Corporate Feudalism and The Culture War

No, that's not the reason they didn't want to go. It's not because they believed we had ascertained Sadam's WMD. It's because, as I said, they believed ousting Sadam wasn't necessary in order for that ascertainment to be made. Just more time, more resolutions, or whatever.

That all depends on why there are inspections in the first place, who supports the inspections, and how cooperative the country is.

 

What boggles my mind about my own countrymen is that they expressed what seemed to me more moral outrage over one second's worth of a bared breast than our nation going to war under false claims. I'll never understand it.

 

Is anyone even talking about that breast anymore? I think you underestimate your own contrymen.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-14-senate-cia-iraq_x.htm

How much has the media covered this compared to the weeks following Ms. Nasty's exposure? FCC fines are going to be increased, shows have been dropped from networks, etc.

 

hey if we were to have someone as a threat this certainly is Pakistan

of perhaps NK... but hey we chose Iraq.

No I wouldn't support invasion on the other two either, but just to point out Iraq was a minor threat at the time, and it was only intesivly discussed because of US insistance on it - ie US tried and gain some kind of credebility, and even spied on memebers of SC to get it it's way - which shows that they had no reasons to go to war, and that bullying partners like Chile, Mexico and some other countries was the last resort to get aura of legallity for unreasonable actions.

And as Patrick said Germany, France, Russia did not support US claims and precisely because they knew just as well as US that Iraq was no threat to anyone, and they had more interests for Status Quo than for a regime change.

Check this out

from here
http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3FullText.pdf

good document lenghty but clear

*copied from adobe so it's a bit weird formatting

 

Yes, by Sadam's regime.

In your opinion. This is a common occurance with you. Completely ignore an other point of view because you disagree with it. Dismiss it off-hand, and refuse to hear it out.

In my opinion, I'm not disregarding the realities of life. But then, you're not interested in actually understanding my opinion, so you create these self-fullinging "denials." Good show.

Which is why you demonstrated a lack of understanding of my point, by spouting some irrelevant crap about me not being a homosexual?

Please, Natoma, what is my point? Relay it back to me in your own words. I'm interested to know if, now that I've at least partly elaborated on it wrt to "coming out", that you really do get my point or not.

 

Why, because it's already been addressed previously? What is the intelligence of the entire world at the the time, and did the world believe we had reliably ascertained the WMD situation in iraq at the time?

Nice of you to not directly answer my question about identifying which of those two are not "facts". But keep trying to avoid my point, by pointing out some intelligence, or conclusions based on intelligence, was wrong. It's irrelevant.

How on earth did you reach EITHER one of those conclusions? How did I imply that coming out was some sort of black and white struggle, and how do you reach the conlcusion that intelligence gathering and evidence in trying to ascertain WMD status from a regime which is not being cooperative IS black and white? I don't agree with either of these things you assert.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions that you completely have no idea what I'm trying to say. And thanks also, for refusing to allow me to present my point of view in a way I think will get you to understand it.

I honestly have no idea what you seem to be "afraid" of. You talk constantly about "how you can't have a discussion" with me, and yet at the same time, you refuse to have one. Nice.

Eh? The ONLY "quantifiable" aspect of your specific coming out that's relevant at all, is as you stated it ultimately having some large, quantifiable, impact on your (you and your partner's) finances. According to you, you were forced to leave home because of it, and this had some unforseen financial impact.

You did decide to leave home out of "necessity" because of your coming out, correct? Or were you just lying?

I have no idea what your personal coming out process was like, nor do I belive any two are alike. Not that any of this is relevant, but I don't understand why you believe I think in some "black and white" way about coming out. All I know, and am asserting, is the following, assuming you haven't lied:

1) You claimed to have gone into significant credit card debt.
2) Some if not all of this debt was due to your leaving home.
3) You moved out of your home "out of necessity due to bad conditions at home" after coming out.

This is all in support of your insistence that your credit card debt came "out of necessity" (so you are fiscally responsible.) Where you get this "black and white coming out" nonsense is beyond me. But then, you're not a heterosexual, so I guess you're not qualified to understand my point of view.

 

Called on what, exactly?

What's my "style", other than trying to make my point understood. A point as I've shown you have repeatedly demonstrated a lack understanding of? What's my "style", other than constantly correcting your misperceptions of my personal views?

I've also been here long enough to expect this kind of lack of cooperation from you, but I still hold out hope.

Again, I don't possibly know what you could be "afraid of." It's pretty obvious that neither of us is going to change our opinion, but it is plain dumbfounding to me that you have no interest in understanding my point of view.