The giant Scylla Thanksgiving crow eating thread.

The BBQ Pit
301

Scylia, you’re playing word games. You have previously said that you regard Sadam’s non-compliance with the UN resolution for Iraq to disarm its self of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (WMDs) following the Gulf Campaign of 1991 as sufficient basis for the invasion–that the United States has the right, no, the duty to enforce the resolutions of the Security Council–even when contrary to the apparent will of the Security Council. Diogenes t. C. ain’t buying that. As should be clear from my wording, I don’t either. Also you now concede that when your President and mine said that Iraq had WMDs he was lying. Diogenes then asked you to give a “legal” justification for the invasion, saying that the only “legal” justification he knew of was self defense. You have responded to by saying you are no expert in international law. None of us are expert in that. You are playing word games.

Let me ask you flat out: how was the invasion of Iraq necessary to the defense of the United States and its vital interests? RSVP.

302

And don’t give me a bunch of jazz about establishing a liberal democracy in the Middle East. I know, and you should know, that bringing the blessings of democracy to the people of Iraq has about as much to do with the invasion and occupation as spreading Roman Catholicism to the poor benighted heathens had to do with the Spanish conquest of Central and South America. That may play well at the Fayette County Republican Convention but it isn’t going to shell any peas with critical thinkers.

303

Nah, that’s ok. Any fair minded person can see that you were bluffing. Pretty typical of your style. Toss out something that you can’t back up, and then try to pretend that you have too much dignity to answer.

Maybe GeeDubya will try that! Wouldn’t that be great!

“My fellow Merkins! I lied through my teeth, got a bunch of your kids killed, and God only knows how many Iraqis killed. But I’m the President, and I dont have to answer any snotty trick questions from people who might misrepresent and mischaracterize my answers. Look! Over there! Shiny!”

Yeah, that’ll work.

304

Good. Now stick to it this time. No more bullshit about–and I quote–how the lying motherfuckers played “fast and loose with the facts,” how “Bush defrauded himself,” and how they were “negligent with information.”

It’s not merely a “suggestion” that you abandoned the concession of “deliberate deception” at the first opportunity. Your post, 11/26/03, 8:30 pm says NOTHING about those lies. Instead, you defend the “integrity” of the lying motherfuckers with reference to your own alleged “integrity”; apologize for their conduct on the basis that “it’s easy to be negligent with information which contradicts your viewpoint”; and pigheadedly claim that “one of the people Bush defrauded was himself.”

Not one goddamn word about how they looked us right in the eye and deliberately lied to us about the reasons for this damn fool war.

You should just make this your sig line. That’ll save you the trouble of retyping it every time somebody calls you on your bullshit.

305

“…shell any peas…” Man, that is so Iowa!

306

Wow. what a thread… and I realized that the media has completely stopped talking about WMDs or the lack thereof.

307

Winter is coming, friend. Frozen lakes. Snowmobiles. Minnesota’s system of natural selection. Be careful, man.

308

Spav:

I’m not playing word games. My justification isn’t based on legalese. It’s based on changing the world and wiping out terrorism.

That’s a good question. I apologize that I can’t give you a simple answer. The correct answer is complex, but nonetheless true.

How do you fight the terrorists? How do you prevent another 9/11? How do you change the world and a culture so that terrorism is no longer viable? How do you threaten or punish the terrorists? A terrorist is cheap and low-tech and they don’t seem to mind getting martyred.

Well-first off you have to make it clear that countries that support or help terrorists are not long for this world. So, we retaliated in Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power. This is good. It sends a clear message. Harbor or aid terrorists and you’ll be destroyed.

The second thing you have to do is say that the world has changed, that there’s a new deal, and you have to make it stick.

You have to make clear that certain things that played in the past will no longer be allowed to play.

If you are a tyrranical dictator, and you are going to cause trouble in the region, and you’ve played games trying to get nukes and demonstrated a desire to get and use things like nerve gas, nukes, and chemical weapons, and you applaud terrorists and support them even if it’s just morally, and if you cause us to get worried that you might be a threat… or give some bad stuff to terrorists, or help them out… We are not going to wait until something bad happens.

If you do these things or things like them you are going to earn our attention. Once you’ve earned that attention it’s not going to be easy to make it go away.

We are going to come to and tell you that you need to clean up your act, because this is war, and in war you do not leave threats to mature. You go after them proactively.

If you have done these things, and you have earned our attention and you play games with us and do not comply swiftly and completely we will end your regime.

That we will do this you can bank on.

That’s the message that has to be sent, I beleive. We sent Saddam that message, and he fucked around, and he challenged us on it, and some of our allies challenged us on it.

But we had to do it, and we had to make it stick.

The alternative is to prove that we will sit and wait and won’t act until after the fact.

What we are saying is that after the fact no longer cuts it. The rules have changed.

So, Saddamm is an example and a warning, and I beleive that his noncompliance and defiance and history meant that we had to take him out.

The third thing we have to do is get people to like us. Invading a country may seem an odd way of doing this, but past enemies often become close friends.

If we allow Iraq to become free and properous, and the people to become educated and informed the radical ingnorant muslim extremism won’t have much fertile ground for recruits. Terrorism breeds from misery. If you are living in ignorant poverty and your family and yourself is suffering, being a hero and earning rewards for your family and a place in heaven is attractive. It’s easy to hate Americans if they are prosperous and strong and you are not.

If the choice is between poverty and misery or glorified martyrdom fighting the great Satan, martyrdom has its attractions.

If you’ve been educated enough to see the bullshit of this martyrdom, if you know it will bring the downfall of your country and family and more misery, if choice is not between misery and martyrdom, martyrdom is less attractive.

If prosperity peace self-determination and pride is the choice, martyrdom doesn’t have much of a chance.

A prosperous and free Iraq is an advertisement. It is a warning against being our enemy and a reward for being our friend. It proves that those who portray us as the evil satan are liars.

309

Yeah, sure, but it keeps the riff-raff out. They usually stay…further south.

310

You made the claim. A vociferous one, at that. At least one example, cited or not, would help your credibility.

Because credibility is important. Because it would illustrate that you accept responsibility for your own statements. Because it would show that you have at least a minimal respect for fact. Because it would show that you have at least a minimal willingness to accept that your own positions, or the ones Rush gives you, just might not be right. Because, in short, it would demonstrate that, despite all appearances, you’re not totally a hate-filled, weaseling, goddamned liar. That enough reason for you to back it up?

You like that word, don’t you? Know what it means? Prepared to offer an example?

If you have the time to keep up the invective, you have time to state a few of the facts that led you to make the statement you did. Or retract it, like an adult would. Your choice - and when you make it, be aware of how many people read these threads and base their judgments of the participants’ character on them.

And on preview, it appears you’re still repeating the lie that Saddam was a sponsor of the 9/11 terrorists. Perhaps you really are that gullible.

311

So you were just being a pain in the ass.

This is why I was ignoring you when you were you yanking on my pants leg insistently telling me has to pee.

“Tell me the perfidy, Scylla. Tell me the perfidy.”

So I say “Do you really have to pee, elucidator? Do you really mean this. Do you really need an example of war opposition perfidy.” I take you to the bathroom, and… sure enough, you don’t have to pee.

So stop yanking on my pants leg and telling me you have to pee, when you don’t. Please?

312

As a matter of fact, he didn’t.

I now realize that in your lust for Scylla’s blood you’re either incapable or unwilling to read what was written. It’s apparently much easier for you to lie about it and make Scylla or someone else waste their time proving it to you, which you then denounce as continued bullshit, requiring someone to explain to you why you’re wrong, etc., etc.

Hell of a circle you’ve constructed there.

313

Minty:

You’re lying, misrepresenting what I say, and not returning either courtesy or good faith, that I beleive I’ve earned in this thread. You’ve devolved to name calling.

Until you’ve addressed these lapses and assured me they’re not going to happen again, they are the only issue I’m willing to discuss with you.

314

No, he doesn’t say “Sadam was a sponsor of 9/11” directly.

But he does seem to say it indirectly.

315

“America - Love Us or We’ll Kill You!”

You realize, of course, that by your reasoning India has every right to nuke Pakistan tomorrow. “Hey, they hate us! They might do something, someday.” Why should Israel permit Syria to exist? Why should anybody?

Ah, what a bright and glorioius future you outline for us all! Albeit brief.

Did you get your geopolitical outlook from that Randy Newman song? He was kidding, you know.

upon preview

Boy, you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. You make some bold claim to terrible lies told by the opponents of war. I busted you immediately. “Bring it on” sez I. “Show us what you got” And you still ain’t got diddlysquat. 'Cause if you had, you would have brought it.

I wouldn’t let you get away with it, wouldn’t let you pretend that you were too busy answering serious questions. And then, to top it off, you try this pathetic attempt to portray me as an annoying child with a bladder problem.

You can’t take it, ain’t my problem. You dish out the bullshit, you’re gonna get busted. Can’t take it, too bad. I got about twenty years on you, and, buddy, your shit is weak. And the only one who doesn’t know it is you.

316

I usually stay way the hell away from these threads, but I’d just like to note that IMHO, lokij nailed it, back there at the bottom of page 5.

317

Scylia, I thank you for a straight answer. Allow me a few comments.

First, if indeed your ‘big dog," shoot one for the edification of the others justification for the invasion and occupation is correct, is there some reason that our President did not simply explain it in those terms–that The New World Order means that the US is in charge of the world and anybody who doesn’t like it better make sure their life insurance is up to date–that the US must invade and occupy Iraq because we need to make and example of Iraq so that others will not challenge our authority? If that is the justification aren’t the American people and international opinion entitled to the truth?

Second, do you realize the implications of what you are saying?

Third, I know of no one who says that the invasion of Afghanistan to remove the quasi-government that was sheltering BinLaden was not a legitimate exercise of power in the interests of defeating a clear and present danger to the nation. But Iraq as a clear and present danger?

318

drewbert:

After reading it again, I think you’re right. That was a pretty good synopsis. If I hadn’t been too busy arguing I might have noticed that.

319

Isn’t that what the whole point of this thread is? You wanted a concession on this point, and you got it, a long time ago. Iraq wasn’t a clear and present danger. They were just a step in the “War on Terror”. So, I’m confused as to why it’s still being brought up.

320

Because, Airman, Iraq was, at worst, a conjectural, speculative, incoherent threat and was for all intents and purposes being contained by the sanctions regime. Because I suspect that, to use an analogy, the invasion of Iraq had about as much to do with removing a clear and present danger of terrorist action against the United States as the conversion of heathen souls had to do with the Spanish Conquest.