Bush Gored!

[juju]

You're not supposed to actually read the story, UT. You're supposed to just take the links as bastions of irrefutability. Geez.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by jaguar
I'd deal with the rest but I don't have time this morning.

Jaguar, I think you should change your signature. Something along the lines of "I'm a very busy college student and don't really have time to properly devote my superior intelligence and comprehension of all things social and political to a silly website like this. Therefore please understand that all postings here are simply the tip of the iceberg when compared to what knowledge and brilliance I could bring here if I were so inclined."

That way, you could spare us all from the constant "I don't have time to explain this to you in a way that makes sense" and "I don't know why I even bother trying to get a point across to you people" and such.

Tobiasly For crying out loud! Justify an invasion by the use of weapons you gave and authorized their use?! That goes beyond hypocritical.

Where did I say we weren't hypocrites? Read my above post -- "the U.S. isn't squeaky-clean". I'm only saying that if we perceive a very real threat to our nation, we can and should act on that threat. With the support of the world if possible, but without it if necessary.

I think we can all agree that whatever assistance we gave to Iraq 20 years ago, in hindsight, may not have been such a good idea. What the fuck is your point again? How does that in any way have any relevance on today's situation whatsoever?

Originally posted by juju
You're not supposed to actually read the story, UT. You're supposed to just take the links as bastions of irrefutability. Geez.

Hall of Fame post here.

[jaguar]

You're right on that article, i misread, my fault.
Although the 'no knowledge' thing is kinda funny.
BTW UT while the guardian may not suit your tastes it is one of the most respected pieces of international journalism and is synicated into newspapers all over the world.
Ok.
Here.(CNS)
Here.(Sunday Herald)
This one in the NY Observer is an extension of the Sunday Times one.
Try Those for size, to quote the Sunday Times:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

It's also worth noting that article debunks claims about the production of WMDs.

Jaguar, I think you should change your signature. Something along the lines of "I'm a very busy college student and don't really have time to properly devote my superior intelligence and comprehension of all things social and political to a silly website like this. Therefore please understand that all postings here are simply the tip of the iceberg when compared to what knowledge and brilliance I could bring here if I were so inclined."

Well pardon me. Oddly enough i *don't* have all the time in the world to make posts on here, so i thought i'd cover the quickest stuff before i left, and the rest when i returned which is what i'm doing now. In short, bite me.

Could you please find an example where i've posted either of the two lines you when qoute below please?

Where did I say we weren't hypocrites? Read my above post -- "the U.S. isn't squeaky-clean". I'm only saying that if we perceive a very real threat to our nation, we can and should act on that threat. With the support of the world if possible, but without it if necessary.

Well i've yet to hear you explain the the fuck attacking Iraq makes the world a safer place for anyone. Yea pushing a madman with bio/chem weapons into a corner (just before elections are coming up), without any firm evidence he's done anything recently, had any role with Al Queda or has done anything Isreal has not done in realtion to UN resolutions sure sounds good to me. Not to mention that if Isreal things which section of the UN charter those resolutions are made under makes the slightest bit of difference to their validity they have another thing coming.

[Undertoad]

Well again, those aren't weapons your links are talking about. The fact we sold them biological agents for study in good intention doesn't say much.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by jaguar
Well pardon me. Oddly enough i *don't* have all the time in the world to make posts on here, so i thought i'd cover the quickest stuff before i left, and the rest when i returned which is what i'm doing now. In short, bite me.

Could you please find an example where i've posted either of the two lines you when qoute below please?

OK, sorry for the hyperbole on my part, my point was that we all know you're a busy college student, so you don't need to remind us all the time. If you don't have time to make all the points you want to, make them next week; we'll still be here. I do the same thing; I'm on my way out the door and want to make a point real quick, but then I say something stupid like how we used to "help Iraq fight the Soviet Union" in the 80's, which I'm surprised as hell no one called me out on.

Well i've yet to hear you explain the the fuck attacking Iraq makes the world a safer place for anyone. Yea pushing a madman with bio/chem weapons into a corner (just before elections are coming up), without any firm evidence he's done anything recently, had any role with Al Queda or has done anything Isreal has not done in realtion to UN resolutions sure sounds good to me.

I agree, if there's no firm evidence then we shouldn't do anything. But I think there is firm evidence that most of us aren't privvy to. There is news on the wires this morning about Rumsfeld sharing newfound intel with UN members that links Iraq to al Qaeda. Yes, it may well be more carefully-timed media puppeteering.

But I think domestic support for military action would quickly vaporize if Bush were to prosecute a war without some firm evidence turning up real quick, and he's well aware of this. Words and ideas are fine for sabre-rattling, but when it comes to losing American lives, people are gonna demand proof. We all know this, and the president knows this, so we won't have a war unless that proof exists.

[Xugumad]

Once more unto the breach:

<I>Undertoad</I>
The Germans can now safely open their borders without worrying about their discos being bombed any longer. The French can lower their guard against the burning of the soon-to-be-rebuilt Israeli embassy, and can snooze through the threat of plans against the Eiffel Tower. The Dutch no longer have to assassinate politicians who talk about the threats of immigration.

If you ally with those who aid tyrants and genocidal dictators, you come into the crosshairs of those who oppose them. Why you use this as a pretext to cast shadows over Europe's safety (with Europe, in terms of terrorism, now being safer than ever) is baffling, and obvious fearmongering like that is rather reprehensible.

The German disco you referred to (La Belle) was bombed because it was a popular hangout for US soldiers, and at the time of the bombing full of US servicemen; the bomb killed three of them. One of the people behind the attack had previously <a href="http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb1-a27.shtml">worked</a> for the CIA and the Mossad. Attacking the Israeli embassy is akin to attacking Israel, it has nothing to do with France. France has had its own terrorist problems in the 90s, related to Algerian extremists, and handled them reasonably well. The Dutch assassination was purportedly committed by a far-left environmentalist.

Happy anti-Americanism

You make the sad mistake of equating anti-Americanism with opposing certain limited policies of the current administration; I guess the 'be with us or against us' propaganda machine has worked a bit too well. Love it or leave it, perchance? God bless America? Let's roll?

I wouldn't waste my time talking to you if I didn't care about America's future, and if I wasn't genuinely concerned and worried. Some people don't just enjoy proving other people wrong and being 'on top' of intellectual debates for the sheer ego boost. I hope you will try to understand that.

happy Octoberfest

Grammar Nazis rejoice (bad pun). If you mock something as a representation of an intrinsic aspect of another culture (as this is apparently intended to), please have the decency to spell it correctly? (I'd feel bad if I tried to mockingly congratulate the US by sneeringly involving 'Thangsgiving', for instance)

and happy trying to rebuild your economies after many years of only having to spend 1% on defense!

I understand now: you seem to be going on the offensive; instead of defending the indefensible, you are directly attacking Europe's perceived flaws, apparently either as an excuse for the current administration's mistakes, or in order to prove that two wrongs make a right. Just quote the correct numbers, please. After spending so much time making fun of jaguar's links earlier, and denying their truth content (incorrectly, as it turns out), you need to stick to your own high standards. Everything else would be hypocritical. (The average in 2001 between France, Germany, and the UK was at around 2.2%; the US was at 3.2% of GDP)

<I>Tobiasly</I>
Sorry you feel entitled to some attaboy's.. UT doesn't have any gold-star smileys, so how about just some regular smileys? Here[...]

I guess admitting a contrasting point's correctness is too much. Personally I find that kind of humour puerile; why do you think you need to resort to such playground bullying tactics ("Awww, poor baby! Here's [...]" <insert contorted, mock-crying face>)? Can you not answer (or not answer) by either saying that you were right or wrong? Is straight-up discussion of correctness too much? Just imagine sitting in a board meeting or a parliamentary debate, or any sort of academic discussion with scholarly peers, in short in any sort of debate which requires solid discussion of facts, circumstances, and solution, and resorting to such methods. Who could take you seriously? Even in the English House of Commons, where debate is very spirited, personal attacks remain focused on subject matter, rather than personal characteristics.

I'm only saying that if we perceive a very real threat to our nation, we can and should act on that threat.

Iraq has committed no acts against the US; there is no evidence that they are planning any acts against Americans, neither are they currently causing any major havoc in the Middle East. They were and are still being severely punished for their misgivings. Several nations have been associated in some form with the 9/11 attacks, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. There are several countries that have in the past attacked and killed Americans, including Libya. The current administration has stopped using Iraq as a possible cause for terrorism or harboring terrorists, since even the spin machine could not produce any sort of evidence. Why Saddam would want to attack the US with WMDs, an act that would cause the instant destruction of Iraq, and of himself, is not obvious in the least.

