So what's this War about anyway?

[Azure]

This thread has been derailed.

So lets rail it back on. Someone called everything a lie....perhaps a better way to describe it would be faulty intelligence, manipulated by certain people. And no, Bush wasn't one of those 'people.'

Here, Bob Woodward explains why.

The vice president led the way on declaring that Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction. Before that, the president had said only that Saddam “desires them.”

But ten days later, the vice president said Saddam already had weapons of mass destruction. And 12 days after that, the president too had apparently been persuaded: “A lot of people understand he holds weapons of mass destruction.” Three months later, on Dec. 21, 2002, Woodward says CIA Director George Tenet brought his deputy, John McLaughlin, to the oval office to show the president and the vice president their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction.

”McLaughlin has access to all the satellite photos, and he goes in and he has flip charts in the oval office. The president listens to all of this and McLaughlin's done. And, and the president kind of, as he's inclined to do, says ‘Nice try, but that isn't gonna sell Joe Public. That isn't gonna convince Joe Public,’” says Woodward.

In his book, Woodward writes: "The presentation was a flop. The photos were not gripping. The intercepts were less than compelling. And then George Bush turns to George Tenet and says, 'This is the best we've got?'"

Says Woodward: “George Tenet's sitting on the couch, stands up, and says, ‘Don't worry, it's a slam dunk case.’" And the president challenges him again and Tenet says, ‘The case, it's a slam dunk.’ ...I asked the president about this and he said it was very important to have the CIA director – ‘Slam-dunk is as I interpreted is a sure thing, guaranteed. No possibility it won't go through the hoop.’ Others present, Cheney, very impressed.”

What did Woodward think of Tenet’s statement? “It’s a mistake,” he says. “Now the significance of that mistake - that was the key rationale for war.” It was just two weeks later when the president decided to go to war.

Notice the part of Cheney leading the way in promoting the war.

Self-serving moron.

Oh right, the link.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

 

[thinkingaboutit]

And everyone should read this in order to have a broader understanding of the whole issue.

http://www.zmag.org/CHOMSKY/sam/sam-contents.html

 

[Oliver]

But if a muslim wants to kill his own daughter? That's just dandy. No need for us to get involved.

Screw religion: things like honor killings, forced marriages, genital mutilation, and other forms of extreme gender oppression are WRONG. You can claim that that's not really part of Islam if you want to (though the correlation suggests otherwise), but that's actually beside the point. If you can't actually say that such practices are indeed worse than how we in the west live, then you're not being tolerant, you're being disgustingly amoral, and you should be ashamed.

WE killed that many? No, we did not. Perhaps that many died in conflicts which we were involved in, but that's not the same thing as us killing that many.

Then you haven't been paying attention, because creationism IS big in the muslim world.

It's not a racial issue, it's an ideological issue.

What about imperialism? America isn't an empire, it's a hegemon. And there's a difference. But Islam? It has been an empire in the past (ever heard the term "caliphate"?). And the jihadis are quite explicit about wanting it to be again. Since the collapse of the USSR, the jihadis have been the only real imperialists around.

What is a hedgemon?

But if you want to play this "Herrenrasse"-Game. What about circumcision? Isn't this child abuse withini the jewish religion, too - and why should we accept this any longer? Oh well, it's a good thing, religion blah blah blah.

What about pornography in the Internet that every child is able to watch online? Shouldn't we burn their companies?

What about familiarly disintegration in western worlds? Shouldn't we do something about it since we don't care much about it?

What about the CO² problem? Shouldn't we punish the ones who are poisoning everyone on earth?

What about Presidents who fool "we the people" into war - killing hundred thousands. Shouldn't they be executed for murdering in "we the peoples" name?

Just because you don't like things others do while you accept your way of life with all the errors within the system, doesn't make you a better person than others. Why? Because it's WRONG, too. And if you argue that every Muslim is doing the practices you mentioned, then you're an ignorant racist.

Concerning imperialism: America has a long tradition to get political influence in other countries by violence (like the muslim violence, you know?). This is indeed political and economical Imperialism - especially concerning oil.

So what's your solution instead actually trying to solve our own problems to be an ideal for the rest of the worl - or helping/educating other countries instead exploiting them violently? Putting them in KZ's?

You can't change anything with violence in such opposing ideologies because it leads to even more controversy, violence and intolerance.

So please clean up your own house first before playing the moral Nazi-ahole who wants to shoot people who have their traditions and opinions, too.

 

[Pardalis]

I am out of words.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is a hedgemon?

No idea - the person with the biggest hedge row?

A hegemon, however is somone who exercises hegemony, as in "leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation."

But if you want to play this "Herrenrasse"-Game. What about circumcision? Isn't this child abuse withini the jewish religion, too - and why should we accept this any longer?

Uh, NO. Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed you would have a clue about the issue, but female circumcision is what I was refering to, and it doesn't resemble male circumcision. It is genital mutilation for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of making sex no longer pleasurable for the girl. And no, jews don't practice it.

Well, you're right about that part: you are indeed confused.

What about pornography in the Internet that every child is able to watch online?

