|
12 Jan 05 - 04:17 PM (#1377637) Subject: BS: Oops From: CarolC U.S. Wraps Up Search for Banned Weapons in Iraq "Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the ISG's weapons search, has returned home and is expected next month to issue a final addendum to his September report concluding that prewar Iraq had no WMD stockpiles, officials said... ... The Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year's U.S.-led invasion." Oops |
|
12 Jan 05 - 04:21 PM (#1377642) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Once Famous Oh well. Better safe than sorry. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 04:21 PM (#1377643) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Peace Gee, what a surprise. I wonder how many people will now post that the invasion was always about terrorism; that it was never about WMDs. I love to watch history being rewritten. Good post, Carol. Thank you (from a guy whose mind you helped change--I supported those Washington bastards at first. Cheap trash in the Capitol. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 04:23 PM (#1377648) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Once Famous So next time, we shouldn't be sure, right? I don't want to take that chance. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 04:46 PM (#1377668) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: curmudgeon Tell that to the dead, Martin |
|
12 Jan 05 - 04:52 PM (#1377673) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: PoppaGator "Better safe than sorry." Martin, don't you mean "better war than peace"? I'm sure that's how Haliburton et. al. look at it. But not the families of dead and wounded service members, nor all the "collateral" brown people who have been, and continue to be, slaughtered. Yeah, I know, the insurgents are doing most of the killing by this time. But would it be happening if the US had minded its own business and remained focused on the conflict with Al-Quida? |
|
12 Jan 05 - 05:00 PM (#1377681) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Wesley S Yeah - screw the rule of law. We're the biggest kids on the block so lets just take what we want - right ? It wasn't right in the third grade and it isn't right now. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 05:10 PM (#1377692) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Georgiansilver So what was it really all about....12% of the worlds oil resources? Best wishes. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 05:29 PM (#1377706) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine More like a family feud, I think. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 05:31 PM (#1377709) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bobert Well gol danged! Say it ain't so... Lets see. We attacked Iraq because Condi Rice said that if we didn't we'd wake up one morning with a mushroom cloud over our heads... Wrong. Then it was that Osama and Saddam were all buddied up... Wrong. And the 3rd (and last) reason given in Bush's lead up to the invasion was that Saddam had all these WMD's and was gonna attack us with them... Now that's wrong, too? Well, I reckon we can bring the boys (and gals) home now. Right? Bobert |
|
12 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM (#1377711) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad Nope - Now we're waist deep in the big muddy. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 08:02 PM (#1377775) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bert ...Better safe than sorry... Yeah, what do a few (or tens of thousands of) dead ragheads matter, it's not as if they're AMERICANS, or even human for that matter. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 08:11 PM (#1377789) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: GUEST,Clint Keller Martin honey, how many countries do you think we will have to invade in order to be truly safe? That was a truly stupid remark. clint |
|
12 Jan 05 - 08:25 PM (#1377804) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: akenaton Hans Blix ,the head of the UN weapons inspection team has suggested that representatives of the US govt should present their findings on Iraqi WMDs, and their apologies to a full session of the UN. THe Americans and British were keen enough to present their manufactured intelligence to the UN before the war , so now they should be made to bite the bullet...Ake |
|
12 Jan 05 - 08:37 PM (#1377816) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bobert Hans may be getting some concrete shoes and boat ride if he keeps that up, Ake. These Bushites don't like no ctriticism or suggestions that make sense... Bobert |
|
12 Jan 05 - 08:38 PM (#1377817) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bill D "The US and the world are safer now with Saddam out of power" is the mantra, repeated AGAIN today. Nonsense! We are MUCH more likely to be attacked from more directions now that we (Bush) have stirred up this hornets nest...and we are many billions of dollars poorwith no end in sight. Generals are speaking out, saying we are stretching the military to the limit trying to fight an almost invisible enemy in Iraq. We have few real friends and LOTS more enemies, and National Guard troops on the 3rd rotation. better safe than sorry? crap! Better be SURE before we go chasing will-o-the-wisps in the sand again! |
|
12 Jan 05 - 08:58 PM (#1377835) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: akenaton Channel 4 News in the UK did a report from Fallujah last night. They sent in a camera team, with and Iraqi doctor doing the voice over. Fallujah was almost deserted,with its inhabitants who had fled the fighting,living in squalid camps. The city had been totally destroyed, hardly a building was intact. In some of the ruined houses, the cameras showed whole families massacred in their beds,the bodies left to rot more than a month after the battle. The displaced inhabitants of Fallujah will be ineligible to vote in the forthcoming "democratic" elections...Ake |
|
12 Jan 05 - 09:06 PM (#1377839) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: The Fooles Troupe It's just the beginning of the end for the USA as a 'Great Power". it will take quite some time, and what worries me is the large stockpile of WMDs that the greatest rogue nation in the world possesses.... |
|
12 Jan 05 - 09:06 PM (#1377840) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Teresa How many WMDs does Saudi Arabia have? How about Egypt? How about Isreal? Woops, those are other cans of worms. One man's ally is another man's terrorist. And that even changes from year to year! Absolute black-hearted money- and powergrubbing arrogance. Teresa |
|
12 Jan 05 - 09:27 PM (#1377852) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: akenaton Yes , but are we not all complicite in the atrocities committed by our governments. Half of America voted for Bush,and although the war is unpopular in Britain,protest has died away to a mere whisper. It appears that we have become immune to the effects of war, and right or wrong no longer comes into the equation. If we are not to be completely swamped by the "forces of darkness",we must stir ourselves and protest in any way we can,not only against the war ,but against the brutal system which is the real cause of suffereing throughout the word. G8 Summit, Gleneagles Hotel, Perthshire, Scotland,July 2005 |
|
12 Jan 05 - 09:30 PM (#1377855) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Peace "Hans may be getting some concrete shoes and boat ride if he keeps that up . . .". In Montreal, that was referred to as a verticle trip down the river. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 09:38 PM (#1377859) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bobert Thankee, brucie, fir a little Canadaian education though I didn't think folks up there did that kinda stuff... B~ |
|
12 Jan 05 - 09:39 PM (#1377860) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: pdq To get facts 'straight from the horse's mouth', as it t'were (or for most Mudcatters, another part of the horse's anatomy!) you can tune-in to ABC's 20-20 this Friday. Barbara Walters will be broadcasting an interview of President Bush and this subject will be addressed. |
|