Yet Iraq remains in the crosshairs. Even though there are other, much more obvious and considerably threats to the nation. (Pakistan's military dictatorship, which tolerates some extremist groups whilst aiding the capture of other terrorists, for their own geo-political motivations, Libya's terrorist head of state, the current Middle East crisis which is an incredible threat to the US due to their perceived support of Israel, Saudi Arabia - the breeding group of the 9/11 terrorists, who have the US in their crosshairs for propping up the feudal dictatorship there, etc) But Iraq is the real threat. No, really.

<I>Undertoad</I>
Well again, those aren't weapons your links are talking about. The fact we sold them biological agents for study in good intention doesn't say much.

Saddam Hussein used biochem <a href="http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html">weapons</a> against the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq in August of 1988. (and other, unspecified dates) Iraq had - at this point - already <a href="http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html">used</a> chemical weapons against Iran in the early 1980s. Nonetheless, US officials denied that Iraq had access to deadly chemical weapons in 1982; after all, your ally would never resort to such methods. (the US was well-aware that European corporations, notably Dutch, German, and British companies, were involved in building facilities for Iraq, ostensibly for fertilizer products)

In 1984 (?), the US eased export restrictions to Iraq, having removed it from the list of countries that support terrorism, allowing Iraq to <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/us_iraq_history_1_020917.html">import</a> "supercomputers, machine tools, and even strains of anthrax. Weapons control experts say Saddam's regime could have used the anthrax to make biological weapons. "It was part of our overall policy of supplying him with a lot of very alarming things which allowed him to build up his weapons of mass destruction capability," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control." In fact, US forces joined with Iraqi forces in order to repel Iranian troops, and supplied them with considerable amounts of classified intelligence data. In 1988, Bush signed "a secret executive order, National Security Directive Number 26. It called for even closer ties between the United States and Iraq."

In 1982, when Iraq was removed from the aforementioned list, <a href="http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm">Abu Nidal</a> had his HQ in Baghdad, which enabled the US to provide significant economic and military aid to Iraq. Billions flowed into Iraq, and weapons were <a href="http://journalism.berkeley.edu/faculty/MarkDanner/wnyless.html">funnelled</a> through Jordan, Saudi-Arabia, and Egypt. When Congress tried to sanction Iraq for use of chemical weapons, the Bush administration changed the bill to pro-forma verbal protests.

And then for the proof of how biological weapons agents were given to Iraq: it's known as the <a href="http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html">Riegle Report</a>, its title is "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War". To quote from the <a href="http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html">introduction</a>:

"In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors identified many U.S. - manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs."

<I>jaguar</I> weapons of mass destruction! On his own people! oh by the way we sold them to him and authorised thier use on Iran...

<I>Undertoad</I>Nuh-uh.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Knee-jerk reactions aren't always correct, after all. You may want a link to a US military <a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/riegle_report_main.html">website</a> which hosts the original report as well as the hearing notes and committee staff report. Hopefully that'll stop you from deriding the provided proof, as you have previously done. (when I could only offer my own experience, which apparently isn't sufficient. 'Nuh-uh' is enough to discredit anything, but references to the 1982-83 congressional hearings yearbook, with physical descriptions of its size/colour so you'll be able to find it easily, is not. The LOC search didn't show up anything, most of their back catalogue doesn't seem to be electronically available.)

Here are a few more choice quotations from the actual hearing:

"Chairman: Because it's clear, when you go back and follow the pattern of what was being done here, that when they were requesting these biological specimens, they were being shipped over to, in some cases, the front operations within the Iraqi government, that were in fact part of their military apparatus. You are aware of that?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. I have read information to that effect yes sir."
====
"CHAIRMAN. Did you happen by chance to see the letter, which had a little bit of a frantic tone to it, from Secretary Baker in the Bush Administration, as the war was getting ready to start, that we suddenly stopped the shipments to Iraq of these kinds of items, things that could be either used in chemical weapons or biological weapons or nuclear weapons. Are you aware of that letter that was sent around?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. No, sir, I am not.

CHAIRMAN. We ought to give you a copy of it, because it was case of suddenly it dawned on people that we were going to have real problem facing off against weapons that we had inadvertently, one presumes, helped create."

And that's part of our problem here, but your testimony is that you only looked at the things that were going to be transshipped to the so-called rogue regimes that were on the bad guy list at the time. Is that right?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. To the countries that were proscribed by CoCom, which were the Soviet Union, China, and the other communist countries of the Warsaw Treaty Organization."
====
"CHAIRMAN. Were they capable of incorporating those items into weapons systems?

Dr. WALLERSTEIN. In my judgment, they would have been capable of doing that, yes, sir."
====
Dr OEHLER. We bad been quite aware of Iraq's chemical weapons development program from its very early inception.

