Iran Cleric Urges Iraqi Suicide Attacks
Combat over, but there’s no peace in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld says most of country is secure, but citizens disagree
In related news:
I just came back from a weekend trip.
And RedFury still loses.
If I may, I’ll summarize the thread as follows:
[ul][li]OP says :War is stupid and insane", gives a bunch or reasons why this most recent war was wrong and ways it could be avoided.[/li][li]Counterarguments arise that some of the OP’s poinrts are simplistic or incorrect.[/li][li]RedFury jumps in, defending the OP.[/li][li]OP makes pro-Saddam statements that are, to be kind, nutty.[/li][li]Nutty statements prompt sarcastic replies, and further couterarguments are raised.[/li][li]RedFury begins making condescending statements and strongly implies that anyone who disagrees with him is either stupid or deceitful (i.e. describing one poster as an “unquestioning soldier”, as well as claiming to another: “you’ve allied yourself with a campaign based on lies and deceit, wrapped around one of the oldest known propaganda ploys, tugging at you most basic instincts, raw nationalism (not to be confused with patriotism), tells me that you have really chosen nothing but to follow blindly.”[/li][li]Realizing that a serious debate is pointless, I commence blatant ridicule, with smiling bandit and Yeticus chiming in.[/li][li]RedFury attempts counter-ridicule while at the same time restating his points.[/li][li]No-one cares.[/li][li]Thread dies.[/li][/ul]
RedFury: we can have all the serious debates you want, but when you start implying your opponents are stupid or deceitful, you end up getting one of two things in return:
[ol][li]Oodles of profane abuse, if it’s a Pit Thread, or if it’s a GD thread soon to be closed or moved the the Pit, or[/li][li]Ridicule, as your opponents dismiss your arguments and resort to indirect ad hominem attacks for their own amusement. [/li][/ol]
Whatever point you were trying to make is no longer relevant, since no-one (at the moment) seems willing to argue with you. This doesn’t prove you are correct; it may prove that you’re being obnoxious.
My “opponent” are the actions of the Bush regime, its supporters in this matter, and the pack of insinuations, deceptions and outright lies used to invade Iraq.
And most assuredly, I maintain that one needs to be extremely naive, ignorant, mendacious, incapable of critical thinking or a blind flag-hugging patriot, to believe the offical justifications for this war of choice.
Why just on March 17, with the invasion looming just a few hours away, the US Resident said the following:
…with commenst made just this weekdend:
Now, I suspect some of you – and certainly the WH – would wish all of this would somehow, just “go away,” and thus find people like me “totally obnoxious.”
Well, it won’t. And I can assure you that I am not the only one that won’t let it. There are a growing number of people worldwide that have taken a keen interest in this matter, and thankfully, many of them are in a much better position that I for having their voices heard. In the meantime, I might be relegated to arguing on a message board, sending copious e-mails and helping organize interest groups to keep these matters in the front burner, but it’s the best I can do. And as passionately as I feel about all this, I shall continue to do so without fail.
Being called “obnoxious” and lamely mocked on a BB by a faceless adversary, who obviously lacks any other valid argument – as demonstrated by his early use of the strawman fallacy, which he refused to acknowledge – is the least of my concerns.
On the contrary, it only strengthens my conviction.
On mature reflections, I think I have to take back my words ‘stupid’ and ‘crazy’ as applied to Bush and his colleagues:
The war on Saddam Hussein is stupid and crazy; and Bush and his colleagues are stupid and crazy.
Sincere apologies.
I am following faithfully the discussion in this thread.
And I wish more knowledgeable and learned and concerned readers would contribute their views.
If it means anything to anyone here, I am not a pro-Saddam person.
I am trying to understand war, and I believe we can all men of intelligence and good will think of ways and means to prevent wars – on my part I with my modest mental and moral resources.
Susma Rio Sep
I find it astonishing that due to the current political climate in the US, one needs to constantly post disclaimers such as the above when taking the anti-war stance.
In the meantime, I have yet to meet one “pro-Saddam” advocate. I mean, who the heck supported Saddam to begin with? Sure wasn’t any “pinko-commie-anti-american-liberals” I know.
