Cheney just won't quit

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Or to quote Jon Stewart.
Some look at a glass and see it as half full while others look at a glass and say... it's a dragon.

It's over. Those against the war on this board officially won!
(slaps back)

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 7 2004, 11:51 PM
I don't seem to recall the Third Reich being invaded by Poland.

According to the Nazi's, the Poles did invade Germany or, at the least, they said the Poles had attacked a bunch of border crossings and killed Germans.

Cowperson

I'm pretty sure its widely acknowledged now that SS troops dressed up as Polish soldiers and shot up some German people/places just on the Polish side of the German/Polish border. This gave the Germans the 'reason' they needed to invade Poland. Obviously history has not been kind to their manufactured excuse. I wonder if they actually thought it would work? "Poland attacked us! Liquidate their Jewish/Black/Gay population in response! We are justified!".

It was a different time.

Interesting how people accuse US administrations of the same type of deception now and then.

Edit: Obligatory Family Guy quote here, "We didn't invade! We were invited! We had tea! Check with Poland!"

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Oct 9 2004, 10:31 AM
Or to quote Jon Stewart.
Some look at a glass and see it as half full while others look at a glass and say... it's a dragon.

It's over. Those against the war on this board officially won!
(slaps back)

If you said before the war in Iraq that the country had no WMD, then hoist the Cup over your head and take a victory lap. Shanana, hey, hey, hey, goodbye!! You win. Tampa loses!!

I found in the pre-Iraq debates lots of people who put forth various objections to the approaching conflict, ranging through a gamut that included: "war is never the answer," "hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed and nothing is worth that," "the inspectors need more time," "we don't know that he has WMD (different than saying he didn't)," "America has WMD so why can't Iraq have it," "Imperial America only wants Iraq's oil," etc, etc.

There were actually lots of people on this board who objected to the war but didn't object by saying: "Iraq has no WMD." It implies they didn't know for sure or they actually believed he possessed the weapons but objected on other grounds or didn't think WMD was important.

So . . . . throw your hands up in celebration if you said he had no WMD. You win. Truly. The podium is yours. If you didn't, then you might be in the muck with the rest of the wafflers or deniers.

I, for one, ain't sorry the war happened, even though the premise has been largely torched. Apparently, roughly one in two Americans feels the same way in spite of the news.

At the end of this century, we might look back on 9/11 and the wars it spawned in the Middle East as as one of the key turning points for that region and perhaps the world, particularly if democracy actually takes root in one of the truly screwed up and dangerous places on the planet. That Afghanistan of all places is actually having a safe election today, in spite of the flaws, is remarkable. Iraq's balloting is now three months away with a similar cloud of doom-like predictions hanging over it.

Which brings us the question of the day: If the premise for the war in Iraq was flawed, with GW Bush an electoral casualty as a result, but democracy does take hold in that region, enthusiastically embraced by Afghans today as example, will the end have justified the means?

Maybe at the end of the century we're all learning Chinese and we'll find it didn't matter anyway.

I'm pretty sure its widely acknowledged now that SS troops dressed up as Polish soldiers and shot up some German people/places just on the Polish side of the German/Polish border. This gave the Germans the 'reason' they needed to invade Poland.

Actually, that's what I said . . . although not clearly apparently.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 9 2004, 05:00 PM
If you said before the war in Iraq that the country had no WMD, then hoist the Cup over your head and take a victory lap. Shanana, hey, hey, hey, goodbye!! You win. Tampa loses!!

I found in the pre-Iraq debates lots of people who put forth various objections to the approaching conflict, ranging through a gamut that included: "war is never the answer," "hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed and nothing is worth that," "the inspectors need more time," "we don't know that he has WMD (different than saying he didn't)," "America has WMD so why can't Iraq have it," "Imperial America only wants Iraq's oil," etc, etc.

There were actually lots of people on this board who objected to the war but didn't object by saying: "Iraq has no WMD." It implies they didn't know for sure or they actually believed he possessed the weapons but objected on other grounds or didn't think WMD was important.

Obviously you're right.

