"Why We Fight"

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have to question whether you seriously watched. You think they were surprised as anyone? Did you actually watch the program?

I just don't get why you have to be a complete ass in every single string.

I thought I presented my thoughts in a pretty non inciteful manner that should have at least garnered a somewhat respectul disagreement and not a ****y witch hunt.

Yes I watched the program, but probably not to the swallow it whole and call it gospel point that you did. He presented a set of facts that point to some sobering conclusions that I'm sure have left out quite a few other important facts that would present a different answer all together. I think he proved the sell job and I agreed with that, but unless I was up taking a squirt and missed it, he didn't at any point prove that they already knew that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Still very plausible that they feared it, and wanted to make sure they could sell the going in and getting them before something akin to 911 happened again.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just don't get why you have to be a complete ass in every single string.

I thought I presented my thoughts in a pretty non inciteful manner that should have at least garnered a somewhat respectul disagreement and not a ****y witch hunt.

Yes I watched the program, but probably not to the swallow it whole and call it gospel point that you did. He presented a set of facts that point to some sobering conclusions that I'm sure have left out quite a few other important facts that would present a different answer all together. I think he proved the sell job and I agreed with that, but unless I was up taking a squirt and missed it, he didn't at any point prove that they already knew that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Still very plausible that they feared it, and wanted to make sure they could sell the going in and getting them before something akin to 911 happened again.

Well, you must've taken a big squirt, because a large part of the documentary focused on the specific examples by Kwiatkowski, who worked on the specific iraq war plans for the pentagon right up to the invasion, that 'evidence' and intelligence had been cherry picked, was often 10 to 15 years old. You also must have missed the part about Joe Wilson, where he stated the purchase of uranium from africa was completely false, that he had told cheney it was false, and logic would dictate that his wife, a CIA undercover operative, also confirmed was false, but was used anyway, repeatedly, and willfully, despite knowing that that information was categorically false.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, you must've taken a big squirt, because a large part of the documentary focused on the specific examples by Kwiatkowski, who worked on the specific iraq war plans for the pentagon right up to the invasion, that 'evidence' and intelligence had been cherry picked, was often 10 to 15 years old. You also must have missed the part about Joe Wilson, where he stated the purchase of uranium from africa was completely false, that he had told cheney it was false, and logic would dictate that his wife, a CIA undercover operative, also confirmed was false, but was used anyway, repeatedly, and willfully, despite knowing that that information was categorically false.

actually I think I did miss the Wilson part ... truth be told

However, I think it very possible to believe he has weapons, but use pick and choose information to sell it to the public under the idea that it has to be a national agreement before they can go in.

You don't work with the UN for years about reprecussions for not meeting resolutions without a belief that they had something to hide.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

actually I think I did miss the Wilson part ... truth be told

I'll give you a run-down on the wilson thing. Joe Wilson was a foreign diplomat, and was sent to africa to investigate the claim of Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger. Wilson went, along with his wife valeri plame, and found zero evidence to back up that claim. He reported it, the report was ignored, so he wrote an op-ed piece in the new york times condemning the administration for lying about the information they had as a pretext for war. that's a treasonous act. For his effort, Robert Novak revealed that his wife was a cia operative working specifically on information about weapons of mass destruction. That information was leaked to him by 'two senior administration officials', one of which is currently under indictment (scooter libby). Also a treasonous act.

However, I think it very possible to believe he has weapons, but use pick and choose information to sell it to the public under the idea that it has to be a national agreement before they can go in.

You don't work with the UN for years about reprecussions for not meeting resolutions without a belief that they had something to hide.

Well, that might be the case, but before taking an entire nation to war against another, you might want to have more than 'belief'. or, you know, you might want to say "we have no new intellignece which would suggest saddam hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, so LYING about it is probably not the best course of action."

There isn't much grey area here, despite what political leanings you might have. I'm socially left-wing and economically right-wing (under the context of existing systems), but treason is treason, a lie is a lie and both should be treated as such.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'll give you a run-down on the wilson thing. Joe Wilson was a foreign diplomat, and was sent to africa to investigate the claim of Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger. Wilson went, along with his wife valeri plame, and found zero evidence to back up that claim. He reported it, the report was ignored, so he wrote an op-ed piece in the new york times condemning the administration for lying about the information they had as a pretext for war. that's a treasonous act. For his effort, Robert Novak revealed that his wife was a cia operative working specifically on information about weapons of mass destruction. That information was leaked to him by 'two senior administration officials', one of which is currently under indictment (scooter libby). Also a treasonous act.