The CHAIRMAN. I take it the CIA must have had a concern about it to have kind of zeroed in on it to that degree?

Dr. OEHLER. Very much so. And that was reported to our customers, and our customers attempted to take actions.

The CHAIRMAN. It would have been reported also to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, I assume, as a matter of course?

Dr. OEHLER. Yes, sir. Those are our customers, sir."
====
(this was in the early-to-mid 1980s; US policy and exports to Iraq then increased rapidly)

"The CHAIRMAN. You see, part of the picture that emerges here— this is really an extraordinary story that you are sharing with us, because, according to your testimony, the CIA was tracking this in real time as it was happening, and had a great concern about it, and had figured out that this robust program on chemical weapons and these other areas was going forward.

Yet, as we get down further in time, we are going to find out that, as Saddam Hussein needed other items to go into his war machine, that he actually came and got some from us, particularly in the biological warfare area, that required licensing."
====
"CHAIRMAN. Do we have any reason to believe or know that there were such firms founded by foreign nationals incorporated in the United States that, in fact, did ship items like this to Saddam Hussein?

Dr. OEHLER. As I say here, we did provide what we call alert memos to Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and the FBI on a number of possible questionable instances.
[...]
Between 1984 and 1990, CIA’s Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided 5 memos covering Iraqis' dealings with United States firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appear to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs."
====

There is so much more to say, but there is only so much time, so much patience both from writer and from readers, and so much evidence that one needs to collect in order to have an unassailable argument.

X.

PS: In the coming edition of Newsweek, a report <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,215594,00.html">describes</a>(German summary) the meeting between Saddam Hussein and a US official in 1983. The official brought greetings from his President, and arranged deals including weapons, intelligence (satellite) etc. through Egypt in the following seven years. A total of 711 export licenses were granted to Iraq by the US government. The name of that US government official?

Donald Rumsfeld.

You couldn't make it up.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Xugumad
I guess admitting a contrasting point's correctness is too much.

Not too much, but it's unnecessary. That was my point.. if you're gonna feel "saddened" whenever someone fails to say "Wow Xugamad, you were right!" when you link to some info that supports your argument, you're gonna spend a lot of time feeling sad.

I can link to tons of irrefutable information on other websites too. But, since you fail to see the point I am trying to make, even with all of your quotes from various Senate hearings: yes, we sold precursors to biological weapons to Iraq. We never sold them the actual weapons, even though we likely knew that they could and probably were using these precursors to make weapons.

<B>SO WHAT HAVE YOU PROVEN? WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE?</B> Please, please, answer this question. For the love of God, no more quotes or links about how we sold biological agents and nasty chemicals to Iraq. YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THAT. YOU ARE RIGHT. NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT THOSE EVENTS TOOK PLACE.

OK, so 10 or 20 years ago, we sold some stuff and provided some support to a country we considered our ally. Oh, shit! It turns out they're not our ally after all! Whoops, our bad! So, what do we do now? Say "well, we're the ones who gave it to 'em, so we can't do anything about it now"? I ask for the third time, what relevance does any of this have to whether we should attack Iraq or force regime change today, in 2002?

Iraq has committed no acts against the US; there is no evidence that they are planning any acts against Americans, neither are they currently causing any major havoc in the Middle East. They were and are still being severely punished for their misgivings.

We are well past the era where we can afford to act reactively to attacks against us. Regimes run by homicidal maniacs who hate the U.S. having WMD is something we can't let happen. Sure, Saddam may be interested only in regional domination, but what happens when he dies 15 years from now? Who takes over.. his charming son Uday? Maybe someone else who's interested in more than regional power?

And what if some al-Qaeda insider offers him a few million for <I>just one</I> long-range missile capable of dispersing VX nerve gas over an entire city?

All this bullshit about "if the U.S. proactively attacks other countries, that's the first step to total world anarchy" is ridiculous. Those sort of gentleman's agreements where countries are only supposed to attack if they're attacked first aren't gonna cut it anymore, because we're no longer dealing with countries that respect those sorts of agreements.

[Xugumad]

<I>Tobiasly</I>
NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT THOSE EVENTS TOOK PLACE.

I followed up Undertoad's claims with the proof, not yours. It wasn't addressed at you, it was was proof to the doubters. Since it's a separate thread not involving you, please stay out of it, and don't shout at me. I clearly indicated that I was quoting you first - answering you - and then Undertoad - answering him.

