|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Obie1:
There are too many big words in here....... but the pictures are funny! 
Hehe, Lib. 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Nice job summing it all up Caltour!
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
Nice job summing it all up Caltour!
LMAO!! And the conservative CEG wing is accused of being a bunch of JaTo followers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by JaTo:
First, Bush and his staff kept pushing a peaceful UN route all the way up to the invasion. They kept offering Husssein outs; Hell, they even offered an ultimatum that put forth exile as an option that would stave off invasion.
I don't follow your logic here, either. What difference does it make that Bush didn't start the war for a while before he started it? If someone is charged with murder, since when is it a defense to say "But I didn't kill anyone for many years before I killed that guy." Man, you are really grasping at straws here.
So, you're willing to just hurl empty threats at a mass murderer?
Oh, wait, you live in CA, where the entire justice system seems to do the same- Robert Blake, OJ, and MJ come to mind.
What part of UN sanctions do you not understand? Iraq stated that they were in posession of materials with which to generate chem/bio weapons. The problem THE WORLD HAD was that they would not account for what was NOT there, and they refused to. Is that NOT suspicious to you at all?
Let me bring this entire argument back on point.
If 12 of your peers, colleagues, friends, and coworkers came to you with the EXACT same information on something, would you not believe it, and with good reason? Would you not believe what you are told to be true, thus try to bring others' attention to it? That's exactly what happened here. Bush put forth the recommendation on information brought to him by the world's intel, as well as Hussein's refusal to comply with a UN (United NATIONS, NOT the GOP, Not President Bush, just making sure you remember who the guys in the blue hemlets work for) sanction to explain his capabilities and to account for missing materiel, which he refused.
We would not be in the position we are in, nor would Iraq, had Hussein come forward with whatever information he had on where his WMD gear went. Hussein is the one to thank for us being in the position we're in, NOT Bush.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by caltour:
If Saddam was in fact a true military threat to the U.S., then why did the Bushmen have to lie and spin and manipulate in order to get its war? They lied about the yellowcake uranium, the aluminum tubes, the ties to Al-Quaeda, the "reconstituted" WMD programs. They lied because they had no real case. They lied because the public did not want the war until they were made to pee their pants by endless talk of african uranium and aluminum tubes. Bush used the post-9/11 hysteria to spin Saddam into a military threat to the U.S.
If the Bushmen didn't have any genuine reason to fear attack by Saddam, then why did they go to all the trouble of starting a war? Four reasons:
1. Re-election. This is by far the most important reason. Bush only narrowly won election in 2000 (some say he actually lost). The messy and suspicious vote counting in Florida pissed off Democrats nationwide. As a result, Bush was very unpopular, with approval ratings well below what he needed to be assured re-election in 2004. He and his handlers anticipated an uprising of frustrated and angry Democrats in 2004. What to do? Enter Karl Rove. "The only thing that will save you is running as a wartime president," Karl says. So Karl & Co. cook up a war to save an unpopular president's ass, and hang it on the peg of 9/11.
2. Bush's corporate pals want some war profits! The economy wasn't looking so hot after Bush took office. Economists were predicting months or years of slow or no growth. Bush and Cheney's corporate pals use their unprecedented access to the first "MBA president" (and to all the Republican and Democrat corporate shills in congress) to lobby for more military spending. "Hey, George, listen to those brilliant neo-conservative thinkers in your administration, especially Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rice," they say. "A war would be good. We could sell you everything from missiles to saltine crackers if you would just start a splendid little war."
3. Revenge on Saddam for attack on Bush's father. Don't even think of downplaying this one. The Bushes are known for a bizarre family allegiance and a ruthless streak of vengeance. They are like a combination of the Appalachian Hatfields and the New Jersey Gambinos. When Saddam launched his unsuccessful hit on Bush Sr., it was only a matter of time before the Bushes launched a counterattack. On our nickel.
