Dubya

[Squiggy]

Well, so far you've discounted the premise of the attack as irrelevant, deemed the real estate as convenient, and ignored the biggest culprit in your heartfelt quest for justice. Saudi Arabia is and has been the largest financier and supporter of the terrorist attacks against the US.

 

[ol' man]

I never said I was anti American. Where the fuck did you get that from? Dreaming again, are we...

I wasn't dreaming when I read this. You don't remember this?

You're damn right I'm anti American. And I have a gun to my head right now so don't piss me off or I'll kill one.....

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7438&highlight=anti+american

Whether you were kidding about being anti american is a different story. I can't tell.

Thats pretty funny ol'man. You pull out an obvious joke post and pretend..... How can you NNOT tell its a fucking joke? The AMERICAN was me. I've had enough of you again ol'man. You attack ANYONE who even attempts to post something other than yay Bush.

I knew the american was you but usually when one makes a joke he doesn't put a mad face next to the sentence that is supposed to be a joke. I don't you well enough to know what you protrude as humour. Now I know what to expect. I have been pissed off for quite awhile after seeing that. Next time you make a joke at least don't put a face next to it. SImply nothing at all would have been better then I would have thought maybe it was a joke.

 

[Squiggy]

Try reading the rest of the thread to put it in context. How could you make anything but a joke from it?

 

[ris]

there was an interesting statement made by a labour peer on question time [political debate programme] on thursday night. he pointed out that the initial reason for going to attack iraq was its connections to terrorism, found to be largely unprovable. the second was its owning weapons of mass destruction, found to be largely unprovable [i have heard several news stories since the war began that uk forces has found chemical weapons evidence which has since come to nothing].
the final reason is that iraq's regime is bad, mmmkay. regime change is not our business unless directly threatened. the proof of direct threat through terrorism and wmd's has been pretty tenuous.

i think the most interesting thing about the comment made was that the reasons seemed to change with the seasons - when one wasn't good enough the tack was switched. i'd have to say it doesn't fill me confidence on the reasoning for going to war.
hussein is a nasty bit of work, no-one is denying that. but i see no reason to fly to war over half-proofs and unsubstantial claims.

 

[A.B.Normal]

there was an interesting statement made by a labour peer on question time [political debate programme] on thursday night. he pointed out that the initial reason for going to attack iraq was its connections to terrorism, found to be largely unprovable. the second was its owning weapons of mass destruction, found to be largely unprovable [i have heard several news stories since the war began that uk forces has found chemical weapons evidence which has since come to nothing].
the final reason is that iraq's regime is bad, mmmkay. regime change is not our business unless directly threatened. the proof of direct threat through terrorism and wmd's has been pretty tenuous.

i think the most interesting thing about the comment made was that the reasons seemed to change with the seasons - when one wasn't good enough the tack was switched. i'd have to say it doesn't fill me confidence on the reasoning for going to war.
hussein is a nasty bit of work, no-one is denying that. but i see no reason to fly to war over half-proofs and unsubstantial claims.

Its also interesting that Syria is being accused of supplying weapons to Iraq during the war,since Syria was said to be where Saddam sent his WMD ,seems like they're softening up the electorate for a visit to Syria.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Its also interesting that Syria is being accused of supplying weapons to Iraq during the war,since Syria was said to be where Saddam sent his WMD ,seems like they're softening up the electorate for a visit to Syria.

Probable, but not possible. We'll be tied down in Iraq for a good 5 years or so. Most US citizens have a short attention span, and even less patience.

 

[ris]

blame the blipvert tv culture, no-one likes waiting a week for the next installment

 

[Gato_Solo]

blame the blipvert tv culture, no-one likes waiting a week for the next installment

Nope. I blame the people themselves. If they didn't like it, then it wouldn't be on in the first place.

 

[ris]

true, ratings sell

 

[Gato_Solo]

I'm also quite wary of anyone who says that they are 'looking out for my best interests'. As if they knew...

 

[Ardsgaine]

I guess we should invade any country that is conveniently located?

If they're brutal dictatorships and it makes strategic sense, yes. Notice that I didn't advocate invading Turkey to launch that northern front.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Lots of differences. The comparison was about leaders getting the public to go along with a objectionable war.

The moral equivalence is in your use of the term 'objectionable'. Invading a brutal dictatorship as part of a campaign against people who are launching attacks on your country is a little different from launching an attack against a democratic country in order to seize territory from them and cleanse the country of the ethnically objectionable. The fact is, seventy percent of the American people don't find this war objectionable. Your response to that is to say that they've been deluded by their government. No sir. I was there long before the government, and I've been waiting for them to catch up.

 

[Gonz]

The comparison was about leaders getting the public to go along with a objectionable war.

Objectionable to whom? Those that worry more about the reasoning behind the attacks more than putting an end to them? The American public has supported this from the get go. A large number wanted UN involvement but if you factor "yes, we should-period" with "yes we should-with UN" it's a clear majority.