12 Jan 05 - 09:43 PM (#1377862) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Peace The time Martin spoke of--when the US presented 'evidence' of a terrorist/Iraq connection--necessitated that Americans support the actions of its government and military. I agreed with both Martin--and disagreed with the decision of my own country not to support the Iraq invasion--because it looked like it was a 'must do' think. That is why I will not jump on Martin, DougR or others that still support the US action. I do not mean to be patronizing when I say I understand. I do. However, my view today is that lotsa people got hoodwinked--good and bad people, no matter. What does matter is that kids are getting killed for bullshit reasons. It's time that we all demanded they no longer have to die on the altar of our vanity. The garbage who falsified info leading to the deaths of kids in the military deserve to be tried, convicted and shot. It won't bring the dead back, but it may set a tone for future generations: people who do this stuff WILL be held accountable. Waist deep in the Big Muddy indeed! And waist deep in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of civilians: children, women and men. There is no longer ANY honour in this. IMO. BM |
|
12 Jan 05 - 10:04 PM (#1377874) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: akenaton Yes Bruce, but you are a fair minded guy and not a bitter old cynic like some of us who were against this war right from the outset. The difference between you and the likes of Doug and Martin, is that you are capable of independent thought, are able to understand the evidence of your own eyes and ears, and care deeply about injustice,especially against helpless women and children. As my old pal used to say "the man who never made a mistake,never made anything" and it takes a big man to admit he may have been wrong. Take it easy on yourself my friend ...Ake |
|
12 Jan 05 - 10:13 PM (#1377879) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bobert What Ake said, brucie... As one who fought to stop the invasion during the Bushite sales job, I respect the heck out of you... I really do... Sniff... Bobert |
|
12 Jan 05 - 10:22 PM (#1377884) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Teresa Brucie, honesty and integrity count a *lot* in my book. Thanks for telling it like it is. XX Teresa |
|
13 Jan 05 - 02:09 AM (#1377973) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: robomatic I haven't forgotten that so many of us were CERTAIN that there were WMD's in Iraq, including a lot of European nations and a lot of anti-war (let sanctions and diplomacy take their course) folks. And I'm very unhappy with both our 'intelligence' and the presentation of that 'intelligence' before the country and the world. I was paying attention, and Bush, Cheney, Rummy et. al. were talking as if they'd seen the satellite snaps, which I think was their intention. There is no doubt that funny stuff was going on. Iraq had used poison gas on Kurds, the UN inspectors had documented the movement of centrifugal uranium concentrators. So we are led to believe that Iraq had used all the gas they had? How were we supposed to know? (Yeah, I know, satellites, spies, and the U.N.) Calling allied actions atrocities is wrong. You can question motivations, you can question strategy and tactics all with justification, but there ain't been any atrocities. (So a nasty jailer man wanted to 'walk the dog....") There have certainly been atrocities from the irregulars who, as an example, have been making examples of their own people, taping their bloody executions, then posting them on the web. Pres. Bush has some problems with expressing himself. PM Tony Blair has been eloquent in explaining our actions there. AND What's this say about IRAQI intelligence, both their ability to gather information and their ability to make good decisions? They could have done a lot more before the war in order to forestall this kind of activity. I think this points out that Saddam was not just an evil vicious f*k but a STUPID evil vicious f*k. And he had the rest of his people so cowed or ignorant that they had no way to deal effectively with the outside world. They had it coming. Whether or not they had it coming from us, yeah it's a point of debate. NEXT: Now how about Kim Jong Il? We're already in the neighborhood..... |
|
13 Jan 05 - 02:22 AM (#1377976) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: dianavan robo - They could have done a lot more before the war in order to forestall this kind of activity. I think this points out that Bush was not just an evil vicious f*k but a STUPID evil vicious f*k. And he had the rest of his people so cowed or ignorant that they had no way to deal effectively with the outside world. They had it coming. This is exactly how most of the world views American Intelligence at this time. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 11:47 AM (#1378081) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Once Famous Peace, love, dove. And all you Arab terrorists in training out there, we're watching. You are next. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 11:51 AM (#1378089) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Once Famous We don't care what bitches think. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 12:03 PM (#1378106) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: DougR So, Bill D., you believe the old adage, "leave the sleeping dog lie," would have solved the terrorist problem? That has been tried since the 1970's but they didn't continue to "lie" did they? There is no doubt that the leaders of every major country in the world thought Saddam had WPM (how many times have we gone through this one?)including George W. Bush, Tony Blair, et al. Evidently, they did not. If anyone is to blame for the Iraqi war, it is Saddam. All he had to do was allow unimpared inspections by the U.N. and adhere to the U.N. Resolutiions and there would have been no war. He brought it upon himself, and unfortunately, it is the Iraqi people who have suffered as a result. DougR |
|
13 Jan 05 - 12:04 PM (#1378108) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: GUEST We don't care what Martin Gibson thinks. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 12:51 PM (#1378167) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: robomatic I want to modify my previous posted paragraph about atrocities. Having just read the New York Times article reviewing books coming out on the prison scandal, it is established that the problem on the part of US treatment of prisoners was and is endemic and serious. If it happened to me personally it would indeed be something I would remember as an atrocity, and the remark about 'walk the dog' in retrospect was callous on my part. The reason not to engage in torture is not so much that is generally ineffective, which it is, but what it does to us. I hold to my comments on Saddam and disagree with Dianavan's use of my comment to characterize the US President. I want to repeat something I've said elsewhere and elsewhen: Bush is the leader we've got. The Islamic fascist terror problem is real. Rather than tear down the leader you've got, you work with him and his crew, but fight the errors of their ways as best you can. I would respectfully ask dianavan to be specific in what more they could have done. I can say what more the UN could have done. It is much much easier to demonstrate what the UN has not done: In Rwanda, in Darfur, in Iraq. However, I also believe that while we should make an effort to work with the President and PM we've got, we should also work with the UN we've got. While I believe the UN is rife with corruption and some of the worst cut-throats in the world, cutting off the UN on our part would be bad in the long term. It's a nasty old world, and Bush, for better or worse, is approaching it like a marshall going into Dodge City. And that's not all wrong. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 01:01 PM (#1378179) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bill D Doug...you are simply evading the point ...again.... "let sleeping dogs lie" is a fine idea when the dogs are locked in a yard and well watched, and you never SAW them bury any dangerous bones! I never said Saddam should have been 'left alone' to do evil forever, nor have I said or suggested that terrorism should not be fought in the right place. I never said a WORD when our forces were pursuing Osama in Afghanistan, and I would have cheered if they'd caught him...etc.. But THIS WAR in Iraq was a lame, careless, misguided pretense at 'fighting terrorism'...At the time it was started, the terrorists that we wanted were NOT connected to Iraq, and it has been **SHOWN** since that the information that Saddam had serious weapons was flawed and suspect, even then!!!!! And...even if Iraq had been proved to have WMDs, we (meaning Bush & Co.) chose the wrong way to go about doing anything about it!. We had little support for that invasion, because most other nations could see that the risk, when balanced against the weak evidence, was dangerous. If we were in this current situation, with billions being spent and thousands of soldiers being killed because a Democrat had invaded Iraq on such shakey evidence, you would be howling for his skin! |
