Presidential Debate II Comment Thread

[Talon Karrde]

I think we had legitimate reasons for this war but the set-up, planning, and aftermath were rife with errors and stupidity.

Stop flip-flopping. Either you support the war or you don't.

lol, I'm still trying to figure out what Kerry believes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

lol, I'm still trying to figure out what Kerry believes.

That's because its what you've been told by Georgie the Wonder Chimp.

Do you really think these glib remarks impress us when they are the verbatim crap spewed by thousands of other sheep?

[Axis Kast]

No stupid. You said by all standards there was a different meaning of threat before. That's ridiculous. The ONLY different post and pre 9/11 is the public will to deal with said threats.

Says who? Says you? Because President Bush surely said otherwise during both of the recent debates. September 11th was final proof that we could brook the unchecked actions of rogue states no longer.

I say again: you don't think Clarke and others in the know wanted to do something about it - I know he did, he said as much - the only thing that changed was the public will to carry out action, not the definition of threat, imbecile.

I'll take George Bush's word about the national decision-making process over yours, thanks.

I don't know moron, maybe the rest of us want obvious and clearly truthful indications of clear and present danger before we drop hundreds of billions all our "slack" in military resources, and probably decades and thousands of lives down the drain on the "oh well, action needed to be taken."

What the fuck is this in response to?

I pointed out that our national leadership all became complacent from 1980 onward. Nobody was contemplating about how badly we could be hurt by a nation like Afghanistan - except perhaps Richard Clarke post facto.

[Patrick Degan]

Except for the fact that the issue was highly in doubt even at the time, that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were caught on fucking videotape in 2001 acknowledging that Iraq was no threat.

At what time were the Rice and Powell soundbytes recorded? Before or after September 11, 2001?

Which has exactly what relevance to the matter at hand? Please let's not have yet another round of your endless "September 11th changed everything" wanking. Especially as the 9-11 Commission debunked any connection between Iraq and the WTC attacks.

that the CIA's reports had quaifiers attatched, and that there was no actual moment of decision being faced which precluded further inspections by UNMOVIC and the IAEA to determine the truth of the matter before war.

Firstly, all reports have qualifiers attached. The former CIA head referred to the accusations that Iraq had weapons as “a slam dunk.” We were receiving information from as disinterested parties as Germany and France suggesting that they, too, had reason to believe that Saddam was armed with prohibited weapons. Furthermore, the huge holes in the sanctions regime – evident to anybody who tracks the legal record surrounding it – were striking and even scary.

And nowhere in the CIA reports was there any statement that the situation was serious enough to require war as the immediate solution. And the "huge holes" in the sanctions regime were still never large enough for materials to support a WMD programme to get through, and this has been argued repeatedly and you still cannot support your contention that any clandestine WMD production was occurring —a contention which has been blasted to dust by the Duelfer report. You have no argument.

Second, given Saddam’s history of obfuscation, and the small size of the UNMOVIC and IAEA teams, it’s hardly a leap of logic to suggest that only an invasion can provide conclusive evidence about WMD. At that point, Bush was already afraid Europe would prolong really dealing with Saddam Hussein anyway, and rightfully considered the UNMOVIC/IAEA route an unnecessary shuffling of the problem to the back burner. In fact, I imagine that the fact that Iraq only became a major issue once he began talking about it really bothered him from the beginning.

This is the same bullshit you've been floating on several threads on this subject now and it is getting tiresome to say the least. You keep resorting to every dodge to say inspections weren't working, that they weren't revealing what Saddam did and didn't have, and that therefore war was the only solution. Every inspection result, pre- and post-war has come up with exactly zero evidence of the Vast Phantom WMD Arsenal™ you and the other cheerleaders for this war alleged, and Saddam's obsfucation was in no way, shape, or form a sufficent justification to send the troops across the line. You still cannot demonstrate that there was anything remotely resembling an immediate military threat which had to be dealt with in regards to Iraq, which clearly was in no position to threaten anybody, and simply saying "he was a threat" ad-infinitum does not alter the reality on the ground in 2003 no matter how much you dearly wish it did.

No, it's merely the dozenth time you've brought up this particular Red Herring and it's getting awfully smelly at this point —especially as you're still determined to conflate the late war with Iraq and the War on Terror. And as I've never implied that European nations are deliberately compromising the WoT solely to "shaft Bush", we'll just list this as yet another invention of yours which has no relevance to reality. Particularly as the issue at hand is not the wider War on Terror but how to stabilise the mess that is Iraq, hopefully before the country collapses into a three-way civil war.

Kerry has pledged to expand the War on Terror by drawing support from allies disenchanted with Bush. That means he is claiming to be able to do MORE with the same group of nations. Which is to say that he’s accusing Bush of having so alienated Europe that they would willingly retard their contributions.

No, Kerry's statements have been in regard to getting increased cooperation with stabilising Iraq.

Furthermore, we already know that Kerry won’t be able to draw any other parties into Iraq.

We know no such thing. We know France and Germany are inclined against contributing troops toward the present occupation. But at this point we can't quite determine how Kerry's decisions and ultimate policy courses will be shaped. Particularly as the man has not actually spelled out the details of his plan publicly.

[Agrajag]

No, you fucking moron. It means their standards of what actually constituted a worrisome threat would have changed after September 11.

Apparently not Axis... If it did then several other countries would have come before Iraq. Face it. This administration had a blind-spot that only let them see war in Iraq. Richard Clark has made this clear, Paul O'Neil has made this clear. Colin Powell has made this clear as have many others. While publicly we were being told that Iraq posed no threat AND had no WMD's or ability to create them, Dick Cheney and others looked for ANY excuse to go take Saddam out. 9/11 gave them that excuse.

Your comment discounts Powell's comment that they had no WMD's just a few months before 9/11. So keep calling us all names if that makes you feel good, but it isn't making your case any stronger. [/quote]

[Axis Kast]

Which has exactly what relevance to the matter at hand? Please let's not have yet another round of your endless "September 11th changed everything" wanking. Especially as the 9-11 Commission debunked any connection between Iraq and the WTC attacks.

People change their minds as events change. If John Kerry has taught us nothing else, he has at least had the foresight to do that much.

The fact of the matter is that before September 11th, we were lobbing cruise missiles at Afghanistan, and that after September 11th, we were launching an invasion. Why? Afghanistan’s material capabilities had not changed. They’d financed overt attacks on American targets before. The reason is that September 11th shook us into a new realm of awareness. Fall back on Richard Clarke all you like. One man doesn’t constitute a national realization.

And nowhere in the CIA reports was there any statement that the situation was serious enough to require war as the immediate solution.

But the fucking CIA Director called the case “a slam dunk.” Right. Sure.

And the "huge holes" in the sanctions regime were still never large enough for materials to support a WMD programme to get through, and this has been argued repeatedly and you still cannot support your contention that any clandestine WMD production was occurring —a contention which has been blasted to dust by the Duelfer report. You have no argument.

If a sanctions regime is only verifiable once we’re on the ground – as this one was –, then it’s not much of a sanctions regime, now is it? Given Saddam’s long history of obfuscation as well as the assessments we were receiving from agencies in the service of nations opposed to the war, the decision to got war is eminently defensible.

This is the same bullshit you've been floating on several threads on this subject now and it is getting tiresome to say the least. You keep resorting to every dodge to say inspections weren't working, that they weren't revealing what Saddam did and didn't have, and that therefore war was the only solution. Every inspection result, pre- and post-war has come up with exactly zero evidence of the Vast Phantom WMD Arsenal™ you and the other cheerleaders for this war alleged, and Saddam's obsfucation was in no way, shape, or form a sufficent justification to send the troops across the line.

Comprehensive inspections were impossible while Saddam remained in power. If every inspection was so definitive and we knew this so long beforehand, why the affirmative assessments from France and Germany?

You still cannot demonstrate that there was anything remotely resembling an immediate military threat which had to be dealt with in regards to Iraq, which clearly was in no position to threaten anybody, and simply saying "he was a threat" ad-infinitum does not alter the reality on the ground in 2003 no matter how much you dearly wish it did.

Afghanistan wasn’t an immediate military threat either. Conventional capability is no longer the only standard by which to measure the danger posed by an avowed enemy.

No, Kerry's statements have been in regard to getting increased cooperation with stabilising Iraq.

Liar. Kerry beat the, “I can do better in the War on Terror by coaxing more from our allies,” like it was a dead fucking horse.

We know no such thing. We know France and Germany are inclined against contributing troops toward the present occupation. But at this point we can't quite determine how Kerry's decisions and ultimate policy courses will be shaped. Particularly as the man has not actually spelled out the details of his plan publicly.

And if your aunt had a dick, she’d be your uncle. There’s a possibility John Kerry is actually Ronald Reagan in a great disguise. Of course, given his policy statements, I’m not going to take that leap of faith.

Apparently not Axis... If it did then several other countries would have come before Iraq. Face it. This administration had a blind-spot that only let them see war in Iraq. Richard Clark has made this clear, Paul O'Neil has made this clear. Colin Powell has made this clear as have many others. While publicly we were being told that Iraq posed no threat AND had no WMD's or ability to create them, Dick Cheney and others looked for ANY excuse to go take Saddam out. 9/11 gave them that excuse.

Why would several other countries have come before Iraq? It was the one with which Bush’s advisers were most familiar as an enemy. People like Cheney built their careers around service in the 1980s Middle East, a time when Hussein’s piss-poor nation went from zero to regional miracle in the space of ten years. They were concerned that he would do so again – and considering that the world only woke up to the issue of Iraq once we started talking about a potential invasion, it appears they were correct.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The reason is that September 11th shook us into a new realm of awareness.

No, the reason was that they flew planes into buildings on the American homeland and killed over three thousand people. Everyone but a Bush bot like you understands this.

Maybe the reason other countries don't want to help us now is we have ideologue knee-jerkers like you which are willing to take maybes and theoretical abstractions and place them on the scale with thousands of human lives, on a gamble. You're a fucking lunatic and represent everything wrong with our foriegn policy.

Your erstaz realpolitik is precisely bullshit because it has accomplished nothing except obligate us to a perhaps decades-long quagmire in Iraq that has paralyzed our ability to react to growing and existing threats in other places. It has frozen our policy and strategic options in stone. It has alienated potential allies and I mean that in the relevent, material and diplomatic sense. We've burned all our strategic military, diplomatic, and currency away. This isn't realpolitik. Its shit policy.

But you'll refute this/justify yourself with plenty of meaningless management doublespeak to borrow a Wong turn-of-phrase and meaningless theoretical abstractions.

Be my guest. There are still no WMDs in Iraq, no end in sight for the occupation, no democracy and secularization in sight, no flexibility to strike at al Queda should they regroup and strike from elsewhere from a real sponsor this time, and no allies to help us and lighten the burden. Bush has both wasted time on the War on Terror and made it more difficult to fight now and in the future.

But the fucking CIA Director called the case “a slam dunk.” Right. Sure.

Are you dense? Maybe they believed there were probably some weapons missed in the years prior. Did that mean they felt comfortable recommending war as a policy imperative on the basis of their conclusions?

If a sanctions regime is only verifiable once we’re on the ground – as this one was –, then it’s not much of a sanctions regime, now is it? Given Saddam’s long history of obfuscation as well as the assessments we were receiving from agencies in the service of nations opposed to the war, the decision to got war is eminently defensible.

Translation: War is a policy imperative; we had to go and invade and occupy another country.

Sorry dipshit, but that's NOT sound policy. You have to sustain more prudence because we do not have the slack to invade country after country that meet these laughable standards.

Comprehensive inspections were impossible while Saddam remained in power. If every inspection was so definitive and we knew this so long beforehand, why the affirmative assessments from France and Germany?

Affirmative statements != "Its a brilliant idea and our hunches are sufficiently reliable to go in and invade the country, Sam!"

Afghanistan wasn’t an immediate military threat either. Conventional capability is no longer the only standard by which to measure the danger posed by an avowed enemy.

Apples and oranges. The ability to deploy WMD is a military threat, which must be supported by a significant military-industrial complex and base. Having camps for Al Queda is an entirely different story, and I never recall even you claiming that Iraq was such a stronghold for terrorists in the way Afghanistan was, which is what necessitated striking at it.

Liar. Kerry beat the, “I can do better in the War on Terror by coaxing more from our allies,” like it was a dead fucking horse.

So what? Bush got us into a war on shitty reasons, thus overextending us and destroy our support to lighten the increased burden.

SHIT POLICY, AXI.

And if your aunt had a dick, she’d be your uncle. There’s a possibility John Kerry is actually Ronald Reagan in a great disguise. Of course, given his policy statements, I’m not going to take that leap of faith.

Back off the Reagan wanking; he is not personally or even significantly responsible for the fall of the USSR.

Why would several other countries have come before Iraq? It was the one with which Bush’s advisers were most familiar as an enemy. People like Cheney built their careers around service in the 1980s Middle East, a time when Hussein’s piss-poor nation went from zero to regional miracle in the space of ten years. They were concerned that he would do so again – and considering that the world only woke up to the issue of Iraq once we started talking about a potential invasion, it appears they were correct.

"Oh, he possibly could do it again even though there's no evidence...so let's invade the country."

You're such a self-delusional little puppy. Everyone with a brain knows they wanted to grind their neo-con axe labeled "Iraq" and had for ages.

[Patrick Degan]

As Comical Axi is up to his usual bullshit, this alone is sufficent for a rebuttal:

Afganistan had and has ZERO relevance to anything involving Iraq, and there was no imperative for war even with the information available at the time, which was already casting doubt on the alleged Iraqi menace and which has since been more than confirmed by the findings of the Duelfer report —which reinforced the conclusions of the Kay report, which reinforced the conclusions of the Blix and el-Baradai reports, which reinforced the conclusions of the UNSCOM reports. No WMD, no capacity to produce WMD, no ability by Iraq to project power or threaten anyone.

[The_Nice_Guy]

no capacity to produce WMD, no ability by Iraq to project power or threaten anyone.

Depends on how you interpret it. The above was contingent on Saddam remaining hemmed in by sanctions. In many ways, it was down between maintaining the sanctions, which was a dubious preposition in the long run with quite a few nations willing to earn Iraqi money(like France?) or going for an invasion.

http://instapundit.com/archives/018264.php

If the ISG can be believed, then Saddam's ability and willingness to procure WMDs makes him no less dangerous because he doesn't have them at the moment. You don't wait for a guy to pick up and field assemble a machine gun to use on you; you shoot him first.

TWG

[Patrick Degan]

If the ISG can be believed, then Saddam's ability and willingness to procure WMDs makes him no less dangerous because he doesn't have them at the moment. You don't wait for a guy to pick up and field assemble a machine gun to use on you; you shoot him first.

Wrong. You don't either shoot somebody or declare war on a nation because you merely think they might one day pose a possible threat, maybe.

[Agrajag]

Why would several other countries have come before Iraq? It was the one with which Bush’s advisers were most familiar as an enemy. People like Cheney built their careers around service in the 1980s Middle East, a time when Hussein’s piss-poor nation went from zero to regional miracle in the space of ten years. They were concerned that he would do so again – and considering that the world only woke up to the issue of Iraq once we started talking about a potential invasion, it appears they were correct.

Several other countries posed a real threat. Simply being familar with a country is no reason for invasion. That's like suggesting that, if we really get mad enough, Bush should invade England since we know so much about it. Of course that's ludicrous, just as this comment of yours is.

NOTHING about what we've done in Iraq has been correct based on what Bush told the people. No WMD's, no Mission Accomplished, no quick turn-around due to everyone being so happy with our presence, no real coalition, no Iraq oil paying for the war, no tangible proof that we're actually safer (quite the opposite), no ties to Saddam for 9/11 and so on.

