I pit you guys...

[magellan01]

@sailor

Americans are doing exactly the same thing: they are excusing things because they were done by their own people. If the same things were done by others to Americans they would be crying bloody murder.

Are you fucking kidding?!!! When those kids pulled Deny out of the truck and beat him with a brick, there was no upside other than them venting their immature anger. They were not trying to protect themselves. Denny posed no threat to them, immediately or in the future. Claiming any kind of equivalence is buffoonery. I’d love to hear what YOU think their justification was.

@sailor

Oh, give me a bloody break. I’m tired of going over this in every thread. Everybody knows it was torture and playing with words is not going to change that. I’m not playing this game.

Of course your not. Because you don’t understand that people draw the line as to what constitutes torture in different places. Or weren’t you paying attention to all the coverage ion the press a while back?

@sailor

The law does not admit that excuse. I do not understand why some people are willing to excuse breaking the law. Is the law to be followed or not?

So, you really don’t know what the fuck your talking about do you? You think that if I kill Person A, that circumstances don’t matter. Sheesh.

@sailor

Well, that is disputable…

Oh really? Let’s here an argument for the runners-up.

@sailor

…but it does not matter, let us assume that for the sake of argument. That does not grant it any right to break the law or do immoral things. None whatsoever.

And now I will wait for you to objectively define “immoral things” in a way that you can get everyone to agree.

@sailor

Germany was at the head of Europe in science and technology and medicine etc in the 1930s but that does not excuse the attrocities committed.

Well, maybe the difference that there’s seems to be such unanimity in characterizing what they did as attrocities. Not so much with the U.S. Except maybe in the country consisting solely of you, that other simpleton U.S. hater Der Trihs, and a few other 13-year-olds on these boards.

@sailor

On the contrary, I would say that a country with a higher level of civilization has more obligation to be, you know, civilized.

I’d agree with that. And we are.

@sailor

No, they are different but they have equal rights to not be invaded. Bill Gates is not equal in his achievements or wealth to someone living in a trailer park but they both have the same right to life and freedom and they are both equal before the law. And behavior which might be excusable in someone living in a trailer park would not be excusable in Bill Gates.

You go too far here. And it’s dangerous thinking. You give excuse to bad behavior for some. Sure, it’s wrong to walk into a little village in Colorado and kills a bunch of people, but in Zimbabwe, well, after all, it IS Zimbabwe, right?

@sailor

That is a lie. A bald faced lie. It is not true. The entire world community as represented in the UN said there was no reason to invade. So don’t give me that shit that “everybody thought” there were WMD. It is a lie which I am tired of hearing. The only ones who thought so were the ones who wanted to think so. Fuck off. SYMGA.

:rolleyes:Tsk tsk. Look at what you wrote and ask yourself why you chose to type “everybody thought” AND put it in quotes. WHY? That was not a claim I made, was it? So take your strawman, set it ablaze, and shove it up your ass. And, Punk, it is not important what “everybody” thought. Only those who had the power to make decisions. All of whom had access to much more information than you had when you were jerking off to pictures of Gina Garofalo.

And finally, you ignorant little twit, even if someone is incorrect about something—whether it be whether there were WMDs or the claim that I made concerning what went down, that doesn’t make it a lie. “Untrue” does not equal “lie” This is probably one of the best indications of weakmindedness in a debate. I wish you luck in the competition to carry that flag in the Parade of the Softheaded. You’re really up in the running!

Oh, and I commend you on your “SMYGA”. I’ll see you that and raise you a “SYMPLLODC”!!! So, there!:rolleyes:

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

I’d say they are flagrantly evil acts, yes. But when you look at the whole picture and arrive at a net effect, they were a definite good. I’m wary of the reluctance to do the math because I think it leads to inaction, even when it is warranted. But I think this is largely semantics. The question is, if faced with that decision, would one drop the bombs. It doesn’t get any tougher than that.