|
13 Jan 05 - 01:09 PM (#1378185) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Bobert Dougie, You forget to take your memory pill again? You gloss over the fact that Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors when Bush couldn't stand yet another day without having *his* war. He was like a 17 year old kid who was about to loose his virginity when it came wanting *his* war and like *now*... Yeah, even Hanz Blix was giving favorable reports on almost a daily basis prior to the invasion. Scott Ritter who was a member of the inspection team in the late 90's was telling eveyone that would listen that Saddam didn't have these scarey weapons. Scott Ritter was blackballed by every corporate media source in America. We anti-war folks had better intellegence than what Cheney (who made daily trips over to the CIA and FBI offices to push folks around) made them tell Bush. Cheney had allready made up his mind what he wanted the Intellegence folks to say... Now, the BUsh folks are using the "executive priviledge" to cover up Cheney's role in fabricating the "BIG LIE"... Just as they have been doing over the Cheney/Enron so called "Energy Policy"... Well, Bush and the neocons got what Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz has wanted going back to 1992 and I hope they still enjoying it because every day I run into more and more of my friends who no longer think it was such a good idea... To twist on a line from an old Jethro Tull song : It was a new war yesterday, it's an old war now... Bobert |
|
13 Jan 05 - 01:32 PM (#1378217) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Don Firth And as far as this upcoming election thing goes, it looks like the Bushies have managed to start a holy war between the Shi-ites and the Sunnis. That's what this whole insurgency thing is about. The Shi-ites are in the majority, and the Sunnis might well have cause to be apprehensive about the outcome of any "democratic" election in Iraq. No wonder their trying to stop it. Old Middle East hands could (and did) predict something like this, but the Bush Administration, with its hubris and abyssmal ignorance, insisted on blundered right on in. Don Firth |
|
13 Jan 05 - 01:36 PM (#1378224) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Grab you believe the old adage, "leave the sleeping dog lie," would have solved the terrorist problem? That has been tried since the 1970's but they didn't continue to "lie" did they? When was this tried, exactly? Iran? Iraq? Grenada? Panama? Cuba? Vietnam? Laos? Cambodia? Afghanistan? Chile? The last thing the US did in any of these cases was let them "lie" - instead, the US actively dug itself in and either funded repressive regimes as its pawns (several of whom subsequently turned against the US) or sent in its troops. Every one of these has turned out to be a fuckup of massive proportions. And every one has been directly caused by the US government's foreign policy of intervention that's been running for the last 40-50 years. In the last 30 years, the only successes I can think of that the US military has had were Bosnia and Gulf War I, and those were achieved together with UN forces from many other countries, and with a UN mandate. If you can name any more, please let me know. There is no doubt that the leaders of every major country in the world thought Saddam had WPM Except they told the world they had evidence that Saddam had WMDs. Since they now can't produce any evidence, they were clearly lying through their teeth when they said that, weren't they? Graham. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 01:41 PM (#1378233) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: GUEST,George Bush hello I no I am a stoopid evil f*ck - that is what yoo wood like me too say. Butt I shull nevar say this becos I am the big cheese in this world and I rule america and I am the best. It is my world and if I want too f*ck it up then I can. Mwahahahaha. and Toni Bleer is up my ass in moor ways than wun. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 02:13 PM (#1378279) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Teresa Hahahahahahahahahahaha Nononoonononononononono, I am not "working withhim". I ccan think for myself, thank you, and I don't need any "president" to do it for me. I didn't vote for him, and he is not *my* president. He has done dangerous deeds. Not in my name. Authoritarians and militant ignoramuses and bigots don't speak for me. I live here because my family is here and I love this land. That is the *only* reason. Teresa |
|
13 Jan 05 - 02:15 PM (#1378281) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Amos If anyone is to blame for the Iraqi war, it is Saddam. DougR: Saddam was provocative, but there is only one decision point that resulted in the war goping hot. That decuision was made solely and only, in the final analysis, by Little Bush. He ignored advice to the contrary and accepted advice supporting it; he ignored the moral cost and exagerrated any moral support he could find even if it was false. He ignored the costly consequernces and projected false pictures as to how inexpensive it would be. Immersing himself in this fraudulent aura of lies and exaggerations and ignoral, he pulled the trigger and sent 1500 Americans tot heir deaths, over 100,000 Iraquis to their deaths, and thousnads of others on both sides into lives of ruination. And he has no regrets. He has NO regrets. "I do not regret bringing ruination into thousands of lives because it was a good idea at the time...". The man is a leather-headed fascist with the conscience of coprolite. A A |
|
13 Jan 05 - 02:57 PM (#1378334) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Once Famous Go suck coprolite, Amos Take coprolite up your ass, Amos. I'm sure it won't burn. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 04:13 PM (#1378405) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: GUEST,Diogenes It's only mid afternoon Mudcat time and Martin Gibson has posted 27 times already, all posts spewing hate. He's really piss off. That's because he didn't get any last night. Or the night before. Or the night before that. Or.......... |
|
13 Jan 05 - 04:19 PM (#1378414) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Once Famous Guest Dog Genes It's not for that reason. I have to give you something to do today like count my posts. slow day at the office, today. but not as desparate as your actions. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 04:46 PM (#1378438) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: GUEST,Diogenes It took me about 30 seconds to count your posts, Martin Gibson. Anyone who has been around Mudcat for a few months knows how to do it if they have a brain and pay attention. As a philosopher, a cynic, and a chicken inspector, studying featherless bipeds like you is my businss. |
|
13 Jan 05 - 04:48 PM (#1378442) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: *Laura* Miaw! |
|
13 Jan 05 - 04:53 PM (#1378444) Subject: RE: BS: Oops From: Once Famous You lick your balls too kindly Dog Genes. Can you reach around and sniff your butt, also? I'm having a great time on the Mudcat today. feel especially spunky. What are you doing here today? Your a philosopher, alright. anyone can analyze their own navel. Do you have a beard and are you fat? |
|
17 Jan 05 - 08:09 AM (#1380479) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Peter K (Fionn) better safe than sorry Benjamin Franklin said something a little bit wiser than that: Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. It is the tragedy of our times that a nation founded on such noble principles should have fallen into the hands of people who, like Martin Gibson, compensate for their inadequacies with swagger and bombast. Robomatic, DougR and others cannot get themselves off the hook by saying "We were not alone. Everyone else thought there were WMDs too." First the point has been well made that many people thought no such thing and said so at the time. Second, those governments and people who did think there were WMDs thought so on the strength of so-called "intelligence" - almost exclusively of the US/UK variety. And is there no end to Martin Gibson's hollow bluster? For instance: And all you Arab terrorists in training out there, we're watching. Just like he was watching when Arab terrorists trained for 9-11, right under his nose in the US? These Arab terrorists must be quaking with fear. Unless they've noticed (unlike Martin) that the US is already stretched to the limit, failing abysmally to make its writ run in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Sure the CIA are scouting in Iran at present preparatory to some inaccurate bombing from high altitude, but it's a feeble sort of terrorist who would be fazed by civilian deaths in Iran.) |
