Wow.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

100meters,

You seem to have these mystical notions of our government. For example, do you even know what an NSA agent has to do to even investigate, much less wiretap, an individual?

Do you understand why terrorists want someone to work for them who even has only a green card? Its because its so damnned difficult to investigate Americans (they lump holders of green cards in the inviolate bunch)-- and they’re using that as a weapon against us!

So, you’re upset because of what was said in PNAC hearings. Hello? The UN mandate said to only remove Saddam from Kuwait. Who cares what said? They were, if they listened to the UN, powerless. Bush I urged his overthrow. Where was your UN then? Why didn’t they vote for removal when they saw what was happening?

Until we kick that unbelievably corrupt debating-society out of this country, there will always be a sort of stink in New York – and it won’t be the East River.

242

[quote]vroom wrote:
The main reason listed by the architects of the war is military presence in the Gulf as documented in their own writings. See for yourself.

Do you honestly think these folks could ever get past the cognitive dissonance for long enough to even consider such a thing?

They will clutch onto documents and speeches listing a million reasons, and how bad Saddam was, and how much people around the world need democracy, but they will never seriously consider for a moment that the leadership ever had other motives, that didn’t sound so politically appropriate.

The US is the best place on Earth. Nothing it does in it’s own interests can possibly be inappropriate in any way whatsoever, ever, no matter how vile and self-serving the act. To argue otherwise is simply self-loathing anti-US hatred.

Fool.[/quote]

You have yet to prove at all that the war was inappropriate or that the leadership had other motives, or that it was vile and self-serving. Therefore, these words of spewed loathing for life must apply to you.

243

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters,

You seem to have these mystical notions of our government. For example, do you even know what an NSA agent has to do to even investigate, much less wiretap, an individual?

Do you understand why terrorists want someone to work for them who even has only a green card? Its because its so damnned difficult to investigate Americans (they lump holders of green cards in the inviolate bunch)-- and they’re using that as a weapon against us!

So, you’re upset because of what was said in PNAC hearings. Hello? The UN mandate said to only remove Saddam from Kuwait. Who cares what said? They were, if they listened to the UN, powerless. Bush I urged his overthrow. Where was your UN then? Why didn’t they vote for removal when they saw what was happening?

Until we kick that unbelievably corrupt debating-society out of this country, there will always be a sort of stink in New York – and it won’t be the East River.[/quote]

I’m sure you’re responding to someone else here as I’ve never suggested anything “mystical”, nor did I mention the NSA.

Also PNAC wasn’t a hearing, its more of a thinking out-loud organization consisting of alot of neo-conservatives now serving in President Bush’s admin., and I expressed no emotion to it.

Again, its more of an FYI for you to read as you seem unfamiliar with our reasons for being in the middle-east, I assumed you’d want to hear from the horse’s mouth so to speak.

Oh, and I still never mention UN mandates.

Apology accepted in advance.

244

[quote]vroom wrote:
The blindness you ascribe to them is only equalled by your own…[/quote]

Whoops - guess I was wrong. Thinktards must love him as well.

245

[quote]danweltmann wrote:
No - his position is based on whatever Chomsky says his position says it should be based on.
As I’ve pointed out before, I’ve read a fair bit of right wing stuff, including the mainstream media. I keep mentioning Chomsky because he actually documents what he says.[/quote]

Hey, Dickwilter - he documents nothing. I would love to see you run and fetch his “documentation” as you call it. He’s a second rate hack that is only followed by folks like you - and mental patients that require the 24-hour use of hockey helmets. Oh - and vroom. Can’t leave out the Great Thinktard here.

[quote]Is there really anyone other than mush headed college kids that actually buy the crap Chomsky is selling?
Thirty books in print, most bestsellers, translated into dozens of languages. His speeches are booked two years in advance.[/quote]

So is Stephen King. But I guess he has too much truth to his writing to attract the mush-headed college kid crowd. Oh, and vroom. Can’t leave out the Great Thinktard, or his magical Thinking Tree.

[quote]Maybe if I start using my words carefully, without actually saying anything of substance, I can gain cult-like status.
I guess your comments are indeed without substance.
[/quote]

Keep guessing, Dicksweater. I could honestly give a shit what you, or should I say what Chomsky has told you to think about me. You have proved a total lack of ability to form an independent thought here.

In fact, pretty much everything you have said has already been said on here, and fairly soundly debunked. I have told you to read up, but you evidently won’t/can’t read anything that wasn’t authored by your hero.

But folks have already figured you out. You won’t be around here much longer. As sson as this thread plays out, you’ll have nothing left to say.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste

246

[quote]You have yet to prove at all that the war was inappropriate or that the leadership had other motives, or that it was vile and self-serving. Therefore, these words of spewed loathing for life must apply to you.
[/quote]

Headhunter,

You prove my point. I didn’t try to say that those things were true or proven, only that numnuts such as yourselves would not even be able to think about such things.

Perhaps you should learn to discern the difference between argumentation and debate and stating ones own beliefs in a matter?

I feel sorry for any student of yours that actually has a mind and thinks for him or her self, especially if their opinion is not similar to your own.

247

Too bad if you actually try to use your mind you qualify as a thinktard unless you agree with Crackerjack.

By the way, I have no affinity for Chomsky or his viewpoint. I’m not even truly aware of what it is, because I haven’t read anything of his.

If you hate him so much, maybe I should look him up… hmmm?

From my own point of view, the issues causing so much heat around here are disputed.

In particular, the path to war, the use of intelligence, the message given to the population, the need for going beyond afghanistan and so on are all open to debate.

Some people are able to think about, consider and discuss the viewpoint of both sides, while others are only able to think about and discuss their own viewpoint.

This can and does apply to both right and left.

Personally, I think there were good reasons for going into Iraq, but that the administration didn’t go about things correctly. If the US populace is not manipulated into war and decides it should go to war, then indeed, it should go to war.

That is not an anti-war stance, in case you didn’t notice.

Personally, I think there are many good reasons and good ways to enhance security, but I do not feel it is necessary to clamp down on the rights of citizens. The government has plenty of resources and capabilities without using the fear card to justify a power grab.

These aren’t talking points, they are my own principles. A properly informed populace (via its representatives) should make the decision on going to war and the belief that it is dangerous to create situations where citizens don’t have their rights adequately protected.

If you want to chastice me for an opinion, those are the areas to go for, as the rest is just debate.

248

Not that you have to worry about that, numbnuts.

249

[quote]vroom wrote:

By the way, I have no affinity for Chomsky or his viewpoint. I’m not even truly aware of what it is, because I haven’t read anything of his.

If you hate him so much, maybe I should look him up… hmmm? [/quote]

Be very careful in reading Chomsky. If you read what he says, read more, think seriously, and make sure you get a deeper background in his meaning.

I find the interview with him more telling. He does not have the time to work hard on spinning his viewpoints as well.

If you truly looked into Chomsky, I doubt you would agree with him. A lot of people on the Left wing will follow Chomsky to the grave.

[quote]From my own point of view, the issues causing so much heat around here are disputed.

In particular, the path to war, the use of intelligence, the message given to the population, the need for going beyond afghanistan and so on are all open to debate.

Some people are able to think about, consider and discuss the viewpoint of both sides, while others are only able to think about and discuss their own viewpoint.

This can and does apply to both right and left. [/quote]

I have noticed this quite a bit. I am also beginning to think all “facts” must contain a link to honest sources of data. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone even clicks on those links, unless it is a cartoon.

Here is my contention about this. If it is ok, method really is almost minutia. There is not one person who could have done any of this perfectly. Sometimes the complaints truly are Monday morning quarterbacking. When we are discussing this, it is so much easier to figure out the better way after the fact. Forgetting that we now have the opposite sides playbook for that “game”.

[quote]That is not an anti-war stance, in case you didn’t notice.

Personally, I think there are many good reasons and good ways to enhance security, but I do not feel it is necessary to clamp down on the rights of citizens. The government has plenty of resources and capabilities without using the fear card to justify a power grab.

These aren’t talking points, they are my own principles. A properly informed populace (via its representatives) should make the decision on going to war and the belief that it is dangerous to create situations where citizens don’t have their rights adequately protected. [/quote]

I can agree with this. I want security, and privacy at the same time. This is one of the reasons I want smaller government. Yet there must be a balance between the two. There cannot, nor will there ever be complete privacy. There will never be complete security. We must decide on the balance between the two.

Most of the arguments against the patriot act forget that much of what it did was to get rid of the stupid rules that allowed 911 to happen. There were some other additions that could be debated though. Anyone who thinks that the patriot act will be exactly the same in 10 years is deluding themselves. (It?s also funny hearing people argue the Patriot act, and you can tell that they really don?t know what is in it.)

What everyone here really needs to understand is that there is no true all or nothing. Too many people fall for that type of limited thinking. Absolute thinking can never be correct. Unfortunately each side not only thinks in absolutes, but assumes the other side also thinks the same way, and is taking the opposite absolute side. All or nothing. Binge or purge. Run or sleep. Sobriety or alcoholism.

The only time absolute thinking should be used is when either the other side’s position is truly absolute, or by following the logic, it leads to a truly absolute result.

It might help if both sides realize the other side on these debates is not evil.

250

[quote]The Mage wrote:
vroom wrote:

By the way, I have no affinity for Chomsky or his viewpoint. I’m not even truly aware of what it is, because I haven’t read anything of his.

If you hate him so much, maybe I should look him up… hmmm?

Be very careful in reading Chomsky. If you read what he says, read more, think seriously, and make sure you get a deeper background in his meaning.

I find the interview with him more telling. He does not have the time to work hard on spinning his viewpoints as well.

If you truly looked into Chomsky, I doubt you would agree with him. A lot of people on the Left wing will follow Chomsky to the grave.

From my own point of view, the issues causing so much heat around here are disputed.

In particular, the path to war, the use of intelligence, the message given to the population, the need for going beyond afghanistan and so on are all open to debate.

Some people are able to think about, consider and discuss the viewpoint of both sides, while others are only able to think about and discuss their own viewpoint.

This can and does apply to both right and left.

I have noticed this quite a bit. I am also beginning to think all “facts” must contain a link to honest sources of data. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone even clicks on those links, unless it is a cartoon.

Personally, I think there were good reasons for going into Iraq, but that the administration didn’t go about things correctly. If the US populace is not manipulated into war and decides it should go to war, then indeed, it should go to war.

Here is my contention about this. If it is ok, method really is almost minutia. There is not one person who could have done any of this perfectly. Sometimes the complaints truly are Monday morning quarterbacking. When we are discussing this, it is so much easier to figure out the better way after the fact. Forgetting that we now have the opposite sides playbook for that “game”.

That is not an anti-war stance, in case you didn’t notice.

Personally, I think there are many good reasons and good ways to enhance security, but I do not feel it is necessary to clamp down on the rights of citizens. The government has plenty of resources and capabilities without using the fear card to justify a power grab.

These aren’t talking points, they are my own principles. A properly informed populace (via its representatives) should make the decision on going to war and the belief that it is dangerous to create situations where citizens don’t have their rights adequately protected.

I can agree with this. I want security, and privacy at the same time. This is one of the reasons I want smaller government. Yet there must be a balance between the two. There cannot, nor will there ever be complete privacy. There will never be complete security. We must decide on the balance between the two.

Most of the arguments against the patriot act forget that much of what it did was to get rid of the stupid rules that allowed 911 to happen. There were some other additions that could be debated though. Anyone who thinks that the patriot act will be exactly the same in 10 years is deluding themselves. (It?s also funny hearing people argue the Patriot act, and you can tell that they really don?t know what is in it.)

What everyone here really needs to understand is that there is no true all or nothing. Too many people fall for that type of limited thinking. Absolute thinking can never be correct. Unfortunately each side not only thinks in absolutes, but assumes the other side also thinks the same way, and is taking the opposite absolute side. All or nothing. Binge or purge. Run or sleep. Sobriety or alcoholism.

The only time absolute thinking should be used is when either the other side’s position is truly absolute, or by following the logic, it leads to a truly absolute result.

It might help if both sides realize the other side on these debates is not evil.
[/quote]

Excellent post, Mage. I don’t agree with your view of Chomsky, but, if we’re going to disagree, this is the way to debate it.

251

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps–in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak–and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing."

252

[quote]doogie wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps–in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak–and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria’s GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing."[/quote]

I’ve read the article, and here’s my take. The original sources are “Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders”. Are we talking hot coals at happy places like Guantanamo (unverifiable) or officials on American payroll?
Then American government officials and military leaders line up behind the latest story to back it up.
More to the point, none of the human sources are named, none of the documents and photographs are provided or referenced.
This is not a personal attack on you Doogie, I am simply skeptical of the sources, though I appreciate your effort in locating the material.
To me, this seems like yet another last ditch, desperate attempt by the administration to rationalize the war.
It might be another psych warfare story planted by the army in the media. They do it, just like many other countries. With no references, I just can’t tell from the article.
Dan

253

What are you talking about? The very next paragraph of the story after what Doogie quoted is:

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million “exploitable items” captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S. ntelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

There may be some stuff referenced in the article that was gathered from confessions, but the whole point of the article is that there is a cache of documents and other materials that needs to be translated – this is what they’ve put together from what’s been translated so far.

If you’re saying that the reporter didn’t translate the stuff himself, or that he didn’t read the primary sources himself, I’m not exactly shocked… Especially given one of the reporter’s main contentions in the piece is that some folks in the DoD are holding back on releasing the information because most of it is still raw data that hasn’t even been translated yet. This reporter is arguing that more good would come from releasing it, irrespective of DoD fears that it might lead to news agencies “cherry picking” from the data.

254

[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters,

You seem to have these mystical notions of our government. For example, do you even know what an NSA agent has to do to even investigate, much less wiretap, an individual?

Do you understand why terrorists want someone to work for them who even has only a green card? Its because its so damnned difficult to investigate Americans (they lump holders of green cards in the inviolate bunch)-- and they’re using that as a weapon against us!

So, you’re upset because of what was said in PNAC hearings. Hello? The UN mandate said to only remove Saddam from Kuwait. Who cares what said? They were, if they listened to the UN, powerless. Bush I urged his overthrow. Where was your UN then? Why didn’t they vote for removal when they saw what was happening?

Until we kick that unbelievably corrupt debating-society out of this country, there will always be a sort of stink in New York – and it won’t be the East River.

I’m sure you’re responding to someone else here as I’ve never suggested anything “mystical”, nor did I mention the NSA.

Also PNAC wasn’t a hearing, its more of a thinking out-loud organization consisting of alot of neo-conservatives now serving in President Bush’s admin., and I expressed no emotion to it.

Again, its more of an FYI for you to read as you seem unfamiliar with our reasons for being in the middle-east, I assumed you’d want to hear from the horse’s mouth so to speak.

Oh, and I still never mention UN mandates.

Apology accepted in advance.[/quote]

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote? What does it matter what anyone in the administration says, as their opinion? The UN mandate forbade removing Saddam. Helping anyone internal to Iraq was NOT ALLOWED. You seem to think that people within the government can do whatever they want – a mystical view of how our government works.

Apologies? LOL!

255

[quote]vroom wrote:
You have yet to prove at all that the war was inappropriate or that the leadership had other motives, or that it was vile and self-serving. Therefore, these words of spewed loathing for life must apply to you.

Headhunter,

You prove my point. I didn’t try to say that those things were true or proven, only that numnuts such as yourselves would not even be able to think about such things.

Perhaps you should learn to discern the difference between argumentation and debate and stating ones own beliefs in a matter?

I feel sorry for any student of yours that actually has a mind and thinks for him or her self, especially if their opinion is not similar to your own.[/quote]

I’m sure pushing a broom, Vroom, that what you say is followed very closely by your fellow custodians. Not by me. You state an argument, then twist out of it. And you still haven’t answered why preemption was okay in Afghan, but not in Iraq.

No wonder RJ rips you a new one all the time.

256

Oh, I must have missed the question in all the vile spew and hatred up above. I’m so sorry you had to wait to get a response, it must have been terrible for you, without any thoughts in your head to keep you from getting bored.

Maybe the fact that Afghanistan was the seat of a government directly friendly to Al-Queda and had been party to an aggressive external act of war?

Do you think something like that might just be a good reason?

I haven’t seen anything like that in the direction of Iraq yet. I mean, there may have been skirmishes within their own country, but honestly, any country is allowed to be pissed off when a foreign military is active within its borders.

Again, if you read further, you’ll see that I do even think it could have been appropriate to go to war with Iraq if the population (and hence it’s leaders) would have had appropriate intelligence and reasons prior to the declaration of war.

Hello? Can you parse what I’m saying…

257

By the way, I’m not a custodian, but nice way to show which political viewpoint truly practices elitism. Shameful.

258

Uhmm… I’ll refocus on my initial comment…
Here’s what you said (initially):
If Saddam had the WMD, he’d have used them. That was the whole point of going in there, before he developed the weapons.

This still just isn’t true. This is a justification for going to war— a marketing scheme, it is not the reason for going into Iraq. This has been admitted to already by at least one cabinet member.

Wolfowitz:
“For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,”

Again for your information, the architects of the war had a myriad of reasons, one of which you’ve listed.

259

[quote]100meters wrote:
Uhmm… I’ll refocus on my initial comment…
Here’s what you said (initially):
If Saddam had the WMD, he’d have used them. That was the whole point of going in there, before he developed the weapons.

This still just isn’t true. This is a justification for going to war— a marketing scheme, it is not the reason for going into Iraq. This has been admitted to already by at least one cabinet member.

Wolfowitz:
“For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,”
[/quote]

Full quote that 100meters did not provide:

"Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but – hold on one second –

(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to –

Wolfowitz: – there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again."

260

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Full quote that 100meters did not provide:

"Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but – hold on one second –

(Pause)

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to –

Wolfowitz: – there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again."

Yes, that’s the pentagon’s transcript that lists the multitude of reasons, not to mention others mentioned in the article.

and how about Feith:
‘I don’t think there is any question that we as an administration, instead of giving proper emphasis to all major elements of the rationale for war, overemphasized the WMD aspect,’ he said…‘It would have been better had we done a better job of communicating in all of its breadth the strategic rationale for the war,’ Feith said in an hour-long interview this week…"

Anyway my point remains the same: WMD was a justification, but not the reason, for going.