I think we’re on the same page, really. My concern is just that people sometime see a net good and decide there’s been no evil at all - that, to the extent that good and evil can be quantified, the same amount of good and evil results cancel each other out, and a net superiority of one of the other means the act in question is only that. A person who drops a bomb to end a war is, to whatever extent, a man who has committed evil. My worry is that without that idea, people will be all too willing to commit an evil act, and in turn all too willing to believe that an evil act can mean a net positive, even if it doesn’t.

[magellan01]

@Revenant_Threshold

I think we’re on the same page, really. My concern is just that people sometime see a net good and decide there’s been no evil at all - that, to the extent that good and evil can be quantified, the same amount of good and evil results cancel each other out, and a net superiority of one of the other means the act in question is only that. A person who drops a bomb to end a war is, to whatever extent, a man who has committed evil. My worry is that without that idea, people will be all too willing to commit an evil act, and in turn all too willing to believe that an evil act can mean a net positive, even if it doesn’t.

Yeah, I think we’re on the same page. There’s no question that the act has an evil component, maybe even mostly an evil component, but I don’t want the calculation to stop there. I’d like to encourage the notion than things need to be evaluated in their totality. I don’t want to e timid bout that. But, we basically agree.

[magellan01]

@elucidator

Well, now, steady up, there. Saddam was flat out evil, GeeDub was a doofus with delusions of historical granduer. Equivalence simply isn’t possible.

Finally, a moment of true elucidation.

[samclem]

@magellan01

This is bullshit. There was a lot of information to look at. You and others love to say "oh, yes, I knew all the evidence pointed to the U.S. not going into Iraq. There’s this general or that. Well, they were all listened to. And in something like this, there are always dissenting opinions. They were heard, and the best judgement by most people in the know—at the time—was to not listen to the detractors. You claim you “saw through the lies”, but you can’t even point objectively to what those lies were. And back in 2001-2003, without the benefit of time to see the mistakes and the absence of no WMDs, all you had were opinions. Grow up.
!

:::sigh::: You still don’t get it, after all this time. And we’ve tried to type so slow.

All the evidence was NOT listened to. It was NEVER gonna be listened to. Bush’s handlers had control of the situation. THEY had decided that we were going into Iraq at some point. They had decided this BEFORE GWB was elected. Period.

The opportunity came, with 9/11, for this to happen. Bush had nothing to do with it. He was a puppet. We were going in, with trumped up facts. When you have people like Colin Powell carrying the water for his white masters to the UN, then it just makes it easier. You’re incapable of understanding this. Get over it.

[magellan01]

@samclem

:::sigh::: You still don’t get it, after all this time. And we’ve tried to type so slow.

All the evidence was NOT listened to. It was NEVER gonna be listened to.

Of course, you have proof of this. Right? Or perhaps you think “listened to” is synonymous with “obeyed”. Do you really think that Bush or the evil wizards behind the curtain were not aware of the counter-arguments? That you and the members of this board heard them, but the powers that were, didn’t? Amazing, huh? Wait, unless they did, in fact, listen to all the counter arguments and simply, based on everything else they heard, gave other information and arguments more credence.

Make too much sense for you?

And, by the way, it’s “slowly”. “…tried to type slowly”. As in “The synapses of those on the left fire slowly.”

Glad to be of assistance.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Of course, you have proof of this. Right? Or perhaps you think “listened to” is synonymous with “obeyed”. Do you really think that Bush or the evil wizards behind the curtain were not aware of the counter-arguments? That you and the members of this board heard them, but the powers that were, didn’t?

History showed that yes, they didn’t.

Now if you want to deny history… I will not stop you in demonstrating once again that you are incapable of judging evidence.

[RedFury]

@samclem

:::sigh::: You still don’t get it, after all this time. And we’ve tried to type so slow…

Indeed. He’s at least six years late and posting in the wrong thread:

Salvage the Iraq invasion here!