Hint: look upthread, nice article on Rumsfeld and his meeting with Saddam during the Reagan Administration. Of course, back then he was apparently a “good” dictator even if he was “gassing his own people.” :rolleyes:
I was old when Adam and Eve were newly minted.
Just joking.
Don’t give it any importance.
Susma Rio Sep
Originally posted by RedFury:
==============================================================
(From Susma) If it means anything to anyone here, I am not a pro-Saddam person.
I find it astonishing that due to the current political climate in the US, one needs to constantly post disclaimers such as the above when taking the anti-war stance.
In the meantime, I have yet to meet one “pro-Saddam” advocate. I mean, who the heck supported Saddam to begin with? Sure wasn’t any “pinko-commie-anti-american-liberals” I know.
(…)
I just want to put it on record that I am not a pro-Saddam person; because some people reading these lines from Bryan Ekers, might think that I am:
If I may, I’ll summarize the thread as follows:
* OP says :War is stupid and insane", gives a bunch or reasons why this most recent war was wrong and ways it could be avoided.
* Counterarguments arise that some of the OP's poinrts are simplistic or incorrect.
* RedFury jumps in, defending the OP.
* OP makes pro-Saddam statements that are, to be kind, nutty.
* Nutty statements prompt sarcastic replies, and further couterarguments are raised.
(…)
Yes, I know that Bryan is not alleging that I am a pro-Saddam person in those above lines.
OK?
Let’s have more opinions from more thoughtful, reasonable, learned men of good will.
Susma Rio Sep
Well, I see the teenage Jewish leprechauns are still at work:
Y’know, the people on this thread who disagree with you might be supporting this war for reasons other than the official ones, or at least not exclusively because of the official reasons. I, for one, feel the removal of Saddam was a worthy goal in and of itself and should have been done much sooner. Apparantly, in your view that makes me ignorant and incapable of critical thinking. In that case, why should I (or anyone else) try to reason with you when you insist on insulting us? It’s far more entertaining to simply ridicule you and watch you self-destruct.
Besides, if your “opponent” isn’t the group of people on this board who disagree with you, why are you posting here at all? Have you written letters to your congressman, senator or the president himself?
Are the teenage Jewish leprechauns blocking your outgoing mail?
I loved this part, incidentally:
Faceless, am I? Well, at least I’m using my real name, “Red”. As I understand it, the gist of your argument, such as it is, is the following:
Red: I believe X and anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant.
Opponent: Well, I disagree with you.
Red: Then you are ignorant. QED.
Four of the options the Opponent has are:
[ul][li]Take offense; respond with insults;[/li][li]Respond with reasons and be called “ignorant” again;[/li][li]Respond with ridicule (a well-established tactic on the SDMB); or[/li][li]Do not respond at all.[/ul][/li]
I happened to embrace the third option because you take yourself so damned seriously and you invite ridicule.
Ooops, I’ve started to reason with you. Silly me.
Actually, you are the OP making “pro-Saddam statements” Bryan alludes to in the quoted material. Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time he tries to spin himself out of something he wrote. It’s already happened once in this thread.
Me? I’m just the guy he’s incapable of debating due to lack of cohesive arguments – thus the continuous inane comments.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
quote]
[quote]
Besides, if your “opponent” isn’t the group of people on this board who disagree with you, why are you posting here at all?
[quote]
There’s that reading comprehension problem popping up again. Unless you think there are no “supporters in this matter” on this board.
Well, if you can convince me that nations can go around engaging in “regime change” under er…what exactly? Manifest Destiny? I might change my mind.
OTOH, with all you’ve written here so far, I doubt it.
There’s that reading comprehension problem popping up again. Unless you think there are no “supporters in this matter” on this board.
**
Well, if you can convince me that nations can go around engaging in “regime change” under er…what exactly? Manifest Destiny? I might change my mind.
OTOH, with all you’ve written here so far, I doubt it.
(fixed coding prior post)
…Teenaged jewish leprecauns … 
…oy.
War is stupid and insane.
specifically The War against Saddam as prosecuted by Bush and Comapany is Stupid and Insane. Ergo Bush and company are Stupid and insane.
Lets break this down a bit. The war is stupid because it was done without intelligence or reasons. It was costly and the OP doesnt understand why a govt is spending money by the billions of dollars. Since the OP cant make heads or tails of it, then it must be stupid.
