A New Spin on Iraq...

[Michael Tee]

<<Preposterous in your completely unobjective OPINION, based on YOUR distorted rationales, (i.e. Saddam's imminent attack on America), which again, only morons on the right, and apparently the left bought into.>>

No, preposterous based on the scenario that an 800-lb. gorilla is claiming to be threatened by a hamster, who he must smash in order to avoid future harm.>> 

<<When it's based on REALITY, the "excuses" more than demonstrate the vailidty of our operation>>

LOL, what "reality?"  The "reality" that a hamster will take on an 800-lb. gorilla?   



<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:56:46 PM
furthermore, when the original excuse is exposed as the bullshit which it always was, and the army stays and continues fighting the people of the country, and a new excuse is invented, that also is recognized as bullshit.


<<This is more of the garbage of pushing a false premise, then debunking the false premise.  Of course it's BS that saddam was just about to attack America with WMD.  Your problem is NO ONE WAS CLAIMING OR PUSHING THAT. >>

Condi's "mushroom cloud" argument, remember?

<< Your "Mushroom cloud" remains the prevention of Saddam in aquiring it, NOT in prevening his imminent attempt to blow up Boston.>>

The actual argument was, we can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud.  In other words, act now or be nuked - - nuked by the mighty Saddam.

<<  Again, rationally minded people get it.  >>

THAT'S for God-damn sure.  You aren't even close to rationally minded, so of course you still don't get it.

<<The others.....?  Well, There's always the Elvis Factor>>

The Elvis Factor in this case being that 800-lb. gorillas really can be attacked and taken down by hamsters.



<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 05:56:46 PM
Realism manifests itself in the realization that ever since oil was discovered in the Middle East, foreign powers have invaded and interfered in local governments to control the oil supply and that this doesn't just stop for no reason the night before Bush and his British partners in crime decide to invade Iraq.


<<Realism is if it were about the oil, we would have annexed it from the beginning, and have them guarded 24/7 by our own military.  >>

Realism is, you're a bunch of hypocritical, sanctimonious bullshit artists and you never in a million years would have risked exposing your true nature as predators when there was a chance you could cover it all up with a phony story about "bringing democracy."  Even your own people would puke at the real nature of your objectives and your methods.  Most of them do - -  in fact if you weren't also stealing election after election, you and the scum you support would have been swept out of office in a landslide.

<<we'd refer to it as downpayment for our efforts at taking out Saddam.  If we were as evil as you keep claiming, THAT's what would have happened.  To hell with the Iraqis and their democracy, we have the military, and we had the justification.  >>

You just prove your own ignorance of history and reality.  Even Hitler tried to put a decent face on his aggression, claiming to be liberating German minorities from oppression in Austria and then Czechoslovakia and Poland, later claiming to be liberating Europe from Bolshevism and Jews.  Evil NEVER comes out and owns up to what it's really all about.   Hypocrisy and denial are the hallmarks of every evil regime in history.  Hitler didn't rule Western Europe by military force - - he set up or puppet governments or worked with collaborationist governments for the same reason the U.S. tries to set one up in Iraq - - for appearances' sake only.
 
 
 

[sirs]

<<Preposterous in your completely unobjective OPINION, based on YOUR distorted rationales, (i.e. Saddam's imminent attack on America), which again, only morons on the right, and apparently the left bought into.>>

No, preposterous based on the scenario that an 800-lb. gorilla is claiming to be threatened by a hamster, who he must smash in order to avoid future harm.

Still with the unproven, irrational garbage that it was Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S. huh?  Well, since you're needle is still stuck in muck, time to move on to posters that have some more substantive responses & questions

<<This is more of the garbage of pushing a false premise, then debunking the false premise.  Of course it's BS that saddam was just about to attack America with WMD.  Your problem is NO ONE WAS CLAIMING OR PUSHING THAT. >>

Condi's "mushroom cloud" argument, remember?

Precisely.  Thank you for making my point   

[Plane]

It might behoove us to start paying more attention to the oil.  We need for the oil to start paying for the rebuild of Iraq , it can also pay for the stregthenig of the legitamate  Iriqui government .

