Mrs. Wakely - Part 5

Good Lord, this is getting to be entertaining.  Personally, I enjoy it. :)  But alas, Mrs. Wakely is up for another round, so without further ado, let's see what she has to say (it's really entertaining, I swear):

 

"And No, we didn't invade Iraq in response to 9/11. You're being a historical revisionist AGAIN."
-----------------------------------------
O.K. sieve-head. here it is, in black and white.
1. I notice the vast, vast majority of your "justifications" are from Centcom. God Bless CentCom, but I'm asking for something a little different, I'm asking for mainstream news organizations - you know the people whose job it is to tell us if CentCom's saying our planes are being fired on in the no-fly zone is reason to invade Iraq? Those sources. And, by the way, did they ever shoot a plane down?One plane? No? Really? And yet there was reason to invade the WHOLE COUNTRY? Wow.
2. We drop a lot of "leaflets" in your blizzard of Centcom dispatches. Not sure how that makes your case.
3. Almost all of your dates are immediately pre-invasion March '03, when, obviously, the Iraqi's were attempting to appear strong and ready to fight. But any clear, unbiased assesment of their true actual capabilities at the time, told us they were much less than even the Girl Scout troop we took down in '91, when they were at full strength. In '03, they had been through many years of sanctions, they had no credible military anymore, they had no WMD, they were, a paper tiger - you know "contained" I believe is the word. When we went in this time, they just collapsed. Read "Cobra III" by Marine General Bernard Traynor - who was there. Our planning was fucked, and their army basically went home, what army there was, and, essentially, we ended up fighting pockets of ill equipped and rag-tag militia, as we swept into Baghdad in record time. Tough pockets along the way? Sure. Heroic actions by our troops, despite your boys' intelligence telling them all kinds of bad information about what to expect? Absolutely. Our fine military is not an issue for me. It's YOUR civilian leaders, sieve-head.
And please don't tell me you're a gun nut? How predictable. Obama is going to take away your semi-automatic weapon? Good. God knows you need it for... hunting? Protection? Yeah, semi-automatic bursts to ward off those bad guys coming to get you.
You weren't at Waco were you?
My advice? Stay on the meds Travis. Get some help. Keep hope alive!
-------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: January 24, 2004
David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said Friday after stepping down from his post that he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year.
In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Kay said he now thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions ''got rid of them.''
Asked directly if he was saying that Iraq did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country, Dr. Kay replied, according to a transcript of the taped interview made public by Reuters, ''That is correct.''
Dr. Kay's statements undermined one of the primary justifications set out by President Bush for the war with Iraq. Mr. Bush and other top administration officials repeatedly cited Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons as a threat to the United States, and the lack of evidence so far that Saddam Hussein actually had large caches of weapons has fueled criticism that Mr. Bush exaggerated the peril from Iraq.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration stood by its previous assessments that Mr. Hussein had both weapons programs and stores of banned weapons.
''Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found,'' Mr. McClellan said. ''We believe the truth will come out.''
With Dr. Kay's departure, the administration on Friday handed over the weapons search to Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations weapons inspector who has expressed skepticism that the United States and its allies would find any banned chemicals or biological agents.
Dr. Kay's comments and the appointment of Mr. Duelfer, made by George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, appeared to be a turning point in the administration's defense of its assertions that Mr. Hussein had amassed large stores of illicit weapons that he could use or turn over to terrorists for use against the United States or other nations.
Democrats said Dr. Kay's statements raised serious questions about the administration's case for war and the quality of American intelligence. ''It is increasingly clear that there has been a massive intelligence failure,'' Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. ''The potential threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and Iraq's nuclear weapons program was central to the case for war. In light of Dr. Kay's statement, the president owes the American public and the world an explanation.''
The top administration officials who had been most vocal in accusing Iraq of building stockpiles of banned weapons, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney, have stood by their positions in recent weeks. Asked during an interview on Thursday with National Public Radio whether the administration had given up on finding banned weapons, Mr. Cheney replied, ''No, we haven't.''
He said it would ''take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubby holes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that.''
'Rushing to war is one, doing it without enough allies is two, doing it without equipping our troops adequately is three, and doing it without an adequate plan to win the peace is a fourth,'' Mr. Beers said. ''If you want to add a fifth, it's going to war without examining the quality of your intelligence.''
------------------------
The Economic Costs
of Going to War with Iraq
By Miriam Pemberton (International Relations Center: Foreign Policy In focus)
September 13, 2002
I want to begin with two caveats. The first is that if attacking Iraq clearly fell into the category of a just war, we should of course spend whatever it would take to wage it. Providing for the common defense is our government's first mandate. But by my reckoning our government has not remotely made the case that this would in fact be a just war. I'll just mention quickly a couple of reasons, which the president's speech yesterday at the UN did not change.
