Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Media and Us - Page 22







Post#526 at 06-03-2004 11:31 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
06-03-2004, 11:31 AM #526
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Dissent is allowable, but in wartime, the range of expression of it is morally restricted. There's no way around that.
Where do you draw the line, then?

I tried to read through your point-by-point rebuttal to Gore's speech, but I got bogged down by all the nitpicks, disagreements on factual points, references to past behavior by the Clinton administration, etc.

Using specific excerpts from Gore's speech, please identify where he went beyond those moral restrictions that you would impose.







Post#527 at 06-03-2004 11:43 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 11:43 AM #527
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
If he had offered that, and done it, Bush would not have invaded, because he could not have invaded. Unless, of course, the inspectors discovered WMDs after all.
Yes he would. Had Saddam offered something like you specify, the Bush administration would have rejected it. The very fact that Saddam had agreed to instrusive inspections would be proof that he had hidden his WMDs.
OK, now it's clear I've won the argument, when your resort to this level of silly response. :lol:

He would not have rejected it, because he could not have.. Maybe he would have believed Hussein had hidden the WMDs, or moved them, but with that offer on the table, he would had no politically viable option other than acceptance.

Why do you think the Bush Administration even accepted the false offer Hussein made to permit UN-based inspections, which anyone paying attention knew was a trick?

Bush and Co. believed (correctly) that the UN offer was a delaying tactic, but even so they ended up accepting it, because it was politically unworkable not to do so. They didn't want to, they knew perfectly well what it was all about, and in giving in to it they ended up putting America is a poorer position politically and practically. But even so, they gave in because they had to do so.

An offer to permit real inspections led by Americans and performed by Americans and British personnel would have been even harder to refuse, even Bush's core supporters wouldn't have been solid. It would have been irrelevant whether Bush wanted to accept it or not.

Now, Hussein would have to have carried through on his offer, if he started interfering Bush would have had valid reason to assume Hussein's guilt, but the offer would have been accepted, and it would have worked, if Hussein was innocent.

Sending in inspectors at this point would accomplish nothing. Failure to find the WMDs would simply confirm what was already known--that Saddam had hidden weapons. Thus, simply by making the offer, Saddam confirms he has WMDs and the way is cleared for invasion.
If you believe that, you know nothing about practical politics. It would have taken a while to make the search, but if it came up clean, there would have been no invasion, regardless of what Bush believed. If the WMDs really had been hidden and they weren't found by that kind of inspection, than Hussein would have won. If they didn't exist, then Hussein would have, for practical purposes, demonstrated his innocence.

You seem to imagine that Bush had limitless political capital. That was never the case, not even the day after 911.


Saddam had a history of failing to comply. You can't ever prove that WMDs aren't there, he could always be hiding them and and with his established track record of deception this would always be a real possibility
An American-manned and American-led armed inspection, that wasn't interfered with by Hussein, would have been sufficient proof for all practical purposes. Note the italicization of 'not interfered with'. If Hussein pulled his usual tricks, or tried to, then he could have been presumed guilty.


If Saddam was innocent what he should have done was broker an agreement in which he stepped down in exchange for being immune to subsequent prosecution. The NEW adminstration could then submit to the inspections you describe and get a clean bill of health like South Africa did. Only a new adminstration could make what amounts to a "good faith" effort.
That would have worked even better. But the earlier option, given the practical realities of politics, would have been sufficient.


This is why the adminstration insisted on regime change. The only way to stop an invasion would have been Saddam stepping down. He was unwilling to do this and so we had to invade to force him out of power.
Yes, that's what they always wanted. But just because a President wants something doesn't mean he's going to get it. Practical politics always limits their theoretical options.







Post#528 at 06-03-2004 11:52 AM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 11:52 AM #528
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Saddam wouldn't have cooperated, and didn't, and I have a feeling they knew he wouldn't. It was a big set up, and it worked. And, as you might have missed, I don't regard George W. Bush to be a sane president, and I don't exactly regard you as sane either, for supporting him.
What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.

And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.







