# Bushbots, since I can't ask for your brains, get yer asses in here... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 14, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669 "2005-01-14T05:24:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/301 "2005-01-19T10:20:48Z")
Has anyone here heard the one about the nun who walks over to the construction site next to the convent to complain about the fact that her sweet and innocent charges were constantly being exposed to the rough language of the workmen? The foreman explained that he was sorry but there wasn’t much he could do, these guys are rough-hewn contruction workers and they’re just inclined to call a spade a spade. The nun replies “But you see, sir, that’s just the problem. They don’t call it a spade, they call it a ‘fucking shovel.’” Well, let me call a spade a fucking shovel here: You people don’t give a flying fuck how “immenent” anything was; what Hussein might have done; whether WMD had been found or not; whether Bush lied or was mistaken; whether or not fewer Iraqis are dying now and in the future; and whether or not the war will eventually benefit Iraqis in general. You’re simply against the war and that’s all there is to it. You demand this or that in the way of exposition from those of us who feel it was the right thing to do – as though an answer would make any difference – and then you either ignore the answer, call the poster a moron, or jump to some other objection. The fact of the matter is there is _nothing_ that would cause the great majority of you to ever feel the war was justified. Most of you are Democrats, most of you oppose everything Bush stands for, and most of you have been against the war since the time it was just an idea. This is the crux of your negative reaction to everything you hear about the war. It is why you view your so-called “evidence” and “statistics” as concrete proof that that things are going to hell in a handbasket over there when the rest of us can look at the same evidence and those same statistics and arrive at a completely different conclusion. Therefore, I would like to thank all the “nattering nabobs of negativity” ( 😃 ) in this thread for proving with their own words and by their own behavior that my description of them in the beginning of this thread was spot-on. Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/302 "2005-01-19T10:21:19Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Have you got anything to support your claim that sanction lifting was ‘imminent’? > [@](#): > > The new administration in Washington gave no evidence of changing the approach toward Iraq. The sanctions debate in the Security Council in June 2001 was indicative with the Russians demanding further relaxation and a concrete signal from the Council that sanctions would be lifted if Iraq satisfied the elements of UNSCR 1284. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and the new Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, were making progress internationally. France, Russia, and Syria (then a member of the Security Council) were all quite vocally supporting Iraq in sanctions debates in the Security Council. And the following year you had Hans Blix essentially stating that even though Iraq had not made a full disclosure of weapons disposal, he was ready to bless Iraq as “compliant.” You can debate what “imminent” means as it is a subjective term, but it is hard to dispute that the end of sanctions and inspection was insight. You’re big kids, you can go look up information on your own without prodding me to educate you. (Assuming, of course, that you can accept the risk of learning something that doesn’t fit your worldview). I’m sorry, I’m getting a bit tired of bearing the one-sided burden of facts and cites to satisfy your endless petulant questions… would anyone care to get off of their ass and bring their own information to the table? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/303 "2005-01-19T10:32:48Z")
…how “immenent” anything was… Ahem, please make that “imminent.” Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/304 "2005-01-19T10:43:32Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Well, let me call a spade a fucking shovel here: You people don’t give a flying fuck how “immenent” anything was; what Hussein might have done; whether WMD had been found or not; whether Bush lied or was mistaken; whether or not fewer Iraqis are dying now and in the future; and whether or not the war will eventually benefit Iraqis in general. On the contrary. These are _precisely_ the things that I, and I image lots of others, are concerned about. See, the evidence indicates that things weren’t imminent, that Bush lied, that more Iraqis are dying now, that the war isn’t benefitting Iraqis. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > You’re simply against the war and that’s all there is to it. You demand this or that in the way of exposition from those of us who feel it was the right thing to do – as though an answer would make any difference – and then you either ignore the answer, call the poster a moron, or jump to some other objection. > > The fact of the matter is there is _nothing_ that would cause the great majority of you to ever feel the war was justified. Most of you are Democrats, most of you oppose everything Bush stands for, and most of you have been against the war since the time it was just an idea. I guess that the reason why non-Pubbies believe that the war wasn’t justified is basically that there is and was no justification. Hard to deal with that. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > This is the crux of your negative reaction to everything you hear about the war. It is why you view your so-called “evidence” and “statistics” as concrete proof that that things are going to hell in a handbasket over there when the rest of us can look at the same evidence and those same statistics and arrive at a completely different conclusion. > > Therefore, I would like to thank all the “nattering nabobs of negativity” ( 😃 ) in this thread for proving with their own words and by their own behavior that my description of them in the beginning of this thread was spot-on. Most of us live in the reality based community. You live in some fantasy that you’ve constructed in your head. Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/305 "2005-01-19T10:46:25Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > And the following year you had Hans Blix essentially stating that even though Iraq had not made a full disclosure of weapons disposal, he was ready to bless Iraq as “compliant.” You can debate what “imminent” means as it is a subjective term, but it is hard to dispute that the end of sanctions and inspection was insight. > You’re big kids, you can go look up information on your own without prodding me to educate you. (Assuming, of course, that you can accept the risk of learning something that doesn’t fit your worldview). > > I’m sorry, I’m getting a bit tired of bearing the one-sided burden of facts and cites to satisfy your endless petulant questions… would anyone care to get off of their ass and bring their own information to the table? What are you saying here? That there was no way short of war that the US could prevented the sanctions being lifted? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/306 "2005-01-19T10:48:40Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Well, let me call a spade a fucking shovel here: You people don’t give a flying fuck how “immenent” anything was; what Hussein might have done; whether WMD had been found or not; whether Bush lied or was mistaken; whether or not fewer Iraqis are dying now and in the future; and whether or not the war will eventually benefit Iraqis in general. You’re simply against the war and that’s all there is to it. Wow, did you build that strawman all by yourself, or did you have help? In case you missed it **I supported the war** , Goddess help me I believed Powel’s spiel before the UN. But how this was has been prosecuted, as well as information that has come out, has caused me to view it as a failure. Unlike you, I don’t view it as a sucess simply because Sadaam was nabbed. **Especially since the rationalization de jur is that it was for the Iraqi people** The mission is not accomplished until the stated goal of helping the Iraqi people is met. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > You demand this or that in the way of exposition from those of us who feel it was the right thing to do – as though an answer would make any difference – and then you either ignore the answer, call the poster a moron, or jump to some other objection. Had you actually defended the war in any way at all, you might’ve had more credence. Your tactic was to declare that the war was already a sucess, and that nothing from here on in could possibly make it a failure. That’s not defending the war on rational grounds, that’s having a pipe dream. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > The fact of the matter is there is _nothing_ that would cause the great majority of you to ever feel the war was justified. 1. Had there been actual WMD. 2. Had there been actual Al Queda connections. 3. Had this war really been about helping Iraqi civilians (civilians who you see to not care much about, as their survival or slaughter evidently doesn’t even enter into the equation of failure or sucess for the war) > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Most of you are Democrats, most of you oppose everything Bush stands for, and most of you have been against the war since the time it was just an idea. And, lo and behold, they’ve been right. The war is a quagmire. There were no WMD. There were no AQ connections. This isn’t about the Iraqi people. Your ability to look at a burning house and call it a unique fixer upper isn’t a strength **SA** > [@Starving Artist](#): > > This is the crux of your negative reaction to everything you hear about the war. Couldn’t possibly be that the war is overwhelmingly negative, and one of the only ways to support is to blank out reality like you’ve done. There’s a saying “belief is braindeath” because once you believe in something, you stop looking at new data. You’ve already found your answer. And your answer is that the war is a sucess, regardless of what happens now. As such, you’re not looking at the data. And no ammount of civil strife in Iraq, no ammount of roadside bombs, no ammount of carnage and woe will sway you from your adherance to your pipe dream. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > It is why you view your so-called “evidence” and “statistics” as concrete proof that that things are going to hell in a handbasket over there when the rest of us can look at the same evidence and those same statistics and arrive at a completely different conclusion. Heh, “statistics”. So called. Heh. And, as you’ve already told us, it isn’t that you’re looking at them and arriving at a different conclusion. It’s that you’ve arrived at your conclusion and aren’t looking at them. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/307 "2005-01-19T11:31:49Z")
Nice. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/308 "2005-01-19T11:35:13Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Wow, did you build that strawman all by yourself, or did you have help? > In case you missed it **I supported the war** , Goddess help me I believed Powel’s spiel before the UN. But how this was has been prosecuted, as well as information that has come out, has caused me to view it as a failure. Unlike you, I don’t view it as a sucess simply because Sadaam was nabbed. > > **Especially since the rationalization de jur is that it was for the Iraqi people** > The mission is not accomplished until the stated goal of helping the Iraqi people is met. Au contraire (to practically everything you’ve said, as a matter of fact). I don’t recall ever hearing the administration stating that we were going to war in order to help the Iraqi people. You’ve mentioned this “goal” or “rationalization” before. From whence doth it come, pray tell? Helping the people of Iraq is certainly icing on the cake, but do you really contend that GWB went before the American people and stated we were going to go to war with Iraq in order to “help” the Iraqi people? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Had you actually defended the war in any way at all, you might’ve had more credence. I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve heard it said here that I haven’t “defended” the war properly, or that I haven’t “debated” the war properly, etc. But that was never my intent. The OP asked how those of us who support the war could support it. I offered an explanation, at least insofar as those who think as I do think of it. I’ve been offering a description of a point of view. That’s all. If you will recall, there was a huge hue and cry that I elucidate my specific reasoning regarding the war, and I resisted because I knew what it would lead to: i.e., endless quibbling over my reasons, rather than the simple acknowledgement of a differing point of view. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Your tactic was to declare that the war was already a sucess, and that nothing from here on in could possibly make it a failure. That’s not defending the war on rational grounds, that’s having a pipe dream. Au contraire, (yet again). It was not a tactic. It was a statement of fact, which I elucidated with a detailed explanation. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > The war is a quagmire. There were no WMD. There were no AQ connections. This isn’t about the Iraqi people. I addressed my thinking on each of these points, yet you appear to give my point of view on them absolutely no credence and assume your point of view to be definitive fact. This is not so. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Couldn’t possibly be that the war is overwhelmingly negative, and one of the only ways to support is to blank out reality like you’ve done. Wow, three erroneous assumptions in one! First, yes, it _could_ be possible that the war is overwhelmingly negative…fortunately, such is not the case. Second, no, I doubt it’s the _only_ way to support it. And third, I’ve done no such thing. But nice try, though. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > There’s a saying “belief is braindeath” because once you believe in something, you stop looking at new data. You’ve already found your answer. And your answer is that the war is a sucess, regardless of what happens now. As such, you’re not looking at the data. And no ammount of civil strife in Iraq, no ammount of roadside bombs, no ammount of carnage and woe will sway you from your adherance to your pipe dream. Your high-minded declarations aside, the situation is that the overriding goal of the war – the removal of Hussein and the threat he posed – has been accomplished. Thus, the war is a success because its objective has been realized. What you continue to refer to as “failure of the war” is the aftermath. I’ve spoken to this issue as well, though you’ve obviously either given it no weight or simply forgotten it. Either way, the fact remains that the things you are pointing to as evidence of failure is simply the chaos and uncertainty that follows every war. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > And, as you’ve already told us, it isn’t that you’re looking at them and arriving at a different conclusion. It’s that you’ve arrived at your conclusion and aren’t looking at them. Have you really paid any attention at all to what I’ve had to say to you? I have explained in detail what I derive from the “evidence” you point to. What you are really saying is that since I haven’t looked at the evidence and come to the same conclusion you have, I’m ignoring the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/309 "2005-01-19T12:11:40Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Helping the people of Iraq is certainly icing on the cake, but do you really contend that GWB went before the American people and stated we were going to go to war with Iraq in order to “help” the Iraqi people? He certainly led the Iraqis to believe that steaming crock. > [@](#): > > [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-2.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-2.html) > > PRESIDENT BUSH: This is George W Bush, the President of the United States. At this moment, the regime of Saddam Hussein is being removed from power, and a long era of fear and cruelty is ending. American and coalition forces are now operating inside Baghdad – and we will not stop until Saddam’s corrupt gang is gone. The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you. > > The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world. Coalition forces will help maintain law and order, so that Iraqis can live in security. We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq’s future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world. > > The United States and its coalition partners respect the people of Iraq. We are taking unprecedented measures to spare the lives of innocent Iraqi citizens, and are beginning to deliver food, water and medicine to those in need. Our only enemy is Saddam’s brutal regime – and that regime is your enemy as well. > > In the new era that is coming to Iraq, your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building more palaces for Saddam and his sons, free to pursue economic prosperity without the hardship of economic sanctions, free to travel and speak your mind, free to join in the political affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country – Kurds, Shi’a, Turkomans, Sunnis, and others – will be free of the terrible persecution that so many have endured. > > The nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be over. You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free. > > Thank you. What, you expected that people in the US wouldn’t treat statements like this as some sort of promise to help the Iraqis? People in the US should have known that Bush was lying or something? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/310 "2005-01-19T12:44:20Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Au contraire (to practically everything you’ve said, as a matter of fact). I don’t recall ever hearing the administration stating that we were going to war in order to help the Iraqi people. You’ve mentioned this “goal” or “rationalization” before. From whence doth it come, pray tell? Christ on a crutch! Ari Fleischer announced that the war had begun with the phrase “The liberation of Iraq has begun.” [Liberation](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberation) Not part of the goals and rationalizations my ass! > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Helping the people of Iraq is certainly icing on the cake, but do you really contend that GWB went before the American people and stated we were going to go to war with Iraq in order to “help” the Iraqi people? Since you have your head in the sand, it’s not surprising to learn that you had your head in the sand. [“America’s interests in security and America’s belief in liberty both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq,” Bush said. **"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves.** Today they live in scarcity and fear under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, **but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us."**](http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152642%2526M%253D50011,00.html) > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’m glad you brought this up. I’ve heard it said here that I haven’t “defended” the war properly, or that I haven’t “debated” the war properly, etc. But that was never my intent. Um… so you didn’t plan on supporting your position? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > The OP asked how those of us who support the war could support it. I offered an explanation, at least insofar as those who think as I do think of it. I’ve been offering a description of a point of view. That’s all. Yes, but your opinion is false-to-facts and fallacious. Or at best, has already definied the ongoing war as a sucess regardless of what happens. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > If you will recall, there was a huge hue and cry that I elucidate my specific reasoning regarding the war, and I resisted because I knew what it would lead to: i.e., endless quibbling over my reasons, rather than the simple acknowledgement of a differing point of view. See, that’s because there are **no facts** which support your insane optimism. Or, perhaps not optimism, perhaps just the fact that you’ve stopped thinking/judging and the war is already a sucess as far as you’re concerned. You’re entitled to your own point of view. That doesn’t mean it’s correct. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Au contraire, (yet again). It was not a tactic. It was a statement of fact, which I elucidated with a detailed explanation. Um, no. At best it was a statement of wilful ignorance and the death of critical thinking. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I addressed my thinking on each of these points, yet you appear to give my point of view on them absolutely no credence and assume your point of view to be definitive fact. This is not so. Head in the sand dude, head in the sand. The war is a mess, even though you refuse to look at evicence. There were no WMD. There was no AQ connection. This wasn’t about the Iraqi people (as you yourself said at the start of this post I’m responding to) So, yeah, the **facts** I’m talking about are indeed part of my point of view. Your point of view, however, isn’t based on facts. And you wonder why people talk smack? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Wow, three erroneous assumptions in one! First, yes, it _could_ be possible that the war is overwhelmingly negative…fortunately, such is not the case. Second, no, I doubt it’s the _only_ way to support it. And third, I’ve done no such thing. 1. Right, because currently it’s just so damn positive. ~yawns~ Your pipe dreams about the future don’t affect the situation in the present I’m afraid. 2. I said “one of the only” 3. I’ll leave that up to any Doper who ever reads this thread. I claim that you’re living in a pipe dream. I’d wager money that the majority of intelligent people to see your posts would agree. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Your high-minded declarations aside, the situation is that the overriding goal of the war – the removal of Hussein and the threat he posed – has been accomplished. Thus, the war is a success because its objective has been realized. ~yawn~ You now going to deny, again, that you’ve stated the war can’t become a failure since the capture of Saddam made it a sucess? Moreoever, if the goal was the capture of Sadaam, but not normalization of Iraqi life without making Iraq into a terrorist hotbed… well… someone was an idiot and botched pre-war planning and the goals, now didn’t they? Which would make the war a failure from the start, wouldn’t it? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > What you continue to refer to as “failure of the war” is the aftermath. What you continue to refer to as ‘aftermath’ is the damn war. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’ve spoken to this issue as well, though you’ve obviously either given it no weight or simply forgotten it. Either way, the fact remains that the things you are pointing to as evidence of failure is simply the chaos and uncertainty that follows every war. No, you’ve refused to look at the specifics because you claim that they always happen. When we occupied former-nazi germany, did we have entire cities where we couldn’t enter? When we defeated Japan, were there constant Japanese kamikaze attacks while we tried to hold elections? Your basic claim is spurious, and you’ve blanked out conflicting data. Cognitive dissonance is truly the enemy of Bush’s regime. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Have you really paid any attention at all to what I’ve had to say to you? I have explained in detail what I derive from the “evidence” you point to. Exactly, your “evidence”, thank you for putting it in quotes. Moreoever, stop being a dick. In this very post I’m referring to you say the war is a sucess since Sadaam was nabbed. Thus, you’ve stopped looking. Hell, you’ve even decided that what’s going on now is somehow not part of the war. And yet, you won’t even touch on whether what’s going on now is sucess or failure, you simply state that every war, ever, has been just like this. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > What you are really saying is that since I haven’t looked at the evidence and come to the same conclusion you have, I’m ignoring the evidence. Whatever. I’ll leave this conversation to the SDMB archives. The validity of your positions will be clear to anybody reading, and arguing with you about this damn fool war is like trying to pin jello to a wall. I give up. Ciao. 😃 P.S. You are welcome to the last word. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/311 "2005-01-19T12:51:05Z")
You come across as being a foaming-at-the-mouth teenager, **Finn**. Admirable, I guess, if you actaully are a teenager. Otherwise, please, please. STFU. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/312 "2005-01-19T12:59:01Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > You come across as being a foaming-at-the-mouth teenager, **Finn**. Admirable, I guess, if you actaully are a teenager. Otherwise, please, please. STFU. Go fuck yourself 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/313 "2005-01-19T14:26:25Z")
\*quoted by **NattoGuy** > [@](#): > > • Saddam wanted people to keep knowledge in their heads rather than retain documents that could have been exposed, according to former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz. Nuclear scientists were told in general terms that the program was over after 1991, and Tariq ‘Aziz inferred that the scientists understood that they should not keep documents or equipment. ‘Aziz also noted that if Saddam had the same opportunity as he did in the 1980s, he probably would have resumed research on nuclear weapons. You realize, of course, that the “same opportunity” he had in the 1980s would mean shaking hands with Rumsfeld and having the support and aid of the United States government, right? ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/314 "2005-01-19T14:28:14Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > And the following year you had Hans Blix essentially stating that even though Iraq had not made a full disclosure of weapons disposal, he was ready to bless Iraq as “compliant.” You can debate what “imminent” means as it is a subjective term, but it is hard to dispute that the end of sanctions and inspection was insight. > You’re big kids, you can go look up information on your own without prodding me to educate you. (Assuming, of course, that you can accept the risk of learning something that doesn’t fit your worldview). Nice to see the “ESP Defense” popping up again. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/315 "2005-01-19T14:37:57Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The new administration in Washington gave no evidence of changing the approach toward Iraq. The sanctions debate in the Security Council in June 2001 was indicative with the Russians demanding further relaxation… > > And the following year you had Hans Blix essentially stating that even though Iraq had not made a full disclosure of weapons disposal, he was ready to bless Iraq as “compliant.” You can debate what “imminent” means as it is a subjective term > … > I’m sorry, I’m getting a bit tired of bearing the one-sided burden of facts and cites to satisfy your endless petulant questions… would anyone care to get off of their ass and bring their own information to the table? 2001? Here I thought you had proof that the king of France was holding a gun to Bush’s head and demanding an immediate end to the sanctions. Talks of the sort you cited had been going on for most of a decade. The sanctions were still in place. You can apply any meaning you want to the word imminent, but when you choose to use the word in a nonstandard way, you’ve no call to get all bombastic when that’s pointed out to you. I’m sorry that you’re getting a ‘bit tired’ of your one sided burden, but so far the quality of the facts you’ve brought to the table has been on a par with Powell’s ‘fact based’ presentation to the United Nations: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’m not surprised at that, as you seem to lack any rational justification for the invasion, but you _are_ going to continue to take shit for it until you either come up with an explanation, admit you were wrong, or withdraw from political discourse. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/316 "2005-01-19T16:36:52Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > I give you credit for being the first person on this thread to spell “Duelfer” correctly…blah blah blah Well, hot damn, as long as if you’re going to be throwing lavish praise around, I feel compelled to answer in kind: I give you praise for having opposable thumbs. There… We’re even in that department. > [@](#): > > First, the report was not based upon ESP, nor upon former CIA stooges like Ahmed Chalabi, but on high-ranking officials within the administration itself such as Secretary to the President Abd Hamid Mahmud and Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. I trust you will consider both these witnesses suitably hostile to US interests and well versed on high-level policy decisions. You know, I thought for a sec that you might actually an open-minded – albeit confused – individual honestly searching for the turth. Instead, once again, what we have here is another mindless Bushdrone seeking justification – if in you mind only. Because for all the bullshit you’ve spouted such as charging us with not reading thge “full report,” “selective quoting” and so forth, **fact remains** that you have to turn into a pretzel if you’re going to attempt to justify this murderous enterprise based on what Duelfer actually says in his report. Bottom line: > [@Duelfer](#): > > **Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States** Security threat to the US my ass. A fly attacking an elephant gets better odds from me. I’ll also note that you’ve conveniently ignored my refutations to both of your earlier claims, firing at US planes in the no-fly zones and the oil-for-food scandal – presented, and I paraphrase here, cause I really don’t feel like wasting any more time with yet another Bushbot/reflexive American patiot: “irrefutable evidence.” Turns out neither were even close to said standard. Just more ignorant speil/talking points from your wingnut sources to distract from the real issue. Which in case you’ve forgoteen yet again involves an illegal invasion based on lies and deceit…as has now _been confirmed by your own intelligence experts._ Your precious Duelfer included of course. > [@](#): > > Second, you cite a single sentence that said the regime had no formal, written plan yet you simultaneously overlook pages and pages documenting that Saddam gave informal verbal guidance to all parties concerned to maintain the knowledge for WMD production wherever possible and in their heads if necessary. It is either a case of selective reading, wilful ignorance, or an integrity problem on your part. I’ll be charitable and go with selective reading. > > Thus, your accusation of “bullshit” seems to be somewhat self-descriptive, at least on this facet. Go clean your house first. You’re in soo deep in feces you’re gonna need scuba gear. Dishonest fuckwad. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/317 "2005-01-19T17:01:47Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Your high-minded declarations aside, the situation is that the overriding goal of the war – the removal of Hussein and the threat he posed – has been accomplished. Thus, the war is a success because its objective has been realized. Would you acknowledge the possibility of a scenario emerging that’s _worse_ then Saddam in power? If that scenario came to be, would you still consider the war a success? Finally, I hear it bandied about that even though he didn’t have WMD, he was a threat. I’m curious, in the absence of WMD, what exactly makes him dangerous? He has nothing to hit us with. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/318 "2005-01-19T17:58:36Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Finally, I hear it bandied about that even though he didn’t have WMD, he was a threat. I’m curious, in the absence of WMD, what exactly makes him dangerous? He has nothing to hit us with. Why, my dear World Eater, thought. Thoughts were going to lead to the ruin of our world, apparently. Scientists and technicians with no equipment and no plans on paper and no materials(though they could be obtained my anyone with money and connections, I will freely admit), were going to remember formulas for a decade and re-emerge as a threat to us all. Dirty bombs galore, didn’t you see\*\* A Clear and Present Danger\*\*? Sam ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/319 "2005-01-19T18:18:33Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Well, hot damn, as long as if you’re going to be throwing lavish praise around, I feel compelled to answer in kind: I give you praise for having opposable thumbs. There… We’re even in that department. > > You know, I thought for a sec that you might actually an open-minded – albeit confused – individual honestly searching for the turth. Instead, once again, what we have here is another mindless Bushdrone seeking justification – if in you mind only. Because for all the bullshit you’ve spouted such as charging us with not reading thge “full report,” “selective quoting” and so forth, **fact remains** that you have to turn into a pretzel if you’re going to attempt to justify this murderous enterprise based on what Duelfer actually says in his report. Bottom line: > > Security threat to the US my ass. A fly attacking an elephant gets better odds from me. > > I’ll also note that you’ve conveniently ignored my refutations to both of your earlier claims, firing at US planes in the no-fly zones and the oil-for-food scandal – presented, and I paraphrase here, cause I really don’t feel like wasting any more time with yet another Bushbot/reflexive American patiot: “irrefutable evidence.” > > Turns out neither were even close to said standard. Just more ignorant speil/talking points from your wingnut sources to distract from the real issue. Which in case you’ve forgoteen yet again involves an illegal invasion based on lies and deceit…as has now _been confirmed by your own intelligence experts._ Your precious Duelfer included of course. > > Go clean your house first. You’re in soo deep in feces you’re gonna need scuba gear. > > Dishonest fuckwad. You’re the only fuckwad here Redfury, are you ever wrong on anything? :rolleyes: If I’m a Bushbot, you’re a Commie bastard. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/320 "2005-01-19T18:20:27Z")
> [@continuity eror](#): > > It’s like Jon Stewart said the other night on the Daily Show–all the conservatives are on The Truman Show. They construct their own reality, making up lies and patting themselves on the back about it. The feedback loop grows tighter and tighter. Eventually they will be choked off by their own hubris. I know this will happen someday, because I’m an optimist. > > Of course, they are all saying the same thing about us. Who is right? Who can tell? We are, and they can. Remember that we are, by their own admission, the reality-based community. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669.md?page=17)