4. Future access to oil. Cheney, Bush and their cronies come from the oil business, and they owe a lot of favors there for all those generous campaign contributions. They rode to wealth on cheap oil, and they want that to continue as long as possible. They know as well as anyone that cheap oil is coming to an end. They are all about grabbing what they can, while they can. That means that oil reserves that are locked up under tinpot dictators must be "liberated." No they aren't trying to steal Iraq's oil. No one is that stupid. But they are trying to get those oil contracts on the market, so the Bush dynasty (and hundreds of others in that business) can keep on getting richer.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Secondly, the invasion of Iraq was put to a vote in the House and Senate and PASSED. Many of your left-wing pals apparently made an independent judgement call on the evidence presented by the intelligence community themselves in favor of ousting Hussein, or have you convienently forgot that?
I don't follow your logic here. You think that because some Democrats voted to authorize war, Bush is not responsible for his decision? That's the same argument people use when they are pulled over for speeding ("Hey, you can't write me up for speeding! Everyone else is speeding, too!)
Secondly, the fact that Democrats and many others voted to authorize war would make no legal difference in impeachment hearings. Bush pulled the trigger, and he would have to answer for his decision. There is no "I-was-just-going-with-the-flow-of-traffic" defense for chief executives in impeachment hearings.
And don't assume that the Democrat lapdogs in congress are my pals. I am not a member of their party, and I don't agree with their decision to authorize the war.
Originally posted by JaTo:
First, Bush and his staff kept pushing a peaceful UN route all the way up to the invasion. They kept offering Husssein outs; Hell, they even offered an ultimatum that put forth exile as an option that would stave off invasion.
I don't follow your logic here, either. What difference does it make that Bush didn't start the war for a while before he started it? If someone is charged with murder, since when is it a defense to say "But I didn't kill anyone for many years before I killed that guy." Man, you are really grasping at straws here.
Do you even READ some of the stuff you type???
If this had JaTo as the quoted, you'd punch it full of holes without breaking a sweat.
Thin, thin, thin. Analogies WAAAY out of proportion, viewpoints waaaay out of context. Typical smoke & mirrors.
Iraq was viewed as a rogue nation in the ME. Remember the Quaiti invasion? After the first gulf war, in light of 9/11, Iraq were viewed as a potential bio-chem weapon source for the terrorists. That's when the UN sanctions & inspections became of particular importance to the US. Not Iraq as a military threat. That is why the discrepencies in UN declarations were so disturbing, & the Iraqi compliance with the inspectors was so important. After a dozen resolutions & ample opportunities to come into compliance by allowing inspections, justification established IMHO. Allow inspections, that's all he had to do. Originally posted by caltour:
What difference does it make that Bush didn't start the war for a while before he started it?
Puh-leeze!
Now your responses to the Congressional vote point & the initial diplomatic efforts via the UN were absolutely evasive - and you know it. Congress knew what was up & knew they had to vote for force or be seen as soft, so they took the cowards way out. Only Congress can declare war, that's why it had to be put to a vote. So they bent the rules a bit, voted to authorized force if deemed essential by the President. The Pres had to be the ONE guy to pull the trigger. If it went well, "We put country ahead of politics, ain't we great!". If not, "Bush is killin' your sons!!!"
I also can't believe that the 2000 election is part of your first point! Get over it already. The sculduggery down here was performed by the Democrats, not the Republicans. The election committee that approved ballots used in PB County - controlled by Dems, as is County government as a whole. Same with Broward & Dade Counties - Typically Democratic strongholds. Note: Through the whole process of the ballot design approval, and then the voting, not one objection or even concern was raised about the ballots. Only AFTER the results were becoming obvious did any objections get raised about the ballot design. It was a ploy to set the table for re-counts. The full ballot was even printed in the newspaper a few days before the elections - along with the newspapers 'suggestions' on who to vote for. Not an eyebrow was raised until well after the results started coming in.
Ballots were counted, & re-counted by the elections board, and finally counted yet again by the MEDIA!! Can you fathom that crap! The media - CBS & CNN in particular hired hundreds of people for several months to yet again re-count the ballots in hopes of finding, or even creating, some sort of angle pointing to voter fraud so they could have a scoop & maybe get Gore into the Whitehouse.
Worst of all, during all this controversy, while the Dems were screaming for every vote to count, they actually petitioned the courts to EXCLUDE some military ballots that were not counted in the original tallies. Bush won those districts and the margin was greater than the number of absentee ballots, so opening & hand counting the military absentee votes was a moot point initially. Now if the Dems could find enough "hanging chads" to swing the vote, why do you suppose they wanted the valid & duely submitted military ballots excluded???