 

[flavio]

The fact is, seventy percent of the American people don't find this war objectionable.

You're using the idea that the propaganda and marketing campaign has been effective on the American people to say that it is not propaganda.

This line of reasoning is flawed.

 

[Ardsgaine]

You're using the idea that the propaganda and marketing campaign has been effective on the American people to say that it is not propaganda.

This line of reasoning is flawed.

You're using the fact that people support the war to claim that they've been the victims of a propaganda campaign. That line of reasoning is flawed.

The question is, which came first, the "propaganda campaign" or the conviction that Saddam should be overthrown? I can only answer the question for myself. I wanted the bastard overthrown the first time, and I've been waiting for it ever since. The challenge for you is to prove that people are following the president, rather than the president following the people. From what I've seen, the people have been pushing Bush to pursue this war since 9/11, because they know now that we can't afford to ignore some mouthy idiot overseas who wants us dead, just because he appears to be too weak to take on the US.

 

[flavio]

The challenge for you is to prove that people are following the president, rather than the president following the people.

That's easy enough. Just look to the staistics before the war actually started where the nation was split on the subject and the majority didn't want us to act without UN support.

Now since Bush made us act anyway and called it "Iraqi Freedom" now we've got the 70% that you speak of.

There you have the people following the president and not the president following the people.

 

[ris]

it should be said that certainly in the uk [and i have been lead to believe that the pattern is repeated elsewhere] that when a conflict begins the public tend to rally behind the troops and/or wish for a speedy end to the war. as a result support for the war rises as people don't want to be seen as objecting to the military serving overseas or deemed 'unpatriotic'.

i take more credence in the views in teh period immediately before the war and the situation was that around 15-20% didn't know, 30-35% were pro and 35-40% were opposed. and that was after months of government supplied evidence as to why iraq should be invaded.

 

[Ardsgaine]

That is a pretty bizarre argument you have there.

Prior to the war, a majority of people supported a war in Iraq, but they were split on the issue of whether we should have UN support. Bush attempted to get UN support, but France threatened to veto any resolution that would carry war as a consequence of Iraq's failure to comply. Obviously, France had no intention of enforcing the UN resolutions, and they were going to use their veto power to insure that we could not gain UN support for enforcing the resolution through military action. Now, isn't it just possible that the people who wanted UN support for the war looked at that and decided, "fuck France and the UN," and decided that the president was right to go ahead with the war?

What you're doing, Flav, and it's a failing of socialists in general, is you're talking about people as if they're mindless sheep who are easily led by political propaganda. This is how the left reacts when the people go in a different direction from them, and it's why they try to generate so much media coverage for themselves through protests. They can't understand why they can put a million people in the middle of DC protesting the war, and yet that 70% doesn't budge. Obviously, their propaganda campaign is failing because the media coverage hasn't been sympathetic enough, or they've been out-maneuvered by the pols. It certainly can't have anything to do with those 70% having drawn their own conclusions by weighing the different sides and arriving at a rational decision. It can't be that, because, the socialists believe, if they were rational, they would agree with the socialists!

 

[Gonz]

Just look to the staistics before the war actually started where the nation was split on the subject and the majority didn't want us to act without UN support.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Latest: March 14-15, 2003. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).
.

"Would you favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power?" Form A (N=488, MoE ± 5)

Favor Oppose NoOpinion
% % %
3/14-15/03 64 33 3
3/3-5/03 59 37 4
2/24-26/03 59 37 4
2/17-19/03 59 38 3
2/7-9/03 63 34 3
1/31 - 2/2/03 58 38 4
1/23-25/03 52 43 5
1/10-12/03 56 38 6
1/3-5/03 56 39 5
12/19-22/02 53 38 9
12/16-17/02 58 35 7
12/9-10/02 55 39 6
11/22-24/02 58 37 5
11/8-10/02 59 35 6
10/21-22/02 54 40 6
10/14-17/02 56 37 7
10/3-6/02 53 40 7
9/02 57 38 5

Lowest Pre-war poll numbers were 52%

 

[flavio]

Prior to the war, a majority of people supported a war in Iraq, but they were split on the issue of whether we should have UN support.

No, they were about split on war with Iraq and the majority wanted UN support.

What you're doing, Flav, and it's a failing of socialists in general,

Don't start calling me a socialist. This has nothing to do with socialism.

talking about people as if they're mindless sheep who are easily led by political propaganda.

There's a large number of people easily led by political propaganda. Just look at the Nazis.

It certainly can't have anything to do with those 70% having drawn their own conclusions by weighing the different sides and arriving at a rational decision.

Oh, but it couldn't possibly be because.....

that when a conflict begins the public tend to rally behind the troops and/or wish for a speedy end to the war.

if they are rational, they agree with Ardsgaine!