14-01-2005 11:00									#151
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I am being honest. You're the one saying he was no threat whatsoever. That is clearly false. He was a threat then or in the future. Due to past actions, both to his own people and to his neighbours, the world is far better off with him deposed. You say, 'no.' That is the basis of the entire disagreement.

Your argument says that Iraq could hand off weapons to terrorists.

Okay, so why haven't we invaded:

Pakistan
Iran
North Korea

Well??????

Of all those countries, Pakistan has whored its nuke secrets more than anybody else.

	14-01-2005 11:01									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker I think lying to world and invading another country and formally endorsing torture is a reason good enough. THERE IS A DAMN GOOD REASON PEOPLE BASH THIS MAN. DUH

Don't blow a capillary, Ted. You're cute and I'd like you to stick around.

	14-01-2005 11:02									#153
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor In this thread, I have consistently pointed out the lie that Iraq was an "immediate threat", which was big in the PR, and repeeated often enough by the Bushies.

That's the bottom line.

Everything ever else used to justify anything else is utter horse crap.

PERIOD

	14-01-2005 11:02									#154
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Don't blow a capillary, Ted. You're cute and I'd like you to stick around.

Course you do, you have a fascination with me. At least your finally admitting it. Nice to show SOME honesty for once.

	14-01-2005 11:05									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

And, by the way, from Spiffor's link:

quote: Iraq "threatens the United States of America." • Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

Now what?

	14-01-2005 11:05									#156
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I am being honest. You're the one saying he was no threat whatsoever.

You seem to be the one thinking I'm saying that.
What I am saying is: Saddam was no immediate threat. The Bushies said he was an immediate threat in order to gather support for their war. The American people believed the Bushies.

Now, would Saddam have become a threat is he had stopped being contained? Maybe. Was Saddam threatening to his own population? Most definitely. Is Iraq better off with him out of power? Without a shred of doubt.

I hope you will stop projecting beliefs that are not mine, now. Maybe we can now resume a honest debate. However, should you project absurd claims once more, I'll understand you're not debating with me, but with some invisible partner you believe to be me.

	14-01-2005 11:09									#157
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Your argument says that Iraq could hand off weapons to terrorists. Okay, so why haven't we invaded: Pakistan Iran North Korea Well?????? Of all those countries, Pakistan has whored its nuke secrets more than anybody else.

Good question. Can you come up with a pretext for invading NK? Do you think SK and Japan would go along with it? What about China? It has to be feasible, Ted. Nobody who mattered cared too much what happened to Saddam. NK is a different matter.

Iran and Pakistan are good questions too. Have either of them invaded a neighbour? Have they gassed 100,000s of thousands of their own people?

I can see there might be good reasons for the US and others to take threrats from those regimes seriously, but who have they threatened? Are they the same sort of threat as a country locked in the dictatorial grip that Iraq was?

Is it that unless all bad guys are deposed, no bad guy may be deposed?

Finally, do you understand what a pretext is?

	14-01-2005 11:11									#158
	Got spare money?

Pretext: Lying to your country about a threat that does not exist.



Cool, so you are justifying an invasion just because we could do it.

Nice moral judgement there.

	14-01-2005 11:14									#159
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor You seem to be the one thinking I'm saying that. What I am saying is: Saddam was no immediate threat. The Bushies said he was an immediate threat in order to gather support for their war. The American people believed the Bushies. Now, would Saddam have become a threat is he had stopped being contained? Maybe. Was Saddam threatening to his own population? Most definitely. Is Iraq better off with him out of power? Without a shred of doubt. I hope you will stop projecting beliefs that are not mine, now. Maybe we can now resume a honest debate. However, should you project absurd claims once more, I'll understand you're not debating with me, but with some invisible partner you believe to be me.

I hope you stop saying that he was no threat and that everyone should have known it. The definition of threat that some use obviously differs from yours, as does the definition of everyone. Or maybe its the definition of hindsight?

I have pointed out, a few times, that people who were paid to know about Saddam and his toys, and who made it their career, thought he was a threat based on what they thought he had and what was doing. Ignoring them as if they never existed is hardly being honest, is it?

	14-01-2005 11:17									#160
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I have pointed out, a few times, that people who were paid to know about Saddam and his toys, and who made it their career, thought he was a threat based on what they thought he had and what was doing.

