»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
WMD's and Immediate Threats
| The Alley |
|
WMD's and Immediate Threats |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html quote: This doesn't bug me as much as it bugs Paul. I never bought the immediate threat bit, but I wonder if those who really did believe that Iraq was an immediate threat feel betrayed? [This message has been edited by Brad (04-29-2003 03:00 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
This entire "war" pissed me off. and the only thing that pissed me off more was my silence. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Brad, (butt-kicking risk here) I bet you two bits that WMD's will be found, whether or not they are found. Call me cynical, but I am one of those who find it veeeery strange that the UN inspectors are suddenly being seen as 'ineffective'. Am I to assume that they all are part of the pro-Saddam gang? Those of us who are sufficiently 'cynical' enough, understand that the Coalition forces NEED to find those WMDs. So I bet you they will. Don't tell me you are not a gambling man. C'mon!  |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
If no weapons are found and/or no evidence of their destruction can be proven - it will not look good for the U.S. and the Bush administration. Explanations will have to be given. |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
morefiah...I bet you two bits that WMD's will be found, whether or not they are found. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this remark on the internet lately. I can tell you though, how infuriating it is to hear it, each and every time. I can't for the life of me understand how people looked the other way when hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people disappeared off the face of the earth. How they looked the other way when the rape and torture of human beings was going on in Iraq under Saddam. How they simply put their heads in the sand when 3,000 people were senselessly killed on 9/11 by terrorists that it has now been proven did in fact have ties to Saddam. And it is now these same people who question the actions of the very people who are trying to make this country as safe as it possibly can be, considering the state of the world today! Do you not realize the amount of people that would have to be involved in this sort of fiasco (such as planting WMD, or stating they are there, when in fact they are not)? It would take a major cover-up, or collusion, involving many people, including soldiers that put their lives on the line for the very freedom you utilize to make such a claim. It's nice to know you took your head out of the sand long enough to make such a statement, but it will take a lot more than what you have offered to make this American believe that the coalition forces and the governments involved are capable of, or would even consider, what you suggest. I think it's also interesting that the same crowd that screamed "give the inspectors more time to find the WMD", is the same crowd that is now screaming, "we want the WMD found, RIGHT NOW". [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-29-2003 11:56 AM).] |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Au contraire my sweet Rose, all (maybe most) of us did NOT bury our heads in the sand when all the atrocities you named took place. But let me ask you: Before 9/11 how many letters to the editor did YOU write demanding that the US take a stand on Iraq, or North Korea, or Somalia, or (way back in the 80's) South Africa, or anywhere else in the world where people are being tortured? How many times have you taken a stand on the proliferation of WMD's in ANY country, including your own? How many questions about the need for biological, and, or chemical weapons have you asked of your government? If you cannot truthfully say that you have been vigorously active on the issues of human rights, Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction, children starving in the dark corners of the world, racism, communism etc. etc., then you are really being disingenuous. The truth my dear, is that most human beings, while maybe having strong opinions on certain issues, really don't do much in the way of advocating their beliefs on those issues. Is that the same as burying heads in the sand? I think not. I think one buries ones head in the sand if one cannot seem to acknowledge that there is a problem, no matter how glaringly obvious it is. Interestingly, the pro-war, pro-Bush people are, in my view, burying their heads in the sand. Let me sum up the events to date: 1. The US vehemently insisted that there were WMDs in Iraq. 2. On that basis, they demanded that Saddam/Iraq disarm. 3. Saddam insisted that he had disarmed. 4. The US (and in all fairness, many other countries such as France, Germany, and Russia) continued to insist that they needed more proof of the disarmament. 5. It was demanded that UN arms inspectors be allowed to go into Iraq, and after initially refusing, Saddam, under intense pressure mainly from the US, relented. 6. In 5 months, these expert arms inspectors who everyone, INCLUDING the US, accepted as being competent to do the job, could find no WMDs. 7. The US continued to insist that the weapons were there, even in the face of mounting evidence that they were not. 8. The US and Britain claimed to have evidence that the weapons were there, but either DID NOT share this evidence, or shared what later proved to be false evidence. 9. Notwithstanding all of the above, a minority Coalition, led by the US, ON THE STATED BASIS OF SURE KNOWLEDGE that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and without the backing of the UN, invaded Iraq. 10. To date, after weeks of conflict, in which Iraq was subdued/defeated, there are still no credible signs of the elusive WMDs. In fact, given that the Coalition forces are in almost total control of the country, it should be fairly easy to find the weapons that there was such sure knowledge of. 11. PEOPLE have died!! Women and children (Iraqi), Young soldiers (on all sides) have died! In the name of finding and getting rid of weapons of mass destruction (It was comical to see the way the US attempted to switch the focus from 'finding the WMDs' to one of Liberation when that was never the original focus. In fact, in all the months leading up to the war, Liberation was very rarely, if ever mentioned. I dare say it was not) These weapons have NOT been found but MANY HUMAN BEINGS HAVE DIED!!!!! All of a sudden it is ok to talk about the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam, while no one seems concerned about the blood that has been shed, the many lives that have been lost, the armless,legless children who will suffer for