Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

2008-01-27 18:27:08

#126

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6841|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:
FEOS wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
The issue of who lied about what is pretty irrelevant in drawing conclusions about Bush et al. All you need to do is look at a map of the world, realise that Iraq is one entire quarter of a rotation of the globe away from the US and logically conclude that even if Iraq had WMD it would have made no difference to the national security of the US and hence the US invaded for less than honest reasons.
Because Afghanistan is one half of a rotation around the world from the US and people who were operating from there posed no threat when they flew planes into WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania...right?

The perceived threat from Iraq's WMD program was not that they would launch them at the US with organic capabilities, but rather that they would provide them to someone else who would use them against us here.
Ever heard of airport security? Ever heard about investigating situations where flight school attendees aren't that interested in how to land? Ever heard of not letting people with potential weapons onto planes?

Ever heard of diverting the argument when your logic fails?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-27 19:34:18

#127

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6536|eXtreme to the maX

Not necessarily a lie, but certainly a haphazard use of information that was known to be questionable and uncorroborated. Which is why only 20-odd statements relating to that were ever made by the administration, as compared to 230-odd regarding WMD.

I'm glad we've at least reached partial agreement on this at least.
Still, only 20 odd false statements? Bill Clinton lies once, Duhbya 20 odd (provable) 230 odd (arguable) and thats fine?

The perceived threat from Iraq's WMD program was not that they would launch them at the US with organic capabilities, but rather that they would provide them to someone else who would use them against us here.

I'd be interested to know if that was ever a fully researched intelligence assessment or if it was cooked up in Dick Cheney's head.

Saddam didn't use WMD in Gulf War 1 when he had them - because he was threatened with nuclear annihilation as stated explicitly to him by the US govt - he did not provide them to terrorists in the intervening 10 years.
It seems more like a convenient peg to hang regime change on in the climate of post 9/11 paranoia.
That this was the US govt overriding preoccupation is evidenced by the invasion of Afghanistan and the capture of Bin Laden not being given priority and were botched.

If anyone was going to give WMD to AQ it would have been Pakistan (nukes) or Iran (chemical or biological).
I have zero understanding of why Iraq was invaded against this background.

Fuck Israel

2008-01-28 02:34:50

#128

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6841|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Not necessarily a lie, but certainly a haphazard use of information that was known to be questionable and uncorroborated. Which is why only 20-odd statements relating to that were ever made by the administration, as compared to 230-odd regarding WMD.
I'm glad we've at least reached partial agreement on this at least.
Still, only 20 odd false statements? Bill Clinton lies once, Duhbya 20 odd (provable) 230 odd (arguable) and thats fine?

Lies and false statements are two different things. It's a matter of intent.

Dilbert_X wrote:
The perceived threat from Iraq's WMD program was not that they would launch them at the US with organic capabilities, but rather that they would provide them to someone else who would use them against us here.
I'd be interested to know if that was ever a fully researched intelligence assessment or if it was cooked up in Dick Cheney's head.

The answer is yes, it was a fully researched intelligence assessment based on 12 years of collection.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Saddam didn't use WMD in Gulf War 1 when he had them - because he was threatened with nuclear annihilation as stated explicitly to him by the US govt - he did not provide them to terrorists in the intervening 10 years.
It seems more like a convenient peg to hang regime change on in the climate of post 9/11 paranoia.
That this was the US govt overriding preoccupation is evidenced by the invasion of Afghanistan and the capture of Bin Laden not being given priority and were botched.

If anyone was going to give WMD to AQ it would have been Pakistan (nukes) or Iran (chemical or biological).
I have zero understanding of why Iraq was invaded against this background.

It's OK. You don't have to understand.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-28 02:38:13

#129

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6985

FEOS wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Because Afghanistan is one half of a rotation around the world from the US and people who were operating from there posed no threat when they flew planes into WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania...right?

The perceived threat from Iraq's WMD program was not that they would launch them at the US with organic capabilities, but rather that they would provide them to someone else who would use them against us here.
Ever heard of airport security? Ever heard about investigating situations where flight school attendees aren't that interested in how to land? Ever heard of not letting people with potential weapons onto planes?
Ever heard of diverting the argument when your logic fails?

'People who were operating from there' - actually they were operating within the US, having been schooled in the art of flying in sunny ole Florida. Issue: porous borders and lax security/immgration control. Solution should address this. As Rumsfeld was once quoted as saying about Afghanistan: "There are no good targets there."

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-28 03:49:58)

2008-01-28 19:16:24

#130

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6841|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:
FEOS wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:

Ever heard of airport security? Ever heard about investigating situations where flight school attendees aren't that interested in how to land? Ever heard of not letting people with potential weapons onto planes?
Ever heard of diverting the argument when your logic fails?
'People who were operating from there' - actually they were operating within the US, having been schooled in the art of flying in sunny ole Florida. Issue: porous borders and lax security/immgration control. Solution should address this. As Rumsfeld was once quoted as saying about Afghanistan: "There are no good targets there."

Did you miss the part where they were trained in Afghanistan camps? Yes, they boarded the planes here, and they learned to fly here. No doubt our border control could be radically improved...and has been since 9/11, but still very far to go. But they were trained and funded out of Afghanistan. The mission was planned by people in Afghanistan. The leadership that approved the operation was in Afghanistan. Do you see the pattern?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-29 01:55:26

#131

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6985

FEOS wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Ever heard of diverting the argument when your logic fails?
'People who were operating from there' - actually they were operating within the US, having been schooled in the art of flying in sunny ole Florida. Issue: porous borders and lax security/immgration control. Solution should address this. As Rumsfeld was once quoted as saying about Afghanistan: "There are no good targets there."
Did you miss the part where they were trained in Afghanistan camps? Yes, they boarded the planes here, and they learned to fly here. No doubt our border control could be radically improved...and has been since 9/11, but still very far to go. But they were trained and funded out of Afghanistan. The mission was planned by people in Afghanistan. The leadership that approved the operation was in Afghanistan. Do you see the pattern?

I didn't miss the part where they were trained in Afghan camps. But Afghan camps are, as I said, more than one quarter of a rotation of the globe from the US and as such all that would be required to prevent terror attacks would be to properly seal borders, vet people boarding flights, be vigilant of suspicious activity and utilise the intelligence community to the maximum. All you can learn in Afghanistan is how to fire a few weapons and how to wire bombs. A slow bleed in Afghanistan that changes nothing and has done nothing to fight terrorism other than drive the terrorists to ruin Pakistan and Iraq achieves nothing. New tactics needed I feel. Especially when this perpetual warfare is haemorraging your country financially. The US just used 9/11 as an excuse to maraud around the world - no sooner had they invaded Afghanistan and promised the 'yadda, yadda, yadda, rebuild' they had turned their attentions to Iraq, military action against whom seemed a little hasty given that Osama had not yet been caught and the real war had not yet been won in Afghanistan.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-29 02:11:18)

2008-01-29 03:32:42

#132

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6841|'Murka

So leave Afghanistan alone and give them a place to learn how to kill most efficiently? Sounds like a great plan, Cam.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-01-29 03:32:57)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-29 04:28:45

#133

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6985

FEOS wrote:
So leave Afghanistan alone and give them a place to learn how to kill most efficiently? Sounds like a great plan, Cam.

You guys are wasting your money and your lives out there - not just the US but all of NATO. You would literally need to spend the amount of money it would take to make the country a fully functional first world country (a colossal amount of money nobody can afford, especially when domestic spending should take priority) in order to even nearly eradicate anti-western sentiment and the fact of the matter is they would still probably hate us (nobody likes an overlord or a foreign influence). You guys could do just as well flying bombing missions over there bases and staying home securing your borders than anything you might do on the ground out there.

All you're doing is driving them into Pakistan so they can ruin that country too. Where will it stop? Bangladesh? Malaysia? Indonesia? The US, not even the west has a whole, has the resources for these pointless capers.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-29 04:32:26)

2008-01-29 05:19:43

#134

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6841|'Murka

There's no need to bring them to First World status. What they need is to no longer be a failed state, with functioning central and local governance. That's what is really needed to provide an alternative to the Taliban.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-29 05:29:23

#135

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6985

FEOS wrote:
There's no need to bring them to First World status. What they need is to no longer be a failed state, with functioning central and local governance. That's what is really needed to provide an alternative to the Taliban.

A functioning government isn't likely to be able to keep a rein on anti-western activity. Western first world governments have enough difficulty themselves dealing with it. There will always be a certain level of such activity in the middle east that we will never be able to exercise control over. Hence my feeling that attention should be diverted to other measures.

2008-01-29 05:37:02

#136

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6841|'Murka

Should be a combination of the two, IMO.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer