South Ossetia: Defense against ethnic cleansing, or invasion? (Turns out, Georgia fired missiles first. it was self defense) by SignyM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

How would you feel about a country taking unilateral action in Darfur?

That's a STUPID question. What do they have that anyone wants? Might as well ask me how I'd feel about Cheney getting a sex change.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s not the essence of “Neocon” ideology. You need to learn more about Neoconservatism.

You're obsessed with correct labeling- this is a living system, fluid and changing- history will figure out the precise descriptions later, my commenting upon the essence of the current, prevalent ideology is correct, IMO.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

How would you feel about a country taking unilateral action in Darfur?
That's a STUPID question. What do they have that anyone wants? Might as well ask me how I'd feel about Cheney getting a sex change.

Now that's a diversion.

Or what about Rwanda, where the UN had policy and standing, but refused to act - if someone had acted unilaterally in that case to prevent the wanton slaughter of a million Rwandans what would you say about that?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Or what about Rwanda, where the UN had policy and standing, but refused to act - if someone had acted unilaterally in that case to prevent the wanton slaughter of a million Rwandans what would you say about that?

That's a STUPID question. What do they have that anyone wants? Might as well ask me how I'd feel about Cheney getting a sex change.

Real answer? If the RIGHT THING was done, I'd applaud it. Trouble is, that's rarely the case. And I'd rather see mistakes made within the law than outside it.

GRRRRRisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Real answer? If the RIGHT THING was done, I'd applaud it. Trouble is, that's rarely the case. And I'd rather see mistakes made within the law than outside it.

Well, Chris, that’s a good answer, but it’s not one I completely agree with. I don’t want to see a million die because of some strict adherence to an ideology, even if that ideology is just “the rule of law.” Even though that ideology is one I agree with and one I think should be pushed as far as it can go, but when the system is shaky and Capones are in charge, some latitude needs to be given to those who are willing to try something else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but when the system is shaky and Capones are in charge, some latitude needs to be given to those who are willing to try something else.

But who decides who the Capones are?
Who is the Decider?

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Until the UN becomes mature enough to have the full faith of nations, some nations will always have to act on their own

And that is exactly what Russia did.

I know what you're going to say...

"But, but... that's different!"

But, but... it's not.

Pleas see the signature below about any idea.

ETA BTW Finn, I don't hate you. I just think you're terribly confused. You state principles very globally... "some nations will always have to act on their own"... without realizing that principle, applied universally and w/o caveats, could create the things you claim to despise.

I know that you have limitations to your statements. The biggest limitation is that you apply your principles selectively. For example, what you REALLY mean is... "Only the USA and other nations that I like can act on their own". Other nations acting on their own would be anathema. Another example is "I value human life". If that were the case, then you would be against any killing whatsoever, except in cases of direct self-defense of defense of others. But you're not. You don't apply that idea as universally as you make it sound. What you REALLY mean is "I value human life, as long as it's innocent or doesn't get in the way of greater ideals, such as freedom".

I simply want you to be explicit about your context and limitations. And that means that you have to recognize them, something you're not doing now.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:57 AM

Finn is flat out wrong. A no vote by the security council and American unilateral action proves that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why didn’t Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia? The US/UK did. Many, many times.

The US and the UK didn't have prior proof and precedent that you don't need UN support in order to invade a sovereign nation. Russia did, provided by the Unilateral invasion of Iraq. Something you've singularly failed to argue against with your childish protestations of mine being nothing but a "blame America" argument. It is indeed much more nuanced than that, and certainly much more nuanced than your own, evidenced by the fact that you can lay out your opinion in as many words as it takes me paragraphs.

So you think that America setting a precedent of not listening to the UN and doing whatever the hell it likes, has nothing to do with Russia thinking it can get away with not listening to the UN and doing whatever the hell it wants? Seems monkey see monkey do to me, but of course in order to recognise that, one might have to drop one's nationalist line "America perfect! America infallible! America always right!"

Nationalism is condemning one country for doing nothing more than yours did yesterday. Good luck with that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Finn is flat out wrong. A no vote by the security council and American unilateral action proves that.

But it wasn't really a no vote, it was a yes vote that had been bought into being a no vote, so since it was actually a yes vote, and not a no vote, yes, you'd have to say invading Iraq was totally legit, no?

Now you see, yes?

Dizzyisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But it wasn't really a no vote, it was a yes vote that had been bought into being a no vote, so since it was actually a yes vote, and not a no vote, yes, you'd have to say invading Iraq was totally legit, no?

Now you see, yes?

The UN's headquarters is in New York, not Florida Chris.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

The UN's headquarters is in New York, not Florida Chris.

Don't tell me; you'll be here all week, right?

LOLisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So you think that America setting a precedent of not listening to the UN and doing whatever the hell it likes, has nothing to do with Russia thinking it can get away with not listening to the UN and doing whatever the hell it wants? Seems monkey see monkey do to me, but of course in order to recognise that, one might have to drop one's nationalist line "America perfect! America infallible! America always right!"

Nationalism is condemning one country for doing nothing more than yours did yesterday. Good luck with that.

Where are the 12 years of UN debate on the issue of Georgia like that the US conducted prior to the war in Iraq? Where are the 17 Chapter 7 UN Resolutions against Georgia like those that the UN issued against Iraq during those negotiations conducted by the US? Where are the sanctions and attempts to deal with Georgia peacefully to avoid invasion, that were the product of those resolutions issued against Iraq?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:41 AM

None of those resolutions, debate or anything besides gave the US the right, legal or otherwise, to invade Iraq. QED.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
None of those resolutions, debate or anything besides gave the US the right, legal or otherwise, to invade Iraq. “QED”

That’s your opinion, and it’s not held by everyone, but regardless, Russia did none of those things - Russia never attempted for a moment to alleviate the matter without war. Invasion was their first resort - classic Soviet-Era politics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but when the system is shaky and Capones are in charge, some latitude needs to be given to those who are willing to try something else.

But who decides who the Capones are?
Who is the Decider?

When it gets to that point, people or nations are acting on what they feel is right or in their best interests. Which is why the UN needs to ACT, so that it doesn't loose the faith of nations - something I tried for the longest time to explain to people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:21 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Where was UN support for the invasion of Iraq? Oh, that's right, there wasn't any, the security council voted no. Just because you buy our excuses, but not theirs, doesn't mean that they do the same, or even that ours are really any better.
Twelve years of UN Chapter 7 Resolutions and so many sanctions that it created a whole bureaucracy within the UN just to deal with Iraq. Where was that for Georgia? Oh, that’s right, there wasn’t any.
The security council voted what Finn?

17 Chapter 7 Resolutions over 12 years.

And how many resolutions against Israel ???

why ain't you all bomben them

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And how many resolutions against Israel ???

why ain't you all bomben them

Most of those resolutions deal with both Israel AND the Palestinians, and none of them are actionable - they are all Chapter 6 Resolutions which require no enforcement of UNSC decisions, unlike the Chapter 7 resolutions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s your opinion, and it’s not held by everyone,

*sigh*
Opinions again...
Like Chris Rock said in Lethal Weapon 4, No means NO!

Quote:
Russia never attempted for a moment to alleviate the matter without war. Invasion was their first resort - classic Soviet-Era politics.

America strained at the UN leash to alleviate the matter with war. Invasion was their first choice - classic Bush-Era politics.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s your opinion, and it’s not held by everyone,

No, it's not my opinion. In this instance it's a statement of fact. Of course portraying fact as opinion serves you well in bolstering your opinion, but it's still an opinion held by those who do not know, or do not understand the facts.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s your opinion, and it’s not held by everyone,
No, it's not my opinion. In this instance it's a statement of fact. Of course portraying fact as opinion serves you well in bolstering your opinion, but it's still an opinion held by those who do not know, or do not understand the facts.

Said the person who can't tell the difference between 12 years of 17 Chapter 7 UN Resolutions and an outright invasion of a neighboring state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Said the person who can't tell the difference between 12 years of 17 Chapter 7 UN Resolutions and an outright invasion of a neighboring state.

Said the person that thinks that using the organisation that told you not to do something to legitimise that which you did is a cogent argument...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:17 PM

"BEHAVE YOURSELVES!!!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN (Takes deep breath) we've been through this before with Rapo. I quoted the last UN Resolution on Iraq at length, and linked the entire text. There was NO authorization of use of force in that last Resolution... yanno, the one where the UN was deciding what to do with Iraq and all of the previous resolutions.

And why???

The plain fact of the matter is that Saddam was about to be found in compliance with UN resolutions. And why was that?

Because he was.

He had, in fact destroyed his WMD (except the relatively few canisters, shells, and drums that got lost) and did not carry forward WMD research. Everything that Colin Powell said to the UN was fabrication, exaggeration, or paranoia, and fortunately they have better bullshit meters than you. I'm not saying the UN is always right, but in this instance they were.

I listened closely to the US member of the UNMOVIC team Scott Ritter who was convinced that Saddam did NOT have WMD as well as the concerns of David Kay who was (even before his assignment to the post-invasion USA inspection team) a cautionary voice. There was no evidence whatsoever of ongoing WMD production or storage.

Now,you may argue "What if sanctions had been lifted, and Saddam could go forward with his plans" (however you might imagine them) "with oil revenue behind him?" I can see how that would be a concern. But there are about a dozen ways to deal with that issue and Saddam was so far behind at that point on the WMD curve that it is a specious reason on which to base an invasion... especially an invasion that was billed as being a matter SO URGENT that they couldn't even let UNMOVIC finish its job.

Ultimately, that was what led me to realize the purpose of the invasion WAS to PREVENT UNMOVIC from issuing a report. Spring was thought the best time to invade, the window was closing, UNMOVIC was going to conclude some time in fall (at the latest). Cheney could have waited until the following spring if an invasion was deemed necessary, especially since the inspections were turning up nothing upon nothing and the matter was looking less and less urgent, not more and more so. But that was the LAST thing the Admin wanted.. Invasion was a foregone conclusion and their excuse was about to be taken away. That's why they had to jump the gun and kick out the inspection team by invading.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:45 AM

FOSTER

You know that the Russian excuse is the same one that Hitler used to invade Poland back in the day.

They were "German" people living in Poland and so he was just protecting them from genocide and discrimination. Answer for the world "well if they are your people and your protecting them then it is OK to invade"

It is all just a little bit of history repeating

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Spring was thought the best time to invade, the window was closing, UNMOVIC was going to conclude some time in fall (at the latest). Cheney could have waited until the following spring if an invasion was deemed necessary, especially since the inspections were turning up nothing upon nothing and the matter was looking less and less urgent, not more and more so.

I was paying close attention back then, and I fully remember the rush to invade before all the evidence was in.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:07 AM

I finally found a picture of, er, the President that I like....

BadChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You know that the Russian excuse is the same one that Hitler used to invade Poland back in the day. They were "German" people living in Poland and so he was just protecting them from genocide and discrimination.

Except the Poles did not attack Germans living in Poland with tanks and missiles, so your analogy falls short.

If S Ossetia gains it's independence then that will be a good thing, in my book.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Spring was thought the best time to invade, the window was closing, UNMOVIC was going to conclude some time in fall (at the latest). Cheney could have waited until the following spring if an invasion was deemed necessary, especially since the inspections were turning up nothing upon nothing and the matter was looking less and less urgent, not more and more so.- Signy

I was paying close attention back then, and I fully remember the rush to invade before all the evidence was in.- Chrisisall

I think Finn is stuck here, because if he says that the REAL concern was the prospect of Saddam acquiring WMD in the future, he will have just admitted that the Administration lied.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, that's tame compared to Chavez.

I swear, he's about as pimpdaddy as you can get without the gold tooth, seriously.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I guess Finn must be busy.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:49 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess Finn must be busy.

Or maybe he didn't see your last post.

You be sure to keep needlessly bumping this thread until you get what you want m'kay.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Foster:
You know that the Russian excuse is the same one that Hitler used to invade Poland back in the day.

They were "German" people living in Poland and so he was just protecting them from genocide and discrimination. Answer for the world "well if they are your people and your protecting them then it is OK to invade"

It is all just a little bit of history repeating

Indeed, and the Bush administrations excuse for invading Iraq was pretty similar to Hitler's excuse for invading Russia. That's the problem with pre-emptive strikes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I was paying close attention back then, and I fully remember the rush to invade before all the evidence was in.

I was paying close attention back then too, and what I remember was a complete lack of faith in a system that had been so heavily corrupted over the last 12 years that it was deemed a waste of time, money and credibility to spend any time at all on it. And quite frankly, I agreed then and given the same 12 years of information, I would still agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And quite frankly, I agreed then and given the same 12 years of information, I would still agree.

So, how is it that MY estimation that we shouldn't invade, that they had no WMD, that we'd be there for YEARS & YEARS has turned out to be correct? Why was your evaluation of the same info I had at my disposal so differently digested?
Did I just make a 'good wild guess'?
Should I be working at the Pentagon? I think not- I'm sure they knew at least what I knew, & a great deal more. As the Emperor said, it's all proceeding according to plan- I just saw into parts of it where you trusted the rhetoric, as far as I can tell.

The self-confident Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, how is it that MY estimation that we shouldn't invade, that they had no WMD, that we'd be there for YEARS & YEARS has turned out to be correct? Why was your evaluation of the same info I had at my disposal so differently digested?
Did I just make a 'good wild guess'?

Like most anti-war types you where willing to trust the ruthless dictator.

And you didn’t know any more then I did that there were or weren’t WMD’s and everyone knew we would be there for a long time. The issue wasn’t as much about disarming Hussein, as much as it was about removing the UNSC from his pocket.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The issue wasn’t as much about disarming Hussein, as much as it was about removing the UNSC from his pocket.

Chrisisall's Magic 8-Ball says:
Reply hazy, try again

The WHOLE push behind the invasion was that he had ties to Al Qaeda & viable WMD in his country, both of which have proven untrue. At least, those were the reasons we were told.
So, we're back to you being okay that they lied to you, or you're okay with an administration that starts wars on faulty, incomplete evidence, or you just like to see ruthless dictators pounded on no matter what the reason.

Listen to what you type, Finn...we removed the UNSC from his pocket by INVADING HIS COUNTRY???

Were you just typing fast or something??

EDIT: plus, Re: my foreknowledge of history- you could have pulled a Spock and called it 'gifted insight' or something

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN

Quote:
Like most anti-war types you where (sic) willing to trust the ruthless dictator

Who said Trust but verify? I dunno... I can't seem to remember. Must be getting Alzheimer's or something.

Anyhoo.... YOUR problem is, you went on broad assumptions: The UN is corrupt and UNMOVIC is just window-dressing. Unlike you, I tried to find out what was REALLY going on. Verifying. You didn't. You screwed up because you heard what you wanted to hear and didn't go any further.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Who said Trust but verify?

The Magic 8-Ball?
Hope ya don't mind my latchin' onto that Signy, I know it's your thing, but it's so damn funny...I'll stop using it now.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO!

Don't stop!

YOU'RE too d*mn funny!

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:39 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Like most anti-war types you where willing to trust the ruthless dictator.

That's a lie; I've NEVER trusted George W. Bush.

Quote:
And you didn’t know any more then I did that there were or weren’t WMD’s and everyone knew we would be there for a long time.

Again, a lie. Quoth Donald Rumsfeld:

Quote:
...the Iraq war "could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," and stating in August 2003, "My impression is that the war was highly successful."

So, mission accomplished, eh? War's done, we're outta there in August of '03!

Quote:
The issue wasn’t as much about disarming Hussein, as much as it was about removing the UNSC from his pocket.

Again, a lie - at least according to George W. Bush's State of the Union Address:

Quote:
quoth George W. Bush:

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

So, I guess it was about disarming him, before it WASN'T about disarming him.

I guess when you look at it your way, invading Iraq and sacrificing thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians was totally worth it - if we could just make sure that we got the UNSC out of Saddam's pocket. Why, hell, that justifies the whole damned thing! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

Oh, yeah - because it's a bullshit reason. And yet another lie you tell to make yourself feel better.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:42 PM

Signy, can I borrow your Magic 8-Ball? Mine's busted. All it says when I ask it Finn's questions is "That's a Lie."

Well... maybe it's working right, after all. :)

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:07 PM

Peeinghiskiltisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
or you just like to see ruthless dictators pounded on no matter what the reason.

Doesn’t everybody? There really can never NOT be a good reason to pound on a ruthless dictator. It just comes down to whether you want to put the resources in it, that’s all.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Listen to what you type, Finn...we removed the UNSC from his pocket by INVADING HIS COUNTRY???

Were you just typing fast or something??

It worked.

And unlike weapons’ inspections no one ever doubted that it would. Now the next time a rogue nations compiles 17 Chapter 7 Resolutions, they’ll be looking over their shoulders, because the world and the UN knows that nations will not sit around while the UN dicks around and rogue nations start buying votes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:58 PM

Quote:
It worked.

Yes, swimmingly - why, we hardly had to even flick our finger. And it was all over so FAST. I can't believe we went in, fixed all the problems in Iraq, and got out so quickly.

Oh, wait - we didn't. I guess we sure showed those Frenchies, though - now they know that you don't bribe anyone in Iraq without putting the vig into Halliburton/KBR's pocket first!

Thank goodness there's no more corruption, scandal, bribery, or tomfoolery going on in Iraq now that we've saved the day for them.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:03 PM

Quote:
There really can never NOT be a good reason to pound on a ruthless dictator.

Well, unless he's YOUR ruthless dictator, bought and paid for with your tax money. And, you know, you kind of like him... the way we Americans tend to kind of like so many of the world's ruthless dictators.

So tell me, when do you plan to start pounding on Saudi Arabia?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
It worked.

Yes, swimmingly - why, we hardly had to even flick our finger. And it was all over so FAST. I can't believe we went in, fixed all the problems in Iraq, and got out so quickly.

This is really the only problem with this option. Too many people think that it should happen without “flick[ing] a finger,” and that it should be “over so FAST.” Too many people want easy fix solutions, which don't exist and have never existed, which means too many people are too willing to give up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So tell me, when do you plan to start pounding on Saudi Arabia?

Why would I bomb Saudi Arabia?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So tell me, when do you plan to start pounding on Saudi Arabia?
Why would I bomb Saudi Arabia?

Something about there not being a good reason to not pound on a ruthless dictator. Seems like I read that somewhere. Must've been someone else posting that...

Plus it seems like they're quite the ripe ground for terrorists. Let's see... Osama bin Laden - Saudi. Fifteen of nineteen 9/11 hijackers - Saudis. Naahhh, you're right - Iraq is the real threat. Or is it Iran this week?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:10 PM