|
|
|
|
|
| |
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 6:24:56 PM | No, the NY Times does not constitute voices in my head. That was just one of the sources saying, IN ADVANCE of what you've noted the inspectors found, that America shouldn't go to war because of the threat of WMD. But before you cite the UN as some sort of authoritative source, you might consider their record in places like Somalia*, etc. Fact is, Iraq at some point had WMD - Saddam gassed his own people in the north with it - perhaps you didn't see the video and news shots of dead three year olds in the streets? There are some ill-inforned people in this world who think that that was enough justification to take out Saddam - I'm sure you aren't one of them, right?
This would be a great time to ask everyone here - given that female children can now safely attend school in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the persecuted ethnic groups are now relatively safer than they were prior to Saddam's ouster, at least from their government, the 'rape rooms' run by Saddam's children and the torture chambers are gone - are Iraqi citizens better or worse off than they were?
*For those interested, author Mark Bowden (Blackhawk Down) provides some interesting thoughts on the place of the US in a post cold-war world.) | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 6:32:27 PM | "Indeed there were. They were gone long before the invasion, though."
If there's one thing that I would think is obvious, it's that most countries try to hide their weaponry so as to have a stategic advantage. Iraq was continually obstructive with the inpsectors, they're behaviour vis a vis this sort of thing was, to put it mildly, somewhat suspicious.
If one can't find weapons, does the Commander of the other side assume 1) gee, they have no weaponry or 2) maybe they're very very good at hiding their weaponry? And I ask that question without making any reference to the fact that the UN is not known as the world's most efficient organization.
Now if you were a soldier, which one of those two commanders would you prefer to be working for? If you're intelligent, you assume the worst, and if you're wrong, well...can you say 'Mogadishu', since I've already once referred to Somalia in this post. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 6:40:49 PM | Iraq had seven reasons for invasion, and WMDs was not the primary one. It was the one the media blew way out of proportion. That doesn't mean though that you have to agree with the other reasons. The United Nations didn't. Personally I did. Btu to say the President "lied" over WMDs the way so many people say is wrong.
And there is nothing abnormal about supporting the Iraq War right now. Traditionally, wars like Iraq take about ten years to complete. Even after WWII, Nazi loyalists carried out attacks against Soviet and American soldiers for up to ten years before being stopped. By historical standards, the Iraq War is really right on schedule. And by historical standards, thsi war has had barely any casualties.
The official reasons for invading Iraq were:
1. Saddam Hussein has never abided by the terms of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire and has continued to violate 17 UN Security Council Resolutions (obviously confirmed by the United Nations).
2. Saddam Hussein is engaged in a systematic pattern of deception regarding his weapons capabilities (later confirmed by the Duelfer report and chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix) and continues to thumb his nose at the World Community.
3. Saddam Hussein possesses WMD (now apparently refuted by the Duelfer report ).
4. Saddam Hussein has ties to terrorists, including members of al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam (confirmed by the 9/11 commission).
5. Saddam Hussein intends to develop additional WMD programs, making him a threat to all counties in the Middle East (again confirmed by Duelfer).
6. Saddam Hussein's removal would help in the war on terror by initiating the democratization of the Middle East. (Imagine that, nobody ever talks about this one and recent events prove this to be true)
7. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and war criminal, he and those members of his régime need to be brought to account for their crimes on humanity (confirmed by The UN Commission on Human Rights, the UN General Assembly, the International Red Cross and Amnesty International).
(Here they are):
Refusal to Admit Human Rights Monitors
Violence Against Women
Torture
Executions and Repression of Political Opposition
Abuse of Children
Disappearances, including over 16,000 Kurds and Shiites
Denial of Basic Freedoms: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Information
Withholding of Food
Crimes Against Muslim Religious leaders and their followers
(There’s more, but to wrap it up, Powell concluded):
In Summary, the goals of the United States are simple
1) fight terrorism, to include those that support or harbor terrorists
2) uphold and enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions
3) disarm a dangerous regime that possesses weapons of mass destruction; and,
4) remove a ruthless dictator (i.e., Saddam Hussein) and promote Democracy in the region | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 7:29:08 PM |
This would be a great time to ask everyone here - given that female children can now safely attend school in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that the persecuted ethnic groups are now relatively safer than they were prior to Saddam's ouster
Really? This must have just happened today, because I havn't yet heard about how it is now relatively safe in Iraq.
