Clashman said:
OK, Legion. I'll admit it. You got the better of me. You've managed to spew enough horseshit from your mouth that I feel compelled to respond, despite the obvious conclusion this will come to.
I am sure you are seething with the desire to share your propaganda with us Clashman.
If you are not prepared to engage in civil debate and are instead going to choose to vomit up this vitriolic garbage, you do not belong on this forum, or any other on B3D, for that matter. If you want to argue what I posted, that's fine. But back it up.
Unlike what you have done post after post after post clashman? I do back it up through the article.
And what was that? That the weapons he supposedly had, if in fact he did have them, were not anywhere near significant enough to pose a threat to the United States?
More liberal rhetoric.
How much anthrax to you is a threat? How much VX nerve gas is a threat? Please describe to me in ton the magnitude of chemical and biological weapons that should be considered a threat. He has shown the capacity to use these weapons, hence the reason we were forcing him to get rid of them. He not only could be a threat to us but to our allies. This is more than a reason to do something about saddam. Unless of course you'd like to see more kurds die. But hell they aren't americans so why should the US care
?
That a war in Iraq would cause a civillian catastrophe? That U.S. soldiers would be subjected to either a long and incredibly bloody battle for control of Baghdad or would end up embroiled in a long-term civil war, in which they would be pitted against the vast majority of Iraqis that didn't want them there? That this was was about
Do you view the US as being draw into an iraqi civil war? You are quite the alarmist. This is not a solid reasoning for leaving a dangerous man as this in power. Would doing nothing cause Saddam to become less dangerous? Would doing nothing some how make him less future threat?
and had nothing to do with American or Iraqi security? [note: you do not need foreign ownership of the oil industry to control it.
Is there something wrong with establishing stable business control over the oil for now with future plans, as they suggested, to return the oil to control of the populace? I think they have made a safe decision to out source the oil control for now.
Especially when you control the banks and appoint the political leaders].
That is if the leaders can be trusted. An developed infrastructure needs to be created first and left in opperation for some time before i would trust just turning the oil back over to Iraqi oil constituents.
From your words i am suspicious that you are, for some reason, accusing these invididuals of taking iraqi oil under the guise they will return it.
That this would help terrorists in the long run by boosting their ranks? Tell me Legion, which one of these, (and there are dozens more), is the single, lone reason why we argued against going to war?
That what would help terrorists? Giving the oil right back to the populace and doing nothing to establish and infrastructure? Hell yes it would. The terrorist would jump at the chance to get control over that oil.
That's bullshit and you know it.
No, actually its not bullshit clashman.
Many of the anti-war movements now in existance started up as protests against the sanctions and Clinton's war in the Balkans.
So you are saying that do to some entities not existing then the overall out cry was not the same or completely nonexistant? Sounds like rather fallacious reasoning clashman.
In my town there have been weekly protests going on against the sanctions and then the war since at least 1998.
Thats nice, your point? I said "so many" not "all".
The Bush administration's brazen stupidity has just given fuel to the fire.
Is this more of that vitriolic garbage you were refering to before Clashman?
You're using that as a broad, dissmissive sweep of the hand and, (once again), failing to actually address anything I've said.
Must some one continue to address your inane bable Clashman? By now i think if i had not responded your post more than likely would have been ignored. Many of these issues you have discussed are seem or at least seem similiar to numerous conversations i have seen on this board and elsewhere. I have stated this thread appears to be nothing more than flamebait and would expect most to completely ignore it.
Could you be a little more clear on this? This doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
Really? I thought it was rather clear. I explained that exploitation of countries including iraq of the people in iraq during the years of Oil for food was rather profound. No one seemed willing to cease transactions even with the prior knowledge Saddam was using the money to fill his personal coffers. That much is obvious. Perhaps you should have listened a bit more to those protestors where you live instead of just passing them by?
Once again you're equating a movement AGAINST A WAR with TRYING TO KEEP SADDAM HUSSEIN IN POWER,
Lol i am doing this because that infact IS the outcome Clashman! The protesting type are a crowd of do nothing leftist without a single plan as how to address the issue.
as if inclusion in one automatically means inclusion in the other.
Do to the fact they have no adequate solution they themselves will become enablers of the problem. Much like those who supported the Oil for food actin the first place.
You conveniently forget that Hussein did most of his dirty deeds when Rumsfeld wasn't denouncing him but shaking his hand. Who gave him the technical know-how to make those weapons? [not that I expect a civil answer from you]
Lol are you still going on with that bs about us giving them the ability to make VX nerve gas? BTW you don't create anthrax from Dupont chemicals
.
Prove to me that we gave him the know how to make all the chemical weapons he has and likewise supplied him with all the agents. On top of that give me dates and times as well as explanations as to why the chemicals were provided. Don't hand me the leftist bs stating the US sold Iraq pesticides they turned into mustard gas. You can make mustard gas from mixing bleach and chlorine - rather typical cleaning chemicals. You can make Ricin gas from fxcking kidney beans.
How about we discuss who gave them scud guidance technology to start with. THen discuss who gave them rocket technologies and jet engines for their planes. Then we can move on to fire arms and tanks. After that we can discuss continuing violations during the oil for food act which involved further sales of ak47s and russian tanks to Iraq and french rolland missles. Does that sound fair enough to you?
Read
Cool War by Joy Gordon. There are more reasons than just "Saddam" why over a million people died in the sanctions, and most of them have Red, White, and Blue all over them, (and I don't mean France).
seems that it has bill clinton all over it. WHy do so many leftist of america blame america for leftist's decisions? Why can't we blame the administration of 1996 for the problems in iraq and not the whole Red, WHite and Blue? Just curious.
Actually i think its rather clear that even after reading the article the core of the problem was saddam. The US alone didn't have the responsibility to clean up the iraqi problem. All of the health problems we see in Iraq are directly related to the poor spending choices Saddam has made. The author of this peace practically skirts the funding Saddam received entirely. The author clearly refuses to igknowledge suffering would not have occurd if not for saddam's actions. Saddam clearly withheld great portions of that money he received for himself which could have gone to aiding the populace. This of course did not happen. Saddam should not have been allowed to remain in power in the first place.
Since you basically just repeated what you said earlier, I will refer you once again to
Cool War by Joy Gordon. And since you added once again that you don't intend to engage in intelligent debate but simply left-bashing, I once again suggest that you take your trolling elsewhere.
Why? Is my trolling interfering with yours? I am so sorry. Perhaps we should all give you space. Infact why should give every thread you write specifically to you.
And i will refer you to the above
Your author wishes to displace blame on the rest of the world while not on the cause of the problem itself; Saddam.
It's funny that you liken me to a Nazi, when in reality you're just about the closest thing to a fascist on this board.
all because i disagree with you correct? I do not liken them to nazis. I merely suggest they are apathetic. WHich they are.
That said, the article at the beginning of this thread is not about accuracy of claims, but about inclusion in the debate. If you, and for that matter, the RIGHT-wing media, were so confident in their claims, they wouldn't hesitate to give equal time to serious debate of the left.
You know, you aren't the first person to suggest to me that a perceived silence is really silent condolence. Many of the people from this board alone have debated with you. I am sure that even you yourself can admit you haven't won all your debates. You might even venture to say, if you are confident enough, that much of what you have debated has come to bit of stale mate.
Because they'd be sure their ideas would triumph.
So basically you are saying that do to the fact that conservatives in the media aren't debating with every leftist anywhere they are some how admitting fault? This is logically fallacious. I have found forums an excellent place to debate such issues. As you can see these are not place short of argumentation on any side. Since you have challenged me though i will give you a special task. If you will debate with myself and others on a forum called strategy page (
www.strategypage.com) i am more than sure you will have all the responses you are looking for.
Instead, it seems as if there was a huge attempt to AVOID ideological debate with the left,
Then you indeed suffer from acute myopia.
and to parrot as many governmental sources as possible. You're failure to actually address anything I've address except with the "Well that's just liberal crapola" argument lends credence to that observation.
Does it really? Or does it lend credence to the suggestion that i made that much of what you have written has already been addressed. That you post this crap over and over again simply to gratify yourself knowing eventually people will grow tired of responding to you?
I find it humorous you yourself have yet to provide any adequate solution to the problem. It seems that the left itself wishes only to debate methods rather than actually debating a sollution.
Clinton is not a leftist and he never has been. So for once, spare me the bullshit.
Then exactly what was he? A conservative?
Completely fucking irrelavent to the discussion at hand.
because you say so of course.
Seriously, when was it ever suggested that we "do nothing"?
By the mere fact that you do nothing.
Christ, you repeat yourself alot. Read my earlier post on the same damn subject.
I wouldn't have to if you didn't.
No, there's only millions of people who marched against the war all around the world, in demonstrations larger than anything since the height of the Vietnam war, (In fact probably larger in many cases given the number of them in such a short time-frame).
And yet there are millions more who didn't. Ad popullum fallacy.
This is not evidence of over whelming support.
Naw, that's not evidence.
Rather, because you and Rush and Savage say the press is leftist it must be, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
yep and such solid evidence you have presented.
You've once again missed, (avoided), the point. I DO see them as extreme, but for the most part they are pretty in-line with the rest your ilk.
really? Prove this statement.
Are you trying to be intentionally dense?
Are you trying to come up with a logical respones but can't?
I said these in response to your assertion that " if anything he takes extremist rights wing individuals comments as some how representative the opposing position". I then went and looked through that garbage you posted to see "how representative" they were of the "opposing position". They seemed to fit like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
In other words you rather obtusely came to a conclusion prior to your "research" then later concluded your prior conclusion to be correct. It is blatantly idiotic of you to claim Rush and Savage are some how representative of all the opposing arguments as a whole. Furthermore you have not addressed their argumentation nor provided any sollutions to the problem yourself. You are no different from the rest of your ilk.
It was made in the context of a discussion on Canadian nationalism, and given the other slighted comments you directed at the proponents of it, this seemed like at best a cut that was veiled as a "joke".
No, that is how you viewed it. As i remember it was nothing more than ribbing. You merely searched for anything you could possibly hold against me. Really a rather cheap attack against my character. Perhaps next time you should imploy that inventive imagination of yours to something a bit more practical rather than depending on it for more of your spurious accusations.
Since you have made the allegation i would like for you to prove i am some how anticanadian. You seem to believe i am some how revolted by canadian nationalism. Now back it up. Please do not repeat this comment as a form of circuituous reasoning to back your claim.
Perhaps i should use your comments from this thread to demonstrate how your ilk is openly antiamerican. What would that prove exactly?
As you have suggested above your real interest in this media discussion is to find ways of merely lumping people into categories you can simply right off. In essence engaging in the same behavior you claim my ilk are doing.
If your intentions were otherwise I apologize.
I think you have me wrong. We have not spoken before. I am one subject to sardonic humor. I think you could have come to that conclusion if you hadn't filtered your research to anything other than something you could misconstrue as hate speach.
However it doesn't change the overall point to which I was driving, namely, (to remind you once again, because you seem to like to forget these when you make your own posts), that the statements in the above articles were in fact "representative" of the "opposing position".
Are you claiming that as a whole they represent such? that is nonesense. I wouldn't turn to Rush or Savage for a proper view of the opposing position. You have admitted they are extremists. That is rather diseginuous clashman.
If you are up for the challenge the invitation to
www.strategypage.com is still open. I am more than sure you will find what you are looking for there.
Once again, (I know this is starting to sound cliche, [yes, that's right, I used a dirty French word]), you missed the point.
...and the point is so mundane and grounded in personal bias.
Because it is emblematic of the level of discourse employed by many of the right-wingers on this board and in our society at large.
Not to different of the stereotypical american bashing left is it?
Is the entire purpoe of this thread to justify in your mind your use of generalizations?
Being bisexual has nothing to do with right-wing,
No you are being willing ignorant. Bisexuality does not fit with the stereotypical mold of a conservative does it? No, not at all. It has much to do with the moral out look of many conservatives. One does not have to look to far to find liberals avoiding civil discourse through accussations of gay or other lifestyle bashing.
(and I use and have used the term right-wing, not conservative, here. There is a difference), foreign policy stances. Your statement was meant as a mocking attack on the left, and that is why I posted it. It was not sarcastic in the sense that you did not intend the disdainful tone in which it was printed.
Are you so sure of this?
Why are you so intent of stereotyping opposition?
And as the original post of this message was intended to convey, the problem was not that there is a "lack of a leftist sollution" but rather that we are not given significant airtime to voice our solutions or our problems with the current "solution", and that there is no such thing as the "liberal media" you rail against.
Lol or perhaps you could look at it as though you aren't getting time because you haven't sollution. Much like how you assumed because liberals aren't conversing with conservatives that conservatives are some how avoiding conversation.
You implied it when you said "Bin laden has supported other seculiar arab groups in the past. So yes the argument does hold water". And you know that the ties were mostly superficial or cursory,
You keep telling me this but past evidence has substantiated Saddam's terrorist involvment.
Wether it be al queda, al aqsa, or Hamas specifically is rather irrelevant.
(such as providing money to the families of Palestinians killed during the occupation, (which included those of suicide bombers), with the exception of an Iranian opposition group which was based in Iraq. The reason I pointed out Saudi Arabia was that if it is "Terrorism" and "Dictators" and "Threats To America's Security" that you are truly worried about, than they would seem to be much more logical targets,
You clearly had no idea of that until after the fact. This is a post hoc fallcy. Iraqi WMDs are still unaccounted for which has no barings on your assertions before the war of whether or not Iraq was a threat or for that matter if the missing WMD still is.
given their more active involvement in terrorist groups and the fact that they are "fundamentalist dictators" in precisely the sense that you originally indicated.
So you are suggesting that do to the line of conflict not being in the line of order concurrent with your post hoc assertions they were some how originally illogical? Does that some how refute the reasoning behind the war in general? If we attacked SA now would be be some how less justified?
Instead, good 'ol Bush and Rummy are propping the Saudis up. It was meant as a questioning of the intentions of the Bush Administration, but you once again seem to have gotten lost.
Much like the question of intentions i have made concerning the clinton admin and the obvious disenguous leftist opposition to the war.
I will close this by also requesting that this thread be locked.
It should have been to begin with. The entire purpose of the thread was flaimbate centered around your wantingness to justify your generalizations about the right.
Legion in particular, (and I don't mean to single anyone out here, there are plenty of others), has made it painfully obvious that she doesn't intend to participate in any sort of civil discussion of the topics at hand, or any of the subthreads this has wandered off into, for that matter.
Only because i have problem with you correct? Perhaps you haven't read my many other threads debating sexuality etc.
You have made it painfully obvious that you are wanting to promot your personal bias at the expense of others while comdeming anyone who disagrees with you.
yes this thread should be shut down.
In light of the impossibility of having a well-reasoned discussion with the posters of the "opposing position", I see little reason to continue this conversation.[/url]
You have not provided any sollutions to the problems. All you wish to do is rant about your supposed accurate information and justify your neocon prejudice.