Well, not every child IS able to watch porn online. Some children have responsible parents.

Shouldn't we burn their companies?

No, because I believe in free speech. Jihadis don't. Do you? You're not sounding like you do.

What about familiarly disintegration in western worlds? Shouldn't we do something about it since we don't care much about it?

What have you got in mind? Unless you've got an idea for a solution that we can debate, why the hell are you bringing up the problem? Because you want an excuse not to do anything about our enemies.

What about the CO² problem? Shouldn't we punish the ones who are poisoning everyone on earth?

Well, China is set to pass us on CO₂ emmissions pretty soon. So sure, why don't we punish China? Look, the fact is that America's emissions are large because our economy is large. On a per-GDP basis, we're pretty good, and much better than China or India. If you really want to "punish" people for emitting CO₂, what you're really saying is you want to punish people for economic activity. In other words you're just a ludite (and if you don't know what that means, look it up this time). And the only "solution" the ludites have to the problem of CO₂ emissions is basically for everyone to go back to primitive standards of living, which would require the deaths of a few billion people to pull off. So, thanks but I'll pass.

What about Presidents who fool "we the people" into war - killing hundred thousands. Shouldn't they be executed for murdering in "we the peoples" name?

Yeah, that's it, Oliver. Call for President Bush's execution. Way to convince me you're interested in open debate, rather than just a venue to rant anti-American prejudices.

Just because you don't like things others do

Yeah, because me not liking honor killings? That's just a prejudice, isn't it? How noble and progressive and tolerant of you. You're pathetic, Oliver.

Concerning imperialism: America has a long tradition to get political influence in other countries by violence (like the muslim violence, you know?). This is indeed political and economical Imperialism - especially concerning oil.

No, it's hegemony. And it isn't the same thing. People like to call it imperialism, because that word has bad associations because of the things that went on with REAL imperialism. They're piggy-backing off of historical grievances against actual imperial powers (England, France, Belgium, Spain, the Ottoman empire) to try to smear the US for something it never really did. We've never been an empire.

You can't change anything with violence in such opposing ideologies because it leads to even more controversy, violence and intolerance.

Bull. I would expect a German to know that it is indeed possible to change ideologies through violence. You didn't rid yourself of Nazism through efforts of self-improvement, and we didn't do it for you by setting good examples and "teaching" your country. We did it by violence, by killing lots of Germans. That's how it worked. So you can argue that maybe violence isn't the best tool or shouldn't be used in a particular instance, but don't EVEN try to tell ME that violence can't be used to change ideologies. Because you're living proof that it can. It is precisely because of violence used in opposition to an ideology that you weren't raised to say "seig heil".

 

[Oliver]

So? What is your solution for the Jihadists since you seem to grasp that it's not a muslim problem in general and that every effort to paint them this way is racial?

 

[Ziggurat]

So? What is your solution for the Jihadists since you seem to grasp that it's not a muslim problem in general and that every effort to paint them this way is racial?

A sentence in English can sometimes mean more than one thing, and can mean something other than you intend it to mean. When you say "it's not a muslim problem in general", there are multiple ways to take this. I think I know how you intend it, but I'm not sure. In any case, jihadis are indeed a small minority of muslims. However, it IS a muslim problem in general in several senses:
1) fellow muslims are actually the number 1 target of jihadis, and jihadis kill more muslims than people of any other religion
2) while jihadis are a small minority, those who sympathize with and tolerate their presence are a large minority. And that's a MAJOR problem.
3) widespread cultural values within the arab world which often ARE adopted by majorities (such as oppression of women and low value placed on education) have led those countries to chronic failure and create environments fertile for the rise of jihadi ideology.

What to do about it? Well, Iraq and Afghanistan are part of what we're doing about it. We've fractured the old stability of the middle east, exposed fault lines which were always there, forcing the jihadis to do battle to hold what should be their heartland (and they are losing that battle and alienating muslims in the process by their visciousness). We are demonstrating rather vividly that the old way of doing things will lead to continuing failure, that they cannot escape paying a price for those failures, and offering them help in finding a way out of the old pathologies. But none of those things can happen when they are ruled by despots.

Edit: oh, and this is entirely cultural, NOT racial. Race has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

 

[g4macdad]

Said the human shield.

What, you didn't put your life on the life to try to stop this war? Oh, my mistake. I thought you were someone with intellectual consistency - don't know how I made that mistake, but I promise I won't make it again.

What a load.

Still dodging the question I see.

 

[Ziggurat]

What a load.

Still dodging the question I see.

Which question? The post I responded to didn't have any questions, only a statement.

 

[g4macdad]

Which question? The post I responded to didn't have any questions, only a statement.

Just as long as you know that no one will buy that BS post. I mean that was a stretch.

The question was, why are you not over there fighting. Bad knee?

Limbaugh butt pimple?

C'mon, let's hear it.

 

[Azure]

Just as long as you you know that no one will buy that BS post. I mean that was a stretch.

The question was, why are you not over there fighting. Bad knee?

Limbaugh butt pimple?

C'mon, let's hear it.

Is that the best you can come up with?

"why are you not over there fighting?'

WTF is it supposed to mean?

 

[g4macdad]

Is that the best you can come up with?

"why are you not over there fighting?'

WTF is it supposed to mean?

LOL, What color are your bracelet and sticker?

 

[Azure]

LOL, What color are your bracelet and sticker?

Seriously, that whole argument got old a long time ago.

Get over it. Just because some has an opposing viewpoint to the war in Iraq...opposing to you and ridiculous statements...doesn't mean they should be over there fighting.

 

[g4macdad]

Seriously, that whole argument got old a long time ago.

Get over it. Just because some has an opposing viewpoint to the war in Iraq...opposing to you and ridiculous statements...doesn't mean they should be over there fighting.

You call yourself a man and you need another man to fight your battles?

What is your excuse?

No one else calls you a man, I am sure of that.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

While I fear my opinion may be lost in a thread I have not read fully, and it will be a shame as it is something I have not put into words yet..

I went on the London March back in 2003 against the war in Iraq. I will freely admit I didn't know what the hell I was protesting against, just had the same 16 year old thought about little children dying and Bush stealing oil. I'm afraid that apart from the speakers, it was simply a place for people to smoke weed and feel important.
I began to change my mind slightly when Baghdad started to fall, and I saw the images of the Iraqi's cheering and being free, and started to go 'well, ykno...maybe...'.

I know fully well that the media only reports on the bad aspects of Iraq, but now, seeing the current endless bloodshed, I just feel that it doesn't seem to be worth it. People's families killed, shops destroyed, festivals blown up, and now Al-Qeada stepping in and stirring up this bloodbath.

I dont think anyone would contest that Hussein was a nice guy, but my bottom viewpoint that a country being told to disarm or another country will use their big, massive 'shock and awe' weapons to stop them, killing a large number of civilians who have, nor want anything to do with their pr*ck leader, is a staggering hypocrisy that creates a world that I simply do not want to live in. The message of bringing 'freedom' through military action to the people is not only wierd, it's downright patronising.

Also, the Iraq war has caused holier-than-thou arseholes like Sean Penn and Rage Against the Machine to call America an evil, evil place and Bush someone who loves the smell of arab oil and who would infect young women with cancer if given the chance. People who have always hated America latch onto these spoilt pr*cks, and use it to prove terrorists are a bit, if not purely justified in carrying out their cowardly acts on civilians not the governments they despise. With instances like Abu Ghraib, America comes across as 'they're just as bad as the terrorists' in the eyes of a vast majority of the west and a vast majority of us in Europe. I think you guys really have to come over here to London and see how much America, and Americans in general are mocked and hated.

Surely this is a hippy liberal pipe dream, but presumably the only way to defeat the morons who carried out september 11th is to show a humanitarian angle of society that rallies round all of the western world and stops irrational idiots from saying "All Americans are stupid and they cause all the violence in the world". After September 11th, the whole world was united in sympathy for the US citizens, and Iran held that massive demonstration that denounced those who carried it out. 6 years later, I doubt the same number would turn out.

If nobody replies to my 'amazing' speel I will severly p*ssed .

 

[Azure]

Heh...not bad.

But I guess I'm not 'man' enough to reply to your amazing speech. So I'll leave it at that.

Sorry.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I see Obama as having a good viewpoint on it.
Not a pussy, but not a d*ck eitherTM.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just as long as you know that no one will buy that BS post. I mean that was a stretch.

Buy it in what sense? Conclude that you should have been a human shield? No, that's not really my intention. Perhaps you couldn't figure it out (though it wasn't actually complicated), but my point was that the standard you were trying to set for your opponent was a standard you'd never apply to yourself.

The question was, why are you not over there fighting. Bad knee?

You didn't ask that question of me, you asked it of another poster. And frankly, I'm not going to answer it. You know nothing about me. You don't know my age, my physical condition, my job - NOTHING. And I'm not about to tell you.

Or, to put it more on your level, bite me.

 

[g4macdad]

Buy it in what sense? Conclude that you should have been a human shield? No, that's not really my intention. Perhaps you couldn't figure it out (though it wasn't actually complicated), but my point was that the standard you were trying to set for your opponent was a standard you'd never apply to yourself.



You didn't ask that question of me, you asked it of another poster. And frankly, I'm not going to answer it. You know nothing about me. You don't know my age, my physical condition, my job - NOTHING. And I'm not about to tell you.

Or, to put it more on your level, bite me.

Sad for you though. See when we arrive at the moment of truth, you fall apart.

I only emerge the winner, because I accept the truth. I don't try to invent it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Surely this is a hippy liberal pipe dream, but presumably the only way to defeat the morons who carried out september 11th is to show a humanitarian angle of society

Yes, it is a pipe dream, and for all that it is born of good intentions, it is just as dangerous an illusion as "peace in our time" was.

After September 11th, the whole world was united in sympathy for the US citizens,

I can do without the world's sympathy if it is only available when we are bloodied and bruised. I'd much rather have a few actual allies than an entire world of sympathizers.