Irritating Things From The 'War on Terror'

[evildave]

As a fun exercise, find a balanced/unbiased source that shows that the president truly was misinformed. All I hear from you is "No he's not!" and "Uh-uh!", and not one effort to do the research to prove he was "misinformed" by bad CIA intel. Doing internet searches and sifting through the results, and doing additional searches to find the root source is a useful skill that more people should exercise.

And yes, we're certain to make fun of a 'Rush Limbaugh' sort of links, so it's not as simple as it seems up front.

For instance, it's a fairly trivial matter to get the CIA's version of events, such as this one:

Google search:
site:www.cia.gov Iraq Bush War

Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths
http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm
Strategic Choices, Intelligence Challenges
http://www.cia.gov/nic/speeches_choices_challenges.htm
A very useful link to your own points, if you would bother to read them.

Possibilities of War
("Changing Nature of Warfare" A Conference in Support of Global Trends 2020)
http://www.cia.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_2020_Support/2004_05_25_papers/possibilities.doc

It is difficult to imagine a strategic setback in Iraq that could match the intensity or duration of the Vietnam War's aftermath. Yet, in scarcely a decade, the U.S. position in Asia had nearly completely recovered. The last two decades have been something of a golden age for American power in Asia-Pacific region. It is difficult to imagine the U.S. retaining its influence or recovering its prestige so quickly in the Middle East should we suffer a similar strategic fate in Iraq.

Of course, the best misdirection comes from sources like the 'People Shredder' story, where the president doesn't say it. It's just 'quoted' repeatedly on the white house web site as if it's true. Very deniable. It's interesting that the guy in the story who 'formerly wrote anti-war columns' for the Japan Times and claims they're 'In Japanese' on his own web site doesn't show up in searches of the Japan Times, which is an English Language paper, BTW. And the UK source of the same story who claims the evidence was 'in Arabic', so she couldn't read it for herself. Stunning. Plausibly deniable, too. "The Administration never said that!" is technically true. They just sort of put it out on the web site and let the media sources who don't critically evaluate anything run with it. This is an example of something I actually went through and thoroughly researched. I went to the Japan Times site. I tracked down who said it. It turns out to be utter B.S. but it makes for good propaganda.

 

[merphie]

As a fun exercise, find a balanced/unbiased source that shows that the president truly was misinformed. All I hear from you is "No he's not!" and "Uh-uh!", and not one effort to do the research to prove he was "misinformed" by bad CIA intel. Doing internet searches and sifting through the results, and doing additional searches to find the root source is a useful skill that more people should exercise.

And yes, we're certain to make fun of a 'Rush Limbaugh' sort of links, so it's not as simple as it seems up front.

For instance, it's a fairly trivial matter to get the CIA's version of events, such as this one:

Google search:
site:www.cia.gov Iraq Bush War

Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths
http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_iraq_wmd.htm
Strategic Choices, Intelligence Challenges
http://www.cia.gov/nic/speeches_choices_challenges.htm
A very useful link to your own points, if you would bother to read them.

Possibilities of War
("Changing Nature of Warfare" A Conference in Support of Global Trends 2020)
http://www.cia.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_2020_Support/2004_05_25_papers/possibilities.doc


Of course, the best misdirection comes from sources like the 'People Shredder' story, where the president doesn't say it. It's just 'quoted' repeatedly on the white house web site as if it's true. Very deniable. It's interesting that the guy in the story who 'formerly wrote anti-war columns' for the Japan Times and claims they're 'In Japanese' on his own web site doesn't show up in searches of the Japan Times, which is an English Language paper, BTW. And the UK source of the same story who claims the evidence was 'in Arabic', so she couldn't read it for herself. Stunning. Plausibly deniable, too. "The Administration never said that!" is technically true. They just sort of put it out on the web site and let the media sources who don't critically evaluate anything run with it. This is an example of something I actually went through and thoroughly researched. I went to the Japan Times site. I tracked down who said it. It turns out to be utter B.S. but it makes for good propaganda.

You make the same argument no matter what proof is provided. I find it pointless to waste my time doing research when you will simply ignore it anyway. When someone questions my opinion I do research on it. I just don't always post all sources.

Most of my points I have gotten from documentation that YOU provided. Places where you read the first paragraph and got enough to support your own pet theory. When you read the rest of the article you find that it doesn't really support your position. As in the Inteligence report stating the problems in Iraq will get worse. It clearly says the analysis is based on prewar information. What can it possibly tell us? It supports your opinion and so you ignore the reality.

It is pointless to debate with you on this subject because you hate Bush and you're determined to show that it's justified.

 

[fishbob]

09-17-2004 05:49 AM
Bush didn't lie about anything.

09-17-2004 09:24 AM
I never said Bush didn't lie about anything.

