Where have you been? I conceded a long time ago.
In retrospect, I guess I shouldn’t have said that we don’t look, it’s more like most of us don’t respond. Of course I look, I just refuse to get into an argument that was long ago decided.
Going in without a clear cut plan, perhaps.
But I have a hard time accepting that doing nothing while others suffer and one has the power to intervene is the correct choice of action. Given time, Saddam, his sons, and whatever lunatics followed them in the role of dictatorship, would eventually rack up a death count that would have rivaled anything that we will manage to do in our short time there.
I am not putting forth the arguement that the world is fair or that the US acted for altrustic reasons.
But I don’t miss the Baath party at all. I wish I had had the opporunity to not miss it much sooner.
While I commend your desire to end human suffering as we know it, it ain’t gonna happen.
What I am saying is that there is no spin that has been put on this war that is not questionable at best. It is distressing to see so many people duped.
Certainly not world wide. But in specific instances it can.
With regard to the spin that comes from the White House, I agree.
So to get this straight, the President of the United States lied to his citizens, started a war that we had no reason to start, squandered away the international goodwill of 9/11, and overextended our military around the globe, all while ringing up a big fat deficit.
Least the Baath party is out of power though. :rolleyes:
Btw, these people could seriously not give less of a fuck about the Iraqi citizens. Really, they are simply pawns in the greater scheme of things.
Unfortunately, I doubt the people you are speaking to care very much, being as they seem to consider it unforgivable weakness if the US acknowledges any opinions from the rest of the world that might disagree with the administration’s policies.
I’ve gotta say I think Mr. S written one of the better OP’s I’ve seen on this subject, and it’s too bad it was launched in the Pit, rather than GD. I don’t really see the ‘gloating’ that some here have been moaning about, but if the intention was to get some of the administration’s die-hard defenders to finally admit they were wrong on the justifications for invading Iraq, it’ll never happen.
For me, the best lesson to take away from all this is the way the defenders of the administration’s mendacious behavior illustrate the pitfalls of arguing points on partisan, rather than logical, grounds.
Yes, I know, the only terrorism that matters is who actually piloted the planes into the WTC. Funding terrorists, arranging meetings with terrorists, giving terrorists refuge, etc., is all irrelevant.
Feel free to Google “Saddam al Qaeda” for yourself. As I’ve said – but I’m used to typing in the vacuum of space – the world of Muslim terrorism is interconnected. I’m not divining that or dousing it. I just read articles available in print or electronic form. I’d suggest reading less propaganda sites and do some real research into the world of the Islamists.
So MI5 are mistaken because Beagle read some articles…?
Osama and Al Qaeda attacked us and killed 3000 of our people. Saddam did not. See the difference, Beagle?
But… but… Beagle must have been right! When I did a Google search on “Saddam al Qaeda” I came up with lots of hits!
I guess MI5 still uses Yahoo. Colin Powell too.
As I’ve said before:
a bad cop can collar a real criminal using corrupt methods. In that case, we ought to be glad the criminal is collared, and then we ought to fire the bad cop.
SH is a very, very bad human being, and the Baath party were an atrocity, and I’m extremely glad they’re no longer in power.
However, the means used to get us to this point don’t justify the ends, and there are consequences besides Hussein’s ouster that must be considered. Far from making America safer, this war has endangered American lives, revitalized anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, and further damaged the US reputation around the world. Had the US government not lied (and when you pressure your intelligence agencies to exaggerate or spin thier intelligence, that’s lying), had it not bullied, had it not gone ahead in a practically unilateral fashion instead of operating under the UN as it properly should have done, then we’d be in a much better position in the world.
Svinlesha, my respect for your leet OP skillz just grows and grows. I’d like to see some of the people saying, “peaceniks were meanies too!” step up to the plate and name names. If you want to excoriate me for something specific I said, by all means do it; but don’t make vague accusations based on flimsy evidence and expect me to fall for it.
Daniel
It’s just bizarre that he maintains this absurd mantra. Example - and never mind the near 50-50 split on this board on the subject att he time, given that those who actually go out on the streets are considered the tip of public opinion and, then, that one and a half million marched (against the war of aggression against Iraq) in London alone on one day, what **Sam Stone ** says is utter garbage. Again.
He kind of read like’ I was suckered so that must mean everyone else must have been because I know at least as much as they all do’
I’m sorry but he demonstrates it so often, he has to identified as a genuine fool on matters political.
Tell us one more time Sam how it’s still not about oil ?
…and PA, and the Pentagon, and the Cole, and the embassies, etc, etc
The people that did this are an immediate threat, while Saddam fucking Hussein and those (pinky to mouth) eviiiiiiiiiiil Baathists who also happen to be some real scumbags, are not.
See, we get it, SH is asshole. What you fail to grasp is that he’s an asshole who had nothing to do with those other assholes. And for god sake don’t tell me he’s evvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiil, I know, and I don’t care, it has nothing to do with anything.
