Changing the reasons for war once again

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
So Blair is going to provide evidence after the fact. How nice.

BTW, I know the winning lottery number for Monday night and can prove it. How? I'll tell you what it is, on Tuesday.

Well, how do I know you'll give me the RIGHT number on tuesday... you may keep it for youself and just want my $ to "sweeten" the monday night pot. I'm no dummy...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
So Blair is going to provide evidence after the fact. How nice.

BTW, I know the winning lottery number for Monday night and can prove it. How? I'll tell you what it is, on Tuesday.

Well, how do I know you'll give me the RIGHT number on tuesday... you may keep it for youself and just want my $ to "sweeten" the monday night pot. I'm no dummy...

Well, you can verify it in the paper. You see I can back up my statements with facts.

 

[yellowperil]

The WMDs were secretly hidden on the bottom of the Iraqi oil fields. That's why it's our American duty to pump all of it out to get to them.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
So Blair is going to provide evidence after the fact. How nice.

BTW, I know the winning lottery number for Monday night and can prove it. How? I'll tell you what it is, on Tuesday.

Well, how do I know you'll give me the RIGHT number on tuesday... you may keep it for youself and just want my $ to "sweeten" the monday night pot. I'm no dummy...

Well, you can verify it in the paper. You see I can back up my statements with facts.

Well... OK. I can't argue with facts. I just wanted to be sure. With all thats going on these days ya can't trust anything people say.... but, facts is facts no argument there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: HJD1
In times like these we wonder about the underlying motive of the decision makers. We don't know what goes on in the back rooms of their palatial estates. [ ... ]

This may be posted already, but here's an interesting article from U.S. News & World Report:

Truth and consequences
On the evening of February 1, two dozen American officials gathered in a spacious conference room at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. The time had come to make the public case for war against Iraq. For six hours that Saturday, the men and women of the Bush administration argued about what Secretary of State Colin Powell should--and should not--say at the United Nations Security Council four days later. Not all the secret intelligence about Saddam Hussein's misdeeds, they found, stood up to close scrutiny. At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bulls- - -."

[ ... ]

Veteran intelligence officers were dismayed. "The policy decisions weren't matching the reports we were reading every day," says an intelligence official. In September 2002, U.S. News has learned, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons. It concluded: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons . . . ." At about the same time, Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam's "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

More evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately mislead the world in their lust to attack Iraq.

 

[Insane3D]

Where is the resident WMD guy, Alistar7? We haven't seen him much lately.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

More evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately mislead the world in their lust to attack Iraq.

I guess you missed the memo . . . there are plenty of reasons for deposing Saddam . . . WMD is just one of them . . . and not necessarily the most important one. High on the list of guiding moral principles for the Bush administration is the defense of human rights in the Congo, Sudan, Chechnya, Tibet, Aceh (Indonesia), North Korea . . . we just decided it was better to start with Iraq.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

More evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately mislead the world in their lust to attack Iraq.

I guess you missed the memo . . . there are plenty of reasons for deposing Saddam . . . WMD is just one of them . . . and not necessarily the most important one. High on the list of guiding moral principles for the Bush administration is the defense of human rights in the Congo, Sudan, Chechnya, Tibet, Aceh (Indonesia), North Korea . . . we just decided it was better to start with Iraq.

BBD, are you saying that there were no reasons at all to despose Saddam?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

More evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately mislead the world in their lust to attack Iraq.

I guess you missed the memo . . . there are plenty of reasons for deposing Saddam . . . WMD is just one of them . . . and not necessarily the most important one. High on the list of guiding moral principles for the Bush administration is the defense of human rights in the Congo, Sudan, Chechnya, Tibet, Aceh (Indonesia), North Korea . . . we just decided it was better to start with Iraq.

Oops, my bad. I also omitted the "attack Iraq so the troops can get a really bitchin' tan" from Bush's speech. It was one of his support-our-boys-in-uniform initiatives. I think that actually ranked above WMDs on his list. Sorry.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

More evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately mislead the world in their lust to attack Iraq.

I guess you missed the memo . . . there are plenty of reasons for deposing Saddam . . . WMD is just one of them . . . and not necessarily the most important one. High on the list of guiding moral principles for the Bush administration is the defense of human rights in the Congo, Sudan, Chechnya, Tibet, Aceh (Indonesia), North Korea . . . we just decided it was better to start with Iraq.

BBD, are you saying that there were no reasons at all to despose Saddam?

Yes ... yes ... there it is, he did say that. If you pick every third letter, drop any consonants that rhyme with vowels, and apply a ROT-13 transformation, there it is, plain as day. Thanks for pointing this out, ET, because I completely missed it. All I did was read his clear words, where he obviously said nothing of the sort.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HJD1
In times like these we wonder about the underlying motive of the decision makers. We don't know what goes on in the back rooms of their palatial estates. [ ... ]

This may be posted already, but here's an interesting article from U.S. News & World Report:

Truth and consequences
On the evening of February 1, two dozen American officials gathered in a spacious conference room at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. The time had come to make the public case for war against Iraq. For six hours that Saturday, the men and women of the Bush administration argued about what Secretary of State Colin Powell should--and should not--say at the United Nations Security Council four days later. Not all the secret intelligence about Saddam Hussein's misdeeds, they found, stood up to close scrutiny. At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bulls- - -."

[ ... ]

Veteran intelligence officers were dismayed. "The policy decisions weren't matching the reports we were reading every day," says an intelligence official. In September 2002, U.S. News has learned, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons. It concluded: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons . . . ." At about the same time, Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam's "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

More evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately mislead the world in their lust to attack Iraq.

This is disturbing.

But, not at all surprising.

I'm still happy Iraq does not have Saddam as leader, and so are Iraqi's.

Bush will be dealt with at the polls in 11/04.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HJD1
In times like these we wonder about the underlying motive of the decision makers. We don't know what goes on in the back rooms of their palatial estates. [ ... ]

This may be posted already, but here's an interesting article from U.S. News & World Report:

Truth and consequences
On the evening of February 1, two dozen American officials gathered in a spacious conference room at the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va. The time had come to make the public case for war against Iraq. For six hours that Saturday, the men and women of the Bush administration argued about what Secretary of State Colin Powell should--and should not--say at the United Nations Security Council four days later. Not all the secret intelligence about Saddam Hussein's misdeeds, they found, stood up to close scrutiny. At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bulls- - -."

[ ... ]





Veteran intelligence officers were dismayed. "The policy decisions weren't matching the reports we were reading every day," says an intelligence official. In September 2002, U.S. News has learned, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified assessment of Iraq's chemical weapons. It concluded: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons . . . ." At about the same time, Rumsfeld told Congress that Saddam's "regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas."

More evidence that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately mislead the world in their lust to attack Iraq.

The biggest problem I see to the events unfolding nowadays is that when the braggard tells all those about him how well he sees he becomes hard pressed to later say "my vision has failed me". This analogy, it seems to me, precludes our leadership from saying "oops" we maybe didn't intel what we thought we intelled. I want them to find something to justify what we said to the world. I hate to say this but, The oops sounds better than the lie.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: HJD1

The biggest problem I see to the events unfolding nowadays is that when the braggard tells all those about him how well he sees he becomes hard pressed to later say "my vision has failed me". This analogy, it seems to me, precludes our leadership from saying "oops" we maybe didn't intel what we thought we intelled. I want them to find something to justify what we said to the world. I hate to say this but, The oops sounds better than the lie.

Inept vs. dishonest. Tough call when you're the leader of the free world.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: HJD1

The biggest problem I see to the events unfolding nowadays is that when the braggard tells all those about him how well he sees he becomes hard pressed to later say "my vision has failed me". This analogy, it seems to me, precludes our leadership from saying "oops" we maybe didn't intel what we thought we intelled. I want them to find something to justify what we said to the world. I hate to say this but, The oops sounds better than the lie.

Inept vs. dishonest. Tough call when you're the leader of the free world.

We need an effective PR campaign to edify the world and the US citizen as to the other real reasons we invaded Iraq. To simply focus on WMD was consistent with the notion that WMD had world wide effect or at least local effect... we were saving the neighbors as well. The link to Al Qaida has not been bought off with total effect. The conditions of the Iraqi citizen not under the blanket of Saddam's protection was awful. There were other reasons but, non as compelling as WMD. If that falls then the rest slip away with them... I feel.. I want to be proud of our actions not a defender of them... our actions ought to be self evident to the observer not scoffed at by the world.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: HJD1

The biggest problem I see to the events unfolding nowadays is that when the braggard tells all those about him how well he sees he becomes hard pressed to later say "my vision has failed me". This analogy, it seems to me, precludes our leadership from saying "oops" we maybe didn't intel what we thought we intelled. I want them to find something to justify what we said to the world. I hate to say this but, The oops sounds better than the lie.

Inept vs. dishonest. Tough call when you're the leader of the free world.

We need an effective PR campaign to edify the world and the US citizen as to the other real reasons we invaded Iraq. To simply focus on WMD was consistent with the notion that WMD had world wide effect or at least local effect... we were saving the neighbors as well. The link to Al Qaida has not been bought off with total effect. The conditions of the Iraqi citizen not under the blanket of Saddam's protection was awful. There were other reasons but, non as compelling as WMD. If that falls then the rest slip away with them... I feel.. I want to be proud of our actions not a defender of them... our actions ought to be self evident to the observer not scoffed at by the world.