|
17 Jan 05 - 08:14 AM (#1380483) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: beardedbruce "First the point has been well made that many people thought no such thing and said so at the time. " EXCEPT that NONE of them EVER asked Saddam to bother to comply with the UN resolution, in order to prevent the war. You know, the LAST CHANCE that the UN declared him to be in NON-COMPLIANCE with. So, I hold all of those people mentioned in the quote to be at least as guilty as Bush of causing the war- IF NOT MORE SO. After all, Bush can plead ignorance. Just ask Amos. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 02:19 PM (#1380755) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: kendall Well said, Bobert. There were no WMD's and 7 years of inspections should have been enough.His own people told him there were no WMD's, but he didn't want to hear it. The whole thing was based on a lie; Bush wanted and planned to invade Iraq before he became president, but, enough people believed his lies to get him where he is, and we will live with his pile of shit long after he is gone. We may never recover the respect we once enjoyed around the world, but there are those who will say, "So what? we are big enough so we don't have to care what the world thinks." Arrogance is contageous. So is stupidity. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM (#1380888) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow The war has made the world a far more dangerous place. And the indications are it has in many ways made Iraq an even worse place to live than it was under Saddam, especially for women. All the reasons given for the war have turned out to be false. In these cirvumstances the only honest thing for people who supported it, even Blair, is to say is "Sorry, we got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake - we really believed those things we said." (Except that in the case of Blair he avoids actually using the word "Sorry".) That seems to be the general thing that many of the politicians and media people in the UK who backed the war are saying anyway. From this thread I get the impression that in the USA there is more of a tendency to say "Don't confuse us with facts - we were right all along, and we still are right." Is this really how it is? |
|
17 Jan 05 - 05:49 PM (#1380898) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow The war has made the world a far more dangerous place. And the indications are it has in many ways made Iraq an even worse place to live than it was under Saddam, especially for women. All the reasons given for the war have turned out to be false. In these cirvumstances the only honest thing for people who supported itis to say is "Sorry, we got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake - we really believed those things we said." That seems to be the general thing that many of the politicians and media people in the UK who backed the war are saying anyway. Even Blair. (Except that in the case of Blair he avoids actually using the word "Sorry".) From this thread I get the impression that in the USA there is more of a tendency to say "Don't confuse us with facts - we were right all along, and we still are right." Is this really how it is? |
|
17 Jan 05 - 05:53 PM (#1380901) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Yes, McGrath. That's how it is. There's always a reason for everything they do, and they try to justify all of it. |
|
17 Jan 05 - 08:45 PM (#1381056) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert Not to mention that CBS fired 4 of their execs and are pushing San REather into an early retirement over using documents that *may* (but may not...) have been falsified in which no one died and here over 100,000 innocent folks have been killed by the Bushite' falsified documents and not only no one gets fired but the falsifier gets a friggin' medal??? Would any of you Bushites like to explain the reasoning??? Didn't think so.... Bobert |
|
17 Jan 05 - 08:58 PM (#1381064) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST,George W. Bush "I guess I goofed. I wanted so much to believe that the hateful stuff I fed Rummy was acurat. Achually, I got most of this hype from Dick who has shared with me a lot of money from the rebuilding efforts and the privatised military efforts in Iraq. Sorry, George |
|
18 Jan 05 - 07:16 AM (#1381258) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST Er, what LAST CHANCE, beardedbruce? Oh, you mean resolution 1441? The one that US Ambassador Negroponte encouraged nations to vote for by giving a categorical assurance that it was not a trigger for war? (That would be why Kofi Annan, when pressed, gave a view shared by most international jurists around the world, including most in the UK, that the war was illegal.) Maybe Saddam played awkward with the US to avoid loss of face on the home front. So what? He wasn't compromising the inspections, and Hans Blix and his team were strongly of the view that the inspections regime should have been given more time. (After all, "Iraq is as big as France" as we heard parroted endlessly while the survey group was at work.) Maybe, beardedbruce, you just think that anyone who teases the Bush administration deserves to have his civilian population slaughtered in tens of thousands. Well I, for one, am delighted that Washington is now paying, in cash and loss of worldwide respect, for the mess it's created. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 08:48 AM (#1381267) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST,Peter K Previous post was mine. Came in by the back door again when Mudcat was down (again). |
|
18 Jan 05 - 10:26 AM (#1381290) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST,Wolfgang The WMD danger was the only (or the main, depending on which old article you read) reason for strting the war. If that's true I would expect Bush to say: "With the information then that I have now, we wouldn't have started the war." He doesn't say that. Am I very wrong in inferring from that that he never really took serious the WMD reasoning in the first place? Wolfgang |
|
18 Jan 05 - 12:41 PM (#1381403) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Nerd Uh, oh, Wolfgang is trying to confuse us with logic again! Beardedbruce, using the UN resolutions as a justification for war is poor logic. If the UN is a meaningful body, then its own wishes should be respected as to how its resolutions are enforced. The UN was against the invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, if the UN is NOT a meaningful body, then its resolutions should be held to be irrelevant. Saying that the UN resolutions must be enforced regardless of the UN's opinion on how they should be enforced is a classic case of wanting to have it both ways. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 02:07 PM (#1381488) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow The bottom line was that Saddam was ordered to get rid of the WMDs, and in fact it is now clear that he did in fact do so. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 05:17 PM (#1381683) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Donuel The war of the abstract noun: War against Terrorism. Were going to war to get the bastards who did 9-11 and were going in 16 months to look for you in Afghanistan so please be there. Rats, we missed em. Oh well bring em on in Iraq. We got Hussein, nah na na na nah nah. .......................... All you need to do is ask Condi Rice if all is well with the war. She will tell you yes. But be careful to not pursue an expanded answer or you will be accused of insulting her integrity. |
|
18 Jan 05 - 05:57 PM (#1381724) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert And lets not forget before the revisionists come thru and try to rewrite the nightmare-ish policies of this most immoral adminstration that what it boiled down to was Bush telling Saddam that Saddam, if he didn't want to get whacked, had to prove that he didn't have WMDs??? LIke, how does one go about proving they don't have something??? When I brought this question up back before the invasion, Teribus, et al, wrote "War 'n Peace" length rebuttals that never quite got around to answering this very basic question... Hmmmmmm? Now here's what to this very day I don't understand and maybe a bb, or one of the other blind followers of Bush, might have an answer: Like, ahhhh, if millions of folks seemed to have the "intellegence" that the Big Three (mishroom clouds, WMD's and Al Qeada connection) were bogus, then why is Bush now hiding behind the "Gee, I acted on the intellegence I had"????? Yeah, Bushites. Answer us that one, if you can... Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:33 AM (#1382108) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang On the other hand, Hussein's actions are also very hard to understand for me. Millions of folks could tell that the threat of the USA in case of noncooperation was not bogus. Then why did he lead his country into that nightmare of defeat, loss of life and possible split up into at least three different parts? That's his responsibility and I don't believe he was in error of the consequences. Wolfgang |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:49 AM (#1382115) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: beardedbruce Wolfgang, Perhaps Saddam was listening to his friends in the UN who were making money off violating the UN sanctions. Or perhaps Saddam was listening to all the people who insisted that the US should do nothing, and who NEVER hinted that Saddam should comply with the 14 years of UN resolutions. Perhaps the words and actions of those here who insist the US should not have attacked, even after the UN declared Saddam in violation of the resolutions gave him enough encouragement to think that he was not in danger of attack. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:30 AM (#1382139) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Amos The war was begun by George Bush; he planned to start the war,a pparently, from long before he actually coud and did do so. I do not believe his real rational has ever been honestly, clearly and completely laidout. I believe one reason is that he does not have a genuine rationale, and deployed the greatest military force in the world without a well-reasoned rationale for doing so. In this, he was criminally negligent, and perhaps even guilty of murder. Because he called it war, he will escape standing trial for murder; but it was murderous and inept at very best. A |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:35 AM (#1382142) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: beardedbruce The war was begun by Saddam, when he invaded Kuwait. I believe that, with the information available at the time, had Bush NOT taken action against Iraq, he would have been criminally negligent and guilty of violating his oath of office. I also belive, as I have stated before, that the implementation of the attack and occupation was not well thought out. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 08:21 AM (#1382193) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert Fine, bb, then Bush Ist should have continued killing Iraqi's until they were all dead. Remember the "Highway of Death", bb? The world opinion was turning against the US with every hour as the US bombed people who were in retreat. But if you were president, I'm sure you would have bombed Iraq back into the Stone Age because you can bet that Saddam would have been in the most secure area meaning that by the time you got to him everyone else in Iraq would already be dead... But I am very curious about your reason fro attacking Iraq. Have you given up on the ususal list? I can't think of anyone in the Bush administartion touting the "Kuwait occupation" some 12 years earlier as the motivation for the invasion. Maybe you should email that one to the Bush PR folks 'cause they are running low on excuses... And lastly, at the time of the invasion, Saddam's government was cooperating with the inspectors and doing everything that Bush was asking of him. This, sadly, is fact and not something that is debatable. Go back to the archives of the Washington Post in the run up to the war and reread the real events that took place in the months before the attack, if you have forgotten them... Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 08:41 AM (#1382208) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Stu Amos wrote: "The man is a leather-headed fascist with the conscience of coprolite." MG wrote: "Go suck coprolite, Amos Take coprolite up your ass, Amos. I'm sure it won't burn." Nice to see some Ichnology on the Mudcat! Excellent debating technique Martin. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 08:52 AM (#1382217) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Donuel "Running out of excuses" will be my next cartoon. Calling any of the cast of PNAC characters to task is out of bounds. Their appointed puppet leader GWB was appointed by God, so all these events are not manmade but instead an act of God. Has anyone ever asked Bush if he was appointed by the father the son or the holy ghost? |
|
19 Jan 05 - 09:29 AM (#1382245) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert I'll gladly forgo any royalties, Donuel... Have at it... Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 03:02 PM (#1382481) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow Hussein's actions are also very hard to understand for me There are at least two fairly plausible explanations for why Saddam wasn't completely open about having got rid of his WMDs. They aren't alternatives, because each would have reinforced the other. One is that he could have been hoping that the threat of them might actually deter an attack which was otherwise sure to take place. It seems pretty certain to me that if he had been completely open, and cooperated fully, this would have been treated as just another lie, and underhand manoeuvre, and that the attack would have gone ahead anyway. (After all he did in fact repeatedly say that there were no WMDs.) I suspect that the main reason the attack had to be pushed ahead so rapidly, before many necessary preparations had even been completed, was a fear that Saddam might move to cooperate fully with Blix's inspection, and that growing evidence that there were no WMDs would undermine the justification for the attack. The second plausible explanation is that, if the people in Iraq who hated Saddam's regime had known that the stocks of gas no longer existed, and that in many ways he was a paper tiger, the possibility of an effective overthrowal of that regime would have been greatly increased. Moreoever that would have been likely to throw up a replacement regime whch was no less hostile to the USA than Saddam's, but was far more dangerous because far more popular. Which would have been another reason for the rush to war. Too much delay, and the other justification for the invasion, that it was the way of getting rid of Saddam, might no longer be available, because the Iraqis might have done the job themselves My own belief throughout has been that, if the USA and its junior partners had really believed in the existence of these massive stocks of WMDs, they would have proceeded far more cautiously. This suggests that the Bush and the Pentagon and Blair and the War Office actually had a pretty good picture of the real situation so far as these weapons were concerned. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM (#1382531) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang You're right, McGrath. On that level of 'understanding' (seeing what may have motivated him to act like he did) there are plausible explanations for Hussein's behaviour. I also can 'understand' some of Hitler's actions when I think this way. But when I think of the foreseeable consequences Hussein's behaviour had for his country and his people I still have much less 'understanding' (in the sense of agreeing with what he did). I wish he had made an attack much less likely by a full cooperation, but obviously he didn't care at all about his people up to the last day in power. Wolfgang |
|
19 Jan 05 - 04:52 PM (#1382579) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Pauline L A day or two after the election, in a self-congratulatroy speech, Bush said that we are bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration now admits that the upcoming election in Iraq is "less than perfect." The administration believes that this is a good reason to continue the war, with no end in sight, per Condoleeza Rice. Meanwhile, someone has said that there might be WMDs in Iran. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:02 PM (#1382589) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Once Famous Stigweard or Stigweird or whatever you call yourself No one says one has to come here and debate. I can just tell you your opinion sucks and walk out the door. where does it say I have to debate anything that I don't agree with. we don't all have to be like Amos and PRETEND we know everything and act like we are pseudo intellectual teaching assistants in rumpled sports jackets with patches on their elbows. I like posting an opinion, that's all. You can like it or not. Fuck wasting time debating a bunch of crap that isn't going to convince anyone here, anyway. Why don't you go suck coprolite, Stickweird? |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:13 PM (#1382597) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang Excellent debating technique Martin. (Stigweard) Stigweard, Martin is a very generous person: you praise him and he gives you a new sample. Wolfgang |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:22 PM (#1382601) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Amos But you'll notice, not highly original. He borrowed my subject twice just o say something nasty. But it is a big improvement, since most of the cheap stuff he borrows has been used several million times. A |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM (#1382608) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert Plus, Stigweard, Anything more than three lines from Martin contitutes then highest level of debating from him. I think you got 6 or 7. You must really have gotten unner the boy's skin... Another reason that Martin doesn't like to debate is because he knows he's wrong which I think speaks volumes about his intellegence. Folks like beardedbruce aren't smart enuff to know they are wrong so they just debate wrong ideas and facts after other wrong ideas and facts... But not so with Martin. Thats a sure sign of an intellegent wrong thinking person... So cheer up, my friend... Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM (#1382609) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Once Famous what subject amos? the subject of your anus? Sniff, sniff. do I smell a hhijacked thread? Is this now another thread about Amos and me? all because I voiced MY opinion which you didn't fucking like? Hah! Wolfgang, I hardly looked at Stickyweird's comments as praise. I look at it as possibly another guy who only hears what he likes to hear. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 05:53 PM (#1382627) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think "understanding" why someone might have done something ever implies agreeing with what they have done. Once we understand why someone has carried out an action, we might indeed sometimes go on to agree with that they have done, in the light of out having a fuller appreciation of the actual circumstances and options. But "understanding" and "agreeing" are two entirely separate processes. In some circumstances fuller appreciation might in fact serve to change our opinion the other way. For example we might think some action justifiable, but change our minds about that when we reach a fuller understanding of the circumstances. (Some people have indicated that they now see the Iraq invasion in that way.) Clearly if Saddam Hussein had been concerned for the wellbeing of his people he would have made an invasion far harder to carry through by resigning and going into exile, or by shooting himself. However, fairly clearly, the wellbeing of his people was not a high priority for him, or rather he was incapable of seeing their interests as detached from his own. He can reasonably be categorised as a megalomaniac. There are a lot of powerful and important people in all parts of the world who are rather like that. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:04 PM (#1382636) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Of course, if people in the US really cared about the wellbeing of the Iraqi people, they wouldn't keep advocating punishments for Saddam (for not caring about his people), that hurt the Iraqi people at least as much as, if not more than they hurt Saddam. Saddam is still alive after all. This certainly cannot be said about the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:09 PM (#1382644) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert It could also be argued that no one, except a few folks in Bush's inner circle, actually thought he was evil enough to actually go beyond the bluff. Even though I marched in just about every anit-war demonstartion in DC prior to the invasion, deep down inside I was saying to myself, "Man, he really can't be this evil". I always figgured that he'd figure some way out of the bluff. I don't blame Saddam in that in the run up to the invasion Saddam did everything that was asked of him except leave, which I'm sure he would have thought to be a hopeless trap. No, I put the blame 100% on the Bushites. Not 99.9%.... Bush made up his mind on this inasion the day that the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida... Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:17 PM (#1382649) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow 100 per cent on Bush, and 100 per cent on Saddam. (And Blair? I doubt if he could have stopped Bush by refusing to back him up, so possibly a bit lower down. Basically a bit player.) |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:23 PM (#1382653) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: akenaton I really dont know why we are still debating the rights and wrongs of the war,there is simply nothing left to debate. Those who still attempt to justify our actions in Iraq, both in government and here in Mudcat, are either stupid or evil, (take your pick). The latest photographs showing British troops physically abusing and sexually degrading Iraqi civilians is unspeakable,and gives the lie to those that politicians call "our brave boys". Most are in reality psycopaths after a few months of military training. Perhaps the only good thing to come from this dreadfull episode, is that our much vaunted Western democracy and its championing of human rights,is shown to be the biggest lie ever told...Ake |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:37 PM (#1382665) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Amos It would be nice to see George and Hussein tried together. Failing that, they could be just tied together and left somewhere remote. A |
|
19 Jan 05 - 06:42 PM (#1382671) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert How do you figure 100% on Saddam, McG??? Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 08:48 PM (#1382773) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow He could probably have stopped the rush to war in its tracks, if he had shot himself, or even retired to a luxury villa in Saudi Arabia or Florida. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 09:10 PM (#1382801) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Once Famous Yep, like Ake said, stupid or evil. I'll go with stupid, as in get a life. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM (#1382803) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert Come on McG... Yer a smart feller... Think about it... Put yerself in Saddam shoes fir a minute... Yer doing everything that Bush is askin'... Yer opening up one presidental compound after another trying to satisfy Bush... Then Bush finally says, "Hey, just leave"... Yeah right, McG?... If I'm Saddam I ain't going nowhere... No, make that NOWHERE... Like the Bush's are some folks to be trusted here??? They're gonna kill me, fir sure... Hey, these are the same folks who gave me a bunch of chemical weapons to use on folks and now they are using this as an excuse to kill me??? These are the folks that gave me a big ol' wink when I told them that I was gonna occupy Kuwait then killed off a couple hundred of my people for doing it??? They're gonna kill me. Sho nuff are... These are the folks who brought me presents after I had gassed the Kurds and now they are painting me as the badest man to ever live??? They are gonna kill me!!! These are the same folks who provided me the intellegence that I used to kill off a couple hundred thousand Iranians for them and now I'm the bad guy??? HEY, THEY *ARE* GONNA KILL ME!!!!!! Now Iz not trying to make Saddam a saint 'cause, like other dictators, many of whom the Bush folks have bno problems with, he is a bad man but is he responsible for Bush being even a badder man? I don't think so. I'm stickin' with putting the invasion of Iraq 100% on the shoulders of the man who gets the credit/blame: George W. Bush! No one else... Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 09:23 PM (#1382808) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: akenaton Martin..Although you express right wing views occasionally, I give you credit for not attempting to justify the Iraq situation. On reading your few serious posts, i would say your ideas on freedom,patriotism ect are miles away from the thoughts of the neo-cons Ake |
