It is sad to know that you posted that in this thread in post #225, **elucidator ** only took out extra bits that showed that indeed you are referring to Iraq, saying that regime change was caused by “hiding terrorists within a country” (Iraq is the pivot) is a statement that needs a big fat cite as support; otherwise your points, like your support of empty rhetoric from Cheney and Lieberman, lead to nothing.
Please let me now if you are using now the “I forgot what I said” defense, I need to know if I have to feel pity for you or laugh in your face again. (The same “defense” was used by you in a swifters discussion, so it is a defense that it is getting old.
Not quite, Gigo. The sentence fragment snidely derived from my posting, quoting this sentence from the same post, #225, to witless…
Which I quoted as: “…falsifying accusations against our troops and disseminating them…” Note the distinct simlarity between my quote and the actual text. Identical, actually.
It looked to me that his reply applied to all your latest demands for a specific cite. I saw that the requested cite for “hiding terrorists within a country” was conveniently ignored, so the call for a cite still stands.
Every time I start to think that it may be unfair of me to harbor particularly contemptuous thoughts about this Scylla guy, I get another healthy dose of Scylla.
In real life, I had a kidney stone moving through my gut on Monday morning. All I can say by way of comparison with reading posts by Scylla is that at least the kidney stone adventure only lasted through the morning.
These posts are getting incredibly long so I will paraphrase a few things and drop some points but if you think I am dodging any issues let me know.
You seem to think we should have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam hussein because Iraq said mean things about us and gave money to the widows of suicide bombers (who were basically bombing Israel) and that by doing so, we send a strong message to other regimes that will dissuade them from helping terrorists.
I think we invaded Iraq because most of America was convinced that there was a Saddam Hussein-9/11 link and that we were under the imminent threat of WMD. I don’t think we could have gotten to the point of invasion without the administration convincing us of those two lies.
I swear to you, if I thought most of America had thought about the Bush Doctrine and decided that in this new age of asymetrical warfare, we needed to take democracy abroad to show the other rogue states that further sponsorship of terrorists would result in regime change despite the fact that there was no imminent threat or link to 9/11 then I would have shrugged my shoulders and said “oh well, noone ever said that democracy had to be unanimous” But thats not what happened, its not even close.
I thought I said he needed public support to get the congressional authority. Either way, I don’t think we would have invaded without public support.
The Korean War was not authorized or ratified by congress, Truman just got the U.N. to approve military action. You have to remember that when the North Koreans invaded South Korea, they had basically pushed South Korea to a sliver of beach at the southern tip of the peninsula in under 4 months.
The Vietnam War had the same sort of congressional authority to use force that Bush has in this war, but once again, we were running to the aid of an ally. The biggest reason for the resistance to Vietnam was the draft (and the 60,000 dead).
Bad sht happened in both these wars and I don’t know why people can’t understand that bad sht ALWAYS happens in wars, it is IMHO inevitable. This is why I think you need more than a theory like the Bush Doctrine to go to war.
I have regular contact with people from and in South Korea and the conversations I have fall into a few categories:
“We have a duty to support America in all military endeavors because they helped us out 50 years ago”
“Our country’s economy depends on the goodwill of Americans, we will send our soldiers to fight to preserve our good relations with America”
“We’re basically being blackmailed by Bush to send soldiers”
NOT ONCE have I heard: “We need to overthrow Saddam Hussein because it will send a message to rogue terrorist supporting regimes around the world that we mean business” or anything close to the Bush Doctrine.
[/quote=Scylla]
Maybe even some place like Libya. Oh wait! That already happened!
[/quote]
“Libya paid compensation in 1999 for the death of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, a move that preceded the reopening of the British Embassy in Tripoli, and paid damages to the families of the victims in the bombing of UTA Flight UT-772.”
“coined the catchphrase, ‘The Libya Model’, an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation rather than force”
“This has been product of a gradual normalization of international relations since Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing.”
