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?
Obviously not.
“your” :smack:
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.
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.
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.
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 was:
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?
Apparently it was well down our list of priorities:
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.
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:
"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.
and, as I noted, we did dave
before and since.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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]
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?
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.
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.
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.
well, yea, but you don’t seem to be listening.
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.
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.
Given your rather challenged critical thinking, I fail to see the point in anyone attempting to clarify this for you further.