Most fundamental is of course the fact that Iraq has not attacked us, and there is no credible evidence that it is collaborating with al Qaeda, which has. The administration's attempts to establish such a linkage have not been convincing. A couple of weeks ago Secretary Rumsfeld announced a few sightings of suspected al Qaeda members in Iraq. Well, this was northern Iraq, which is under the protection of U.S. warplanes from the Iraqi government. And if the presence of suspected al Qaeda members were reason enough to attack, we should be bombing Germany, and ourselves. Second, in addition to distracting from the pursuit of al Qaeda, an attack on Iraq shows real promise as a recruiting tool for more terrorists. An excessive, intrusive response by the world's superpower in the Middle East helps them make their case for resistance by any available means.
In the absence of a clear case for starting this war, then, we need to consider the ways in which starting it might conflict with our government's second mandate, which is to promote the general welfare. To the extent that an attack would have the effect of weakening an already shaky economy, it would undermine the welfare of all of us. So as we debate this profoundly serious question, the issue of the economic cost of going to war needs to be included in our deliberations.
My second caveat is that no one can say for sure what these costs will be. Wars never go according to war plans. And in this case the complex and far-reaching repercussions of--to pick one thing out of a hat--a destabilized Middle East, can be partially predicted but not foreseen. So mostly we are groping for the best calculus of risks. But I will try to distinguish between what we know for sure at this point and what is likely enough that it should worry us.
One thing we know is that fears that the U.S. might go ahead with an attack on Iraq have already begun to affect oil prices. Oil is already trading close to an 18-month high of $30 a barrel. Ten months ago, the price was half that. So the war fever premium has already been high. And every time a U.S. official comes out and says something that suggests an attack is actually imminent, or even is in fact likely to happen at all, oil prices spike. Vice President Cheney made the first of two such speeches on August 26th, for example, and by the end of the day, the price of each barrel sold on the U.S. market had jumped sixty-five cents.
Following the last U.S. invasion of Iraq, oil prices doubled, and stayed high for the better part of a year. A repeat would create ripple effects throughout our economy. Estimates by Wall Street analysts indicate that a ten dollar per barrel rise in oil prices--half the amount of the last Gulf War effect--would over a year's time reduce U.S. GDP growth by about half a percent, and add nearly one percent to inflation.
The economic drag from these oil price shocks is being felt most strongly across the transportation sectors that grease our economy's wheels, and is adding friction to these wheels, an effect that is of course being passed on to consumers. In the airline sector alone, the nine major U.S. carriers have lost $7.3 billion in the past year, and one of them has been propelled into bankruptcy. This is despite the bailout package passed after 9-11 totaling $5 billion in direct federal aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees. Most analysts expect that a U.S. attack on Iraq could send the price of oil beyond $50 a barrel. In that event, we will probably be bailing out all our airlines.
There are always some winners in war--the defense industry is obviously riding high. But there are also many losers, as international trade in general becomes constricted. Tourism is the world's largest industry; experts estimate that it employs about 10% of the world's workforce. The last Gulf War actually depressed tourism in places as far from the Middle East as Costa Rica and East Africa.
The U.S. is trying to prepare for a disruption of its own supplies by adding to its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Its target goal is to cover U.S. import needs for about 60 days. But this short-term cushion won't help the rest of the world, or do anything to restrain prices.
And given the current fragile condition of the global economy, higher oil prices could mean the difference between modest growth and a full-blown recession.
Growth deceleration in the American economy is already underway: the first-quarter annualized rate of 5% had by the second quarter dropped to 1.1%. It would be a mistake, of course to blame all our economic bad news on the September 11 attacks. But as one writer for the London Times put it, what can be said with certainty is that al Qaeda struck the U.S. and world economies at an exquisitely vulnerable time, when such factors as corporate accountability scandals, oil price rises from the explosion of violence in Israel-Palestine, and the tanking of the dot-coms had done their damage. 9-11 only exacerbated the loss of investor confidence and depressed investment, which have in turn raised the cost of capital and reduced the prospects for long-term productivity growth.
Many U.S. economists are now revising their growth projections for the near term slightly upward. Having taught a couple of kids to ride a bicycle, though, I liked the explanation I read recently of why an economy is like a bicycle. When it moves fast, it can ride out shocks and stay upright. But when a bicycle, or an economy, is hardly moving, it can be knocked over by even a modest bump in the road. A war with Iraq would be quite a bump.
I'll just offer a few more indicators that war fever is not good for our economic health. The value of the dollar peaked against the euro the day President Bush delivered his "axis of evil" State of the Union address, and has been trending downward ever since.
And of course, large tax cuts combined with military spending increases have turned budget surplus into deficit, just as they did during the Reagan years. The projected deficit for FY 2002--$157 billion--is already well over 1% of GDP. As the deficit grows, increases in the public cost of borrowing will put pressure on long-term interest rates, and crowd out private-sector borrowing. The consumer spending that has been buoyed by extremely low rates--financing purchases like home mortgages and new cars--is likely to dry up fast. All point to slower growth, and may trigger a recession. The Congressional Budget Office projects increases in military spending of $450 billion over the next ten years, based on the President's requests. But their figures don't factor in the cost of a war with Iraq.
