…eh… all I got is… USA! USA! USA! and, eh yes: USA! USA! USA!
Boy have you missed my point? The Fox audience and ditto-heads of America and all those yet clinging to the neocon mindset would of course relish in the faith that their beloved Bush truly wanted war and never really entertained that Iraq could be disarmed peacefully through the UN. Their belief that Iraq did not cooperate, some believe Bush when he says that Iraq didnt let the inspectors in. That audience I agree is FUBAR. That is where I’d expect that an untruth such as ‘Iraq violated UN Res 1441’ would be on honored and dominate fact.
The documentary would be for the 2/3 of Americans and all future generations that would learn the truth that Iraq did not in violate UN Res 1441. Bush’s claims of wanting peace were lies. If Bush wanted peace as he said, the documentary would emphasize that Bush had peace in the palm of his hand. And the he clenched his fist for no sane reason.
A good exposé on what actually happened and presented in a clear way the truth that Fox and Byshies don’t want publicized. Bush is a liar every time he utters the phrase that he really wanted peace.
So how about that documentary T&D?
Would you hate to see it produced?
No, the other one, the one you know… the one you didn’t answer by answering in a non answer.
Got it?
Well, there then… glad that it’s cleared up now.
Here’s the link
So it is kind of like Fahrenheit 9/11, but more effusive about Iraq’s cooperation with the international community and Saddam’s peaceful overtures. Sounds like a total winner.
Because I can’t bear to see this stupidity last any longer, I’m gonna try to help. But it’s gonna be hard.
NotfooledbyW: There’s this concept called “defending yourself against accusations” that you do not seem to grasp. The OP of this thread alleged that you constantly move goalposts and get into pointless semantic arguments. The way to argue against this is not to rehash your argument from elsewhere. It is to prove that you do not move goalposts and/or that you do not get into semantic arguments and/or that said semantic arguments are important.
It has also been alleged that you can see no wrong in anything Obama does. Yet not once have you made the obvious counterargument: show something that Obama did that you think is wrong. Don’t just tell us that that is not your argument. Even if we believed you, you still left an opening for thinking that Obama can do no wrong.
I’m giving you one last chance to respond to the actual topics of this thread instead of going on your pet tirade. After that, I’m with everyone else and writing you off as either deluded or a troll. (Also argument you could address, BTW. Prove you aren’t just trying to stir up shit and/or post coherently.)
When you find yourself saying that over and over again to all sorts of people, the problem is probably not with them, but with you. Your points are pointless.
Not that it matters anymore, but I asked what “Are you on the field it in the stands?” was supposed to mean. Did you ever explain that?
I will bet that he was typing on an iPhone or something, and it auto-corrected “or” to “it.”
Here’s the freaky part: could you imagine typing his screeds on a friggin’ iPhone? Maybe that’s why he seems to make only a few long posts a day: it takes him 6 hours to write 2,300 words.
Sure did,
I’ll post it again.
Key word is alleged.
I have responded in detail and with specifics to the OP;s complaints. All I get in return is generalities and just more baseless complaints.
When I receive a specific cite of when I moved the goal posts… I’ll respond. If I did, I did.
No. You have an imaginary belief that 2/3 of the U.S. population still believes we went into Iraq to enforce UN sanctions and to keep peace.
That is silly.
(Changing) Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq
So you are in here picking fights with people, +80% of whom agree with you regarding some large portion of that history, in order to get 100% them to nod their heads and agree with your particular, individualized view of history that can only be substantiated by playing the same semantic games in which you enjoy playing.
You are silly.
I have no problem with anyone creating a video. Why should I? Why should you or anyone care whether I would “support” such a video? (I would certainly not pay money to go see it if you or Oliver Stone produced it. I would probably not bother paying money regardless who made it. I would not, however, object to it being made. That would be silly.)
You do not wish to accept my point which is:
That is not stating that 2/3 of the population believes we went into Iraq to enforce UN Sanctions.
That is stating what it is stating.
Regardless of all the theories about why Bush decided to invade Iraq, there is a myth/a falsehood that is quite generally accepted by pro-war and anti-war and all in between alike, that all this maiming and killing Bush started was somehow justified because Iraq violated it’s final opportunity to comply.
It sure helps the pro-Bush legacy version of history to have everybody believe that Iraq was in violation of international law when Bush decided to invade, after trying so hard to get Iraq to do the right thing and make it possible for Bush to avoid war.
So whatever reason Bush decided to do it, even it was that he got bit by an armadillo he named Saddam on the ranch the night before, that doesn’t matter because Iraq was in violation of UN Res 1441 where the whole whole world according to Bush demanded that Iraq be disarmed.
It would be nice if you could at least argue against the points I make instead of the points you imagine I imagine.
Why wouldn’t you be interested in a documentary that told the absolute truth about Iraq which is in direct opposition to the truth Bush is pushing at his library right now.
Why do so many argue against the FACT that Iraq was not in violation of UN Res 1441 when Bush decided that they were? Why do so many accept that Bush’s version that Iraq was in violation of 1441 is true… or that it doesn’t matter at all?
Why do you care?
Actual historians will figure out the situation, (most of which is already known). Other folks will believe what they choose, regardless of any videos.
Most folks have no idea how we talked ourselves into invading Panama.
Most people have the wrong idea regarding our little adventure in Grenada.
For that matter, only a tiny percent of the population understands how we really got into Vietnam.
