Mark Hickey said:Quoted message said:Mark Hickey wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Frank - help me out here (since you seem to think I need it). ;-)
Say for example that it's your personal job to protect the population
of the US of A. You've been elected to do that, you've promised to do
that, and you've sworn you'll do that.
You claim that there were "some who knew damn well there were no
WMDs", but I have yet to have anyone who held that opinion explain how
they came to that conclusion in the face of the vast amount of
evidence to the contrary. Some had strong opinions, but I've never
heard them opine about where they think all the known WMDs actually
went...
:-) Mark, your selective memory is one of the most efficient filters
known to mankind. But do go on, please!
So please elucidate - who has proof positive of the destruction of the
Iraqi WMDs? Hans Blix (and the rest of the world) would have LOVED to
have seen that. Woulda saved a whole lotta trouble, huh?
Again, selective memory hard at work!
But to remind you: The issue isn't whether we could prove he destroyed
them. The issue is whether we could prove he still had them. As
explained in great detail, he had compelling reasons to _pretend_ he
still had them.
Your heroes didn't build the case for war around "We simply can't prove
he destroyed them." That wouldn't have lined up any support to speak
of. Instead, your heroes said "He's got them, they're ready to go, and
oh by the way, remember 9/11? Isn't that just the kind of thing this
evil dictator would do?"
In essence, your defense consists of this: "There _might_ have been
WMDs." IOW, you're claiming your heroes are innocent of misleading the
public, despite so much evidence to the contrary. And simultaneously,
you're claiming Saddam was guilty of WMDs based on shreds of evidence,
despite the fact that almost nobody with access to the "evidence" was
convinced. The standards for evidence are remarkably different, aren't
they?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Anyway - back to my original thought. You're the POTUS, and it's your
job to protect the US of A. You're shown a lot of evidence, you read
the intel from many other nations, and from the UNMOVIC weapons
inspectors, and the majority of it suggests that Iraq has current WMD
stores, and that they can make plenty more on short notice.
This is obviously quite, quite hypothetical, or quite selective.
Pretending the preponderance of evidence showed dangerous WMDs is a
little unrealistic when nearly every delegate in the UN (including our
Secretary of State) felt otherwise. But go on!
Ummmm, let me see if I have this. If you were the POTUS, you'd ignore
the input from the intelligence agencies from many nations, you'd
ignore the UNMOVIC weapons inspection reports, you'd forget about Iraq
admitting they had WMDs previously - and then you'd form your course
of action based on the stated opinion of UN polititians???
No, as usual, you have it wrong.
The president (or, more accurately, the people doing the actual
thinking) should have impartially looked at all the evidence. Clearly,
that was not what happened. The preponderance of evidence indicated
there were no WMDs. But of course, your heroes did exactly what you're
doing: they pretended the only good evidence was the evidence they
wanted to hear.
Biased? Hell yes. If it were not biased, we'd have had the majority
of the world agreeing with us, as in Gulf War 1. But we didn't. We
had almost universal opposition to our invasion and conquest.
It takes an astounding appetite for [censored] to keep claiming that the
neo-cons were right, and the entire world is still wrong!
Quoted message said:No offence, but you ain't gettin' my vote. ;-)
As if I'd care.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:You also know that Saddam hates the US with a passion...
Sure, like the majority of the world's population these days, thanks to
our recent policies.
Yeah, they loved us SOOOOO much before that they couldn't wait to
visit NYC (and our embassies and our Marine Corps housing and ...)
To remind you: After 9/11, they _did_ love us. That is, we had
tremendous sympathy from all but the most committed US haters.
I was in England at the time. The outpouring of sympathy from the
Brits was tremendous, almost universal, and well appreciated. But
within months, the attitude was entirely different, with hundreds of
thousands protesting the obviously trumped-up invasion plans. America
- or at least, the American administration - was reviled. All courtesy
of your heroes.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:... almost like those evil Saudis, whom we treat with great
deference...
That certainly explains why Al Qaeda is so happy with the Saudis that
they're targeting them, huh?
The funding of extremist Islamic groups is coming back to bite the
Saudis, true. But the funding was certainly there. You hadn't heard?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:What DO you do?
Mark, if a person can't think of something a bit more elegant than
staging one of history's biggest invasions and getting stuck in their
desert sand, one doesn't deserve to be the nominal president of this
country.
You didn't answer the question.
Yes, I did. You've apparently forgotten - or filtered. Re-read.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Why didn't we do what we're doing with the 20 most dangerous dictators
in the world? Or to turn the question around, why are we NOT invading
North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan and the rest?
