If Red Fury would like a target for his blistering, unreasoning hatered, pick on me by all means. I was taken in hook, line and sinker by Bush and his droogs. I supported the war because I believed that Saddam was developing nukes and I didn’t want the US to make the same mistake it made with North Korea. If you want to hate an American who supported the war, hate me.
I was wrong, 100 percent. But still, too late to help now.
So lay off Bluesman–he is in the military, sacrificing a lot to serve his, and my nation. He doesn’t even post much so he can’t even defend himself–is it far to pillory a man who isn’t fighting back?
I’m not in the military and I’m not sacrificing jack shit. I’m exactly the type specimen of stupid, gullible American booboisie that you so clearly despise with a white-hot flame. Direct your bile at me, I can take it.
Maybe you can get Hattori Hanzo to make you a sword so you can fly over to our benighted land and start chopping heads. We’ll put on black masks and call ourselves the Crazy 275 Million.
I’ll have whatever you’re smoking. Must be really good shit if it makes you think Iraq today is not worse off than it was prior to the invasion.
As for the “paradise” label…what’s that about? Writer’s embellishment? Yours I mean.
On preview:
Just read your second post.
Nope, no thanks. You may not remember it, but we did go a few rounds on this already prior to the invasion. Turns out I was right and you were wrong. You have since admitted as much on more than one occasion – this one being the latest example. And yes, I can also see what an admirable friend you can be.
So you have at least two good traits that I can gather from what you’ve posted here. Please note that last line, as it’s exactly the same standard I am using to judge Bluesman or anyone else here – their posts. Period.
And in that vein, Bluesman remains an arrogant prick and a Bush apologist.
Of course, he’s welcome to come in here and prove otherwise.
PS-I don’t much care for flamenco – or bullfighting for that matter – and the only sword you need worry about is the one you’re bending over for your pal.
Besides, what with him being the American Bond, surely he must be quite adept in the arts of self-defense…
Not that I was overly impressed with his prior “hissy-fit & split” maneuver.
And you in turn must be really smoking some great shit if you think that Iraq was better off under SH. Christ, the man randomly tortured and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis just for shits and giggles.
Actually, it was Amnisty International, but undoubtedly they’re too right wing a source for you to consider reliable, after all, SH was just a big growly huggy bear, right? :rolleyes:
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. I saw the intel, every indication that I saw was that we had the goods. He works in intel, I’d imagine that he saw some stuff I didn’t see that said we had the goods.
We (being the military we) were all pretty confident that something would be found. That the intel proved to be wrong is not our failure. That we were told that it was the gospel truth was not our failure. The failure was elsewhere, certainly not to be laid at Bluesman’s feet. The only thing he did was relay the gospel as it was told to him. That it was wrong does not mean that he was not acting in good faith.
As a result, I find this attack to be rather petty, especially since it’s already been done. He had every reason to believe that he was right. In addition, it was (and obviously still is) a pretty charged topic, on both sides, and as a result he engaged in the same sort of rhetoric as everyone else.
I really think that this should be forgiven, forgotten, and done.
The American electorate certainly did not get bad data. The American electorate got a couple of fuzzy pictures and a mountain of bullshit that confused it into believing Iraq was in some way connected to 9/11. In other words, the American electorate got virtually no date. It got bad analysis.
I missed the original debate that set all this up, and having caught up on both the original thread and the Pit thread, I have to say: Bluesman and the people who sprang into auto-defense mode for him were very, very wrong, but there was way too much vitriol spewed at them- particularly at Lucretia, whose defensiveness was pretty understandable.
There was a rather well-publicized independent poll conducted not long ago in which the balance of Iraqi citizens disagree with you. Seems to me they’d be the ones to know.
It’s funny. Even if the poll cited were up to date you’d think the ‘Much Better’ and ‘Somewhat Better’ bars would be far longer than they are. As it is 40% of the populace (give or take) thinks we’re just as evil, if not worse, than Saddam Hussein.
I don’t put much stock in the second chart for two reasons (a) they said the same things last april and look how wrong they were on that one and (b) you’d have to be one pessimistic motherfucker to believe things could get much worse.
It’s not really just a matter of Bluesman being ill-informed (in the earlier threads) and the posters who were challenging him being vindicated, but it is the ATTITUDE of Bluesman and his acolytes that needs to be addressed. at least to give some closure here.
