I told you so
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Saturday, July 1, 2006 01:06
VIEWED: 11164
PAGE 9 of 15
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Why does it have to be about one thing?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
