Layton/NDP wants Canada to pull out of Afghanistan

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know. I suppose. What are we talking about here? Got an example -- even a hypothetical?

haha Well now it would have to be hypothetical. But let's say because China and Iran have a trading relationship- like I mentioned before.

If Iran and the U.S. went to war, China might possibly be brought in through an alliance with Iran and their muslim extremists.

Now do you see where I'm going with this? Hope this makes sense.

Easy historical example would be something like Italy joining Austria in the First World War in response to Ferdinand's assassination.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

haha Well now it would have to be hypothetical. But let's say because China and Iran have a trading relationship- like I mentioned before.

If Iran and the U.S. went to war, China might possibly be brought in through an alliance with Iran and their muslim extremists.

Now do you see where I'm going with this? Hope this makes sense.

Easy historical example would be something like Italy joining Austria in the First World War in response to Ferdinand's assassination.

No need for a hypothetical as China and Russia are giving Iran the means to pursue their nucleatr technology. You have to see Iran having nuclear technology as a threat to western societies don't you? He already said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

[Azure]

I think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to rally support from the American public for the war in Iraq. So... yes, I do.

Manipulating intelligence and making it up are two different things.

I don't think so. I think people working with and under Bush wanted the War, and he either A) didn't care, B) wanted it too, C) didn't have a choice because he doesn't really call the shots.

Or he acted upon the intelligence given to him, and decided to invade Iraq. As the CIC, Bush does not 'gather' the evidence, nor does he look after it. He takes what is given to him, and decides in which way he should deal with it.

He is the POTUS, not the CIA/NSA/DIA director/s.

I think to believe that Bush/Bush administration were 'duped' by the intelligence community into believing there were WMD's is wishful thinking. They were the dupers, not the dupees.

Its also wishful thinking to believe that the Bush Adminstration made up 'all' the evidence in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. They 'acted' upon the evidence 'given' to them.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

What the heck are you talking about here? There is no context for this statement. You do realize that when you put an example out you're supposed to tell people what its an example of.

Ok lets see...

Iran was a secular nation not run by religious zealots. It was over thrown by the Ayatohalla (I know that is not the spelling). We didn't do anything now look at what we have. A crazy madman running a country wanting to obtain nukes to wipe out Israel and god knows who else.

Of course I am going to get the "look whos running the USA, a crazy madman wanting to blow everyone up.) Well your partially right and if you look at ALL of my previous posts I have always considered GWB a complete ######. The one main difference is that the USA does not have a stated goal in wiping out individual nations. Simply eliminating the threat, meaning the crazy people that run the government. And before people start forgetting, Yes I did say that the USA has gone about this the wrong way, not to forget everyother country that has stuck there head in the sand.

North Korea????

Well, its a good thing that atleast we stuck up for half of the penincela. People in south korea have a pretty decent life, democratic governments and good human rights. If we had finished the job the North Koreans would be SOOOOO much better off. But thats what you get for not stopping these crazy *******s. But most of you want to just pretent that every thing will be hunky dory if we just bugger off and forget about them.

Another example..

Hong Kong...

Wow, what a differnece the type of government can make on the citizens of ones country. You have a democratic government right accross from the worlds worst human rights abusors. Hong Kong grows to be a healthy, wealthy, and happy place with freedom of speach, religion and the right to live. Go next door and what do we get. Thats right.

But, hey, who are we to tell people how they should run their country. If people want a small minority to run there lives, tell them how to think, kill anyone who speaks outs, jails people for having a certain religion, well then hey that MUST be what they want....right???

So lets just pack up and leave, lets forget about all the injustice in the world and only worry about our own country. If a government wants to impose a state religion and force anyone that doesn't abide put to death or prison, so be it. Right??? If a government wants to force all women to cover their face and remain indoors. Thats what the women want , right?? If they want remove universal suffurage, then so be it, who are we to tell others as to what rights they have. If they want to stone a women to death because she was accused of adultery, why not? If they want to allow a father to kill his daughter because she embarresed the family, ok then.

