Bluesman

The BBQ Pit
101

wasn’t addressed to me personally, but what the hell. Yes, as a matter of fact, there have been quite a few times when I’ve stepped in and suggested to some of my liberal friends ‘um, dude(tte), not quite where ya wanna go’ or words to that effect. Does the war side do so.

as for “everyone believed SH had the weapons” my recollection was that :

A. we certainly did not believe that there was any real reason to believe that the US was in any danger of being attacked by Iraq, much less “immenent threat”.

B. the position wrt WoMD was more of “he might have some, I dunno”, which is quite a bit different from “we believed he had them”.

I think RT’s analysis tells the story (that if the Admin truly did believe in the WoMD, their war plan was damn near criminally irresponsible, in that they failed to protect suspected sites, and obviously so. So, either they didn’t really believe their own press, or they were damn near criminally stupid about it, your choice).

as for the actual stuff of the OP - we may meet IRL, may form opinions of each other, may even discover some RL info about others (gender, relative age, at least, if not profession). But at the end here, we must stand by what we write. I believe that certain folks seem to know what they’re talking about in certain areas, also believe that others are full of shit, even when talking authoritively. So, I learned that Bricker, for example, while I did not agree w/his politics, is correct when he speaks of his area of expertise. OTOH, part of how I came up with that assessment was that he did not come in, tell other folks that they were full of shit ignorant jerks, who should just take what he said as gospel , for he really knew what he was talking about. Bricker would link to things to substantiated what he said, has stood by his words, admitted when he was wrong. (I hope Bricker doesn’t see this as a negative at all - he just stricks me as one of the folks that I tend not to agree w/ poltically, but doesn’t come off as an arrogant jerk, and does indeed post from knowledge.)

Bluesman OTOH, seemed to demand that we all simply believe what he said. ANd, as it turns out, he was wrong. He may be a hellava nice guy IRL, may make a mean potato salad for all I know. BUt he acted like an arrogant ass in that thread.

102

Aldebaran doesn’t speak for the anti-war movement. Frankly, given his previous posts, I don’t think sailor speaks for a large contingent of the movement, either. (I refer to posts in which sailor seemed to think that bodyguards for innocuous nonprofit workers in Iraq were in some relevant sense “legitimate” targets for anti-US forces there).

DtC, however, seems spot-on here. He isn’t mincing words, but I think in this case it’s perfectly reasonable to call W. a war criminal.

My main hope from this specific debacle (i.e., Bluesman’s earlier obnoxious posts and this subsequent thread) is that all of us will be less willing to take the US government’s assertions on faith in the future. There’s only so many times that Lucy can trick you into kicking the football before it becomes your own fault, and while W’s deception might be orders of chutzpah above what we’ve seen from a US administration in the past three decades, it’s hardly a novel thing to be lied to by the US government about military matters.

Daniel

103

In other words, “fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

104

Usually, if they’re foaming at the mouth, I’ll try and avoid the flecks of spittle. If I jump in on someone, it’s usually either because I think they’re worth talking to or because I think they’ve said something in particular that’s worth exploring. The more crazed type (of rightie or leftie) rarely exhibits either trait. And while I haven’t been as conscientious as wring (Founder of the liberal-but-not-fucking-crazy contingent), I have a time or two offered words of rebuke for leftist variety extremists.

Frankly, I rarely understand what Aldeberan is trying to convey, but on some occasions, he’s made some good points. Where he hasn’t, I’ve not noticed a dearth of opposition, so I’ve not jumped in. And I agree with sailor’s points (if not always the way he’s made them) more often than not.

But I really didn’t want to get into the whole condemnation/defense of Poster X thing.

105

Sure, Yojimbo. My little leprechaun.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4696241&postcount=3
[more to come, see below]

Sailor I said you are very carefull with your words. If I have time, tomorrow morning - my morning - I’ll search for more links. Even though I haven’t got a dog, or cat in this fight. I’m merely pointing gobear to the obvious: You hate Americans. Therefore I can’t take your posts seriously.

Aldebaran Good to see you too, sweatheart. Have you licked your way to the top of your Belgian head-muslim to get accepted yet?

106

Yeah, that was some Anti-American thread full of America haters. We had a ball there. :rolleyes:

107

Be patient, Captain Couragious. :smiley:

108

I’m in somewhat of a unique position here. Bluesman is my friend. I have the pleasure of visiting him and Lucretia whenever I’m on one of my frequent visits to the in-laws, who live about an hour away from them.

And I took him on in both those threads. You can look it up. I love the guy like a brother, but if I had a brother and he was posting shit in a debate thread, I wouldn’t let him get away with it. So when he said stuff that didn’t add up a year or so ago, I took him on. And when he reappeared in December, saying the evidence was there, I took him on again.

So I hope it carries some weight when I say, enough already.

He isn’t here now. He isn’t making that case now. So there’s no need to go starting this up yet again now.

Give it a fucking rest. Stop flogging this dead horse, and go home and flog your respective dolphins.

Thank you.

109

I am not sure I understand your argument. The fact that you are his personal friend is quite irrelevant to the arguments being presented here (although I understand if you would prefer not to participate). The fact that he is not here defending his arguments is his choice and also quite irrelevant.

The fact is that at that time he, and others like him, used the argument that the government had reliable information which could not be divulged but which time would prove correct. It is proper and fitting that we revisit the issue and show that time has proven them wrong.

110

The problem is, it took time for his claims to proven false. Even though he’s not making the case now, I don’t think it can be just forgotten.

On a board devoted to battling ignorance, you can’t give free ride to false claims just because it takes time to prove them wrong.

It’s also important that we remember this incident, for the next time someone claims to have inside gov’t information. Now we know what that’s worth.

