Now, back to the point about revisionism as regards WMD.
It is clear that without the purported threat of WMD, no campaign to foment war with Iraq could have possibly suceeded. If the threat of WMD was not essential to the Bushiviks case, this would not be true. Besides which, they didn’t just harp on this point, they could hardly shut up about it! There were occassional decorous and ceremonial references to the heart-rending plight of the Iraqi people, but the essential message was “Saddam’s coming to get yo momma!” From Condie Rices dark hooded-cobra glowerings about “mushroom clouds” to the Fearless Leader’s “massive stockpiles”, the threat of WMD’s was the star of the show! Jebus Christy, Colin Powell talked for more than an hour on the subject. Did he even mention Iraqi political rights?
We are also in a better position, these days, to evaluate the content. Not a pretty picture. It was all utter Bushwah, if there were a grain of truth, it died of loneliness, stranded, alone. To make it even more ridiculous, we are apprised of the dreadful prospect that he might supply these uglys, which he didn’t have, to Osama, who he didn’t trust! Since when does a paranoid give a weapon to someone he can’t control? Its like suggesting Stalin give a nuclear bomb to Rasputin!
We were cozzened into this debacle because of the Bushivik’s insistence that Saddam was a threat! Not a metaphorical threat, a theoretical threat, but a “grave and growing threat.” Phrases like this don’t leave a lot of room for ambiguity, neither does “vast stockpiles”.
The notion that the alleged “threat” of Saddam’s WMD was not central, and essential, to the Bushivik case for war is so far off, it isn’t even wrong.
No one said it was central or essential, but if you take away the human right’s abuses and Saddam’s aggressive past WMD alone isn’t enough to back this invasion, either. Do you really think Bush would have been able to get even 1/10 the domestic support for an invasion into Libya? And Libya we knew almost for damn sure had WMD and they later admitted to the fact.
Anyways, when you grow up and can call political leaders by their real names, and not mix in SNL skits with your posts I’ll respond to you, but as of now you’re on mental ignore.
If I want to get your brand of political analysis I’ll happily turn on Comedy Central and watch people who can both insult me and make me laugh at the same time.
RedFury, need I point out it was you that interjected yourself into this discussion. No one invited you to participate and I at least have been ignoring you. Yet you pose as though you’re simply worn out by a struggle no one asked you to join, and so you’re going to take your toys and go home. Well, don’t let the door hit ya on the way out, buddy. I can’t say you’ll be missed.
Regarding the “Bushbot” comment, I’ve found it necessary before to point out that contrary to the impression many here have, many of us who approve of Bush’s actions regarding Iraq are not mindlessly swallowing his propaganda; rather, he is following a course of action we favored to begin with. I know you and many of the others here don’t see the probable synergistic relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda and various other terrorist groups, but I do and Bush is doing just what I would expect from the country’s leader: taking the very difficult but necessary steps that are required to protect the U.S. from terrorist attack. As I said before, if Hussein had cooperated with the U.N. or bailed when he had the chance, we would not be there now.
Regarding your view that because I haven’t “budged” from my beliefs in regard to the war in Iraq, how much “budging” have you or any of the others of your point of view here demonstrated in regard to your beliefs? I find it most amusing that the mere fact that I haven’t changed my view is evidence in your mind that I’m stupid and intransigent, yet you and those who hold similar views are being perfectly logical and rational in not budging in regard to your own. This is yet another example of someone with such a closed mind that he can’t accept that anyone but himself could be correct; therefore, anyone in opposition who fails to accept your POV is regarded as stupid simply because you think your POV is the only correct and rational one. I, on the other hand, realize that reasonable people of good will can have differences of opinion in these matters, and I’m content to let the Gaspodes, elucidators, and EddyTeddyFreddys on this board hold the points of view they do without expecting them to come over to my point of view and without holding their points of view against them personally.
So ta-ta. I hope you’re a man of your word and that you truly are out of here, as you rarely, so far as I’ve seen, contribute anything other than vitriol whenever you venture into a thread.
Not wanting to minimise anything either, but weren’t some of those Saddam horror stories made up by people like Chalabi to stir up anti-Iraqi feeling.
I found this article ironic, where it suggests that Bush I should be one of the prime witnesses in Saddam’s trial - for the defence, that is!
Eloquently and beautifully stated. But in that same vein, I neither have nor crave Job’s patience. Just not my style. Never has been – something to do with that infamous latin temper I’d wager. So I’ll leave the teaspoons to all you other, more intellectual cold-blooded types (thinkin’ primarily of the standard-setter of the sort, Mr S here, but there’s lots of good eggs on that side too) and I’ll wield my shovel as hard and as fast as I am able.
For if you’ll pardon my ruination of your pulchritudinous metaphor, along with the majestic peaks and splendid valleys, there’s also a lot of shit that needs shoveling in the Hymalayas. Alterrnatively, a quick thwack on top of the turd can do the job as well.
elucidator, I think we just need to agree that we are always going to disagree on this subject. You think Bush lied, conned and connived to get us into the war with Iraq. I, on the other hand, think Bush correctly perceived a very grave threat to the safety and well-being of the United States as a result of Hussein’s being in power, and he tooks steps to protect the country accordingly, steps which I would have wanted him to take under the circumstances. I trust Bush; you don’t. That’s really what the disagreement between us boils down to, and I’m certain neither of us will ever convince the other.
Then where were they? Why didn’t he use them, if he were such a ghastly threat? We bitch-slap him around the Arabian Peninsula for about 10 years. How come, if this is so easy, didn’t he get them and use them? On us? If he wasn’t a desperate and urgent threat for 10 years, when did he become one?
Because he didn’t have them. This has been established, SA. With what was going to threaten us? Advanced techniques in voodoo? Did he acquire the true copy of the Necronomicon?
