There’s an entirely inappropriate adjective in your last sentence, SA.
So getting rid of Saddam was all that was necessary for the war to be a success.
Very convenient, since the CIA now says the Iraq war is making terrorism worse and increasing recruitment.
The civilian leaders of our government are absolutely clueless as to what the middle east is really like. They want to change it, but they are dumb enough to get suckered by any criminal that tells them what they want to hear. Our own intelligence reports tell them that they are making things worse, but they ignore it. Surely a little more death and torture will make people see how great democracy is!
Surely invading one of the most religious places for Muslims (which is EXACTLY what Bin Laden had been warning that we would do) will get them on our side!
Worst of all, you have people like SA who are literally blind to the question of how we are going about the war. Believing a known criminal, conspiring with him to install him, rushing in with no imminent threat, sending in insufficient and unprepared troops who complain they can’t even prevent the looting of nuclear material and weapons from most of the suspected WMD sites, lack of measures to keep security, torture of innocents… they can’t see any of it. The fact that they can listen to lines like “the army we have…” with a straight face tells you all you need to know.
How many more of his goodbyes are we going to be treated to?
Just want to rubber-stamp what Hentor the Barbarian said in an earlier post. I think all the possible arguments have been heard. Considering that SA seems to feel that a ridiculous position, once stated, must be maintained forever, no matter how blockheaded it may make him appear, any further discussion is pointless.
As many as it takes, chum. It just seems rude to drop out of conversations without saying goodbye, and it leads to frustration on the part of one’s opponents who are just faunching at the bit for you to respond to something they said so they can pretend moral superiority over it. It doesn’t mean one can’t return later, leave again, come back, etc.
Cher’s Goodbye Tour, Cher’s Final Goodbye Tour, Cher’s No, Really, This Time I Mean It Goodbye Tour…
People will never admit that there are worse scenarios then Saddam in power. I’m not saying the current one mind you, just that the possibility even exists. Nope, there was nothing worse, nothing at all.
“Sometimes…I feel there’s a fine line between having conviction and being a dumbass, I think.”- Neil Fallon, Clutch
Well, I believe that the Vikings will win the Superbowl some day. Damn sure wouldn’t argue with anybody about it, though…
More like Celine Dion’s Fourth Annual Farewell Tour. She does appear to be a starving artist, too.
To clarify SA’s position…
The ends justify the means. The ends also justify the aftermath. In the event that ends are not accomplished, the attempt to accomplish an end is sufficient to justify the means and/or aftermath*.
My end is to go to work tomorrow. Even if I don’t get anything done, I can always just point to the “Mission Accomplished” banner in my office and tell my boss that I’m victorious!
On the positive side, I think that SA has completelymotherfuckingredfined “moving the goalposts”.
-Joe
*Does not apply to Democratic efforts. Offer not valid in Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico. Please, no CODs.
Didja hear Ms. Rice’s line about Saddam “cavorting” with ObL? You can’t make up shit like that.
I give you credit for being the first person on this thread to spell “Duelfer” correctly, but it seems there is no credit to be awarded for actually reading the report.
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.
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.
You gotta give Starving Artist a little slack – he’s just following the example shown by his mentor and idol, GeeDubya Bush.
It would help your case if you actually quoted from the report. It’s several hundred MB, and I ain’t gonna read the whole fucking thing.
I presume this is the bit you’re referring to:
Pretty damning, no? Uh, no.
Perhaps you could explain how this represented some kind of imminent threat? Or even justify Bush’s statement: “If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.” Is there some scenario where the threat would be “permitted to fully and suddenly emerge”?
Actually, that would be Nixon. See also here (showing that troop levels in Vietnam dropped 95% under Nixon).
What’s the point of this post? It doesn’t advance any real argument. It’s not clever. It’s not insightful. It’s not interesting. It’s not biting. It doesn’t appear to have been posted solely to express some measure of anger. In fact, it’s just so . . . dull. It’s like you posted an episode of Committed.
Who are you, and what have you done with rjung?
I mean, if we’re going to go on for 5 more pages of “Bush/Republicans are stupid assholes” posts, the least you guys could do is put some effort into it. Is that asking too much?
This is the BBQ Pit, remember? Meaningless posts are the raison d’etre of the place.
Besides, spending time trying to be insightful where Starving Artist is involved is like trying to scoop water with a screen fence…
If you “ain’t gonna read the whole fucking thing” then I guess you ain’t gonna understand the whole fucking issue, sport. I haven’t read it A to Z either but I suspect you haven’t read any of it other than the paragraph you cherry-picked. I’ll include that paragraph along with the paragraphs in context:
Read that entire passage, and tell me with a straight face that Saddam wasn’t going to re-develop WMD following the imminent lift of sanctions.
Have you got anything to support your claim that sanction lifting was ‘imminent’?
I had to read through 75 pages to get to the paragraph I quoted. I picked it because it was the first one I found that provided solid support for your argument, i.e. that according to Tariq Aziz, Saddam never abandoned plans to someday develop nuclear weapons.
We’ve gone from “pages and pages” down to a couple of paragraphs, and now you admit that you haven’t even read the whole thing yourself. Exaggerating a bit were you?
Now explain the imminent threat, or the “fully and suddenly emerge” bit.
On preview, I’ll accept an answer to Squink’s question.