Do I really have to explain the last 20 years of history to you?
There are none of those countries that come close to Saddam's regime
in terms of aggression, WMD history, and willingness to do REALLY dumb
things. Even Kim Jong Il, for all his bluff and bluster, isn't really
likely to lob a nuke at us - he likes his lifestyle too much to have
it melted down around him.
:-) Whereas Saddam didn't care a fig for his palaces and wealth? Good
grief, get a _little_ real!
Again (as you've apparently forgotten): After GW1, Saddam was
emasculated and contained. There was no way he was going to mount a
serious attack on anyone beyond the no-fly zones. Pretending he was
somehow on the edge of another massive attack is now so ludicrous, you
should be ashamed to even imply such a thing.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:I don't expect you to follow this next part - not because you're
unintelligent, but because you're idealogically blinded. But, for
those who can understand:
Not every danger deserves an attack. There _are_ better ways of
solving conflicts and disagreements. There have been philosophers,
religious leaders, diplomats and government strategists working on
these "better ways" for a long, long time. Hell, I've heard about one
rather famous Jew who had some novel ideas on this point about 2000
years ago.
So you don't feel a dozen or so years was "enough time" for Saddam to
conform to the terms of the cease fire, huh?
You seem to be forgetting your major points. You're supposed to be
proving that he was a significant risk to us, aren't you? Or at least
to, say, London or Tel Aviv. Or are you now giving up on that line of
argument?
Quoted message said:And FWIW, Jesus left the
politics to the polititians rather than trying to influence them one
way or another.
Gee, I though he was giving people hints on the proper way to conduct
their lives. Doesn't that include those who run countries?
Hmm. Perhaps that _is_ the key to your "thinking." Follow the tenets
of Christianity regarding ... I don't know, maybe shoplifting, or
coveting your neighbor's wife? But it should all go out the window
when one becomes "elected" to national office?
That may be it. Certainly, that idea about "bearing false witness"
must not count. And the one about "Thou shalt not kill" is clearly
bogus. And "Love thy neighbor as thyself?" Ludicrous, eh?
Of course, I don't know that you claim fealty to any of those ideas, so
I probably shouldn't accuse you of Christianity. To be honest, there's
essentially no evidence for that charge.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Although not very elegant, one thing that could have been done was to
continue the policies in place. You and the neocon cabal you worship
pretended Saddam was ready to burst loose and wreak havoc worldwide.
... again.
Yes, that's what you pretended. Ludicrous as it appeared then, and
now.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:You pretended he had already attacked the US with airliners.
Who's "you"? I don't know anyone other than the left who put forth
that particular theory.
More selective memory! Good points for consistency, though!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:But the
majority of the world was labeling those ideas obvious lies back in
2003, and those people have been proven absolutely correct. Saddam was
nasty, but relatively powerless - and he was doing no more harm than 20
other dictators still ruling with impunity.
He had already seriously disrupted the stability in the region twice,...
In 2003, that was past tense. He was emasculated and contained,
remember?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The idea he was uniquely evil is ludicrous. He has plenty of company
in that regard. The idea he was uniquely dangerous is even more
ludicrous.
The 300,000 Iraqis in their mass graves are going to be SO relieved to
hear that Saddam really isn't "uniquely evil".
So are you now calling for going after the world's next 20 dictators?
Where exactly _do_ we stop??
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:He couldn't lob a scud at Isreal, let alone attack England
or the US.
He DID lob suds at Israel, or have you forgotten that too?
<sigh> Get someone to read this out loud to you. Slowly.
At the time of Bush the Second's invasion and conquest, Saddam COULDN'T
lob a scud at Isreal, let alone attack England or the US. He was
emasculated and contained.
Get them to read it twice. Get George H. W. Bush to read it to you, if
you can. Even he was against Junior's war. Still is, from what I
read.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:The idea this war was necessary, or even justifiable, is the most
ludicrous of all. Frankly, I'm astounded you're still arguing in
favor of it. You may ultimately be the last man standing in that
regard.
So you're saying that if you were the president, Saddam would still be
in power, thumbing his nose at the UN weapons inspection process,
shooting at our aircraft, and writing checks to the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers.
Not what I said. But nice try.
Quoted message said:Sounds lovely.
And you're still pretending the war was absolutely necessary,
completely justified, and sold based on truth, not lies.
Sounds typical.
- Frank Krygowski
