Come on; tone it down.
This is supposed to be a discussion. Rants should be posted in the Pit. Accusations of lying should avoid implying that they refer to another poster.
[ /Moderating ]
My position is simple. Islamic terrorist attacks against American targets came immediately after American troops were deployed in the Middle East. As bonus evidence, Islamic terrorists have stated that they oppose American troop presense in the Middle East.
Your counterargument involves non-American forces attacking the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century and the sale of Coca-Cola. If this debate has gotten absurd it’s because you brought absurdity to the table.
Very well. Than I’d like him to either provide this evidence or retract his assertion.
Sorry I just have a real low opinion of the war criminal. He’s responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people, the torture of god knows how many, and damaged the country in so many ways.
He’s worse and more evil then Osama. People like that person I quoted are why this monster gets away with his crimes against humanity. The vast sea of crying families of the dead; from Bush’s lies, and the agonized screams of mercy by the tortured going unavenged are thanks to people like the poster I quoted.
I won’t say what they are but I hate them so much for their enabling of this evil monster. They’re his accomplices at the very least. Accomplices to someone worse for America than Osama.
It angers me so.
But Little Nemo, the tent of Freedom is the biggest tent in the world.
Surely you can see the plain truth of that?
And once you see that, everything else falls neatly into place.
I did not support Bush at all, and opposed the war from day 1, but it is my opinion that Bush deceived himself into actually believing all his rhetoric. I do not believe that he knew what he was saying was wrong, instead, per the George Costanza rule, it isn’t a lie if you really believe it. My opinion is that Bush was not lying, but he was wrong. Totally wrong, on nearly every single thing he said about Iraq, from WMD to connections to terrorism to the need for the war to the need to stay, and everything in between.
I know there’s a lot of people who do believe he lied, and I think that this will be an issue debated by historians for a long time. I do not believe there will be any evidence discovered that will settle the case conclusively one way or another. However, I think that some people prefer to call Bush a liar because it is a more incriminating charge against him. My view, however, is that a fool can be just as bad as a liar.
I think it is quite clear he cooked the evidence to suit his predetermined decided outcome. Which is the same as lying.
I think you’re missing the point about ‘proving non-existence’. :smack:
But fortunately for you I had the morning off and have searched the entire Internet. 
And your memory is faulty. Those statements do not exist. I have proved it.
There’s no need for historical debate.
Here is clear evidence in a public statement by a senior member of the UK Government (with full access to the classified information) that the US and UK knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before they went to war:
-
For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. -
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Wait, you summarize Robin Cook’s speech by saying that “the US and UK knew there were no WMDs,” and then quote him in saying that Iraq “probably” had no effective WMD, and “probably” had some toxins left laying around. You have either misunderstood or misrepresented his statement.
But the larger point is taken: there are certainly people within the US (and most likely UK) government who had different, and more accurate, views of the non-existence of Iraqi WMD. In my view, rather than believing that those analysts were right, and deciding that their views must be covered up in order to perpetrate a lie, Bush, Cheney, and others decided that those analysts were wrong because they weren’t saying what Bush, Cheney and others wanted to hear. In my book, that is a horrible, damnable mistake, for which they ought to be held accountable, but I do not believe it to be a lie.
Except that the war was rushed because it was becoming more and more clear to the general public that those views were correct. So it was not a matter of just being wrong, even deliberately being wrong, it was a matter of knowing what they were saying was wrong and becoming more and more obvious to the world so they rushed into the invasion before their position was just untenable.
I know, your position is very simple, you will do your utmost to ignore the actual facts to distort the issue and then strawman my position. For instance, you’ve now totally ignored the fact that the marine barracks bombing was, in fact, a politically motivated attack by Iranian forces and not a “terrorist attack.” And, for that matter, that the marines in the theatre were noncombatant peace keepers and not combat troops.
As well as all the other things you’ve ignored.
You’re also steadfastly ignoring that your earlier formulation of “freedoms no troops = no terrorist attacks” is blatantly, absurdly false.
If you are actually here to debate, try explaining the Achille Lauro and Kuwait Airways Flight 221. How about the AMIA bombing or the Panamanian airliner bombing. I eagerly await a rational explanation of how those fit into your narrative.
I shouldn’t hold my breath, should I?
Again, it would be ever so helpful if you had a clue what you were talking about.
The Ottoman Empire fell in World War I. Not the 19th century. Wrong century.
Its dissolution at the hands of European powers saw most of our modern ME nation states carved out of the wreckage, often at the whims of the European powers. In fact this situation led to a rising tide of Arab nationalism around WW II, but curiousously enough, not jihadism.
It wasnt until Qutb went to America and became disgusted with social, cultural, sexual, political, etc… freedoms that he determined that fundamentalist Islam was the only answer.
But of course, you probably won’t address that, either.
Do you know what it means when your opponent cannot address your actual position and has to use strawmen almost exclusively?
It means they aint got nuthin’.
I rather clearly pointed out that a sore spot was cultural diffusion which has accelerated during the information age and which allowed American culture and the ‘American brand’ to spread into many other nations who had previously been able to stay isolated.
The fact of the matter is that the issue is a matter of importance in many parts of the world. It’s often referred to as “American cultural imperialism.”
But of course, you’d prefer not to address how complaints of cultural imperialism might interrelate with people who want to impose strict theocracy via the barrel of a gun.
Right.
Tell ya what, when you actually address the issues, retract your mistakes or manage to figure out what century the Ottoman Empire fell in and why, and what the following events were, then maybe you can begin to actually attack my argument.
You up for a debate, or just more of the same?
Good lord, even Ayn considered it to be wrong. Ya know, I think she might even have written a few books about the illegitimacy of taking things by force, especially by governments.
I think the war was rushed because General Franks was saying that if we didn’t go in March, we’d have to wait until the fall because it would get too hot for our troops to fight well.
My problem with the idea that Bush was watching the polls, saw support eroding, and therefore had to go on March 19, is that I know of no evidence for that position, and Bush simply doesn’t strike me as a big poll watcher. (ETA) Rove and others, yes, but not Bush. And I’m not about to take seriously that Karl Rove called the shots on when to go to war.
Yes, he had to start the war RIGHT THEN because it would soon have been too late. But the deadline seemed to have a lot more to do with the imminent completion of the UN WMD inspection teams’ work (just two weeks work remained, IIRC). The conclusion they were going to reach, and of course publicly announce, would have exposed the enormity of the WMD lie (with a side of mushroom cloud) that the administration had been peddling.
Another argument was stated more than once in this very forum: that the war *had *to be started because the invasion forces were already in place and couldn’t be kept waiting much longer. :rolleyes:
The problem with all these grand pronouncements that the UN was about to give Iraq a clean bill of health is that it is an allegation that is made up.
From Hans Blix’s book, “Disarming Iraq”
Ultimately, it’s clear from Blix’s statements that he had serious doubts about the intelligence, and Iraq was also unable to produce convincing evidence that there were no WMD. I believe Blix’s report would have said that there was neither the evidence to conclude that there were WMD, nor that there had been a disarmament. That likely would have meant that inspections would have had to continue until more evidence was gathered.
While I think that would have been a great idea, clearly Bush et al did not want to be locked into inspections with no completion in sight. Not because the UN was going to give Iraq a clean report card, but because inspections were limiting on their preconceived solution of taking Saddam out.
How could they, or anybody? You can’t prove you don’t have them, either. You’ve repeated the warhawk position that stands logic on its head.
I was talking about Hans Blix’s view. Are you calling him a warhawk?
Point of fact: the IAEA has said that via its Additional Protocols it is able to credibly verify the absence of nuclear weapons programs.
I trust their expertise over those who aren’t nuclear inspections experts and who claim that it cannot be done.
Which you presented as the reverse of what he said. Read it again.
Are you saying that Hans Blix knew that Iraq had disarmed? If so, explain how I’m reading this quote wrong, and then provide a cite for your bare allegation:
That Hans Blix was on the verge of giving Iraq a clean bill of health, as el Baradei had correctly done some time earlier on nuclear issues, is a myth. It is perfectly clear through all of Blix’s statements, both at the time and in retrospect, that he believed he did not have the answers.