It’s all yours to play in, magellan.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

History showed that yes, they didn’t.

Didn’t what? Didn’t hear the counter arguments? That they weren’t aware of them?

That is probably the most absurd claim I’ve ever heard on these boards. I suggest you take the time to digest what my position is. I’m NOT arguing that they did the right thing, just that the were fully aware of each and every counter argument. Saying that is not so is plainly moronic. I expect such blind drunken stupidity from the nitwit Red, but I thought you were at least more careful with logic.

[sailor]

@magellan01

Didn’t what? Didn’t hear the counter arguments? That they weren’t aware of them?

The fact is that the entire world, with the same evidence, came to a different conclusion and that turned out to be the correct conclusion while Bush and co. arrived at the conclusion the wanted and that turned out to be wrong. Only in your world the guy who turned out to be wrong is held to be superior those who turned out to be right.

When the entire world is telling you that you are wrong you better listen well and if you decide to go ahead with your plan anyway then you bear the responsibility for what happens. America was told at the UN that the case against Iraq simply was not there. America chose to stop negotiations and inspections and invade contrary to the UN who turned out to be right. It is 100% America’s responsibility and a lot of that goes to Bush.

If an engineer designs a bridge and many other engineers tell him it is unsafe and will probably collapse, but the engineer builds the bridge anyway and then the bridge collapses, how can you defend him? He was warned but he insisted and he turned out to be wrong. Trying to say the information pointed in another direction makes no sense when many people warned him beforehand.

There is just no way around this except for people who have made up their mind that Bush was right all along and continues to be right. People like that are immune to facts and reason. Now all they can do is fudge and play with words as to how you define torture.

The fact is that Bush’s policies have been disastrous for America and for the world. A complete and unmitigated disaster.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Didn’t what? Didn’t hear the counter arguments? That they weren’t aware of them?

The evidence that you always “objectively” refuse to hear is that not only they did not hear the counter arguments, it is that even when aware of them the administration (specially Cheney) already had poisoned the intelligence so only what they wanted to hear was given any weight.

@magellan01

That is probably the most absurd claim I’ve ever heard on these boards. I suggest you take the time to digest what my position is.

I’m NOT arguing that they did the right thing, just that the were fully aware of each and every counter argument. Saying that is not so is plainly moronic. I expect such blind drunken stupidity from the nitwit Red, but I thought you were at least more careful with logic.

Attempting to digest your position only gives diarrhea to others.

The reality was that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of justifying the war.

downingstreetmemo.com

And what showed me why that was so just before the war was the almost total failure of the last round of inspections to find direct evidence of active WMDs with the “intelligence” provided by the USA and England on where to look.

[RedFury]

@magellan01

Didn’t what? Didn’t hear the counter arguments? That they weren’t aware of them?

That is probably the most absurd claim I’ve ever heard on these boards. I suggest you take the time to digest what my position is. I’m NOT arguing that they did the right thing, just that the were fully aware of each and every counter argument. Saying that is not so is plainly moronic. I expect such blind drunken stupidity from the nitwit Red, but I thought you were at least more careful with logic.

Quit projecting your obvious shortcomings unto others, for only dumbasses such as yourself keep spewing the “blind drunken stupidity” with which your have peppered this thread. I understand how hard it must be for an arrogant used Tampax like you to admit you’re talking out your ass, but hey look at the upside, there just might be a whole new career exploiting said talent – quite a change from being a True Believer, I know, but these are hard times for your ilk.

Thus I suggest you look into it. It really is quite the gift you have there. Bet you could fart La Marseillaise without crapping yourself.

---

@GIGObuster

…And what showed me why that was so just before the war was the almost total failure of the last round of inspections to find direct evidence of active WMDs with the “intelligence” provided by the USA and England on where to look.