The last time we had one, in 1991, direct war costs ran around $80 billion in today's dollars. No one believes that this time it would be that cheap. But of course 80% of the costs of the last Gulf War were borne by our allies. This time it appears that allies will be much harder to come by. The Germans and the Saudis, in particular, were among the largest cash contributors to the last Gulf War, and they have both indicated their opposition to an attack. The scattered expressions of international support for the president's speech at the UN yesterday approved of his working with the UN; no one was promising financial support for a war.
In calculating the potential costs to the U.S. of such a war it is important to remember that putting together the original Gulf War coalition incurred substantial costs all on its own, in the form of financial inducements to join. For example, the U.S. had to give Turkey about $5 billion in debt forgiveness and other financial benefits to secure their reluctant support for the war. This time the reluctance is much more internationally widespread, and overcoming it is likely to be much more expensive. Yesterday the Turkish prime minister described the possibility of an attack as "a sword hanging over our heads." Turkey, he said, "is at the forefront of countries that will be negatively affected by military action."
In addition to these direct and indirect costs of waging the war itself, we need to factor into our calculations the protracted military presence, lasting years, not months, that must certainly follow it. Scott Feil, a retired colonel and expert on post-conflict reconstruction, estimates that a force of 75,000 would be necessary during the first year, at a direct cost of $16.5 billion. Former national security advisor Sandy Berger recently testified that rebuilding the Iraqi economy would cost between $50 and $150 billion. Given the U.S.' recent track record, in Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example, it is unlikely that we would take on the whole bill for Iraqi economic reconstruction. But somebody will need to pay it. Colonel Feil assumes that the U.S. would take on responsibility for some humanitarian emergency relief, and some of the costs of transitional administration, civil service, and other components of reconstruction. He estimates these at $15-25 billion over the next decade.
Saudi Arabia is both the largest producer and exporter, and the most politically vulnerable. Internal instability alone could depress Saudi production. The Iranian revolution of 1979 cut production in half, to 3 million barrels, where it has stayed. We all worried that the last Gulf War would have a domino effect on the governments in the region, and this didn't happen. But several of them, Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the top of the list, are weaker now than they were then. Iraqi aggression against Kuwait created broad regional support for an armed response, and this support does not now exist. And, it should be added, the 1991 war had destabilizing effects that simply took a long time to incubate and come to light. The U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia became the focal point for the resentment that resulted in the attacks of 9-11.
When we have not been attacked, when the other justifications the administration has offered for going to war are as murky as they are, when there is much dissension within the government and in particular within the military about the wisdom of an attack, and when the idea of attacking has virtually no support from our allies, then it makes sense for Congress and the American people to take these economic costs into special consideration. The preponderance of evidence suggests that if we start this war we will be endangering our economic health
-------------------------------------
The New York Times
2004
An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.
A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.
The president no longer expounds upon deposed Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda, rarely mentions the rape and torture rooms or the illicit weapons factories that he once warned posed a direct threat to the United States.
In the fall of 2002, as Bush sought congressional support for the use of force, he described the vote as a sign of solidarity that would strengthen his ability to keep the peace. Today, his aides describe it unambiguously as a vote to go to war.
"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take,'' Bush said in a well-received speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002.
Bush echoed those words earlier this month as he accepted his party's nomination for president a few miles away, at Madison Square Garden in New York:
"Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.''
Yet the more specific explanation of a mission that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives and well over $100 billion has undergone a transformation.
Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush focused on weapons of mass destruction and stated the U.S. goal in straightforward terms.
"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change,'' Bush said at a news conference two weeks before he took the nation to war.
"And our mission won't change,'' Bush continued. "Our mission is precisely what I just stated.''
Six weeks later, speaking to workers at an Army tank plant in Ohio, the goal seemed to expand.
"Our mission -- besides removing the regime that threatened us, besides ending a place where the terrorists could find a friend, besides getting rid of weapons of mass destruction -- our mission has been to bring humanitarian aid and restore basic services and put this country, Iraq, on the road to self-government.''
Last month, speaking to supporters at a campaign event in Wisconsin, Bush put it more plainly: "The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is for there to be democratic and free countries who are allies in the war on terror. That's the goal.''
In the course of the campaign, such shifts have been characterized by Bush's opponents as lies.
