Corporate Feudalism and The Culture War

Close but wrong. Read above.

 

Seriously you americans are still thinking the war in iraq was justified based on the information given before the war?
Despite no wmd, no cruise missiles with a "10 mn delay for launch", no chemical or other weapons were found by your own army ?

 

Oh, the tune being whistled has changed from irresponsible rhetoric regarding WMD and terrorist links to removing a bad man from power. We're giving the Iraqi people freedom and a taste of liberty, American Imperial-style. Of course the hypocrisy of that is that we ignored worse men who pose significantly larger threats to world peace, but let's brush that under the table. Don't you know there's a war going on? And when America engages in a new ideological war, logic, facts, and common sense get thrown out the window (cough, war on drugs, cough).

 

So, what's your point? You're telling me it's "good" to go into huge debt with nothing to show for it?

Oh, I'd love to see the logic behind this. I haven't made any type of argument at all yet, though I will below.

You're not discussing it because you're afraid of being exposed as being hypocritical and/or inconsistent, as usual.

Yup, because we could not ascertain the WMD with any degree of certainty in Iraq, nor was there any indication that we would, as long as Sadam was in power..

No, Natoma. You are completely missing the point, which isn't surprising since, you're not willing to "discuss it" with me. But keep your head burried in the sand.

Hint: there is some reason, whatever that may be, why you felt compelled to come out when you did. Looking back, you may or may not believe it was actually the right time. Maybe you think you should have come out earlier, maybe you think if you waited a little longer, things wouldn't have been so rough. I don't know...and the "reason" why you came out when you did is irrelevant, which is why my not being a homosexual or understanding that reason is also irrelevant.. I'm not passing any judgement on that reason, whatever it may be, other than to say that coming out at that particular time was not the only option you had. Certainly, something at that time in your life pushed you past the point of "well, I've drawn the line at this time."

The point is, the same can be said for the war in Iraq. Those somethings are:

1) 9-11. (Recongizing the possible consequences of inaction.)
2) Lack of the ability to ascertain Iraq's weapons program, and the lack of any faith in Sadam's regime that the situation would change anytime soon..

You may disagree that those "somethings" are reason enough to push us over the line to remove Sadam as our "only option." But I can't see how anyone can't understand the reasoning behind it. I may or may not agree with whatever reason you have for coming out at that time you did and made it the "only option for you", but I'll bet I would understand why you did it.

 

No, you have nothing "tanigble" (degree) to show for your 3 years of college...that you coudn't have gotten without spending all that money and taking a loan. You could even just sit in on classes, spent time reading books, getting "on the job" experience. You could get whatever "value" you got from attending college in other ways, than taking huge loans.

Natoma, the "response to the rebuttle" is not a response. The REASON that we are now able to ascertain / believe there was no actual WMD , is because we were able to remove Sadam from power, so we could get in there unfettered.

Everything to do with a mad-man who has WMD status that we cannot ascertain. THE WORLD agreed at the time (see truckloads of UN resolutions) that without knowing the WMD status, he was a threat. The only disagreement was what to do about it.

For the U.S., Sadam crossed the line (not meeting resoultion 1441) that lead us to the "only choice." Just as whatever it is in your life made "coming out" the only choice for you given your situation, and ascertaining of the potential consequences of "inaction" at the time.

See above. I guess "the world's" intelligence was shoddy.

 

Sorry Natoma,

If you care to check, I have never changed my position on the reason for going to war. After the war officially started, I am on record saying that whether or not we actually find WMD is irrelevant to the justification (for or against) for going in.

Try again.

 

Odd...you said:

Why would you say such a thing when there's someone in this very thread that meets the criteria of who patrick "should be looking for?"

There's no need for him to look anywhere than right here. So your "problem" was solved before you even stated it. Strange way to present a problem, there, Natoma.

 

I'm not the one who can't understand and accept the opposing point of view as valid (even if you disagree with it) here, Natoma...that would be you.

 

yes these were the reasons, hopefully... but we were not told these are the reasons:

We were tolda that the reasons is >existence< confirmed of WMD, not "there might be some"

while >1< is correct
>2< has nothing with what the officials were saying.

there are many other options to be more valid reasons, ie neo-cons were preparing for Iraq invasion befor 9-11 and it just proved to be a good platform to exploiot.

Neocons might have had other reasons for Invading Iraq - ie making sure they have a full say in one ME country, and not to risk being thrown out of the region full of unfriendly regimes (let's say that Saudis get toppled after US army left post 9-11) etc... so there migh be many "reasons". The point is that current administration wants to exercise undue influence over certain parts of the world... and it presents it at the moment as the war on terror.

The problem with this kind of thinking is: War on terror - good
current means of fighting it - disaster. However noone mentiones that or discusses it directly, the way we are fighting this war at the moment is totally counter productive.

That is the problem. So whatever reasons might be, all fine and well, but murderers have their reasons for commiting crime which doesn't make it right. Lying about stuff to make people believe and justify your actions just shows you in what kind of administration you put your trust in, and to whom you believe to lead you to peace and prosperity.

ie if Natoma told you why he 'came out'; it might be the truth or a lie, and pretty much you have no way of figuring out apart from trusting in his integrity that he told you the truth. Luckily the government is not just 1 man, and we have plenty of reasons to see that they lied with their "reasons" for war. namely your reason #2 is a good example of switching reasons after the act was done. And furthermore you might have said " that whether or not we actually find WMD is irrelevant to the justification for going in. " however this is not what your government was originally saying which is actually relevant.

If the President presented your (their current) reasoning at the beginning we might have not gone to war afterall.

 

Just in case there are any doubts:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6132&start=65

 

Yes, we were.

Sort of. We were were told that to the best of our (the World's collective) knowledge, he HAD WMD. This was the agreed upon, official world view, until Sadam could show us otherwise. There were "lists" of WMD that Sadam was known / agreed to have, based on prior inspections or official Iraqi declarations.

There was SOME other intelligence (U.S. / UK) that purported to identify other potential WMD items they possessed.

I don't see that as a "valid reason", just a kook conspiracy theory.

It's really hard to say. We simply can't know if there would have been "more terrorist attacks in the past and future" had we not taken the courses we did.

True. The thing is, everyone in the world agreed that Sadam was a threat, and that his WMD program was in an "unascertained" status. Again, the only disagreement was on course of action.

I am of the opinion, that had we not gone in, we would still trying to be figuring that out today, and that is unacceptable to me in the post 9-11 climate.

 

Joe de Furia wrote:

You know that it is false. We knew that before going to war ant that the reason (depiste all the bs your propaganda machine spread out) Russia France Germany did not want to go.

In 1991 war was justified, in afghanistan too and in both cases theses countries went to war but you are fast to forget.

Do you think you will make a rule for your foreign politics to invade all country you decide to inspect?

 

Which of these is not facts:

1) The World agreed that as long as Sadam's WMD program was not properly ascertained, he was a threat.

2) At the time we went to war, is WMD program was not ascertained with any degree of certainty

I don't consider world agreement on the threat and agreement on the lack of ability to ascertain Sadam's regime for 12 years not "vetting" of intelligence.

So do I.

As I said, and you again fail to appreciate this because of your lack of willingness to discuss your "coming out", we just differ on when it becomes or became "necessary."