Can’t believe we’re rehashing all this for a meathead such as magellan, but just to substantiate what you wrote:

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips ‘Garbage’

**U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another. Feb. 20, 2003

[ul]**
[li]Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found “nothing.”[/li]
[li]Example: Saddam’s presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found “nothing.”[/li]
[li]Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the “Iraqi alibi air tight.”[/li]
**[/ul]

<snip>

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they’ve been getting as “garbage after garbage after garbage.” In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word…**

Time to leave the island, magellan.

[magellan01]

@sailor

The fact is that the entire world, with the same evidence, came to a different conclusion and that turned out to be the correct conclusion while Bush and co. arrived at the conclusion the wanted and that turned out to be wrong. Only in your world the guy who turned out to be wrong is held to be superior those who turned out to be right.

Not true. The “entire world” came to no such conclusion. That is flat out wrong. And in what fantasy of yours do I hold him to be “superior” to anyone or anything. You confuse me with a fan of Bush. I’m not. I never even voted for the guy.

And you might want to look up the fallacy called Appeal to the Masses.

@sailor

When the entire world is telling you that you are wrong you better listen well and if you decide to go ahead with your plan anyway then you bear the responsibility for what happens. America was told at the UN that the case against Iraq simply was not there. America chose to stop negotiations and inspections and invade contrary to the UN who turned out to be right. It is 100% America’s responsibility and a lot of that goes to Bush.

Again, the “entire world” did no such thing. However, I do agree that if your plan proves to be ineffective, one must take the responsibility for that. But I believe that whether you were the sole advocate or the entire world, literally, agreed with you.

This “America was told” line is useless. It assumes that the UN is the source of unfailing and objective truth, and that everyone must accept that extremely bizarre notion. And other countries were looking out for their own self interests. Remember France. It was finally revealed that they had strong financial reasons to be against the American action. The point is that the UN, and other nations, are just sources of additional opinions. Opinions that do not have the U.S.'s best interest at heart. So, we listen to these opinions—and we did—but correctly don’t feel the need to accept them as the final word. We weigh them with all the other opinions and make a decision that we think benefits us the most.

@sailor

If an engineer designs a bridge and many other engineers tell him it is unsafe and will probably collapse, but the engineer builds the bridge anyway and then the bridge collapses, how can you defend him? He was warned but he insisted and he turned out to be wrong. Trying to say the information pointed in another direction makes no sense when many people warned him beforehand.

But you assume that there is an objective truth that is known to be FACT. There wasn’t. To deny that there was even a legitimate debate is ridiculous. The fact is that there was information that pointed in different directions. In didn’t go the way you want, fine. We can even say, in hindsight, it was the wrong decision. But to say that the administration didn’t “listen to” and consider other points of view is absurd on it’s face.

An engineer ignoring the math and the consequences of equations is a poor analogy. World affairs is not a black and white proposition. It is not a cleanly empirical undertaking.

@sailor

There is just no way around this except for people who have made up their mind that Bush was right all along and continues to be right. People like that are immune to facts and reason. Now all they can do is fudge and play with words as to how you define torture.

Well, there’s your problem. I don’t know that he did the right thing. In hindsight, I think it was the wrong thing. But at the time, I didn’t know which was the right course of action. I was on the fence trying to decide for myself when the decision was made. I would have probably waited and sent the inspectors back in, even though I don’t think that would have helped and he would have either kicked them out again or found some other “problem” with them. So I am very willing to conclude that Bush did the wrong thing. But to deny that debated the decision with full knowledge of the best arguments from both sides is both cheap and asinine. It simply seeks to take thinking off the table and turn the idea that Bush & Co. were not just wrong, but both stupid and evil, into a commandment of the left.

@sailor

The fact is that Bush’s policies have been disastrous for America and for the world. A complete and unmitigated disaster.

I tend to agree with that, with exception. But we’ll never know what the result of the opposite action would have been. And while I am fully willing to heap the blame on him for the ills his plan created, I am equally willing to give him credit for preventing another attack on domestic soil.

