Dealing with lies about Bush lied us into war

[sirs]

The sanctions were imposed to force Iraq, a sovereign nation whose invasion of Kuwait had failed, to continue to bow to American dictates long after the cessation of hostilities.

Did you just NOT claim that the U.S doesn't order the UN around? That when I made that claim, that you said it was a complete distortion??  These were UN resolutions & sanctions, not U.S. resolutions & sanctions imposed upon Iraq.  So which is it?  We order the UN to impose what we want or not?

No, that's not at all what I said.  In fact it's a deliberate distortion of what I said.  Another fucking lie, this time right out of your mouth and not the mouth of your Liar God, Bush.  If you go back to my post, you will see that what I said was that the U.S. had to work God-damn hard to get the sanctions from the U.N. and even harder to keep the sanctions in place after the children started dying

Ahhh, so the U.S. DOES control the UN, DOES tell them what to do, just not as fast as a snapped finger?  Tells France what to do, Russia, China, etc.  My apologies for my above confusion.  So, when does the U.S. (via the UN) start the invasions of Iran & North Korea next?

Oh, BTW, another unique dodge in dealing with the question of the thread.   

[Michael Tee]

<<Did you just NOT claim that the U.S doesn't order the UN around? That when I made that claim, that you said it was a complete distortion??  These were UN resolutions & sanctions, not U.S. resolutions & sanctions imposed upon Iraq.  So which is it?  We order the UN to impose what we want or not?>>

Are you even capable of understanding shades of gray?  Of course not, you live in a conservative world, where everything exists in binary code of either-or, black or white.  Either the U.S. has total control over the UN, orders the U.N. around like Lynndie Evans ordering a naked Iraqi prisoner on a leash to bark like a dog and jerk off; OR the U.S. has absolutely zero influence on the UN and the UN goes its way while the US goes its.  Well, OK, sirs, I will try to ease your way gently into the real world, which has black, has white and has also - - hold on, sit down now sirs, this I know will be shocking to you - - shades of gray!!!!

Here's an idea for you to try on for size - - try to imagine a United Nations where the U.S. has a lot of influence but other countries do too.  So that the U.S., which gets its way more often than other member states like, say, Fiji or Palau, still has to work hard on occasion to lobby other powerful member states of the U.N. if it wants to get a particularly controversial piece of business passed.  Try to envisage a world where the U.N. failure rate of a country, like the U.S. for example, is neither 100% nor zero %, but something in between.

<<Oh, BTW, another unique dodge in dealing with the question of the thread.  >>

Are you kidding me?  YOU are the one who raised the issue by questioning the extent of U.S. influence at the U.N., a no-brainer if ever there was one.

Oh, here, I almost forgot - - some basic information about sanctions, death rates, responsibility, etc. all from The Nation.  Turns out only 200,000 to 300,000 children were killed by the sanctions and the author holds Saddam as holding a large share of responsibility for that, too.  But he doesn't let the U.S. off the hook, it is also responsible, and as far as Bush Big Lie No. 2 is concerned, it is still dishonourable to share the responsibility for the deaths of 200,000 children just as it would have been dishonourable to have full responsibility for the deaths of 600,00.  So Bush's statement that America dealt patiently and honourably with Iraq for ten years is still a lie, the article's updated information notwithstanding.  Here it is:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright/3

[sirs]

Are you even capable of understanding shades of gray?

Oh, now we're back to nuance, where when you don't make any sense what-so-ever, and do want to have it both ways (U.S. can get the UN to impose whatever sanctions the U.S. alone wants, but of course they don't control the UN), you then plead "shades of gray"

Priceless

and an Idea I'd have for you is to actually try putting some credibility behind your, to date, meritless diatribes.  Lemme help:

I Tee, claim that Bush lied about _____________________ regarding the war in Iraq.  And it's a lie because _______________________

Think you can take it from there?

[Plane]

Oh what have I done?


It is not fair at all to point to a huge mass of accusations and claim that because there are so many accusations they must be true.

Life is too short , to attempt to debunk every fantasy that a few thousand accusers can dream up.

I was requestion that you pick one defensible one , I don't understand why you did not , unless you know as well as I that this large number of accusations are mostly weakly argued.


So I chose one that seemed representative of method.

The number of Iriquis killed by the sanctions was a lie that Saddam told , this site accepted Saddams word unattributed and uncriticly.

The Pajamas website figures deal with some of the same time period and reveil that the tipical death rate for peacetime Iraq is very low , the sanctions could not have killed a million in a country  of twenty million without driveing the rate up somewhat.

I think that the Pajamas site might be right , it certainly seems to be more carefull than the socialist website which accepts Saddams word as gosphel.


So on this site Bush lie number 2 is Bush accuseing mostly the Clinton Administritation of dealing fairly and honorably with Saddams regime , during the eight years that Clinton was President of the ten refered to by the President.


Bush is lieing when he says something good about Clinton?

[Plane]

Oh, here, I almost forgot - - some basic information about sanctions, death rates, responsibility, etc. all from The Nation.  Turns out only 200,000 to 300,000 children were killed by the sanctions and the author holds Saddam as holding a large share of responsibility for that, too.  But he doesn't let the U.S. off the hook, it is also responsible, and as far as Bush Big Lie No. 2 is concerned, it is still dishonourable to share the responsibility for the deaths of 200,000 children just as it would have been dishonourable to have full responsibility for the deaths of 600,00.  So Bush's statement that America dealt patiently and honourably with Iraq for ten years is still a lie, the article's updated information notwithstanding.  Here it is:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright/3


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Nobody has the same numbers , is this lieing on everyones part?

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh, now we're back to nuance, where when you don't make any sense what-so-ever, and do want to have it both ways (U.S. can get the UN to impose whatever sanctions the U.S. alone wants, but of course they don't control the UN), you then plead "shades of gray">>

Well, that's not what I said, but when did simple considerations like truth or fact ever stop you from putting words in my mouth.  Once again (because you must be very, very stupid, so I must repeat myself many, many times):  the U.S. cannot ALWAYS get the UN to impose whatever sanctions the US wants, the more UN members the U.S. can get on board, the more likely it is that it will get the UN on board, the U.S. has a lot of influence with a lot of countries and often but not always gets what it wants, the UN is an arena where most of the time the US gets what it wants and the rest of the time it doesn't.  Many "shades of gray" situations arise.  These are situations other than (1) US asks, US gets, no problem; and (2) US asks, US does not get, problem.

I plead "shades of gray."  Yes.  Because that's what life is, shades of gray.  That is what the US -UN relationship is, shades of gray.  That is the real fucking world, sirs, whether or not you can understand it.  (That was a joke - - of course you can't understand it, if you could, I wouldn't have to waste hours of my time spelling out stuff for you like the six-year old that you must be, so that you might - - PLEEEEEZE GOD!!!!  - - understand what any other sane and normal person already understands.

Oooops!  Being called away for dinner.  Figure the rest out for yourself, just for once, willya sirs?  Give it a try.  Try not to be a fucking moron all your life.  If I didn't believe you could do better than this I wouldn't even bother.

[sirs]

Well, that's not what I said, but when did simple considerations like truth or fact ever stop you from putting words in my mouth.  Once again (because you must be very, very stupid, so I must repeat myself many, many times):  the U.S. cannot ALWAYS get the UN to impose whatever sanctions the US wants...Try not to be a fucking moron all your life.

Nice civility.  Yea, that's real motivating.  So, bascially now the backpedaling premice is that the U.S. only gets the sanctions they want when you say they do.  Gotcha

Now let's see what Tee left for the 2nd part of the post.  The part about actual Bush lies.  Well, lookie there, more of the same.......squat.  Gotta love the consistency though

[Plane]

This may be a good time to type victory and hit enter.



Victory!


But seriously ,
it isn't reasonable to expect the highly comitted to easyly admit central error , core concept flaw , or wrongly chosen direction, MT has the same complaint about us.


The best you can do is present your case in such a way as a reasonable person can understand it , and perhaps be persuaded .

If a reasonable person ever shows up here and reads our stuff.


But do reasonable people do this?

I don't think so , it is the very opinionated that do what we do , the reasonable ones go catch a nap.

[sirs]

You're probably right Plane.  Trying to sqeeze water out of a rock is only educational for just so long.  Tee doesn't want another showcasing of the fallicy in his Bush lied accusations, and is bent on sticking with just his opinionated say so.  So be it, we move on