Though really, right now the 'anti-war' crowd is motivated more by the perceived fact that GW lied about the WMD's, rather than being justified in thinking there were none in the first place. I mean really, if the CIA says there are WMD's, and my intelligence service is pretty quiet (because I don't have one) then there's not much to do but choose to believe the CIA, or be a crazy conspiracy nut (like Lanny). Even though suspectors of the lack of WMD's would be justified, I doubt there were many before the war.

I'm against it mostly because its being handled ineptly, and because every single justification I've heard for it is bogus (main just. seems to be that Saddam was a 'bad guy', though there are certainly plenty of those around).

If anyone did call the lack of weapons before the war, they definitely could have made some money betting on it. I actually thought they might have found them and then kept quiet about it for a while to sucker their detractors.

[RougeUnderoos]

We had a few conversations on this very board that went roughly like this:

Anti-war person: Let the inspections work!

Pro-war person: They are not working!

Anti-war person: How do you know that?

Pro-war person: Because they can't find anything!

Anti-war person: How is that proof they are not working?

Pro-war person: Because we all know he has them it's common sense! You lefties aren't in the real world!

Aaah, good times.

Unfortunately I can't pat myself on the back. I thought it was possible that he would use them and a whole bunch of soldiers would be killed. And then what?

But hey, I'm not the president. He is privy to a hell of a lot more information than I am and from what I've read, some pretty smart people were saying "don't do this yet, we don't have proof", but he brushed that aside.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 9 2004, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 9 2004, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 9 2004, 05:00 PM
If you said before the war in Iraq that the country had no WMD, then hoist the Cup over your head and take a victory lap. Shanana, hey, hey, hey, goodbye!! You win. Tampa loses!!

I found in the pre-Iraq debates lots of people who put forth various objections to the approaching conflict, ranging through a gamut that included: "war is never the answer," "hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed and nothing is worth that," "the inspectors need more time," "we don't know that he has WMD (different than saying he didn't)," "America has WMD so why can't Iraq have it," "Imperial America only wants Iraq's oil," etc, etc.

There were actually lots of people on this board who objected to the war but didn't object by saying: "Iraq has no WMD." It implies they didn't know for sure or they actually believed he possessed the weapons but objected on other grounds or# didn't think WMD was important.

Obviously you're right.

Though really, right now the 'anti-war' crowd is motivated more by the perceived fact that GW lied about the WMD's, rather than being justified in thinking there were none in the first place. I mean really, if the CIA says there are WMD's, and my intelligence service is pretty quiet (because I don't have one) then there's not much to do but choose to believe the CIA, or be a crazy conspiracy nut (like Lanny). Even though suspectors of the lack of WMD's would be justified, I doubt there were many before the war.

I'm against it mostly because its being handled ineptly, and because every single justification I've heard for it is bogus (main just. seems to be that Saddam was a 'bad guy', though there are certainly plenty of those around).

If anyone did call the lack of weapons before the war, they definitely could have made some money betting on it. I actually thought they might have found them and then kept quiet about it for a while to sucker their detractors. [/b][/quote]
I'm against it mostly because its being handled ineptly,

True, although digging in a bit lately. Elections will be a critical hurdle. Internationalizing it further will be another.

and because every single justification I've heard for it is bogus

The main one for sure. Nothing there. Can't top that. Zero. You'll still have lots of people arguing with you about other things.

then there's not much to do but choose to believe the CIA, or be a crazy conspiracy nut (like Lanny).

Oh, oh.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 9 2004, 06:46 PM
We had a few conversations on this very board that went roughly like this:

Anti-war person: Let the inspections work!

Pro-war person: They are not working!

Anti-war person: How do you know that?

Pro-war person: Because they can't find anything!

Anti-war person: How is that proof they are not working?

Pro-war person: Because we all know he has them it's common sense! You lefties aren't in the real world!

That's funny.

I also remember one particular person on here saying that it would be funny when the troops started finding all those WMD and all the anti-war people would be back pedaling.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 9 2004, 06:49 PM
then there's not much to do but choose to believe the CIA, or be a crazy conspiracy nut (like Lanny).

Oh, oh.

Cowperson

Lol, hey, he's labelled himself, I'm just parroting the lingo