Well, that might be the case, but before taking an entire nation to war against another, you might want to have more than 'belief'. or, you know, you might want to say "we have no new intellignece which would suggest saddam hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, so LYING about it is probably not the best course of action."

There isn't much grey area here, despite what political leanings you might have. I'm socially left-wing and economically right-wing (under the context of existing systems), but treason is treason, a lie is a lie and both should be treated as such.

If it was in fact treason or a complete lie then you'd be on to something but I've seen reports that indicate it's not quite as open and shut as that.

Hussein's behaviour suggested he had something to hide, and the UN's inability to put teeth behind any of the resolutions they passed put the US and Great Britain in a serious bind.

It's easy to now say they shouldn't have gone in, but much like when Clinton went into Serbia despite not getting UN approval, sometimes it's proven the other way and the world is glad things went the way they did.

Bush had no foreign policy when he came to office and was criticized for such. 911 put him in a situation where he couldn't have that happen again. From his chair he couldn't afford to be wrong and his chief intelligence guy was telling him the WMD were there.

He tried the UN over and over again.
He tried to get Hussein to step down and avoid a war.

Then he went in.

I think there's a lot more grey area than you're willing to admit.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If it was in fact treason or a complete lie then you'd be on to something but I've seen reports that indicate it's not quite as open and shut as that.

Hussein's behaviour suggested he had something to hide, and the UN's inability to put teeth behind any of the resolutions they passed put the US and Great Britain in a serious bind.

If that's what you believe. I've heard reports that if I commit mass suicide with my buddies, I can get to halley's comet. Of course, reason tells me that to be false. If this was about weapons of mass destruction, why did the US vehemently oppose a plan that would've turned Iraq essentially into one big arms investigation, including round-the-clock air surveilance over the vast majority of the country? Why didn't they give arms inspection more time? Why didn't they acknowledge the findings of arms inspections, both UN and American, which turned up nothing? Why were military efforts ramped up in light of a UN investigation which revealed that Iraqi disarmament was further along than even they expected? Why did so many countries around the world have this tremendous forsight about Iraq's weapon program, that 3 and a half years into the war, nothing has been discovered?

You can believe the earth is a rectangle for all I care, you'll just be looked at as foolish by anyone with decent cognitive reasoning capabilities.

Bush had no foreign policy when he came to office and was criticized for such. 911 put him in a situation where he couldn't have that happen again. From his chair he couldn't afford to be wrong and his chief intelligence guy was telling him the WMD were there.

He tried the UN over and over again.
He tried to get Hussein to step down and avoid a war.

Then he went in.

I think there's a lot more grey area than you're willing to admit.

He tried the UN. They said no because there was no evidence.
He told saddam to get out, and he said no because why the hell should he leave his own country because the US is threatening him.

Do you really believe this?

[Vulcan]

The USA have played three cards for their invasion of Iraq.

1.They linked Iraq to 9/11. This was obviously false to anybody who followed the situation but sure got the American population excited.

2. WMD. This too showed lots of errors in logic as they had no evidence and in fact had evidence to show there were no WMD.

3.They are bringing democracy to Iraq. There are lots of unstable countries crying to be cleaned up and the USA chooses Iraq. After the first two reasons have been shown to be lies, why should I believe this one.

I've found a few possibilities for this invasion but I'll be really interested for George to come clean and give his real reasons for this war.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If that's what you believe. I've heard reports that if I commit mass suicide with my buddies, I can get to halley's comet. Of course, reason tells me that to be false.

I'm going to give you a choice.

If you want to have adult conversations, treat the person you're talking to with some respect. I disagree with a lot that you bring to the table but I don't insult your intelligence, I don't talk down to you, and though I believe there's logic in my view points I don't enter every conversation with the notion that I'm correct.

Up to you ...

disagree and discuss like adults or find someone else to huck muck at ... I don't have time for it.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I saw the show last night (and enjoyed it), and was really interested and delighted to see the debate and discussion in this thread..........

........until Flash decided to start talking down to others like he is their dad or school teacher or something.

Too bad.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I saw the show last night (and enjoyed it), and was really interested and delighted to see the debate and discussion in this thread..........

........until Flash decided to start talking down to others like he is their dad or school teacher or something.

Too bad.