DUDE!?!?! I am quoting from the same wikipedia cite that you cited to me on the same topic in the immediately preceding post where you respond to me.
Elucidator does this to me all the time. He makes the false attribution, and demands I address it and keeps harping on it until he gets other people to think he might be right. Then, at length, ad nauseam, I am forced to address it and prove his false attribution and the accusation are both of full of shit. The debate is hijacked into a semantic argument and all interesting debate ceases until this is done.
Then, a post, or a thread later, he does it again.
Ok. So let’s waste my time and get it over with:
You are saying that in post 225 that when I say “hiding terrorists within a country” I am referring to Iraq, in spite of the fact that I repeatedly assert that I am not. Why you simply don’t wish to take me at my word on this and move on like a normal person, I don’t know.
However, if we are to determine what I am referring to we will need to look at the full quote in the context of the discussion rather than making assertions based on fragments of sentences.
Here it is:
" Yeah. Regime change is the new strategy. As for the dozen wars ahead, maybe not. This one’s the pivot. The idea is that we will demonstrate that the tactic of hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable because that country will then suffer a regime change. It will become a deterrent.
Regardless of whether it works or not, a country that is harboring terrorists that are attacking is at war with us for all intents and purposes, so if we can’t deter them from aiding in attacks against us we might as well remove them."
In this I am responding to an earlier post of col_10022 in which he says:
“So regime change is the new strategy? By this rationale we have about a dozen wars ahead. I vote for a different strategy.”(post 216)
This in return is responding to a post of mine in which I say:
" with every stick there has to be a carrot. The best carrot also functions as a stick. The carrot that we offer is freedom, self-determination, humanity, our western values of equality and fair-play. After removing the old regime we help the occupants of the country attain this." (post 204)
This is the original post from which the above exchange occurs. We are responding to each other back in forth, quoting each other point by point.
In this post I am talking about the reasons for the war in the context of 9/11 and the Bush doctrine. I am talking about both the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. With Col, as the point develops we are also talking about future possible invasions and the rationales for them.
It’s not just about Iraq.
First I talk about Afghanistan:
“the first logical step is to take out Afghanistan which was an active sponsor of Bin Laden, and 9/11. No longer will countries be able to disavow the activities that occur or are planned or supported within their borders. We will no longer respect the sovereignty of a country that harbors terrorists. So, we do that.”
Here, I am clearly saying that Afghanistan is harboring terrorists, and also saying that others countries that do can expect the same.
Next I talk about Iraq and give some reasons for Iraq:
“Will this solve the problem? No. We need to fight this enemy on all its fronts and all its havens. People seem to forget that Hussain provided financial support, rhetorical and moral support to these terrorists. Hussain had also started a war of aggression against one of our allies and staunches strongholds of western values by attacking Kuwait. Saddam Hussain was in violation of the terms of peace after that war and was actively flaunting them to make us look like a paper tiger. He had committed genocide against his people and we were committing serious resources to the half-measure of containment.”
Please note that I specifically did not say “harboring.” I specifically said “financial, moral, and rhetorical support.” I left “harboring” out because to the best of my knowledge I cannot demonstrate that he was “harboring” them in terms of providing them a physical home within his country which is how this term is usually used (Please note that it is accurate to say he was “harboring” them in the 3rd sense of the word which is “nurturing.” Financial, moral and rhetorical support are clearly nurturing. I didn’t because I wanted no confusion on this point)
Later still, Col and I clarify the “financial support”
OK so far?
Clearly here the discussion is referring to the Bush doctrine in terms of the war on terror, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, and possible future military actions.
We are speaking generally and not always specifically about Iraq. We are speaking about the rationale for invasions with the Bush doctrine, and we are doing so largely but not exclusively within the context of Iraq.
Clearly, we can see that I made the deliberate choice not to say “harboring” while specifically referring to Iraq, but I feel free to say it in reference to Afghanistan and other possible future actions.
Now that we’ve taken the full context into consideration we can go back to the original quote that was used to generate the accusation.
