# Hey Bluesman, a question for you **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 13, 2003, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916 "2003-05-13T10:27:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/121 "2003-05-14T23:39:58Z")
I understand you’re point now, Coldfire, I’m just not sure it’s germain. Sure, the policies that the U.S. followed in the 80s set the stage for the situation today, and yes, they were bad policies, but indulging in hindsight and saying “you should have done “X” differently 20 years ago” is pointless. We didn’t, and as a result we’re where we are now. The U.S. has been actively oposing Iraq and SH since 1990. I’m sure you’re not saying that we should still be supporting him as we were in the 80s, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/122 "2003-05-14T23:44:05Z")
Obviously not. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/123 "2003-05-15T00:19:44Z")
“your” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/124 "2003-05-15T00:57:28Z")
They can be used in a general sense, or with respect to a specific conflict. For instance, George McGovern was a dove on Vietnam, but a hawk on Cambodia, once word of the killing fields made its way west. But he was (and is) for the most part a dove. Since we’re talking about Iraq here, **Weirddave** , it’s fair to label you a hawk within that context: you were for the war in Iraq, and Iraq is what we’re talking about, even if you’re not a hawk in the broader sense. ‘Hawk’ and ‘dove’ are not pejoratives _per se_, although both are occasionally used as such. But that’s in the tone of voice of the speaker, or the hearing of the listener, or both. ‘Bleeding heart’, however, is unquestionably a pejorative. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/125 "2003-05-15T01:11:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I am currently waiting and seeing if WMD are found, I know it’s far too early to make a definative statement either way. I already said in this thread that if WMD are not found within a year, I’ll happily admit that the administraton was wrong about that and off base to use it as a reason for war. I have yet to hear ANY of the appeasement idiots say that if WMD are found, they will admit “Hey, maybe there was something to this after all” (Since the eradication of a regime that has killed over a million civilians in the last 10 years aparently isn’t “justification” enough.) Ditto for “appeasement idiots.” The thing is, most of us “appeasement idiots” ( **ap·pease·ment** The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace. - _The American Heritage Dictionary_; might want to invest in a decent dictionary, Dave; that word doesn’t mean what you apparently think it means) were agin this war \*despite assuming from the start that Saddam probably had bio/chem weapons (which I’m not gonna call WMDs until it’s credibly shown that they can inflict “mass destruction”, i.e. death and injury on a greater order of magnitude than can be done with conventional, non-WMD, explosives, but that’s a whole 'nother debate). We ably argued that this war was a bad idea, even if he had such nasty stuff, so why should we admit that “there was something to this” war if he had them? Sorry, no dice. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/126 "2003-05-15T01:16:43Z")
thanks **RT** I find it most distinctly odd that **WeirdDave** rejects mightily the label ‘hawk’ for himself (for whatever reason), but is happy to slap on such things as ‘bleeding hearts’ and ‘appeasment idiots’ with impunity. I’d recommend, **Dave** that if you wish later on to take the high road and demand that others not slap labels you find negative, inappropriate or demeaning on you, that your first order of business should be to refrain from their use yourself. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/127 "2003-05-15T02:14:29Z")
And that’s that George W. Bush is either a scoundrel or a traitor. Probably the former, but if he believed what he said to us back on March 17, then it’s the latter. What he [said to us that night](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_031703.html) was: > [@](#): > > The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. And how did we respond to this threat, that Saddam’s alleged WMDs might be used against us by terrorists? As we encountered what we regarded as the most probable WMD sites, we secured them to make sure the weapons didn’t fall into the hands of the terrorists, right? [Wrong. Oh, so wrong.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html) Apparently it was well down our list of priorities: > [@](#): > > McPhee saw early in the war that the looters were stripping his targets before he could check them. He cut the planning cycle for new missions – the time between first notice and launch – from 96 to 24 hours. “What we found,” he said, was that “as the maneuver units hit a target they had to move on, even 24 hours was too slow. By the time we got there, a lot of things were gone.” > > Short and powerfully built, McPhee has spent his adult life as a combat officer. He calls his soldiers “bubbas” and worries about their mail. “It ain’t good” that suspect sites are unprotected, he said, but he refused to criticize fighting units who left evidence unguarded. > > "You’ve got two corps commanders being told, ‘Get to Baghdad,’ and, oh, by the way, ‘When you run across sensitive sites, you have to secure them,’ " he said. “Do you secure all those sites, or do you get to Baghdad? You’ve got limited force structure and you’ve got 20 missions.” > > A low point came when looters destroyed what was meant to be McPhee’s headquarters in the Iraqi capital. The 101st Airborne Division had used the complex, a munitions factory called the Al Qadisiyah State Establishment, before rolling north to Mosul. When a reporter came calling, looking for Task Force 75, looters were busily stripping it clean. They later set it ablaze. So the message that the commanders in the field clearly had was, unless you think you can do both, don’t bother to secure the WMD sites. Wave at 'em as you go