Insane denotes a physical lack of capacity to comprehend reason or reality. There is a detachment from what is actually happening to the response that was given. There is no way to comprehend heads or tails to this and Bush and company are given the benefit of the doubt that they might have done this on purpose so they must be insane.
another person who is reportedly affliating himself with short underaged mythical persons with a peculiar religious denomination has listed an impressive list of questions that need to be answered for him to certify that the war was not stupid or insane. I wont touch him with a 10 foot shillelagh.
The point of all debate here are the reasons for engaging in a war. The fact that the Bush and company had their reasons to starting this war already disproves the “stupid” arguement. If these reasons are illogical to the outside observer maybe because the outside observer does not have all of the information to make sense of it all.
To know the extent of the cruelties, brutalities and indignation that the Iraqi regime has inflicted upon its people, you must have witnesses to them. These people are either exiles or internal spies. Their stories must be corroborated as best as they can without endangering their sources or the resources they used to get them. They must be verified with other witnesses, technology, tracking paperwork, investigating suppliers and dignitaries. WHo does all of that? The CIA among a large group. Who has access to this agency and has power over them? Bush and company. Are these informations that the CIA generates open to the public? No. We only know about what they (Bush and company) allow us to know. They are under no obligation to divulge any of this to the poeple at this present time. What does not makes sense to us, makes perfect sense to them because they have all the information they need to act with reason and clarity. Just because we dont know doesnt mean they didnt know.
But why are all the evil things they let us know about not easily found? Well, its because Saddam had 12 years of practice on how to hide WoMD from people intent on looking for them. Its easier to hide them if Saddam makes up the rules on how to find them but they are still hidden. Since the fall of the Iraqi regime, some 2 weeks ago, the US military has dedicated a significant force to look for these WoMD. The UN inspectors were in Iraq 3 months and found very little. I dont think its ironic to ask for the same amount of time to search for WoMD unimpeded, unrestrained and with full cooperation from the Iraqi administration which was what the US was asking Saddam to do in the first place, during the UN inspections under 1441.
X~Slayer,
Not sure I follow. Are you equating having a reason with not being stupid? IOW, no reasons are stupid. If that’s the case, we disagree.
And what was “actually happening” as pertains to Iraq? Certainly not any of the reasons given. Or at the very least not to the extent that they were trumpeted to the public.
I can’t make heads or tails of the above. Perhaps you could rephrase.
I see. Apparently, no self-respecting pro-war poster can contribute to this thread without making a childish attempt at mocking me. Which just comes to show you that maturity is at a premium in your camp.
I don’t need you to touch me with anything. You could however, take a stab at answering that list of “impressive questions.” But I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to do so.
In the meantime, I’ll take that silence for an answer. Thanks.
I see. Is this anything like the numerous claims prior to the invasion about having hard evidence on the location of the WMD but withholding it from the UNMOVIC inspectors because they didn’t want to “compromise their sources”? Because no such restriction exists right now and yet the imminently threatening WMD are, well, neither imminent nor threatening.
IOW, you’re simply restating, as an article of faith, that Bush & Co. have some super duper extra secret evidence which they can’t show us that justifies this invasion. Presumably, this information is so secret, that only the UK, Spain and Belgium were privy to it inside the UNSC.
Poor French. If that secret information would have been made available to them, they wouldn’t be the butt of the American ire. Then again, perhaps the US showed all the information they had available to them – whether in public or private – and it was still found lacking?
Naw, Occam’s Razor be dammed. You’re Americans and Fearless Leader must be right. Those damn French…and Germans…and Russians…and Chinese…and Mexicans…and Chileans…how utterly daft!
As for the rest of your “argument,” as succinctly stated by yourself in the above quote, it remains along the same lines: we must believe, Dubya said it, so it must be true. Faith is a wonderful thing, indeed, many a war has been waged in its name. What’s one more, right?
I see you’ve also added the “humanitarian” twist – which, again, was never a reason put forth to the UN when making the case for war. And, of course, we’re to conveniently forget all those other totalitarian regimes that the US is presently in bed with. Because a dictator is only “bad to his people” when he disagrees with America. And he becomes super duper bad when he has access to the world’s second largest oil reserves.
