The Iraq Thread 2

[NurEinMensch 0]

None of those prove that it was a US military attack ordered by the president, which is what we were talking about.  And did you really think I would accept the "World Socialist Website" as unbiased?

Noone claimed it was the US president who ordered the anthrax letters. All I said was:

WMD given to terrorists:

Iraq: 0

USA: 1

Who exactly "stole" the anthrax from the US labs - I got no idea. But I am well aware how the whole story suddenly disappeared from the news when it turned out it wasn't Al-Quaeda behind it, but a home-made threat.

[denoir 0]

I'm fairly certain that it went something like this: TBA wanted to invade Iraq for one reason or another. They instructed the intelligence agencies to collect usable info for that purpose. Then they selected the data that supported the cause. This data that was selected was assorted wort-case scenarios and not much emphasis was put on actually validating the data.

What we see now it not so surprising - worst case scenarios are not the most probable ones.

And I thing Rumsfeld actually said somtheing to that effect. He said that the decision to attack Iraq was not based on new evidence, but on a new perspective gained after 11/9.

Basically what he said was that USA could not afford to take any chances and therefor assuming the worst-case was justified.

That's a very dangerous policy since worst-case could be anything. To make an analogy: One day, walking peacefully down the street, you get mugged. To prevent that from happening again, you assume the worst-case scenario in every situation. Every person on the street is potentially a criminal out to get you and you feel that you pre-emptivly need to shoot them before they rob you.

When a super-power like USA has a paranoid world view, it's much more dangerous.

[FallenPaladin 0]

I'm just saying what I saw on the news.

That`s exactly your problem. You never take a look over the edge of your soup plate. If your news would be presented to you by american rightwing Teletubbies you`d still take them for granted...

"Proof!!!"

Even if someone comes up with dozens of links like requested from you to back up his (in your eyes only biased) information you still ignore those facts. This makes discussing with you so interesting (from a psychologist`s point of view if I was one) because it`s hard, I`d say almost impossible, to find someone more stubborn following W (I like that ) totally blindfolded than you here on the forums.

[Crazysheep 1]

until you provide a link to a non-biased source i'm done talking with you about this.

Like Fox news? Fox is just as, if not more, biased in favour of America than these other things are biased against.

[FSPilot 0]

Wow, a whole page directed at me.

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]NOt to mention that most of evidence are hearsays from dissidents who might have intenetion of claiming something out of proportion. and i don't know what you've been upto, but Whitehouse publicaly said, that the Nigerian uranium claim should have been left out, meaning they FUCKED up.

Which brings up another one of my points. Why would the white house poke a hole in it's own claims if it were trying to mislead everyone?

Anyway most of the sources you've provided don't tell me that the US was spying on UNSCOM or UNMOVIC, they were using them to spy on Iraq. If I understand it correctly.

Quote[/b] ]why would Whitehouse use foreign intel?

1. CIA had no intel

2. Better to blame others than yourself.

I think the US uses foreign intel all the time. And if the US is blaming their intel sources they are, in effect, blaming themselves.

Akira

Quote[/b] ]By your rational, the only thing that can "prove" (by your standards) anything is if you were there and witnessed the whole thing.

That ain't gonna happen. Ever. For ANYTHING. Thats why you have that meaty thing in your noogin. Start using it.

So stop relying on just news and start to think about the way the world works for yourself. The US is not in shining armor.

Maybe you should start reading my posts. I never said the US was in shining armor and I never said that I had to be there to witness everything. All I want is a nonbiased source who knows what it's talking about telling me the truth. Not BBC peddling their politics, not Fox news boosting their ratings.

tex

Quote[/b] ]Offtopic? Maybe. Useless? Rarely. Would you like a source for that too? Besides, where do you think you are?

cha-ching!

NurEinMensch

Quote[/b] ]Noone claimed it was the US president who ordered the anthrax letters. All I said was:

WMD given to terrorists:

Iraq: 0

USA: 1

Who exactly "stole" the anthrax from the US labs - I got no idea. But I am well aware how the whole story suddenly disappeared from the news when it turned out it wasn't Al-Quaeda behind it, but a home-made threat.