by, and hope the followup units get to anything important there before it gets stolen and sold in the bazaar. And now that we’ve known for nearly two months that any WMDs at these sites were made off with, what now? Is our Fearless Leader warning us, “there were WMDs in Iraq, but we can’t account for them, and they could be used against us at any time”? Nope, that rhetoric was for _before_ the war. **Now** , he’s dancing on his big boat and chanting, “We won, we won!” And you know what? That makes sense only if he knew it was a lie from the beginning: that there were no WMDs, no terrorist threat from Iraq, no nothing. So I gotta go with “scoundrel”, as in “nastiest liar in the White House since Nixon.” Because it’s now totally impossible for me to believe he really _believed_ there were WMDs in Iraq that might fall into terrorist hands. Even now, I can’t believe he’d be so whoopty-do if those hypothetical weapons weren’t so hypothetical, and they were gone from the places we knew they’d been. So, no, I don’t believe **Bluesman** about the WMDs, as much as I respect him. Because the _President_ either doesn’t believe there were WMDs in Iraq, or he is far more evil and despicable than I am willing to believe of him even now. And I am sure that if there had been _good_ evidence of WMDs, it would have made its way up the ladder somehow, considering that some pretty damn flimsy non-evidence made it to the top. There’s a dog that didn’t bark here. And I just can’t believe that people were withholding _good_ evidence of WMDs from the Shrub, because that makes no sense at all. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/128 "2003-05-15T02:16:46Z")
Thank you RT, I know very well what appeasement means and I’m using it correctly. I am refering to people who would let thousands of innocent people continue to be tortured and killed every month in the name of “peace”, and are willing to go to any lengths to accomidate the madman responsible for these atrocities in order to assure “peace”. It’s an idiotic and extrodinarily selfish position IMO, hence the term “Appeasement idiots”. From [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com): "bleeding heart n. A person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited. " Given that the Iraqi people were underpriveledged and exploited, and the anti-war crowd was always crying about how devistating a war would be to them, this label fits as well. What makes them stupid is that by opposing the only method by which SH was going to be removed from power, they were perpetrating the exploiting indefinitely. Wring, anyone who dosen’t like a label they’re given is free to dispute it, just as I did. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/129 "2003-05-15T02:25:00Z")
and, as I noted, we did **dave** before and since. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/130 "2003-05-15T02:26:12Z")
I find it interesting that you are willing to catagoricly state that Iraq dosen’t have WMD _even though they’ve used them against Iran and the Kurds in the past_. Talk about a position that makes no sense! I guess those 60,000 Kurds died when someone with really, really smelly feet took off their shoes. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/131 "2003-05-15T02:48:56Z")
had them before GW1 does not mean that they still had them immediately pre GW2. As was noted earlier, the biologicals/ chems aren’t things that store well apparently, and their means of delivering them was always in question. I think its’ pretty clear at this point they weren’t ‘moments’ as it were, away from a viable nuclear weapon. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/132 "2003-05-15T03:01:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh, please, what you’re talking about is 20 years ago. Your kind seem to have a great deal of trouble with the idea that international relations change from year to year, along with the manner in which one country treats another one. What Ronnie did 4 administrations ago is immaterial to what Dubbya is doing now. Kinda ridiculous for you to bring stuff from that same era up and throw it at me. Does the pre-Kuwait invasion stuff only work in one direction? 20 years is also a lot of time to get rid of weapons that may suit you in one geopolitical situation, but not another. Less than 20 years ago, South Africa was a nuclear power; they are no longer, AFAWK. For the last dozen years of his regime, Saddam didn’t control his own airspace; cropdusting the Kurds or Shiites with toxins was no longer an option. So, is the door open or closed on Iraqi history before July 1990? Your call, AFAIAC. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/133 "2003-05-15T09:19:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*I find it interesting that you are willing to catagoricly state that Iraq dosen’t have WMD _even though they’ve used them against Iran and the Kurds in the past_. Talk about a position that makes no sense! I guess those 60,000 Kurds died when someone with really, really smelly feet took off their shoes. :rolleyes: \*\* I presume you may be aware of the differing time frames? 1980s versus 1990s versus the naughts? Your arguments are so internally incoherent I find it … an interesting example of staving off cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/134 "2003-05-15T10:05:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*I find it interesting that you are willing to catagoricly state that Iraq dosen’t have WMD _even though they’ve used them against Iran and the Kurds in the past_. Talk about a position that makes no sense! I guess those 60,000 Kurds died when someone with really, really smelly feet took off their shoes. :rolleyes: \*\* Ah, no you don’t. If we can’t use Ronnie’s failures in the 1980’s as an argument against the US government right now, then you can’t use Saddam’s attrocities in the 1980’s as an argument against his regime now. After all, what happened in the past is immaterial to what’s going on now, as per your logic. [sub]The above post is currently unavailable in the regular subtitled version for the carcasm-impaired.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/135 "2003-05-15T10:31:03Z")
