Maxwell Lol wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:
Prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - Nope.
So WMDs are now proliferating more greatly than before the war. News to me.
Well then, explain to me how we have prevented WMD from proliferating.
I didn't say we did. I said that to "prevent proliferation" was
successful. There has not -as best I know - been a proliferation
of WMDs since the Iraqi war. Let me help me with YOUR argument.
You could (and should have) make the argument that going to
war had *no effect* on WMD proliferation. But you tried to argue
that it did not prevent it - which is, as I said, observably wrong.
To further the war on terror - Nope. Didn't do much for that.
So the ongoing blood/treasure expended by the West has had zero
impact on interdicting in terror activities. Interesting.
Global terror attacks tripled in 2004
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html
Terrorist attacks worldwide increased 25 percent in 2006.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
Now take the "terrorist" attacks out of the war zone and see
what happens to the numbers.
To transform the region - not in a good way. Now Iran is a problem.
Because before, of course, Iran was a paragon if civility having
never funded known terror organizations and/or other states
unfriendly to Western interesting.
It's worse now than before. That's the point.
You obviously have not been paying attention very long.
Iran was and is, a pestiferous dangerous to sane people
everywhere. It has been so since the Ayatollahs took
over. It has been a state sponsor of all manner of terrorist
mischief for literally decades. Now ... go read a book
and discover just how wrong you are about this.
Because of Iraq's links to al Qaeda - No evidence of this
The absence of evidence is not meaningful. Only the presence
of evidence is.
Exactly. We went to war with no evidence of al Qaeda links.
In other words, Bush lied.
You continue to twist language in unusual and entertaining
ways. There was an *apparent presence* of evidence as regards
to WMDs in Iraq at the time the war was initiated. While Bush
may have well been wrong, it does not appear that he lied.
There is no evidence, for example, that my
cat can do calculus, but that doesn't mean he can't. I just don't
know. Similarly - based on this post - there is no evidence you
are familiar with the rules of logic, but that doesn't mean
you aren't. There simply is no evidence to that effect here.
Attack the messenger, not the facts, eh?
You posses few facts, and I was not attacking you personally.
I was attacking your method of reasoning, which appears to
be first driven by agenda and only secondarily by reason.
You are in good company with the likes of Hannity and Coulter.
Because Iraq was an imminent threat - again - no evidence
"Threat" to whom? 90+ US Senators, the US Administration,
the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, and a number of nations I can
no longer recall thought there was some threat *at the time*.
The fact that they were/might have been wrong does not,
prima facia, demonstrate they were dishonest (which is the
implication of your point).
Exactly - another reason for the war that was WRONG.
I do not grasp your logic here at all. i.e., I don't know
how you derive your statement from my previous statement.
I guess the agenda got in front of the grammar in this case.
To disarm Iraq - we really botched this. We are giving them arms.
One hopes you can read more than just the words and see the intent.
I think everyone - on all sides of this issue - understands that
the intent (however well/poorly justified) was to disarm *Sadaam's*
Iraq. Clearly an independent sovereign Iraq will need arms to maintain
civil order and their borders.
I bet you still think democracy will flourish there as well.
I do not, but I don't care one way or the other. The end state
of Iraq is a problem for the Iraqis, not the West.
Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it. -
That was also wrong. There were no WDM.
As it turned out. But the evidence at the time - vetted by multiple
governments and intelligence agencies *around the world* pointed
to there being some.
And where are these "facts" now?
Why is it that all of the "facts" have evaporated? Bush refused to
The arguments put forth at the time are well recorded and
documents. You are going to have to accept that there is
a profound difference between a lie and a mistake in judgement.
Then again, maybe you don't. Certainly the New York Times
can't tell the difference. When Bush makes a bad call, it's
a "lie". When one of their own up-and-coming reports fabricates
entire stories, and get's caught doing so, it's a "mistake".
listen to his experts and twisted the truth to fabricate evidence
(such as Iraq's attempt yo purchase uranium from a African
nation). Joseph C. Wilson point out the lie, and they outed his wife.
This is clear and hard evidence that the Bush administration FAKED evidence,
and did so purposely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/op...rtner=USERLAND
No, what is clear is that Wilson is flatly a liar who contrived to tell a
story that was wrong in much of the detail, and his wife is a self-important
pretty girl who wants the world to think she was the female James Bond
when when she wasn't much more than a high-grade researcher. The
Wilson/Plame thing is the weakest of all possible arguments for
your views.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/