|
19 Jan 05 - 09:28 PM (#1382813) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert Oh, don't try gettin' all warm and fuzzy wid ol' MG, Ake, 'er he'll surely tell you to stick some nasty thing into a body cavity... Sho nuff will... Bobert |
|
19 Jan 05 - 11:25 PM (#1382877) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Once Famous No Bobert, I will tell you to go fuck yourself with a broomstick. Ake has many times said some kind things about my thoughts and opinions. What's the matter Bobert? There are plenty more who've PM'd me in support of me not buying your complete left-wing radical doper baby politics. I get praised often for having the guts to stand up to the crap that you and your gang of Amos (the anus) and Donuel dish out in your daily whinefest campaign against America. As long as you do, I will constantly be there to remind you how full of crap you all are and how you take for granted the good things about living in this country. I don't need to debate you. There's no debate and it's a waste of my time to do so, but I will let you know that I think it's completely doper politics. You're a square peg in a round hole America Bobert. And you have to write here every day the same old song and dance to try to justify it. |
|
19 Jan 05 - 11:33 PM (#1382886) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Amos Nice try, Martin. Bobert was making an important point, but you lost it. You didn't speak to the issue. All you can do is cavil and call names, and whine in your own little way. Bobert at least says what he thinks rather than resorting to personal attacks and teenage insults. One decision, alone, began the hot war; it was the first order to cross into Iraq and head for Baghdad, and the order following shortly thereafter to drop a missile on a nightclub where the Hussein and sons clique were supposedly hiding, but weren't. Both those orders lay on one desk for signature, no other. A |
|
20 Jan 05 - 12:18 AM (#1382911) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: DougR Question; who won the election in 2004? Seems that he majority of voters selected GWB, so it really doesn't matter a rat's ass what the left wingers think. Get yourself organized and elect your owwn candidate in 2008. Whining is unbecoming. DougR |
|
20 Jan 05 - 01:08 AM (#1382936) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST,Clint Keller Jeez, Doug-- Nixon won an election or two. So did Warren Harding. And U S Grant. Huey Long. That dead guy in Missouri that beat Ashcroft. Winning an election doesn't mean you're smart, honest or competent or even alive; it just means you can win elections sometimes. clint |
|
20 Jan 05 - 01:28 AM (#1382939) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Peace "so it really doesn't matter a rat's ass what the left wingers think." I hope you are just talkin', Doug, and that you don't really mean this. It matters what ALL people in a democratic country think. If an election negates the thoughts of half its citizens, then maybe the country has to take a second look at itself and its way of evaluating the wishes, aspirations and hopes of its people. I was in Quebec when Bill 101 passed. It basically stripped my rights as a citizen. What Canada had done to Quebec, Quebec did to its English-speaking residents. Please don't ever think that the people who 'lost' an election have lost their rights. It's a very dangerous way to think. If you really think that (which I don't believe), then your country has found a road to civil war. Mine did, and we are still trying to get things patched. War is an easy place to get to and a bitch to get out of. |
|
20 Jan 05 - 04:47 AM (#1382995) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: understand... (4) to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something... Wolfgang |
|
20 Jan 05 - 04:50 AM (#1382996) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Stu Crikey, I thought I felt my ears burning! I don't get offended by Martin's comments, they are faintly amusing once or twice although the constant reference to bodily functions shows a slight lack of imagination. You certainly don't have to debate Martin - and you rarely do, but I would rather debate a point of contention than simply eff and jeff at anyone who doesn't agree with me. Also Mr G, I am impressed you know what a coprolite is - perhaps that education wasn't such a waste after all. Pseudo-Intellectual Stigweard |
|
20 Jan 05 - 06:52 AM (#1383039) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: akenaton The point of my message to Martin was that,unlike other folks of a "Rightwing" persuasion, he has the intelligence not to try and defend the indefensible. Martin defends his right wing views with passion and good luck to him ,Ill argue against him all day and thats as it should be. The people who make me angry are those who allow their political beliefs to blind them to the atrocities ,like the destruction of Fallujah,being committed in our name in Iraq. I would say to Martin, that although there are those on Mudcat who deserve his invective, Bobert is not one of them. I think Boberts remarks were meant to be taken in the same humourous way that martin himself often posts...Ake |
|
20 Jan 05 - 08:35 AM (#1383111) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Bobert Yup, when I popint out that it was Bush who made the decision to start and unwinable war rather than Saddam, I'm invited to do something with a broomstick... Hmmmmm? Typical evasive tactics. I don't think Martin is capable of providing a rebuttal to much of anything because of his obvious anal fixation but, sniff, he is amusing, if nuthin' else... Sure would be nice if he could work thru some of his polymorphorse perverse guilt issues, however, becuase there's an entire world of insults out there just waiting to be discovered... Bobert |
|
20 Jan 05 - 02:56 PM (#1383479) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Once Famous Bobert, you don't get it. I don't owe you or anybody an explanation on WHY I think your agenda is full of crap. I am not at all impressed with anyone's debating skills here, especially Amos, for he has none. I just don't feel it is worth my time past giving an opinion that will, and obviously does, have more impact on you than yours seems to have on me. |
|
20 Jan 05 - 03:08 PM (#1383488) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST "I just don't feel it is worth my time past giving an opinion that will, and obviously does, have more impact on you than yours seems to have on me." why would anyone give any credence to anything a sef-important moron like this would spew? |
|
20 Jan 05 - 03:08 PM (#1383489) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Amos Martin: It is clear you feel you owe no-one any explanations. That's your business. But why is is it, I would like to know, that you obviously feel strongly that you owe them insults, degrading remarks, and puerile toilet-talk? A |
|
20 Jan 05 - 04:03 PM (#1383544) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Once Famous Why don't you stare at the ceiling all night, Amos and ponder it? Better yet, write yourself a big, long thread about it over months that 2 or 3 people occassionally glance at and nod their heads. |
|
20 Jan 05 - 05:03 PM (#1383616) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: understand... (4) to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something... I'd say Webster's has just got it wrong in this case. If "understanding" is taken to imply sympathy or tolerance, it ceases to be a very useful word in many contexts. Discussing all kinds of important issues would become extremely difficult. In fact, blurring the concept of understanding with that of sympathy is close to being an example of Orwellian Newspeak - a change of meaning which has the effect of excluding "undesirable" types of thought or discourse. Fortunately the dictionary on my shelf is the Concise Oxford Dictionary, and it doesn't include this subsidiary meaning of the word. At least not in my edition. Of course, as language changes dictionaries have to change to take account of these changes. If it is true that in America (where Websters comes from)the word has changed its meaning in this way, that would tie in with some of the examples I have seen where attempts to explain and begin to understand the motives of terrorists have been attacked as verging on treason. ........................... Another linguistic point - I think it is possible that someone may be under the misapprehension that any "rebuttal" has to involve something to do with butts. |