THOUGHT

being the key word.

thanks.

	14-01-2005 11:19									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Pretext: Lying to your country about a threat that does not exist. Cool, so you are justifying an invasion just because we could do it. Nice moral judgement there.

One more time... David Kelly.

We know more about this man and what he thought than we do about anyone else in the business of being informed about Iraq and weapons programs. We know this because of his unfortunate circumstances, but he seems to have believed that Saddam was a threat, and that some of the threat was being overblown. Ironic isn't it? It was his job to know about it. Now you and others, based on hindsight, are saying that he didn't think what he thought, or you simply want to ignore the fact that he ever existed. That's quite the conceit.

	14-01-2005 11:20									#162
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker THOUGHT being the key word. thanks.

What underlies a lie, Ted? What does 'guilty mind' mean?

	14-01-2005 11:27									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I hope you stop saying that he was no threat and that everyone should have known it. The definition of threat that some use obviously differs from yours, as does the definition of everyone. Or maybe its the definition of hindsight?

Please tell me how I could define the following statement in a fashion that doesn't indicate that the threat is immediate, and that the American people are threatened. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." (D. Rumsfeld)
I am curious about what I missed in that statement.

quote: I have pointed out, a few times, that people who were paid to know about Saddam and his toys, and who made it their career, thought he was a threat based on what they thought he had and what was doing. Ignoring them as if they never existed is hardly being honest, is it?

The question is: paid by whom? If these people were paid by the US government, their expertise sure won't weight much against my accusation of a Bushie-orchestrated lie. If the people are paid by the UN (like the Blix mission), they happen not to have concluded on Iraq being an immediate threat.

	14-01-2005 11:32									#164
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither One more time... David Kelly. We know more about this man and what he thought than we do about anyone else in the business of being informed about Iraq and weapons programs. We know this because of his unfortunate circumstances, but he seems to have believed that Saddam was a threat, and that some of the threat was being overblown. Ironic isn't it? It was his job to know about it. Now you and others, based on hindsight, are saying that he didn't think what he thought, or you simply want to ignore the fact that he ever existed. That's quite the conceit.

Can you point me to a smoking gun?

ANY hard proof WHATSOEVER?

Colin Powell slides showing fictional drawings of things that don't exist don't count.


Thanks.

	14-01-2005 11:33									#165
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither What underlies a lie, Ted? What does 'guilty mind' mean?

I think it has something to do with lying.

	14-01-2005 11:34									#166
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi You support all the motions against Israel? I think the evidence is pretty clear who is supporting these motions, and why they are doing so.

Since the US has vetoing power in the UNSC, any resolution in the UNSC against Israel is scrutinised and deemed acceptable. So I have no idea where you are coming from.

	14-01-2005 11:37									#167
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Please tell me how I could define the following statement in a fashion that doesn't indicate that the threat is immediate, and that the American people are threatened. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." (D. Rumsfeld) I am curious about what I missed in that statement. The question is: paid by whom? If these people were paid by the US government, their expertise sure won't weight much against my accusation of a Bushie-orchestrated lie. If the people are paid by the UN (like the Blix mission), they happen not to have concluded on Iraq being an immediate threat.

David Kelly was a British civil servant. Maybe you want to insinuate that the entire British civil service is in Bush's pocket? Is it possible for people to differ with you without being bought by someone? Incidently, Kelly was involved with weapons inspections.

Any threat to SA and the rest of the Gulf is a threat to Americans, and Germans, and Japanese, and everyopne else in the industrialised world for that matter. Even China. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the source of much of the oil that is bought and sold on the world markets effects all of our 'security'.

Then there is Israel and the possibility of a conflageration being touched off if the wrong idiot does the wrong thing. Saddam tried to enlarge conflicts in the past by striking at Israel. Can you offer any assurance he wouldn't have again? What were people to make of it in the post 9/11 world when he was running a bombers' bonus program?

	14-01-2005 11:45									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Can you point me to a smoking gun? ANY hard proof WHATSOEVER? Colin Powell slides showing fictional drawings of things that don't exist don't count. Thanks.

I can't take you seriously enough to educate you about what the difference between lying and being mistaken might be. Now run along.

