Violent propaganda

Of course the problem is we really do have to stick with it.Like we say "show you don't have any weapons, or we'll kick your ass", then when they show us they don't have weapons we don't then say "well that means your hiding them" and kick their ass anyway.I see you have reappeared at EvC, have the WMDs you promised surfaced yet?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hahahahahahahhaha. Still in top form I see. Did you read the article?It was not WMDs and it certainly wasn't what was under discussion by Bush. This was material and equipment we knew about and were monitoring.The argument was for the vast "unknown" wmds, which later turned into wmd related program activities, which later turned into nothing, which now appear to be turning into the known chemicals and equipment under observation?Oh yeah, did you miss the part where our invasion actually put more of this into unknown people's hands when we failed to secure them as the UN monitoring group suggested? That wasn't what I was asking about, just the wmd claim that they'd be revealed any moment.But yes there are still threads you have disappeared from waiting for your replies on those other pipedream reasons. You don't have to bother with them though. I just wanted to needle you on the wmd promise.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I had some meaningful input back in post #30 (or was it 31?). As usual, your cited article contradicted your position. Do you care to comment?Oh yes, and you do know the US gov't is now publicly saying it is doubtful anything went to Syria? Comments?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

All of your articles are old and you certainly didn't put much analysis into it. Most claims came from biased sources.That first one was a doozy, in that one the claims are from a group just like Chalabi's. You may remember Chalabi, who after we invaded admitted his group lied but figured the ends justified the means. He who does not learn from the past is condemned to repeat it.I have no idea about worldnetdaily, but you need to analyze what you read even more than just checking for corroboration.As far as your last citation goes, which makes inuendo off of an ISG finding, it is time for you to catch up to speed. This is what the ISG is saying in their final report and it is opposite from your position. Not WMDs, you mean WMD related materials. You keep equivocating between the two. I might also add the rather obvious point, even if your current position is true, that would only prove how harmless Saddam was. His threat was in using, not in shuffling around, WMDs. This was the final battle for him, he didn't use anything, and the official investigation has come up with nothing even ready to have been used.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Your first citation (the washington times) was completely irrelevant. I'm for stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction... so what? Nothing in this indicated that your position on who has them or had them or how they got shuffled to make Bush look bad when he kicked Saddam out of power had any merit.Your second citation (BBC) only confirms what I have said. I could completely agree with Jack Straw's factual commentary and not have a bit of inconsistency. This suggests he had NOTHING except for INTENTIONS. If wishes were fishes I guess the Iraqi economy would have been thriving on fish exports. This is why there was no question that Iraq should not have been left on its own. Maybe you can tell me who was calling for Iraq to be left to its own devices.The idea that it was invade ala Bush or do nothing is simply a stock dilemma.Your last link is a laugh. It has been countered by US gov't findings on the subject. I still love ya for not having bothered to read what the official line is on all of these subjects. It makes it even funnier when you then claim that the gov't actually knows the exact opposite but is just hushing everything up to the tune of massively funded investigations with abundant materials released to the public.If this is true, then that only tells me I no longer have any reason to believe anything the US gov't says. But let me ask you something, if they were going to hide all of this info afterward, why did they use it as the pretext for war in the first place?None of this is passing the common sense test, is it?By the way, I also like how we're concerned with WMD proliferation and spreading democracy, while letting a dictator prevent elections and let his friend go with a warning after spreading WMD tech to the very countries we didn't want getting it, and so invaded Iraq. You have any position on Pakistan?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How can you be up to speed if you cite a quotation from the ISG which supports my position and refutes yours. This clearly indicates that weapons were not the issue... at most "material" was. As Crash has already pointed out, even if a transfer of material (or lets say weapons) occured, that supported our arguments not to go to war.But in any case, what you failed to do was continue reading PAST the quote you cited. See you quotemined to pull out something which suggested material might have been transferred, but IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING that quote was a caveat by the ISG... Get up to speed Tal, your position was overrun a while ago.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First let me point out that you are trying to talk about intel before the war and I was discussing afterward. Second the spin that it was "everybody's" intel is simply not true.What was everyone's intel is that there were stocks which were unaccounted for. Our own CIA reported, until it had a change of heart before the drive to war, that it was unlikely to have actual weapons. That is in addition to its not having any real connections to AQ.Remember many countries argued against our intel conclusions. Its sort of hard to pretend the world was with us on that when it was well documented. Especially embarassing were the intel gaffes regarding nuclear material which had been refuted before the President even mentioned it. If you don't understand that this was the factual case regarding intel, then you need to stop listening to FOX and start reading actual reports made at the time. Let me get this straight... We are having wars to spread democracy and prevent the spread of WMD and WMD technology, and Pakistan is "just fine" because it captured AQ's #3 guy who is an enemy to them at this point anyway. That is despite the fact that it is a dictatorship which has dismissed elections and when caught redhanded transferring the exact WMD tech whose threat of transfer we said was enough reason to invade Iraq, went completely unpunished (literally less than a slap on the wrist)? That's your position? Good luck. Lybia had been trying to change its image and standing for years. Thus, you are mistaken. Correlation or coincidence does not equal causation.Are you with the ministry of propaganda or something, floating out excuses to see if they will fly? So far they are weak.{edited in due to coincidental discovery of intriguing topical item}...I remember you quoted Jack Straw and made the statement that everyone shared our intelligence assessment of Iraq. Here is an article that suggests not even Britain was on board. I think it's early to say if this memo is factual or not, but if so has an interesting quote by Straw: If this turns out to be true, what would you say then?This message has been edited by holmes, 05-07-2005 04:16 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)