|
20 Jan 05 - 08:52 PM (#1383805) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Wolfgang is being manipulatively selective in his quotation from Websters, McGrath. He only cited definition number 4 of the intransitive sense of the word, which is only one of at least 8 options provided. As you and I both know, every time we use a particular word, we are not intending it to mean all of the possible definitions the word may have in the dictionary. Main Entry: un·der·stand Pronunciation: "&n-d&r-'stand Function: verb Inflected Form(s): un·der·stood /-'stud/; -stand·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English understandan, from under + standan to stand transitive senses 1 a : to grasp the meaning of 2 : to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty 3 : to interpret in one of a number of possible ways 4 : to supply in thought as though expressed <"to be married" is commonly understood after the word engaged> intransitive senses 1 : to have understanding : have the power of comprehension 2 : to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something 3 : to believe or infer something to be the case 4 : to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something Websters |
|
21 Jan 05 - 10:55 AM (#1384323) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang Four months on planet Bin Laden (story of a French journalist abducted in Iraq) Wolfgang (p.s. for Carol: In order to show that one particular meaning is possible it suffices to quote the relevant part. No reason to be verbose) |
|
21 Jan 05 - 11:07 AM (#1384335) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang Four months on planet Bin Laden (story of a French journalist abducted in Iraq) Wolfgang (p.s. for Carol: In order to show that one particular meaning is possible it suffices to quote the relevant part. No reason to be verbose) |
|
21 Jan 05 - 11:24 AM (#1384363) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Note for Wolfgang: A possible meaning is not necessarily the same thing as an intended meaning. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 11:31 AM (#1384379) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Little Hawk Quite. For instance, I understand George Bush's desire to "Americanize" the World...but I do NOT sympathize with it in the least! Nor would I be inclined to tolerate it. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 12:54 PM (#1384465) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow One meaning of "bad" is "good", and I suppose a comprehensive dictionary definition would need to include that meaning - however in serious discourse that meaning would be set aside, to avoid confusion. It seems to me that the same should be done with any "meaning" of "understand" that suggests that understanding implies support or agreement. "Most people either say that they agree with Bernard Shaw or that they do not understand him. I am the only person who understands him, and I do not agree with him." (Chesterton's introduction to his book "George Bernard Shaw.") |
|
21 Jan 05 - 04:20 PM (#1384637) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Nerd I don't think it's fair to accuse Wolfgang of being manipulative. It is true that "understand" sometimes means what he quoted from Webster's, and as to the "intended meaning," if I remember correctly it was Wolfgang himself who said that he did not understand Hussein's actions. Surely Wolfgang knew what he meant by that? So he was merely clarifying in what sense he found Hussein hard to understand. Remember also that English is not Wolfgang's first language. It may seem a little odd for a native speaker to use the word "understand" in that sense and in that context (generally in that context it would mean "comprehend" rather than "sympathize"), but I think Wolfgang is due great respect given how well he expresses himself in English (better than me sometimes!), and if this is a rare case of an awkward expression creeping in, no one should accuse him of anything untoward. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 05:27 PM (#1384695) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think it's fair to accuse Wolfgang of being manipulative. It wouldn't have been fair to do so, and I didn't do so. If I'd been accusing anyone of being manipulatve it would have been whoever put that definition into the dictionary, or rather those who, by using the word in this way may have in some places given it this additional meaning, which is naturally reflected in a dictionary. Wolfgang was clear enough about the distinction involved. |
|
21 Jan 05 - 05:47 PM (#1384707) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: goodbar don't you know? they sneaked all of their weapons out through syria! ;) |
|
21 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM (#1384933) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC I respect Wolfgang's abilities with English right up until the point when he starts correcting those of us whose first language is English about what we mean by what we say. (This is not an uncommon occurance.) |
|
22 Jan 05 - 03:22 PM (#1385403) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Nerd Again, CarolC, if I am not mistaken it was Wolfgang himself who said he did not understand Saddam Hussein. So he was telling you what HE meant, not what YOU meant. At least that is how I read it. But then, maybe now I am telling Wolfgang what he meant... |
|
22 Jan 05 - 05:52 PM (#1385506) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC I somehow managed to miss Wolfgang's 19 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM, Nerd, in which all of that is explained. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 12:55 PM (#1387133) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang All those posts following my 19 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM post... Three last remarks from me: (1) Thanks for the support and the kind words, Nerd. (2) However, I agree with Carol that there should be no double standard. Corrections to other Mudcatters' posts by me imply that my posts are open to the same level of critique or correction, if I am wrong. (3) I guess it won't surprise you by now, McGrath, but the Concise Oxford Dictionary on my shelf (9th edition, 1996) has the following entry: (I quote only the relevant bit)...be sympathetically aware of the character or nature of... and gives the following sentence as an example of usage: cannot understand him at all which is fairly close to my Hussein's actions are also very hard to understand for me.. The Concise Oxford Thesaurus and Dictionary of Synonyms (1996 too) lists under the second meaning: understand your feelings/position and gives the following synonyms: appreciate, accept,...,sympathize with, empathize with. So it's not only Webster's but also a more recent Oxford. Well, I didn't look into any dictionary before writing 'understand' and I could easily have been wrong (as I often am in English), but I have learned not to trust corrections without checking. Wolfgang |
|
24 Jan 05 - 01:29 PM (#1387176) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow Thesauruses are a different matter - they are handy ways of finding words which have sort of similar meanings, but sort of similar also means sort of different. And those differences matter. My basic point is that it's very important to hold on the principle that it is always right to try to understand anybody you are in conflict with, and that any notion that trying to understand such people and their actions is a kind of weakness is always to be resisted. And I don't think there's any disagreement about that between Wolfgang and me. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 01:44 PM (#1387196) Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST,heric Wolfgang's fourth and rare meaning of "understand" can be easily seen in: "I am just looking for a little understanding." |