[sailor]

@magellan01

Well, there’s your problem. I don’t know that he did the right thing. In hindsight, I think it was the wrong thing. But at the time, I didn’t know which was the right course of action. I was on the fence trying to decide for myself when the decision was made. I would have probably waited and sent the inspectors back in, even though I don’t think that would have helped and he would have either kicked them out again or found some other “problem” with them. So I am very willing to conclude that Bush did the wrong thing. But to deny that debated the decision with full knowledge of the best arguments from both sides is both cheap and asinine. It simply seeks to take thinking off the table and turn the idea that Bush & Co. were not just wrong, but both stupid and evil, into a commandment of the left.

Except that it has been shown they did not listen to all the facts nor weigh all the evidence, only what supported what they had already decided to do.

And it is a fact that other countries and persons, including the UN inspectors, who weighed all the evidence more neutrally said there was not enough evidence and they were right. And it was so evident that they were right that Bush precipitated the invasion because he knew that every day that passed it was more and more clear to everybody that it was all a big lie. And the whole world except you and a few other pigneaded fanatics knows that.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

This “America was told” line is useless. It assumes that the UN is the source of unfailing and objective truth, and that everyone must accept that extremely bizarre notion. And other countries were looking out for their own self interests. Remember France. It was finally revealed that they had strong financial reasons to be against the American action. The point is that the UN, and other nations, are just sources of additional opinions. Opinions that do not have the U.S.'s best interest at heart. So, we listen to these opinions—and we did—but correctly don’t feel the need to accept them as the final word. We weigh them with all the other opinions and make a decision that we think benefits us the most.

Lets apply some Pepto Bismol to this bit.

That is in reality a bit of foxlore information that if one looks carefully then one realizes that in reality it has no evidence, or is misleading. (This is made worse by the fact that they were correct) By that I mean is what that bit of folklore is implying: that intelligence groups only told governments like France what they wanted to hear. The only way that would be relevant was if the intelligence gathering organizations on purpose altered their gathering of information thanks to the economical interests of nations like France.

That is a big assumption to make.

I think that that “point” is just a projection, it is a tacit admission that the USA intelligence was tainted beforehand as I believe many in the Bush administrations were aware of the fix. Unless you have evidence for a direct conflict of interest by the intelligence organizations that concluded that there was no imminent or gathering threat from Iraq, then I do not give much weight to the accusations that it was the business interests of nations like France that affected their intelligence organizations regarding Iraq. History showed that they were more accurate than the US and British ones.

And I do not think Iraq was a benefit to the USA, even before the invasion.

[magellan01]

@sailor

Except that it has been shown they did not listen to all the facts nor weigh all the evidence, only what supported what they had already decided to do.

No. You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it any truer. You say that they did not “listen” to all the facts or weigh all the evidence. Thing about that claim, it’s ridiculous. Why isn’t it your position that they simply gave more weight to other information? That makes MUCH more sense, regardless of who the participants are. Why do you think your claim is even plausible? It makes zero sense. Especially since the information you’re talking about was available to you and I. Do you not think the pros and cons were discussed in countless meetings? Really, your position is absurd.

@sailor

And it is a fact that other countries and persons, including the UN inspectors, who weighed all the evidence more neutrally said there was not enough evidence and they were right.

Wait, this indicates that you think Bush & Co. DID weigh the evidence, just that they were predisposed when they did. Which we would agree on. But I think that all sides had a predisposition, and that that predisposition makes one more readily accept certain evidence and discount other. You say they weighed all the evidence “more neutrally”. Maybe, maybe not. I think it’s just that their evaluation fits with your own.

The only fact I’m willing to grant in this is that in any decision like this there will be more than one option. That people will hold different position and give different evidence different weight. They will also value different aspects of the situation and possible outcomes differently. To think there is an objective truth during these discussions, on which one side just turns a blind eye misses the nature of them.