Many in the world do not want to see what was evident.

bowfinger,
Look up the word sarcasm and then read BBD's post again. If you don't get it, try reading it again. If you still don't get it sell your computer, you're too stupid to be on the internet.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: HJD1

The biggest problem I see to the events unfolding nowadays is that when the braggard tells all those about him how well he sees he becomes hard pressed to later say "my vision has failed me". This analogy, it seems to me, precludes our leadership from saying "oops" we maybe didn't intel what we thought we intelled. I want them to find something to justify what we said to the world. I hate to say this but, The oops sounds better than the lie.

Inept vs. dishonest. Tough call when you're the leader of the free world.

We need an effective PR campaign to edify the world and the US citizen as to the other real reasons we invaded Iraq. To simply focus on WMD was consistent with the notion that WMD had world wide effect or at least local effect... we were saving the neighbors as well. The link to Al Qaida has not been bought off with total effect. The conditions of the Iraqi citizen not under the blanket of Saddam's protection was awful. There were other reasons but, non as compelling as WMD. If that falls then the rest slip away with them... I feel.. I want to be proud of our actions not a defender of them... our actions ought to be self evident to the observer not scoffed at by the world.

Many in the world do not want to see what was evident.

bowfinger,
Look up the word sarcasm and then read BBD's post again. If you don't get it, try reading it again. If you still don't get it sell your computer, you're too stupid to be on the internet.

Bush used questionable evidence, fear-mongering, and outright bribery to gain support for this war. No amount of spin or righteous reasons for ousting Saddam is going to change that.

 

[LunarRay]

Etech,

Many in the world do not want to see what was evident.
*********

Does the mule not budge to spite me or does he seek to teach me. If I approach him with the latter in mind both will learn something. If the former, I may win but, I've lost his affection. What is evident is not only real but, honorable. To smack the mule only shows my callousness not my strength. I move him this time but what of next time. Does he move next time out of fear or out of affection? Does it matter? I think it is all that matters. I can have my will because I am willing to be callous. But, I don't want to be this. I want to be thought of as caring and honorable. This is evident to me but to all, I don't know. And this is the issue to me.

 

[cpumaster]

yeah, Bush should have just come out and say we actually just want Saddam out so we could control Iraqis OIL. WMD is one concern but not actually high on our list, you (our US citizens and the rest of the world), are obviously too stupid to realize that we are not serious about eliminating WMD threat since if that was the case, we'd have attack N. Korea instead of Iraq for they already have WMD and admitted that and even consider selling it to high-bidder. Yet, we drag our feet in finding solution on that situation. Why? because N. Korea is a poor country with no oil resources or anything important to control...
people keep saying that I (Bush) was a dummy, look who pull a rabbit out of their eyes

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

High on the list of guiding moral principles for the Bush administration is the defense of human rights in the Congo, Sudan, Chechnya, Tibet, Aceh (Indonesia), North Korea . . . we just decided it was better to start with Iraq.

Yes, there's sarcasm but like everything I say there's at least three meanings. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld never advanced human rights as a primary reason for intervention. Blair and Powell absolutely conveyed that message. But of course Blair and Powell are now irrelevant. If we had found any WMD in Iraq . . . we wouldn't be having this conversation. FOX and MSNBC would be chanting about how Bush had "Saved America" while cholera in Basra would remain a distant afterthought (granted it still languishes behind Laci Petersen . . . yes the husband killed her . . . the spouse is always guilty).

Every American can be proud that our armed forces freed a country from a brutal dictator. Every American should be embarassed that the world's single superpower can destroy with great acumen but cannot provide food, potable water, or domestic security . . . then again we cannot do it in America, either.

The simple truth is if Bush told America . . . we are going to spend $100B to liberate the people of Iraq and then several billion more each month to occupy them for the next 2-10yrs . . . how many people would have rallied for war? The administration decided to build a story that plays well with an insecure public (WMD) using hard voices (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and occasionally Bush) along with the altruistic voice of American humanity (Powell and oddly Blair). It makes perfect sense in retrospect . . . very well orchestrated all the way to the Lincoln landing.

Clearly, they were banking on the American attention span. Unfortunately, a few generals (and the intelligence community) are starting to call BS or at the very least saying something is not right with the WMD story. Accordingly, the humanitarian argument has come to forefront.

 

[Insane3D]

Look up the word sarcasm and then read BBD's post again. If you don't get it, try reading it again. If you still don't get it sell your computer, you're too stupid to be on the internet.