You arguing details on a message board will not change any of those issues. Making a video will not correct that problem. (Who will make it? How accurate would they be? I find your persistent defense of the AUMF to be a silly re-writing of history–and no, I am not going to waste my efforts arguing the point with you-who-will-not-be-shown) So why do you think that your documentary would be so free from error?)
Do you know how we got into a war with Mexico? Do you know how we wound up invading multiple Central American countries multiple times?
History is long and complex and most people are not interested. You are trying to make a big deal about a point of history that more people already know than you will admit and far more people do not care than you could ever conceive.
You are the sort of person whom Don Quixote would advise to lay down your lance and go home; you are not suited to the battle.
You’re fucking looney tunes if you think that’s what anti-war people believe.
It isn’t a FACT, that’s an opinion. The only body qualified to determine compliance or violation of 1441 in March 2003 was the Security Council, as Blix stated himself. The Security Council never voted on the issue in 2003, so there is no conclusive decision on the matter. It is your opinion the Iraq was in compliance, but it isn’t a fact, no matter how many times you quote Blix, because neither Blix or you are the competent authorities to determine the application of international law in that case.
It’s like if an accused serial killer gets caught and put on trial. He kills himself before the trial concludes. That does not mean that people are free to conclude that he was guilty or innocent: that’s for a court to determine.
This is from your link. When Bush announced the war, 2/3 felt he made the case for it. Much of that case was linked to the perception that Iraq did not take the opportunity that Bush gave him to avoid war. Saddam was depicted as defiant even as Blix said his cooperation rose to the level of proactive.
A similarly strong majority of Americans in February prior to the invasion wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time.
And you are also incorrect to charge that I am picking fights with +80% who agree with me on the broader issues. The may agree that Bush was a total disaster, but there is only one poster who agrees with me on the Vote in October and the fact potential that the vote produced exactly what it was supposed to do. Iraq let the inspectors back in after 1441 was passed.
I was not even coming close to picking fights with anyone on the Bush Library thread. Take a read if you have not… up to around the point when Adaher and I were having a civil discussion from opposite side.
The OP writer came to me, I did not pick a fight at all. That is untrue and absolutely unfair.
He made a claim about my statement to Adaher that was not true. That is the facts. And now we are here.
I’d rather be at the Bush library thread going through some of the things were are going through without all this circus crap going on.
Ir this topic bores so many, they can surely scroll on by.
But I will not agree that Iraq was in violation of 1441 even if billion people want that to be true or unimportant.
And it matters that Iraq was in violation of international law in October when a vote to force Iraq to comply was not a flawed judgment.
And it matters that when Bush ‘decided’ to invade, Iraq was not in violation of international law.
If anyone violated 1441 it was Bush. Sorry, that is closer to the truth than your sides version that Iraq was or that it doesn’t matter at all. . It just is.
This is why I didn’t go into psychiatry. Too many patients where talking to them is a complete waste of time. And listening to them only drives you closer to madness.
That is what they believed THEN.
Show me where any large percentage of Americans NOW believe that we did the right thing, but just did it wrong.
I never said or hinted or implied that is what the anti-war left believes. Go back and read what I wrote.
Now let’s read what you wrote that validates what I’m saying:
The only body to determine compliance or violation of 1441 was the UNSC and you are correct. They didn’t have a vote because they didn’t need to.
There was no deadline for a vote and Human Action Clarified that quite well.
Iraq was in compliance. The UNSC only needed to vote if Iraq was not incompliance with 1441.
And you understand that Blix advised the UNSC prior to the invasion that Iraq had been cooperating proactively on old unresolved issues for about a month. That is compliance with UN 1441… so you tell me why the UNSC would be required to vote to state that Iraq was in compliance.
You do not have an answer to that, so please try to explain why you suggest such an unnecessary task.
The UNSC did not determine that Iraq was in violation of UN 1441 so that is the truth.
There is nothing complicated about it.
My point is driving that the truth that needs to be highlighted should be against what people were made or led to think from let’s say January to March 2003 about the issue of inspections and whether Iraq cooperated in compliance with international law. Regardless of the myriad of perceptions of what our collective experience of Iraq were all about, there is no reason in my mind that a major untruth in the historic narrative floating around in the minds of millions of Americans who witnessed this self-induced tragedy, should be allowed to drift into perpetuity unchallenged.
Put simply an American President said this in a speech about an impending war of aggression and choice along with notification that UN inspectors should leave Iraq immediately.
Bush also claimed,
There are many reasons I presume that most people now believe invading Iraq was a mistake or wrong. That to me is more of an unsophisticated but correct analysis of cost in lives and limbs and treasure and loss of reputation. And like you said the Fox audience believes we did the right thing but we both know that they are a lost cause anyway. But I don’t see it fully as a rejection of Bush’s lies against the truth that Iraq did try to ‘return Bush’s good faith effort for peace’.
As a nation that aspires to all that we have been taught to aspire to, we owe it to people of Iraq to let them know that we realize the lies that Bush was telling as he announce the need for war.
We do owe it to ourselves and to whom we leave this country to in the future.
Why so many ask. Why not? It is the truth. What Bush is telling us was a lie and is still a lie and will always be a lie.
You’re weird.
All the lies that have been told by all the presidents over the years and you are wasting hundreds of hours battling people on an internet message board to (in your mind) “correct” one technical error out of so many that people believe.