The onus is on you to prove a connection, not for me to prove that there isn’t one.
For the purposes of this discussion we’ll assume there isn’t a link unless one is proven. Shit, I’ll even go for a good theory, bring it on.
<putting on tinfoil hat>
The world of Muslim terrorism may be interconnected to a degree, but Cobra command they’re not.
World Eater:
See, this is the mistake we keep making. Your question presupposes that Beagle, or others of his persuasion, are actually capable of providing you with something like a rational response. You ask this question with the expectation that Beagle will reply by providing a set of logical arguments, for example, based on some sort of evidence.
Yet this group of idiots are in fact completely incapable of such a feat. Instead, they cite some unsubstantiated garbage by Coulter or Drudge, along with a few sophomoric ruminations, and conclude by calling anyone who disagrees with them a “Bush hater,” or “reflexively un-American.”
Okay, fine, I can even live with that. It’s when they accuse me of doing precisely what they themselves are doing that I begin to lose it. It’s like they have this mantra in their heads: “I do it, and then I deny that I do it and accuse you of it instead.” So then we have someone like Richard Pearl – a right-wing ideologue if ever there was one, whose virtually every prediction concerning Iraq has turned out to be wildly off the mark – accusing someone like Wesley Clark – whose testimony on Iraq turned out to be almost spookily accurate, at least on some points – of being “hopelessly confused.” It was, in fact, Pearl, who was confused.
The same here, as well, all too often. I’m beginning to develop a theory – if someone accuses you of “denying reality” in one of these debates, it’s because he/she is excessively prone to denying reality. If someone accuses you of partisanship, you can almost take for granted that it’s because they’re blinded by partisanship. And so on.
Also, I’m just in awe of their ability to assume the rhetorical high ground. If you go back and review the quotes in my OP, you’ll see lots of “Boy, you democrats sure are dumb,” “we sure are smarter than you are,” “you guys sure are confused – no wonder your marginalized,” and so on. I guess it’s in the nature of things that ideologues assume they are correct a priori. Your debating opponent is snidely certain that he knows, and he deigns to talk down to you, despite his lack of solid evidence and the gaping holes in his logic.
In that sense, we who opposed the war have really caught a break. Because I assure you that had Kay’s inspectors found anything – a few old chemical shells, a few more centrifuge components, or anything like a slightly more extensive bio-warfare program – we’d never be having this conversation. Were we to say something like, “Yeah, well, you know, a hundred chemical mortar shells hardly comprise a serious threat to the US,” we’d be subject to a barrage of comments like:
It’s only in the face of a total intelligence fiasco – such as the one we have now – that those of us who opposed the war have had a chance in these debates. Even then, it’s still a struggle.
Princhester:
I like that.
Nice one.
Beagle:
Really?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to suggest a few titles, or provide us an annotated bibliography of well-balanced, non-propagandized source material?
Finally: thanks to everyone for the kind words regarding the OP.
I’ll weigh in on this. I was against the war from the get-go on the basis that :
-
other than nukes, the alleged “WMDs” were not really WMDs at all. Rather, they were chemical and biological weapons that were not reliable and were difficult to diperse;
-
that even if Saddam had such weapons, because of the statement above, Iraq was not an immediate and urgent threat to the U.S. (Yes, I know Dubya never said “urgent and immediate threat”, but he certainly said enough to give us that impression).
-
that I was highly suspicious of this administration’s motives for a war with Iraq. It was common knowledge even before the O’Neil story that Dubya had a personal grudge against Saddam for trying to get his daddy.
-
the administration has always, despite what they say now, tried to link Iraq with 9/11 despite the absence of any such credible evidence.
-
nation building is not a good idea. we aren’t any good at it. its dangerous and expensive. In addition, even though I certainly concede that Saddam was an “evil doer”, we knew what we were dealing with, and at least he wasn’t a religous extremist. I suspected his ouster would allow such extremists to gain a foothold in Iraq and create a breeding ground for terrorists.
-
it took valuable resources and focus away from Afghanistan.
I have to go to lunch, so maybe I’ll try to post some link to show that I was pretty much right on all these issues. We got into this mess based on faulty intelligence because the Bushies only wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. If they were told that Saddam hadn’t really purchased uranium from Africa they didn’t want to hear it, and demonstrated that point by outing a CIA op. They didn’t want to be told that the almuminum tubes weren’t ideal for missiles. Etc. etc etc.
We should have only gone in there if there was an overabundence of intelligence.
Do a few chemical mortars (which don’t exist by the way), and a model plane held together with ducttape ('scuse me I mean an unamanned aerial biological agent distributing drone) really demand the need to premptively attack a country?
And, yes, I haven’t forgotten that SH is an evvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiil man.
So how exactly does this premption thing work now?