"Yeah. Regime change is the new strategy. As for the dozen wars ahead, maybe not. This one’s the pivot. The idea is that we will demonstrate that the tactic of hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable because that country will then suffer a regime change. It will become a deterrent.
Regardless of whether it works or not, a country that is harboring terrorists that are attacking is at war with us for all intents and purposes, so if we can’t deter them from aiding in attacks against us we might as well remove them."
Note that I say “Regime change is the new strategy,” and am talking about the rationale for the dozen wars ahead (not specifically about Iraq). The subject here is not Iraq, but the “dozen wars ahead” in the context of the Bush doctrine.
Next I say “This one’s the pivot. The idea is that we will demonstrate that the tactic of hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable because that country will then suffer a regime change.”
I am saying here how the previous wars will serve as a detterent to avoid the dozen in the future. What will be deterring?
“hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable.”
“hiding terrorists within a country (Aghanistan)” and “aiding them (Afghanistan and Iraq)” is no longer viable.
From this context and from the earlier post which is the genesis of the exchange I have clearly taken pains not to say that Iraq is “harboring” terrorists.
What a fucking pain in the ass that is to explain! The bitch of it is is that if you go back and read the exchange from the beginning, in order, in context, it is very clear that I am in no way arguing Iraq is “harboring” terrorists, and, in fact, took pains and had a very specific clarifying exchange with Col to determine precisely what Iraq was doing with regards to "aiding terrorists (giving $ to widows of suicide bombers.)
Elucidator knows this. However, he sees within this exchange the opportunity to confuse things, make a false attribution that I must stop and defend, thus hijacking and derailing the thread.
He has done this, and similarly dishonest tactics many many times in the past.
It’s extremely annoying, and it’s lying.
It’s extremely frustrating since I deliberately took pains not to make the allegation he claims I did.
The only way he can make the claim is to take sentence fragments out of context and apply a different context. It is clear from context that the text in question was referring to the rationale for wars both present in future in the context of the Bush doctrine.
So. I guess elucidator because he forces me to respond to his lies in detail.
In our last exchange he accused me at length of “altering” a quote from John Kerry when it should have been pretty obvious that I had done no such thing, and had been very careful to do any such thing.
The discussion ended as I had to discuss that specious accusation at length.
No. I’m using the “elucidator lied and took partial sentence fragments out of context and inserted his own context to generate a specious accusation and hijack the thread, as per his standard operating procedure” defense.
Among other things that I’ve mentioned and cited, but go on.
The latter yes, the former I disagree with.
There was a lot of editorializing going on and depending on what sources you were reading and watching they emphasized different things. Personally, I think you have to go to the most primary source material that you can. Those would be Bush’s speeches on the rationale.
Those seem to support my point of view more than yours.
Again, I don’t know why this is an important issue to you. The public opinion really isn’t as far as I’m concerned.
Ok.
Wars are bad. I agree. In this case by acting now, we’re protecting against a truly horrific war in the future, IMO. The lesser of two evils.
I guess this whole exchange is about the “nearly unanimous international opposition” thing.
I think I’ve pretty clearly shown that there was no such thing. There was support, and there was opposition. It was pretty mixed. Claiming that the tide of opinion was overwhelming one way or the other is a nonstarter.
“Libya paid compensation in 1999 for the death of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, a move that preceded the reopening of the British Embassy in Tripoli, and paid damages to the families of the victims in the bombing of UTA Flight UT-772.”
“coined the catchphrase, ‘The Libya Model’, an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation rather than force”
“This has been product of a gradual normalization of international relations since Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing.”
[/quote]
You’re right, and I’m sorry. I was being a bit of a smartass there by mentioning Libya.
Yeah, but you scanned it selectively and quoted excerpts that support your argument while ignoring the ones that say something different. That’s hardly “fair and balanced” even to the standard of FOX
Because just like Bush had to admit, Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.