> [@](#): > > “veto any resolution”? ah, selective memory. you forgot the words “that was an AUTOMATIC trigger for war.” Want to go around the whole “Who is the most veto trigger happy in the security council” roundabout again? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/136 "2003-05-15T10:42:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*Yea, because it’s true. What’s your point? \*\* Sorry **Weirddave** , my point was you’re full of shit. In twenty years time when we, the people of this planet, are paying the consequences of GW’s politically-contrived belligerence I’m sure you’ll be on hand to dispense some very useful _independent-of-all-past-actions_ advice. Your chance might come even sooner. You, and your war-mongering cohorts, are the ones with your heads in the sand, this conflict has polarised the Arab world, its potential to inflame already-strained relationships is massive, its future costs immeasurable, its benefits disputable. It was Bush who said that this war was about WMD, if they are found he may feel justified, but there’s no reason us “bleeding hearts” should feel compelled to concede anything in those circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/137 "2003-05-15T13:44:52Z")
Look people, 20 years ago in Iraq, SH was the president. Up to a couple of weeks ago, he was still the president. During that time, the U.S. has had Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and now Bush Jr as presidents. Where is the inconsistancy in insisting that you recognize that the policies of different administrations as different? In Iraq, the administration hadn’t changed. The administration that used WMD pre GW1 is _the exact same one we are talking about_. Where’s the inconsistancy? It’s not the length of time that I’m challenging, it’s the different administrations. Now I’ve got a question for all of you who are so ready to believe that Iraq dosen’t/didn’t have any WMD when the coalition invaded: If this was the case, then why did Iraq not comply with inspections, etc…? If they’re in complyance, it’s in their best interest to prove that they are so sanctions can be lifted, trade can resume, etc… Why wouldn’t they? I can’t even hypothesise a credible explanation for this, but maybe y’all can, I’d like to know. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/138 "2003-05-15T13:49:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Great Unwashed \* > \*\*Sorry **Weirddave** , my point was you’re full of shit. > > In twenty years time when we, the people of this planet, are paying the consequences of GW’s politically-contrived belligerence I’m sure you’ll be on hand to dispense some very useful _independent-of-all-past-actions_ advice. > > Your chance might come even sooner. > > You, and your war-mongering cohorts, are the ones with your heads in the sand, this conflict has polarised the Arab world, its potential to inflame already-strained relationships is massive, its future costs immeasurable, its benefits disputable. > > It was Bush who said that this war was about WMD, if they are found he may feel justified, but there’s no reason us “bleeding hearts” should feel compelled to concede anything in those circumstances. \*\* Wah, wah, wah, Blah, blah, blah, If, If, If, Oh my God, the sky is falling! Run, Run! When any of your Chicken Little prophesies comes to pass, then I’ll be glad to talk about it, until then, run along, little man, you make annoying nonsense noises, and the grownups are trying to use their brains here. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/139 "2003-05-15T13:54:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\* and the grownups are trying to use their brains here. \*\* well, yea, but you don’t seem to be listening. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916/140 "2003-05-15T14:00:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > Look people, 20 years ago in Iraq, SH was the president. Up to a couple of weeks ago, he was still the president. During that time, the U.S. has had Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and now Bush Jr as presidents. Where is the inconsistancy in insisting that you recognize that the policies of different administrations as different? In Iraq, the administration hadn’t changed. The administration that used WMD pre GW1 is _the exact same one we are talking about_. Where’s the inconsistancy? The inconsistency, dimwit, is in changed circumstances and times. Iraq used chemical weapons under a defined set of circumstances, notably the war with Iran. Iraq did not use such in the subsequent Gulf wars. > [@](#): > > Now I’ve got a question for all of you who are so ready to believe that Iraq dosen’t/didn’t have any WMD when the coalition invaded: If this was the case, then why did Iraq not comply with inspections, etc…? Asked and answered, dimwit. Asked and answered. There are myriad reasons, including plain and simple paranoia - Sadaam had good reason to believe the present Administration was gunning for him no matter what, and it would be impossible to avoid war. For all this, I am sure Iraq did have some minor NBC program capacity hanging about, for deterent and perhaps one day regional power projection purposes. As such doubtless the Iraqis, in combination with probably rational fears that they were being spied upon and set up for an attack regardless of what they did, tried to game the system. It was not, however, ever a direct threat to the United States, regardless of the scare mongering of the present Administration. > [@](#): > > If they’re in complyance, it’s in their best interest to prove that they are so sanctions can be lifted, trade can resume, etc… Why wouldn’t they? I can’t even hypothesise a credible explanation for this, but maybe y’all can, I’d like to know. Given your rather challenged critical thinking, I fail to see the point in anyone attempting to clarify this for you further. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-bluesman-a-question-for-you/174916.md?page=8)