Post#529 at 06-03-2004 12:02 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 12:02 PM #529
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Quote Originally Posted by Ash

And what if Saddam had actually COOPERATED? Wouldn't that have thrown a monkey wrench into the whole conspiracy?
It wasn't a conspiracy per se. It was something they had been waiting to do once they regained office and did it. Since the people that are in power now are essentially a continuation of a narrow leadership that extends back to 1992, (and beyond) they had plenty of time to outline their goals for the post-Clinton years, from the selection of the candidate, to the war on Iraq.



You didn't answer the question.

The answer is simple: IF Hussein was innocent (or even nearly so) and allowed genuine inspections, there would have been no invasion. What Bush intended or wanted would not have made any difference, it would have been politically impossible.

The 'we'll try the UN one last time' charade was a nice pantomme for old times sake, but they would have found a loophole anyway. They were determined to do it, and did so, as you and I have both witnessed. I do not trust in the restraint nor sanity of George Walker Bush, nor his keepers.
You still haven't answered the question.

By allowing inspections, I'm not talking about the UN. No sane President is going to stake American security on anything handled by the UN. But if he had offered this, the invasion would have been stopped, if he was innocent:

"I will permit American and British inspectors, under American leadership, unrestricted access to all parts of Iraq, contact with anyone they wish to speak with in or out of Iraq, and I will permit armed American and British escort of the inspectors. American overflights will not be interfered with, and no officers of my regime will accompany the inspectors."

If he had offered that, and done it, Bush would not have invaded, because he could not have invaded. Unless, of course, the inspectors discovered WMDs after all.
Saddam wouldn't have cooperated, and didn't, and I have a feeling they knew he wouldn't. It was a big set up, and it worked. And, as you might have missed, I don't regard George W. Bush to be a sane president, and I don't exactly regard you as sane either, for supporting him.

Here's a little time line for you...

[/quote[

8)And so the inspectors went back in. The only things they could find in the end were some leftover missiles from the 80s.
No, the inspectors didn't go back in because of anything that happened anywhere but Baghdad and New York. Hussein was desperate, and figured he could pretend to permit inspections to buy time, and the UN Secretariat officials were equally desperate and agreed, knowing all the time that the whole thing was fake.

The inspectors made no serious effort to find the WMDs. Even this half-hearted inspection was interfered from day 1 by Hussein's security people. The UN inspections were a delaying tactic, and the UN was eagerly cooperating with them because they were hoping to delay the invasion long enough to prevent it.

You call the UN inspections a trick, and you were right. But it wasn't Bush performing the trick, it was Hussein and the UN. It was a clever move, but it wasn't good enough.

Inspections that don't even try don't count as evidence.

Incidentally, Blix recently slipped up and admitted that he thought all along that Hussein actually had the WMDs, even though he was saying at the time that he didn't. Since that admission, he's been spinning desperately to get back 'on message', but he can't take it back.

The inspections were a lie.

13) The months of November 2003 and April 2004 were the bloodiest the US has seen since Viet Nam.
Meaning not objectively all that bad, since we've been in a freakishly peaceful time since Vietnam. We've lost ~1000 people in over a year of action, which isn't that bad. Compared to what's coming in the 4T, this is nothing. I don't wish to minimize their deaths, but we have to look at the world and how it works realisitically.

The whole point of the insurgency is to break the will of the public at home, in the hopes that America is too weak to endure casualties.


14) In March 2004, explosions at a train station in Madrid killed more than 200 people.
And by giving in to it, the Spaniards guaranteed that they'll be victims of it again, eventually. It also encouraged the current insurgency in Iraq by sending the message to the enemy that 'Westerners are soft and weak'.







Post#530 at 06-03-2004 12:23 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 12:23 PM #530
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

More of the same, but indications that the cracks are spreading.

Newsroom Conservatives Are A Rare Breed

"We should acknowledge that maybe the biggest problem is that most of us think too much alike and come from the same backgrounds," says David Yarnold, editor of the opinion pages at The (San Jose) Mercury News. "Find the pro-lifers in a newsroom. That's harder than finding Waldo."







