You Decide The Correct Document ...

[Yao]

Ouch. Like a kick in the nuts Acmatos.

Yesterday I stumbled opun this book called ?Seeing like a state?, by James C. Scott. It is regarded as a standard work, which enlightens the reader about how a state works, and also the reasons of the failure of Western aid.
I think by reading this, I just might find some good info which can help me find out why the war in Iraq was a good or a bad thing to do. I also have the book ?Third world politics? by B.C. Smith, which a must read if you want to understand some of the shit going on in 3rd world countries. And I?m pretty sure you?ll read things that are applicable to the Iraq situation: it places it in a historical perspective, hence my earlier made remark, that Iraq was still in a socio-political phase which may have changed by itself, when given the time.

The economical blockade was effective enough to keep Saddam from developing his military and becoming a real threat. So that was no argument IMO. Also, Blix wasn?t allowed to finish his inspections, and I can guess why. The fact that there were no WMD?s wasn?t supposed to come out, therefore destroying one of the prime arguments for invading Iraq.
And one primary emotion in the Middle East was overlooked: they hated Saddam, but hey, they hated Europe and the US more.

Sorry, a little off topic, but I had to spill it.

Even though I?m no US citizen, I?m still watching your elections close, thankfully using the threads here to keep myself up-to-date. I can watch CNN here, and watch it almost all the time (I especially watch closely when the Hong Kong reporter Kristine du Stout is on, hehehe).
Combined with BBC world, they form a great combination, and they seem fairly unbiased IMO. And comparison helps a great deal when in doubt. And when you want to see some really good programs on international topics, you gotta watch the Belgian channels. Those are the best when it comes to unbiased reporting. Better than BBC and CNN. My luck that I?m Dutch...

[toasty]

Still...as a good liberal, you focused in on the least important points of my post. Since you couldn''t challenge my other points intellectually, you had to disagree with me one way or another. lol.

Yeah, you're right, I backed off because you clearly have the upper hand here. If you'll look back at my other posts in this forum, you'll note that I have a long history of avoiding intellectual discussion whenever possible. What a complete pussy I am.



Seriously, I didn't find anything terribly objectionable with your substantive point. I did, however, take issue with some of the assumptions you state which presumably form the basis of your general world view and, accordingly, your political positions. Whether the fault lies in the foundations for your political analysis or the analysis itself, a fault is a fault, and the fruit borne from incorrect premises is as rotten as if it were the result of incorrect ideology or analysis.

Why is that an improper basis for challenge?

[Civic_Zen]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

wow....this is just scary.


<----YOUR BRAIN IS HERE

[acmatos]

Revisionist history. Look back at what was actually said, not what the Bush administration has said about what they said since they said it.

I'm no revisionist, my friend. I don't have to look back, I was paying attention the first time.

This is such an incredible cop-out. Conservatives feel the need to villianize the media any time things don't go their way, yet praise it when it suits their interests. There is liberal media. There is conservative media. There is objective media. No matter what type of spin you want on a story, it is there if you look for it. Get over it.

This is not a cop-out, I'm merely pointing out what has been going on for some time. Indeed the liberal media has been doing its dirty deeds for over 20 years. Trust me, I'm over it! Actually, the media is starting to change right now which is a good thing. 10 years ago, CBS would have gotten away scott free with what they did. As you said, now there really is media on all sides of the political spectrum. This is good, it keeps everyone honest.

Still...as a good liberal, you focused in on the least important points of my post. Since you couldn''t challenge my other points intellectually, you had to disagree with me one way or another. lol.

[toasty]

The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this.

Revisionist history. Look back at what was actually said, not what the Bush administration has said about what they said since they said it.

The problem is that the media has, for the last 18 months, changed what the administration had stated. The liberal media has been able to focus on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus(i.e. WMD's)

This is such an incredible cop-out. Conservatives feel the need to villianize the media any time things don't go their way, yet praise it when it suits their interests. There is liberal media. There is conservative media. There is objective media. No matter what type of spin you want on a story, it is there if you look for it. Get over it.

[acmatos]

Oh yeah, that sort of thing never happened while Clinton was president. And I bet you were really outraged when it did.

Give me one situation during the Clinton years that parallel's the CBS story.

[acmatos]

Imminent threat? Uh, that was certainly a rationale that was given at one time. It was also a rationale that was ultimately discarded by the Bush administration. Remember when Rumsfeld got tripped up on this point on "Face the Nation?" There's a link to the footage below.