If you are unable to follow two threads of discussion within one posting, then please refrain to following up to posts with more than a few hundred words. (I believe mine had slightly over 2100) I have no interest in entering shouting flame matches with you.

We are well past the era where we can afford to act reactively to attacks against us. Regimes run by homicidal maniacs who hate the U.S. having WMD is something we can't let happen.

You seem to have failed to read my earlier posting in which I advocated removing Saddam Hussein and ensuring democracy and freedom in Iraq, and the region. If you cannot read, please don't put words in my mouth. (I also demonstrated why the use of the word 'maniac' is inappropriate, but this also seems to have gone unnoticed, and obviously unacknowledged since you continue to do it)

All this bullshit about "if the U.S. proactively attacks other countries, that's the first step to total world anarchy" is ridiculous.

You shouldn't put that nonsense into quotation marks, since that seems to attribute it to me. I never said that, neither did I imply anything like 'total world anarchy.' Once again, why are you deliberately misquoting me and misstating my intent? You are committing fairly serious oversimplifications of poli-sci issues that are too complicated to be solved by 'let's bomb this and everything will be ok'.

Since you don't seem to understand why I'm eager to have others acknowledge mistakes and misstatements made, I'll clarify it once more: Those mistakes keep creeping up again and again, even those they've been clearly disproven, until they enter common consciousness as accepted truth. Since you are misattributing lots of phrases to me (I assume you thought you were humorously paraphrasing), and since you completely misstate my personal beliefs, even though I repeatedly stated them, I see no further reason to engage in conversation with you on this topic. My time simply isn't infinite, and I don't enjoy being flamebaited and figuratively shouted at.

Regarding the points on why the US shouldn't simply attack Iraq and then do nothing, they've been outlined in an earlier posting. I suspect that our positions are a lot closer than you would think, but it's difficult to see through all of the empty catchphrases, regurgitated PR spin, sound and fury.

If you really, really can't see what's going on, let's have a Republican campaigning advisor <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/21/politics/21REPU.html">spell</A> it out for you.

"Senior Republican Party officials say the prospect of at least two more weeks of Congressional debate on Iraq is allowing their party to run out the clock on the fall election, blocking Democrats as they try to seize on the faltering economy and other domestic concerns as campaign issues. ... The emerging dynamic has produced growing if quiet optimism among Republicans that they will be able to turn back the Democratic drive to take control of the House. ... Scott Reed, a Republican consultant, said: 'The secret to the election now is to beat the clock. Every week, you can hear the ripping noise of another page of the calendar coming off the wall. Another week has gone by. And there's only six more to go.' "

Simplified: The country is screwed. The economy is screwed. Your personal and civil liberties are screwed. A war in Iraq would cost hugely, not to mention the cost of keeping troops there, and its economic benefits are doubtful. But as long as Bush keeps talking Iraq, the media will keep propagating it, and nothing else will dominate the election. And since nobody will vote unpatriotically ("What if Saddam uses WMDs on us? He used them on his OWN PEOPLE! HIS OWN PEOPLE! That homicidal maniac!"), a Republican victory is assured.

X.


PS: <a href="http://slate.msn.com//?id=2071466">This</a> may be of interest to Tobiasly and others; it contrasts the positions of Democrats and Republicans on how to fight Terrorism better than I'd be able to sum up in a few words. (edit)

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

We are well past the era where we can afford to act reactively to attacks against us. Regimes run by homicidal maniacs who hate the U.S. having WMD is something we can't let happen. Sure, Saddam may be interested only in regional domination, but what happens when he dies 15 years from now? Who takes over.. his charming son Uday? Maybe someone else who's interested in more than regional power?

And what if some al-Qaeda insider offers him a few million for <I>just one</I> long-range missile capable of dispersing VX nerve gas over an entire city?

All this bullshit about "if the U.S. proactively attacks other countries, that's the first step to total world anarchy" is ridiculous. Those sort of gentleman's agreements where countries are only supposed to attack if they're attacked first aren't gonna cut it anymore, because we're no longer dealing with countries that respect those sorts of agreements.

That's about as ridicuolous as the rhetoric about our most dire threat being from a missile attack...and thus necessitating the bloated and unnecessary missile defense sinkhole. States can't attack other states because they think that sometime in the future they'll be attacked. If that precedent is set by the most powerful nation, what would stop other nations from doing so, and using the American attacks as their rationale?
The second problem with this is timing. Saddam's had 10 years since the Gulf War to launch attacks. And, despite the American view of the world, the incidences of terrorism worldwide have been on a general decline. So it's not like he hasn't had the opportunity, the motive, or the resources to attack in this time. This isn't to say that he won't attack tomorrow, it just shows that the
You're also missing the point that al-Qaeda and Saddam are pretty much sworn enemies. al-Qaeda views Saddam's secularism as anathema. In fact, one of the problems bin Laden has with America is that the Saudi government allowed us to come in for the Gulf War - not just because it soiled the holy ground, but also because he wanted to take care of it himself. Saddam does not rule according to Sharia and seems to pay only lip service to religion. bin Laden and his cohorting extremists want a non-corrupt government run by the church.

There was also an earlier post about anti-Americanism. In most cases, anti-Americanism means a dislike for American policies. American culture is still admired in most places of the world.

I agree, if there's no firm evidence then we shouldn't do anything. But I think there is firm evidence that most of us aren't privvy to. There is news on the wires this morning about Rumsfeld sharing newfound intel with UN members that links Iraq to al Qaeda. Yes, it may well be more carefully-timed media puppeteering.

I wish I could believe that, but coming from this administration, with its obsession with secrecy...I want some proof, not behind closed doors decision-making.

[Tobiasly]

There aren't two threads of discussion here; there is one thread with different facets and I was commenting on the one you were carrying on with UT. You seemed distressed that no one was giving you props for pointing out the truth; I was saying that the truth you were pointing out is irrelevant. UT's point is that we didn't sell biological weapons; we sold their precursors. My point is that regardless of what we provided Iraq in the past, the fact that we provided it (as opposed to someone else providing it) is irrelevant today.

"Shouting" wasn't my intention; I was trying to make sure that what I felt was the most important part of my post didn't go unnoticed as it seemed to previously.

You shouldn't put that nonsense into quotation marks, since that seems to attribute it to me.

I never intended to attribute it to you. It was a hypothetical paraphrasing of rationale I had heard in the past, and was trying to answer what I thought someone might reply to my post with beforehand.

Once again, why are you deliberately misquoting me and misstating my intent? You are committing fairly serious oversimplifications of poli-sci issues that are too complicated to be solved by 'let's bomb this and everything will be ok'.

I never said "let's bomb this and everything will be OK." You shouldn't put that nonsense into quotation marks, since that seems to attribute it to me. Why are you deliberately misquoting me and misstating my intent? Oh, wait a minute.. you were using it as a figurative example ("humorously paraphrasing") to make a point, since you never actually claimed that I uttered those words. I guess that's a pretty common thing to do in typed online conversations, huh?

Regarding the points on why the US shouldn't simply attack Iraq and then do nothing, they've been outlined in an earlier posting. I suspect that our positions are a lot closer than you would think, but it's difficult to see through all of the empty catchphrases, regurgitated PR spin, sound and fury.

I never said that the US shouldn't attack Iraq and then do nothing. And please give me examples of any "empty catchphrases", "regurgitated PR spin", or "sound and fury" that I've used here. I'll settle for the first two, since I can see why you thought I was shouting earlier.

If you really, really can't see what's going on, let's have a Republican campaigning advisor spell it out for you.

Likewise, I never disputed that there is a heaping helping of politics thrown into all of this. The fact that an issue has been politicized in and of itself is pointless and has nothing to do with the issue itself. Issues like this will always be politicized, so as long as people can accept that and see through it, there isn't a problem.

Yes, a lot of people (probably most people) are taken in by most of the PR and spin that comes from any administration, but to assume that I've bought into it simply because I agree with them is an oversimplification itself. I wouldn't even bother posting here or anywhere if I weren't trying to discover all sides to an issue so that I could make an informed decision.

[Undertoad]

<i>The German disco...was bombed because it was a popular hangout for US soldiers</i>

Yup, who were there by accident, probably visiting their grandparents.

Oh, wait - they were defending Europe!

Well perhaps Europe will have less trouble with such events when the US pulls its troops out of Germany, and Germany has to deal with the Mossad directly. And Europe has to deal with Germany directly.

Or perhaps the international terrorist community will respect Germany's borders more when Germany is defending them - since Germany is such a gracious nation to respect Iraq's borders. It's an interesting notion! (My own guess is that the terrorists don't give two shits about what a nation's policies are, if the policies are set in place by infidels.)

<i>Attacking the Israeli embassy is akin to attacking Israel, it has nothing to do with France.</i>

Everything is normal. Nothing to see here. Keep humming and everything will be alright.

Hey, it's okay if Europe is late to this war. (I'm speaking about the unstated war here, the war against radical Islam.) After all, the US was not ready in 1939.