Agreed.  But according to Tee, we were paying attention to it before hand.  Yet strangely, we're not controlling it.  The one and only real reason we went into iraq, and we're not in charge of it?, not controlling it's flow?, not guarding it 24/7 with our most elite military units and their hardware?  What gives??

Perhaps maybe because it WASN'T about the oil?

Of course it is not about the oil .

But the oil is there and it is an important part of the future of Iraq.

So it is a mistake to forget about it , the government of Iraq is struggleing over a bill that will establish controll for the goernment over the oil contracts to be granted.

I think it would be nice , if American companys won a lot of these very lucretive contracts , but just nice , not necessacery.

Necessacery is that the Government of Iraq controll the process and get legitamate bidding going .

Sooner is far better than later , the people in Iraq haveing to tolerate high unemployment is one of the most aggravateing parts of the situation.

[sirs]

But according to Tee, we were paying attention to it before hand.  Yet strangely, we're not controlling it.  The one and only real reason we went into iraq, and we're not in charge of it?, not controlling it's flow?, not guarding it 24/7 with our most elite military units and their hardware?  What gives??  Perhaps maybe because it WASN'T about the oil?

Of course it is not about the oil .

Well, I know that, and you know that, and most sane people know that.  Then there's.....well you know who.  Those with severe BDS

But the oil is there and it is an important part of the future of Iraq.  So it is a mistake to forget about it , the government of Iraq is struggleing over a bill that will establish controll for the goernment over the oil contracts to be granted.  I think it would be nice , if American companys won a lot of these very lucretive contracts , but just nice , not necessacery.

100% agreed

[Michael Tee]

<<Still with the unproven, irrational garbage that it was Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S. huh? >>

Unproven?    Condi's "mushroom cloud" was an obvious appeal to fear - - to fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam.  Her "we can't wait until . . . " was obviously meant to suggest that by waiting (i.e. not taking action against Saddam) that Americans risked a "mushroom cloud," i.e. a nuclear attack.

There is nothing unproven and nothing irrational in stating that the Bush administration attempted to put fear into the hearts of Americans, and specifically a fear of Saddam Hussein and his offensive military capacity.  Of which the "mushroom cloud" comment of Condoleeza Rice was a prime example.

It's a fact and Ms. Rice's words are on the record.  They mean what they say.  Only a delusional and hysterical idiot could claim that they mean anything other than their plain and obvious meaning - - "This man and his weapons are a threat to America and we must take prompt military action against him if the threat is to be avoided.  THAT was the rationale for the invasion as presented to the American people and it was not only a lie but an absurdity. 

<<Well, since you're needle is still stuck in muck, time to move on to posters that have some more substantive responses & questions>>

Translation:  This bullshit isn't working, I'm getting my ass kicked every time I open my stupid mouth, time to move on.

The rest of your post is unfortunately garbled and confused.  You recapped a debate where you had claimed that nobody was claiming that Saddam would nuke the U.S.A. and I of course referred you immediately to the best-known example of exactly such a claim, Condi's "mushroom cloud" remarks.  You then thanked me for proving your point.  Hello??  The mushroom cloud remarks were a classic example of the absurd lengths the Bush administration was prepared to go in fear-mongering (nuclear anihilation in this case) based on their absurd lie that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, leaving the U.S. no alternative but to attack unilaterally.  And this is "proving your point" how, exactly?

[sirs]

<<Still with the unproven, irrational garbage that it was Saddam's imminent attack on the U.S. huh? >>

Unproven?   

Yea, precisely....UNPROVEN.  Your Tee-leaf logic say so, just doesn't cut it, in this forum.  Perhaps at Kos, or MoveOn.org

Condi's "mushroom cloud" was an obvious appeal to fear - - to fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam.  Her "we can't wait until . . . " was obviously meant to suggest that by waiting (i.e. not taking action against Saddam) that Americans risked a "mushroom cloud," i.e. a nuclear attack.

What it was, was what any President and his administration references when they're extolling their reasons for military intervention.  What she said may be construed, and distorted by you as an "appeal to fear".  What you can't distort is the accuracy and sincerity of what she was saying.  America was risking Saddam aquiring nukes, which could eventually be used against U.S. forces in the region, or more likely via SCUD attacks on Israel, ala Gulf War I

There is nothing unproven and nothing irrational in stating that the Bush administration attempted to put fear into the hearts of Americans, and specifically a fear of Saddam Hussein and his offensive military capacity.  Of which the "mushroom cloud" comment of Condoleeza Rice was a prime example.

The "fear" as you put it was justified by the intel everyone was acknowledging.  No need to go into the laundry list of Dems and Foreign leaders that all acknowledged the threat.  The Mushroom cloud" was simply a continuation of the potential threat Saddam posed.  I repeat, EVERY PRESIDENT and his administration highlight the danger of the threat when justifying & using military intervention.  Did I mention EVERY PRESIDENT?

It's a fact and Ms. Rice's words are on the record.  They mean what they say. 

Absolutely.  Your terminal problem is the continued effort to misrepresent what she said.

Only a delusional and hysterical idiot could claim that they mean anything other than their plain and obvious meaning

Ahhh, the ol XO technique for validating opinion.......it's "obvious"

- - "This man and his weapons are a threat to America and we must take prompt military action against him if the threat is to be avoided.  THAT was the rationale for the invasion as presented to the American people and it was not only a lie but an absurdity. 

That actually would be a good example of delusional & hysterical

You recapped a debate where you had claimed that nobody was claiming that Saddam would nuke the U.S.A. and I of course referred you immediately to the best-known example of exactly such a claim, Condi's "mushroom cloud" remarks. 

Broken record.  But you go with what you think works, regardless of how broken the record or how deep the rut.

<<Well, since you're needle is still stuck in muck, time to move on to posters that have some more substantive responses & questions>>

Translation:  This bullshit isn't working, I'm getting my ass kicked every time I open my stupid mouth, time to move on.

Actually, the translation is Tee can't keep from pathetic perseverative Elvis factor distortions, so sirs is moving on

[Plane]

"...it was not only a lie but an absurdity.  "

  I don't see it as either a lie nor an absurdity.

   Saddam Hussein actually did have a nuclear bomb building program actually did have a biowepons building program and he actually did have a chemicl wepons program which he actually did use on people .

Saddam actually did hide the means by which he got rid of his stuff , so well that we do not know yet where or when he destroyed (or hid ) it.

Saddam did chase inspectors out , giveing himself plenty of time to dig the best hideing place the world has ever known , money being no object.

Saddam did have close relationships with terrorists , provideing money , sanctuary , training.

So in what way could those more sceptical than yourself know that Saddam was  not dangerous?

You may repeat your assertion that hamsters do not attack Gorillas , but I will reject this out of hand for the reason that we have been beset by hamsters since Lockerbie.

[_JS]

Is it unreasonable to believe the Iraqi's are capable of democratic elections?

The Iranians i believe were touted as having conducted the same very recently.

Are the Persians that much more superior than the average arab?

This is one of the most illogical replies, but it can be used the other way as well. Canadians have far fewer violent crimes than the United States. Are Canadians that much more superior than Americans?

[Michael Tee]

<<You may repeat your assertion that hamsters do not attack Gorillas , but I will reject this out of hand for the reason that we have been beset by hamsters since Lockerbie.>>

Oh, yeah.  Lockerbie.  I guess Bush must have sold the invasion to the American people on the basis of, "We're gonna go to war against Saddam Hussein so that no more bombs will ever be planted on airliners again."   That's the most absurd example you could have come up with.  Those kinds of terrorist actions (bombs on airliners) have probably been around since the end of WWII.  Every country participates in them, directly or indirectly.  The U.S. for example, shelters the guy who bombed a Cubana airliner flying from Caracas to Havana.

When I said hamsters don't attack gorillas, I was referring to organisms large enough to be organized into a national format, not a cell of five or ten individuals who could come from anywhere.  My example of a hamster attacking a gorilla was based on a nation vs nation attack, where the attacker faces the anihilation of his homeland, himself included.  Your example is meaningless in the context.

It is absurd to consider that Iraq under any leader would nuke the U.S.A. because of inevitable retaliation.  Your example of Lockerbie doesn't even address the situation.  No airplane bomber has ever risked the nuclear anihilation of his country.  Not even the craziest right-wing commentator would suggest such a thing.