111

I think it’s perfectly relevant. I’m saying that I’m not just defending him because I am his friend. I’ve fucking earned my right to say, this has gone far enough.

I think its relevancy is of the highest order. He hasn’t been seen in a debate thread anytime this year. There has to be some sort of point of…well, pointlessness in going back, dredging up someone’s old stands, and hammering them about it one more time, when they haven’t done anything lately to initiate it.

It’s not like we left the argument unfinished in the December 2003 thread. And it isn’t like there’s any debate left on WMDs, absent dragging Bluesman’s name into it one more time.

So there ain’t nothing more here to play with, except the remaining flies on this here horse carcass.

112

gobear May I ask you to use simple English please… I cannot get your last posts translated. Bablefish refused to accept them.

Bynarydrone For your information: I did not have any discussions with “mods” as in “moderator in plural”. I have a problem with a remark made by one of the moderators. She mailed me last week that she has health problems. I do not ask nor expect from someone who is ill - and who despite her illness made the effort to answer my mail - to waste time and energy on a discussion with a complete stranger about something written on a message board. Such things can and must wait for as long as it takes for her to get well again.

[Exception on my own new rule not to encourage gum in her weird stalking methods and silly posts by paying attention to them and even honouring them with an answer]
gum please take a good advice: Look up the dangers of Nederwiet. You come across as if you smoked already far too much of it. [/end exception]

I am quite able to speak for myself and without feeling any need to hide in or behind any “group” or “movement”.
I’m not even a member of my own Fan club that was established on this message board almost the minute my beautiful star began to enlighten it.

Salaam. A

113

Bolding Mine

I find your delusions neither creative nor humorous.

114

I’m sorry but I do not think you have any right, earned or unearned, to tell us what we can or should discuss here.

If he had been banned and could not participate I might agree. But he can participate whenever he wants. So I cannot agree

That is your opinion but, obviously not what others think. I do not see where this thread goes against any of the board rules.

The horse hanged himself with his own words.

115

Greathouse, that quote of Aldebaran’s is not delusional, it’s a use of irony. (Quite apart from being a multi-levelled, multi-lingual pun.)

That is to say: “Whoosh.”

116

Ok, I thought he actually believed it. He got me. I was whooshed. Thanks for the clarification.

117

I don’t believe any of Bushco’s reps on this board, with the possible exception of Brother Brutus, would post something of this sort on the board and not come back to face the music.

Why should Bluesman not be held accountable for his post?

118

Has anyone a clue why Bluesman hasn’t come back to respond? If it was posted, I missed it.

119

If you don’t think I “have any right”, then feel free to click the button with the exclamation point.

Whatever. I know some posters who voluntarily left this board four years ago, and are still members in good standing for another few days. Maybe we should rummage through their old posts and see if there’s anything we should Pit them about.

Sure, he’s free to participate whenever he wants. There are lots of debates out there that we would be free to jump into anytime, if we only knew they existed. Maybe Bluesman is psychic or something.

I’m not likely to lose sleep tonight.

Did you claim it did? Glad to see you’ve changed your mind.

Revtim - I guess I don’t see what we know now about WMDs in Iraq that we didn’t know months ago. If some definitive report, like David Kay’s, had just been released, I could see your point. But we knew back in December that there were no WMDs; the only thing that differs between then and now, AFAICT, is that now we’re really really sure about it, instead of just being really sure. That’s why I feel the December 2003 response was more than sufficient, and this thread is just kicking a guy’s name around after he’s left the room.

120

Enjoyed reading your post; agree with points made. As for the above quoted portion, I’ll give it a shot:

First, I’ll note that the referenced poll was originally brought front and center by those that to this day support the invasion as “proof” that it was the right thing to do. I’ll also note that this was certainly not the first time that I’d seen it referenced – I was simply pointing out the inherent spin with which it was presented. IOW, out the five polling points tabulated, four present rather negative to extremely negative views on the invasion and ensuing occupation.

I made no mention of the validity of said poll. What’s good for the goose…

As for your ensuing question on Saddam, it’s become both de rigueur to ask and treacherous to respond. Because any answer that veers from due course, e.g. “of course it’s a good thing, Saddam was eeevil,” tends to elicit cries of “appeaser,” “Saddam lover/America hater” “traitor” etc. You might well imagine that there’s not much room for argument once the fur starts to fly. But I’ll try anyway. Once a rebel-rouser, always a rebel-rouser methinks.

And the answer is…
At present time – which is the only possible time reference in which to frame the response – I venture to say no. Looking at the facts, from an international perspective, I see a much more dangerous world around me than I did just one short year ago. Looking at the facts on the ground in Iraq, I see a nation where chaos and mayhem have supplanted any semblance of order.

A-From an international perspective: Terrorist attacks on the rise world-wide for the same period of time.

B-On the ground: Someone upthread made mention of Saddam’s murderous ways and mass killings, jailings, torture, financial exploits, etc. And I ask, what’s changed but the name of the one committing the crimes?

Harsh assesment no doubt. But tell me, is it wrong?

Sure, we can all dream of days of wine and roses for Iraq. But the point is we can’t go around invading countries and killing people at will on account of a dream. Well, I suppose, technically, you can, as this misadventure proves. But where exactly does that leave you? And more to the point, where’s the much vaunted “moral superiority” we’ve all heard so much about? Because acting like Saddam in order to get rid of Saddam strikes me as a piss-poor example.

Meantime, given a choice between living in Baghdad today and living in Baghdad two years ago, I think most rational people would choose the latter. Can the whole thing be salvaged at this stage? Your guess is as good as mine. But once again, I liked the world – with all of its inherent dangers – better before the PNAC bunch decided to put their pet theories into action.

BTW, is there an exit strategy in place yet? 'cause the peace plan sure as hell doesn’t seem to be working :wink: