Hey, shit for brains, you were talking about Zionist concerns. So how is it a strawman to see if the evidence you use even mentions the damn word?
One of us is unable to escape prejudice and stupidity in regards to Israel. I leave that up to the Dope to determine which of us that is.
Are you stupid? How is Zinni saying that no nation felt threatened not a logical support for the fact that no nation felt threatened and thus no nation acted out of reaction to a threat? Are you really this stupid, or is this an act?
Biased???
Listen you little cockroach, I included more than a handfull of quotes from that piece, probably enough to infringe on fair use. I didn’t include the quotes you chose because like the rest they don’t prove anything. But, judging from your MO, you’ll just insult my credability some more while putting out unfounded and untrue assertions. Good job moron.
Earth to shit for brains? You got those quotes from my source.
I don’t have magick powers which enable me to go and eliminte text from a source. Fucking tool.
Oops. I owe you an apology here, Finn. It was late and I admit I read your post somewhat hastily and thought you were saying that your questions were intended to see if I could recognize my own faults and mistakes rather than those of the admistration and the military in Iraq. Needless to say, I thought this was a rather high-handed comment on your part. But I was wrong.
Believe it or not I’m not trying to get you to say something that I want to hear.
You’ve said that the war right now is not a failure in your book. In order to get at what would be a failure, I need hypotheticals. I see no way around it.
Naw, I’m a dancin’ fool!
Now I don’t know about you, but to me this implies that you already consider the war a sucess and have no criteria for declaring it a failure since it is already a sucess.
From that I extrapolate the future events, no matter how horrible, won’t change your mind. Am I wrong? Is the war not already won? Or are you parsing it into “war” and “aftermath?” If you are, what are your qualifications of sucess and failure for aftermath? Civil war is failure? Honest government is sucess? Meebe?
Apology accepted, I probably used the wrong phrasing anyways. For what it’s worth, it wasn’t even close to a jab at conservatives, or even at you. Honestly and truly from what you’ve said about the war already being a sucess, I don’t think you’re looking at the evidence to see if it’s a sucess or a failure anymore. Maybe I’m wrong, and if so I apologize.
Okay, I guess I have to define my terms too. See, from what I understand, the goal of this whole war was to leave the Iraqis better off. So if we fail at that, we can’t dodge responsibility by claiming that once we plunged them into anarchy, they couldn’t govern themselves.
And, as I see it the solution is to get UN peacekeepers on the ground ASAP and get our troops out, as well as opening up bidding on reconstruction to a global audience and not just our puppet allies.
But surely enough ‘disadvantageous happenings’ constitute failure, right?
It’s not my intention to dissuade anyone from attempting the impossible with Starving Artist, but I do have to say that I admire all the anti-war folks who are optimistic enough to hope for any sort of rational thought from him. The OP used a fairly strong word, and he showed up to serve as an exemplar.
I don’t much care if it is blind faith, complete ignorance, insanity, or Tom Trollery - although I think he’s a fucking moron - you’ll not make headway. How many similar words do you think he has sloughed off his downy back to this point? How many times has he reified his own in the echo chamber that is his skull? How much does he openly have to assert that facts are but liberal playthings that pale in comparison to the rock solid optimism he possesses? But if you are enjoying yourselves, I wish you Godspeed! Good luck!
And I’ll gladly make you glad. Contrary to SA’s severe Kool-Aid poisoning which has already caused irreparable damage – see this thread for symptoms and irrefutable evidence – you appear to be, at least initially, a candidate for responsive treatment to the antidote.
1-First let’s take a look at the no-fly zones and their legal standing:
So there you have it. In a nutshell, said no-fly zones were trilaterally imposed by the US, the UK and France, outside of the scope of the cease-fire Security Council agreement. If anything, what this shows is the incapacity of said body to stop any actions and/or policies the United States wishes to engage in. Thus if it can be argued that Iraq firing on American planes énforcing’the no-fly zones constitutes “an act of war,” certainly the reverse argument is just as valid – as again, the no-fly zones were at best in a legal limbo as pertains to international law.
Moving on.
For the sake of brevity, I have not quoted the other two premises you rely on in stating your case for, and justifying this war. They are the conclusions of the Duefel report and the oil for food ‘scandal.’
Let’s take a look at them one at a time:
1-Duelfer Report: First things first.
Consider the obvious fact that this report was written by a hand-picked, salaried employee of this Administration – he’s been quite a bit more candid/critical since his departure from same, BTW. Consider as well that the inevitable conclusions of same certainly did nothing to advance the hysterical case originally put forth by same; quite the contrary, it was a reverse “slam dunk” whose bottom line remains as true now as it did shortly after GW-I. Namely that Saddam’s Iraq, had indeed complied with the agreements signed and disarmed.
I note you highlight – amongst other quotes – the following: “According to the Duelfer report, Hussein intended to resume WMD production after the inspections regime was complete and sanctions were lifted.” Let’s parse that sentence, shall we? Because, really, what is Duelfer implying in it and based on what, exactly? ESP? More than a feeling? Loyalty to his employees? How about we call it what it is: unmitigated bullshit based on nothing. How can I be so categorically dismissive of such an expert opinion? Easy, I get past the varnish and right into the substance of his own report. Specifically the part where he dismisses that very statement:
So there you are, clear as day, Duelfer is giving you a choice: use his evidence-based conclusions or hang on to his faith-based morsels.
Your choice.
3-Oil for food scandal. Afraid work beckons – providing antidote is time consuming ya know.
But to put it plainly, it’s a “scandal” that the US knew about all along as an acting overseer of the program along with the other SC members. Was there malfeasense? Surely – hardly a surprise when bureocracies and billions are involved. No need for me to bring-up Enron [inside], Halliburton, Betchel [Iraq], et al, is there? But beyond those facts, and without excusing the wrongdoings, the real reason the righwing has pounced and blown-up (numberswise for one) on this story is rather plain to see to all but the wilfully blind: to shift the finger of blame.
Here, if interest in finding out more, this recent expose by the Financial Times should put you up to date – besides I really do have to go.
So, according to Mr. Powell, as of Feb. 2001, those wretched sanctions were doing a bang-up job. The credibility gap between this and “vast stockpiles” of WMD, scant months later, has yet to be explained. I heartily offer you the opportunity to do so.
(Emphasis mine)
Surely this is something you would rather not have said. “Whatever” the immediate cost? Any such cost? And what of the eventual cost? Is that value equally unlimited? What dire threat did Saddam pose, in your mind if nowhere else, that any cost, any burden, is acceptable? If you would be specific…?
Oooh, good 'un. Haven’t heard that particular pun on my user name. This week.
Let me see if I can break this down into digestible bits for you. You seem eager to claim the elimination of Saddam’s sons, and their subsequent inability to tyrannize, etc., as if this were a further enhancement of our “victory”. Then surely you must rejoice that Saddam’s 14-year-old grandson was gunned down in the same action? Fact is, and obvious to the meanest intelligence, that with Saddam gone none of the rest of this is of any significance at all, you are simply pumping more gas into a fart dirigible.
You then go on to claim that some enhancement in our percieved “resolve” is a bonus, a strategic advantage to be heartily applauded. “Resolve” is simply a very nice way of saying “adamant stubborness”, the kind of virtue displayed by the great tactical innovator, Geo. A. Custer. We are the most powerful military force in human history, we need rather little in terms of “resolve”, especially as regards Saddam’s military machine, which wouldn’t have won a fair fight with Belgium.
And, of course, your assertion of majority support in America for our Iraq policy is out of date. Which you could have known, had you not preferred otherwise.
So, you see, your suggestion of fatigue or chemical impairment is specious and, frankly, unworthy. Sleepless and shit-faced, I could dismantle arguments as tenuous as these. My dog could do it. Actually, I haven’t got a dog, but if I had, I would insist on one smart enough to lick his balls, and that’s about all it would take.
Dogs are best in matters of politics, they have the “pack-hunter” instinct crucial to such understandings. Monkeys, chimps, etc. excel in religious issues; myself, I defer all theological issues to the Primate of Athens.
Intelligence agencies need to improve in one particular area, he said.
“Human intelligence, the ability to get inside somebody’s mind, the ability to read somebody’s mail, the ability to listen to somebody’s phone call – that somebody being the enemy,” Bush said in an interview with CNN senior White House correspondent John King.
That somebody being the enemy? Could they be anymore vague? I’m going to go ahead and invoke Godwin right now.
Good luck asshole.