Says who? You are talking tens of thousands of corpses, freshly minted, verifiable dead people in comparison to your insistence that he would have killed at least as many. In support of this, you offer the testimony of his enemies? However much comfort there may be for you in this grisly equation, the fact remains that the corpses we created are a fact, and yours are a supposition.
That which does not exist cannot disappear. Would you care for me to quote again Colin Powell’s Cairo interview wherein he stated unequivocally that Saddam was contained and posed no threat?
Ahh, but don’t you realize that by whacking said turd, you wind up getting shit all over the place, including your own shoes and those of others nearby?
Regardless, I don’t mean to push you whatsoever. I very much enjoy most of your contributions (whether they come in shoveling or whacking form) and would hate to see you decrease your efforts. 'Tis a large mountain after all.
Nietzsche, RedFury’s approbations to the contrary, the scenario you present in no way equates to the situation in Iraq, nor does it even make logical, practical sense. I don’t mean to be insulting, I really don’t, but I can’t think of a more delicate way to put it that wouldn’t sound disingenuous.
With WHAT??! With his two little pink patty-paws? A rusted out pile of pipes on a railroad siding? The grave threat of intercontinental drone aircraft of Doom? Nuclear armed anthrax iguanas? The Evil Eye?
With what was he a threat? I’m dying to know what, in your fevered imagination, Saddam was brandishing so aggressively that we had no option but immediate war! Bad vibes?
I can only hope that, somehow, I’ll find the strength to go on. It’ll be hard, at first…
As I said in this very thread, Hussein was allowed by the impotent U.N. to kick out its inspectors and was allowed to get away with this for five years. And as I also said in this very thread, in my view there was nothing to prevent him from kicking them out again should the opportunity to acquire WMD begin to loom on the horizon. Hussein had proven himself both untrustworthy and willing to use WMD if he had them. The only way to be sure he couldn’t do us harm was to remove him from power. He played a game of brinksmanship with the U.S. and lost. He should have left with his psychopathic sons when he had the chance; he could be living a life of luxury right now and the war need never have happened.
With regard to the rest of your post, please see my last post to you just a few minutes before you posted this one.
Actually, it does. It exemplifies one nation, conspiring with some disaffected members of a nation, to invade and by force of arms impose its ideology. That is precisely, one of the stated reasons at least, your country is in Iraq.
And I do agree, neither case, whether conjured up by me to illustrate a point or conjured up by the Bush Administration to support a failed policy, makes any logical or practical sense.
If you state your nation is under threat, then you have a valid claim to take up arms to defend yourselves. To impose any ideology because you think “it’s just such a good idea” is a war crime.
I do appreciate your temperance, but you don’t have to sugar coat it for me. Feel free to say what you wish. We’re in the pit after all.
Dammit, luci, you’re driving me insane! I’ve said over and over in this and other threads why I felt Hussein was a danger. You either ignore the reasons I give or attempt to discredit or minimize them, and then you turn around and pretend that I haven’t given you any reasons and demand to know just what the hell I thought I was afraid of. While entertaining for our readers perhaps, I can’t see how anything worthwhile can come of this continual talking in circles. Can you?
I believe so. What does that have to do with what I said regarding Hussein’s being allowed to get away with kicking them out and keeping them out for five years, when he was supposed to be cooperating with them and allowing them free rein to determine whether or not he had WMD? Are you really proposing that our asking the inspectors to leave for their own safety equates to Hussein’s kicking them out and leaving the country uninspected for five years?
I will say yet again…if Hussein had cooperated with the U.N. instead of playing his macho game of brinksmanship, there would have been no war in Iraq.
I believe the above quoted pablum-as-a-response a result of the dreadful “incompetency to understand the written language” pathology. Becuase, just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, Einstein, in motherfuckin’ public BB, I need no “invitation” to post wherever the fuck I want, when I want, and secondly, I haven’t once said that that “I’d be taking my toys and going home.”
Quite the contrary, read my last post – I’ll be here to blast turds such as yourself with my trusty shovel. Over and over and over again as I feel the need. See, I set my own damn agenda, dickweed, not you.
Don’t like it? Take your own fuckin’ advice pal: don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
Really? Co-founder and signatory of PNAC are we? Halliburton shareholder? Or as is more than likely from your repeated droppings, just a clueless chikenhawk fucktard who’d heard of Huntington or possibly even read his COV xenophobic claptrap.
Wave them pom-poms! Rah rah, USA #1!
Pardon me while I ::::yaaaawn:::: yet again. 'cuase surely you see the ridiculous premise you keep hanging on to. Oh wait! That’s just it! You don’t! 'cause you’re a cluless fucktard that’s part of the Faith-based community. You just need to believe in something real hard for it to become true. Like that “synergistic relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda” that someone pulled out their ass. Or the 'WMds are in Syria" meme that some still cling to.
Bunch of imbecils taken for a ride!
Which remind me, I’ve got this fabulous pyramid scheme. Wanna talk?
See what I mean? Never mind, rethorical question. Valium’s got nothing on you! How many times are you going to bring up these same freaking canards!
Here, tattoo these two resposes to your forehead.
1-He did. Thus no WMDs. (You may add “duh!” if there’s enough room left)
2-Read Bush’s pre-invasion speach. Not an option. Besides, who the fuck is the US to be issuing sovereign nation’s – who’d done exactly zilch to your own country – leaders ultimatums?
On second though, forget the “duh!” Just use shorthand or acronyms, 'cause unless your forehead is the size of an oversized greenboard, you’re gonna need every millimiter of it.
Too bad there’s such a vast, unused wasteland behind it.
[quote]
Regarding your view that because blah blah blah…
