Convince Me!

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by 10Bears
Hortland you know, or should know that calling people names degenerates your argument. It means you really have no logical bases for debate... Tell me, has calling entire countries names helped or hurt your cause?

One of the problems here is the Bushies don't lie effectivly. All their evidence to date seems to be refuted within minutes of it's release. Even by the CIA!  .The smoking gun evidence Powell presented to the security council turns out to be plagerized graduate student papers from 12 years ago... Sheesh if you want to get people on your side you might start by treating them with respect instead of compempt.  
 

I have decided to take a stand on this issue. Normally when I argue with you or weazel, your mindless lies and distortions drives me away after a while...because it feels about as productive to argue with you two as banging your head against a brick wall. Not now.

The reason Im calling people names is because Im sick and diddlying tired of their stupidity. Normally it doesnt really matter, because hey...just another stupid sob that I dont have to deal with. This time their stupidity is dangerous.

The graduate stutent paper you are talking about is a british issue. It  has got nothing to do with Powell and his evidence against Iraq. Not one of Powells evidence has been refuted. In a couple of cases certain aspects of the evidence has been questioned (do we know what the trucks were loaded with, etc) but no evidence has been defunked. That is a LIE.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Wtf does this have to do with anything? Nazi Germany was a nation, a state, with people living in it, people not different from those aircraft passengers. That doesnt mean that it was wrong to fight ww2 against them now does it, Hippie?

Remind me again of Sweden's glorious fight against Germany.... I seem to have forgotten the details.

[Hangtime]

c'mon guys.. this slid into a personality debate. lets get back to the key points..

1. CIA and The State department have laid out that there are terrorist cells curently operating in Iraq. There is a AQ WMD training facility in N.E. Iraq. The CIA/State department have laid out clear links between the Iraqis and AQ as well as Hammas.

2. WMD have clearly been shown to exist in Iraq. The possibility of these materials getting intoi the hands of terrorists remains a REAL threat to american national security.

Dispute these points, please.. convince me by means of believable documentation that they either do not exist, or are outright lies. I'd like to see documentation and sources at least as credible as the State Departments.

Please.. can anybody point me to contradictory evidence that points 1 and 2 above are false.. because without convincing evidence that points 1 and 2 are false, it seems to me that a real threat to this nation exists, and the reasons to invade Iraq remain valid.

Please.. I hate monkey boys administration probably more than the average american does.. I'm trying to look outside the personalites behind the decisions our administration is making and instead I'm trying to focus on the issues the admistration is acting upon.

In other words, just because bush comes off as a cowboy does not mean our foriegn policy stance is invalid.

Now, Karnak has spent the time to honestly and as unlaced with bitter diatribe as posible lay out why he feels our course is not correct..  but in Karnacks debating points he fails to address points 1 and 2 above.. key to his position is this statement:

"Pre-emptive strikes on a nation that does not pose any current risk to our country sets a very dangerous precedent and fundamentally breaks the accepted international standard from the post WWII period. ..

..which does not wash with what I see as a clear and present threat.. WMD in the hands of terrorist factions that have free access to Iraq.

Thanks for all reasoned replys!!

[Habu]

Originally posted by Dowding
If you think Islamic extremists hate the West generally and the US specifically now, it's going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the depth of feeling that will be engendered after an invasion.

For me, the Israel-Palestinian conflict (which Bush has sidelined and ignored) is the biggest obstacle to world peace today. It's like a 24 hour advertisement campaign for why America is the root of all evil.

There should be an immediate effort to bring the Palestinians and Israelis to the discussion table.

I think that the Palestine leadership wants that greatly. It is their way of getting what they want and of having Israel humiliated.

But when there is not chance of an outsider with a big stick coming to force Israel to do anything then they must realize that it is up to them to negotiate in good faith and make a real peace (like Anwar Sadat did). Even though his peace treaty was viewed as an act of betrayal for many of his countrymen, every govenment since his has honored it.

Once they do that then I believe that there will be a real peace. But it is not going to happen with this current generation of Palestine leaders.

Knowing that the more unrest they cause will likely lead the US involvement will only embolden them. They could have had an autonomous state and all of the West Bank and Gaza years ago if that had been enough. It was not at that time. But that is the fault of their leaders. Now 5 years later what do they have?

Also as long as coutries like Saudia Arabia and Iraq and Iran fund the terrorists that are attacking Israel there will be no peace. The love the Isreal Palestine conflict as it gives their populations a distraction to vent their anger at. Without that conflict their own power would be under threat.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Hortlund

Not one of Powells evidence has been refuted. In a couple of cases certain aspects of the evidence has been questioned (do we know what the trucks were loaded with, etc) but no evidence has been defunked. That is a LIE.

Well, when Hans Blix is directly denying the evidence, that's about as close to debunking as you can get.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889135,00.html

Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived.

In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found."

Dr Blix said that the problem of bio-weapons laboratories on trucks had been around for a while and that he had received tips from the US that led him to inspect trucks in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed that the trucks were used to inspect the quality of food production.

He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/873237.asp?0cl=c1

Referring to the suspected bio-chem site of which Powell had shown detailed before-and-after satellite photos, Blix dismissed the idea that the supposed presence of a �decontamination truck� was meaningful. �The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been routine activity,� he said.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Dammit.. I gotta be blinded to reason or something.



So reason with me.. give it a try; I won't bite..

Convince me.

Convince me that allowing saddam to stay in power is the right course of action. Convince me we should wait for the UN to ok an attack. Convince me that the French are right, and the U.S. is wrong.

C'mon, I took off the damn suit.. Convince me!

Why? Ya don't want to think it all over.


Regards Blitz


America is theathened in no way by Iraq, it's justn plain rediculous.and ya know it in ya hearts.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Hangtime
c'mon guys.. this slid into a personality debate. lets get back to the key points..

1. CIA and The State department have laid out that there are terrorist cells curently operating in Iraq. There is a AQ WMD training facility in N.E. Iraq. The CIA/State department have laid out clear links between the Iraqis and AQ as well as Hammas.

...

Dispute these points, please.. convince me by means of believable documentation that they either do not exist, or are outright lies. I'd like to see documentation and sources at least as credible as the State Departments.

The NY Times had an article that you might find interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html

...

Some analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.

...

At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said.

...

"It's more than just skepticism," said one official, describing the feelings of some analysts in the intelligence agencies. "I think there is also a sense of disappointment with the community's leadership that they are not standing up for them at a time when the intelligence is obviously being politicized."

I think we have good reason to be skeptical of puported evidence that could be coming from intelligence agencies who's leaders are more concerned with their careers than the truth.

[Karnak]

You're welcome Hangtime.  I normally don't address this issue here because I know many people on this board are idealogical reactionaries like Hortland has demostrated himself to be.  Your post seemed reasoned, so I gave my honest take on the situation.

If the inspectors find WMDs, I'm OK going into Iraq.  I am not anti-war, I'm against an action that I see costing us way too much for no visible gain and vast potential losses.  I would like to see far more evidence that there is a link between Al-Quada and Iraq before I believe it.  Saddam and Bin Laden are simply to far apart to co-operate.  Bin Laden even made negative statements about Saddam while he was telling Muslims to use suicide tactics against the USA and UK to defend Iraq.  I can see Al-Quada cells in Iraq, but I'm very skeptical of any connection to Saddam or the Iraqi government.

I'm not sure of Powell's sources, he used a 12 year old report done by a British grad student who had no access to intelligence data and was just spouting hypotheticals as evidence.


I do believe I misrepresented the CIA's statement though.  What I believe they said was that there was no credible evidence of links between Al-Quada and Iraq (meaning the Iraqi government as Al-Quada has groups and training going on in many countries, including the USA until pre-9/11).

I'm not saying that we should not go in no matter what, I'm say lets keep applying preasure via the existing international framework and see what shakes out.  If we can avoid a war, great, but if we find real, hard evidence we can go in with international support rather than try to convice dubious nations with shadowy, slender evidence.  I see no reason why we need to lock ourselves into attacking this year and not next.

[Hangtime]

Thank you Erlkonig!! That was an interesting read.

Doubt exists, some bickering seems to be going on between CIA, FBI and State.. that seems normal. .. yet it would seem that this we can all agree on:

Neither George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, nor the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, have publicly engaged in the debate about the evidence on Iraq in recent weeks, even as the Bush administration has intensified its efforts to build the case for a possible war.

The last time Mr. Tenet found himself at the center of the public debate over intelligence concerning Iraq was in October, when the Senate declassified a brief letter Mr. Tenet wrote describing some of the C.I.A.'s assessments about Iraq.