Thanks

	14-01-2005 11:46									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Still none of those hypothetical reasons have justified an invasion.

	14-01-2005 11:55									#170
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither David Kelly was a British civil servant. Maybe you want to insinuate that the entire British civil service is in Bush's pocket? Is it possible for people to differ with you without being bought by someone? Incidently, Kelly was involved with weapons inspections.

And incidentally, Kelly believed the program was small, even though he reckoned it was bigger than what Blix said.

quote: Any threat to SA and the rest of the Gulf is a threat to Americans, and Germans, and Japanese, and everyopne else in the industrialised world for that matter. Even China. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the source of much of the oil that is bought and sold on the world markets effects all of our 'security'

And Saddam would have done that, because?
And for that matter, why would Saddam be more threatening to security than its neighbours, considering that Iraq's neighbours are considerably better armed than Iraq?

quote: Then there is Israel and the possibility of a conflageration being touched off if the wrong idiot does the wrong thing. Saddam tried to enlarge conflicts in the past by striking at Israel. Can you offer any assurance he wouldn't have again? What were people to make of it in the post 9/11 world when he was running a bombers' bonus program?

So, the "immediate threat" to the American people now boils down with Saddam buying a cheap popularity for himself by sponsoring the families of terrorists?

Again, it is clear that Saddam was a bad guy. But your argument that he was an immediate threat for the region and for Israel is really unconvincing, considering the sorry state of his military in comparison to SA and Israel.

If the US were going after actual threats, they would have gone After North Korea, which has repeatedly threatened to use its nuclear arsenal (considering it's their only leverage), and which has the ability to wipe out Seoul with conventional weapons. Or the US would have gone after Iran, which has a far more advanced nuclear program than Iraq.

But no, they kept repeating that Iraq was the real one menace (before North Korea even!). I am still trying to figure out how one could honestly think that.

	14-01-2005 11:55									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I can't take you seriously enough to educate you about what the difference between lying and being mistaken might be.

Naive statement of the year. They knew exactly what they were doing.

And so do you. You know inside the difference, even if you are not ready to admit it to yourself.

So cut the crap.

	14-01-2005 12:07									#172
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither One more time... David Kelly. We know more about this man and what he thought than we do about anyone else in the business of being informed about Iraq and weapons programs.

If David Kelly believed that Saddam had BCN weapons, that didn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that everybody else or even a minority in the intelligence community believed it. You need more than one single datum.

The fact that the CIA had serious doubts with regards to this issue is a good counterpoint.

	14-01-2005 12:20									#173
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor And incidentally, Kelly believed the program was small, even though he reckoned it was bigger than what Blix said. quote: Any threat to SA and the rest of the Gulf is a threat to Americans, and Germans, and Japanese, and everyopne else in the industrialised world for that matter. Even China. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the source of much of the oil that is bought and sold on the world markets effects all of our 'security' And Saddam would have done that, because? And for that matter, why would Saddam be more threatening to security than its neighbours, considering that Iraq's neighbours are considerably better armed than Iraq? quote: Then there is Israel and the possibility of a conflageration being touched off if the wrong idiot does the wrong thing. Saddam tried to enlarge conflicts in the past by striking at Israel. Can you offer any assurance he wouldn't have again? What were people to make of it in the post 9/11 world when he was running a bombers' bonus program? So, the "immediate threat" to the American people now boils down with Saddam buying a cheap popularity for himself by sponsoring the families of terrorists? Again, it is clear that Saddam was a bad guy. But your argument that he was an immediate threat for the region and for Israel is really unconvincing, considering the sorry state of his military in comparison to SA and Israel. If the US were going after actual threats, they would have gone After North Korea, which has repeatedly threatened to use its nuclear arsenal (considering it's their only leverage), and which has the ability to wipe out Seoul with conventional weapons. Or the US would have gone after Iran, which has a far more advanced nuclear program than Iraq. But no, they kept repeating that Iraq was the real one menace (before North Korea even!). I am still trying to figure out how one could honestly think that.

You don't go after NK without going to war with the PRC. Iraq was possible, NK is not. Why do people insist on repeating this nonsense?

Saddam started two wars against neighbours, yet you are content to believe that he could never, ever, have gotten up to any mischief, ever again. On which side of the argument do past actions fall?

Sanctions were going to stop at some time, and so were the efforts of the US and British to protect Iraqis in the North and South from Saddam's revenge. It couldn't go on forever.

'Immediate' threat was the pretext. Bush wanted Saddam gone, and whatever else he wanted (like bases or whatnot). 'Immediate' was hyperbole based on what some in intelligence thought at the time. We can argue about 'immediate' and 'pretexts', and 'threats', but you are being disingenuous when you claim on hindsight that mistaken was lying.

	14-01-2005 12:26									#174
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger If David Kelly believed that Saddam had BCN weapons, that didn't make it true. It also doesn't mean that everybody else or even a minority in the intelligence community believed it. You need more than one single datum.

And being mistaken does not make a lie.

We know more about him than any other, because of the attention he gained due to his unfortunate end. Do you suppose that he was alone, and it was on he and he alone that Blair agreed to go along with Bush?

	14-01-2005 12:33									#175
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger This is mildly amusing. Israel has been ignoring a bunch of UN resolutions, but rightwingers don't have a problem with that.

None of which were under article 7.

	14-01-2005 12:46									#176
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither And being mistaken does not make a lie. We know more about him than any other, because of the attention he gained due to his unfortunate end. Do you suppose that he was alone, and it was on he and he alone that Blair agreed to go along with Bush?

You seem to be making quite a case for that actually.

	14-01-2005 13:19									#177
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Edan None of which were under article 7.

The UNSC is not under article 7?

	14-01-2005 13:26									#178
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Why can't you righties just admit that you got well and truly *****slapped by us lefties over the justification for the war?

The general position of the Apolyton left was that if in the unlikely event Saddam had WMDs, they would be in small amounts and be things like chemical shells, which aren't weapons of mass destruction except in name.

The "proof" before the war consisted of misleading photographs, plagiarized material from the early nineties and various other lies and distortions. Each new "fact" that Bush and Blair came up with was quickly shot down in flames by alert journalists.

You were told by us, on this forum and in great detail, exactly why the case for war was flimsy at best. You can't change the past and pretend that Bush and co were fooled. They deliberately exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein (which was virtually nil as it turned out) and there is plenty of video and print material testifying to their dishonesty.

I see that the current trend is to adopt a usual right wing strategy - try to claim that people didn't mean what they said, or were misinterpreted or were somehow otherwise not culpable. The problem with that is that, although it is a remote possibility given the evidence we have, it involves ignoring the obvious - Bush and company said what they meant and were quite clear about it. One would have to be a conspiracy theorist to say otherwise.

The end result is that you've been thoroughly pwned, and it is only good manners (and Ming) that stops Poly's anti-war brigade from posting ten new gloat threads on how badly you got pwned about almost everything to do with the war.

I can't believe you are still defending Bush. Do you seriously want to shed the last vestiges of credibility you have on this issue? The truth is that you didn't know what you were talking about, got duped by slick politicians, and overlooked the obvious (to a five year old) evidence about the case for the war being a load of crap.

Now you have the temerity to defend torturers and war criminals, which were some of the accusations hurled at Saddam. How low can you go?

Bush and Blair are by any reasonable understanding of the term, war criminals. They knowingly conducted an aggressive war against a defenceless foe that met none of the standard justifications for such a war. Not only is it the case that there were no WMDs or at least none to pose a serious threat, but also that Blair and Bush knew this and lied. To believe otherwise involves a conspiracy theory of immense proportions about how dumb they were.

Bush and co had a long standing hard-on for war with Iraq, and Blair got involved for reasons of political expediency. The good news is that they are young men, and maybe a couple of decades down the track they will pay for their crimes.

	14-01-2005 13:29									#179
	Support Apolyton

Alert journalists like who work for the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/st...ts/23_09_02.txt

quote: CORBIN: The regime of Saddam Hussein is in the firing line and Britain waits to hear the evidence to be put before Parliament tomorrow. Will it make the case for confronting a man who has menaced his people and his region for a quarter of a century? Over nearly two decades Panorama has revealed how Saddam Hussein caught, stole, smuggled and copied western technology in a bid to develop weapons of mass destruction.

	14-01-2005 13:31									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well done Agathon.

Deliberately exaggerated is the key phrase