What a maroon.

clock readings are Alaska standard time

 

[evildave]

You make the same argument no matter what proof is provided. I find it pointless to waste my time doing research when you will simply ignore it anyway. When someone questions my opinion I do research on it. I just don't always post all sources.

Most of my points I have gotten from documentation that YOU provided. Places where you read the first paragraph and got enough to support your own pet theory. When you read the rest of the article you find that it doesn't really support your position. As in the Inteligence report stating the problems in Iraq will get worse. It clearly says the analysis is based on prewar information. What can it possibly tell us? It supports your opinion and so you ignore the reality.

It is pointless to debate with you on this subject because you hate Bush and you're determined to show that it's justified.

Who's the one making claims about 'what I would do' now? Especially given something convenient like a web link to click on.

If you simply copy the web pages from that web address bar at the top of your browser, and paste it into your post (it takes less than one second), you will have shown where you picked up your sources, and I do follow links. Point, click, ctrl-C, (alt-Tab or ctrl-Tab according to where the link was), point, click, ctrl-V. Try it.


My, there's that word, 'hate' again. Are you familiar with what 'ad hominem' means, and that you're committing that fallacy in your arguments repeatedly here, and in other topics?

'You only disagree with me because you hate Bush!'

Not a stunning argument, not an effective argument, and repeated blindly. How can you 'argue' with someone's mantra? "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!"

How about arguing the topic at hand? Civility, evidence, research and a little intellectual honesty go a long way.

 

[merphie]

Who's the one making claims about 'what I would do' now? Especially given something convenient like a web link to click on.

My, there's that word, 'hate' again. Are you familiar with what 'ad hominem' means, and that you're committing that fallacy in your arguments repeatedly here, and in other topics?

'You only disagree with me because you hate Bush!'

Not a stunning argument, not an effective argument, and repeated blindly. How can you 'argue' with someone's mantra? "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!" "You hate Bush!"

How about arguing the topic at hand? Civility, evidence, research and a little intellectual honesty go a long way.

I do a lot of reading and don't always copy and paste my links. Sometimes in debate I have to go find the articles again. What is the probelm?

I am familar with Ad Hominem, but It doesn't apply because the statement is true. You have repeated the same argument time and time again even when your statement was proven to be false with your very own evidence.

It may not be the best of arguments but it is fact. How can you 'argue' with someone's idealism when they refuse any contrary evidence?

I have debated the topci at hand and it is pointless because you refuse any evidence that doesn't support your theory. I might as well debate the pope on the existence of Jesus.

 

[evildave]

Of course it's 'pointless', since you keep repeating unsupported claims in the same manner and get shot down in the same manner. If you're not going to come up with a new point to make, I see no reason to shoot it down in any different way.

I'm sure the fact that someone who's German and had a nazi parent or grandparent would also be technically "true", and would bear repeating in every post addressed to them? Hmmm?

 

[merphie]

Of course it's 'pointless', since you keep repeating unsupported claims in the same manner and get shot down in the same manner. If you're not going to come up with a new point to make, I see no reason to shoot it down in any different way.

I'm sure the fact that someone who's German and had a nazi parent or grandparent would also be technically "true", and would bear repeating in every post addressed to them? Hmmm?

The point is that you have made the same three points that have no merit. You claim that Bush is responsible for the prison scandel, Bush is responsible for going to war on lies, and a bunch of other claims that you blame on the president.

This has been going on in several threads. Most of those claims have been show false by your own sources. You blame everything on Bush because you hate him and want Kerry in office instead. Or I guess you want to take the chance on Kerry.

I have shown in your own sources where your claims were false. You ignore them and later say that I made the unsupported claim. This is not a debate. This is turned into nothing but name calling and Ad Hominem.

 

[epepke]

Yes, the terrorists angered me *a lot* three years ago. My exact quote when I saw the tower hit was "Lakes of glass.... Drown them [ the people responsible, maybe even the whole Middle East ] in lakes of molten glass!", which wasn't exactly a very peaceful recommendation.

Interesting.

My reaction was not at all like that. I was horrified and saddened, but not angry. When I heard via my then-girlfriend that Zell Miller wanted to carpet-bomb, I thought it barbaric. What I wanted to do was gather some IT volunteers to go to New York. I was only partially successful, two of us showed up (I got the other guy a place to crash with a childhood friend) but he was called back early. Another childhood friend saw people leaping from the Twin Towers.

I thought (in retrospect naively) that this could be handled as a criminal matter, as was the first TT bombing. I remembered how the OK city bombing was first assumed to be the work of Muslim terrorists. I remember discussing this with a friend who had taken me to an Afghan restaurant.