Not by insulting their intelligence. It is more clear to me that they embraced democracy in the hopes that then we would be gone sooner, now that Bush has said Iraq is not his problem to solve, Iraqis, the ones that were not insurgents, are realizing they were had.
Like bush bringing up 9/11 again, yep, no confusion will come by doing that, no sir…
No, when you mentioned “This one’s the pivot” it is clear it is not Afghanistan (unless you want to admit at last that Afganistan was because a true coalition that includes Germany and France and Spain is still there). It is also silly to say it refers to the wars, very peculiar pivot (singular) indeed.
I know you wish that to be, because it is not defensible in the War on Terror’s big picture.
The rationale for Iraq will always stink, heck, even my conservative history teacher from a conservative institution here in Arizona told me so.
Clearly I’m leaning towards laughing in your pathetic face.
And it remains a stupid justification for the war.
Point of order: you came in this thread with your pathetic support to a Cheney/Lieberman baseless troll bait.
Furiously tap dancing in an attempt to make a plural out of a singular (pivot) does not help.
I think I agree with other doper that once proposed a law that said more or less that the longer a poster types looking for justification, the more likely it is not telling the truth.
The real Bush doctrine: In the name of fighting terror, unrelated wars will be justified.
Iraqis had the hope that by embracing democracy we would be already on our way, but Bush decided to heroically sit on his tush while Lebanon was being bombed, Funny thing that Lebanon’s democracy was pointed by Bush in 2005 as a direct example of hope that his invasion of Iraq wrought to the ME, there is a different lesson Iraqis are getting all right.
Oooh! Wow! That was a good one, but next would you please do the one where you put the champaign glass on your head with your foot coming up and over your back? I love that one.
Well, in all honesty, it’s a rather unfair contest, ainnit?
I mean, elucidator has to work his hiney off in these messages, not only bringing facts and references to the table, but wrapping them up in that indeliably refined wit of his.
Whereas you simply pull regurgitated Republican bullshit out of your ass.
Well I found it pretty helpful in understanding your position.
Let me paraphrase: Its about deterrence. In some ways you are saying that we are not paying 300 billion dollars (and counting), waging a unilateral pre-emptive war killing over 100,000 innocent civilians, risking escalation, risking inflaming more anti-American sentiment, and all the other things you might complain about regarding this war to defeat Saddam Hussein and Iraq; we are effectively fighting Iran and North Korea and every other axis of evil country (and every aspiring axis of evil country). We are doing this by making an example out of Iraq.
You think that we went to Iraq on exactly this rationale and that we mentioned 9/11 and WMD in passing. 9/11 to point out that there is a real and credible threat to the U.S. (and not that there was some sort of link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, which most of America came to believe for some unknown reason) and WMD to just give us an example of how that threat might be carried out (and not because we were somehow convinced that there was an imminent threat that this would materialize if we didn’t act right away, which might be why we didn’t try to build more concensus). There was “mixed” international reaction to the idea of invading Iraq and every country in the “coalition of the willing” actually supported the war (despite the fact that the majority of the people in EVERY country in the world (other than the USA) opposed the war) opposed the war, and there are many other metrics that show overwhelming oposition to the war), although I don’t know that this matters to you considering you don’t care if there was support for the war in THIS country. We went to Iraq (instead of Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Yemen) because he said mean things and gave money to the widows of suicide bombers (never to anyone who had commited an act of terrorism against us mostly against Israel in what many people thought was a bid to curry favor with his religious fanatic neighbors) instead of places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen where the largest Al Queda cells exist and where we have found the most financial links with Al Queda.
Basically by beating Iraq, we are beating the rest of the evil axis into submission.
Here is the Al-Queda rationale for 9/11:
So he thought he was sending us a message to deter us. That worked out great for him didn’t it. He was ticked off about things we were doing in the Israeli conflict, like providing financial support to the “other side”
Does this sound at all like your argument that we are doing this to deter their thrteats to our security and our rationale for invading Iraq of all places because they were giving money to the widows of suicide bombers that basically bomb Israel.