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Even though Jato and Tour de Force make great points... CAN WE NOT LET THIS MORON'S THREAD DIE????
It's clear that the ONLY person brainwashed is caltour. By the Kalifornia media, and by what I am sure are liberal family and friends. He makes liberal talking point after liberal talking point, and expects the rest of us (people with some intelligence) to believe the crap.
Here caltour, here's your argument in a summary:
Bush started this war for oil (yet we still pay over $2 for gas and oil's pushing $60 a barrel)
Bush lied to the Americans about his reasons for going to war (Even though EVERYONE giving him intel both inside this country and abroad was saying there was good cause and that the other info was probably right)
Bush did it to avenge his daddy not getting Saddam the first time (Even though Bush Sr. STATED that he was NOT going to roll into Baghdad and that his ONLY mission was to liberate Kuwait)
So yeah, if we ignore all the stuff I put in between the ( ), caltour makes a great point!
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Iraq was viewed as a rogue nation in the ME. Remember the Quaiti invasion? After the first gulf war, in light of 9/11, Iraq were viewed as a potential bio-chem weapon source for the terrorists.
Yes, I think we all understand that. We all understand that it was possible that Saddam might give terrorists some chemical weapons. And it was possible that those terrorist might then use those chemical weapons on us.
Now we get to the real issue: is that speculative possibility a sufficient basis for going to war? I say no. There are dozens of irresponsible or "rogue" regimes. Those regimes have access to uncountable tons of weapons. If would be insame for us to launch a war every time one of them refuses to account for all of its weapons. Unless we have REALLY GOOD intelligence (and UN support), such an attack would make US a rogue nation.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
That's when the UN sanctions & inspections became of particular importance to the US. Not Iraq as a military threat.
Yes. We all agree that the only arguable threat to the U.S. was that WMDs from Iraq might somehow be smuggled into the U.S. and detonated here. No one was arguing that Saddam could attack the U.S. with conventional forces.
So, we are discussing whether there was a plausible threat to the U.S. from Saddam's WMDs. The crucial point is that there was no real evidence that such an attack was forthcoming. No solid evidence of a prospective WMD attack on the U.S. was ever found. Based on the information Bush used to go to war, a WMD attack on the U.S. was no more likely to originate from Iraq than from Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan, or any one of a dozen other places. That's what makes Bush's war so clearly contrived for the gain of Bush and his political and corporate cronies.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
That is why the discrepencies in UN declarations were so disturbing, & the Iraqi compliance with the inspectors was so important.
Yes, the dicrepancies were disturbing. Yes, the discrepancies were important. But a case for war has to be built on firmer ground than our discomfort about some hypothetical possible attack. We should never start a war based on conjecture.
I can hear your response already: "But all those discrepancies! And Iraq's refusal to allow inspections! And Saddam's history of using poison gas! Those are not conjecture!" No, those are not conjecture. Those are facts. But do those facts somehow demonstrated the existence of WMDs? No, they do not. If you think those facts showed the existence of WMDs, you are just engaging in conjecture. If you think those facts add up to a probable attack on the U.S., you are engaging in conjecture.
And please, do not claim the yellowcake uranium, the aluminum tubes (and the Iraqi exiles' rumors about a "reconstituted WMD program", etc. etc.) are additional "facts." If you feel the urge to do so, please go back a few pages and answer my post about how the Bushmen ALREADY KNEW that "evidence" was false (or terribly weak) before they even told us about it.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
After a dozen resolutions & ample opportunities to come into compliance by allowing inspections, justification established IMHO.
Are you guys just going to continue to ignore the fact that the UN mandated inspections were based solely on the authority of the UN? The U.S. is not the UN, it is a separate entity. It has no authority to claim UN resolutions as justifications for its actions, absent the approval of . . . YES THAT'S RIGHT! THE UN!
WE HAVE NO LEGAL OR MORAL RIGHT TO CLAIM THE UN RESOLUTIONS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR, WHEN THE UN ITSELF SAID THE RESOLUTIONS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE WAR.
You guys can't keep ignoring this. This "UN resolutions" argument makes no more sense than Gov. Schwarzeneggar saying that he is allowed to chop off the hands of a convicted thief under the authority of Saudi Arabian law. When you have to twist and pervert such fundamental principles or law and morality, isn't that a signal to you that something is wrong with your argument?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
CAN WE NOT LET THIS MORON'S THREAD DIE????
It looks like I've struck a chord with you. Whenever someone makes a point that causes me to get upset (i.e. when I want to call them names and shut down the discussion), I always ask myself why I am feeling so defensive. I usually find that:
1) Their point addresses one of my most cherished assumptions and biases, and
2) I perceive the logical and factual support for my argument to be weaker than the support for theirs.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Bush lied to the Americans about his reasons for going to war (Even though EVERYONE giving him intel both inside this country and abroad was saying there was good cause and that the other info was probably right)
Every country was saying their was good cause for the war? How can you keep parroting this conclusion without even examining the basis for it? I said earlier in this thread that no country had intel that genuinely provided "good cause" for the war, and you never provided any proof (or any reasoned argument) to the contrary.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Bush did it to avenge his daddy not getting Saddam the first time (Even though Bush Sr. STATED that he was NOT going to roll into Baghdad and that his ONLY mission was to liberate Kuwait)
I was referring to the attempted assassination of Bush Sr. in Kuwait in the early 90's (after Gulf War I). If you need more info about it, maybe someone will dig up an old news article about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
If 12 of your peers, colleagues, friends, and coworkers came to you with the EXACT same information on something, would you not believe it, and with good reason? Would you not believe what you are told to be true, thus try to bring others' attention to it?
No, I would not just believe what I was told, even if many others said it to me. I would THINK FOR MYSELF. I would look at the information with an open mind. I would examine the evidence on which they based their conclusions. I would use my own reasoning power to draw my own conclusions.
BTW, if I were in a position of authority (say, Commander in Chief of U.S. forces and leader of the free world), I would see thinking for myself as a solemn duty. I would feel that I was abrogating my responsibilites as a leader and decision maker if I just accepted the conclusions of others and did not draw my own reasoned conclusions based on all available evidence. If the evidence was too thin or shoddy to base a firm conclusion on, I would forego making the decision until I had sufficient information. And I would be embarrassed to tell the world that I based my decision to go to war on sketchy stories about yellowcake uranium, aluminum tubes, and so forth.
Originally posted by bishop375:
We would not be in the position we are in, nor would Iraq, had Hussein come forward with whatever information he had on where his WMD gear went. Hussein is the one to thank for us being in the position we're in, NOT Bush.
Saddam had multiple opportunities to avoid the war. He was an idiot, apparently, in addition to all of his other bad qualities. But please realize that Saddams failure to avail himself of opportunites to avoid war does not in any way change the morality (or legality) of Bush's decision to go to war. Saddam had an opportunity to avoid the bullet, but Bush pulled the trigger.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Iraq was viewed as a rogue nation in the ME. Remember the Quaiti invasion? After the first gulf war, in light of 9/11, Iraq were viewed as a potential bio-chem weapon source for the terrorists.
Yes, I think we all understand that. We all understand that it was possible that Saddam might give terrorists some chemical weapons. And it was possible that those terrorist might then use those chemical weapons on us.
Now we get to the real issue: is that speculative possibility a sufficient basis for going to war? I say no. There are dozens of irresponsible or "rogue" regimes. Those regimes have access to uncountable tons of weapons. If would be insame for us to launch a war every time one of them refuses to account for all of its weapons. Unless we have REALLY GOOD intelligence (and UN support), such an attack would make US a rogue nation.
Show me some that are under UN restrictions, have shown hostility toward their neighbors & also possess these weapons, and I say they are also subject to some action. Additionally, please remember that many in the UN were being paid off with money from the Oil for Food program. Those links were known prior to invasion, though not thoroughly documented at the time. The administration was forced into a go-it-alone role. Don't even pretend the French weren't going to veto any sactions with teeth.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
That's when the UN sanctions & inspections became of particular importance to the US. Not Iraq as a military threat.
Originally posted by caltour:
Yes. We all agree that the only arguable threat to the U.S. was that WMDs from Iraq might somehow be smuggled into the U.S. and detonated here. No one was arguing that Saddam could attack the U.S. with conventional forces.
So, we are discussing whether there was a plausible threat to the U.S. from Saddam's WMDs. The crucial point is that there was no real evidence that such an attack was forthcoming.
Maybe that's what you were discussing, but you specifically cited a military threat from Iraq was alleged, and it was not, so I responded appropriately. You're putting words in my mouth to help you skirt real issues.
As I understand it, an bio-chem attack from Iraq specifically was not one of the justifications for war, the FACT that those weapons existed in Iraq (by their own admission) and the possibility that they might fall into the hands of terrorists was the major concern. Lack of cooperation with UN inspectors & discrepencies in the Iraqi declarations to the UN prompted inspection compliance on Iraqs part or action on our part - Especially considering the UN payoffs that were going on.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
That is why the discrepencies in UN declarations were so disturbing, & the Iraqi compliance with the inspectors was so important.
Originally posted by caltour:
Yes, the dicrepancies were disturbing. Yes, the discrepancies were important. But a case for war has to be built on firmer ground than our discomfort about some hypothetical possible attack. We should never start a war based on conjecture.
But do those facts somehow demonstrated the existence of WMDs? No, they do not. If you think those facts showed the existence of WMDs, you are just engaging in conjecture. If you think those facts add up to a probable attack on the U.S., you are engaging in conjecture.
AGAIN I take you by the hand and walk you over to the Iraqi declarations to the UN of what WMD material, programs, & weapons they IN FACT had by their own admission. No conjecture there. In your fanciful world how do you define conjecture???
I will grant you that the possibility of a terrorist organiztion gaining access to such things was, at the time, a conjecture, however a very real posibility - Espcially given the non-compliance with UN resolutions, and open hostility & contempt toward the US. Further, given the declarations by the Iraqis, where do YOU suppose those materials, and weapons have gone? Will it take a mustard or sarrin gas attack on a major city to convince you that they were real? As for the aluminum tubes & such, I really don't know much about that, I've never used that info as a debate item. I have quoted a IAEA letter & subsequent report about yellowcake contaminated stainless steel that turned up in Europe for recycling. That same letter also referenced satellite images in which entire buidings within suspected facilities were dismantled & removed in the months leading to the invasion. In case you forgot, the IAEA is the UN nuclear watchdog organization.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
After a dozen resolutions & ample opportunities to come into compliance by allowing inspections, justification established IMHO.
Originally posted by caltour:
Are you guys just going to continue to ignore the fact that the UN mandated inspections were based solely on the authority of the UN? The U.S. is not the UN, it is a separate entity. It has no authority to claim UN resolutions as justifications for its actions, absent the approval of . . . YES THAT'S RIGHT! THE UN!
WE HAVE NO LEGAL OR MORAL RIGHT TO CLAIM THE UN RESOLUTIONS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE WAR, WHEN THE UN ITSELF SAID THE RESOLUTIONS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE WAR.
I did you the courtesy of deleting the comparison you made. You surely would have kicked yourself if you actually read that a second time...
Nothing wrong with the argument when the UN was shown to be in Iraqs back pocket. It was shown time & again that the UN had no teeth, France was actively fighting US efforts to get a UN consensus on action in Iraq & they made it quite clear that France would veto any resolution with teeth. How short your memory... 
Finally, I as an American, am glad that we don't put our national security solely in the hands of paper pushers like those in the UN. They've been proven to be ineffective, weak, spineless, and worst of all, despite their glorious proclaimations that they're lovers of world peace and wish good will toward all men, they're corrupt. The UN is nothing but a debate society & a money mill for spending US tax dollars.
The FACT of the matter is, we pushed for action by the UN and found some unexpected resistance after 12 years of broken promises & a regime that continued to refuse cooperation with mandated inspections. Digging deeper, the money trail in the form of oil contracts was leading to the sources of the resistance, particularly, but not solely, France. At that point, with the French having been paid for their veto power, the US was effectively blocked from gaining any assistance from the UN. If the WMD in the ME were to be secured, it would HAVE to be done without the help of the UN.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
