clear.

Thanks

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RIVERDANCER

Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:28 PM

We can all agree that Saddam Hussein was a pus-filled blister. Whether that blister posed a serious threat of imminent death might be a question, considering how long it was hanging around, but it was definitely not a healthy thing. Whether that particular blister was worse than any of the other blisters in the world is also a question, but many people have asked it so I won't dwell on that point.

Here's my question, since I haven't seen anyone make this point:

Saddam is dead. His sons are dead. He and his line have been taken out. Blister popped.
Why are occupying troops still there?

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:35 PM

I guess, for some mind-boggling reason, he had his supporters.

But I honestly don't think his supporters have the capacity to overthrow the government we installed, and I don't think they even have considered who among them they want to place in power once they do. No longer term plan that I'm aware of, no political demands except for us leaving, no centralized leader calling the shots who could direct a military coup.

Kind of strange, really. At the risk of stating the obvious, I think they're just continuing to fight out of spite.

EDIT: Oh wait, was that for AURaptor? It sounded like a question being posed to everyone generally. Sorry if I misinterpretted that.

RIVERDANCER

Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:50 PM

I suppose it could be that. But if troops just stay for as long as they find some sort of battle, then it's indeed true that they'll never get to leave. I think, perhaps, the continued fight isn't for anything except being tired of an occupying force patrolling their streets. The stated mission was to depose Saddam (someone correct me if I'm wrong). So, Saddam has been deposed, and executed. With that stated mission completed, a withdrawal would likely have fostered a much kinder opinion of the U.S. and its troops in the hearts and minds of most Iraq citizens than a continued presence has. A peacekeeping timeframe is somewhat understandable, but at this point that timeframe has surely expired. Iraq is its own country and must, at some point, be left to its own devices when it comes to law and keeping the peace. Maybe it won't work out for them, it's certainly an unstable region in general, but no outside force is going to stop that. Trying for more stability in a country not your own goes from noble to foolish rather quickly, and sparks some visible hostility.
Occupation of Iraq is no longer necessary, fruitful in any way, or at all wise. Innocent people are dying, no matter the efforts to prevent it, and at the same time citizens of the U.S. are also dying. This seems a losing proposition and has been since the execution of Saddam Hussein, if not before.
So, again, I don't see what troops are still doing there.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 9, 2009 10:33 PM

Quote:

Kind of strange, really. At the risk of stating the obvious, I think they're just continuing to fight out of spite.

Which is pretty much how I would summarize our foreign policy under Bush: Fight out of Spite!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 9, 2009 10:39 PM

Quote:
Iraq is its own country and must, at some point, be left to its own devices when it comes to law and keeping the peace. Maybe it won't work out for them, it's certainly an unstable region in general, but no outside force is going to stop that.

Ironically, had it been left to its own devices and the UN sanctions, and had we NOT invaded and occupied Iraq, the region would likely be MORE stable today. By seeking to "spread democracy" and impose stability, we've managed to spread only chaos, and impose only instability on the region.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 9, 2009 10:40 PM

Yeah, I pretty much agree. I don't see much point in staying much longer either. I was just trying to answer your question.

Of course, I suspect the recent upsurge in violence is just going to make everyone start talking about how the situation isn't settled yet, and we need to stay longer.

I understand that we don't like just letting people kill each other (except, apparently, Africa, because we just let genocides happen). And maybe the global community does have a moral obligation to intervene. But on the other hand, America always seems to end up doing the brunt of the peacekeeping work, having the biggest military, and we loose the brunt of the soldiers. I don't like all the dying and killing in general.

So... Do we need to settle it? If so, how? That's what I want to know.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 9, 2009 11:33 PM

WE can't. We have several options:

1) Exit, let the two Shiites (Maliki and Sadr) decide which one of them is going to be dictator, and leave the Sunnis to face their fate

2) Re-arm and re-organize the Sunnis (which we're already doing) so that they can bring the Shiites to a stalemate and gain SOME sort of representation in the government

3) Formally split the nation into three regions.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 9, 2009 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I guess in the flurry of answers it was a little hard to pick out THE answer, so thank you for that.

Is this a true statement of YOUR purpose, or is this what you think BUSH'S goal was? I just want to be clear.