This policy of deterrrence seems like little less than a theory to me. It seems to me that if you are going to make a case for deterrence as a basis for gambling the lives and fortune of this country, you would need to make it a lot clearer to the public and need to think things through a LOT better. Is beating Iraq going to make the Ayatollah and Kim Jung Il cry mea culpa and change their stripes? Is it going to cause popular uprisings in those countries and our reconstruction teams will be greeted with chocolates and flowers? What about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen (which I believe have the closest links with Al-Queda, after Afghanistan that is), did we invade an enemy (Iraq) to show our allies (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen) that we were serious and we would come after them too if more bad stuff happened?
Huh?!?! What are you talking about? I see where they say that the foreign insrugents are responsible for 20% of the attacks on our troops there is nothing to indicate that there are more than a couple of hundred foreign insurgents amounting to a miniscule percentage of the insurgency.
Here is my basic argument (which is basically my stance on the death penalty):
unilateral pre-emptive invasion is morally repugnant to civilized society.
If we have to do something that is morally repugnant, then the proponents of that behaviour bears the burden of proof.
If you cannot prove that unilateral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is likely to act as a deterrence than you lack moral authority to conduct such an invasion.
If you can’t win on the merits because noone would buy your argument and you basically trick the country into a unilateral pre-emptive invasion because you are soooooo sure you are right even though you can’t prove a likelihood that there will be any deterrent effect.
BTW, I am not so sure you weren’t serious about trying to use the Libya example to add weight to your argument. I would bet that it has convinced more than a few people over the last few years (perhaps not by you but I have had people whip out the Libya case in dozens of conversations and some of these people are actually surprised to find out that Libya was not the result of the invasion of Iraq, almost as surprised as they were to find out that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in 9/11 or that there were no WMD. The funny thing is that these guys generally blame their own ignorance rather than the disinformation being fed to them by pundits and the adminsitration, I don’t get it.)
It hasn’t evaporated, it’s been recirculated into the economy where it has been an engine of growth. You do remember your trickle-down theory, don’t you?
I will admit that my use of the singular when I should have used the plural is confusing. I attribute this to carelessness on my part.
Nevertheless, in previous posts I had pretty specifically not accused Iraq of “harboring” terrorists, and, been precise in how Iraq had aided terrorists. I even clarified it with Col.
I don’t believe in that light that you can construe I have made the accusation of “harboring” against Iraq responsibly and intelligently.
Generally, in such circumstances, an honest, rational, reasonable debating partner will simply ask: “Scylla, are you saying Iraq harbored terrorists?” if sincerely confused.
Then, I may clarify and the debate can continue pleasantly.
But, I was not asked.
Instead, this position that I do not hold was attributed to, and, apparently, I have no say in what my positions are. This, in spite of the fact, that it is a position which I specifically disavow.
If you insist on attributing to me positions which I specifically disavow, and are not willing to except my arguments as I state them or allow me to clarify them, then you are not engaging me with honesty.
If I am not allowed to decide what my positions are than why do you need me at all?
To continue to assert that it is my position that Iraq was harboring terrorists at this point, is to lie.
I have no use for liars.
Col:
It’s been nice talking to you, and I hope to do so again. You’ve been very nice, and I apologize for exiting the discussion, but you excepted I don’t find the present company aggreable.
There is no need to insist when you finally acknowledge the “confusion”. But, just like Bush, there is no reason to give you a break; the time has long passed to merrily accept as an accident confusing words that “just happens to” support a sorry position… that Bush or you claims to not support. The intention is clear: to mislead the public. Here is a thing I learned in my ethics class: Equivocation is a lie.
A point of that nitpick was indeed to clarify that Iraq was truly not a part of the war on terror, I see Bush as the guy that succeeded on putting a square peg (Iraq=war on terror) into a round hole, but he broke the toy in the process, he is still telling everyone he did not broke the toy, and he still gets some fools to follow his misleading words.
