Kosh

Don't put words in my mouth, Zar. I never said I supported any such thing. So you can stop building up strawmen to tear down. My support of the war is for one selfish reason: I don't want to see WMDs from Iraq on our soil.

More strawmen? Trying to justify a war is a ridiculous charade? What kind of warped thinking do you do in there? Where do you get this idea that people that support the war simply like war for the sake of war? IF you believe that, you have a pathetically unrealistic view.

And now the truth comes out. The old "America is trying to conquer the world" propoganda. I sincerely hope you don't I have said anything such thing is right?

Fuck yeah! When did I say otherwise? I'll thank you to get your characters straight here, Zar. If there are not WMDs in Iraq, then this war was unjustified. I hope you're just confusing me with someone else, because by now I'm tired of hearing the bullshit you've just spewed that I never claimed to believe in. Got it?

One last thing. Iraq is the size of California, and we've had one week to look around in there without being shot at. Are you really ready to start tooting your horn so early about what hasn't been found? Better wait till the fat lady sings..

Gurdur

ROFLMAO !
The cited report showing that they were not WMD-production labs makes for good belly laughs, no ?
No, what is really interesting is the extents to which you will go to attack, smear and deliberately misrepresent people.

You claimed a WMD had been found.
I corrected you by pointing out if confirmed only the means of producing WMD's had been found, and not an actual WMD.
This was a purely and obvious factual correction.
In response, you attempted moving the goalposts, fallacy of complex questioning, and then finally trying to smear "peaceniks" --- and I assume you include me among them --- as justifying their stance implicitly illegitimately.

I have pointed out to you now twice that the Bush admin used the actual present existence of WMD's as a pretext for invasion.

You cannot deny the facts.
All you are doing is attempting to cast aspersions upon those who disagree with and/or factually correct you.

This is an ad hominem, and a fallacy of poisoning the well.

Oh, and BTW, the fact that I regard the present invasion of Iraq as illegal under international law, and as ill-advised, and counter-productive, still does not make me a "peacenik".

Thor Q. Mada

The point is actually that any other country looking at the ease with which a truely modern army took an entire country, they can only can conclude that in order to prevent this from happening to them they MUST have WMD's.
I mean logically speaking, that would be my conclusion!!

leonarde

Partial post:Uh, there's SOME shooting still going on. Boy are we jumping the gun all around!

Cheers!

Autonemesis

It could also mean that the intelligence agencies were fooled. Maybe OBL fed them a lot of misinformation so the US would take Hussein down.

Cap'n Jack

We are only 4 weeks into this. Barely a couple of days without being shot at and only having somewhere near 300,000 troops amongst the 24,001,816 (or there abouts) Iraqis. Things have moved very fast, now for the slow part, searching the great expanse of Iraq. It is not going to be easy.

Kosh

That thought has crossed my mind.

Ion

This point is almost moot now, and getting more feeble with time:

.) U.S. was adamant that it knew of Iraqi's Weapons of Mass Destruction but couldn't disclose its sources,

.) now the U.S. cannot find them in four weeks of overturning Iraq,

and

.) Saddam Hussein didn't use them to save his power.

themistocles

I wasn't aware that we sent soldiers to look for labs, but rather fight a war. We have time.

Besides, you don't need to vindicate the reason you go to war in order to justify the war. Are the doves willing to wish not only the Iraqis continue to live under the boot of Saddam, but Iraq also have WMDs?

Do doves believes that the ending of the Holocaust was a "nice externel effect", but WW2 was unjust because Poland was not liberated?

Zar

I overstated this, I admit. My point was that justification is needed PRIOR to a war. We are past that point. This is the major priniciple that has been violated. You called people opposing this action and criticizing this "peaceniks" as opposed to whatever you call yourself. I wondered what on earth that could be given that the point of contention is the bare minimum evidence needed to at least make the case barely respectable.


I never said trying to justify a war is a ridiculous charade. I was trying to say emphatically just the opposite. I think that is very clear.

I was using a colorful metaphor. I don't actually expect heads on pikes. I guess you're not interested in tongue-in-cheek language.

Anyway, it is not "old" and it is not propaganda any mroe than what you are saying is propaganda. What makes something propaganda to you, anyway?

But I wouldn't say "conquer the world" exactly in a way that involves invading every country. Have you been paying attention? Look up the Project for the New American Century and study the histories and ideas of the people in that group. That is one place you can start if you want to know where I get ideas like this.

You can begin by looking at my thread: .So, you insist America is not imperial in any meaningful way


I'm glad to hear it, although I don't know what you're talking about in the rest. I don't think you got my point. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but the fact remains, no proof has been found of anything and a war has already been fought on no evidence. That alone is reason to be upset. That people demand now to see evidence post haste is perfectly justifiable. That people are frustrated with floating stories in headlines about WMDs, and then retracting them late at night or in the margins is understandable. You were complaining that "peaceniks" are bitching about this and whatnot. My point is that you need to grin and bear it. This is serious business and if you are serious about justification, then you ought not take it out on people who are against the war if there isn't any evidence. Its not their fault. This evidence seems to have been discounted, so I don't see where anti-war people are in the wrong for saying any of the things they are saying about it. When and if there is evidence, I fully expect pro-war people to rejoice in it. Perhaps a number of anti-war people will come around, although I will still have complaints about the serious erosion of principle and about the other aspects of the new order being established from Washington.

Just buck up and wait until your salvation comes, if it comes.

This is the most solid point I see you making. Yes, Iraq is the size of California, so they say. But then again it isn't infinite in size, either. Its been raked over the coals many, many times, and was inspected to a large extent already before this war began. U.S. intelligence provided all kinds of sites to search under UNMOVIC and they turned up negative or worse, were just plain "garbage time-wasters" according to some inspectors. Now, apparently the U.S. had a list of all kinds of other sites to check (one wonders why they didn't tell the inspectors about them) and the places they were most "sure" they'd find something (so they say) turned up negative also.

Now we hear the U.S. claiming that Syria has their weapons. Why would they do that? Aren't they sure they'll find them in Iraq? If there is so much more to check, isn't it premature to start blaming Syria already? Things don't add up.

I'll keep up the complaints until they find something, thank you very much. They wanted this, now they got it. They blew up international law and precedent, and now they must lie in the bed they made. The leadership is still able to threaten and bully the world, and are enjoying conciliatory moves from even some anti-war nations. They're big boys and they'll handle it. But I'm not interested in talk about it taking years to do this job or anything like that. That seems absurd. The inspectors didn't think they needed more than a few months.

I'm mad about this, but to show I'm a good sport, I'll give them 3-6 months before I really blow a gasket, though again, some important problems have already been created.