<i>'Nuh-uh' is enough to discredit anything, but references to the 1982-83 congressional hearings yearbook, with physical descriptions of its size/colour so you'll be able to find it easily, is not.</i>

My response was to Jag, not to you. Jag made an extraordinary claim with no proof. "Nuh-uh" is precisely the correct response. Jag's behavior thereafter backed up that response: he provided a bunch of shitty links that did not prove what he claimed. (Fuck you, I actually read 'em.) They didn't even say what he thought they did! "Nuh-uh" was too MUCH, I should have just ignored it!

Now, to address you. You have basically said, "I have proof of this point, even though the point is marginally related, irrelevant to the thread, and as I've said, irrelevant to my own considerations of whether or not war is currently appropriate. I've given this proof to you in the form of instructions that will take you a half-day to execute. Despite the fact that it is not really related to the thread, I expect you to trust me on this, even though it's been 20 years since I read it. The fact that I remember the colour of the book stregthens my credibility."

My response was <i>Is that the best you can do?</i> and I stand by that response. Instead of a two-page long screed, you could have just said <i>Yes, sorry.</i>

In the US we spell it Octoberfest. And sometimes it takes place at chain seafood restaurants.

[Xugumad]

I never said "let's bomb this and everything will be OK." You shouldn't put that nonsense into quotation marks

I didn't. Re-read every single one of my posts on the Cellar. I use single-ticks to make a word or phrase stand out, usually in exaggeration, and quotation marks (" ") to quote. Interestingly, you transformed what I said in single-ticks into quotation marks in your reply. You seem to have no way of distinguishing between exaggerated emphasis and outright quotation. (apart from shouting)

I can see why you thought I was shouting earlier.

I didn't "think" so, capitalization of entire phrases and sentences is considered shouting in basic netiquette. If you merely wanted to emphasize, consider using the bold option.

Regurgitated PR spin:
"The Bush administration seems to have made great strides in swaying world opinion" (which blatant PR spin, as I demonstrated in the diplomacy disaster with Germany)
"Saddam is a maniac." (could be in both categories, I've heard PR people and the media parroting the same 'insanity' angle for months now)
"The majority of Americans support military action." (no, the majority of Americans support another 'video game war' in which no Americans and no civilians die; the bare-faced lie of the 'video game war' is another issue that was never addressed)


Catchphrase (I must have heard Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al say this dozens and dozens of times since 9/11)
"ensure nothing like it ever happens again"
"Not to mention using biological agents on his own people." (HIS OWN PEOPLE! While it's a vile act, it wasn't his 'own' people; the Kurds wanted an independent state, and many were organized in a terrorist-communist organization. The PKK, no 25 (out of 34) on the state department's list of terrorist organizations.)
"this issue could test the very legitimacy of the UN" (the isolationist's mantra, parroted by the media as well)

I'd also like to note that your lengthy note above in which you said that I'd made my point about biological weapons of times and that you were wondering what point I was trying to make. My explanation was in response to Undertoad, but it was also my first followup to your posting in which you said:

But you still haven't really made a point as far as that goes. What sort of weapons were sold to Iraq in the 80's?

Thus, I reply to your own question, and you instantly go off on a tangent, saying "no-one is disputing that..." and "what point are you trying to make", both of course capitalized and bolded. It seems you had forgotten about your own questions and allegations.

Regarding the "Why are you deliberately misquoting me" response you have, maybe you shouldn't be so eager to stuff my own words down my throat. I guess getting one-up on me, gleefully using my phrases against me was too much to pass up.

Pity you didn't check my semiotic use first before embarassing yourself.

X.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Undertoad
[W]hen the US pulls its troops out of Germany, and Germany has to deal with the Mossad directly.

You don't seem to be aware of the amount of troops stationed in Germany right now. Do some research before posting, please.

And Europe has to deal with Germany directly.

Germany, the country that is unifying its armed forces with that of the rest of the EU. Germany, the country that doesn't have control over its own economy anymore, having ceded economic sovereignty (and soon military sovereignty) to the European Union. Germany, the country that is pushing for an ever-stronger European Parliament with more legislative power? Germany, of of the most liberal and pacifist country in the EU, where even the (opposition) right-wing party would be considered too leftist for US politics? Germany, the country with the Green Party in government, which just had its Socialist-Green ruling government coalition re-elected. Yes, Europe will truly have to deal with that danger. It's 1933 all over again.

Or perhaps the international terrorist community will respect Germany's borders more when Germany is defending them - since Germany is such a gracious nation to respect Iraq's borders.

Strange, without American troops to bomb, the terrorists have comparatively little interest in Germany. Even the democratic opposition party that briefly occupied Iraq's embassy in Berlin in the end left without violence, merely wanting to make a statement. It seems that if you don't actively piss off people, they don't want to kill you. Maybe you want to consider which government you want to elect - one that wants to support 3rd world dictators and selectively kill others, or one that refuses to deal with such nonsese.

My own guess is that the terrorists don't give two shits about what a nation's policies are, if the policies are set in place by infidels.

Oh dear, the religion angle again. Too much fox news? The infidels are those who mess up their region, and those allied with them. That's why there were planes set to fly into US and UK targets. Everything else is speculation.

Hey, it's okay if Europe is late to this war. (I'm speaking about the unstated war here, the war against radical Islam.)

How nice, you ignore my point about Algerian terrorists in France in the early-mid 1990s.

The US is late to terrorism, the RAF, IRA etc. were a major problem in Europe in decades past. You still haven't figured that out, even though you pretended to, in another thread. Don't dig up that nonsense again, please.

After all, the US was not ready in 1939.

And it's not ready not, the current administration's bumbling incompetence and obvious PR ploys regarding Iraq show that.

I've given this proof to you in the form of instructions that will take you a half-day to execute.

Since you were clearly unwilling to do so (is seeking the truth harder than sitting and watching CNN, which gives you pre-chewed thoughtbites?), I presented you with fairly detailled quotations which proved the US-Iraq biochem weapons link of the 1980s.

I expect you to trust me on this, even though it's been 20 years since I read it.

I do expect to trust me on this, as I trust you on factual matters that you claim to be true. I then backed up my statement with fact. You added the "20" to make it sound like a silly, exaggerated claim, which I never used. I'm not sure why you think I'd want to lie to you on simple factual issues. Opinion is another thing, claiming that something exists when it does not is childish and doesn't add anything.

My response was <i>Is that the best you can do?</i> and I stand by that response. Instead of a two-page long screed, you could have just said <i>Yes, sorry.</i>

How about "Xugumad, I'll take your words at face value since I have no reason to believe you're lying to me. Please provide some sort of evidence as soon as you can." You will note that I did provide evidence. Since you mock the "two-page long screed", it had mostly little to do with your actual phrase, but was the proof to jaguar's claims. (and to my backup for them)

I assume, since you are vaguely implying that I should be somewhat apologetic (please accept my feeble, unverifiable facts, etc), that you refuse to even address any of the proof I presented. It seems to be in line with the method of debate, however: make outlandish claims, deny everything, and when proof is presented, attack the way it's presented and use semantic tangents to avoid losing face.

Since nobody seems willing to attack the actual content of my posts, rather than the presentation, it's time to say goodbye to this thread.

X.

PS:

In the US we spell it Octoberfest.

<a href="http://www.oktoberfest.org/">No</a>, <a href="http://www.oktoberfest-zinzinnati.com/">you</a> <a href="http://www.fremontoktoberfest.org/">very</a> <a href="http://www.tulsaoktoberfest.org/">often</a> <a href="http://www.oktoberfestusa.com/">don't</a>. Most Oktoberfest/Octoberfest links at Google will go to US fests, which almost uniformly spell it 'Oktoberfest'. Since you were mocking Germany in your phrase where you misspelled it (and see Google wanting to change your spelling to the proper one, if you mistype it), you had to use the German spelling. My followup regarding the misspelling of Thanksgiving which illustrated my point in an obvious manner was ignored.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Xugumad
I didn't. Re-read every single one of my posts on the Cellar. I use single-ticks to make a word or phrase stand out, usually in exaggeration, and quotation marks (" ") to quote. Interestingly, you transformed what I said in single-ticks into quotation marks in your reply.

Now this really is getting ridiculous. I'm supposed to memorize the idiosyncracies of every poster's typographical habits in order to infer what they mean by their posts? So if I had used single quotes instead of double quotes, everything would be peachy? I transposed them because most people don't place your particular connotation on single versus double quotes, and therefore I saw 'em as interchangeable.

Go check every single one of my posts on the Cellar. I use indented bold blockquotes when I want to quote someone's words and then remark on them, not double quotes. I use double quotes for paraphrasing. But if you would have done your homework and studied my posting semantics, you would have known that and we wouldn't have had this discussion. Boy, you must feel embarassed right now for making such a silly mistake.