I guess everyone's got their opinion... I thought he was bang on.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I guess everyone's got their opinion... I thought he was bang on.

I have zero problem with his opinion on the show, I enjoyed reading what he had to say for the most part. He could say it with out being snotty about it, though.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I have zero problem with his opinion on the show, I enjoyed reading what he had to say for the most part. He could say it with out being snotty about it, though.

I agree--not to pile on, because I don't think this is a problem with one particular poster; but it seems like there are certain issues about which it's impossible to have a civil debate. I disagree with Bingo's political point of view, but he deserves props for keeping the discussion civil.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree--not to pile on, because I don't think this is a problem with one particular poster; but it seems like there are certain issues about which it's impossible to have a civil debate. I disagree with Bingo's political point of view, but he deserves props for keeping the discussion civil.

Keeping things civil should be the aim of most intellligent people. If your ultimate aim is to convince others of your viewpoint, being civil is necessary. If you just want to engage in a ****ing contest to try to gain points, you may gain some short lived satisfaction but you won't influence many people.

Sorry, that came off pretty damn pretentious, but I believe in it.

[FlamingLonghorn]

I used to be involved in the political debates on this forum years ago when I actually posted. The problem is that when you have people on extreme sides the debate is useless. I just wish people saw that not everything is black and white. Alex Jones is here in Austin and I have a lot of friends who follow his rhetoric I tell them its piecemeal evidence that unless you see the whole picture which we obviously can't do because we don't have access we don't really know whats going on. I've read everything from Alperovitz, Chomsky to Jones. Some of it they make good points. However, they often leave half the evidence out of the picture to support their claims. When going through millions of pieces of information when evidence becomes declassified you can pretty much find somebody somewhere who said something to support your claim. For instance Alperovitz used the General (can't think of his name) who was head of the Manhattan project as someone who was against dropping the bomb because it wasn't necessary. However, Alperovitz leaves out the fact that the general had no knowledge of the Pacific war. I am not saying that this movie is wrong. I haven't seen it. I just find those who take extreme positions on either side tend to believe everything their mouthpieces say where in reality the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Keeping things civil should be the aim of most intellligent people. If your ultimate aim is to convince others of your viewpoint, being civil is necessary. If you just want to engage in a ****ing contest to try to gain points, you may gain some short lived satisfaction but you won't influence many people.

Sorry, that came off pretty damn pretentious, but I believe in it.

I agree to a certain extent.

however, if I feel a position is ridiculous, i think it should be ridiculed. If it can proven otherwise, then so be it, I won't treat it in such a light. I'm sure everyone else has the same reaction when presented with something they feel is preposterous.

Contrary to popular belief, the internet is not serious business. If I'm making fun of someone's point or point of view, I'm not making fun of the person. I mentioned as much to azure in a private message. This garbage doesn't encompass an entire person, so it's crazy to get worked up over it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If I'm making fun of someone's point or point of view, I'm not making fun of the person.

I agree. I just think that it's too often the case that these discussions degenerate into name-calling and playing "gotcha." I really wasn't singling you out. Lord knows I've been guilty of a few rhetorical "excesses" of my own from time to time. The way I see it, a little civility can go a long way toward convincing another person that your point of view isn't crazy.

(or as my Mother-in-Law sometimes says: "you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." )

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I agree to a certain extent.

however, if I feel a position is ridiculous, i think it should be ridiculed. If it can proven otherwise, then so be it, I won't treat it in such a light. I'm sure everyone else has the same reaction when presented with something they feel is preposterous.

Contrary to popular belief, the internet is not serious business. If I'm making fun of someone's point or point of view, I'm not making fun of the person. I mentioned as much to azure in a private message. This garbage doesn't encompass an entire person, so it's crazy to get worked up over it.

Last time I checked it takes a person to make the opinion you're ridculing and therefore I think that's a complete cop out to say you're not attacking the person.

You are.

I find a lot of what you say ridiculous as well, but never would I talk down to you in the fashion that you seem necessary.

Am I saying you hurt my feelings and ruined my weekend? Hardly, you're right it's not a serious business, and I'm fine.