Bush voiced no doubt from the beginning that Hussein possessed chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons.
"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
By the following year, after no such weapons had been discovered and evidence suggested that much of the intelligence was wrong, Bush had toned down such talk and begun to speak of the "threat'' of Hussein developing such weapons.
In his State of the Union address last January, Bush spoke of Hussein's "mass destruction-related program activities."
"Look, there is no doubt that Saddam Husein was a dangerous person,'' the president told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview several weeks before that speech. "And there's no doubt we had a body of evidence providing that. And there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.''
Sawyer asked the president about the distinction between the "hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons.''
"So what's the difference?'' Bush responded. "The possibility that he could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.''
"What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction,'' Sawyer persisted.
"Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush responded. "And the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.''
In the months since, Bush has changed his standard speech to reflect that failure to discover the weapons.
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,'' Bush said in July in Tennessee. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''
There are a few instances where the president's words contradict developments or his previous statements.
On March 6, 2003, for example, Bush insisted during a prime-time news conference that he would offer a resolution before the United Nations calling for the use of force against Iraq even if other nations threatened to veto it.
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote,'' Bush said.
A few days later, after it became apparent that the measure would not only be vetoed but might fail to win a majority of the Security Council, the Bush administration dropped its demand for a vote.
The president also said last month on NBC's "Today Show'' that "I don't think you can win'' the war on terrorism, explaining instead that the nation could greatly minimize the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The comment came after months of asserting the United States was winning, and would ultimately triumph, in its war on terror. The statement appeared to be little more than an inelegant way of adding nuance to his explanation, and the president quickly retreated from the words the following day.
Some statements now look off-base after developments in Iraq, such as Bush's response in the first days of the war after learning that Iraqis may have captured some Americans.
"I do know that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely,'' Bush said, many months before American soldiers committed the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison.
-----------------------------------------
NEWS ANALYSIS
Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war
President's rationale for the invasion continues to evolve
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
President Bush
on Iraq
Sept. 12, 2002
Speech before the U.N. General Assembly
"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.''
(What evidence? Bad intelligence? That's not evidence. and there were PLENTY of highly informed experts saying just that at the time. But your boy didn't want to hear it, did he?)
-------------------------------------
Sept. 19, 2002
Response to a reporter's question
"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. ... This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.''
----------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2002
Speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati
"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. ... Knowing these realities, American must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''
(Iraq was not harboring terrorists, certainly not Al Queda. Again, as Piro's interview made clear - Hussein HATED Bin Ladin and Al Queda, and considered them a threat - TO HIM. And the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric? Really a low point, don't you think? Got that totally wrong, yes?)
-------------------------------------------
March 6, 2003
News conference
"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change.''
(our mission is "disarmamnet?" Really? That's not what he said before, and the congress certainly wouldn't have authorized a vote for war to "diasarm" Saddam)
-------------------------------------------
March 17, 2003
Address to nation (two days before invasion)
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.''
("no doubt?" Really? I'd say his own weapons inspectors and his top intelligence experts were raising plenty of doubt. And, of couse, inconvenient for you, they were, what's the word? Oh, yeah - right)
--------------------------------------------
May 1, 2003
Aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. ... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."
(so, we "didn't invade because of 9/11?" Apparently, your boy disagreed with you, at least in this version of his story)
--------------------------------------------
Nov. 11, 2003
Veterans Day address
"Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is clear to our service members -- and clear to our enemies. Our men and women are fighting to secure the freedom of more than 50 million people who recently lived under two of the cruelest dictatorships on earth. Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.''
----------------------------------------------
Aug. 16, 2004
Speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati
"Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, Saddam Hussein had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on to our enemy, to the terrorists. It is not a risk after September the 11th that we could afford to take. Knowing what I know
today, I would have taken the same action."
(according to Piro sunday night, Hussein had no WMD, by his own admission. He simply made it up to stay in power. Our weapons inspectors were telling us they saw no conclusive evidence of a serious program of WMD, before they were yanked out by Bush so he could staert invading.)

