Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S2Focus · 08-08-2003, 09:24 PM

First read http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true.

Then read http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/in...09WEAP.html?hp.

Now, are GWB and friends liars or idiots? (you can take that as an inclusive "or", if you wish).

debater10 · 08-08-2003, 09:38 PM

Is there a "none of the above" option?

Just to make an interesting obbservation:

While France and Germany were dragging their feet in the UN Security Council, Iraq surely knew that war was an very good possibility, and they knew what it would be over. At the same time, making the United States look bad (which, it has been discovered, has been the goal of more than just a couple of nations who are resentful of the success of the United States) would prfit Iraq should the war be a victory for the either side. So while Schroeder and Chirac are whining about the illegitimacy of conducting a campaign against a nation who, to the surprise of no one, refused UN weapons inspectors, Iraq is getting rid of the major facilities and materials that would prove the existence of their WMD programs. It, therefore, does not surprise me it all the the evidence has been scarce as of late.
And who do we have to thank for that? President Bush, along with an impressive coalition of countries, had the right idea from the start. Instead, the liberal leaders of a few countries, acting VERY hypocritical by criticising the US for acting in its own interests while they sat back and did the exact same by trying to make a smear campaign against the US, slowed what could have been a very simple matter.

The SwampThing · 08-08-2003, 09:39 PM

Oh yeah, shure...
They certainly "found" something, although i am not certain it was weapons of mss destruction...
My guess is he "found" his head up his presidential ass!!
I wonder how he will explain these 3 little words, when he still has to explain the other 16...
One thing is certain: he is running out of escape goats to pin the blame on, for his big mouth.
Sooner or later, he will have to clamp it shut, to prevent other BS from coming out!
What a jerk!!! Its amazing there are still those who support him, even after all these presidential slips of the tongue!
He really must be feeding them with some powerfull mind numbing drugs, powerfull enough to make zombies out of every supporter...
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

S2Focus · 08-08-2003, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debater10
Is there a "none of the above" option?

Just to make an interesting obbservation:

While France and Germany were dragging their feet in the UN Security Council, Iraq surely knew that war was an very good possibility, and they knew what it would be over. At the same time, making the United States look bad (which, it has been discovered, has been the goal of more than just a couple of nations who are resentful of the success of the United States) would prfit Iraq should the war be a victory for the either side. So while Schroeder and Chirac are whining about the illegitimacy of conducting a campaign against a nation who, to the surprise of no one, refused UN weapons inspectors, Iraq is getting rid of the major facilities and materials that would prove the existence of their WMD programs. It, therefore, does not surprise me it all the the evidence has been scarce as of late.
And who do we have to thank for that? President Bush, along with an impressive coalition of countries, had the right idea from the start. Instead, the liberal leaders of a few countries, acting VERY hypocritical by criticising the US for acting in its own interests while they sat back and did the exact same by trying to make a smear campaign against the US, slowed what could have been a very simple matter.

debater10, would this be you?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 08-08-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debater10
Is there a "none of the above" option?

Just to make an interesting obbservation:

While France and Germany were dragging their feet in the UN Security Council, Iraq surely knew that war was an very good possibility, and they knew what it would be over.

And, knowing there was NO CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING without the use of WMDs against US troops/the states itself, Saddam went and destroyed them to make GW Bush look bad.

Is this what you're trying to have us believe? Please tell me you're joking.

Quote:

At the same time, making the United States look bad (which, it has been discovered, has been the goal of more than just a couple of nations who are resentful of the success of the United States) would prfit Iraq should the war be a victory for the either side.

Uh, how does it profit Saddam, now that GW looks like an idiot? Oh, wait, it doesn't, and it wouldn't.

Quote:

So while Schroeder and Chirac are whining about the illegitimacy of conducting a campaign against a nation who, to the surprise of no one, refused UN weapons inspectors, Iraq is getting rid of the major facilities and materials that would prove the existence of their WMD programs.

This is an utter lie from the get-go. Saddam allowed weapons inspectors while Germany, France, Russia, China, and most of the security council were taking Bush to task about his evidence.

Quote:

It, therefore, does not surprise me it all the the evidence has been scarce as of late.

Nor does it surpirse anyone at all who knows that the US NEVER HAD EVIDENCE OF WMDs IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Quote:

And who do we have to thank for that? President Bush, along with an impressive coalition of countries,

Like what? Burkina Faso? There were 40 counrties, of whom we have the names of 20 or so. Of these, only Britain and Australia had any actual troops in Iraq, they made up a paltry amount compared the the US force.

Quote:

had the right idea from the start.

Yeah, like violating international law and fabricating evidence, and lying to the public, and commiting fraud, so he could give Haliburton a cushy contract.

Quote:

Instead, the liberal leaders of a few countries,

Most countries. And this includes the not so liberal.

Quote:

acting VERY hypocritical by criticising the US for acting in its own interests while they sat back and did the exact same by trying to make a smear campaign against the US,

:rolleyesL

Quote:

slowed what could have been a very simple matter.