But it's no longer worth it. We don't agree and I'm fine with that but I have no use for people so close minded that they feel the need to trash and insult those that disagree with them. It's pointless. See you on the hockey board, talking politics with you is like talking to a text book.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Question for Bingo:

How much evidence does it take for you to believe that Iraq was no threat? You readily admit that you are not informed and are too busy to do the research yourself, but you quickly dismiss those that have done the research and the positions they propose as invalid because of what you see and hear on FauxNews. When does it sink in that those that do the research have found the flaws in the story and discovered the truth? When do you understand that it is people like yourself (those that are busy with their personal lives and don't do the research) that the government counts on to manipulate the zeitgeist? You are an intelligent guy and it is painful to see someone so bright being sucked in on such an obvious lie. When does the light bulb go on?

Your next assignment is to watch the Canadian documentary "Stupidity". Its an interesting look at the dumbing down of America and the subsequent dumbing dowun of Canada. Another eye opener.

[Bingo]

Question for Bingo:

Actually it looks like many questions!

You readily admit that you are not informed and are too busy to do the research yourself, but you quickly dismiss those that have done the research and the positions they propose as invalid because of what you see and hear on FauxNews.

If I ever gave you the impression that I'm not informed I shouldn't have. What I was saying was I don't have the time to research things on the spot during a work day to come back at something that seems fishy to me. I haven't read Chomsky, but probably should and likely will out of fascination. But I have read as much as I can get time to read on many of these subject, but likely not the same extent.

And like you or anyone else on this site I think I can be guilty of reading stuff you already agree with to some extent or the other, or at least that enforces things that I think to be true.

I was pointing out before how sad the media world has become because the loss of value in the word fact. You can pretty much prove both sides up and down with facts from sources (and remember I'm slagging both sides) that likely have left out everything that doesn't agree with their slant.

It's a sad state and it bothers me. I've read smoking gun reports that have Iraq WMD moved into Syria before the war that have had me shaking my head. How can that be true if the rest of the world hasn't jumped on it? Like I say sad state, and my disenchantment points both ways to the extreme, not just at the guys on the left.

When does it sink in that those that do the research have found the flaws in the story and discovered the truth? When do you understand that it is people like yourself (those that are busy with their personal lives and don't do the research) that the government counts on to manipulate the zeitgeist?

That's very assumptive again, and something that many of you on this site are guilty of on a daily basis.

You're essentially saying we're right, we've read more on it, and you're a sheep.

I have a real problem with that, and you'll notice that I never make my opinions a matter of fact because I've seen too much crap both ways that conflict to feel 100% sure of anything. It keeps me from boasting how right I am, and it keeps me somewhat hostile at being told over and over again by you guys how wrong I am.

It's just not the case.

You are an intelligent guy and it is painful to see someone so bright being sucked in on such an obvious lie. When does the light bulb go on?

See ... a little flattery helps!

Like I said before ... just because my lamp is pointed a different direction doesn't mean my light bulb isn't turned on. Like yourselves I'm surrounded by highly intelligent well educated people every day that are somewhat conservative in nature and somewhat liberal in nature. Most of our discussion however, is right up the guts with little in the way of the extremes I see on this site. There are plenty of well read, intelligent people that believe the Iraq issue and the 911 issue to a completely different thing than some on this site.

But they're not all idiots.

I think you guys would do well to be a little less intolerant of those that don't agree with what you THINK is true.

Either way ... other than suggesting my head is in the sand I appreciate the non attack aim of your post.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

See, I don't really regard those with military 'experience' to be military men? none of those listed were really 'defined' by their service. Bush was shot down flying sorties, Carter was instrumental in America's submarine program, gore was a military journalist. Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander, the military all but encompassing his entire professional career.

I would've thought Powell to be an excellent presidential candidate, if it weren't for his weak moral character.

Having said that though, Wesley Clarke was a bad candidate aswell.

Flash,
I have a question for you. I somewhat see real military experience as a qualification for a good president, although not required and definitely doesn't automatically make them a good president. So I am sort of along the lines of your thinking, I think. What is your feeling of John McCain? Honestly I voted for Ralph Nader in the last two elections, and no I didn't help Bush win (not that I cared I don't really believe Gore and Kerry were good candidates either) I live in Texas Bush would of won my state anyways. I honestly feel, eventhough as liberal as I am, that if McCain ran for president I would probably vote for him. It seems to me that someone with real military experience knows the consequences of war and isn't necessarily a politician (although some are). McCain just seems like the most real person in politics right now. I think he is more honest than most on capitol hill right now, is a free thinker, and usually is straight forward with the public. So I was just wondering your thoughts on McCain as a viable president? I think I would give him a shot.