That's basically a summary of what toms said. The real difference is he sounds a lot more fair in his judgement. I believe he is incorrect in his assumptions, but at least he sounds like he gave it thought.
What's unfair about calling a demonstrated liar a - well - liar?
You sound a bit more like a tape recorder, since I've heard that several times from you, in slightly different wording.
Well, it has been some time since I've seen anything new from your side of the fence as well.
OTOH, I do have enough optimism to trust you did put thought into what you said. Please don't prove me wrong on that account.
I did indeed put rather a lot of thought into my comment. I arrived at my conclusion months ago, however, and I've seen nothing remotely persuasive from your side of the fence since. Since I've repeatedly made my reasoning clear eslewhere in this thread, I'm reluctant to retype it all. Again.
The Logic-o-gram does not really prove anything except that someone is pretty good with Photoshop. It bases it's "facts" on no sources, and is quite unsupported.
Let's see... We have seven assertions: 1) That North Korea has nuclear weapons. Do you dispute that? 2) That the North Korean leader is still in power. Do you dispute that? 3) That Hussein had no nuclear weapons. Do you dispute that? 4) That Hussein is no longer in power. I do hope that you don't dispute that. 5) That the Ayatollahs may or may not be developing nuclear weapons. That's indisputable (A OR NOT-A). 6) That the Ayatollahs want to stay in power. Do you dispute that? 7) That there are US bases all around Iran. I see that you don't dispute that.
Please explain which assertion you doubt, and I'll gladly find you credible sources.
OTOH, there is no dispute that we have bases surrounding Iran. Which ought to scare Iran into not enriching uranium, but for some odd reason, it doesn't.
Nope, it should encourage them to enrich uranium, since the war in Iraq proved conclusively that not having WMD won't protect you from invasion. And the way the West tiptoes around North Korea proves rather conclusively that having sufficiently nasty WMD will protect you from outright invasion.
So, what if it did finally come to war, and instead of an all-out invasion we acted with lightning-strikes on nuclear facilities, hmm? I'm not saying bomb it; that'd be a disaster. I'm saying drop marines near the facilities, take them over, shut down and disable them, and get out.
Because that worked so well the last time, didn't it?
Then, if Iran retaliates, we'd have full justification before the UN to continue.
Depends on how they retaliate. If they simply gun down your choppers on their way out, they'd be well within their rights under the UN charter (assuming of course that the original strike was an illegal unilateral move on the US' part).
And when I say come to war, I mean there are no other feasable options. By the time that comes around, there will be a new president in office, to be sure. Hopefully one that isn't afraid to act if need be. Again, emphasis on need.
Hopefully there will be a president in office who won't act before there is need.
Quiet facts trump loud lies.
Not in US presidential elections...
The crux of the problem with your argument is thus: FOA, just because two general opinions say something doesn't make it right.
I wasn't talking about popular opinion. If I had been, I'd have included Britain, Denmark, and Spain. I'm talking about governments. I'm talking about intelligence agencies. You know, those people in the BND and the DGSE - and probably Verfassungsshьtz as well. The people who kept tap on the commies for you, remember?
By your argument, W's election was right because the general opinion said so. (Enough to win the Electoral, anyhow) Before you tell me how close it was,
I'm not going to argue the 2000 election fraud in this thread - but if I did, closeness was definitely a point I wouldn't bring up. Ballot stuffing, arbitrary disenfrancisement, sabotage of polling stations, scarcity of polling stations in certain districts - now, those things I would bring up - but certainly not closeness.
"Almost only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes"
And - appearently - artillery strikes...
First of all, may I request that you provide the treaties that we broke?
Ch. VI, Art. 33 & 37 (
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)
Oh, and take a look at Ch. IV, Art. 19 too while you're there.
Second, we went in there to ensure Saddam disarmed his WMDs.
Which he didn't have.
Now that there is no chance this will happen again,
"Now that [T]here is no a distinct chance this will happen again should the current American regime not be removed from power.
the troops are withdrawing.
Yes.
The war is ending.
Nope. In all probability, it's only just starting.
This discussion is becoming more and more pointless.
Not at all. There's no statute of limitation on war crimes and crimes against humanity... I for one am waiting for the International Warcrime Tribunal...
The alternative to a mass-murderer walking is unpalatable?
If the alternative is that someone is convicted without sufficient evidence? Yes, that alternative is less palatable than having a mass-murderer walk.
That lowers your credibility im my eyes. You would release someone who killed hundreds of thousands of his people? You leave a very bad taste in my mouth, ShadowTemplar.
If there is no evidence, he walks. No matter how many he killed. And yes, that principle is more important to me than any single man or any single crime, no matter how horrible.
Well, if he walks for WMDs, which I don't think he will, but fries in an electric chair for human rights abuse, then basically the same punishment is delivered, is it not? In such a case, he may as well have been found guilty for possesing WMDs.
From his perspective, yes. From the perspective of whether the war was legal or not, no.
See, not all Fox viewers are unintelligent.
Nope, you're just poorly informed :p
I don't doubt the definition of "rogue state". I believe it is incorrectly applied.
My definition of 'rouge state' is 'state that threatens or attacks other sovereign countries unprovoked, is led by unstable and/or despotic leaders, and/or commits major violations of international law.' Two out of three isn't bad... And I suppose you could argue the 2nd one as well...
It will be a terrible thing if civil war does break out, to be sure. But realistically, that has been the pattern for almost every single decapitated empire in history.
