Senate Intelligence Committee: No connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Looger

at the time they weren't at the highest levels, now they are.

brilliant post by the way.

You like using that line a lot I noticed.

You must think very highly of yourself to have to constantly take shots at the intelligence of others to make yourself feel good.

Maybe one day you'll be able to debate with people without taking potshots at them. Its something to aspire to. Good luck with that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yep.

Not creators nor author's though as Looger emphatically stated.

Fair enough.

They did sign their names at the bottom though. They may not have written the paper or paid the guy that wrote it, but they did endorse it with their signatures.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You like using that line a lot I noticed.

You must think very highly of yourself to have to constantly take shots at the intelligence of others to make yourself feel good.

Maybe one day you'll be able to debate with people without taking potshots at them. Its something to aspire to. Good luck with that.

i posted my opinion, then you started taking shots at it, then i defended it, and you started taking shots at me.

why even start such stupid BS?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yep.

Not creators nor author's though as Looger emphatically stated.

That's true, though I wonder how useful the distinction between "author" and "PNAC member" is in this case. Isn't the real question whether PNAC had some influence over Bush administration policy? There's of course no proof that they did, but the circumstantial evidence is somewhat suggestive to say the least.

As for the "cost-benefit" analysis provided above by Looger: I think on this you and I agree, though we may sometimes get there in slightly different ways. For my part, I think war is never the least costly option, and should therefore be reserved for moments when it is the only option. That clearly wasn't the case when Bush invaded Iraq--at least in my opinion. On the other hand, I would stand by my analysis of the powerful men we are dealing with here: namely that they may be cynical, manipulative and self-interested (in politics, that's virtually par for the course anyway), but they're not as evil as their actions have made them look in this case. It's hard for me to imagine that this policy is just the end result of a sick and twisted, psychopathic nihilism that revels in middle east destruction. I think PNAC and the administration began to believe their own arguments--and believed, more or less sincerely, that things would work out in the region in the end.

In this, they were wrong. And their actions were rash, irresponsible and destructive. But are they "evil"? I hesitate to use that label. Their ideology is different from mine, but if I'm to believe in the political process at all--I must believe that their ideology is sincere, and that they believe their own intentions to be good.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Looger

i posted my opinion, then you started taking shots at it, then i defended it, and you started taking shots at me.

why even start such stupid BS?

You stated something as fact that was not true.

I never took a shot at you personally.

You started that with your sarcasm.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You stated something as fact that was not true.

I never took a shot at you personally.

You started that with your sarcasm.

good one HOZ. or are you Azure? Fotze? nah - must be White Doors

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

^^Sigh. You two are like a couple of old ladies! Don't worry--you can both be Queen of Summertime!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's true, though I wonder how useful the distinction between "author" and "PNAC member" is in this case. Isn't the real question whether PNAC had some influence over Bush administration policy? There's of course no proof that they did, but the circumstantial evidence is somewhat suggestive to say the least.

As for the "cost-benefit" analysis provided above by Looger: I think on this you and I agree, though we may sometimes get there in slightly different ways. For my part, I think war is never the least costly option, and should therefore be reserved for moments when it is the only option. That clearly wasn't the case when Bush invaded Iraq--at least in my opinion. On the other hand, I would stand by my analysis of the powerful men we are dealing with here: namely that they may be cynical, manipulative and self-interested (in politics, that's virtually par for the course anyway), but they're not as evil as their actions have made them look in this case. It's hard for me to imagine that this policy is just the end result of a sick and twisted, psychopathic nihilism that revels in middle east destruction. I think PNAC and the administration began to believe their own arguments--and believed, more or less sincerely, that things would work out in the region in the end.

In this, they were wrong. And their actions were rash, irresponsible and destructive. But are they "evil"? I hesitate to use that label. Their ideology is different from mine, but if I'm to believe in the political process at all--I must believe that their ideology is sincere, and that they believe their own intentions to be good.

One would have to be naive to believe there was no influence. I don't find the suggested policy on Iraq to be out of line to be honest given the facts surrounding his arsenal at the conclusion of the Gulf War and how it was and was not eliminated. How quickly that policy was pushed into reality is another question though.

It is impossible, but it would be interesting to know how things would've progressed for Iraq if Hussein had been removed from power during the Gulf War. I'm not sure we would've seen the same kind of insurgency then and I think George H.W. Bush would've looked for a quick exit and lots of monetary support to a Hussein-less Iraq.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Looger

good one HOZ. or are you Azure? Fotze? nah - must be White Doors

Like tranny said 4 pages ago.

nm...not worth it.

Enjoy.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

^^Sigh. You two are like a couple of old ladies! Don't worry--you can both be Queen of Summertime!

Summer is over baby! I for one, am quite pleased about that!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Summer is over baby! I for one, am quite pleased about that!

Not in Iowa it isn't. Come to think of it, aren't you someplace even hotter? I shouldn't complain--so far it's the coolest fall I can remember since we moved here!

Back on topic: it would be interesting to know what would have happened if GHW Bush had "finished the job" against Saddam. In fact, someone mentioned his stated reasons for not doing so earlier in the thread, IIRC--and I think they're compelling reasons, especially if you don't know that Saddam will remain in power for 10 more years. One difference is that at that time Saddam really did have WMDs--and to invade and occupy might well have been much more dangerous as a result.

Saddam was a lot weaker by 2002, both militarily and politically. You'll notice that strong leaders with substantial military might get a little bit of a different treatment on the WMD issue from the U.S. North Korea and Iran are both nations with obvious nuclear ambitions, if not yet with nuclear weapons. And I can't shake the feeling that there's not a darn thing anyone can do about it.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In this, they were wrong. And their actions were rash, irresponsible and destructive. But are they "evil"? I hesitate to use that label. Their ideology is different from mine, but if I'm to believe in the political process at all--I must believe that their ideology is sincere, and that they believe their own intentions to be good.

That's kinda irrelevant and a little dangerous though. When someone actually believes that what they are doing is good, right and just that doesn't neccessarily make it so. I always cringe when I hear speeches made where the phrase (or something close) "I truly believe what we're doing is good" as if that somehow justifies their actions. This is only an example and nothing more, but I'm sure Hitler thought what he was doing was good and just in WWII the same as Churchill did. All depends on your perspective of what 'good' is I guess... but if you're in power I think it best to really weigh all the options and study all the facts when forming that perspective. Easier said than done, I'm sure.

Can you tell school's started??? I haven't even been to class yet and i'm already philosophically talking about what 'good' is... yeesh. Anyways, I agree 100% with the first part of that sentence and the rest of your post though...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

You said that PNAC was started by people at the highest levels of the White House and Pentagon. NOT TRUE.

Hate to break it to you Dis, but you're dead wrong. The PNAC was the creation of people at the highest level of the White House and Pentagon. Two of the biggest players in the PNAC are Wolfowitz and Cheney. You don't get much higher than those two.

I do have something against the "thinktank" concept, and the cottage industry of corruption it has created. What these thinktanks do is create power bases. These thinktanks can keep the same political creatures around Washington for decades. They provide a source of continuity of power. In fact, I believe that the thinktanks have taken over much of the workings of the White House and that the administration is nothing but a dog and pony show to deliver what ever strategy comes from these thinktanks. The membership of these thinktanks is cross polonated with the same individuals and same leadership. What is really disturbing is that these thinktanks all exist and operate on the same money from the same half dozen endowments. There is an elite that runs the show in this country, and they do so from the confines of the non-elected thinktank establishment.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yep.

Not creators nor author's though as Looger emphatically stated.

something was bugging me aboot your little tantrum - finally realized it.

i said authors of policy, and you took that as authors of documents.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Looger

something was bugging me aboot your little tantrum - finally realized it.

i said authors of policy, and you took that as authors of documents.

It's 'about'.