Fact is, Iraq at some point had WMD - Saddam gassed his own people in the north with it - perhaps you didn't see the video and news shots of dead three year olds in the streets?
Many ex-cons once had guns. Should we go after any that cannot prove they don't have guns now?
If there's one thing that I would think is obvious, it's that most countries try to hide their weaponry so as to have a stategic advantage.
Why did they not use this strategic advantage when they were being invaded? You would rather think that if they had hidden weapons for just such an occassion, they would have used them when that occassion arised.
Iraq was continually obstructive with the inpsectors, they're behaviour vis a vis this sort of thing was, to put it mildly, somewhat suspicious.
In the time leading up to the war, the inspectors were given free reign to do their jobs.
If one can't find weapons, does the Commander of the other side assume 1) gee, they have no weaponry or 2) maybe they're very very good at hiding their weaponry?
The commander of a nation where one of the big credos is 'innocent until proven guilty' should take precautions, but not automatically assume the worst.
Iraq had seven reasons for invasion, and WMDs was not the primary one. It was the one the media blew way out of proportion.
Was the media so powerful that it even controlled what Bush was saying? I distinctly remember the live speeches he was giving in the weeks leading up to the war, and WMDs were by far his dominant talking point.
Traditionally, wars like Iraq take about ten years to complete.
Please present the prior cases that give you the knowledge to make this claim. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 7:44:49 PM |
Was the media so powerful that it even controlled what Bush was saying? I distinctly remember the live speeches he was giving in the weeks leading up to the war, and WMDs were by far his dominant talking point.
Because he's stupid and should have specified to the media and American public multiple times that the war, officially, was not just about WMDs. But he didn't and did use the words WMDs a lot more. But officially, WMDs weren't the primary or only reason.
Please present the prior cases that give you the knowledge to make this claim.
When you study militay history and military science, you see that traditionally, it takes eight to ten years to complete a counter-insurgency operation, which is what Iraq is. Traditional wars, on the other hand, traditionally last four years.
A counter-insurgency operation is different from a conventional war. It is when one group tries to change the regime or government in an area, and usually results in civil war oftentimes.
Some examples could be the American Revolutionary War, which was eight years, Bosnia which last many years, the French Revolution which was ten years, the Chinese Communist Revolution, which was twenty-three years, etc... | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 8:11:28 PM |
Because he's stupid and should have specified to the media and American public multiple times that the war, officially, was not just about WMDs. But he didn't and did use the words WMDs a lot more. But officially, WMDs weren't the primary or only reason.
If he is stupid, then he has handlers, and is heavily coached on what to say and what not to say. Why then, did they not do anything to correct his words in the subsequent speeches he gave?
When you study militay history and military science, you see that traditionally, it takes eight to ten years to complete a counter-insurgency operation, which is what Iraq is.
The Iraq war is an invasion and occupation. Your examples are revolutions, which are very different. Please come up with examples of occupations traditionally lasting ten years. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 8:43:04 PM | | You honesttly think that it wasn't more about oil, Isreal, avenging and trying to fix mistakes his father made in the 1st Gulf War. Maybe those seven reasons were an excuse to go and not the real reason. Although Clinton was going to go in as well but it would have looked to much like wag the dog trying to divert attention from Monica. Hey, I hope your more right than me, I just don't think so. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 10:57:25 PM | I'd reconsider asking engineman to prove anything msquared....he's cutting down seriously on your wiggle room. And, he's obviated the need for me to reply to your earlier questions with his responses about the reasons for the war.
As for why Bush continued harping on WMD - that one I can answer. Politicians and their pr (spin) people always look for an easy way to sell an objective, it's a marketing sort of thing. Give the consumer something he can focus on and that will be remembered.
WMD was easy and quick, adequately compelling in a way that broken UN resolutions obviously weren't and at the time was considered to be correct. It was easily sold to the media who are always looking for an easy headline. It was also the wrong policy choice and so we've suffered with years of hearing about Bush being wrong invading Iraq for only that reason. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/12/2007 11:17:33 PM |
I'd reconsider asking engineman to prove anything msquared....he's cutting down seriously on your wiggle room.
How do you figure? I'm not the one who has to wiggle.
And, he's obviated the need for me to reply to your earlier questions with his responses about the reasons for the war.
In other words, you refuse to answer them, as you know your argument is flawed.
As for why Bush continued harping on WMD - that one I can answer. Politicians and their pr (spin) people always look for an easy way to sell an objective, it's a marketing sort of thing. Give the consumer something he can focus on and that will be remembered.
So what you are saying is that the Bush government manipulated people with the fear of WMDs in order to get their war. How does that make it any better? | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/18/2007 8:23:22 PM | What is it about liberals? Can you people not read the words on your screen WITHOUT imputing other meanings to them?
I said: "And, he's obviated the need for me to reply to your earlier questions with his responses about the reasons for the war." I didn't say I wasn't going to answer your questions - I said that engineman answered them. Now if you don't get that, read it again, very S-L-O-W-L-Y. I am not avoiding your questions - engineman's answers suffice for me as well. Is that clear?
As for wiggle room, if you don't see what I meant, given the dialogue, I'm afraid I can't help you. I'm sure anyone without blinders on understood what I meant.
As for the manipulation, yeah, I'll actually give you that one, even though liberals were using the trheat of WMD to manipulate public opinion as well and at the same time.
The problem is, most people have no concept of how the world actually operates. I've worked with diplomats, had the privilege of seeing how things are done behind the scenes - and discovered that what gets said in public is often not what is really going on. Unfortunately, there are far too many people, such as yourself, who will read into every single situation what they choose to believe, ascribing motives to an unpopular government's actions that are light years from the actuality of the situation.
Maybe what Bush should have said, along with what engineman clearly explained he DID say, was that Saddam was a brutal dictator who supported enemies of America, that he tortured people, raped women, killed innocent civilians of his own country....etc., there's more but those will do - and said, "This is wrong and we, as Americans, don't support it, especially as we have been attacked by these enemies whom Saddam supports."
You know, kind of like what was done with Hitler, after Pearl Harbour. Of course, you're a liberal - you don't necessarily see that there are some people in this world who DESERVE to be hunted down and killed. That doesn't mean that I (or anyone else of like mind) likes this, it's just accepting reality. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 12:14:01 AM |
liberals were using the rheat of WMD to manipulate public opinion as well and at the same time.
Exactly, both sides were saying it. Both sides were ratcheting up the pressure on Saddam. Now, Iraq is sitting on a black-goldmine comprising 112 billion barrels of proven oil, Iraq ranks second in the world behind Saudi Arabia in the amount of Oil reserves; the United States Department of Energy estimates that up to 90% of the country remains unexplored. These regions could yield an additional 100 billion barrels.
The price of standard crude oil on NYMEX was under $25/barrel in September 2003, but by August 11, 2005, it had risen to over $60/barrel
Today. Oil Prices Top $90 A Barrel.
It's a win win for who's really running things. Big oil, military industry. The main stream media is an accomplice. As much as it likes to smear itself as being liberal, it's not.
And Bill O is not an independent. He's a tool of a huge cooperation to drive public sentiment, steer the conversation away from real news on political corruption and infringing on our rights, and he obfuscates the opposing viewpoint. His debating skills are lacking as well, hasn't anyone told him that the first person to yell, loses. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 12:29:01 AM |
And Bill O is not an independent. He's a tool of a huge cooperation to drive public sentiment, steer the conversation away from real news on political corruption and infringing on our rights, and he obfuscates the opposing viewpoint. His debating skills are lacking as well, hasn't anyone told him that the first person to yell, loses.
They would but he cuts off their mike. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 12:38:28 AM | | How does cutting one's mic further the discussion? He takes his ball and goes home. Wah. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 4:46:31 PM | I watch Bill O' Lie-ly all the time and his on air personality is all a carefully crafted act. Bill is bloviating all the way to the bank. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 5:12:51 PM |
I watch Bill O' Lie-ly all the time and his on air personality is all a carefully crafted act. Bill is bloviating all the way to the bank.
He has done some pretty shady crap off air too. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 6:08:38 PM | ...the fun part about debating history with liberals during times of crisis is that, ultimately, history will prove you wrong. engineman, myself and all the other conservatives, all we have to do is wait and you will ultimately be proven wrong. Remember, in 1938, Churchill was reviled by Britain's elite. Ronald Regan is now revered as the man whose policies brought down the Iron Curtain. So, just for fun, I'll go out on a limb and give you liberals some predictions:
If the Democrats bring American troops home after the election, count on further and serious attacks against America, quite possibly domestically rather than overseas. Be assured that the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, if not the entire Middle East, will deteriorate even further. Iraq will probably collapse under a brutal civil war, far worse than now - it may well end up at war with Iran, at the least, it will be taken over by Islamic fundamentalists - people we know as terrorists. The tenuous civil rights which Iraqis are only now experiencing will be trampled. Women will be major victims of this, under Islamic shariah laws which will be enforced vigourously.
Israel will be forced into another war to defend themselves. America, should that event occur before 2012, will give what aid it can but will only come in under extreme duress - which, in my opinion is what will happen.
The US economy will tank under a democratic government, which will blame the problem on Republican excesses, including the war. Because it would be over the heads of most liberals, I won't go into the economic endgame which is now being played out with the (intentional) devaluation of the US$ and what that means - but I assure you that the policy will continue under a democratic administration.
The 2012 US election will go to a candidate who is so hard line he'll make Bush look like a pussycat. Hilary will become a non entity - and thank God for that.
Count on it - and all because the tough steps are not being taken now, because of the whinging and pewling of a public being misled by the major media and its liberal/left wing bias. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 6:31:23 PM |
I said: "And, he's obviated the need for me to reply to your earlier questions with his responses about the reasons for the war." I didn't say I wasn't going to answer your questions - I said that engineman answered them. Now if you don't get that, read it again, very S-L-O-W-L-Y. I am not avoiding your questions - engineman's answers suffice for me as well. Is that clear?
Hiding behind other posters now, are you? I notice you also didn't reply until after my participation on these forums had been sparse for about a week.
Anyways, Engineman addressed a mere two of the numerous things I wrote in that post, and I showed both of his responses to be mistaken. The fact that you want to pretend this means you've answered my post indicates that you are unwilling and/or unable to come up with real counterpoints.
As for the manipulation, yeah, I'll actually give you that one, even though liberals were using the trheat of WMD to manipulate public opinion as well and at the same time.
How do you figure that?
Of course, you're a liberal
I'm not a liberal, I'm a realist. I liked Reagan. I liked Bush, until he showed his true stripes.
The US economy will tank under a democratic government,
The US economy was far stronger under the last democratic government than it is now.
which will blame the problem on Republican excesses, including the war.
And rightfully so.
the major media and its liberal/left wing bias.
... is a myth. If the major media had a left wing bias, it would not have supported Bush in his efforts to begin the war. It would also be pointing out his failure to live up to the promises he made in the days following 9/11. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 7:20:25 PM | "Hiding behind other posters now, are you? I notice you also didn't reply until after my participation on these forums had been sparse for about a week."
Like I said, liberals impute motive - so I'll explain this ONE LAST TIME, just for you: each of engineman's answers are what I would have responded. There is no point in repeating what has been well said by someone else. That is pretty clearly stated, and was prior to this, so I don't see how that constitutes 'hiding behind other posters'. Maybe I should tell you, I write for several internationally published magazines (not political topics). I'm generally found to be both lucid and easily comprehended. What, I beg you to tell me, is your problem?
As for the delayed reply, I happen to have a most interesting life outside of these forums. I was sailing a boat offshore up the US east coast from Florida. Internet access is somewhat restricted forty or fifty miles offshore, but I don't expect you to realize that.
How do I figure that liberals were using the wmd threat? Well, every now and then during that time, I turned on a tv or read a newspaper or magazine and lo - there it was! I would suggest the NY Times or CBS or any other major media as a source for your elucidation on this point. They're pretty left of center, so I'm sure you've heard of them. A variety of utterances from democratic politicians would serve the same purposes, they're available online if you would bother to take the time to look.
"The US economy was far stronger..." Agreed, but that wasn't my point, was it? Is this how you 'prove' things?
"If the major media had a left wing bias, it would not have supported Bush in his efforts to begin the war" - how any sentient being living in this hemisphere who presumably has access to a tv, newstand or radio, can make such a statement is beyond me. Even a canary staring at the paper on the bottom of its cage during that time period had to be aware that what you've said is completely out of touch with reality. That sole statement is reason enough to not waste my time to go back and find out just how you 'debunked' engineman's comments. For God's sake man, if you can't afford a newspaper or television, go to the public library, they're free, and read the news. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 8:34:01 PM | "A counter-insurgency operation is different from a conventional war. It is when one group tries to change the regime or government in an area, and usually results in civil war oftentimes. "
Do you actually have any clue whatsoever of what you're trying to say?!? Perhaps you could choose, say, a single train of thought and kind of stick with it until it becomes something that the rest of us on here can follow. Your pretzel logic just doesn't cut it. Sorry. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 9:13:47 PM |
each of engineman's answers are what I would have responded.
So, by proxy, you've given two inadequate answers and conceded to the rest of my statements?
Maybe I should tell you, I write for several internationally published magazines (not political topics).
Yes, you've repeatedly claimed to be a person of some note in the journalistic field. You haven't given any evidence to back it up, though, and you don't seem to know a lot about CP style.
A variety of utterances from democratic politicians would serve the same purposes, they're available online if you would bother to take the time to look.
Can't provide a link, then? Or give any possible benefit liberals would have gained from spreading fear of WMDs?
how any sentient being living in this hemisphere who presumably has access to a tv, newstand or radio, can make such a statement is beyond me.
And yet you don't give any evidence to refute it.
That sole statement is reason enough to not waste my time to go back and find out just how you 'debunked' engineman's comments.
In other words, you don't have any real arguments to put forward. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/19/2007 10:38:17 PM | This forum isn't the place for CP style - and I find it perplexing to be lectured on style by someone who can't put together a cogent argument. To be frank with you, as an editor, I wouldn't have been able to justify publishing most of your commentary.
I actually did go back to reread your 'refutation', such as it was - a conglomeration of half-baked comments with no 'proofs' that would stand up to examination. Yet, you demand adequate 'proofs' from me and others - is that double speak or double standard? You have yet to provide links to any of your 'proofs' that I can recall.
The point I made about liberal comments about wmd and media bias were that these are all part of our recent (political) history. To make the comments you did causes me to question your ability to comprehend what you see and hear all around you. Liberal, and democratic political, commentary about wmd was pervasive, it's part of the public record of that time; if you can't or won't remember it, that's simply being disingenuous. That, or I have to wonder if you were in some sort of confinement in which you were forbidden access to media. And any person who contends that the media is biased against liberals is wilfully ignoring the obvious. There is no point in debating that sort of thing, since you're being blind to the facts.
You can attack me in whatever way you want, but your feeble arguments claiming you've made points, and proven them when you clearly haven't, isn't what I call intelligent debating. It's akin to an eight year old saying 'Because I said so...' and I'm not here to discuss issues with eight year old intellects. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 7:30:52 AM | | I notice your entire post is just an attempt to discredit me, without any actual information to back up your arguments. I guess you've realized that the truth is not on your side, and feel more comfortable attacking the messenger rather than the message. Have at it then, knock yourself out. If you start going back to the message itself, then I'll rejoin the discussion. Until then, I'm forced to conclude that you have conceded the argument. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 11:15:58 AM | Attack the message and not the messenger.
Insulting modifiers should be avoided, such as when you used "Feeble" "since you're being blind to the facts" "half-baked comments" "eight year old intellects" This brings down the credibility and is very Ann Coulter-ish. | |
|
| For You Bill O'Reilly Fans
Posted: 10/20/2007 12:56:36 PM | ...the fun part about debating history with liberals during times of crisis is that, ultimately, history will prove you wrong. engineman, myself and all the other conservatives, all we have to do is wait and you will ultimately be proven wrong. Remember, in 1938, Churchill was reviled by Britain's elite. Ronald Regan is now revered as the man whose policies brought down the Iron Curtain. So, just for fun, I'll go out on a limb and give you liberals some predictions:
Wow what a Myopic vision of history.
Roosevelt was a liberal for his time, and what do you know, revered. The neocons have spent the last 20 years trying to take apart his "new deal"
Regan is revered by neo conservatives. That cheering you hear is your own echo chamber.
The US economy will tank under a democratic government, which will blame the problem on Republican excesses, including the war.
Quite reasonably.
Because it would be over the heads of most liberals, I won't go into the economic endgame which is now being played out with the (intentional) devaluation of the US$ and what that means - but I assure you that the policy will continue under a democratic administration.
You can't win an argument by not making the argument. Thanks for conceding.
Guys, rather than appealing to his better nature, just start reporting him for personal attacks, the sad truth of the neocon movement is that they've lost the ability to actually argue, they all emulate their hero Karl Rove and just resort to childish name calling and bullying. | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