While I was there, practically everywhere there were posters saying "Our grief is not a call for war." This at a time when attacking Afghanistan wasn't yet really even in the offing. It comforted me to see this attitude. It wasn't until I left NYC that I started to realize the level of anger, ironically but not surprisingly by people who had been less affected.

I have been puzzled by the virulence since then, the relefxive accusations of racism, etc.

Perhaps what you wrote provides a clue. Perhaps it's a form of self-exorcism, a kind of projection to shout down what one dislikes in oneself.

 

[evildave]

The point is that you have made the same three points that have no merit. You claim that Bush is responsible for the prison scandel, Bush is responsible for going to war on lies, and a bunch of other claims that you blame on the president.

This has been going on in several threads. Most of those claims have been show false by your own sources. You blame everything on Bush because you hate him and want Kerry in office instead. Or I guess you want to take the chance on Kerry.

I have shown in your own sources where your claims were false. You ignore them and later say that I made the unsupported claim. This is not a debate. This is turned into nothing but name calling and Ad Hominem.

As far as I've been able to tell, you just say "No it doesn't" and let it stand at that.

Of course, you'll only say what you do because you love Dubya so much. Cute little dimples and all.

 

[merphie]

As far as I've been able to tell, you just say "No it doesn't" and let it stand at that.

Of course, you'll only say what you do because you love Dubya so much. Cute little dimples and all.

As far as I have seen you read the first paragraph and say "Yes it does" I didn't have to list sources because I used the ones you posted.

Then you have the speculation of Halliburton deals and such when I have found nothing of the such in the articles I have read.

Love? Yeah that's it. I've said many times I don't like Kerry or Bush, but I dislike Kerry more.

If it was love, it could never be. You know Bush doesn't support gay marriage, so our love could never be realized. Do you think he would change his mind if I profess my undying devotion? You could be the best man!

 

[evildave]

Re: Re: Irritating Things From The 'War on Terror'

9-11 Commision Cost: $15,000,000.00
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q5

Starr Investigation Cost: $52,000,000.00
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai00283r.pdf

----------------------

Interesting.

My reaction was not at all like that. I was horrified and saddened, but not angry. When I heard via my then-girlfriend that Zell Miller wanted to carpet-bomb, I thought it barbaric. What I wanted to do was gather some IT volunteers to go to New York. I was only partially successful, two of us showed up (I got the other guy a place to crash with a childhood friend) but he was called back early. Another childhood friend saw people leaping from the Twin Towers.

I thought (in retrospect naively) that this could be handled as a criminal matter, as was the first TT bombing. I remembered how the OK city bombing was first assumed to be the work of Muslim terrorists. I remember discussing this with a friend who had taken me to an Afghan restaurant.

While I was there, practically everywhere there were posters saying "Our grief is not a call for war." This at a time when attacking Afghanistan wasn't yet really even in the offing. It comforted me to see this attitude. It wasn't until I left NYC that I started to realize the level of anger, ironically but not surprisingly by people who had been less affected.

I have been puzzled by the virulence since then, the relefxive accusations of racism, etc.

Perhaps what you wrote provides a clue. Perhaps it's a form of self-exorcism, a kind of projection to shout down what one dislikes in oneself.

Let's just say hearing one's self call for total genocide can cool you off quickly if you're the least bit introspective.

Something like a different perspective comes out.

 

[evildave]

As far as I have seen you read the first paragraph and say "Yes it does" I didn't have to list sources because I used the ones you posted.

Then you have the speculation of Halliburton deals and such when I have found nothing of the such in the articles I have read.

Love? Yeah that's it. I've said many times I don't like Kerry or Bush, but I dislike Kerry more.

If it was love, it could never be. You know Bush doesn't support gay marriage, so our love could never be realized. Do you think he would change his mind if I profess my undying devotion? You could be the best man!

So you profess that the truth is you "dislike Kerry more". I merely mistrust Bush more. He has established the track record. He (and his minions) got the ball rolling on Iraq. That's plenty of reason to mistrust Dubya. The torture. The shady Halliburton dealings. All icing, really. He's a smug little liar who will stare at you with those chipmonk eyes and commit people to death.

I don't think you could pry Dubya away from his cutie wife. Not without chocolates, anyway.

----


Enough derailment. This is a thread about "Irritating Things from the 'War on Terror'", not about who will win November's popularity contest. That's for the election sub-forum.

Another irritating point: Postponing decisions on a matter critical to the survival of our nation until "After the Election", because it would be just too 'unpopular' to recall deploy extra troops or whatever. If any of this is happening, or operations are being delayed, it's tantamount to treason to put petty political considerations like re-election ahead of operational ones.

 

[merphie]

So you profess that the truth is you "dislike Kerry more". I merely mistrust Bush more. He has established the track record. He (and his minions) got the ball rolling on Iraq. That's plenty of reason to mistrust Dubya. The torture. The shady Halliburton dealings. All icing, really. He's a smug little liar who will stare at you with those chipmonk eyes and commit people to death.

Sure I dislike Lurch. Just like you dislike Bush. The problem is your facts are not completely true. Lurch voted for the war too. He got it started just as much as Bush.

Again, your claims of torture is unwarranted. The Halliburton deal was note shady.

Lurch can't make up his mind and just says the opposite of Bush.

I don't think you could pry Dubya away from his cutie wife. Not without chocolates, anyway.

That's just Ad Hominem.

Enough derailment. This is a thread about "Irritating Things from the 'War on Terror'", not about who will win November's popularity contest. That's for the election sub-forum.

Another irritating point: Postponing decisions on a matter critical to the survival of our nation until "After the Election", because it would be just too 'unpopular' to recall deploy extra troops or whatever. If any of this is happening, or operations are being delayed, it's tantamount to treason to put petty political considerations like re-election ahead of operational ones.

Ok, back to the topic. Bush is trying to get changes through congress to make needed changes.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I have debated the topci at hand and it is pointless because you refuse any evidence that doesn't support your theory. I might as well debate the pope on the existence of Jesus.

He refuses any evidence that doesn't support YOUR theory.

Lurch voted for the war too. He got it started just as much as Bush.

No, Kerry voted to AUTHORIZE the president to take military action IF IT BECAME NECESSARY. He, and most of the world, didn't feel it was necessary - but Bush did.

Ok, back to the topic. Bush is trying to get changes through congress to make needed changes.

Bush has been president for nearly four years with his own party in control of every branch of government. 1) Why would he need to TRY to get changes through? Are his policies so horrendous that his own people won't pass them?
2) Why is he campaigning on promises about what he WILL do or what is GOING to happen? What, he couldn't have done any of this in the FIRST four years?

 

[evildave]

Sure I dislike Lurch. Just like you dislike Bush. The problem is your facts are not completely true. Lurch voted for the war too. He got it started just as much as Bush.

Again, your claims of torture is unwarranted. The Halliburton deal was note shady.

Lurch can't make up his mind and just says the opposite of Bush.

Once again, your answer is "no it's not" and "no it's not", and provide no support for your assertions.

Try demonstrating what a good job Halliburton is doing, and why my claims that torture has occurred are 'unwarranted'. Torture did occur. The administration put people into that situation. Case closed.

Rose colored glasses, all the way.


merphie:

Love? Yeah that's it. I've said many times I don't like Kerry or Bush, but I dislike Kerry more.

If it was love, it could never be. You know Bush doesn't support gay marriage, so our love could never be realized. Do you think he would change his mind if I profess my undying devotion? You could be the best man!

evildave:

I don't think you could pry Dubya away from his cutie wife. Not without chocolates, anyway.

merphie:

That's just Ad Hominem.

How so?

 

[merphie]

He refuses any evidence that doesn't support YOUR theory.

No, Kerry voted to AUTHORIZE the president to take military action IF IT BECAME NECESSARY. He, and most of the world, didn't feel it was necessary - but Bush did.

Bush has been president for nearly four years with his own party in control of every branch of government. 1) Why would he need to TRY to get changes through? Are his policies so horrendous that his own people won't pass them?
2) Why is he campaigning on promises about what he WILL do or what is GOING to happen? What, he couldn't have done any of this in the FIRST four years?

I have not refused any evidence that doesn't support my claim. Most of the world didn't? That's a big claim.

So Kerry handed Bush a blank check and bears no responsibility.

 

[merphie]

double Post

 

[Chaos]

I have not refused any evidence that doesn't support my claim. Most of the world didn't? That's a big claim.
*snip*

If you take a look at the will of the people, not the governments, you´ll see that, except in the US and maybe Kuwait and Israel, the majority of the people (I´m talking about 70-90 percent in most cases) were against the war in Iraq because the Bush administration had NOT shown it to be necessary.

 

[merphie]

Once again, your answer is "no it's not" and "no it's not", and provide no support for your assertions.

Same as you.

Try demonstrating what a good job Halliburton is doing, and why my claims that torture has occurred are 'unwarranted'. Torture did occur. The administration put people into that situation. Case closed.

So we are moving the goal post? Now it's about how good a job they are doing? I didn't say the claims of torture has occured were wrong. I said that the fault doesn't fall on Bush.

Rose colored glasses, all the way.

Better than blinders. That last quote I must have read out of context. I thought you were talking about something else.

 

[merphie]

If you take a look at the will of the people, not the governments, you´ll see that, except in the US and maybe Kuwait and Israel, the majority of the people (I´m talking about 70-90 percent in most cases) were against the war in Iraq because the Bush administration had NOT shown it to be necessary.

They were justified when making their case to the UN. Now that new information has surfaced that has changed.