January 29, 2008 1:55 PM

Travis said...

I guess you were skimming the pages again. Pretty typical I see.
Yet, you completely dismiss the stories from the Washington Post, CNN, and a pilot who was there. I would say those are "mainstream" news sources, as well as a first handed experience would weigh heavily in my favor.
But you don't seem to think so. You seem to think that it's ok to just summarily dismiss them. I used those as a simple example. If you'd like, I can get you MUCH more sources.
So, you're ok with being shot at as long as they didn't "shoot down a plane"? Is it ok if I come to your house and start shooting at you, screaming about how I'm going to kill you, but you won't do anything about it because I'm not actually hitting you with the bullets? That's pretty much what you're saying here.
I copied and pasted a large section of the articles that I cited. Yes, a lot of leaflets were dropped in that timeframe and they were mentioned in the parts I showed. They have nothing to do with the argument that you and I are having, I merely wanted the articles to be shown as a whole, and not taken out of context.
As for your third point, That's really the point of it all isn't it? If you're getting shot at ALL THE TIME, you escalate things into war. You don't go in full force when nothing has happened up until that point. It'd be like us invading Canada before a single Canadian had fired a shot at us.
I notice that you like to use the phrase "going down like a Girl Scout troop" a lot. Is there something that you'd like to confess here? I won't judge, I promise. :)
I wouldn't say I'm a gun-nut per se, however, I do enjoy the rights that I enjoy under the Constitution.
And how I knew you were going to confuse semi-automatic with fully automatic. Call it a gift. A semi-automatic weapon will fire only one round per time you pull the trigger. A fully automatic weapon will fire off bursts of rounds while the trigger is being held down.
A VERY large difference.
Nope, wasn't at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or any other of those places.
However, if you want to try to take away my Second Amendment rights, then you should have no problem if I introduce legislation to take away your Constitutional rights. Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press? Nah, you will only abuse them to insult people and spread your idiotic ways of thinking.
I think that would be a nice start don't you?
Oh wait, now it's becoming a bit personal for you. It's the hypocritical nature of liberals. They don't want people exercising their Second Amendment rights, but get all pissy if you call them on their bullshit, and they scream "Freedom of Speech!"
That's the second time I've caught you wanting your cake and eating it too.
It's called hypocrisy. Since you seem to have it in spades, I'll be happy to introduce you to an article that will show you the error of your ways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

January 29, 2008 2:26 PM

MrsWakely said...

You're beginning to look silly sieve-head. We don't invade a country because they are occasionally shooting at our planes, but haven't ACTUALLY shot one down, over a no fly zone.
(And, since I guess you missed this class, let me define "constantly" for you:
"continually; perseveringly; without cessation" - sort of means, "nonstop")
That's not a smart move. When do you go to war? When the nation is attacked. There's a simple explanation for you. The OTHER times we've gone to war? Hasn't worked out quite so well (see: Korea, Vietnam) IF they had shot even ONE plane down? I'm sure the American public would have supported a vigorous aerial counter-strike. But they didn't shoot one plane down. Not one. So, no vigorous aerial counter strike, let alone total invasion. There are thresholds for war sieve-head. Shooting at planes over no fly zones and not hitting any is not one of them.
Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Something tells me you're way too young. I do. It took guts and superior judgment to hold off the military wing nuts who were counseling JFK to attack the Russians. He didn't. Smart, reasonable, wise decision. Bush 2? He would have gotten us into a nooklear war.
In Korea, we fought the Chinese. Hundreds of thousands of them. Yet, we didn't invade China. Macarthur wanted to, as I'm sure you would have, if you'd been around at the time. Why not? Incredibly stupid idea, that's why. Militarily, geopolitically, etc., etc. Truman relieved Macarthur over it. Cooler heads prevailed. Getting shot at, even by thousands of Chines, was not enough to prompt Truman to invade china. Why? Because he had a brain in his head. Ipso-facto, "being shot at constantly" is not necessarily pretext for war.
To give the evidence I provided even a cursory glance (talk about not paying attention) would have provided you with myriad counter-arguments, based on, you know, the facts, to your crazy, "we didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11" nutsoid take on things.
As to semi vs. fully automatic weaponry - who gives a shit? I won't get sucked into some peripheral (say this while imagining you have no teeth and an Appalachian accent) "you'll take my guns from my cold, dead fingers!" argument.
You lose. Get out of my car.

January 29, 2008 4:33 PM

Travis said...

So, unless someone dies, you're not willing to go to war? You're willing to allow our planes to be shot at on a near daily basis, who are patrolling the skies over Iraq, under a UN mandate, and do nothing in return? I'm sure glad you're not Commander In Chief. We've already seen what happens when you're too cowardly to do nothing when being actively shot at (Bill Clinton)
It's funny you mention the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example. That's actually a perfect example of diplomacy and the threat of force. But you see, you fail miserably (I'm starting to see a pattern), at seeing the one key point in that entire episode: We were only fired upon once. And that was on the orders of a low level Soviet commander. So your savior, JFK, didn't have much to go on in terms of acts of war. Clinton AND Bush had dozens, if not hundreds of acts of war.
That in of itself defines "constantly". But you seem to ignore it and want to play word games with me.
Then, you have the audacity to say this:
To give the evidence I provided even a cursory glance (talk about not paying attention) would have provided you with myriad counter-arguments, based on, you know, the facts, to your crazy, "we didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11" nutsoid take on things.
When YOU were the one that tried to accuse me of trying to link the events of 9/11 to Iraq, when clearly, I have never made that distinction.
You've now tried and failed more times then I care to count, to paint me as something I am clearly not, for having viewpoints that I do not have, and not backing up my opinions with fact.
You dared me to come up with evidence. Remember this?
We were "constantly" being fired upon? Really? Find me one published, credible news report that says, we were being "constantly being fired upon." Those words. I dare you.
So I did, and now you're trying to backtrack.
And even if you can (you won't), try then to make the case that it had anything to do with 9/11. We invaded Iraq in response to 9/11, remember?
I never made that case, you did. Now you're trying to backtrack again. I can't say I'm surprised, most liberals tend to backtrack and become historical revisionists to back up their viewpoints.
We don't need to debate weaponry, when you clearly have not even the faintest clue what you're talking about. You say you wish to elect Obama, then you don't seem to have a problem in supporting a person who wished to infringe on American's Constitutional rights, yet, have likely complained loudly over the recent wiretapping escapades.
So, let's recap shall we? I've caught you backtracking multiple times, met your "dare" (which sounds oddly like something elementary school kids would do), and provided evidence of Iraq's acts of war, (from credible news sources I might add), Hell, I even gave you an interview with one of the pilots, shown you to be accusing me of one thing in your earlier posts, then turn around and proclaim that I have some sort of "we didn't invade..." nutsoid take on things, when you brought it up.
Am I missing anything?
You've failed in your arguments, haven't countered any of my evidence with evidence of your own. Instead you like to bring up past examples of how we acted one way and that should be the way we act all the time.
You complain loudly about what Bush has done wrong, yet, your only "solution" is that we go into Pakistan, yet you offer nothing in return to my questions of sovereignty and other issues that will arise if we do go into Pakistan.
The laundry list of ways you're in the wrong is staggering.
So, you'll have to forgive me if I fail to see how I "lose", and how that relates to how I should get out of your car, whatever the fuck that means.
I know defeat must taste sour for you, and for that I can sympathize. I don't empathize because I don't get my ass handed to me as often as you have been in the past few days across all your posts.
But it's been extremely entertaining, I must admit.
If you'd like, you can rebut, but you should know in your heart of hearts that I'm going to decimate you yet again. It's really up to you. You can turn tail and run like Al-Qaeda, or you can continue on in a futile attempt to get me to admit even a sliver of what you are trying to insinuate is true. Either way is fine with me, I rather enjoy slaughtering you in the debates. Keeps me on my toes, on the edge, where I need to be. :)
As a side note, I noticed that you created your account this month. Tell me, did you create your account simply to post here? If so, I truly am flattered. Usually, I just get a piece of hate mail in my inbox and that's about as far as it goes. But for you to take the time to create a google account to say what you wanted to say, takes a little more fire in the belly.
Travis

January 29, 2008 10:50 PM