AURaptor I have a question... by RiveR6213

Nobody leaves anyone alone on this planet.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 7:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As if you know there's a rest of the world outside your home state.

I know quite a lot actually. I recall from when I lived in Saarbrucken Germany how serious soccer is, and oddly, how they love Guns and Roses years after the US has forgotten them. Our classmates were tri-lingual (german, french, and english) wheras I struggled with my Deutsch.

I learned the value of a good haggle in Tel Aviv. While the world maligns the Israelis I saw naught but an honorable people working hard to preserve what they have built.

I learned the value of preserving history in the deep south of the US. I've seen little confederate flags fly over the graves of southern civil war soldiers aside american flags of southern soldiers from later wars, and it seemed very...right. Mal would agree with me.

I learned that no matter how nice the weather is in San Francisco, I don't want to go back.

I know that no matter how far I travel and where I go next, in the end I want Indiana soil over my grave.

Your problem C is that you are pumped full of euro bias. I doubt you've ever been stateside, yet you seek to paint us with some sort of broad euro-bias brush.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Actually, I don't care either. If the rest of the world see us that way, then maybe they will leave us the F*** ALONE

Here's the funny thing Wulf: THEY DO LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!

Since when have we been invaded by France or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia????

Our troops get killed but only when we're in THEIR country!! Maybe we should leave THEM alone!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:15 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Actually, I COMPLETELY AGREE.

We need to stop interfering with EVERY other country.

Period.

Except for Mexico. Them? We can just nuke for morbid.

(kidding!)

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 8:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So anyways.... my conversation with rapo isn't going too well. I really don't intend for rapo to express his opinions just to have him encircled by hostiles. I'm truly curious as to how he feels, what he thinks, and why.

rapo- do you want to continue this off-line?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I really don't intend for rapo to express his opinions just to have him encircled by hostiles.

He's not entirely alone. I'll stand with the Spartan no matter how many Persians try to swarm.

But you are correct, you're not getting the conversation you want, you're initating a mob spectacle that you cannot control and can only watch.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 9:56 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
He's not entirely alone. I'll stand with the Spartan no matter how many Persians try to swarm.

And you'll be overrun and slaughtered just like him every time.

Quote:
But you are correct, you're not getting the conversation you want, you're initating a mob spectacle that you cannot control and can only watch.

So what else is new?

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
you're initating a mob spectical that you cannot control and can only watch.

Which is why I suggested taking this off-line. Now, if RAPO wants to talk off-line, great.

OTOH if he doesn't want to, it implies that he himself is only willing to engage in mob spectacle, and not really up for an honest discussion.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 10:13 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

OTOH if he doesn't want to, it implies that he himself is only willing to engage in mob spectacle

Bingo!
He's nothing short of an internet masochist, craving the attention and hatred of the liberal legions over anything else.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I know quite a lot actually. I recall from when I lived in Saarbrucken Germany how serious soccer is, and oddly, how they love Guns and Roses years after the US has forgotten them. Our classmates were tri-lingual (german, french, and english) wheras I struggled with my Deutsch.

I learned the value of a good haggle in Tel Aviv. While the world maligns the Israelis I saw naught but an honorable people working hard to preserve what they have built.

I learned the value of preserving history in the deep south of the US. I've seen little confederate flags fly over the graves of southern civil war soldiers aside american flags of southern soldiers from later wars, and it seemed very...right. Mal would agree with me.

I learned that no matter how nice the weather is in San Francisco, I don't want to go back.

I know that no matter how far I travel and where I go next, in the end I want Indiana soil over my grave.

Your problem BS, is that you are so pumped full of US bias. I doubt you've ever been to any of the places you claim to have been too, yet you claim to know how non-American's think better than non-Americans, while painting all foreigners (especially those that disagree with you) with some sort of broad "Insular-US-Bias" brush.

Quote:

Your problem C is that you are pumped full of euro bias. I doubt you've ever been stateside, yet you seek to paint us with some sort of broad euro-bias brush.

Whatever you have to believe to get you through the night BS.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your problem BS, is...

*yawn*

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your problem BS, is...

*yawn*

You can dish it out, but can't take it, I see. How, predictable.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

You can dish it out, but can't take it, I see. How, predictable.

C'mon Cit, let's overrun and slaughter these guys.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:35 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Hey, I just heard from the French, any time you have a war you can't win, they said they'd do all the fighting for you again.

Considering we weren't even a country yet, and England was the biggest, baddest Empire on the planet back then, I'd be embarrassed to even bring that up.

Just be glad we don't hold grudges.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Considering we weren't even a country yet, and England was the biggest, baddest Empire on the planet back then, I'd be embarrassed to even bring that up.

Just be glad we don't hold grudges.

You desperately need to brush up on your history.

Besides, considering how long ago the Second World War was, and that America ran it more like a business than helping it's allies, not to mention the Russians doing most of the fighting, I'd have thought you should be embarrassed bringing it up.

Perhaps you should stop holding grudges

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:45 PM

America loves a winner!

The purpose was clearly stated in Congresses in the Iraq War Resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_A
gainst_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#Contents

Our reputation wasn't the REASON why we went to war, but it was certainly on the line.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:46 PM

America loves a winner!

citizen, once again, you prove me right,and you wrong.

Attaboy!

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rapo, I'm not asking for Congress' resolution, what I want to know is how YOU see it.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen, once again, you prove me right,and you wrong.

Attaboy!

I think stealing my words and throwing them back at me, because you're not bright enough to come up with your own come back, proves something quite different to you being right. As usual you attempt to claim yourself the winner, when as usual you've proven yourself nothing but an ignorant fool.

You're consistent in that regard at least. Lets see if you're consistent enough to drag one of your sock puppets in to defend you...

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 1:03 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rapo, I'm not asking for Congress' resolution, what I want to know is how YOU see it.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

How I 'see it' ?? It is what it is. Did I fully agree or 'buy' the whole process ? I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I just wanna know precisely what it is you're asking.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 2:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The resolution had a dozen reasons (as I recall) why we might invade Iraq. It also urged GWB to use diplomacy and to use our troops- but only to ensure American security.

Like all good political documents, it said many things to many people- even if some of the points contradicted each other. It was a real multi-legged Christmas tree. I doubt that you were fully on-board with every single item. Perhaps you had reasons of your own which didn't appear in the resolution. So I would like to know what YOUR reasons were, even if "because the President said so" or more generically "for the good of the nation".
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 3:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let me give you an idea where I'm going with this.

It's clear that you have a personal code. What I'm trying to figure out is what kind of code governs your political decisions. Is it the same or different than the one that informs your day-today life? If it's different, how is is different?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 4:43 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

What gives? Is your ant farm broken or something?

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

Friday, April 3, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How I 'see it' ?? It is what it is. Did I fully agree or 'buy' the whole process ? I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I just wanna know precisely what it is you're asking.

He's asking for your opinion. Something you've formed yourself, rather than taken fully formed from some radio host. Get it?

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:01 AM

KWICKO

"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:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
What gives? Is your ant farm broken or something?

And yet, here you sit, fascinated and watching...

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 2:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BDN... are you comparing your ally to an ant colony, only less interesting???

Hmmm... that's not nice!

Anyway rapo, it shouldn't be THAT hard to come up with an opinion - or at least a reaction.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 3:49 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Anyway rapo, it shouldn't be THAT hard to come up with an opinion - or at least a reaction.

*post edited*

Oh, you want me to say something like I think it was wrong, that Bush royally screwed up, or something, and we'd better off had we not gone into Iraq in the 1st place.

I can't say that, not because I think Bush was 100% right ( I think he did F up the post war period, and misunderestimated the threat from insurgency ), because hindsight is 20/20. For 10 yrs, and a previous administration, we were told that Saddam had this and that an might give terrorist WMD. Of course there was some who disagreed, just as some said Hitler would stop after he took Poland. That's the tough part, in trying to figure out who to believe, and dealing w/ the possible consequences of your action/inaction.

We knew what 10 yrs of sanctions did to Saddam - nothing. So long after the fact, I just don't know what the point of asking me what my OPINION is about events in the past. Why not ask me what I think on dropping the A-Bomb on Japan while you're at it ?

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 3:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Umm... well, clarify for me. You cited the Congressional resolution. It can- and has been- interpreted in contradictory ways depending on which parts are given greater weight, since it says more than one thing.

So, what do YOU think of it? Do you agree with every point? If not, which points do you agree with, which do you disagree with, and why?

Or does it even MATTER to you whether you do or not? Would you support it anyway, whether or not you agreed with its rationale, because its headed in the "right direction" which you have defined for reasons of your own?

Or would you support it anyway, even if you felt it was heading in the "wrong direction", because you trust the people who proposed it?

Clearly, you supported the invasion of Iraq. Why?
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 4:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I see we cross-posted.

No, I don't want you to say that you think Bush effed up.

Quote:
For 10 yrs, and a previous administration, we were told that Saddam had this and that an might give terrorist WMD. Of course there was some who disagreed, just as some said Hitler would stop after he took Poland. That's the tough part, in trying to figure out who to believe, and dealing w/ the possible consequences of your action/inaction. We knew what 10 yrs of sanctions did to Saddam - nothing. So long after the fact, I just don't know what the point of asking me what my OPINION is about events in the past. Why not ask me what I think on dropping the A-Bomb on Japan while you're at it ?

Okay, so basically you trusted that the Bush and Clinton administrations had the correct facts and gave them to you correctly, and also had the best answer for the time and gave that to you correctly also. Right?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 4:04 AM

America loves a winner!

Answered above, w/ post edit.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 4:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You said: We knew that...

I even highlighted it.

Umm. I "knew" no such thing. But you felt you did. What did you base your knowledge on?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 4:36 AM

America loves a winner!

What would come out as the Food for Oil ( Or Oil for Food) scam, something on which the press here in the U.S. has done amazing back flips and contortions to avoid doing any substantial reporting. Iraq was divided up into 3 zones, remember that ? No fly zones, in the north and south? We had the U.N. all up in Sadddam's ... back side, and he still was playing games w/ us, fighting us on every site which needed to be inspected, the dude simply wasn't cooperating. He'd give the appearance of playing along, but then would take 2 steps back for every 1 he took forward. Kofi Annan did more than simply look the other way, his own son profited from this ginormous scam. ( That whole ugly affair probably deserves its own thread )

So, we KNEW the sanctions were having no real effect on Saddam. He was actually making out like a bandit. The people of Iraq were the ones who suffered.( And naturally, who do you think the world protesters were blaming for THAT situation as well ? You got it, the good ol US of A. ) Not because of the sanctions, but because of the crooked, under table dealings being made w/ Saddam and much of Western Europe, circumnavigating the U.N. mandates.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 4:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, as it turns out, Saddam had actually destroyed his WMD. What he refused to do was ADMIT to having destroyed them, apparently out of fear that if Iran thought they could attack Iraq with impunity they would.

Saddam's lack of cooperation in accounting for his WMD was infamous. The UN's lack of spine was also rather infamous. So in broad brush, I could see a lot of reasons to be concerned about Iraq and WMD.

But there were several countervailing pieces of information which might have shed more light on the situation

1) Most of the evidence presented by Bush (aluminum tubes, attempted yellowcake purchases etc) were discounted by technocrats of various sorts. Were you aware of their technical assessments? If so, how did you account for them?

2) The UN had a highly motivated team- UNMOVIC, under Hans Blix- which was determined to get to the truth no matter what. Were you aware of their existence, their mission, and aggressive procedures? If yes, how did you account for it?

3) Whether Saddam had WMD or not, their impact ON US would would depend on third parties since Iraq had neither long-range delivery system nor did it have a history of wanting to attack the US directly in a terrorist fashion. So any WMD would have to come to us through a separate terrorist group: al Qaida, perhaps. But the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida was previously determined to be pretty weak, and based on testimony from a source known by the CIA and NSA to be unreliable (Curveball). Did you know this? If so, how did you account for it?

4) How did you account for the absolute urgency of invading Iraq? From the time that the issue was first mentioned to the point of invasion, the urgency seemed to ramp up... even while Iraq was under inspections. What do you suppose was happening which would cause what appeared to be a static situation to become so urgent?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 5:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rapo, I truly appreciate your replies. I'm gonna have to get to real life now but I hope to continue this discussion later. PLEASE let me know if I'm coming across as disrespectful or confrontational. Such is not my intention as I wish you all the best.

Cheers.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 5:13 AM

America loves a winner!

Different opinions, as I said before, don't mean that much when you're dealing w/ such issues as WMD. If a tube or some other type of manufactured element has more than 1 use, you have to take into consideration the history of Saddam and what he's more LIKELY to make use of, if given the chance.

al Qaeda is only 1 terrorist group, and it's been shown that unlikely partners, when faced w/ a common enemy , can run joint operations, if only for a limited time. And Iraq was known to have friendly ties w/ other terrorist, so this claim that al Qaeda and Iraq weren't linked that tightly is of little use to me. This is from the same intel that told us that he HAD WMD, and we're suppose to believe them in other areas, with even LESS credible / reliable evidence ? Sorry, when I see Gov't buildings in Iraq w/ murals praising the WTC attack, I'll side w/ caution over pretty much everything else. Thanks anyways.

Quote:
Rapo, I truly appreciate your replies. I'm gonna have to get to real life now but I hope to continue this discussion later. PLEASE let me know if I'm coming across as disrespectful or confrontational. Such is not my intention as I wish you all the best.

No, you're doing a solid job, and I also appreciate it. Any snarky sounding remarks I may be tossing in w/ my replies are purely meant in the general sense, and not directed towards you. Just so we're clear. Ditto on all the best, as real world beckons here as well.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 6:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ditto

*UGHHHHHH*

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 6:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

4) How did you account for the absolute urgency of invading Iraq?

Saddam was belligerent & NEEDED TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON (with the blood of our troops). It's that simple.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 10:23 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ditto
*UGHHHHHH*

The laughing Chrisisall

I swear, I didn't do it intentionally, or w/ any malice afore thought, but once it was typed, I knew it was gonna irk someone. Glad it was you that I irked.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:24 PM

URA biped.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009 11:23 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
URA biped.

The laughing Chrisisall

Takes one to know one.

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

Sunday, April 5, 2009 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Takes one to know one.

I'm rbr yr glu...

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, April 5, 2009 6:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If a tube or some other type of manufactured element has more than 1 use

I guess this is where being a techie has some advantage. Along the same lines as "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"... you can't make uranium centrifuge tubes out of just any old aluminum tubes. Centrifuge tubes need to have a high tensile strength, if you take an aluminum destined for some other purpose and TRY to use if for fuel enrichment it'll fall apart. I can't remember which agency looked at those tubes (prolly the DOE since they have a lot of experience with uranium enrichment, but may have been the NRC) but the technical evaluation of those tubes was that they were categorically unsuited for uranium enrichment. And when I heard that the supposed document between Saddam and Niger bore signatures of people no longer in the Niger government, with misspelled names... I said, the hell with it, CLEARLY someone is just pumping up specious information to make it look like something that it isn't!

It didn't help that Saddam was in "delay, deny, and obfuscate" mode, that every concession was wrung from him with more bombing (or the threat of more bombing), and that his regime made ambiguous purchases- such as buying way more agar medium than Iraq's hospitals and research facilities could account for. So I get that Saddam himself wasn't coming clean in a transparent way, that his participation in the certification of his nation (as meeting UN mandates) was being squeezed from him, which really didn't create trust. (Hmmm... kinda like the way the banks are eying each other now. But I digress!

) OTOH, what Saddam did or didn't do in no way took away from the "ground truth" being established by UNMOVIC. In my book, you keep your eye on THE question: Does Saddam have current, useful WMD? And try not to get sidetracked by the motives of EITHER government. It's back to the silk-purse/ sow's-ear : no amount of "opinion" or wishful thinking or supposition or fear is going to change one thing into another.

But you didn't answer my other question, which I think is important: Given that Iraq was in the process of undergoing a digital rectal exam, WHY did invasion become so terribly urgent???? I just couldn't square the idea of a robust WMD production program... one able to produce WMD in meaningful amounts... with the concept of it being invisible to satellite (including chemical) detection, ground inspection, and inventory accounting. When Rumsfeld went off the deep end and claimed that he knew that WMD had been deployed east, west, norht south somewhat of Baghdad... Man, I just rolled my eyes. It seemed to me that the closer and closer Blix got to the end of the inspection and still finding nothing the more and more frantic the Bush administration became about invading, and the more outlandish their claims became. It went WELL past the original complaint (Saddam didn't account for his WMD of 1990) and way into.... He's making them NOW! He's gonna bomb us! He's deployed his WMD!

THAT didn't square at all with "ground truth". Not basing my viewpoint on "trust"... not trusting Saddam or Blix or Bush.... just parsing out the possible from the incredible.

I guess I just keep bumping into a couple of your ways of processing information which seems to give me heartburn. One is your view of all information as "opinion". Reality is not a matter of "opinion": it is as it is. My intellectual challenge, as I see it, is to see as closely as I can what REALLY IS. To match my mental model- my opinion- to reality. It has meant giving up a whole boatload of shoulds and shouldnts, fair and unfair. People sometimes behave in ways I can't stomach, but if I block that out of my mental model I will be unable to predict what they'll do next. The other related issue is the way you ignore countervailing information. If you're looking to see the world only in a way which bolsters your opinion, that's exactly what you'll do. But if you're looking at the world simply to SEE IT AS IT IS you'll have to come to terms with data which rubs the wrong way.

Anyway, just so the question doesn't get lost in all this typing: Given that Saddam was in the process of the equivalent of a digital rectal exam by UNMOVIC, WHY the increasing urgency to invade?

And another question: how did you square some of the administration's wilder claims of massive WMD deployment around Baghdad with the fact that there was no evidence of ANY sort to indicate that had taken place?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Sunday, April 5, 2009 7:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anyway, reality calls. Looking forward to yr reply.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

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

Sunday, April 5, 2009 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
this claim that al Qaeda and Iraq weren't linked that tightly is of little use to me

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, April 5, 2009 10:23 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Considering we weren't even a country yet, and England was the biggest, baddest Empire on the planet back then, I'd be embarrassed to even bring that up.

Just be glad we don't hold grudges.

You desperately need to brush up on your history.

Besides, considering how long ago the Second World War was, and that America ran it more like a business than helping it's allies, not to mention the Russians doing most of the fighting, I'd have thought you should be embarrassed bringing it up.

Perhaps you should stop holding grudges

Yes, it is true that the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS treated WWII like a business, or a political play. That is all FDR's despicable fault. Since this is the party and politics AuRap usually opposes and ridicules, surprising you would bring that up. Having FDR refusing to assist Yurp, and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

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

Sunday, April 5, 2009 11:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
It didn't help that Saddam was in "delay, deny, and obfuscate" mode,

As I stated earlier, it was a history of 10 yrs or more in which Saddam was playing this shell game, and I think the Bush administration wanted to send a message, " No more yankee our wankee " Also, pure speculation here, as I don't recall reading this specific point, but it's likely the administration knew the U.N. was wholly corrupt, via the Food for Oil scam, but didn't want to come out and say so, for it needed the credibility of that same U.N. to back up the 10+ yrs of resolutions against Iraq.

As far as the wild claims dept., I'd have to say it was bad intel. Remember the story of the mystery cargo ships, which were reported sailing around somewhere out in the ocean, allegedly having questionable cargo manifest, and were suspected to be carrying the bulk of Saddam's WMD material ?

Quote:
The UK Independent reports American and British military and intelligence services are tracking the movement of 3 cargo ships that have been cruising around the Indian Ocean which may be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

No ships were ever even FOUND,that I ever heard about, and it seems never existed. But there the story was, being repeated on all major networks. I never heard of an explanation, or where this story came from, and how it became so widely reported / accepted when there was nothing to it. Stuff like that really annoy me, because as the media is so breathless in throwing out such nuggets of information, we never back track the story to its source and ask the serious questions.... how does crap like this make it to the evening news ?

Overall, the attitude of the administration and many Americans were that, we're sick of dealing w/ Saddam, and we want him to come clean or we're gonna use force to do it.

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

Sunday, April 5, 2009 11:48 PM

America loves a winner!

Chris

Your 'screw ball' pic is too large and serves no function. Kinda like you head.

Seriously, I expect better from you.

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

Monday, April 6, 2009 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Yes, it is true that the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS treated WWII like a business, or a political play. That is all FDR's despicable fault. Since this is the party and politics AuRap usually opposes and ridicules, surprising you would bring that up. Having FDR refusing to assist Yurp, and sacrifice the lives of servicemen at Pearl Harbor just to play politics is certainly henious.

Sounds like the politics you're supporting all the time RapSock. Or do you prefer DobsonAllianceFan? Both are true.

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

Monday, April 6, 2009 2:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

You can dish it out, but can't take it, I see. How, predictable.

Um, actually if you look at the time stamp on that post it is 11:03 or rather 5:03pm eastern time. In other words, it was time to go home and play with my baby daughter. This stands opposed to you, sitting in another timezone staring at your computer screen in a frothy rage into the wee hours of the morning.

Well I'm back to the computer now if you want to continue losing debates with me. I left Friday on a rather high note in fact, after you repeated my own arguement back at me, unable to think of something substantial to type. I just finished reading down the thread and observed you accusing rap of the same thing later. Projecting your own traits on others perhaps?

JSF, glad to see you in the thread.

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

Monday, April 6, 2009 2:59 AM