His letter stated that the C.I.A. believed that Iraq had, for the time being, probably decided not to conduct terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States, but the letter added that Mr. Hussein might resort to terrorism if he believed that an American-led attack was about to begin.

Only the NY Times would call him "Mr. Hussein" Hehehhee

Saddam and Bin Laden are simply to far apart to co-operate. Bin Laden even made negative statements about Saddam while he was telling Muslims to use suicide tactics against the USA and UK to defend Iraq. I can see Al-Quada cells in Iraq, but I'm very skeptical of any connection to Saddam or the Iraqi government.

Karnak.. I've seen some interviews with the Mujahadeen leaders.. they made it pretty clear they were accepting aid from the CIA to oust the Russians.. knowing full well that their next target would be the "Great Satan". CIA operatives reported that it was apparent that the Rebel Leaders agendas, including Osama's, did not include doing the US any favors. Didn't stop them from accepting arms and materials to hammer the russians with. AQ has a history of accepting assistance from folks they hate enough to kill.

The recent recording released from AQ purported to Osama with regard to supporting Iraq was not inconsistent with previous AQ behavior.

Damn.. I'm gettin antsy here. Some of the data MAY be tainted, and AQ MIGHT not be fully operational in Iraq.. just enough questionable data surfacing to give a skeptic a stiffie.

J.J. Angleton would be having a field day.

Thanks for the info, guys!!

[Pongo]

1000 years after the Crusades whe get our stupid western aggression for the new Millenium!
The reasons for that one were as stupid as this one. The same stupid people are going to participate in it and cheer for it.
History will judge it just as harshly.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Pongo
1000 years after the Crusades whe get our stupid western aggression for the new Millenium!
The reasons for that one were as stupid as this one. The same stupid people are going to participate in it and cheer for it.
History will judge it just as harshly.

Self defence is never stupid, nor is it an agression.

The "Crusades" part of this war (the fact that we will be going to war on dictators and install democracies when we are done) is a side effect that will benefit everyone. In fact, personally I think that is reason enough to go to war. To remove mad murdering dictators and install democracies.

Apparently you think we should leave things the way they are...or do you want us to send in inspectors who can document the suffering of the opressed civilians? Or maybe we should try economic sanctions for another 12 years first?

[Dowding]

They could have had an autonomous state and all of the West Bank and Gaza years ago if that had been enough.

The State offered Palestinians was a joke. It didn't recognise any equality in water rights, it was divided into 4 zones and the Israelis would have had control over movement between them. You call that a decent offer?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vicious cycle and both leaderships are to blame.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
Well, when Hans Blix is directly denying the evidence, that's about as close to debunking as you can get.

No, what he is saying is that Powell has not been able to prove anything. That is expected when you are only relying on intelligence assets that you cannot reveal. Strictly speaking nothing in Powells presentation can be proven in a court of law. That does not make it untrue however. For example the taped conversation between the two Iraqis discussing how to hide their chemical weapons...any court would throw that "evidence" right out the window. That does not make the conversation any less true.It is just an example of how little your evidence is worth if you wont reveal your sources.

Blix on the other hand is operating under completely different parameters. He is in Iraq for one reason only, to find proof. The kind of proof that would hold in court. That is why he cannot use Powells material...not because it is not true, but because Powell wont give up his sources and with that follows the "no evidence"-part.

[Siaf__csf]

Hortlund is clearly just pointing his rage on all muslims in general. Just the thing Al-Qaeda wants to prove.

If there are AQ training camps in iraq, there are similar camps in Saudi-Arabia (which gives most of the funding to AQ btw.)

Why not bully the Saudis at all, even though they're implicated TENFOLD compared to Iraq?




Think about it.

As a personal sidenote I think Iraq will be FAR better off without Saddam if US manages to set up a strong government post-war. The only bad thing is that there will be huge civillian casualties on the road.

If that fails, the country may become overwhelmed by fundamentalists, and that is NOT what this small ball needs. It can backfire bigtime.. If you think Saddam is bad, just wait untill they get a fundamentalist leader that thinks 100% alike with Al-Qaeda.. lol.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding
The State offered Palestinians was a joke. It didn't recognise any equality in water rights, it was divided into 4 zones and the Israelis would have had control over movement between them. You call that a decent offer?

Well, the Palestinians should ask themselves this question:
"Are we better off now, or would we be in a better situation if we would have accepted the proposal?"

The Palestinians are not, and were never, in any position where they can make demands. The sooner they realize this the better.