Can North Korea nuke us now? If they see us as a threat, they don’t need a “Permission slip” do they?
Does India or Pakistan need one?
Just remember this, payback is a bitch.
Well that’s close. The US had a reason to start the war (well finish it actually).
Had you the pleasure of being hung by your thumbs while receiving electric shocks to your feet in one of Saddam’s jail cells you would more fully appreciate the significance of that.
But I suppose since I mumbled above that the US had a reason for its actions, you are no doubt all on the edge of your seat waiting for me to explain what that reason was. Well perhaps not, but I’ll ramble on for a bit anyway.
This is the world as Blackclaw sees it and as Blackclaw has begun to talk about himself in 3rd person, one can wonder about his sanity on a number of levels.
Long ago there existed a bunch of unhappy people. Come to think of it, there have always been unhappy people. Well anyway, these people lived in a kingdom. Sadly, this tale doesn’t have any princesses in it nor dragons. It’s a shame really, because dragons can add a lot to a story. Well there are A-10 Warthogs in this story later. They are kind of like dragons. Anyway, this kingdom placed absurd rules upon its people based upon the interpretations of a long dead cleric who thought he knew what an ancient religion really meant. These thoughts were transformed into a fanaticism that once created a situation in which school girls were chased back into a burning building because they were not dressed properly to go out in public. Upon this terrible absurdity rested a bloated royal class who are not bound by the rules of others and who receive wealth simply because of the luck of their birth. They squander this wealth while the country is economically stagnant and the future for most of the population is dim. As the population grows angry, the Royals directed that anger away from themselves and instead point out the misdeeds of a nearby nation called Israel that does not share the same faith. But as that nation was small and its continued strength in comparison to that of the kingdom was embarrassing, a greater enemy had to be blamed. So the blame was passed on to… oh let’s say it’s a giant. This talk of nations is a bit dull so we’ll say it’s a giant named… Sam.
Sam was not a stupid giant. Others might disagree, but they fail to understand that Sam was a really big giant. Everyone wanted his attention. Everyone insisted that he do things for them. But Sam was in most ways just like an ordinary person. He wanted to do his own stuff. Plus sometimes when Sam tried to help, he accidentally stomped on everything.
At first Sam wasn’t very supportive of Israel. When Israel and Sam’s friends… um Tommy and Pierre tried to attack the Egyptians, Sam made them stop. But then another giant rose up named Ivan. And all the Arab states seemed to like Ivan while Israel claimed to like Sam. there are complicated reasons for this, and one cannot say that Sam didn’t make some mis-steps. Sam never really understood the Arab states, but the Israelis were a bit culturally closer to what Sam understood. And Sam always liked a fiesty underdog. So Sam helped Israel out and the Arab states grew to hate Sam.
So now Sam was blamed for why the Arab states were a mess. The failed leaders who made the Arab states a mess made sure of this. But this got out of hand in that kingdom I talking about earlier.
What? No, there’s no love story between a frog and a princess.
Just finish the damn thing up without the fairy tale garbage? Ok, fine.
A bunch of lunatics, mostly from Saudi Arabia attacked the US. More lunatics are being created because of the miserable state that Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states are in. The US cannot attack Saudi Arabia for religious and economic reasons. But there is a nasty neighbor that lives next door called Iraq. A nasty neighbor whose aggressive existance had forced the deployment of US forces in the region and thus causing more tension. If Iraq could be transformed into a shining light of democracy, those troops could be withdrawn and pressure would be put on the other Arab states to reform once their people saw how wonderful Iraq had become.
Far fetched? Um yeah. Maybe it will work out in 10 years. But I fear that we have never understood Arab culture and this lack of understanding has resulted in considerable chaos. There isn’t any magic that is going to suddenly turn Iraq into a democracy. It will take years and years of long hard work. Trying to transform the Middle East with blood and cash with only a marginal chance of success isn’t exactly the plan that was laid out to the US public.
What would have been a better plan? I don’t know. At some point, we had to deal with the Baath party. They were never a threat to the US mainland, but they were a threat to an economic resource that we and the world rely on. Iraq was tying up considerable US forces in host nations that didn’t want us there.
Blood for oil? Like it or not oil is the lifeblood of all modern nations right now. I got to work today because of oil. I’m not freezing to death because of oil. Oil is needed to manufacture everything we use and to transport it to where we need it. Hopefully that will change one day, but the US was not going to roll the dice and hope that in a decade or two Saudi Arabia had not collapsed from within and that Iraq would not be in a position to take advantage of that chaos. There should be no mistake that Saddam had ever given up his hope of being the Great unifying Pan-Arabic leader nor that his sons would not have tried to rise to that mantle.
The first Iraq war never ended. It has continued for 12 years and I hope it ends soon.
Enough rambling. My congrats to those of you who managed to read through it. I suppose there should have been a prize. And I never really got to the part about the dragons. Sorry about that.