How's the air up there etech? How ironic, someone who can't grasp humor scolding someone about not recognizing sarcasm...

Edit:

And at least some of us can follow the rules regarding personal attacks.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Look up the word sarcasm and then read BBD's post again. If you don't get it, try reading it again. If you still don't get it sell your computer, you're too stupid to be on the internet.

How's the air up there etech? How ironic, someone who can't grasp humor scolding someone about not recognizing sarcasm...

I see your word is as good as your posts.

cpumaster
If you still believe that oil was the main reason for removing Saddam than you have missed the big picture of what has and will happen in the Middle East.

BBD, your contempt for the US and the people in it seems so strong that I wonder why you continue to live in it.

HJD1
Stop hanging around moonie so much and just say what you wish to say. I understand your meaning but it is bothersome to have to pick it out of posts of that sort. Trying to appear intelligent by using such a style doesn't impress me. There are a few juviniles on the board that it impresses but not many bother coming to this forum.

 

[Insane3D]

I see your word is as good as your posts.

Yeah, my posts suck, but I don't need to resort to personal attacks. I see you lack the ability to reply to someone you disagree with without a personal attack. I guess your posts are much better though..

Trying to appear intelligent by using such a style doesn't impress me.

Oh, were we all supposed to be trying to impress you and post like you want?

There are a few juviniles on the board that it impresses but not many bother coming to this forum.

You mean there are juveniles here other than you?

BBD, your contempt for the US and the people in it seems so strong that I wonder why you continue to live in it.

etech, your utter lack of being able to understand someone else's point of view, let alone even try, makes me wonder how you are able to deal with people in public that don't meet your standards.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is just so stupid to call people stupid. etech, you're stupid.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

BBD, your contempt for the US and the people in it seems so strong that I wonder why you continue to live in it.

Why must you equate my disdain for misguided foreign and domestic policy as contempt for America? I do have contempt for liars particularly when those lies have dire consequences. But everybody tells a whopper from time to time. We all have a tendency to accentuate a detail for the sake of advancing a larger argument that may very well be true.

Saddam was threat to America but Saddam was NOT an unmitigated or imminent threat. The bill of goods sold to the American public was Saddam, close ally to Al Qaeda, mortal threat to America, possessing stockpiled WMD, and all around bad guy. For you and your ilk 1 out of 4 ain't bad. For the reasonable people 1 out of 4 was necessary but not sufficient to launch a pre-emptive war. I will not call it unprecedented b/c Pearl Harbor was certainly in the ballpark.

I stay b/c I believe my country has greater days ahead of it than behind. But I will never shy from criticizing the failings of any American or American institution . . . holding your tongue does NOT make you a patriot . . . it's proof of a weak constitution. Regardless, our one and only child will hopefully be born in another country. I've never been ashamed to be an American but we are certainly sliding down a slope. I am hopeful but unlike my President I'm neither ignorant nor an idiot and unlike many others in the right (and left) of center I am not delusional. WMD in massive quantities brings this administration INSTANT credibility . . . satiating the people of Iraq brings this administration INSTANT credibility . . . anything less is an abject failure which will tarnish our country's image for the next century.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

BBD, your contempt for the US and the people in it seems so strong that I wonder why you continue to live in it.

Why must you equate my disdain for misguided foreign and domestic policy as contempt for America? I do have contempt for liars particularly when those lies have dire consequences. But everybody tells a whopper from time to time. We all have a tendency to accentuate a detail for the sake of advancing a larger argument that may very well be true.

Saddam was threat to America but Saddam was NOT an unmitigated or imminent threat. The bill of goods sold to the American public was Saddam, close ally to Al Qaeda, mortal threat to America, possessing stockpiled WMD, and all around bad guy. For you and your ilk 1 out of 4 ain't bad. For the reasonable people 1 out of 4 was necessary but not sufficient to launch a pre-emptive war. I will not call it unprecedented b/c Pearl Harbor was certainly in the ballpark.

I stay b/c I believe my country has greater days ahead of it than behind. But I will never shy from criticizing the failings of any American or American institution . . . holding your tongue does NOT make you a patriot . . . it's proof of a weak constitution. Regardless, our one and only child will hopefully be born in another country. I've never been ashamed to be an American but we are certainly sliding down a slope. I am hopeful but unlike my President I'm neither ignorant nor an idiot and unlike many others in the right (and left) of center I am not delusional. WMD in massive quantities brings this administration INSTANT credibility . . . satiating the people of Iraq brings this administration INSTANT credibility . . . anything less is an abject failure which will tarnish our country's image for the next century.

Well said.