|
|
| |
Forum Overview
::
Motherfucking News
|
| |
|
by Senor Barborito 08/08/2003, 10:44pm PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito wrote:
I think it would have been extremely naive to believe there were still serviceable WMD in Iraq as of September or so prior to the war, and by late February there should have been little question to someone who had given the published evidence a cursory examination.
Well, even Hans Blix thought that was the case, and he certainly had no evil Konservatives telling him what to do.
It was Hans Blix's JOB to act on the assumption that there were WMD in Iraq. He did that job for as long as the US allowed him to.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito wrote:
First off, much can be deduced by the greater actions of the nations in question - Hussein all but broadcast in plain English, "we'll do whatever you want, just don't invade." Unlimited inspections by the UN? You've got them. Destroy an entire class of missles? On it.
Much CAN be deduced, but what you are doing is taking a conclusion and adapting the evidence to it. He lied, deceived, and did everything possible to avoid successful inspections. The only time we came close in recent history was when Bush threatened the use of force credibly, and even then Hussein blew it. The inspections were a farce and you know it.
In fact, it is questionable whether the idea of inspections can ever operate in any situation where the local power doesn't want it to...
No, that is not what I'm doing. What I am doing is looking at the actions of the United States, and Iraq - who is compromising? Who is increasingly hardline depite compromises by the other party? Who is acting as if they don't actually have evidence? Do both parties respond reasonably to one another? We see the same thing in the IBM vs SCO Linux battle. SCO only becomes increasingly hardline the more the evidence they refuse to release is demanded of them - that's an indicator that they do not actually have much of a case.
Analyze the disagreement - look at the two parties exchange their arguments and determine which one is not behaving rationally. Starting with the assumption that Iraq DOES have WMD, Iraq has reasons not to wish for inspections, so they stall as the United States increasingly grows shrill asking them what the hell is up with their violations.
Both parties are behaving rationally if there are WMD.
Then, Iraq finally cracks and allows inspectors unfettered access to all facilities to check for WMD evidence - which the United States administration would never allow a foreign power to do for any reason.
This is not rational for Iraq if there are WMD to be found.
The United States continues to grow increasingly hostile and shrill despite Iraq caving AND destroying the missles that may exceed the maximum allowed range by a few miles.
This is not rational for the United States if its sole concern really is WMD.
SCO vs the Linux Community/IBM regarding the existence of unspecified 'copyright violations' within the Linux kernel code follows this EXACT same pattern, with SCO playing the part of the United States and the Linux community playing the part of Iraq. From this we can easily deduce that SCO is not telling the truth.
Do you understand my process here? This, more than any other, was how I knew there were little to no NBCs in Iraq when we invaded with only cursory examination of the arguments regarding the existence or nonexistence of WMD. Examine any exchange of words for signs of irrationality - the irrational party is lying, excessively emotional, or unfairly biased.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito wrote:
Would the Bush administration ever abide by those standards if the situation were reversed?
Are you suggesting that it is in need of the same treatment as the Hussein regime? Are you suggesting that the situation could ever, in any realistic scenario, be reversed? Are you trying to get me to get all worked up about international law and other things that I don't believe in and have never used as an argument?
We all know that the way the US operates, like any other, is based on realistic considerations of whose in charge.
I am asking how you think the United States government would respond if the UN demanded unfettered access to search us for WMDs as a pure hypothetical. The obvious answer (they'd go apeshit and tell the UN to go fuck itself just on principle alone, and rightly so) is also how Iraq would have acted throughout their diplomatic exchange process without backing down if there were weapons to be found. It makes sense that the first 'fuck you' over demands for inspections was based purely on principle of sovereignty and a desire to keep their actual cards hidden from their neigbors. They backed down because in the end they weren't hiding anything, and some sovereignty is better than the none at all we were offering.
Iraq's actions were rational given their interests, the United States' were not - which is our lying party? No crystal ball or oracle was needed. Start with the assumption that your prejudices are wrong, assume reasonable self-interest in both parties, and find the irrational behavior. Now switch to assuming your prejudices are correct, and repeat. It should become obvious in a short amount of time who is telling the truth.