Post-Franco Spain. Post-Pinochet Chile. Post-communist Russia. Post-monarchy Scandinavia. Post-colonial US.
You've proven my point quite eloquently.
I am not sure we are quite on the same page here... I frankly don't see how my response proved anything remotely like your assertion, but perhaps you'd enlighten me? I do seem to remember someone saying something about posting only Executive Summaries being a Bad Idea...
The main efforts of the nation are cleaning up the damage of the war, so services are being neglected. When all fighting finally ends, then the nation can turn towards repairing the damage done in the war. But, right now most non-security issues are on hold so efforts can be spent preventing a terrible civil war.
That's a bass ackwards way of doing things. First point on the agenda should be rebuilding - the rebuilding will require protection in many areas and on many projects, but without rebuilding, there will be no end of the fighting.
You go right ahead and try. If the Iraqi people succeed, I'll be impressed. I won't be convinced that the war was reasonable or justified - but I'll be impressed with the tenacity and patriotism of the Iraqi people. If you fail - well, that won't come as any big surprise...
Of course. The US takes the blame for a failure, and the US is ignored in the face of a victory. That's quite logical.
No, the US takes the blame for its culpably incompetent planning, for its overconfident strategic overreach, for the patently illegal conduct of its bogus war on terror, and for its repeated and serious human rights violations. The Iraqi people take the credit for perservering despite the crapfest the US has landed them in.
By which standard should Bush not be in Hague?
The standard that what he did has ended a dictatorship. The standard that we have halted WMD production in that portion of the Mid-East.
I asked for a standard. You provided facts (the latter of which, BTW, is a non sequitour, since the UN had already accomplished that). Are you suggesting that toppling a single dictator renders you immunity from charges of war crimes? By that standard Ayatollah Khomeni wasn't a war criminal either...
The standard that not all war is deserving of death for the person waging it.
See, unlike you neobarbs on the other side of the Pond, the Hague doesn't have capital punishment. We don't do things that way on this side of the street.
If the US hadn't gone to war not-so-long ago, you'd be speaking German while hailing Hitler II.
Not at all. I suppose you could be forgiven for not being as familiar with the ebbs and flows of the War as most Europeans, but in fact by the time the US intervened on our behalf, the Germans were effectively broken and routed.
Had the US not intervened, the Cold War would likely have looked rather different, and Europe would hardly be as affluent as it is today, but there is no reason to believe that we wouldn't be free by now - or at worst in 5-10 years. The Sovjet system was too fundamentally flawed for any other outcome.
@ Iran: Do you doubt that the article I linked to represents facts correctly? Do you doubt the Iranian regime knows these facts? Do you doubt that they would draw the same conclusions?
I have no doubts about that. I am saying thte opinions you draw are ill-founded.
Which of them? You just said that we are in agreement when it comes to the basic facts. So which of my conclusions do you disagree with? Why?
But what you wrote struck me as odd. You don't trust the Fox network. You do trust networks that don't cite sources (Fox doesn't either, so that makes it quite even).
This actually deserves a response more than most of what we get here in the 'Chambers. You basically ask me why I trust the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, but distrust Fux News, despite the fact that the DR rarely cites primary sources.
Well, firstly, there's an important difference between 'rarely' and 'almost never'. Secondly, there's degrees of crappyness. Danish newsies are far from impressive. But Fux News' newsies are even less so.
Secondly, in the instances where I know something about the subject firsthand or from other sources, I usually find that the DR got it right, or at least almost right. Fux news is so far off the mark so often that you'll actually be better informed if you don't watch it.
Thirdly, I have never caught the DR in outright lies. And the few times where they have been caught, they have publicly apologised, prominently displayed the correction, and taken steps to prevent repetition. Fux has been repeatedly caught creating stories out of whole cloth, and I know of not one single instance where they have admitted doing so - despite overwhelming evidence.
Finally, the DR is government-funded. That means that it walks a tightrope, because inevitably it's going to piss some politicians off. And inevitably they are going to be in a position where they can actually cut it off at the knees.
The only thing that prevents them from doing that is the fact that without cast-iron proof that the DR has delivered bogus - or at least substantially sub-standard - reports, it'd be political suicide to take action against the DR.
So in a sense that isn't true for any commercial station or newspaper, the DR's very survival as an institution is contingent upon their being both honest and top-of-the-line. (Which unfortunately says some very omnious things about the position of the line...)
You don't even consider what US and UK reps have to say about the war.
I did consider it. It was bogus. The BND said it was bogus. The DGSE said it was bogus. The MI6 said it was bogus. The CIA said it was bogus. And watching the way our own PM became all mealy-mouthed when the talk turned to evidence didn't do wonders for my confidence in their credibility.
You did trust that Saddam didn't have WMDs as he was barring UN inspectors.
I did trust that Hans Blix knew what he was talking about. I did trust that the BND knew what it was talking about. I did trust that the CIA knew what it was talking about.
You do trust that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons,
Let me make one thing crystal - one might even say painfully - clear: I do think that Iran is making nuclear weapons. And I do believe that I said so before.
I think [Ahmadinejad is] basically saying 'yes we're developing nuclear weapons and you'll rue the day you crossed us'.
while no-one with two eyes, two ears, and more processing power than a rock argues that Iran isn't trying to get nuclear weapons.
So that should hopefully put that mistake to rest. The controversy isn't over whether they are making them, the controversy is over what to do about it. And I say that we let it take care of itself. Iranian nuclear weapons aren't a problem.