the rest of their lives because of THIS war. And you talk about burying heads in the sand? What have I outlined above that is untrue? So many think it is anti-American to be against the war. Anti-war advocates such as myself are accused of being pro-Saddam; cowards; ostriches; and yadda yadda yadda. All we are saying is that dishonesty was exhibited by the US government in the interest of starting a shooting war which has resulted in human lives being lost. A people have lost all the artifacts of their heritage and culture and insensitive remarks like "it happens" are made. The primary focus the whole charade was not realized and it stinks to high heaven!! So you go right ahead thinking that it was all justified. Go right ahead thinking that "WE" are all hiding our heads in the sand. You are still alive and have the ability to sleep, laugh, write, and accuse, among so many other things. Too many though, will never again have those opportunities. Are you satisfied? Who is burying their heads here? Think about it. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
BTW, Saddam has WMDs, the US invades Iraq, defeat is imminent, he is being literally driven out of his cushy position and firced into hiding and he doesn't use his WMDs?? Puhleeeze!! Is the Saddam that we have come to know and fear? |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
morefiah, I did in fact care, and have had discussions about, and questioned the atrocities that happen all over the world, everyday. I've never been one to have my head in the sand. I'm just too much of a big mouth for that. I questioned the politicians that I could, those I came in contact with, and wrote letters that of course went unanswered. I was not taken by surprise when 9/11 happened. Terrorists were getting closer and closer to american soil. The hatred for the United States by a great majority of the Middle East was no secret. I'm not one who lobbied for this war on the premise that Saddam had WMD. So I can't answer for those people. I have always felt that terrorism has got to STOP! In every corner of the world, it must cease. But it wasn't until it came to America that most people even cared about the issue of terrorism. There have been people dying everyday in Israel and in the Middle East in general, for years now, due to terrorism. I say again, it literally has got to STOP! When it blasted itself upon our soil, the higher ups just decided it was time to stand up and take notice and do something about it. It should have been done long before 9/11. The fact is, we are a super power. We have the wherewithall to do something to stop the reign of terror, so we are. I don't really care if they ever find WMD in Iraq. There is already proof they had them. There have already been statements made my those in custody what happened to them, (before the war, when the inspectors were walking around with blinders on) and so forth. I only commented on your statement because it suggested collusion on the part of the coalition. I think that stinks. I've heard too many people make this statement with no more ado than they say "Good Morning". I'm running low on pennies now, darn it. I'll have to break into the piggy bank if this keeps up. By the way, I hold no ill feelings against you for your views. I just found the statement to be a bit preposterous. I speak my mind, you speak yours. That's as far as it goes with me. [This message has been edited by WhiteRose (04-29-2003 01:35 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
My dear? My sweet? Morefiah, that's some pretty polarizing dialogue... not that you'd, say, criticize the government for doing somerhting like that, right? I agree with a lot of what you've said... but I have to make a couple of comments: '(It was comical to see the way the US attempted to switch the focus from 'finding the WMDs' to one of Liberation when that was never the original focus. In fact, in all the months leading up to the war, Liberation was very rarely, if ever mentioned. I dare say it was not)' This is an excellent, excellent point. 'while no one seems concerned about the blood that has been shed, the many lives that have been lost, the armless,legless children who will suffer for the rest of their lives because of THIS war.' This is not. People care... and I think the vast majority of war supporters in the general public care. While I'm not going to rally behind the Liberation rhetoric (because as you pointed out, it wasn't our original intent of going in there) there's no denying that people were suffering under Saddam as well. 'A people have lost all the artifacts of their heritage and culture and insensitive remarks like "it happens" are made.' Um, is it just me? I thought they looted the museums on their own accord. Okay, I'm late for school, so that's it for now. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Pssst!... Rose.... Guess what? I love to argue... love it... especially about things I feel strongly about. I will go to the ends of the earth for a view I hold dear but... I very, very rarely take it personal. You have your views, I have mine. I respect your views even if I do disagree most vociferously. But if you are able to counter what I say with verifiable facts I will shut up and concede. So don't worry about me taking it personal. I won't unless you do get personal, and you have not. I do enjoy these exchanges. [This message has been edited by morefiah (04-29-2003 04:37 PM).] |
||
|
WhiteRose Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208somebody's dungeon |
morefiah, you have no idea how much better that makes me feel. I also like a good debate, but have managed to put off quite a few in other forums with my very conservative viewpoint. I'm glad you didn't take anything I said personal, for I did not mean for any of it to be.  |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Maybe the country would have been better off if the President followed precedent and spent his time getting hummed in the oval office, while calling his buddies to sell time in the Lincoln bedroom and then just to make it seem he was doing his job he could have sent soldiers to Somolia or somewhere without a plan, without proper tools so they could get killed and dragged through the streets... Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ahhh, the, well, at least he's better than Clinton argument. One can be appalled at the failure in Somalia and question the motivations of this administration without danger of contradiction, you know. But here's the problem: 1. If you argue that we shouldn't question Bush because he knows more than we do, why did he lie? 2. If this was done for the sake of American safety and Bush was sincere (he really thought he was saying the truth), why wasn't he listening to intelligence reports as mentioned in Paul's article? It's a choice between sincerity and competence. I choose 2 and call it incompetence in the enacting of a noble goal. Opeth, It is a problem, isn't it? As much as I supported the war and was, well, numb to this particular argument, don't we have to, at some point, start matching what the stated goals, the not so hidden goals (the one's I support), and why people think we actually did this? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Yeah... and maybe if G.W. was getting hummed in the Oval Office, he wouldn't be so trigger happy. But I doubt it. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
an op ed referring to an op ed based on unnamed sources. Over the last several months, in a variety of locations I have read statements of prediction and fact in relation to both dire consequences and glorious outcomes that later would not appear to have occured or to be fact. From my limited perspective, it appears to occur across the spectrum, on both sides of the fence. The world is not black and white, but a very murky grey which hopefully at times will allow a bit of light to filter through. I am still waiting for the fat lady to sing. The key question in my mind is whether Iraq is going to go the way of unity or division, freedom or return to a despotic dictatorship? We shall see. [This message has been edited by Tim (04-29-2003 10:22 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tim, A little surprised that you responded to this one as I thought we were in agreement that WMD's and immediate threats were not the reason for invading Iraq. But oh well: quote: And still another op ed referring to an op ed about an op ed.  quote: What does that have to do anything? So all statements are now to be taken as equal. Mohammed the entertainer is just as viable as Colin Powell? Do you really want to go there? quote: So? quote: Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked but I would say there are a very complex amount of black and whites out there, it only looks grey if you don't want to make a decision. Are you saying it is still possible that WMD's will be found? Hmmmm, I suppose it is, we'll just have to see. quote: Which has absolutely nothing to do with my question. If Iraq was not an immediate threat, does that mean that Bush intentionally misled the American people or that he ignored his own intelligence reports? I think it was the latter. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And further, according to the BBC, the search for WMD's is seriously undermanned? Now, that actually damages my position and leans more toward Morefiah's. I would just say that the administration is changing their tune though. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Just goes to show you can read into someone's statement whatever you wish. Your question is predicated on the fact the weapons don't exist. I indicated I do not know at this point. I will wait and see. You can't answer your question without making the determination you apparently have already made. I try and base my decisions based upon what I perceive to be facts. I do not have enough information at this time. I already indicated my position on WMD in another thread, those positions haven't changed. Whether the weapons exist or not, a significant portion of the world is not going to believe they do or did. Since that position in my view is not going to change whatever the facts are, we need to look to the future. Does a more democratic form of government have a chance in the Middle East? Lebanon would seem to indicate yes. I have the belief that all humans, no matter what their race or nationality, if given the chance would prefer freedom over tyranny. The Arabs have had not had the opportunity. I view the entire world, including the U.S., at fault for complicity in allowing the continued existence of the despotic regimes that exist across the board in the middle east. So if you want me to answer your question, first, I don't fall in the class you directed the question towards, secondly, I don't think the question can be answered at this point, and thirdly, of what benefit is there discussing your question? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: That's what I thought. quote: Well, when would it be okay to bring up this question? quote: Curiosity mostly. I want to know what people think, those that supported the war because they saw Iraq as an immediate threat, if in fact there is no evidence for that. Morefiah believes that they will be found even if they aren't there (or if believes is too strong at least postulates). Opeth accepts that this would be a problem. You say you can't make a decision yet. My response to you is then to see the question as a conditional or a counter-factual. If I have a hidden agenda here, it's not a very strong one except that we should be in some sense held accountable for our stated beliefs. We should say we're wrong when we're wrong, say we've changed our minds when we've changed our minds, and realize that what we said a month or two ago still should have some relevance to the conversation today. I don't have a problem with people being wrong (I'm wrong all the time), I don't have a problem with people changing their mind (I do that all the time -- maybe too much), but I'm uncomfortable with a kind of ahistorical, Orwellian shift in argument that seems to take place at times. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hayworth042903.asp Here's still another take on the point. Hayworth's take is interesting and I'll try to comment on it later. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Don't have time for the op-eds right now Brad but, my bellwether wouldn't be Bush at all -- but rather Blair and Powell. I'm not of the opinion that Blair would risk the wrath of his own party on willy-nilly intel... This kind of Monday morning quarterbacking is quite predictable. There will be a slow, steady, release of evidence of WMD's, Terrorist ties, Human Rights abuses, and whomever would believe will and those who wouldn't won't. Is that a surprise? |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
without reading anyone else's comments, here is my dollar's worth (inflation  )The WMD issue never mattered to this Administration, as they had already found a number of reasons to go after Saddam (legitimate or not). The whole scenario was bogus (my opinion) and in the long run, I think it will backfire on the USA. Of course, I could be wrong and be greatly misinterpreting the world circumstances. (Notice I did not say world opinions) I still think its about resources, who controls them, and who gets to be King of the World and tell everyone else what to do. And as for WMD's? who needs them? The hands of one well-placed pissed off black belt karate expert can become a weapon of mass destruction given the right scenario. [This message has been edited by Midnitesun (04-30-2003 08:39 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think there are two points to consider...first, the news story broken by the Toronto newspaper about the confirmed relationship between Hussein and bin Laden and, second, the testimony of the captured deck of carders so far. Although no one has claimed that there are WMD's now existing in Iraq, some have conceded that there were and they were disposed of shortly before the coalition invasion which, of course, is an admission that WMD's did in fact exist at the time Bush was appealing to the UN for action. Personally I don't think any of this matters. If WMD's are not found, BUsh's actions will be damned. If they are found, many will say (a large majority fueled on by Muslim news agancies) that the US planted them there and Bush's actions will be damned. If one of Hussein's inner circle admits WMD's were being produced, many will say they are lies, or the speakers were tortured, or they were given fortunes in exchange for saying that...and Bush will be damned. It's going to be the same no matter how it turns out. For those chanting "Where are the WMD's?" after barely more than a month of post-war searching, let's call it the way it is. You're not asking that for an answer but for a way to say you've never trusted Bush's intentions from the beginning and you will keep asking to drive that point home until something is found...and, even then, you may not accept it. That's ok. It's your choice. Things have been a little busy over there and Iraq is not a small place. Not even the countries against the coalition action are demanding an answer to that question after such a short time. Why should you? If there is any fairness to your question then you will at least give some sort of reasonable time frame for WMD detection. If there is not, then you will continually keep reminding whoever will listen that nothing has been found..... |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Some of us do not have very complicated expectations. There is some consensus between both sides of the debate on certain things. Namely that: 1. Saddam is a homicidal maniac as he has demonstrated. And, 2. Iraq is better of without him. What some of us have a problem with is that there have been too many inconsistencies coming out of the White House leading up to the war. It made accepting the too often changing reasons for the war hard to accept. We were bombarded with so many so-called reasons that somehow it all became blurred and confusing. This led to many (including me) concluding that there had to be some ulterior motive. I would have supported action against Saddam in circumstance where there was majority consensus on it. The seemingly indecent haste in which the US went war continues to be very suspicious to me. Now I have read in another thread about someone (can't recall who) who did not support an action but liked the outcome. The impression I got was that this person was viewed as being hypocritical. To this I say Rubbish!! No one likes being lied to. Many of us thought that we were being lied to about the reasons for war in Iraq. We therefore did not support the war (I really do not support wars in general, but they are at times, necessary evils) The fact that we did not support the war still does not preclude us welcoming the end of Saddam. We just do not like to be lied to. Which is why the questions are now being asked. Brad put it excellently when he spoke about admitting where there was wrong, or that mistakes were made. Where there is no admittance, questions will continue to be asked. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Morefiah, Concluding that you were lied to is not the same as being lied to. I don't know what confusion you are referring to that leads you or anyone else to that conclusion, but I thought the justification for this war was the threat, on several different levels, that Saddam posed to the world, from the WMD's that he would not produce evidence of having destroyed, to evidence of his links to terrorists, to the torture and brutality of his own people, to the threat of same to surrounding countries, etc. The shame of it all is that the human rights violations, torture and murder alone were not a sufficient reason for action 12 + years ago. I do believe that WMD's will be found, not that the finding of them will convince anyone who believes that they never existed in the first place. They'll just believe that the U.S. planted them there (which if that was their intent, they would have 'discovered' them by now, in my opinion). I think it speaks to the integrity of the U.S. that they haven't manufactured 'evidence'. This is all becoming so tedious. It is quite clear to me that the 'anti' Bush/Administration/U.S. (fill in preferred category) folks are beyond convincing. So be it. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Here. Here. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
quote: This was the reason why we should go to war, presented consistently by the British Government to the British people. Votes cast in Parliament as to whether Britain should go to war were based upon the information given to MP’s by the Government and numerous debates, which were centred around the specific topic of weapons of mass destruction. The question posed, at least to the British people was almost exclusively tied to WMD’s. Included in the speech from which the above quote is taken, which was delivered in the House of Commons by Tony Blair, was this claim: “I am aware, of course, that people are going to have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services. But this is what they are telling me the British Prime Minister and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. Tony Blair now suggests it may take up to twelve months to find the weapons he claimed Saddam could deploy within 45 minutes and many people, including MP’s, are questioning the extensive, detailed and authoritative intelligence that he purported to possess. Strangely I’m not one of them, I still believe he had them but I was always against the war due to the timing and lack of international support not any one specific reason. I do however believe that it is imperative that WMD’s are found, not just the component parts but substantial and plainly usable ordnance. Without such evidence the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the British Government and Tony Blair or the intelligence services lied to MP’s and the British people to ensure a positive vote for war. [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (05-01-2003 03:54 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: What exactly are we trying to be convinced of? By using that 'fill in preferred category', it seems quite clear that it's the other way around. By anti-Bush, a personal dislike for the man or perhaps, I don't know, a belief a lack of respect for his abilities as a leader? (my opinion, yes and no) By anti-administration, a belief that this administration has mishandled international situations badly? (my opinion, yes) By anti-American, a belief that America is fundamentally corrupt, the belly of the beast, the Great Satan, and its leaders morally equivalent to Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, etc.? (my opinion, no.). If you can't distinguish among these positions, I have no idea of what exactly am I trying to be convinced of. ----------------------------------- But let's take a look at the Hayworth article: quote: I have no doubt that if any of us who criticized the Bush administration by using the reported words of a dead soldier, we would be excoriated as having no taste. But this quote is a double edged sword, "Brown didn't know why we were going into Iraq before he went." If he didn't, why should I? quote: That the rational was constantly changing is my criticism of the Bush administration. If it was for all those reasons that we went into Iraq than 1441 and Powell's speech become disingenuous at best. quote: To me, it does. quote: Why is this so difficult to see? The more reasons you give, the more reasons you have to back up. When someone says it's for all those reasons, that doesn't mean, "If it's not this then this or this," it means, "It's for this and this and this." What was that summit with the Spanish president? Why were some of the supporters of the war unaware that they supported the war? Yeah, the whole thing look ad hoc and poorly planned. Is this supposed to make me feel more confident in this administration? quote: Two different questions here, isn't it? What he wants to ask is whether it was wrong to liberate Iraq. He asks instead whether it was legitimate. In another situation: Is it wrong to keep a murderer behind bars. Is it legitimate for a police officer to lie in order to keep a murderer behind bars? quote: This is most certainly true, but why didn't he just stick to his guns through the whole thing? quote: And it's that point that was always and is the question. Drop the imminent threat, and how good is Bush's case here? How many inevitable threats are out there? quote: Fair enough. quote: This is just a bit of selective memory. He did, that's what caused the problems. Blix bought it, Bush didn't. quote: True enough, but that doesn't justify the timing. quote: Um, who made any dire predictions? Who thought the war would have gone differently? The cheers and dances were questioned (Edward Said said something like this and blamed, of all people, Bernard Lewis. Boy, when someone has an ax to grind . . . . He's been going after Lewis since the 1970's). Certainly, many people were wrong about that (my opinion, I didn't know). Some Arabs hoped that the war would at least show that Arab might is formidable and they were humiliated (though this is a mistake, Arabs weren't humiliated, dictatorships were). But who thought America was going to lose this war? Sure, there was a lot of second guessing going on during the war, but no one that I can remember expressly stated that Iraq would win. Perhaps, he's referring to the problem inherent in Iraq itself, its relationship with Iran and Turkey, the inherent inability to predict what's going to happen next? If so, that hasn't exactly played itself out yet either. Before trumpeting this administration, perhaps we should wait and see what happens? But then we wouldn't have much to talk about then, would we?  [This message has been edited by Brad (05-01-2003 04:40 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Just read Crazy Eddy's comment, it seems Blair has some explaining to do as well. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Thinking a bit more about the question Denise posed and reversing it: What am I trying to convince her of? Simply put, that there are some real problems with the way this administration does things. That Bush's refreshing sense of telling the truth is not as clear cut as some keep asserting. And that it doesn't have to be that way. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Is it just me or is anyone else bemused at the thought that the idea behind all this debate is to convince somebody about some obscure idea. Some of us were, and still are against the war for a number of reasons. One of those reasons happens to be the fact that we suspected then, and it is now becoming quite obvious that we, including the pro-war faction, were being misled. Denise, if you read Crazy Eddie’s last post you will see what I mean. The British Prime Minister based his reasons for taking his country into a war, upon the sole goal of disarming Saddam! He, in fact, made liberating the suffering Iraqis secondary to finding the WMDs. In fairness to him though, at least he made it clear what his reasons were. All we got from Washington was sheer obfuscation. Balladeer said that we should allow more time for the weapons to be found. Hogwash!! If we had been told that there was a strong suspicion that they were there, I would agree with the call for more time. There was no hint of suspicion. It was declared without even the hint of doubt, that the weapons were there! This certainty must have come from some source and this source must have been unimpeachable enough for countries to go to war on the basis of the intelligence coming from it. So, now that Iraq is at the mercy of the Coalition, why should it take so much time to find the weapons? Why does there seem to be no clear idea as to where the weapons are, or in truth, if they are even there at all? Why should we wait? As for the so-called declaration by captured Iraqi officials that the weapons were destroyed before the fall of Iraq, give me a break! Who did they tell this to? When? How verifiable is this information being relayed to us by the same people who gave the UN false documents purporting to be “evidence”? Yes, I am cynical about this whole charade/farce. I have to be, given all that has gone before. I am not trying to convince anyone to come over to my way of thinking. I respect your right to have a mind of your own too much for that. If anything I say gives you reason to change your mind about your position, great. If not, its quite ok with me. That is your right. I thought though, that all we were doing here is expressing our views. And let me declare that my comments on the issue of 'convincing' do not mean that I have taken it personally. I just do not understand it. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Brad, I think the distinction between the clear (although possibly misguided) call to arms of Blair and the multiple reason methodology of Bush is important. It could explain why the British have for the most part avoided the vitriolic rhetoric levelled at the US Administration. Sure if they don’t find any WMD’s Blair will face some tough questions and may even have to step down but if that happens it’ll just look like he was good intentioned guy who just happened to be wrong. Bush has a tougher job facing him, if they don’t find any WMD’s (or even if they do) he’ll face tough questions, if peace and harmony in Iraq doesn’t break out soon he’ll face tough questions, if anti-American feelings in the country spreads, if a democratic government fails, if Saddam and co. evade capture etc. etc. Bush will face tough questions and nobody will want to believe the answers he gives. Why was Basra a liberation and Baghdad an occupation? I think it’s all down to perceptions again. Blair gambled and stuck ,in the main, to WMD probably working on the premise that any other positives were a bonus and any other negatives were unfortunate consequences unrelated to his goal. He’s pushed the point so hard and so passionately that even his detractors admire him for his resolute determination in his belief and the perceived integrity that goes with it. – He may be wrong but he’s only acting with the best intentions. Bush gambled on WMD’s and then turned to the axis of evil and then to liberation and then to freedom and democracy throwing in a connection to 9/11 for good measure. He looked like a man on a mission looking for a reason while possibly avoiding the real one(s) (all the reasons people are now suggesting like oil etc.). Bush looks resolute and determined but has lost the perceived integrity that goes with it. – He may be right but he obviously has ulterior motives. The British in Basra are perceived as having good intentions – the Americans in Baghdad perceived as having ulterior motives |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Morefiah...thank you for respecting me to have a mind of my own and my right to speak hogwash...ROFL! |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
How can one logically progress from- "It is quite clear to me that the 'anti' Bush/Administration/U.S. (fill in preferred category) folks are beyond convincing." To- "If you can't distinguish among these positions, I have no idea of what exactly am I trying to be convinced of." It seems obvious Denise is not attempting to convince anyone of anything. She is stating a point. The statement she makes seem to be comprehended simply enough. She makes her statement apply to all three positions. I have enough faith in Denise's intellect to believe she can distinguish between the positions. It seems somewhat condescending to suggest otherwise. If one says the President of the United States is a liar; his policies are simple-minded and arrogant; or in the alternative, he is simple-minded or arrogant, then I perceive you have went beyond opposing policies but have crossed the line to exposing your animus towards the president. If the overwhelming majority of American support the president and his policies, then I personally fail to see how that does not reflect on the individuals or country that so strongly support the president and his policies. I realize my position is not understood by some and viewed as being illogical. So be it. If it be that such statements do not reflect ill-feelings towards the U.S., that fact is accepted in Denise's statement. No matter if your oppositon is anti-president, anti-government, or anti-American, she feels the positions are beyond convincing. How one can arrive at a contrary interpretation requires some sleight of word and redirection of the intent of the statement. "Before trumpeting this administration, perhaps we should wait and see what happens?" What happens when you exchange attack for trumpeting? If weapons of mass destruction are found, which I do not have the answer to the question, then there is an out. The actions of the President were wrong, (a consistent and what I find to be a somewhat tedious position), but the results will be praised for ridding Iraq of a sadistic dictator of unthinkable proportions. I do not find such a position hypocritical. I would suggest disingenuous. [This message has been edited by Tim (05-01-2003 09:31 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, I didn't pose a question, I stated a conviction that the 'anti' folks will never be convinced that the U.S. handled the Iraq situation the way it should have been handled, and/or didn't act with ulterior motives. The preferred category comment was just an attempt at sarcasm, like an all-inclusive 'fill in the blank', whatever someone's bashing preference. Morefiah, discussion is good. Sometimes it's even profitable. My comment was just my expression that discussions like this usually lead nowhere. Neither side will likely be convinced of the other side's persuasions and I am finding it all a bit too tedious, a waste of time and energy. One side perceives ulterior motives and/or bad judgment were involved, the other side perceives what needed to be done was finally done and it doesn't seem likely that there will ever be a meeting of the minds. But, feel free to continue discussing it. Just because I am tired of the subject doesn't mean that you or anyone else is. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for the clarification of my point, Tim. I've been under the weather the past couple of days and thought that maybe I was not expressing myself as clearly as I could. It's a relief to know that someone understood what I was saying! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have to agree, Denise. Nothing is going to be changed because the subjects of these topics are not the real issue. Brad, with all due respect, I doubt this thread has much to do with WMDs. It would be more honest to just say this thread is "I Don't Like Bush - Reason #5 (or 6 or 7 or whatever)". That's what they come down to in reality. Obviously you simply do not like the man. Why? Who knows? Maybe because you think he is cocky or arrogant or short or Texan or who knows what? Maybe because you don't see him as good presidential material. Maybe because he is not as refined and dignified as most politicians are. Whatever the reason you certainly have the right to feel that way but why not just be honest and come out and say that is what these threads are about. WMDs? We haven't found any yet...let's use that as a topic. If WMDs are found, then another thread will appear about some different topic to reflect badly on the man. There are certainly many possibilities. Before Iraq there was "Bush: the Illegal President" which was bull for anyone who read the actual facts of the elections. Other possibilities are "Do we want a president who says 'You're with us or against us' to the world" or "How can a president turn his back on the UN? Is this man fit to run a country?" or "Afghanistan, then Iraq - is Bush a warmonger?" The possibilites are endless. Regardless what the subject title is what they are all saying is "We don't like Bush." and that's ok. I felt the same way about Clinton. I understand. But all of these bits of reasoning like "we don't like being lied to" or other reasons for verbal attack are just excuses that say the same thing - we don't like Bush. Anything that deviates from that way of thinking is ignored. If Bush has a 70% disapproval rating no doubt you would use that. Since it's the approval rating that is 70% it's not mentioned. Morefiah considers it ridiculous that weapons should not be found in a month since Hussein could launch them in 45 minutes, as if to indicate they must have been kept in his bedroom or somewhere close. These are just other ways to say "I don't like Bush". No, these threads won't change anything because it is basically a personal dislike that creates them, one that I do not see changing...and I understand that, too. I cannot think of anything in the world someone could say to me to convince me Clinton was even a marginally acceptable country leader. This thread, the way it is presented, asks a question that no one here can answer, which of couse is known by the originator before beginning the thread....therefore the reason for the thread is not to have an impossible question answered by anyone here, but as an intro into expanding on one's dislike and disappproval of Bush. It would be more honest just to display it for what it is.... |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
Denise is right; This is getting tedious. My reasons for saying so are different though. I have never told anyone that I do not like George Bush. I have said that I do not trust him, due only to what I consider to be major flaws in his leadership style. I have said that I believe we were lied to by him and those surrounding him. I have said a number of things which I suppose, could be called unflattering. I can't recall though, ever saying anything which can be categorized as being demonstrative of dislike. But let me say what my feelings are about the man... I have read that he is a devoutly religious man, a christian actually. I like that. I have also read that he favours the death sentence. I do not like that. I am of the opinion that he is strong willed. I like that. My understanding is that he has advocated tax-cuts for the rich. I do not like that. He obviouly has the ability to act rather than to waffle on an issue. I like that. He believes in pre-emptive strikes. I do not like that. He has appointed African-Americans to key cabinet positions. I love that. He (I believe) was not honest about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. I hate that. I obviously do not know the man. I only know what has been presented to me by way of the media. I have made certain conclusions about his personality and character based on this information. My feelings toward him can only be called wary. Now hear this: I got my love for arguing from my father. We argue constantly about almost anything. We are always on opposing sides of most issues (He is on my side about the war though, funny enough) and we just go at it. He has many views that I do not like or agree with and also have done many things, including leaving my mother when I was 9 years old, that I do not like and I am always quick to point this out. But I love the man just the same. The point is that I cannot see how expressing dislike for a persons actions automatically means that you dislike that person. That logic somehow just escapes me. I have disagreed with Denise, Balladeer, and I cannot recall who else in the Alley. Does this somehow mean that I dislike them? What utter rubbish. I have also expressed delight in reading Balladeers poetry (still need to get a copy of that book BTW, Balladeer) and though I cannot recall just now, I must have read Denise's poetry as well, and I dare say I'm sure I would enjoy it. Is not at all possible to dislike the policies and actions of a person without disliking the person in question? Tedious!! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
[removed by me -- not gonna say it -- wouldn't be prudent -- not at this juncture] [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (05-02-2003 01:33 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hedgehogs and foxes. Tim, Denise, and Balladeer, If I'm supposed to 'read into' what you say rather than read what you say, here's what I hear, "Shutup, Brad, the war's over, I don't want to hear it anymore." You can't say it that way, of course, but that's what I hear. I am not offended, nor do I think any of you is actually showing any kind of disrespect (and even that wouldn't bother that much, adamant support for a position can often, occasionally push any of us over the line -- I'm certainly guilty of that.). I could take a naive position an argue that I didn't know Denise's quote was intended as sarcastic or rhetorical, but I won't, I know that that was not expecting a response. For that was the very purpose, sarcasm and rhetorical question are designed to do one and one thing only: stop the other party from talking. The problem is that she can't just come out and say, "Shut up." The other problem is that any sarcasm can be read as sincere, any metaphor can be read as literal, any hyperbole can be taken at face value. So, instead of taking heed of her 'real' intent, I decided to ask for clarification. But I do have one complaint, stop telling me that you're done here if you keep responding to what I and others write, stop telling me that it's tedious and yet still write or complain about what others say, stop pretending that there's an end to this when any one of you might start another thread next week complaining about some other absurdity or another (from your point of view). Because it's just not true. I never said I'm going to stop and, of course, I'm never going to say that I'll do this forever either, the simple fact is I never know what's going to happen tomorrow. I don't see how you three can. And my reason is astonishingly simple: The war isn't over, it's just begun. |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
....Plus, I dare anyone to say that they don't love coming here to argue/debate/whatever. Admit it people: we love doing this. That Brad, is why we (including myself here) always respond. We just love doing this. So maybe we should just agree to disagree and move on to the next topic...... And Denise, one other thing: We are probably the only ones reading these posts anyway, so I cannot see how anything we say here could really have any serious outcome. Like I said before, we are just shooting the breeze. It's not like GWB and Co. or Tony Blair are logging on to see what Tim said last, or how Balladeer is shaping up in todays topic. So please don't disappoint me by not contributing. We might have to fine you for that and you don't want to know what the exchange rate is in Jamaica.  Now if I could just goad Balladeer into putting up something about Cuba.....  [This message has been edited by morefiah (05-02-2003 04:44 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Arrrggggghhhhhhh. The problem is that moving on to the next topic (which is going to happen naturally anyway. There's never any reason to state that) means that the question really does revolve around liking or disliking Bush or that it revolves around the conflation between the necessary thing to do and the right thing to do. My position, as tedious as Tim thinks it is, makes no sense if I concede either of these points. Quite simply, I can't do that. Foxes and hedgehogs. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Brad’s just working out how to get to the meat. But I think Morefiah has a point too, the reason some people tend to get upset is that it’s their beliefs that are being questioned – they like debating issues and stating their opinions but they don’t like questions getting in the way of those opinions. Which leads to people just agreeing to disagree. I’ve been guilty of this. At one point I thought I had a solution, instead of arguing for what you believe why not try arguing against it? The idea of building a case counter to your own stance may seem odd but it’s a standard device to find the strengths and weaknesses of opposing ideas – knowing your enemy, if you like. The obvious upside is that you can debate to your hearts content without becoming emotionally entangled or entrenched, another bonus is that the chances of learning something are increased, even if it’s simply that opposing views often possess a lot of validity. The major downside is that it takes two to tango, if the person you’re talking to is arguing from a stance of staunch belief your argument is just as likely to be taken as an attack on their belief and result in both of you agreeing to agree. Oops I changed the subject. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I do that all the time. Probably most of the time, in fact. I often jump into a thread not because of the topic, but because I see (right or wrong) logic being twisted into a Mobius strip of illusion. There are a number of oft repeated forum topics where, to this day, no one knows my real position. That often seems to irk Brad to no end. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, I just realised that it’s entirely possible that there have been times when we were disagreeing to disagree. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Ride the Pale Horse"...yes, I saw that movie, Eddy. It could work here but I doubt it would solve much because nothing here is that cut and dried. There are possibilities on both sides. I could make a pretty good case against Bush by ignoring the positive points and focusing on the negative and I'm sure Brad could make a good argument in favor of Bush....but the passion in both arguments would be diluted by the fact that we really believe the opposite... Morefiah...good analogy on Bush, sir. I would only disagree with the tax breaks for the rich thoughts but that's a full thread within itself!! A thread on Cuba?? You kidding?? LOL! With my seven years living in Latin cultures and sitting here in South Florida surrounded by tens of thousands of Cuban refugees? I'd have enough to say for ten threads!!! I just can't come up with a "why" to do it....unless someone wants to suggest that Fidel is a fine, upstanding, misunderstood despot. Brad, that was a fine side-step of ignoring the point I made in my response but it doesn't change it. The interesting point is that you would consider it a "consession" on your part to acknowledge that a dislike for Bush created this thread instead of a hope that someone at PIP could actually tell you where the WMD's are. I wouldn't call it conceding at all...I would call it being honest.Yes, if a thread becomes personally insulting, I'm out of it. I don't mind mixing it up or trading barbs or even cute sarcasms in fun but personal insults have no place in anywhere I want to be. If I personally insult anyone , it is completely unintentional or else my joking around went awry and I would apologize. Yes, if I say "I like Bush", for example, and someone follows with "Anyone who likes Bush is an idiot" I will consider that a personal insult...that's just me. It certainly doesn't mean I won't show up in another thread, however. Ron, I'm with Brad. I have no idea where you stand on anything, either!  |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Never said nor thought your positions as being tedious Brad, at least not to my recolletion. As I recall, you are the person who first labeled your positions tedious. I might call your positions a lot of things, but doubt tedious would be one of them. *smile* (Hopefully you take that as an attempt at humor wrapped around a not too conspicuous but intended compliment) [This message has been edited by Tim (05-02-2003 11:52 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Foxes and hedgehogs. Hedgehogs and foxes. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Hedgehogs and Hedgehogs Perhaps some foxes need to be inserted into the crucible. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
or sometimes the hedgehog is not distinguishible from the fox, or vice versa. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
There's no such thing as the next topic -- they all wind up back to the same arguments  Ron -- it bugs me to no end too... but, I'm guilty of turning on someone who supports my position if they are using faulty logic... I also used to (on another board) argue against myself under another name. Boy I used to tick me off too. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What I couldn't necessarily find a diplomatic way to say earlier Brad was... ok... I don't like Bush -- but I support(ed) the war (as did you). I find the current rhetoric being passed about just variations on the same pre-war debate -- which all winds up in the same place anyway -- and it's too soon to be writing history. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