And, given that GW Bush didn't give a damn what they thought anyhow, this is irrelevant. Further, we claimed to know WHERE THE WMDS WERE rather explicitly. Donald Rumsfeld said we knew where they wre in April. Of course, he then lied and said we never thought we'd find them outright...

debater10 · 08-08-2003, 09:57 PM

Nope. I would like to think that I am a pretty reasonable person. Countries will act in accordance with their own best interests. It was in the United States' best interest to conduct a swift campaign in Iraq, thereby re-establishing a military dominance in that area of the world.
It was in Iraq's best interests to rid themselves of the proff of weapons production when the US was stalled in the UN.
It was in Germany and France's best interests to see the United States fail. With their militaries already obsolete in NATO, they wanted to make the point that military strength should not decide a course of action in a potential crisis. Also, diminishing US hegemony in Europe would be very much appreciated as well, I imagine.

All the countries involved acted, for better AND for worse in the case of all of them, in their own self interests. It would have been better if the US had attempted a more diplomatic solution. It would have been better if Iraq had just permitted the weapons inspectors if they did not have any weapons. And it would have been better for Germany and France to find more effecient ways of controlling US hegemony.

To deny the responsibility of all the involved parties and place the blame solely on the United States is both inaccurate and illogical.

Kat_Somm_Faen · 08-08-2003, 09:58 PM

I guess if an average rabid Bush supporter would be submitted to an IQ test...

What would we get?

Ad hoc after an ad hoc and after an ad hoc.

Saddam must be a truly great genious ( even though an evil one ) to pull soooo many tricks on collective GW, DC, the neocons, CIA and everyone in the world. I mean, just how devilish this guys plot is is beyond comparison.

Yeah - that tin foil hat is a good decription seems like!

Kat_Somm_Faen · 08-08-2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debater10
Nope. I would like to think that I am a pretty reasonable person. Countries will act in accordance with their own best interests. It was in the United States' best interest to conduct a swift campaign in Iraq, thereby re-establishing a military dominance in that area of the world.
It was in Iraq's best interests to rid themselves of the proff of weapons production when the US was stalled in the UN.
It was in Germany and France's best interests to see the United States fail. With their militaries already obsolete in NATO, they wanted to make the point that military strength should not decide a course of action in a potential crisis. Also, diminishing US hegemony in Europe would be very much appreciated as well, I imagine.

So next time someone decides they have an interest in "re-establishing a military dominance in that area of the world." its completely OK. I mean whats a war or two for an orderly and lawfull humane society? I mean we can dispense with it since we have interest..

Aiight!

I guess Hitler was well within his right to whip Poland and Czekoslovakia.

He had interest in "re-establishing a military dominance in that area of the world." I see now where you are coming from ...

debater10 · 08-08-2003, 10:05 PM

Though I won't go so far as to involve my IQ in this matter, I would like to point out something about your comments, if you would permit me...

ad hominem after an ad hominem after an ad hominem

... but excluding the logical fallacies of your arguement, I am not saying that Sadamm had some sinister plot... what I am saying is that a leader of a nation accused of having illegal weapons would do best to get rid of them if an attack on their soil is soon coming. Why would they still fight even if they didn't have a chance of winning? Because it makes it all the worse when the US army has killed hundreds of Iraqis and found nothing.

And Kat_Somm_Faen is, unfortunately, misunderstanding what I said. It was in Washington's interest to re-establish dominance in Europe. NEVER did I say that it was a positive or good thing to do so. Washington's intents were, in fact, many. Included in them was the elimination of potentially dangerous weapons from Iraq. Hitler was wrong, and the US could have very well been wrong, also. The point I am making, and have been making from the beginning, is that ALL the nations involved will come to be at fault when they act in their own self-interest.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 08-08-2003, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debater10
Nope. I would like to think that I am a pretty reasonable person. Countries will act in accordance with their own best interests. It was in the United States' best interest to conduct a swift campaign in Iraq, thereby re-establishing a military dominance in that area of the world.

Sieg HEIL! Sieg HEIL! Sieg HEIL!

Quote:

It was in Iraq's best interests to rid themselves of the proff of weapons production when the US was stalled in the UN.

And the inspectors were still at work at this time, and they WERE in Iraq.

Quote:

It was in Germany and France's best interests to see the United States fail. With their militaries already obsolete in NATO, they wanted to make the point that military strength should not decide a course of action in a potential crisis. Also, diminishing US hegemony in Europe would be very much appreciated as well, I imagine.

Hegemonies are a GOOD thing then?

Quote:

All the countries involved acted, for better AND for worse in the case of all of them, in their own self interests. It would have been better if the US had attempted a more diplomatic solution.

Which is funny, since you say that GW's idea of a frontal charge was a good one.

Quote:

It would have been better if Iraq had just permitted the weapons inspectors if they did not have any weapons.

They DID allow inspectors in.

Quote:

And it would have been better for Germany and France to find more effecient ways of controlling US hegemony.

Which would be...?

Quote:

To deny the responsibility of all the involved parties and place the blame solely on the United States is both inaccurate and illogical.

So, in other words, a woman buys a cheaper lock on her door and is raped because that model is easily picked, she's partly to blame?

The US is the one that acted entirely illegally, unjustified, and otherwise immoraly. Who is to blame?

08-08-2003, 09:24 PM	#1
S2Focus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: 1162 easy freeway minutes from the new ICR in TX Posts: 896	Two links for your enjoyment. First read http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true. Then read http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/in...09WEAP.html?hp. Now, are GWB and friends liars or idiots? (you can take that as an inclusive "or", if you wish).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2003, 09:38 PM	#2
debater10 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA Posts: 106	Is there a "none of the above" option? Just to make an interesting obbservation: While France and Germany were dragging their feet in the UN Security Council, Iraq surely knew that war was an very good possibility, and they knew what it would be over. At the same time, making the United States look bad (which, it has been discovered, has been the goal of more than just a couple of nations who are resentful of the success of the United States) would prfit Iraq should the war be a victory for the either side. So while Schroeder and Chirac are whining about the illegitimacy of conducting a campaign against a nation who, to the surprise of no one, refused UN weapons inspectors, Iraq is getting rid of the major facilities and materials that would prove the existence of their WMD programs. It, therefore, does not surprise me it all the the evidence has been scarce as of late. And who do we have to thank for that? President Bush, along with an impressive coalition of countries, had the right idea from the start. Instead, the liberal leaders of a few countries, acting VERY hypocritical by criticising the US for acting in its own interests while they sat back and did the exact same by trying to make a smear campaign against the US, slowed what could have been a very simple matter.

08-08-2003, 09:39 PM	#3
The SwampThing Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Portugal Posts: 249	Oh yeah, shure... They certainly "found" something, although i am not certain it was weapons of mss destruction... My guess is he "found" his head up his presidential ass!! I wonder how he will explain these 3 little words, when he still has to explain the other 16... One thing is certain: he is running out of escape goats to pin the blame on, for his big mouth. Sooner or later, he will have to clamp it shut, to prevent other BS from coming out! What a jerk!!! Its amazing there are still those who support him, even after all these presidential slips of the tongue! He really must be feeding them with some powerfull mind numbing drugs, powerfull enough to make zombies out of every supporter... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

08-08-2003, 09:57 PM	#6
debater10 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA Posts: 106	Nope. I would like to think that I am a pretty reasonable person. Countries will act in accordance with their own best interests. It was in the United States' best interest to conduct a swift campaign in Iraq, thereby re-establishing a military dominance in that area of the world. It was in Iraq's best interests to rid themselves of the proff of weapons production when the US was stalled in the UN. It was in Germany and France's best interests to see the United States fail. With their militaries already obsolete in NATO, they wanted to make the point that military strength should not decide a course of action in a potential crisis. Also, diminishing US hegemony in Europe would be very much appreciated as well, I imagine. All the countries involved acted, for better AND for worse in the case of all of them, in their own self interests. It would have been better if the US had attempted a more diplomatic solution. It would have been better if Iraq had just permitted the weapons inspectors if they did not have any weapons. And it would have been better for Germany and France to find more effecient ways of controlling US hegemony. To deny the responsibility of all the involved parties and place the blame solely on the United States is both inaccurate and illogical.

08-08-2003, 09:58 PM	#7
Kat_Somm_Faen Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Boulder, Colorado Posts: 3,316	I guess if an average rabid Bush supporter would be submitted to an IQ test... What would we get? Ad hoc after an ad hoc and after an ad hoc. Saddam must be a truly great genious ( even though an evil one ) to pull soooo many tricks on collective GW, DC, the neocons, CIA and everyone in the world. I mean, just how devilish this guys plot is is beyond comparison. Yeah - that tin foil hat is a good decription seems like!

08-08-2003, 10:05 PM	#9
debater10 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA Posts: 106	Though I won't go so far as to involve my IQ in this matter, I would like to point out something about your comments, if you would permit me... ad hominem after an ad hominem after an ad hominem ... but excluding the logical fallacies of your arguement, I am not saying that Sadamm had some sinister plot... what I am saying is that a leader of a nation accused of having illegal weapons would do best to get rid of them if an attack on their soil is soon coming. Why would they still fight even if they didn't have a chance of winning? Because it makes it all the worse when the US army has killed hundreds of Iraqis and found nothing. And Kat_Somm_Faen is, unfortunately, misunderstanding what I said. It was in Washington's interest to re-establish dominance in Europe. NEVER did I say that it was a positive or good thing to do so. Washington's intents were, in fact, many. Included in them was the elimination of potentially dangerous weapons from Iraq. Hitler was wrong, and the US could have very well been wrong, also. The point I am making, and have been making from the beginning, is that ALL the nations involved will come to be at fault when they act in their own self-interest.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.