@sailor

And it was so evident that they were right that Bush precipitated the invasion because he knew that every day that passed it was more and more clear to everybody that it was all a big lie. And the whole world except you and a few other pigneaded fanatics knows that.

Well, I’m willing to believe that based on their belief that Iraq was an indirect threat, they felt the need to act. That every day they didn’t act just increased the threat to the U.S. France, really didn’t help in this regard, stating before the last UN meeting that regardless of the meeting, they would still be against the U.S. position. And again, we have since learned that they had a financial motive to object to U.S. action.

Most interesting, and entertaining, to me is this absolute need you and others seem to have to absolutely demonize this decision. Wrong as it may have been, dumb as it may have been, to think that the people responsible “didn’t listen” to the other side, shows a childish black and white world view. And that just adds to the entertain value, because that is one of the things they try to pin on Bush’s forehead.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

That is in reality a bit of foxlore information that if one looks carefully then one realizes that in reality it has no evidence, or is misleading. (This is made worse by the fact that they were correct) By that I mean is what that bit of folklore is implying: that intelligence groups only told governments like France what they wanted to hear. The only way that would be relevant was if the intelligence gathering organizations on purpose altered their gathering of information thanks to the economical interests of nations like France.

That is a big assumption to make.

I think that that “point” is just a projection, it is a tacit admission that the USA intelligence was tainted beforehand as I believe many in the Bush administrations were aware of the fix. Unless you have evidence for a direct conflict of interest by the intelligence organizations that concluded that there was no imminent or gathering threat from Iraq, then I do not give much weight to the accusations that it was the business interests of nations like France that affected their intelligence organizations regarding Iraq. History showed that they were more accurate than the US and British ones.

And I do not think Iraq was a benefit to the USA, even before the invasion.

I really not sure what you’re trying to say here. I’ll just say that I don’t make the assumption you imply. I think that even if everyone here’s the exact same intelligent, they are likely to give it differing amount of credence. Especially since they know that they’re not dealing with facts, but likelihoods. I’m sure the receivers all start with a different fact base, and each have their own interests which makes them predisposed to give give some information more weight and other information less.

[sailor]

@magellan01

No. You keep saying this, but it doesn’t make it any truer.

You’re the one repeating things which have been proven to be wrong or flat-out lies.

Whatever you think, there is a reason the law prevents individual people and individual countries from taking the law into their own hands and that is to prevent assholes like Bush and yourself, who think they know what they are doing, from making stupid mistakes which cost lives. It is abundantly clear that things would have gone better if Bush and America had gone along with the UN.

The rest is just your trying to defend the indefensible. Dude, give it up.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@magellan01

Yeah, I think we’re on the same page. There’s no question that the act has an evil component, maybe even mostly an evil component, but I don’t want the calculation to stop there. I’d like to encourage the notion than things need to be evaluated in their totality. I don’t want to e timid bout that. But, we basically agree.

Oh, i’m not saying that once it is agreed that an act is evil, we then won’t ever do it. Life is such that sometimes an evil act is necessary for a greater good, and the overall effects do need to be judged. I just think it’s important that, should an evil act be decided upon for an overall good goal, we not lose sight of the fact that there was still an evil act involved.

[sailor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_death_toll

Iraq’s government has recorded 87,215 of its citizens killed since 2005 in violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings, according to government statistics obtained by The Associated Press that break open one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war.

Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and an in-depth review of available evidence by The Associated Press, the figures show that more than 110,600 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The number is a minimum count of violent deaths. The official who provided the data to the AP, on condition of anonymity because of its sensitivity, estimated the actual number of deaths at 10 to 20 percent higher because of thousands who are still missing and civilians who were buried in the chaos of war without official records.

They are all so happy to be free of Saddam Hussein. And all thanks to Bush and his insight.

Not to mention the injured, displaced, homeless. . . But, hey, the intentions were good.