How many things need to be completely ass backwards and dead wrong before you hold this administration responsible? I cannot wait until you turn 18 and have to sign up for selective service and then begin to sweat about whether there will be a draft. I know that while I was in the Army, I was concerned that we'd get some idiot in office that would send me off to fight for something as ill-conceived as this. Thankfully during my time, the closest I ever got was trouble with Libya that never needed our direct assault. Of course, had we invaded back in the early 80's and lost thousands of our kids, we could have averted losing 200 people in the terrorist attack of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. We would have also lost prestige and become a much higher target of terrorists so we'd have suffered 20 more years of direct terrorism. And don't give me the bull comment that Bush drove Libya to disarm. That was pure political theater. He was well on his way to disarmament long before Bush did anything in Iraq.

[Agrajag]

Ah, forgive me, you're from South Africa. No need for you to sweat. South Africa has been such a major force in joining us in all these issues (sarcasm).

[Edi]

Agrajag, despite what his location data says, he's not really from South Africa. He's an American, one of the pure idiot-jingoist breed who will accept neither logic nor reason unless they support his preconceived conclusions.

Edi

[Agrajag]

Ah, a misleading child as well. He fits right in with this administration. "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!"

I've pretty much found out that debating with Axis is like debating with a brick wall. I suspect it's very much like trying to make your point to Bush as well, a complete waste of time.

[Edi]

Ah, a misleading child as well. He fits right in with this administration. "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!"

I've pretty much found out that debating with Axis is like debating with a brick wall. I suspect it's very much like trying to make your point to Bush as well, a complete waste of time.

You've only been here for so little time, you have no idea... There is a reason why Kast has his very own, rather extensive Shit List entry in the Announcements forum, take a look at that to see some of his past antics and to get an inkling of what it is you're facing.

Edi

[Coyote]

I think we had legitimate reasons for this war but the set-up, planning, and aftermath were rife with errors and stupidity.

Stop flip-flopping. Either you support the war or you don't.

You're either with us or against us...

I can support the war without supporting the way it was carried out, and I have felt that way since it started. I f we want to go digging, I'm sure we can find thast I have, indeed, been quite consistent in that stance.

I felt that there were WMDs here since there was a LOT of circumstantial evidence to support that; I was sincerely surprised to find otherwise (and that is also in how you look at it-- my friend Sergeant Jim Hines was injured by a Sarin Gas shell-- he recovered, it was not a lethal exposure-- that was used in an IED. It was an older shell someone used as an opportunity and probably was not fully aware of what they had).

I also felt that pinning the entire war on WMDs alone was a mistake, since there were many other reasons to be here. Humanitarian is legit, we went to war in Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons. Oil is another, I think it is a legitimate strategic goal.

The fate of the Iraqi people was not going to improve anytime soon-- sanctions and rule by Uday and Qusai were not going to be recipes for a stable happy state.

And it was difficult for us to try to encourage a housecleaning in the Middle East if we had the bleeding hemorrage of the Iraq PR war constantly behind us-- a war which we lost hands down, since the world had come around to see Saddam's point of view that he Iraqi people were suffering under brutal sanctions imposed by the Evil West.

So it is more accurate to say I support the war, which I said in my post, but the reasons we initiated it were not broad enough. We pinned all our money on one hand of cards and when it wasn't a winner, trying to go bavk and claim other moral legitimacies was just spin, no matter how real they might be.

I mean, I support the United States but I also don't blindly agree with everything the country does. The "America, love it or leave it" stance is too narrowminded...

[salm]

I also felt that pinning the entire war on WMDs alone was a mistake, since there were many other reasons to be here. Humanitarian is legit, we went to war in Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons. Oil is another, I think it is a legitimate strategic goal.

so you really believe that going to war for oil is a legit reason? a war out of greed?
that´s like saying that it´s ok to drive up to a gas station, fill up your gas tank, walk inside, shoot the owner and leave without paying.

[Coyote]

Oil is another, I think it is a legitimate strategic goal.

so you really believe that going to war for oil is a legit reason? a war out of greed?
that´s like saying that it´s ok to drive up to a gas station, fill up your gas tank, walk inside, shoot the owner and leave without paying.

No, not like that-- think about it: Oil is everything this planet runs on. The entire planet would practically stop spinning, as far as we human are concerned, without it. Now I believe we ned to find alternate energy sources but until that happens we are 100% dependent on oil.