Sorry, it's been bugging me.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

why even bother figuring it out when the leading members of an administration, the authors of its policies, publish their aims?

check out those PNAC links if you think i'm making all of this up.

also an eye should be kept out for the defence journals, the industry publications, etc. - the stuff that the pros read. lots of ideas get floated there, like this one to redraw the entire mideast:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).
Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

Why did you highlight ethnic cleansing works? Are you saying the US is adopting that policy? That statement in the article isn't even referring to the US and Arabs. It's referring to Kurds, Civil wars in Africa, etc... It also said that the borders will redraw themselves naturally over time due to the will of the people. The guy was saying it would be nice if countries weren't so bent on keeping their land and maybe their wouldbe peace ie. give the 30 million Kurds in the Mideast a country or Israel pull back into pre-67 land. You completely misread what that guy was saying so I guess I'll take it the rest of your research was as dead on as this exercise in reading comprehension...

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Why did you highlight ethnic cleansing works? Are you saying the US is adopting that policy? That statement in the article isn't even referring to the US and Arabs. It's referring to Kurds, Civil wars in Africa, etc... It also said that the borders will redraw themselves naturally over time due to the will of the people. The guy was saying it would be nice if countries weren't so bent on keeping their land and maybe their wouldbe peace ie. give the 30 million Kurds in the Mideast a country or Israel pull back into pre-67 land. You completely misread what that guy was saying so I guess I'll take it the rest of your research was as dead on as this exercise in reading comprehension...

unbelievable.

i posted that as an extreme example of what gets published in defence journals.

but whatever. go ahead and draw what conclusions you can, i mean what the hell.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

unbelievable.

i posted that as an extreme example of what gets published in defence journals.

but whatever. go ahead and draw what conclusions you can, i mean what the hell.

How is this extreme? The guy wants the Middle East to be redrawn, not by force or war, so it would be more peaceful. Hell, I figured you would be on the side of Israel pulling back to pre67. Oh and historically ethnic cleansing has been an effective to tool to keep power in a country. That is pretty much a proven fact. Nowhere does he advocate it...

edit...
I find myself often on the right side of this debate not because I agree with them. But as a historian I disagree with the manipulation of facts and attacks that often are the trademark of the left side. I am as far left as they come, but I find a lack of open-mindedness as one of my biggest pet peeves and I find that trait generally in the extreme right and extreme left. The people in between are generally more open to intelligent discussion and not just bashing the other side over the head with the same arguments over and over again.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

How is this extreme? The guy wants the Middle East to be redrawn, not by force or war, so it would be more peaceful. Hell, I figured you would be on the side of Israel pulling back to pre67.

redrawing borders sounds great on paper but it usually leads to all manners of misery. historically no one feels they get a fair deal, and groups of paramilitary squads exacting vengeance follows quickly.

in my opinion, as for israel going back to pre-1967, if it had happened decades ago when there was a chance for peace, maybe. regardless of blame, the past, etc. the present reality is that israel has genuine security concerns for its people, and going pre-1967 would definitely compromise that. too many settlements are in place, too many palestinians are professional resisters. an israeli pullout will embolden those that see israeli citizens as legitimate targets.

fact is, there are elements within israel, political and military, that REALLY WANT this showdown. this is in contradiction to the long-term security of their people.

i don't hate the israeli people, they have the same right to security that everyone else should have. i'm not anti-semitic or anything, quite the opposite actually, i have a serious appreciation for the contributions jewish people have made to our civilization.

there are some sick ****ers on this site that take issue with what i've posted on this subject and accuse me of all kinds of things, please ignore them and we can discuss things on a civil basis.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

edit...
I find myself often on the right side of this debate not because I agree with them. But as a historian I disagree with the manipulation of facts and attacks that often are the trademark of the left side. I am as far left as they come, but I find a lack of open-mindedness as one of my biggest pet peeves and I find that trait generally in the extreme right and extreme left. The people in between are generally more open to intelligent discussion and not just bashing the other side over the head with the same arguments over and over again.

i completely and totally disavow the false left-right paradigm on this issue and all issues.

governments come and go but the council on foreign relations, the bilderberg group, the trilateral commission, et al never go away.

under the 'left' governments globalist agendas and social engineering pundits hold sway, and under 'right' governments imperialist agendas and world destabilization hold sway. good cop, bad cop. we are being played.

the lobbyists, the think tanks, the bureaucracy. they don't believe in left and right, why should we?