Probably because the news isn't interested in anything but Al-Quaeda, especially back then. Either way, show me where my president gave that anthrax to whoever it was using it. Don't show me some renegade general or Al-Queda operative in the army.

FallenPaladin

Quote[/b] ]That`s exactly your problem. You never take a look over the edge of your soup plate. If your news would be presented to you by american rightwing Teletubbies you`d still take them for granted...

"Proof!!!"

Even if someone comes up with dozens of links like requested from you to back up his (in your eyes only biased) information you still ignore those facts. This makes discussing with you so interesting (from a psychologist`s point of view if I was one) because it`s hard, I`d say almost impossible, to find someone more stubborn following W (I like that ) totally blindfolded than you here on the forums.

Isn't there some kind of rule against flaming? I like to think I have rough skin. But his entire post was about me, not the topic, me. Besides, my rightwing teletubbies are less biased than the world socialism website.

Crazysheep

Quote[/b] ]Like Fox news? Fox is just as, if not more, biased in favour of America than these other things are biased against.

Fox news doesn't have any formal accusations of skewing any of it's reports, editing any of it's photos or video tapes, or even only showing one side of the story. Yet you still think it's biased compared to the other news stations that do all that? And you think I'm unreasonable?

[FallenPaladin 0]

FallenPaladin

Quote[/b] ]That`s exactly your problem. You never take a look over the edge of your soup plate. If your news would be presented to you by american rightwing Teletubbies you`d still take them for granted...

"Proof!!!"

Even if someone comes up with dozens of links like requested from you to back up his (in your eyes only biased) information you still ignore those facts. This makes discussing with you so interesting (from a psychologist`s point of view if I was one) because it`s hard, I`d say almost impossible, to find someone more stubborn following W (I like that  ) totally blindfolded than you here on the forums.

Isn't there some kind of rule against flaming?  I like to think I have rough skin.  But his entire post was about me, not the topic, me.  Besides, my rightwing teletubbies are less biased than the world socialism website.

True, my post was pointed at you. Like you comment all our posts directly calling us biased and so on. I have no intention to flame because I`m already too long here on this forum to do so and I see no reason to flame a 18 year old kid who`s obviously only unexperienced in foreign history and policy. Taking into account that I`m only a humble German (what are our attributes again... eeem stubborn and strictforward? ) I think my post was quite fair and very polite.

I just want you to open your eyes and ears wider and to use more resources (e.g. Internet) to get information on topics you discuss about. Don`t stick only to TV and maybe one or two magazines and only your favourite (rightwing or whatsoever) websites. Make it a habit to read and learn about the thoughts of your contra-parties also. You don`t have to like what you learn then, that`s alright, but it widens your horizon.

If some of the mods is of the opinion I violated the forums rules, I`m ready to take the consequences.

[NurEinMensch 0]

Probably because the news isn't interested in anything but Al-Quaeda, especially back then.  Either way, show me where my president gave that anthrax to whoever it was using it.  Don't show me some renegade general or Al-Queda operative in the army.

Do you even bother to read my posts? I hate to quote myself, but I have no other choice!

Noone claimed it was the US president who ordered the anthrax letters.

Why should I show you evidence it was your president who gave the anthrax when I never made such a claim? Stop putting words into my mouth!

[FSPilot 0]

NurEinMensch

Quote[/b] ]Why should I show you evidence it was your president who gave the anthrax when I never made such a claim? Stop putting words into my mouth!

You said this

Quote[/b] ]WMD given to terrorists:

Iraq: 0

USA: 1

A rebel general or terrorist operative does not represent the USA.

And no, fallenpaladin, I won't use any sources that I find to be biased. I don't want to listen to the left side, or the right side, I want to hear the truth.

[NurEinMensch 0]

It was taken (or given) from an US lab. That's what I meant. Not more, not less.