Thanks

Please, don't ask me to crawl inside W's head. And none of this in the LEAST has been a " statement of MY purpose". That's an entirely different thread.

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 10, 2009 4:29 PM

I vote number three, although then we have to figure out a way to keep them from invading each other afterward.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 10, 2009 4:38 PM

So if you're not speaking for Bush and you're not speaking for yourself... who ARE you speaking for?

BTW- I asked you for YOUR opinion, YOUR goals. Do you have any?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:38 PM

OOOOH ! I know ! I know !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:41 PM

Hush, Rue! Don't tell rapo the answer. This is to see if he can speak for himself, or if he reaches into his mind and finds... the inside of a sock.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:03 PM

Select to view spoiler:

But I know the answer !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:07 PM

TO RAPO

Quote:
So if you're not speaking for Bush and you're not speaking for yourself... who ARE you speaking for?-Signy

But, I know the answer- Rue

Yes, dear. Now hush.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 10, 2009 7:47 PM

So rapo, as I asked before: If you're not speaking for Bush and you're not speaking for your own beliefs, self-interests, feelings and/or thoughts, who ARE you speaking for?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:43 AM

Quote:
Please, don't ask me to crawl inside W's head. And none of this in the LEAST has been a " statement of MY purpose". That's an entirely different thread.

Your statement baffles me. You seem to be saying that you're neither expressing what you think is Bush's prupose, nor are you expressing yours.

So -if you're not speaking for Bush, and you're not speaking for yourself ... who ARE you speaking for? And, what was YOUR purpose in supporting the invasion of Iraq?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:50 AM

But according to you, you already know the answer. So the constant bumping and questions are an attempt to...

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:02 AM

Get Rapo to think, what else?

It's called the Socratic Method. You might have heard of Socrates?

Quote:
The Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of philosophical inquiry in which the questioner explores the implications of others' positions, to stimulate rational thinking and illuminate ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

And yes, I know, nobody likes a smarty-pants. But the problem is, most right-wingers haven't really thought about what they believe, why they believe it, and what it means. What they believe, they believe sincerely and with great passion but...

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But the problem is, most right-wingers haven't really thought about what they believe, why they believe it, and what it means. What they believe, they believe sincerely and with great passion but...

Wow. I mean just wow.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Wow. I mean just wow.

Apostrophes can be quite startling sometimes.
Oh wait- that's epiphanies... you know what I mean.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But the problem is, most right-wingers haven't really thought about what they believe, why they believe it, and what it means. What they believe, they believe sincerely and with great passion but...

Wow. I mean just wow.

Eureka! He's had an awakening!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

RUE

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:20 AM

Unless it was snark. It could always be snark.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:55 AM

My guess is snark...

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if you're not speaking for Bush and you're not speaking for yourself... who ARE you speaking for?

BTW- I asked you for YOUR opinion, YOUR goals. Do you have any?

Yes, and they are my own.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:39 PM

SO, you come to the board not to anonymously discuss YOUR goals and YOUR opinions but to foist someone else's opinions on us?

WHOSE?

BTW we all know the answer to that one. Rue was going to post it, but I stopped her.

You have a SERIOUS mental problem, son. What I get out of this is that you're paranoid and you're a human sock puppet. Like I predicted several posts up: You reached inside your mind and found the inside of a sock. If you're here to proselytize The Word and you're afraid of letting on, don't worry. We've ALL got you figured out for a ditto-head.

Several pieces of advice, son:

The questions that I asked shouldn't be hard to answer. (As a refresher, those questions were: What are YOUR opinions? What is YOUR purpose behind YOUR decision?) PRACTICE THAT - in privacy if necessary- until it becomes second nature. Stop being an empty sock, just waiting for someone to fill your brain with their opinion.

IT'S OK TO THINK. THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE. You won't lose money, it won't make you sick, you'll still keep all of your friends.

------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I get out of this is that you're paranoid and you're a human sock puppet.

The term is meat puppet

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:31 PM

Sig, I'm not foisting ANYONE'S goals here, just commenting on what others have done. That's kinda the point, right ?

The more you accuse me of having some sort of 'serious mental problem', the less and less credible any of your comments are received. You simply can't accept the views of anyone who doesn't see things your way, so you accuse them of being disturbed. That in and of itself is disturbing.

You're not 'vindicated' in the least, because you predicted nothing. All you're doing is reinforcing your own self delusion.

Fact is, I think about this a great deal more than you, that much is clear.

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:46 PM

Quote:
Sig, I'm not foisting ANYONE'S goals here, just commenting on what others have done. That's kinda the point, right ?

Yes, but those comments: Do they reflect what YOU think? You say NOT. Your "real" opinions and your "real" purpose is a deep secret. So either you're a meat puppet or a troll. Or you're so completely devoid of thought that you're papering over the vacuum by claiming its a "secret" ("I gotta secret and I won't tell") Sure. Whatever.

Sorry dude, but at this point that makes you not worth anyone's time, certainly not mine.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:04 PM

Then why do you keep asking?

The point is, I've given my views, and you simply don't agree w/ them. I've not given my GOALS, as in my goals in life, because they're not relevant to this discussion. Why is that such an issue w/ you ?

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:14 PM

Last question first: Presumably, your views result from goals. You support the invasion of Iraq because you thought it would do something positive. You support Bush's (and presumably Obama's) shoveling money at the rich because you think it does something positive. If you DON'T have a link between opinions and goals, you've got a serious mental gap.

First question: I keep asking you because I hope it'll make you think.

What I find seriously silly is your close-to-the vest attitude ... on an anonymous DISCUSSION board, for cryin' out loud!

How insincere is THAT?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:33 PM

Quote:
Presumably, your views result from goals.

There's the flaw in your logic.

As a skeptic, I base my views on what is known. You might say my goals result from my views! But put aside the chicken and the egg talk for now.

In the build up to the Iraq war, I viewed Saddam a threat to not just the U.S., but the region , our allies and the general interest of the West. Based on the available information, I supported Bush on the belief that he'd take out Saddam and remove the threat. Not only directly, but by showing those in the region that we meant business, and weren't going to be dismissed, as so many in that part of the world has viewed us. It's 6 yrs since the war, and 18 since the initial war to liberate Kuwait. I've been over the entire scenario times uncounted, so excuse me if I'm unwilling to , ONCE AGAIN, go over the entire history of events for your state of mental well being. It's simply not going to happen, accept that, and move on.

As for 'shoveling $$ at the rich ', I'd like for you to clarify that more. Are you talking tax cuts ? Because in tax cuts, the $$ isn't COMING from the Government. And w/ Obama RAISING taxes on the rich, he's TAKING money , not shoving it at them.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
18 since the initial war to liberate Kuwait.

Problem is that we could have intervened & stopped Saddam BEFORE he entered Kuwait, but then we wouldn't have been able to pound on him quite so hard after the fact, a little footnote so many seem to like to forget.

The laughing Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:07 PM

Rapo, a real skeptic would look at all kinds of information, and would also consider the source. A real skeptic questions everything. But you swallow the party line: hook, bait, sinker and all. You can't POSSIBLY claim to be a skeptic of any sort. And the fact that you cherry pick your information so heavily has caused you to make several serious errors... on Iraq and the economy... and you STILL haven't learned! So my advice is still: It's OK to think. It won't cost you anything.

AFA shoveling money at the rich: our taxes are going to the same bastards who got us in this mess to begin with. I think we should fire them all and take over.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rapo, a real skeptic would look at all kinds of information, and would also consider the source. A real skeptic questions everything. But you swallow the party line: hook, bait, sinker and all.

Demonstrably not true. I took, for example, the word of a CLINTON appointed CIA director as being credible. I took into consideration all the things DEMOCRATS said, as far back as 1998, concerning Saddam and his WMD. I also considered the murder of several thousand Kurds, by Saddam in his use of WMD.

Quote:
You can't POSSIBLY claim to be a skeptic of any sort.
But I am, despite your protest to the contrary. My skepticism predates all of this nonsense about Iraq, WMD or anything even connected to politics. My introduction into being a skeptic started in the mid 80's, at an event which I attended, where I later read in the papers accounts to be contrary to what was I saw first hand. Again, this was NON political. Since then, I've become familiar and fans of such renown skeptics as James Randi and Michael Shermer. Hope that's ok with you.

Quote:
And the fact that you cherry pick your information so heavily has caused you to make several serious errors... on Iraq and the economy... and you STILL haven't learned!

Actually, I've not 'cherry picked' in the least. I've just studied the issue so much more than merely accepting the MSM's template for how we should think.

Quote:
So my advice is still: It's OK to think. It won't cost you anything.
It would appear that you need to take your own advice. I've been doing it for well over 20 yrs.

Quote:
AFA shoveling money at the rich: our taxes are going to the same bastards who got us in this mess to begin with. I think we should fire them all and take over.

As far as the A.I.G. bonus issue goes, I don't care for it, one bit. But they were legally allowed that $$, thanks in large part to Chris Dodd. HE is the one which oversaw the language which allowed for the bonuses to be handed out, in full. Be pissed at him for WRITING that law. And I don't in the least bit buy that, as he claimed, that his hand was forced via the Treasury Dept. He's a Senator! Separation of rules, buddy! You're not beholden to what anyone in the Executive Branch tells you to do!

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:03 PM

Quote:
I took, for example, the word of a CLINTON appointed CIA director as being credible.

I guess that's the difference between you and me. Unless someone can show me a GOOD REASON for saying what they say, it doesn't matter to me how many credentials they have to their name and what political party they belong to. Having listened to Feinstein (I know things that you don't know) and Rumsfeld (deployed east west north south somewhat of Baghdad and Tikrit) and Bush (We don't want to be surprised by a mushroom cloud) and the DOE (these tubes don't meet tensile strength specs) and Scott Ritter (we'd hand out the targets on a piece of paper the morning of the inspection) and Wilson (The documents contained the names of people no longer in government, and with misspelled names) I found the information from the latter group to be both more specific and more credible. Skepticism SHOULD spray in all directions.

AFA the AIG bonuses: that's a mere distraction. The whole bailout for banks and toxic asset purchase is simply pulling the various Boards' and CEOs'/ CFOs' bacon out of the fire. I think we should just let them fry.

But AFA as Dodd is concerned... you've really got an idee fixe about him, don't you? The blame goes to Rahm, and from there to Obama.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 11, 2009 5:11 PM

Hey, I was responding to your charge that I was blindly following along with what the Bush admin. said. I showed you how blatantly false that was.

Joe Wilson lied, for that matter. so his cred is shot all to hell. That folks got some things wrong, or missed some things, isn't the debate. That happens in war, ALL THE TIME. But the body of evidence, even aside from the WMD issue, weighed heavily on one side. But even so, with all that, I could still see NOT going to war, and not having to call the President a LIAR. You could agree to everything that was promoted by the Admin, vote against the war, and still be a patriot, in my opinion. But the bulk of those who call Bush a liar, who were saying EXACTLY the same things about Saddam when Clinton was in office, but changed their tune only after Bush was elected, those are the ones who I feel are treasonist, who put party affiliation over the needs of the Nation.

RIVER6213

Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:06 AM

Thanks for the answers to my questions AUraptor. It was exactly the the answers I expected from you, though it took a while for the answer pieces to complete itself.

I know what you are now so there is no reason for me to further communicate with you, nor waste any amount of time arguing with you. It was all done for me.

End of thread, and thank you all for participating.

-River

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:17 AM

I answered you from the very start. It took you almost 2 weeks from the initial posting of this thread for you to come back and even respond, and you claim it took a while for ME to answer ?

That's something, to be sure.

RIVER6213

Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:19 PM

You are foolish sir Auraptor. You are a foolish man and it is sad, but I forgive you for your foolishness.

Just be content that you are not foolish alone.

-River

AURAPTOR

Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:43 PM

Your input to this thread is virtually zero, save for pointless insults and no exchange of views, thoughts, ideas, or core beliefs.

And you forgive ME ? Ha! That's funny.

Quote:
I know what you are now so there is no reason for me to further communicate with you, nor waste any amount of time arguing with you. It was all done for me.

End of thread, and thank you all for participating

Clearly, not the end of the thread.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE