I’m missing something here. Please help me out.
The lie made it a legal war? England needed to be duped in to it?
So speaketh the Paris Hilton of SD politics.
Scylla, I’m embarrassed for you. But that doesn’t mean I want you to stop. Jesus.
Why thank you… I wondered if anybody actually read that… I so rarely post that I guess I get lost in the shuffle sometimes. ;>
Nah, that’d require more moral courage than Scylla has. It’s far easier to weasel your way out of an ethical dilemma than to readjust your values in the face of a known lie.
The First Gospel of Scylla, 1 through 7
Did you invest in GlurgeGurgitator 2004 without my knowledge? BTW: I can still make out a chunk of Churchill and one of The Gipper’s ears. You might need a new Spin Blade?
To the Crowd: Are you guys really buying this rap?
Didn’t I see this with my kid some years back? Didn’t they call it Pinky and the Brain
Richard Perle: Are you pondering what I’m pondering, Mr. President?
Bush: I think so, Brain. But do we really have enough hegemony in our hedge fund? Narf! What are we gonna do tonight, Brain?
Richard Perle: Same thing we do every night, Mr. President! Plot to take over the world!
It was real funny then. 'Course, there weren’t any corpses scattered around…
Gee, you think maybe, Scylla? You think maybe the same damn thing we have been tellling you for six goddam months may be the truth?
Wow! You’re deep, guy.
I fed this into the Google translator:
and the English translation was:
Who honestly expected anything different from this pathetic piece of shit attention whore?
But what the USA did was ok? Think about that paragraph. You can almost use that for the USA at this point. They lied to the world to get into Iraq, they have WMD, nerve gas, nukes. They’ve supported terrorists towards other countries. The USA gave Saddam, OBL and the Taliban large sums of money and support. The USA operates research facilities for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -and continues to develop such weapons.
The difference has always been this was ok at the end of the day because US defended freedom and stood for truth.
But, in 3 short years, the USA on the world stage has gone from trying to hold the “protector of freedom” role into the role of the aggressor. It has now been shown the USA will lie to the world and WILL engage in pre-emtive strikes.
To me, this is far worse then police who lie to a judge for a search warrent to kick open a drug dealers door. This gives the USA a form of tyrannt status.
What makes Bush invading Iraq on a lie better then Saddam invading Kuwait?
Someone in this thread mentioned three options the USA had to invade Iraq. Either force the vote and invade without due cause, back off or find some other legal justification. The WMD were supposed to be the “other legal justification”. But as these were fabrications, that brings us back to point one: an illegal war.
Considering the USA is a large and powerful country, this makes other countries quite nervous. Nervous countries make more weapons and want to develop larger weapons.
USA invading Iraq on a fabrication does not fight terrorists, it helps promote the terrorists point: That the USA is in fact an evil country that should be attacked.
I think the USA will see far more attacks now then ever before. I also think invading Iraq on the fabrication of “protecting America” will, in the long run, cause more damage to American soil, it’s people and it’s allies.
The Iraqi’s don’t see the USA as defenders of their freedom, they see them as the people who are kicking open the doors of their homes and sticking guns in their face. They want the US out of their country. While many didn’t want Saddam, they also don’t want the government the USA wants to install. So what difference does it matter to them?
It was a mistake to invade Iraq on the first day, it is a mistake now and in 5 years it will still be a mistake.
Personally, I’d rather see the US President getting blowjobs then getting people killed and tearing families (and the country) apart. George lied to the US people from day one when he said he was “a unifier, not a divider.” I think that man has created a giant canyon between the American people and an even larger one between the Christian and Islamic cultures.
At what point does one become a war criminal? Could fabricating justifacations for war be considered the proverbial “gateway drug” that takes the user from something “not so bad” into worse things?
I’m sorry if I see this as much more then a simple lie. Clinton lied. He lied about getting his knob sucked. But what Bush has done falls under something much worse in my book. The entire thing makes me angry and Bush might as well be wiping his arse with the American flag because he is going against everything it stands for.
Scylla:
Come come now. Exclude the middle much? There’s a world of difference between choosing to no longer support Bush, on the one hand, and “joining the revolution,” on the other.
I don’t expect you to change your “philosophies and beliefs” as a result of your admission, and I never said I did. I said that I expected such an admission on your part to also have practical consequences in the real world. If not, your admission is really worthless, and this discussion just so much hot air.
Specifically, I expected your admission to lead you to reassess the Bush administration, strongly condemn his lying ass, and work to help boot the lying piece of shit out of office. I mean, come on dude, I’ve been waiting for this since June or so; 6 months, and for what? To listen to you prattle on about how yeah, he was lying, but I support him (and the war) anyway? Well, I’m underwhelmed by your useless admission, I must say. Look at Airman; formerly an ardent supporter of Bush (I think), he’s planning to vote against him in 04, regardless of the opposing candidate. That’s a real world consequence. Or Mona Lott:
There you go. A consequence. She’s holding her leaders accountable.
But you? No way, apparently. In fact, I have yet to even see you condemn the fact that he lied. You seem rather to want to justify it, rationalize it, explain it away.
Consider lokji’s frighteningly undemocratic argument: Bush had to lie because the people are too lazy, stupid, and unconcerned to support his agenda otherwise. Clearly, if his analysis is correct, then the Bush administration has little more than contempt for democracy and the democratic values the US supposedly represents. He is not interested in putting his case before the people in open and honest debate, and letting them (us) decide whose arguments hold most merit. He would rather co-opt the democratic process with spin, misrepresentation, and outright lies.
And you support him!
Tis a crumb, but at least it’s something. I cannot for the life of me understand, however, how you could characterize Bush as “the lesser of two evils” compared to practically any other possible candidate, Democrat or Republican. Fucking Pigasus could do a better job.
I’m going to hop now to your reply to Spavined:
Well, perhaps more specifically, how might one go about fighting against Al Queda? As noted previously, Clinton did quite a lot on that front. Of course, obviously, if your going to fight Al Queda, you should start by actually fighting Al Queda – not by invading a country that has absolutely nothing to do with Al Queda whatsoever.
But note how useful it is to talk about “terrorism,” rather than Al Queda. The field of focus is immediately enlarged to include, well, basically, just about anybody we want to include. Anybody can be a terrorist if we choose to call them one.
Dunno. Invade Iraq, is that your answer?
I doubt that can be done. Never has happened before in history.
But there are very strong arguments that current US actions are having the opposite affect: they are enhancing the conditions for “terrorism,” especially anti-American terrorism.
What a load of crock. Consider the latest bombings. The invasion of Afghanistan has had virtually no effect on terrorism. And what countries don’t support terrorism, really? The list is short – fucking hell, the US supports terrorism when it’s in its own interests. We supported Saddam Hussein, remember?
That’s madness, Scylla. If anything, the opposite is happening; the invasion of Iraq has strengthened the hand of “failed”/”rogue” states. The US is now completely bogged down in Iraq; and extremely vulnerable, my friend. Other regional and world powers are gleefully supporting Iraqi opposition, because it is in their interest to see the US fail. We no longer have the resources to challenge such a state anywhere else – not without a draft, at the very least.
And there we have it, ladies and gentleman, in all its glory. Beautiful, right wing double-think at it very finest.
Saddam did not “fuck around.” The US government sent a message – destroy all your “WMDs.” Saddam complied. And he told us so. And then, by your own admission, the US government went about concocting a pack of lies about Saddam “fucking around,” as a pretext for invasion. The claim that Saddam “fucked around” is a lie. He did not.
But now afterwards, you finally admit that it was all a pack of lies, only to turn around and continue to use those lies as justification for the war.
Somebody’s fucking around here, alright, but it ain’t Saddam.
Christ, I leave this thread alone for a few days and come back to find some of the biggest piles of steaming shit I’ve yet to hear.
His history of WMD? You mean his debatable use (there are some good arguments it actually was the Iranians) with samples that were given to him by the United States?
So to recap, possibly using something once = History
Riiiiiight.
**
Oh whoops, our bad! :rolleyes:
**
Making assumptions is one thing, acting on them is another.
**
Cocked and loaded? Hell, the bullet wasn’t even in the gun, and the gun didn’t even exist.
**
Isn’t that what those filthy French and Germans wanted?
**
The inspectors didn’t find much because it turns out that Saddam didn’t have much. Of course Saddam had no credibility, that’s why the inspectors were there. The bigger problem is that we were already on a timetable for war, because we had to get ass kicking before the summer or we’d wait another year. If anything we should have given France and the rest of them what they wanted, another 60 days, before we went in.
**
Yeah, oops :rolleyes:
**
Yes and the scary thing is, this was the best the best justification they could come up with, as I’ll assume they wanted to use their most convincing argument.
Not only did you guys (looking at Scylla as well) eat the bullshit hook, line, and sinker, you’re too stupid to even care.
World Eater, I fucking conceded the goddamn point and yet you feel the need to insult me, to get in a few more jibes?
Fuck you. I hope you’re never wrong, because I’ll be there to cash your chips, being an arrogant fucking prick the whole time like you’re being right now.
drewbert, lokij: interesting stuff. Similar to the nuanced justifications for this that have been brought forth by LondonCalling. Not saying that I agree, but obviously some good thought went into that post, as opposed to the usual crap being spewed by the congenitally dishonest. Kudos.
Svin:
It’s been a pleasure talking to you, and a pleasure talking with Spav. A few others have shown good faith and courtesy, like Wring.
Unfortunately y’all are an exception.
There’s a crowd here who’s primary interest here is to belittle attack and insult and partake in a pile on. For me, it’s drowning out the rest.
I theorize that there’s a growing absence of conservative political thought to debate with on these boards, because the environment is too hostile for dissent.
It does bother me to be attacked and called names. There’s an awful lot of insults and acrimony being thrown at me, and, in the final analysis it makes it not fun.
So, I apologize for your good thoughts and those of others that I don’t I’m going to address, as they deserve to be.
Scylla,
I’m one of the people who thought you had already conceded enough back in October not to deserve a Thanksgiving pile on and I don’t think you need to change your political ideology or become a Democrat in order to preserve your integrity.
I am surprised, though, that you still think the invasion was justified even though you’ve kinda sorta conceded that it wasn’t entirely legal. I thought that conceding that Bush lied about WMDs was the same as conceding that the war wasn’t justified.
Let me ask you this:
if GWB tells you next that Iran is an imminent threat and must be invaded will you believe him again?
My fellow 'mercans,
this is Chewbacca…
I didn’t see any concession, but feel free to point me in the direction of one.
You’ve mentioned a few times that you still agree with this war, and that it was still the right thing to do. Now that we’ve removed WMD from the equation, what other justification does this war have? And if it’s because we are nice people, why would Iraqis deserve freedom any more then say, North Koreans?
Lastly you never answered this.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
*Airman, a simple question for you. Do you recognize the difference between the following?[ul][li]Negligently telling someone something that turns out not to have been correct. []Deliberately lying in order to accomplish an objective that the listeners would not otherwise have accepted.[/ul]**[/li][/QUOTE]
Scylla: The lie has to be maintained, and even if you have acknowledged one facet of it, the reality is that your heroes continue feeding it. Same thing goes for Al-Queda connections with Iraq.
You want to say that you already got that WMD was a fib. However, that and other lies that continue to say that Iraq was a key for the war on terror, do continue to be maintained by the administration.
There are very compelling reasons why Iraq was a monumental error. What I see is that you are, if not weaseling, uncertain of what it means. (I mean, how can I be right in your own words, and then pages later be wrong?)
This whole Iraq thing looks like Veggietale’s Larry boy and the fib from outer space:
as I saw recently in a FOX report regarding Iraq and Al-Queda connections, the lies are getting bigger and bigger.
“a lie can trap you, but the truth will set you free!” – Larry boy. (but I think he was paraphrasing Jesus there 
)
Orwell was wrong, to maintain power you don’t need to force people into believing a lie to make them love big brother; what we have here is Big brother lying to us and telling us to ignore it too, can you feel the love?
This is NOT an academic exercise, for any of us. Bullshit can’t be allowed because it’s deadly, not just because it’s false:
Al Qaeda
is badly wounded, but far from defeated
Bush should have been spending Thanksgiving in Afghanistan, where our security interests were truly threatened. If 87 bil was going to be spent, it should have been spent there.
Instead, because of the dishonesty and incompetence of this tinpot generalissimo and his equally dishonest minions, we’re everywhere but where we need to be.
Awwww, pobrecito! A poor innocent set upon by vicious and heartless Liberals. When, oh when, will they cease to “misrepresent” and “mischaracterize” our own Rebecca of Donnybrook Farm. The very paragon of decorum and polite discourse, cruelly mistreated! One would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud
Yeah, you said that before. What you can’t seem to come with is a rationale, why a board that attracts intelligent and educated people is hostile to your point of view. Must be those college professors conspiring wth the liberal media. Yeah. That must be it.
Huh? Whaaa? Did you translate that sentence into Japanese, and back again? Well, heck, as long as you’re here singing “Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina”, maybe you could list all those perfidious lies the war opponents are spreading around?
Look, its very simple. You start slinging bullshit you can’t back up, I’m gonna bust you. Gleefully. If you then try to compare me to a little kid about to pee his pants, the gloves come off.
Don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.