Gotcha. Thanks. Why can’t I think of these things on my own?
I don’t know, but some are starting to wonder if they ever existed. Not the real faithful of course, but as you can see in the article linked in my prior post, even some people inside this Administration are starting to doubt that super duper double secret intelligence. Heathens!
Hmm…so Saddam kept all these WMD “hidden” while being invaded by the world’s most powerful military. Who let him know, in no uncertain terms from day one, that they were aiming to kill him and his family. And yet, this “evil madman” thought it best to keep his WMD “hidden” at such a time.
How does that work? Die to fight another day? Interesting tactic – Sun Tzu must be rolling in his grave, he didn’t think of that before.
Let me get this straight. The inspectors say they are a ‘short time away’ from declaring Iraq WMD free, but the US says that is not good enough, because, as quoted in my last post, Bush declares “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised”
And yet, this very same intelligence which was good enough to go to war on, can’t find a WMD if their life’s depended on it? Why to hear Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al. you’d think this “massive stockpiles” would practically be growing on the ground – the danger being, to avoid tripping over them.
Only totally inept people like Blix could manage to miss them.
I guess we have completely different ideas of what constitutes “irony.” Because going to war to get the exact same results you were complaining about in peace time – including the request for more time – is as ironic as things get.
Never mind the fact that you invaded Iraq purporting to enforce UN resolutions, while at the same time ignoring the UN yourselves. Which continues to this day vis-a-vis the rebuilding efforts. But that’s a whole 'nother topic.
Anyway, ridicule away, or try addressing the arguments put forth. The latter would be a refreshing change – but as these thing go, I am not holding my breath.
TTFN.
As I defined “Stupid” it is action without intelligence or reason. Bush and company had a plan based on reasons that the public did not have full access to. It wasnt stupid. They might have been mislead but are not stupid. There was no evidence that they acted contrary to what they already knew.
Exactly, mon ami. not to the extent that was told to the public. That doesnt prove that they had no intelligence.
The OP implied that since it didnt make sense to him, then it must be insane. Just because you cant understand the actions of another, doesnt mean the other is insane.
Well, I got into this late and you guys were off in your own little tangents and I didnt want to interfere with it. I found the jewish leprechaun thing funny. Sue me for having a sense of humor and having one doesnt automatically make me childish.
cool coz im still not touching it.
well now how do you know their sources are still not in danger. The Fedayeen and the Elite republican guard decided to change their clothes not their values. Theyre still out there.
or perhaps france has got its hands caught in the cookie jar.
you proffer a complex conspiracy by an american administration for personal profit and emotional satisfaction and dare quote Occams Razor to me?! Youre the one damning Occams Razor here, not me. The simplest answer here is that no one knows everything, but the ones who do know most of it are the 2 heads of state at odds with each other. One is missing and the other is being accused of wrongdoing.
Hey, prove him wrong with real proof not conspiracy theories, conjecture and finger pointing. Whether he is right or not, the bottom line is Iraq is free of Saddam.
because you dont want to…?
you like making dead people spin, dont you (ok Now I am mocking you…just a little bit) Sun Tzu does have “Fight another day” as a strategy. On the opposite front, Sun Tsu also advocated speed and surprise to catch the enemy unprepared. I would say that a 21 day war is pretty good speed and SURPRISE! it worked.
Because people like Blix cooperated more with Iraq than with his mandate. I can hide a nuclear warhead in my place of work and if I told you when and where to look, you’d certify I was weapons free too. What would the difference be if it took you 3 months or 3 years to do that?
done and done 
Dangerous line of thought. Iraq is Saddam free, so it doesn’t matter whether Bush has been right or wrong?
Well, Iraq is Saddam free: Three cheers for that. I’d even shake Bush’s hand for the accomplishment.
However, right after shaking his hand, I’d still have to ask him to explain why it was absolutely necessary to wage war. And sorry X, but saying “I have my super secret reasons, which I cannot share with the public” isn’t going to cut it.
Well, if they had had any convincing evidence, the whole world would have been right beside the USA on this just like they were in Afghanistan (Who is still there keeping the peace? Oh yeah, those Germans from the “alliance of weasels”.). The diplomatic fiasco in the UN and the headstrong behaviour of the Bush administration strongly suggests that their intelligence wasn’t very good. But you’re right, I could be wrong. However, the odds are clearly in my favour.
Well now. I never said that, did I? If Bush is wrong, we will find out and deal with him accordingly. What I am saying is even if he was wrong, at least he he made Iraq better. Things couldve been a lot worse.
Go ahead. Its a free country. I hope you get the answers you wanted. I was going to wait on the WoMD issue until mid July.
Convincing someone who does not want to be convinced is herculean to say the least. Before the war, the whole world was convinced that a war in Iraq would take tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and that the Muslim countries would rise up against the US. Millions of protestors demonstrated that sentiment. There was nothing in those demonstrations to compare to that little boy slapping the head of Saddams statue with his slipper when Baghdad was taken.
My personal philosophies include:
- Siding with the majority doesnt always make you right. Millions of people can be wrong.
- What is right and what is popular do not always go together. It does take a headstrong Leader to do what is right no matter how unpopular it is.
- Knowing most of the truth takes precedence over knowing some of the truth right now.
- Alls well that ends well.
Ok, misunderstanding on my part then. My apologies. I agree that things could have been a lot worse.
Oh well, I didn’t get to shake his hand, so I doubt I’ll get the answers I wanted 
Good philosophy! It’s more or less my own. However, I am of the opinion that Bush is doing what is popular (in the states) and unfortunately not what is “right”. That he achieved a couple good things in the process of doing wrong (he has started a war, after all) is soothing me somewhat, but doesn’t alleviate my worries and my sceptical attitude towards Bush.
sigh Oh well, we’ll see how this all pans out and as usual I am keeping my fingers crossed that I am overly paranoid about Bush and his agenda.
Before the war, the Presidents approval rating was precarious to say the least. People were not overly convinced that the US should get itself mixed up in what a lot of people say is a potential “vietnam”. Only when it ws clear that the US was committed to this war did his approval start to rise, bolstered by the speed and effeciency with which this war was waged. America loves a winner, and this was definitely a winner. The Powell doctrine is true to form. So this might have been popular during the war, before the war this was a coin toss and I admire this president for sticking to his guns. Right or wrong, this man has integrity. A rare trait for any politician.
X~Slayer,
First off, let me say that I welcome the fact that you’ve chosen to engage in debate. While I think it obvious that we’re not going to agree on this matter, your contribution is a vast improvement over the puerile and insipid distractions offered by other posters for the better part of this thread.
Secondly, just so we’re free of the distortions provided by the aforementioned posters, my contention remains as originally offered. Namely, that anyone that bases their justification for this invasion on the basis of the official reasons put forth, is either extremely naive, ignorant, mendacious, incapable of critical thinking or a blind flag-hugging patriot – and I’ll now add another description, completetly wrong. Please note the qualifier well, official reasons, taken to mean what has been disclosed to the general public.
In support of the above contention, I am more than capable of providing a comprehensive list of factual cites that disprove the myriad of allegations made by the Bush Administration. Since you have now admitted twice that you wish no part of the list of questions I have compiled in order prove my point – a smart move if ever I saw one – I will take that to mean you do no dispute what I have said so far. If I am wrong in making this assumption, please explain why, and at what specific point of the argument put forth.
Pending confirmation of the above, I am going to move forward into what you’ve actually said. And instead of providing a point by point rebuttal at this time, I’m going to attempt to summarize your position, wait for your approval and/or modification of said summary and proceed it from there. Trust you’ll find this approach satisfactory.
In any event, as I read you, there are two main points to your argument that come through:
1-You trust this Administration’s decision to go to war because you feel confident (?) that they acted on information not available to the public in justification of their actions.
and
2-Since Saddam is gone and that is unquestionably a good end, the means become that [much] less relevant – even if we never find out what the ‘real’ justification was.
Do I have it about right? I’ll await your reply before making any further comments.
Thanks again,
~Red
PS-I think you missed the irony of my Sun Tzu comment. I am aware that he advocates living to fight another day. But I think you’d agree that nowhere in his teachings will you find any advocacy for dying to fight another day.
Which is what I wrote.