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/RUMSFELDDENY4.WMV

I agree with you as to some of the other things you've said in principle -- sometimes, you need to go in and get rid of a regime because you do. Why can't the adminstration be honest about that? The rationale for this war has changed so many times, I don't even know if anyone can say what the current position of the adminstration is -- it appears to be, "the world is a better place without Saddam." If Bush had said that before we went in to Iraq, he wouldn't have near the problems that he has.

One thing is certain, however -- the administration has long since backed away from the "imminent threat" rationale it relied upon for some time. Why do you continue to cling to it?

The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this. Anyway, that's not really that important. The problem is that the media has, for the last 18 months, changed what the administration had stated. The liberal media has been able to focus on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus(i.e. WMD's)
Another thing, he can't just come out and say "we just had to get rid of his regime because we need to change the middle east" (even though he has said it less harshly). Whether we like it or not we do have "allies" in the middle east who can help or impede our mission there. Some of them are already worried that they will be the next to fall(this is another important reason fo going into Iraq, keeping them in check!). And, unless we really want to go to war with the entire Middle East this has to be handled carefully.
Also, our military runs on oil, without it we're screwed.

[toasty]

In regards to CBS, to try and slander a sitting U.S. President with fake documents is totally unethical and verges on treason.

Oh yeah, that sort of thing never happened while Clinton was president. And I bet you were really outraged when it did.

Whoa, whoa, whoa dude -- I did NOT write that. Please make sure you get the source right when you are quoting -- that was acmatos.

I'm on your side, remember?

[LobsterClan]

[quote="acmatos";p="51445"]

In regards to CBS, to try and slander a sitting U.S. President with fake documents is totally unethical and verges on treason.

Oh yeah, that sort of thing never happened while Clinton was president. And I bet you were really outraged when it did.

[toasty]

The problem is that you liberals can't understand that the main reason to go to Iraq was not WMD's, but rather to avoid an imminent threat(Bush stated this repeatedly before the war).

Imminent threat? Uh, that was certainly a rationale that was given at one time. It was also a rationale that was ultimately discarded by the Bush administration. Remember when Rumsfeld got tripped up on this point on "Face the Nation?" There's a link to the footage below.

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/RUMSFELDDENY4.WMV

I agree with you as to some of the other things you've said in principle -- sometimes, you need to go in and get rid of a regime because you do. Why can't the adminstration be honest about that? The rationale for this war has changed so many times, I don't even know if anyone can say what the current position of the adminstration is -- it appears to be, "the world is a better place without Saddam." If Bush had said that before we went in to Iraq, he wouldn't have near the problems that he has.

One thing is certain, however -- the administration has long since backed away from the "imminent threat" rationale it relied upon for some time. Why do you continue to cling to it?

[acmatos]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

It really doesn't make any difference if the documents are real or not-- the fact is what was contained within them is without a doubt the truth.

wow....this is just scary.


<----YOUR BRAIN IS HERE

[acmatos]

OK, so CBS got hoodwinked. If you believe President Bush, he did, too -- regarding the information that led us to war in Iraq.

Which, I ask you, is the more grave error? Running a forged document which appears to reflect the actual facts of the situation, or leading a country into war based upon bad intel?

The problem is that you liberals can't understand that the main reason to go to Iraq was not WMD's, but rather to avoid an imminent threat(Bush stated this repeatedly before the war). Furthermore, the fact that none of you can grasp the notion that to ultimately stop terrorism the political and social situation in the greater Middle East has to change is both sad and dangerous. Iraq was the most vulnerable and logical place to start. Remember, Saddam had already violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Liberals like to talk a lot and do very little. You'd rather keep your blinders on and pretend that if we just leave everyone alone they will like us. When will you understand the realities of the world? I don't like war either, but the truth is that much of the world is shaped by force, always has and always will be.

In regards to CBS, to try and slander a sitting U.S. President with fake documents is totally unethical and verges on treason.

[suave]

bad night of hazing at the barracks, that's what i'm guessing. dubya must've dropped the soap... [shudders]

[LobsterClan]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

The whole documents flap is a red herring, or a canard as it were. It really doesn't make any difference if the documents are real or not-- the fact is what was contained within them is without a doubt the truth.

The basic fact of the matter is, that old Georgie disobeyed a direct order by not taking his physical. We still don't know why he didn't take that physical, but there are certainly plenty of assumptions.

Eric Boehlert at Salon writes up an excellent article on the whole subject, and I'd just love to hear any conservatives attempt to wriggle out of what it says.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/20/bush_guard_records/index.html

Unfortunately, reading Salon requires viewing a short commercial.

[suave]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

surprised to think dusty old CBS is liberal to begin with, let alone dan rather.