Lizard_King wrote:
What is the PNAC? Moreover, recasting the situation as "Hussein the Peacemaker" is a really, really nice touch. I suppose you think Bush I "provoked" him into invading Kuwait?
What is the PNAC? You call yourself a conservative? PNAC is a neoconservative think tank that most of the leadership in the current State Department and Cheney belong to. In fact, largely PNAC defines 'the neoconservatives' as the term is meant by liberals of all stripes. During the Clinton administration they openly published publicly available position pieces suggesting the United States knock over one country in the Middle East and use it as a base of operations to begin knocking over any others it wishes. Notice the rumblings about Iran immediately following the fall of Iraq? That wasn't a coincidence. Fortunately for Iran (and unfortunately for American taxpayers), Rumsfeld isn't much of a general and underestimated the amount of troops needed to occupy Iraq by half.
Hussein was and is a lying bully who got his ass kicked twice over. Peacemaker? Only amongst the internal factions within Iraq. Liar to everyone else. But his behavior was rational if there were no WMD, and irrational if there were any.
Gulf War I, regardless of how much that Kuwaiti princess lied through her teeth about 'Iraqi soldiers killing babies in hospitals' (she wasn't even in Kuwait during the invasion), was justified. However, Hussein did receive the green light from the State Dept. of Bush I to go ahead with that invasion, not to mention the infamous picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands taken earlier. Ethical failure, but the end result was for the best all things considered - which is more than I can say for Gulf War II. You might remember that Bush I opposed his son publicly on the invasion of Iraq - that's because he's a smart guy, even if he was a bastard (a description that fits Clinton adequately as well).
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito wrote:
Nevermind that Blix and his team found barely anything. Nevermind the flimsy nature of the evidence the US presented. Then there was the matter of former inspector Ritter's interview with the Guardian. True, Ritter had accepted money from an Iraqi businessman to make a movie about the inspections - but what that article fails to mention is that the final tally left him paying $40,000 out of his own pocket ($80,000 actually, but he took $40,000 of the money he got to make the movie as salary) to make that movie, which no propagandist would ever do. What's more, he wasn't approached about it until after he began writing in defense of Iraq and the earlier inspections in '99.
It was pretty obvious that Ritter did about a 180 in his views of Iraq. Literally. He went from viewing Hussein as someone who needed to be removed from power immediately to predicting Iraqi victory in the war. I think the blackmail angle is a far more reasonable explanation than yours. You believe the worst of all who disagree with you; I suggest you use the same standards for your allies.
I don't view Ritter as an ally. I don't view him as anything other than a source of information regarding how long it takes the B and C of NBCs to break down - that's the only thing he has to say that I'm interested in. We know the production facilities were destroyed, and new ones couldn't escape the inspectors crawling all over Iraq, so it was simply a matter of time until any remaining ones experied before we could kick up our heels and enjoy containment with a clean conscience - that deadline was 2001, so attacking in 2003 seems a bit absurd if our reason truly was WMD.
Lizard_King wrote:
Senor Barborito wrote:
Too many pieces of weak evidence being waved about to make the case, too many good points against said case overlooked, and the US administration behaving very tellingly while Hussein gave in to their demands as much as he could without completely losing face? Then we have the issue of PNAC's principles, and more relevant letter to Clinton on Iraq.
Do you really expect me to try to argue against your religious belief in the Konservative Konspiracy (TM)? Like I say to the jackasses who trace everything to Jewish control of our government: 1. If they are running things, good job and where can I sign up? and 2. Maybe other countries could use their own Conservative/Jewish conspirators to whip them into shape.
Zionist control of the government is pretty obviously ridiculous rascist pap, and I'm not much interested in conspiracy theories that cannot be proven. However the top members of the State Department and the Vice President - the members of the administration accused of ramming this war down our throats unjustly - are all publicly avowed members of PNAC. PNAC publicly and repeatedly published a position during the Clinton administration openly advocating knocking down Iraq and using it as a base of operations to knock down other hostile Middle Eastern governments in a domino effect.
That's not a conspiracy theory - that's publicly viewable evidence that much of the Bush II administration has a huge bias against Iraq that stands independent of the presence of any WMD.
Lizard_King wrote:
And I said from the very beginning that I didn't give a damn about WMD's, rather seeing the whole thing as a cover for a Middle Eastern strategy involving active US engagement.
Iraq did nothing to deserve that war that Iran didn't do worse, and North Korea didn't do multiple times over. North Korea sent a letter to the United States government promising to 'bury us in a sea of fire.' Hussein was playing ball with the inspections and obeying our commands regarding destruction of long range weapons.
What is wrong with this picture?
Lizard_King wrote:
Then find me this alternate expert. Because Ritter is about as reliable as the Iraqi propaganda minister, and less amusing.
I agree. Independent confirmation should be established here.
Lizard_King wrote:
Hell, if I had any money to spare I'd donate to his campaign. I like the guy, and I'll encourage a non-gun control Democrat any day of the week.
Dean is conservative in all the intelligent ways save the death penalty, and liberal in all of the intelligent ways as well (especially healthcare). He'll be the first politician I will ever actually vote for, not knowing about PNAC during the '00 election.
--SB |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
The man just keeps making sense. by Lizard_King 08/06/2003, 10:07pm PDT 
Re: The man just keeps making sense. by Antonius Snape 08/07/2003, 4:12am PDT
You cite Buchanan AND Raimondo in one post. by Lizard_King 08/07/2003, 2:32pm PDT
Re: You cite Buchanan AND Raimondo in one post. by foogla 08/07/2003, 3:41pm PDT
Re: You cite Buchanan AND Raimondo in one post. by laudablepuss 08/07/2003, 4:13pm PDT
Didn't his awful cruelty and dictatorship bother you? Only WMDs? NT by mrs. johnson 08/07/2003, 5:02pm PDT
Sure. So what? by laudablepuss 08/07/2003, 5:16pm PDT
Re: Didn't his awful cruelty and dictatorship bother you? Only WMDs? by Lizard_King 08/07/2003, 9:10pm PDT
Re: Didn't his awful cruelty and dictatorship bother you? Only WMDs? by godamit 08/08/2003, 10:49am PDT
Re: You cite Buchanan AND Raimondo in one post. by Lizard_King 08/07/2003, 8:55pm PDT
Re: You cite Buchanan AND Raimondo in one post. by foogla 08/08/2003, 4:32am PDT
The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by Senor Barborito 08/08/2003, 4:34am PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by laudablepuss 08/08/2003, 10:49am PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 11:05am PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by laudablepuss 08/08/2003, 11:17am PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by Fullofkittens 08/08/2003, 12:31pm PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by laudablepuss 08/08/2003, 12:44pm PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 3:03pm PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by I need clarification 08/08/2003, 3:59pm PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 4:27pm PDT
My "we elected Gore" comment... by Fullofkittens 08/08/2003, 4:57pm PDT
Re: My "we elected Gore" comment... by laudablepuss 08/08/2003, 5:29pm PDT
As you speak by Fullofkittens 08/08/2003, 7:01pm PDT
Re: As you speak by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 7:19pm PDT
Re: As you speak by I need clarification 08/08/2003, 9:33pm PDT
Re: As you speak by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 12:00am PDT
What the hell? by Damocles 08/09/2003, 2:12am PDT
Re: What the hell? by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 2:29am PDT
Re: As you speak by I need clarification 08/09/2003, 2:33pm PDT
Re: As you speak by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 4:24pm PDT
Re: As you speak by I need clarification 08/09/2003, 4:52pm PDT
Re: As you speak by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 5:41pm PDT
Re: As you speak by I need clarification 08/09/2003, 10:22pm PDT
If we were a democracy we'd get better tech, but then have riots because of Iraq NT by Roop Dirump 08/09/2003, 11:07pm PDT
Or you'd have more energy, more Fungus growth and more Drones while at war. NT by foogla 08/10/2003, 4:49am PDT
Are you just trolling me now? Or have you always? NT by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 11:46pm PDT
For a while now, yeah by I need clarification 08/10/2003, 1:14am PDT
Re: The real reason the left opposed the war, and other crap by I need clarification 08/08/2003, 5:54pm PDT
My pleasure by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 6:03pm PDT
Well, that explains a lot. by I need clarification 08/08/2003, 6:35pm PDT
I hate it when you get lazy by I need clarification 08/08/2003, 2:01pm PDT
I hate it when you post by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 2:54pm PDT
Re: I hate it when you post by Dr. Logic 08/08/2003, 3:40pm PDT
Re: I hate it when you post by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 3:52pm PDT
Re: I hate it when you post by laudablepuss 08/08/2003, 5:26pm PDT
Re: I hate it when you post by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 5:56pm PDT
My mistake. by laudablepuss 08/08/2003, 7:00pm PDT
Re: My mistake. by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 8:51pm PDT
Don't accuse me of babbling while the spit bubbles drift by your retard helmet by I need clarification 08/08/2003, 3:52pm PDT
Re: Don't accuse me of babbling while the spit bubbles drift by your retard helm by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 3:58pm PDT
Re: Don't accuse me of babbling while the spit bubbles drift by your retard helm by Dr. Logic 08/08/2003, 4:06pm PDT
It didn't originate from the document. by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 4:34pm PDT
"learned" implies truth. NT by Damocles 08/09/2003, 2:13am PDT
Hitting "reply" implies you have something to add. by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 2:31am PDT
I used to think LK was Damocles's new nick NT by FABIO 08/09/2003, 10:52pm PDT
That our views are directly contrary must have tipped you off. NT by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 11:46pm PDT
Re: That our views are directly contrary must have tipped you off. by FABIO 08/10/2003, 1:29am PDT
Since you asked me by Senor Barborito 08/08/2003, 7:01pm PDT
Re: Since you asked me by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 9:25pm PDT
That response was beneath you by Senor Barborito 08/08/2003, 10:44pm PDT
Nothing is beneath me. by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 11:56pm PDT
Thank you. by Senor Barborito 08/09/2003, 7:12am PDT
Re: Thank you. by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 1:13pm PDT
Hmmm by Senor Barborito 08/09/2003, 2:57pm PDT
Re: Hmmm by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 5:47pm PDT
WHAT??!!!! by Mischief Maker 08/08/2003, 1:08pm PDT
That's because you are (far) to the left of even them. by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 2:55pm PDT
Imagine an airplane. by laudablepuss 08/08/2003, 3:30pm PDT
Re: Imagine an airplane. by Lizard_King 08/08/2003, 3:49pm PDT
You people must feel awful by mrs. johnson 08/08/2003, 6:54pm PDT
That's not what a writer would do NT by Fussbett 08/09/2003, 2:21am PDT
Ignorance is only bliss for fools and cowards.NT NT by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 5:49pm PDT
What if the topic at hand is menstruation? NT by Senor Barborito 08/09/2003, 6:20pm PDT
Your own or someone else's? NT by Lizard_King 08/09/2003, 6:42pm PDT
When can I stop imagining an airplane? NT by Fussbett 08/09/2003, 2:23am PDT
Now you have to imagine it slamming into the WTC :( NT by I need clarification 08/09/2003, 2:50am PDT
Then you have to imagine the entire passanger compliment fucking. wildly. -nt- by Chairman Mao 08/09/2003, 3:11am PDT
Talk about explosive orgasms NT by TERRASTS R SEXY 08/09/2003, 2:58pm PDT
On the upside: Hippies and Nazis on the left wing die. NT by Fussbett 08/09/2003, 4:59pm PDT
:( NT by foogla 08/09/2003, 8:00pm PDT
I was going to tie it in and forgot. So, uh, you can stop now. NT by laudablepuss 08/10/2003, 3:22am PDT
|
|
| |
|
| |