Y’see, most of the posters in the original threads that precipitated this one were offering their humble opinions and their (perhaps ideologically grounded) beliefs. NOBODY claimed to have incontrovertable ‘evidence’ of anything until Bluesman started voiding his bowels and calling-out people for their ignorance.
Y’see, HE had the ‘Straight Dope’ on the necessity for military action against Iraq, and only HE was qualified to speak about the issue because the rest of us were just ignorant schleps who were not privy to the wonderful evidence that HE was.
Y’see, Bluesman (and his disciples) came down on those of us who had reservations about the invasion like a ton of fucking bricks. We lacked the ‘knowledge’ and the patriotism and even the basic human decency to accept Bluesman’s (and his disciples) WORD.
Y’see, I for one think it is important for Bluesman to at least admit that the hateful and vomitable arrogance he displayed towards other posters was out-of-line. It is NOT up to other posters such as gobear and lucretia to make amends for him. This was his call. This is HIS mess to clean up.
You are right. **Bluesman ** suffered the same problem as many people in the US administration. They BELIEVED.
The arguments pre-invasion were based on whether Iraq should be invaded without substantial evidence being provided. The war commenced based on FAITH rather than evidence.
Some of us who have academic backgrounds do tend to rely on evidence rather than faith. Bluesman and his defenders saw it as a GOSPEL - they needed to convert the unbelievers. Evidence need not be sought, just the WORD from above.
I feel sorry for Bluesman in the same way I feel sorry for religious evangelists. And sad for the damage that they cause to the world.
That is just not true. It has been repeated now over and over to justify the war but precicely one of the main argument of those who opposed the war was that tehre was not enough proof that Saddam was such a threat. So please do not take us for idiots without memory. I remember very well what happened little more than a year ago.
Bluesman was a rude and arrogant prick in that thread and he deserves to be called on it. One should never be a rude and arrogant prick but if one chooses to be a rude and arrogant prick one should at least be right because if not, like in this case, one ends up looking like a rude and arrogant prick who is also an idiot who talks without knowing what the heck he is talking about.
I also find it unacceptable to use arguments which want to excuse him on account of his job. His job should be irrelevant to the argument. I expect he is doing his job just like I expect everybody else to do their job, and he gets no credit or no blame from me for doing the job he was ordered to do. But if you are going to give him credit like he had any say in deciding the job was to be done, then you will have to accept arguments to the contrary which would make him responsible personally for the illegal aggression of a country and for the immoral killing of thousands of civilians. My position is that the responsibility lies with the government who gave the orders and the troops deserve neither blame nor credit.
If bluesman had of said something along the lines of “hey guys I can’t tell you anything but from what I see coming across my desk we seem to be in this for the right reasons” he wouldn’t of had a lot of trouble. Instead he insulted people who took him up on his rather strong claims.
etc. His supporters then came in and some also claimed knowledge of actual data. They also insulted people
Lots of insults going on from both sides. Interesting and fun reading really if you ask me.
If bluesman is too busy to come back or his partner doesn’t want to ruin his valuable time by telling him about these threads that’s fair enough but until he does come back and fights his corner he should IMO be treated as the incorrect condescending arrogant fuckwit he came across as.
To those supporting Bluesman, and calling for his forgiveness; are you confident in your belief that if WMDs were found he and you would forgive the skeptics? Or would there be more “left-wing trash”-type invectives hurled?
I repeat my belief that Bluesman was likely not lying, but lied to. But nevertheless, I think he and his supporters should apologize to those they insulted, now that Bluesman’s claims have been all but proven wrong. Not for being wrong, but for not accepting the possibility that they were wrong and the skeptics were right, and insulting those that time has proven correct.
Read again–the operative word isn’t knew, it’s "beleived. Hell, even the Dems who opposed the war thought Hussein was hiding weapons
Granted, there was insufficient proof–doesn’t mean that anyone thought at the time that Hussein was unarmed.
And that post should be included in the OED as an example of unintentional irony. Sailor, if you would tone down the emotions and stick to the facts, you’d still make useful points but with more credibility.
I’ve already acknowledged that the skeptics were right. What’s pissing me off is that it’s not enough to attack Bluesman’s posts, but you have to go after the man himself.