You Decide The Correct Document ...

[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?

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Civic_Zen]

Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...

wow....this is just scary.


<----YOUR BRAIN IS HERE

[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?

[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...

[acmatos]

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?

I knew that was going to happen when I posted. I wasn't implying that YOU were intellectually incapable of arguing the points, but merely that the points I was making were in many ways "common sense" type of stuff and can't really be countered intellectually.
Furthermore, stating that the media has a liberal bias is neither an assumption(this is very much factual. If you'd rather not believe it then that's on you) nor does it in any way form the basis of my political positions. HOW COULD IT???
You should really give up the pseudo-intellectual jargon and just go back to discussing things plainly. Now, lets both remember that this thread isn't about us personally.

[acmatos]

Ouch. Like a kick in the nuts Acmatos.

I wonder if you really have any idea what he was saying.

[Yao]

I did.

[toasty]

Furthermore, stating that the media has a liberal bias is neither an assumption(this is very much factual. If you'd rather not believe it then that's on you) nor does it in any way form the basis of my political positions. HOW COULD IT???

Easy. Earlier, you defended your position that the real reason for the war is this concept of "imminent threat" in part by charging that the reason it would appear to be something else is that the liberal media has "changed what the administration had stated" and " focus[ed] on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus (i.e. WMD's)." I am assuming that you run the information you receive through your own personal filter that tells you whether or not it is trustworthy -- as we all do. This filter is created as a function of your own beliefs about the world around you; ergo, those underlying beliefs (i.e., the media is liberal and therefore can't be trusted, among others I'm sure) help you form your political positions (i.e., "Rumsfeld's words and the press be damned, the real reason we went to war in Iraq was to prevent Saddam from becoming an imminent threat" :wink: ).

My response then, would be HOW COULD IT NOT? Of course the beliefs that we have in general mold our opinions on specific things.

To get back to my suggestion that cries of "liberal media" is a cop-out, I would note that contrary to what people on both sides of most issues would readily admit, there is loads of undeniably fact-based information out there that could be used to support or rebut any position. Frankly, accusing the media of being liberal and going on your merry way is not a particularly strong way to make your point and, on this board in particular, it is heavily overused. I see that, and I think to myself, "AND?"

You should really give up the pseudo-intellectual jargon and just go back to discussing things plainly.

Now, lets both remember that this thread isn't about us personally.

Didn't think that it was. No offense taken or intended.

indeed

[timkell]

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.

Acmatos, you have a few posts where you claim the WMD/Imminent threat argument was not our primary reason for going to war and the administration made this clear at the time leading up to the war. Others have put quotes in their posts to back up their position, yet you haven't. This is clearly a contrarian viewpoint. Even conservatives admit the stated reasons for going to war turned out not to be true, while at the same time saying it was worth it to get rid of Saddam.

If you're going to claim the administration was not using WMD/Imminent threats as the primary justification for war, but instead was saying "We need to take care of him BEFORE he becomes an imminent threat," then you better back it up with facts, quotes and articles. If you can't, then that part of your argument holds no water.

Here's some nice quotes for ya. No liberal media. Just straight from the horses' mouths:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

The fact is, the administration exagerrated the threat far beyond any facts they had available would justify. You can say they did it for a noble cause, i.e. "We know the public and the rest of the world won't go along with it if we say he simply needs to be removed, so let's just push this 'threat' thing." And that may be a valid opinion. But at least have the cujones to admit that that's what happened, and you agree with it anyway.