Post#531 at 06-03-2004 12:47 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
06-03-2004, 12:47 PM #531
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
More of the same, but indications that the cracks are spreading.

Newsroom Conservatives Are A Rare Breed

"We should acknowledge that maybe the biggest problem is that most of us think too much alike and come from the same backgrounds," says David Yarnold, editor of the opinion pages at The (San Jose) Mercury News. "Find the pro-lifers in a newsroom. That's harder than finding Waldo."
This is no big deal in a country where freedom of the press exists. While I make it a point to decry the media's claim of no bias (while clearly biased), most people aren't fooled by their charade. The only people fooled are those who want to be fooled or those with an agenda.

And the foolish constitute a minority not a majority.







Post#532 at 06-03-2004 01:11 PM by Ciao [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 907]
---
06-03-2004, 01:11 PM #532
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
907

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Saddam wouldn't have cooperated, and didn't, and I have a feeling they knew he wouldn't. It was a big set up, and it worked. And, as you might have missed, I don't regard George W. Bush to be a sane president, and I don't exactly regard you as sane either, for supporting him.
What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.

And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.
Any man who signs 150 death warrants and claims Christ as his favorite political philosopher does not pass the trustworthy president test.
To me for such an executioner to call oneself "compassionate" is extreme self delusion and borderline insanity.







Post#533 at 06-03-2004 01:17 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 01:17 PM #533
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Saddam wouldn't have cooperated, and didn't, and I have a feeling they knew he wouldn't. It was a big set up, and it worked. And, as you might have missed, I don't regard George W. Bush to be a sane president, and I don't exactly regard you as sane either, for supporting him.
What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.

And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.
Any man who signs 150 death warrants and claims Christ as his favorite political philosopher does not pass the trustworthy president test.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I suspected something of the sort.

" 'Not a liberal' = 'insane'. "

For what it's worth, I oppose the death penalty, BTW. But I don't delude myself that those who disagree with my view (the majority of Americans) are insane, or that signing death warrants marks insanity or stupidity.







Post#534 at 06-03-2004 01:21 PM by Ciao [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 907]
---
06-03-2004, 01:21 PM #534
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
907

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X

14) In March 2004, explosions at a train station in Madrid killed more than 200 people.
And by giving in to it, the Spaniards guaranteed that they'll be victims of it again, eventually. It also encouraged the current insurgency in Iraq by sending the message to the enemy that 'Westerners are soft and weak'.
By giving into it, their government made a decision that reflected a public that was opposed to participation from the very beginning.
This is what I don't get about you liberals. You are so "pro-democracy" and then you can't accept it when other countries don't follow the US' lead.
While all these decisions are obviously political, the French and German decisions not to participate reflected the will of their people. Spin it however you want - that's the REALITY.
The actual point though, was terrible acts of terrorism have occurred while the US was jerking itself off in Iraq. Sadly it appears anti-terrorist measures have failed on at least two occasions. and the masterplanner of the events that killed 2000+ Americans is still at large.

But they caught Saddam at least, and Bush has his pistol in his office. Sounds like our priorities are just a bit mixed up doesn't it?
Oh of course not.
Tell me what Fox News position is on this one again, Monsieur Liberal?







Post#535 at 06-03-2004 01:25 PM by Ciao [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 907]
---
06-03-2004, 01:25 PM #535
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
907

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Saddam wouldn't have cooperated, and didn't, and I have a feeling they knew he wouldn't. It was a big set up, and it worked. And, as you might have missed, I don't regard George W. Bush to be a sane president, and I don't exactly regard you as sane either, for supporting him.
What's he done indicating insanity? Specifically.

And don't bother whining about invading Iraq, that was quite rational. Disregarding the 'international community' is rational, also, so don't bother citing that.
Any man who signs 150 death warrants and claims Christ as his favorite political philosopher does not pass the trustworthy president test.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I suspected something of the sort.

" 'Not a liberal' = 'insane'. "

For what it's worth, I oppose the death penalty, BTW. But I don't delude myself that those who disagree with my view (the majority of Americans) are insane, or that signing death warrants marks insanity or stupidity.
Extreme self delusion=inviting questions over one's sanity.

To me "compassionate" and "Christian" and "150 death warrants signed" does not compute. Sounds a bit more Roman to me, but atleast the Romans enjoyed their spiritual decadence, rather than drape it in white linen hypocrisy.
It's liberals like you who are destroying the fabric of this country, with your bar none allegiance to leader that was selected to guide you.







Post#536 at 06-03-2004 01:44 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-03-2004, 01:44 PM #536
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
... It was up to Hussein to prove his innocence, not America to prove his guilt.
HC, you really need to take a course in logic. :?
  • You can't prove a negative!
I've made this point before, but you seem to ignore it. It's NOT an opinion.
David, I won our debates on this issue before. I've already told you precisely what he had to do to prove his innoence. It was a perfectly practical, though very unpleasant (for him) method. It was the only way he could stop what was coming.

Quote Originally Posted by ... David '47 RD
Quote Originally Posted by ... then, HC'68
... He had a straightfoward (if personally humliating) way to stop the effort. But he did not, and I suspect could not, since there was a good chance they'd have found the WMDs he was hiding. He even ended up interfering with Blix's farcical inspections. He was either hiding something, or he went out of his way to produce the impression he was hiding something. Either way, the result is the same.
You've also written this before, but it's patently false.
And I'll post it again if you post your silly nonsense about Hussein being unable to prove his innocence, if he was. It's straightforward truth.
Assertions aren't proof, and so far, that's all you've provided. Try something a bit closer to evidence or, failing that, logical argument.


We've had unfettered access for a long time now and have plenty of troops to poke around. We've found nothing, yet you still believe there is something there.
No, I think something may be there, and I'm fairly sure something was there until recently. But it doesn't matter, even if it turns out that there never was anything.

The burden of proof was on Hussein.

Hussein went out of his way to make us think he had the WMDs, if he didn't. Frankly, common sense says he had them, and the most likely scenario is that they've either been removed from Iraq, or remain hidden. We've yet to even search the majority of the country, despite your specious claim to the contrary.

Frankly, I don't expect the WMDs to be found now. I think we gave them 6 months to prepare, and they used it to move them. But it'll be a long time before we know for sure either way.
I responded at length to Ash, and the same applies here. You can't make rules to suit yourself, then be outraged when others choose to ignore them. By the same token, you can't apply American norms to a foreign dictator and expect compliance, unless you plan on invading every tinpot sh*th*le in the world.

That said, the real issue is your insistence that negatives are provable. They never are. You might be able to prove a mutually exclusive "positive", but, barring such good fortune, being able to prove you didn't do something is impossible. That's the cornerstone argument for "innocent until proven guilty". I assume you have no problem with this fundamental basis of American jurisprudence.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#537 at 06-03-2004 01:47 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
06-03-2004, 01:47 PM #537
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Terminator:

I'm a little confused. Why do you keep calling HopefulCynic a liberal? He is liberal on a few issues, but why do you consider him one in general terms?

I'd have to agree with him about George Dubyah's sanity, as well. Calling someone who is politically and morally appalling insane is giving the person to easy an out. It's also letting ourselves off the hook for potential wickedness; we can say, "Oh, normal people would never do things like that -- he's INSANE!" But Napoleon was sane, Hitler was sane, Stalin was sane, Mao was sane, Torquemada was sane, and Dubyah is also sane.

In fact, it's kind of hard to hold high public office and political power while suffering from a really serious mental disorder like schizophrenia or severe bipolar affective disorder. Unless the position is hereditary. And even then, the rest of the zoo can usually deny the person real power, out of national self-preservation.







Post#538 at 06-03-2004 02:25 PM by Ciao [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 907]
---
06-03-2004, 02:25 PM #538
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
907

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Terminator:

I'm a little confused. Why do you keep calling HopefulCynic a liberal? He is liberal on a few issues, but why do you consider him one in general terms?

I'd have to agree with him about George Dubyah's sanity, as well. Calling someone who is politically and morally appalling insane is giving the person to easy an out. It's also letting ourselves off the hook for potential wickedness; we can say, "Oh, normal people would never do things like that -- he's INSANE!" But Napoleon was sane, Hitler was sane, Stalin was sane, Mao was sane, Torquemada was sane, and Dubyah is also sane.

In fact, it's kind of hard to hold high public office and political power while suffering from a really serious mental disorder like schizophrenia or severe bipolar affective disorder. Unless the position is hereditary. And even then, the rest of the zoo can usually deny the person real power, out of national self-preservation.
Brian,

I can label whomever I want, whatever I want, and if I choose to call HC68 a "liberal" that is my option. He insinuated that I was a liberal.
I take the liberty in calling him one back.
You may be right about President Bush being insane. If we are applying strict psychological terms, then perhaps he is not. I do find his character deeply flawed and parts of what he claims to represent are in strong conflict with one another. This is tragic, in the Greek sense, and forces me to doubt pretty much anything he says. I do not trust the man, nor in his restraint. Because his logic of the world operates on such a surreal level, the idea that he would not have pushed on further to have his way with Iraq because it was "not politically possible" does not hold water in my opinion.
Therefore HC's logic about what Bush might have or might not have done, which is based in his understanding of logic, which some like Dave'47 Redux may attest to be shaky, does not apply to the president, because the essence of his beliefs are so steeped in hypocrisy and conflict.

To put it simply, if the president himself does not make sense, why would one expect him to act sensibly?







Post#539 at 06-03-2004 03:40 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-03-2004, 03:40 PM #539
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Do you care how many people die for it, who need not have died? If you don't care, then we really have reached impasse.
Of course I care. That's why I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, because I didn't want to send our servicepeople off to die in what I believed was an unnecessary war.

You believed the war was justified, and apparently you feel the price in American lives and treasure has been worth it. I don't think it has.
That's beside the point of this discussion. Even if the invasion was unjustified, its opponents still are obligated to speak with care while the fighting lasts, since what they say can still help the enemy and harm our own personnel.

Dissent is allowable, but in wartime, the range of expression of it is morally restricted. There's no way around that.
H-m-m-m. This soulnds a lot like a Get Out of Jail Free card for Presidents. All you need is a good line of BS and a temporarily compliant Congress and you can write your own ticket. Once you're in, you can claim dissent "harms the troops", and make even the most honest oppostion into traitors.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#540 at 06-03-2004 03:45 PM by Ciao [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 907]
---
06-03-2004, 03:45 PM #540
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
907

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
That's beside the point of this discussion. Even if the invasion was unjustified, its opponents still are obligated to speak with care while the fighting lasts, since what they say can still help the enemy and harm our own personnel.
Are you saying that the War in Iraq isn't over yet? Or is the ongoing "fighting" part of the free floating, conclusion-less, amorphous "War on drugs er, terror"?







Post#541 at 06-03-2004 05:53 PM by Agent Mulder [at joined Jun 2002 #posts 9]
---
06-03-2004, 05:53 PM #541
Join Date
Jun 2002
Posts
9

Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Are you saying that the War in Iraq isn't over yet? Or is the ongoing "fighting" part of the free floating, conclusion-less, amorphous "War on drugs er, terror"?
It is the enemy that is "amorphous". Welcome to the 21st century.

ABC NEWS ADMITS AL QAEDA - IRAQ LINK

Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reported by ABC news to have been in Iraq with Iraqi official support prior to the invasion:

(near end of article)

During the 1990s, Zarqawi trained under bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to northwestern Iraq and worked with poisons for use in potential attacks, officials say.

During the summer of 2002, he underwent nasal surgery at a Baghdad hospital, officials say. They mistakenly originally thought, however, that Zarqawi had his leg amputated due to an injury.

In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi intelligence officials.







Post#542 at 06-03-2004 06:38 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 06:38 PM #542
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
That's beside the point of this discussion. Even if the invasion was unjustified, its opponents still are obligated to speak with care while the fighting lasts, since what they say can still help the enemy and harm our own personnel.
Are you saying that the War in Iraq isn't over yet? Or is the ongoing "fighting" part of the free floating, conclusion-less, amorphous "War on drugs er, terror"?
Of course it's not over. Bush made a political gamble by putting that 'mission accomplished' banner up, though he could truthfully claim that the first phase was accomplished.

OTOH, given the nature of pictures in politics, the Democrats probably can't use that against him effectively, either, so he might not have bene risking much.







Post#543 at 06-03-2004 06:39 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 06:39 PM #543
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Do you care how many people die for it, who need not have died? If you don't care, then we really have reached impasse.
Of course I care. That's why I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, because I didn't want to send our servicepeople off to die in what I believed was an unnecessary war.

You believed the war was justified, and apparently you feel the price in American lives and treasure has been worth it. I don't think it has.
That's beside the point of this discussion. Even if the invasion was unjustified, its opponents still are obligated to speak with care while the fighting lasts, since what they say can still help the enemy and harm our own personnel.

Dissent is allowable, but in wartime, the range of expression of it is morally restricted. There's no way around that.
H-m-m-m. This soulnds a lot like a Get Out of Jail Free card for Presidents. All you need is a good line of BS and a temporarily compliant Congress and you can write your own ticket. Once you're in, you can claim dissent "harms the troops", and make even the most honest oppostion into traitors.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.
It's not for sale. :lol:

You're pretty much stuck with this, whether you want to purchase it or not. While dissent remains always acceptable, the ways to express uit do contract in wartime, unless you simply don't care about the effects.







Post#544 at 06-03-2004 06:44 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 06:44 PM #544
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X

14) In March 2004, explosions at a train station in Madrid killed more than 200 people.
And by giving in to it, the Spaniards guaranteed that they'll be victims of it again, eventually. It also encouraged the current insurgency in Iraq by sending the message to the enemy that 'Westerners are soft and weak'.
By giving into it, their government made a decision that reflected a public that was opposed to participation from the very beginning.
That doesn't matter. By giving in, they increased their vulnerability. It may well have been the democratically legitimate thing to do, but it still increased their vulnerability.


While all these decisions are obviously political, the French and German decisions not to participate reflected the will of their people. Spin it however you want - that's the REALITY.
Nor am I angry at them for it. They're looking out for what they perceive to be their self-interest, just as America is going to do.

But they caught Saddam at least, and Bush has his pistol in his office.
You keep ranting on about the pistol! :lol:

What is it about that pistol that bothers you so much? :-







Post#545 at 06-03-2004 06:48 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 06:48 PM #545
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux
Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
... It was up to Hussein to prove his innocence, not America to prove his guilt.
HC, you really need to take a course in logic. :?
  • You can't prove a negative!
I've made this point before, but you seem to ignore it. It's NOT an opinion.
David, I won our debates on this issue before. I've already told you precisely what he had to do to prove his innoence. It was a perfectly practical, though very unpleasant (for him) method. It was the only way he could stop what was coming.

Quote Originally Posted by ... David '47 RD
Quote Originally Posted by ... then, HC'68
... He had a straightfoward (if personally humliating) way to stop the effort. But he did not, and I suspect could not, since there was a good chance they'd have found the WMDs he was hiding. He even ended up interfering with Blix's farcical inspections. He was either hiding something, or he went out of his way to produce the impression he was hiding something. Either way, the result is the same.
You've also written this before, but it's patently false.
And I'll post it again if you post your silly nonsense about Hussein being unable to prove his innocence, if he was. It's straightforward truth.
Assertions aren't proof, and so far, that's all you've provided. Try something a bit closer to evidence or, failing that, logical argument.
If this isn't self-evident, no level of argument will ever convince you. Do you imagine Bush would have refused such an offer, if Hussein had made it? He not have said no, any more than he could say no to the offer Hussein ended up making to let Blix in.

At that point, it would have been up to Hussein to not interfere with the inspections, if there was nothing to find. No matter how bad Bush wanted to invade, it would have been politically unworkable under those conditions.







Post#546 at 06-03-2004 06:52 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 06:52 PM #546
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

I responded at length to Ash, and the same applies here. You can't make rules to suit yourself, then be outraged when others choose to ignore them. By the same token, you can't apply American norms to a foreign dictator and expect compliance,
Oh yes we could. He lost the first Gulf War, and as a condition of being allowed to remain in power, he lost the right to set conditions or defy the winners. It was his problem if he didn't like the conditions America imposed on him, or if those conditions didn't match what he thought they should be.







Post#547 at 06-03-2004 06:56 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 06:56 PM #547
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Terminator:

I'm a little confused. Why do you keep calling HopefulCynic a liberal? He is liberal on a few issues, but why do you consider him one in general terms?

He has a point, in a way. I've noted myself how litle the dictionary definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' have to do with the actual groups those labels are so loosely applied to in colloquial political parlance.

Bush is a right-winger (on some matters), he's far from a Burkean conservative (except on a handful of points). In modern America, we tend to label all left-wingers 'liberals' and all right-wingers 'conservatives', and the labels are just noises since they are used so loosely.







Post#548 at 06-03-2004 07:04 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
06-03-2004, 07:04 PM #548
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Regarding polls...

Public Confidence Ratings

Here is an example of why I take all polls with a grain of salt, especially day-to-day polling.



OK, that rates the 'presidency' at one of the top 5 most trusted institutions, whatever that means. Yet the 'presidency' is not separable from the indentity of the President. This would indicate that current polling data says that people trust the Presidency but not the President.

It rates the military at #1, the police at #2.



Congress tends to come off badly in any poll, because they are a committee, and inevitably look weak and fractious when doing what they do, which is compromising. That's Congress's reason for existing, to compromise various interests and work out acceptable deals. But it isn't inspiring to watch.

Interestingly, organized labor checks in as being marginally less untrustworthy than newspapers, TV news, big business, and HMOs.







Post#549 at 06-03-2004 09:29 PM by Ciao [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 907]
---
06-03-2004, 09:29 PM #549
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
907

Quote Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
You keep ranting on about the pistol! :lol:
What is it about that pistol that bothers you so much? :-
It is bizarre, in the most dramatic, homoerotic, archvillain vs. superhero passion play kind of way. Frankly, it's not the kind of behavior I'd expect from a mature individual aware of the costs of war. It rather reminds me of a hunter, who stuffs the trophy of the game he's bagged on the wall.
Only Bush didn't bag the trophy this time - he sent other people's children to do it. Way to go Bush, you hero you! Score another one for your Dad for Father's Day!







Post#550 at 06-03-2004 09:33 PM by Ciao [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 907]
---
06-03-2004, 09:33 PM #550
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
907

Quote Originally Posted by Agent Mulder
Quote Originally Posted by Terminator X
Are you saying that the War in Iraq isn't over yet? Or is the ongoing "fighting" part of the free floating, conclusion-less, amorphous "War on drugs er, terror"?
It is the enemy that is "amorphous". Welcome to the 21st century.

ABC NEWS ADMITS AL QAEDA - IRAQ LINK

Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reported by ABC news to have been in Iraq with Iraqi official support prior to the invasion:

(near end of article)

During the 1990s, Zarqawi trained under bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to northwestern Iraq and worked with poisons for use in potential attacks, officials say.

During the summer of 2002, he underwent nasal surgery at a Baghdad hospital, officials say. They mistakenly originally thought, however, that Zarqawi had his leg amputated due to an injury.

In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi intelligence officials.
Um, have Al-Qaeda operatives been establishing sleeper cells in Pakistan?
Oh whoops, I forgot - Pakistan was the headquarters of Al-Qaeda.
Guess we should invade that military dictatorship/threat to its neighbors/nuclear power soon before the shit hits the fan :lol:
-----------------------------------------