And as I pointed out in a post to Agrjag (or however it is spelled), even the third world countries full of non-white, non-SUV-driving people of color, oil is the basis of everything. Therefore it is a legitimate strategic goal just like a particular canal in Egypt, or some straights on waterways near Turkey and another near Spain...

It is a strategic resource and the money generated by it was not going to be poured into schools, hospitals, and orphanages. It would have gone to fund wars wars and more wars. Now the first millions from oil have gone to rebuild elementary schools around the Baghdad area. Some of our local Engineer units have done this, I've seen them.

Wars will always be fought for one damnfool thing or another, 'cause that's people for you. Oil makes more sense than, say, racial superioriy or opium, both of which sparked bloody conflicts in th e previous centuries....

[Durandal]

I think we had legitimate reasons for this war but the set-up, planning, and aftermath were rife with errors and stupidity.

Stop flip-flopping. Either you support the war or you don't.

lol, I'm still trying to figure out what Kerry believes.

Figuring out how to piss without sticking your dick in an electrical outlet is beyond your reasoning skills, so your comment doesn't stand as much of an indictment of Kerry's clarity or consistency.

[Durandal]

I think we had legitimate reasons for this war but the set-up, planning, and aftermath were rife with errors and stupidity.

Stop flip-flopping. Either you support the war or you don't.

You're either with us or against us...

I can support the war without supporting the way it was carried out, and I have felt that way since it started. I f we want to go digging, I'm sure we can find thast I have, indeed, been quite consistent in that stance.

I was being sarcastic. You know, since this is exactly what John Kerry has said while, at the same time, being blasted by the right for "flip-flopping."

[Darth Wong]

The "flip-flopping" attack is a rhetorical bit of genius, when you think about it. What better way to defend a president accused of being the most stubborn jackass in history by making anything other than stone-headed obstinacy into a sin?

[Stravo]

The "flip-flopping" attack is a rhetorical bit of genius, when you think about it. What better way to defend a president accused of being the most stubborn jackass in history by making anything other than stone-headed obstinacy into a sin?

I have found over the last few years that the Republicans in this administration have been near Genius in their effective use of out of context statements and turning things around on the other side. The flip flopper thing is something that they repeated so many times ad naseum that people say it now but can't really connect as to why its bad.

My hope is that some of the latest Republican dirty tricks have been obvious out of context statements by Kerry - such asthe SHITTY talking point that now takes a Kerry soundbite about making terrorism a nuisance again and contorting it more than a woman's vagina in child birth to mean that Kerry doesn't take terrorism seriously. The sliding poll numbers for the president give me fucking hope that people are waking up to the fact that this president cannot even articulate something wrong that he did when asked directly (but in a sweet freudian manner immediately defended Iraq vigorously) He honestly thinks he can do no wrong and will not admit the horror show that is Iraq.

[The Dark]

Whereas Bush has already proven his incompetence.

Bush has vindicated himself on Iraq; there was a decision to be made, and he made it.

Unfortunately, the original decision on Iraq was made in June 2001, when Iran, India, the United States, and a couple other countries (don't have article with me; will search for it over fall break) decided that Iraq was destabilizing the world oil market and needed to be altered.

We need a proactive President, not a reactive one.

Besides the fact that this is mere verbal diarrhoea, allow me to post a hypothetical: what if Nikita Krushchev had been proactive rather than reactive? It doesn't really apply well in this particular case, as Krushchev would have had legal justification for starting a shooting war (an illegal blockade-at-sea of trade goods), whereas Bush fears the International Court as he could be convicted of war crimes, but it's the only thing approaching a close parallel I could think of.

The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article on this topic just yesterday.

As an economics major, I can firmly say that the WSJ is a quite conservative publication. 10 out of 10 business and economics faculty agreed with that assessment (more than half of the 10 Republican).

Uncertainty about Kerry is no excuse for retaining the Fuckup-in-Chief.

Considering that Kerry has promised something that, in order to be true, would have to mean the world was no longer functioning properly, I'll take my chances.

And just what would that be? A President with a brain?