Why is it that its ok for all these governments and radicals to force thier opinions, beliefs and culture on people around them (practices that are much more barbaric then wanting to install fundemental rights and freedoms) but the Westis soooo evil for defending these rights and trying to spread them????

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

No need for a hypothetical as China and Russia are giving Iran the means to pursue their nucleatr technology. You have to see Iran having nuclear technology as a threat to western societies don't you? He already said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

You make it sound like Russia and China are gearing up the Iranians for a nuclear attack on Israel. I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

I don't know how many times we have to hear the phrase "he's already said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". How long have we known that? 60 years now? I don't want them or anyone else armed with nukes, but I'm also not convinced that they are in a mad panic to get one so they can immediately fire it at Israel, which some people seem to think is their strategy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know how many times we have to hear the phrase "he's already said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". How long have we known that? 60 years now? I don't want them or anyone else armed with nukes, but I'm also not convinced that they are in a mad panic to get one so they can immediately fire it at Israel, which some people seem to think is their strategy.

No, but there is a good chance that Iran will supply Hezbollah with a nuke, so that Hezbollah can wipe Israel off the map.

Considering that Hezbollah has already dedicated themselves to that extreme.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If the hordes are only 15 years off from converting me to to their religion and sending my niece home from school with a sheet over her head then I think the time for diplomacy and politics is about up, don't you?

Earlier you said this:

he people that run these governments have one real goal. Global domination and conversion to Islam.

That simply is not true. Your most recent post did not address this issue, you went off on a tangent about extremism or something.

Here is a little exercise that anyone is more than welcome to take part in.

The one goal of _____________'s government is global domination and conversion to Islam.

Fill in the blank and explain to the rest of us how they are going about doing this and how much progress they have made please.

Just so you know, if the current practice remains by pretending that this will all go away if we just leave them alone, it will happen, and when it does the west will win but there will be many deaths just like WW2 which could have been prevented.

It only took 20 years for WW2 to happen. And if you were still alive in the 20's you would be one of those people saying. LEAVE the Germans alone, if we dont bother them, they wont bother us. Next thing you know, a German Panzer division just rolled right over your house.

Yup, never going to happen eh???

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Manipulating intelligence and making it up are two different things.

I said he manipulated it, I didn't say he made it up. I believe that both are equally bad, but I'm sure now we'll be hung up on the difference

Or he acted upon the intelligence given to him, and decided to invade Iraq. As the CIC, Bush does not 'gather' the evidence, nor does he look after it. He takes what is given to him, and decides in which way he should deal with it.

I didn't suggest that Bush himself gathered any intelligence.

The administration was provided with lots of intelligence saying all kinds of things. It selectively chose the bits that supported what it wanted (War in Iraq) and ignored the bits that said WMD's didn't exist.

Do you believe that the CIA/NSA was telling the Administration that WMD's absolutely did exist in Iraq, and that the Administration was caught with their pants down by a totally failed intelligence apparatus? I've heard/read that people in the intelligence community were trying to say Iraq had no WMD's and that people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton didn't want to hear it.

Its also wishful thinking to believe that the Bush Adminstration made up 'all' the evidence in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. They 'acted' upon the evidence 'given' to them.

Who said the Bush Administration made up all the evidence? I didn't even say they made up any, I said they manipulated existing intelligence... are you talking to me or someone else?

[Azure]

I said he manipulated it, I didn't say he made it up. I believe that both are equally bad, but I'm sure now we'll be hung up on the difference

I asked you a simple question...

But do you really think Bush made up the whole 'WMD' idea, and used to justify going into Iraq?

You replied with...

I think the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to rally support from the American public for the war in Iraq. So... yes, I do.

Yes you believe what? Pretty hard to understand what you were trying to say there.

I didn't suggest that Bush himself gathered any intelligence.

Indeed.

The administration was provided with lots of intelligence saying all kinds of things. It selectively chose the bits that supported what it wanted (War in Iraq) and ignored the bits that said WMD's didn't exist.

Ah, so you admit the Bush was provided with the intelligence from numerous sources, that Iraq 'had' WMD, and he decided to act upon it?

I realize that the information that he recieved was vague, or seems to have been, but that really doesn't matter.

Poor intelligence(so it seems) results in no WMD being found.

Do you believe that the CIA/NSA was telling the Administration that WMD's absolutely did exist in Iraq, and that the Administration was caught with their pants down by a totally failed intelligence apparatus? I've heard/read that people in the intelligence community were trying to say Iraq had no WMD's and that people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bolton didn't want to hear it.

I believe the CIA/NSA/DIA provided the Bush adminstration with evidence, faulty or not, and the Bush administration acted upon it. Do we have a page for page analysis of the evidence provided?

Someone was screwing up the whole thing....and it seems to me you place the blame on those who acted upon the information given to them, rather then those who provided the information.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You make it sound like Russia and China are gearing up the Iranians for a nuclear attack on Israel. I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

I don't know how many times we have to hear the phrase "he's already said he wants to wipe Israel off the map". How long have we known that? 60 years now? I don't want them or anyone else armed with nukes, but I'm also not convinced that they are in a mad panic to get one so they can immediately fire it at Israel, which some people seem to think is their strategy.

No, you make it sound like that. Iran has more influence for a variety of reasons that two veto holding powers in the SC are giving them the benefit of the doubt which will make the world a more dangerous place.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes you believe what? Pretty hard to understand what you were trying to say there.

Yeah, I added a few words, "Yes I do believe they manipulated the intelligence"... as has been my contention all along. Its hard for you to understand because you're not actually digesting what I'm saying. Its right there in the same sentence you quoted... I'm kind of surprised you quoted that sentence while at the same time ignoring it.

Indeed.

Lame.

Ah, so you admit the Bush was provided with the intelligence from numerous sources, that Iraq 'had' WMD, and he decided to act upon it?

Um... no... I believe he went and collected all the intelligence by himself, with Rummy and Cheney at his side.

I realize that the information that he recieved was vague, or seems to have been, but that really doesn't matter.

No... there was information to lead to many conclusions. They picked a conclusion (WMD's in Iraq) and then selected the intelligence that backed it up. Thats different than 'receiving vague intelligence'.

Poor intelligence(so it seems) results in no WMD being found.

What if some intelligence said there were no WMD's, but it was ignored because it didn't suit the goals of the Administration? Jeez, you act like the Administration just receives info and passes it along to John Q Public without politicizing it... that seems naive.

I believe the CIA/NSA/DIA provided the Bush adminstration with evidence, faulty or not, and the Bush administration acted upon it. Do we have a page for page analysis of the evidence provided?

No... but we know the US foreign affairs official who pointed out the bogus claim that Saddam was trying to get nuclear material from Africa had his wife out'ed as a CIA agent by the Administration in response. Obviously some politics was going on here...

Someone was screwing up the whole thing....and it seems to me you place the blame on those who acted upon the information given to them, rather then those who provided the information.

Yes... because I believe they had access to information that said many different things. They picked what they wanted the intelligence to support, then selected the appropriate peices to deliver to the public.

Honestly, if the US intelligence community is that terrible at their jobs (which I don't believe), than the US is in some serious trouble.

[Azure]

Yeah, I added a few words, "Yes I do believe they manipulated the intelligence"... as has been my contention all along. Its hard for you to understand because you're not actually digesting what I'm saying.

Right.

Lame.

Fine, act like a prick. Why should I even respond to you?

By saying 'indeed' I was agreeing with you. Read your comments again, it was hard to understand if you believed that the Bush administration made up some of the evidence.

No wonder these threads go downhill so fast.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

By saying 'indeed' I was agreeing with you. Read your comments again, it was hard to understand if you believed that the Bush administration made up some of the evidence.

No... I stated around half a dozen times the phrase 'manipulated intelligence'. If you happen to believe that equates to 'made up intelligence', thats your hangup. I don't agree that these statements mean the same thing.

Fine, act like a prick. Why should I even respond to you?

Because I'm one of the few nice enough not to have put you on my ignore list yet. Pretty soon you won't have anyone to talk to.

No wonder these threads go downhill so fast.

Ever notice you're usually well represented in them?

[Azure]

No... I stated around half a dozen times the phrase 'manipulated intelligence'. If you happen to believe that equates to 'made up intelligence', thats your hangup. I don't agree that these statements mean the same thing.

And I said it was pretty obvious that they manipulated the evidence, as the WMD have not been found.

I then asked you if you believed that the Bush administration also made up evidence, to go along with the stuff they already manipulated to serve their purpose.

Because I'm one of the few nice enough not to have put you on my ignore list yet. Pretty soon you won't have anyone to talk to.

Maybe if you'd quit calling my comments 'lame' when I 'agree' with you, we wouldn't have these problems.

Ever notice you're usually well represented in them?

Care to point out where I invoke personal matters to gain points in a debate? Like telling people 'what an idiotic comment' or 'if I wanted lip from you....?'

[White Doors]

'if I wanted lip from you....?

liked that one eh?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by White Doors

liked that one eh?

Not really. Frankly, I think if any poster is to be taken seriously, they should stop with the personal crap.

We can act like adults here, not 13 year olds.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I said it was pretty obvious that they manipulated the evidence, as the WMD have not been found.

I thought you said the intelligence told Bush that there were WMD's, and that that is why the US invaded?

I replied saying that, indeed, I believe the Administration manipulated intelligence. Yes, I do. Clear?

Maybe if you'd quit calling my comments 'lame' when I 'agree' with you, we wouldn't have these problems.

Maybe when you agree with someone, "Indeed." isn't a great way of doing it. It sounds assinine and condescending. Also, as I've stated, you have a habit of using quotation marks in a manner that doesn't work. You emphasize the wrong word... it sort of makes it look like you don't know 'how' 'to' 'use' 'them'. Figure it out.

Care to point out where I invoke personal matters to gain points in a debate? Like telling people 'what an idiotic comment' or 'if I wanted lip from you....?'

I didn't say you did. You whined about how these threads devolve into personal attacks. I just pointed out that you're often involved in the very same threads, usually as the whiney voice complaining about the (bare minimum) of personal attacks that go on here. You complain more about that than you actually contribute to the discussion. Is calling you whiney a personal attack? I'm sure you'll let me know.

[jolinar of malkshor]

No response, Agamemnon?? You must agree with what I have to say but don't want to admit it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

No response, Agamemnon?? You must agree with what I have to say but don't want to admit it.

I've only got so much time to waste, you're at the bottom of my list.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Just so you know, if the current practice remains by pretending that this will all go away if we just leave them alone, it will happen, and when it does the west will win but there will be many deaths just like WW2 which could have been prevented.

It only took 20 years for WW2 to happen. And if you were still alive in the 20's you would be one of those people saying. LEAVE the Germans alone, if we dont bother them, they wont bother us. Next thing you know, a German Panzer division just rolled right over your house.

Yup, never going to happen eh???

Just so I know, who exactly is "them"?

Just so I know, what exactly do you think the timeframe is for "them" to get it together and stop fighting amongst "themselves" so the can spring this trap on "us"?

Not going to happen, eh? No, I don't think so. Care to explain exactly how it could happen? How do you expect this to happen?

The loons have been trying for 60 effing years to take over and religiously dominate a country that is smaller than Vancouver Island and they are no closer to that goal than they've ever been. I'd be interested to know how you think they are going to turn that tide and then take over the world in 20 years.