[FallenPaladin 0]

There are many versions of truth. Each side in a conflict has it`s truth.

Even the Hawks in the White House are following a certain policy which they take as their truth to believe in above anything else.

Someone in a holy war against another country will also be following his truth.

Saying there`s only one truth is like saying there are only good and evil on this world.

[denoir 0]

Which brings up another one of my points.  Why would the white house poke a hole in it's own claims if it were trying to mislead everyone?

Political damage control of course. So that people won't dig further into their pre-war cliams that were wrong. And since you are asking that question, I'd say the damage control is working.

[FSPilot 0]

Or, maybe, they didn't lie and they made an honest mistake.

[denoir 0]

Or, maybe, they didn't lie and they made an honest mistake.

850 honest mistakes? For a good overview of all the false information, check Powell's presentation to the UN. Not one single thing of his 1 hour presentation has turned out to be true.

You do understand that nothing that the Bush administration said about WMD and terrorism has been proven right?

Edit: I really like his conclusion.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach.

Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continued defiance of this council.

[brgnorway 0]

Or, maybe, they didn't lie and they made an honest mistake.

That's just hilarious. You just don't make mistakes about such matters.

Guess which nation will have problems drumming up support for aggressive behaviour towards future problems in the so called "axis of evil" .

Nice to see you back here Denoir  

[FSPilot 0]

So far they've come up with one mistake that someone made. Not 850, 1. Just because they haven't found the WMDs yet doesn't mean they don't exist.

Again, we haven't found Saddam either but nobody's saying he didn't exist.

[brgnorway 0]

Again, we haven't found Saddam either but nobody's saying he didn't exist.

Well what kind of arguing is that?

....your president and his henchmen did not make a mistake - but a cynical decision and lying to their people. And they certainly exist - you don't even have to look very hard for evidence. You really try hard don't you?

[FSPilot 0]

Again, all of that is heresay until you find some good evidence from some good sources. And not some "Socialism Wow!" website either.

[denoir 0]

Nice to see you back here Denoir  

Tack

And why does everybody keep arguing with each other? The same people have been doing it since I started reading the forums. *cough*FSPilot*cough*Denoir...etc. Don't you know you can't sway each other's views?

It's to train my English. Some people talk to a mirror. Some people talk to a wall. I talk to FSPilot

[booradley60 0]

Well, nobody ever mastered a language by talking to a wall.

[FSPilot 0]

If you like I could correct your grammar.

On second thought yours is probably already better than mine.

[Major Fubar 0]

Again, we haven't found Saddam either but nobody's saying he didn't exist.

So you consider hiding a single man the same as being able to conceal several tons of ready to deploy chemical weapons and maufacturing equipment?

[booradley60 0]

So you consider hiding a single man the same as being able to conceal several tons of ready to deploy chemical weapons and maufacturing equipment?

[sARCASM] Yes.  It's just like bin Laden.  We haven't found him OR any of the THOUSANDS of shovels (weapons of mass excavation) he must have had in his possession in order to dig all of those caves.  It doesn't mean they never existed.  Of course that's a valid argument. [/sARCASM]

[FSPilot 0]

MajorFubar

Quote[/b] ]So you consider hiding a single man the same as being able to conceal several tons of ready to deploy chemical weapons and maufacturing equipment?

No, but when you look at the amount of time the UN had to find WMDs and the amount of time the coalition has had to find them I think it's a fair comparison.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Or, maybe, they didn't lie and they made an honest mistake.

proof?

[Tovarish 0]

You know, it's amazing with FSpilot....the foundations of his argument keep crumbling, and it seems like no one else sees things from his perspective. Day by day, the arguments him keep piling up, to the point where it would seem next to impossible to logically defend his view, and just about everyone else would have admitted defeat. Yet he bravely soldiers on! Logic does not seem to matter, and he faithfully stays on message, no matter how absurd it may be!

Are you guys reminded of anyone by any chance....it just struck me: