"In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Pretty sure they were just wrong about the WMDs, and though you like beating that broken drum, there is not a rational person out there that thinks France, Russia, England, Germany, and the US lied about all of them thinking Iraq had WMDs.

Nobody outside of hard core conservative/Reactionary talk shows and message boards buys that crap about France, Russia, and Germany thinking Iraq had those weapons.

[Arrian]

Being wrong does not equal lying.

And inbetween there is Bull****ting. And the Bush Administration is a bunch of bull****ters.

The Administration wanted to fight a war in Iraq. They sought the intel that would help them with their casus belli. They had trouble finding any... and so they used whatever they could find - much of which was garbage.

But no, that's not lying. It's SOOO much better.

-Arrian

[Odin]

The problem in the Middle East generally is that is was divided arbitrarily by colonial powers. The arab Middle East is like africa, the countries are basically artificial creations. encompassing cultures based on tribal affiliation that aften hate each other. Another problem is that a possible country of northern Sunni Arabs made up of Sunni Iraq, Syria, and Jordan would be screwed when it came to oil compared to the Kurds, Shia Arabs, and the Saudis.

[Ted Striker]

Damn can these Rush Limbaugh guys come up with better arguments other than, "well so and so did it!!!!"


I'll repeat what my freaking PRE SCHOOL teacher used to tell us when someone used to use the excuse, "well so and so did it!!"

PRE SCHOOL guys, this isn't Aristotle:

"If your classmate jumped off a cliff you do it too?"

I mean it's the biggest DUH ever and the lamest argument of all time especially when 5 year kids can pwn you on it.

[Patroklos]

Imagination Ted, you used to have it.

If that were the reasoning for invading Iraq, then why include France, Germany, and Russia that didn't want to invade dispite the conclusion of their own intelligence communities?

But your analogy is useful for something.

It shows you don't care if we had the approval or help of the international community, and you just jump from one talking point to another without any regard for continuity.

But if your done raving, please rebut with something serious

[Arrian]

I've seen a lot of talk about how the intelligence services of France, Russia & Germany also thought Saddam had WMD. Is there backup documentation of that?

-Arrian

[Odin]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Bush's method of getting rid of Saddam Hussein would have worked better if he and his cronies had genuinely listened to the military and gone in not only with close to 300,000 troops, but a plan for the aftermath as well.

The Neo-cons were too deluded with thier own ideology that they fell for BS from Chalabi about how the Iraqis were going to shower us with flowers and that reconstruction would be easy.

[Patroklos]

None were as hardcore about it as us, but all admit they had indicators that made it possible or likely, and those all demanded furthur inspections to prove it one way or the other. Requests that were denied by Iraq.

[Arrian]

Except, no, we sent in more inspectors... Blix. Who concluded we were wrong.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

No, he didn't. He didn't get to see most of the sites he asked, and he sure as hell didn't get unrestricted access or the ability to "suprise" the sites.

Of course the Security Council's frustration and demands for complete access was a Bush conspiracy.

[Arrian]

Yet, aside from us & the UK, they didn't feel that Saddam's obstruction was worth going to war over.

I'm not saying he was a nice boy who played by the rules. But Blix, although he didn't get complete access, wasn't pro-war either, IIRC.

-Arrian

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Imagination Ted, you used to have it.

If that were the reasoning for invading Iraq, then why include France, Germany, and Russia that didn't want to invade dispite the conclusion of their own intelligence communities?

You mean the information from these intelligence agencies that Powell used in his infamous UN address? Oh wait...

It shows you don't care if we had the approval or help of the international community, and you just jump from one talking point to another without any regard for continuity.

It shows another strawman about the international community and ah, lol that's funny another strawman good job!

[Patroklos]

Obviously past your bed time. You didn't even make you ass whooping fun this time

[Ted Striker]

Here's a bedtime story from the most renowned expert in the entire world on the situation. Educate yourself and stop polluting your brain with that crap you're listening to on the radio:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html

[Az]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't see how democracy and Muslim States are mutually exclusive.

Sure, it won't be a democracy in the meaning of the Anglo-liberal tradition (with broad individual freedoms and a protection from the state), but you can very well have a Muslim regime that rests on the population's support, and where there is the rule of (Ilsamic) law.

IMO, the democratic rise to power of the fundies is not so much a bad thing, if they are serious with continuing free elections in the long run. For decades now, the Arab world had been plagued with leaders who could do nothing but blame the western devils on the problems of the land.

I see Muslim fundamentalism as a reactionary movement, obviously, but it is also a movement that is trying to look for the Arab's inner strength. Some time of Muslim fundamentalism can well be what the Arabs need to change their minds, and believe that they are the only ones who can lift themselves over their poverty and irrelevance.

That would pave the way of actual progressism, once fundamentalism's abysmal failure is consumed.

I'd just want to point out that this approach to seeing democracy as nothing but "free elections" is really stupid.