The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://207.44.245.159/article8130.htm[/URL]
Could be utter toss, could have a grain of truth in it...
Could be utter toss, could have a grain of truth in it...
Page:
June attack on Iran?
Whitfield would lose.
Whitfield would lose.
Skarra wrote:
> But at least the troops were available to be transported.
Indeed they were; I'll be interested to see how the troops from Western Europe are going to be redeployed. Won't you?
> lol, only because they were still doing deals with Saddam.
Ahh, so now it's entirely different because....well, because you want it to be different? Tell me, are you just going to keep manufacturing reasons and excuses why Blair is as pure as the driven snow and fighting the good fight against the evil Eastasians/Eurasians (delete as applicable)? I'm sure you are of course, but I thought I should grant you the courtesy of asking.
You asked me to critique your argument of Dubya's "logic". I've done so. And all you can offer in return is "Yeah, well....you're wrong!" Pathetic.
> Erm, no its not. The US military is DESPERATE for troops. That is
> evident in the massive turn over of Guardsmen going to Iraq at the
> moment. Plus, theres the Logistical needs. The US military simply
> can't send sufficient numbers to Iran, and supply them, and keep the
> troops they have in Iraq there and supply them. Its a simple matter
> of numbers of free equipment and men. The US simply does not have
> enough to go into Iran. And i wasnt saying the US would never be able
> to go into Iran, that too was made clear. But i did state "It
> would be a good long while".
Okay, fair enough. You might be interested to hear however that the argument you've just put forward there is what many doomsayers are using as the basis for their belief that Dubya will re-introduce the draft. I'm not convinced myself, but I feel I should let you know about that arguments existence. After all, you seem singularly incapable of discovering information that falls outside of your idealogical convictions.
> Is that a quote, did i say never? Did i, see my origional post
> please.
It's paraphrasing what I believed to be your argument. If I'm incorrect in that assumption, by all means correct me. But spare me your wailing "you're just cynical/paranoid/four legs good two legs bad" bleating whilst doing so. Your over-reliance on sophistry rather exposes your lack of faith in what you're saying.
> Perhaps i was being overly simplistic. I'll rephrase, you failed(at
> our origional arguments years ago) to see the huge good, i.e. schools
> opening, infastructure being built etc etc etc...
Again, utter noncebiscuits. I don't deny the rebuilding work that's been done. What I do find peculiar is that after a couple of years, the infrastructure is still a long way from being completed, and the oil revenues that should be paying for the work have been leeched away. I accept that in the arguments I have about Iraq, Im generally not the first to bring up the positives. But then, that's because I'm arguing from the point of view that the whole war was based on lies anyway.
[edit] All that said, I can see why you've assumed I don't see any good being done there; I've never had to argue against anyone who's tried to say that, which means I've almost certainly never specifically said "I accept that there is a lot of rebuilding work going on".
>
>
> WOW! The two are almost One arn't they. Well Gee Wizz. There's no
> difference with the opinions and actions taken by all parties
> concerned. And what about the circumstances for friction, although
> generally similar, specifically there are BIG differences. I mean,
> look at the nuclear program, the one in Iran poses a colossal threat
> to the region. Iraq, nuclear programs were not so much a percieved
> threat.
Oh really? So those arguments about Iraq having WMD that could be deployed within 45 minutes and thus posed a huge threat to the region; you don't find them similar to the arguments now being peddled concerning Iran, it's possible WMD, and how it could threaten the region? Or am I to understand that you feel that, because Iraq's supposed threat was alleged to be Biological and Chemical, that's wildly different from Iran's supposed threat being nuclear?
Really skarra; trying to sound contemptuous whilst having to grudgingly give more and more ground on your initial position that the two scenarios are not the same just...well, you just sound desperate to provoke me into missing just how full of holes your learned-by-rote party propaganda is.
> Did i not say, THIS TIME? The US is WAY more open to EU influence
> because it needs them far more than it did before Iraq.
Oh, does it really? Would you like to explain just why it needs the EU more. After all, logical thinking would suggest that a concensus of EU nations would have been needed to invade Iraq, if only to make logistical planning and support somewhat easier. It didn't happen though, did it?
This is the point I'm making when drawing the comparison between the situation as it was with Iraq, and the situation as it is now with Iran. And I'm afraid that simply saying "It's different because it just is" whilst providing no explanation as to what makes you think it's different just isn't good enough.
So, as a favour, I'll answer that one for you; it's different because the UK, having been built up in the US as the #1 ally and having given some legitimacy to the Iraqi land grab by being the only other nation to provide any substantial military support, are not on board with the idea of an invasion of Iran. Without the UK, it stops being a coalition, and starts being an indefensible act of international warmongering. Although in fairness, you make the exact same point below.
> Well the EU and UK, Ruling out military intervention for the time
> being, and the US not.
Yup, sounds good to me.
> Erm, you didn't address the question, does it not show some duality
> and hypocracy in yourself? It does, does it not?
Not hugely; I put to you a simple point about your ludicrous grounds for refusing to accept any culpability on Blairs part, and used Hitler's non-signature of any documents relating to the Holocaust as a comparison as to just how absurd it is. You responded with a petulant little rant and included something about "your iraq hate". Frankly, I didn't understand what you were talking about, and even if I had it didn't change the simple fact that you constantly refuse to address that comparison. Happily, further down in your last post, you finally do so. Well done. It only took about 5 attempts.
Also, if you were to look at the next point I made, you'd have found that I did indeed answer your point about whether or not I was presuming something with no evidence in support. It seems that in your rush to try and provoke me into the kind of squealing fit that you keep having whenever your glorious leader is questioned, you sorta forgot that.
>
> But the Hitler thing has no bearing. Hitler wasnt the entire
> Extermination Group was he. All's he had to do was give it the nod,
> Himler and co. could do the rest. But anyways, back to the
> "Lies". I tell you what, when Tony Blair is found guilty of
> misleading the nation to go to war in a court of law, i will
> acknowledge absolutly that it was wrong etc etc... Is there/ WILL
> THERE EVER(and yes, i meat ever, like in 100 years or something) be
> sufficient proof that he personally ordered/ was aware of lies and
> information he knew to be wrong???
Heh. So it has no bearing at all? Right, so using the logic you've just applied, anyone who says Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust is completely incorrect, yes? After all, there is no documentary evidence with Hitlers signature on it stating that Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and Mentals should be butchered, is there?
And of course, to use your own rather desperate argument against you, all Blair had to do was to give the nod, the Geoff Hoon and co could do the rest, couldn't they? Now do you see why I find your insistence that a document stating "I dun it; I lied. Signed Tony" is required before anyone can even suggest that Blair lied to the country is so completely ridiculous?
Will there ever be sufficient proof? Absolutely; the legal advice from Lord Goldsmith for example would go quite some way to proving whether or not we were misled. Shame Blair won't allow it to be released, isn't it? Finding some the WMD that we were warned in such dire tones against would be nice too. As would some indication that there was the tiniest link between Iraq and bin Laden. You seem to be getting upset at me that such evidence does not exist. Perhaps you should spend a little more time worrying whether or not Blair simply lied about it.
But lets go back to the original question; I asked you whether or not you agreed that there is a lot of the evidence currently available indicating, on the balance of probabilities, that Blair lied. You responded with a series of petulant paragraphs which completely avoided answering that question. I'd like to know whether you're even willing to admit the existence of any evidence indicating Blair lied, or whether you're such a zealot that you're incapable of doing that.
> Erm, again, you ducked the question, i mean, if the balance of proof
> is enough, then there was just case for war in Iraq. Even if some of
> the information from the worlds Intelligence Agiencies was blatently
> 'lies', there was still sufficient ground for war. Whats his name,
> David somat, David Kay maybe(former leader of the ISG) said he would
> have gone to war when faced with the intelligence that was about,
> there was sufficient grounds there, uw, but this is you isnt it, and
> your allowed to be hypocritical and criticise Blair, and use a
> similar foundation of logic with no problems.
Ducked the question? Really? I suppose the 2 paragraphs I wrote after that sentence which entirely answered your question don't count because you didn't like them?
As to the rest of this paragraph, basically it looks like you're making up facts again. David Kay said that? Prove it. Show me some evidence dear boy, because I'm sick and tired of reading your repeated lies and half truths in defence of the indefensible. I've stopped taking your word for things, because you've proven so many times that you're willing to simply lie in order to try and shut somebody up. Oh, and before you get all uptight and snarl "When have I ever lied?!", I'd point out that you repeatedly tried to misrepresent the Kelly inquiry as a total vindication for the government about everything to do with the war. Shame is was solely about Gilligan's claim, and specifically stated that it was NOT a critique of how the Government handled the intelligence, isn't it? Same for the Butler inquiry too.
> Growing discontent, where? Did not a recent poll show Labour was
> clawing its way back up the ladder? Not only was it holding its own,
> but it even got 2 Tory seats or something. So, where is this
> "growing discontent", on this board maybe? I think you are
> getting some grandios thoughts that simply arnt representative of the
> public.
Well, the growing discontent is the 2 recent polls by Gallup and Mori that show Labours lead having been cut to two points;
"A MORI poll putting them only two points behind Labour on 37 per cent " (taken from [URL]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1426296,00.html[/URL] )
Oh, and a Guardian poll showing Labours lead cut from 9 to 3 points. That's The Guardian; the Labour supporting newspaper, remember? [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1424896,00.html[/URL]
Not to mention the possible low turnout which would hurt Labour's re-election chances [URL]http://www.mori.com/election2005/index.shtml[/URL]
Heh; Y'know, it occurs to me that your attitude is symptomatic of why New Labour are currently doing so dreadfully in the polls; any criticism is met with arrogant accusations of paranoia and cyncism, and a total refusal to countenance that they may possibly be wrong. Not to mention a blinkered refusal to even admit the existence of any dissent. A little humility goes a long way you know skarra. And it's easier than the mental gymnastics you're having to perform in order to try and maintain your belief that Blair did not lie in any way.
> But you have already condemed Blair as guilty on matters, that if
> true, can only be criminal, on the ammount of proof of civil cases.
> Again, your arguments are filled with duality and hypocracy.
No; I've stated that on the basis of the evidence available (and remember; Labour can release the evidence that would prove they did not lie at any time. Yet they still haven't done so...) I feel that he's guilty. As he's refusing to release reams of evidence, it's not possible to say that he did so beyond reasonable doubt. Which no doubt suits you fine, but as I'm a rational person who likes to form opinions rather than unquestioningly accepting what his glorious leader tells him, I find myself in the position of having to base my opinion on incomplete data. If more evidence is produced that indicates his lack of guilt about lying, then that's great; I get to say "I was wrong" and then go about my day.
And, as I keep saying, I'm not a criminal court. I'm me. And I don't have to stick with a criminal burdon of proof for no reason other than you think I should. If you want to dismiss the massive weight of evidence that Blair lied as "hypocrisy", then you're of course more than welcome to do so. Just don't be surprised when you get laughed at for your inane inability to actually address that evidence with anything more than a "Ah, but there isn't a signed document proving that Blair did it!!". I'm not saying a criminal court would find Blair guilty of lying. I AM saying that a civil court would however. Oddly, you seem unable to rebutt that assertion.
> Erm, yes i do. What else could it be? At best its supposition, and so
> there is no basis for those thoughts to be sufficiently called, hmmm,
> example. You have a line, the middle is about the average way you
> view someone with a good basis of precident and proof for that being
> there. To the right you have the faitfull(probably about half-way
> between is me) and to the left is cynicism and a blind hatred that
> see's no good. That is where you are. I mean, tell me, the Mimimum
> Wage rise comming, or bonus payments to pensioners etc etc, are they
> all Blairish lies and do only Blair any good?
What else would it be? Well, for one it would be a person looking at all the available facts and coming to a conclusion based on them. This is the second time you've tried to mock me for the heinous crime of thinking for myself. What exactly is your problem with that?
No basis for those thoughts to be called example? What, you mean apart from the fact that no WMD were ever found? Oh, and that no link between Saddam and Bin Laden has ever been found? Apart from that you mean?
Ahh, we have the approach of the truly desperate; wailing "what about all the good things eh?" Well, firstly I'd ask you how that means he didn't lie about Iraq. And secondly I'd say that the Minimum wage increasem and bonus payments to pensioners are excellent things that Labour deserve credit for.
Your childish attempt to stifle any criticism of Blair also make a mockery of your claim not to be one of the blindly driven party faithful; frankly, the only time I've encountered someone with more blinkered and ill-supported beliefs about a subject was when Forest Fan tried to explain that the earth was 4000 years old.
Let me ask you something; the enormous number of people who think Blair lied about the war; are they all, every one of them, to be simply dismissed as paranoid?
> If i saw sufficient grounds to change my stance, i would. I have
> already done so on several issues, such as pensioners. When faced
> with the ever increasing events, i changed my stance to not one of
> towing the party line, but of raising the issue with my local Labour
> party. I have not yet seem sufficient grounds to become as critical
> as you are to Iraq, or as cynical you have become on the Iran issue.
> There is simply too much on the other side of the fence keeping me
> there. You canot expect me, or anybody to simply change our stance
> because thats what a lot of other people think?
Well, that's fair enough. However, all I've seen of you is your dogmatic refusal to countenance in any way that anyone could conceivably think that Blair might have lied. You've not seen sufficient grounds? Well no; when you dismiss any argument against Blair with a repeated insistence that there needs to be a signed document saying that Blair authorised lying about the intel for the war, you're not likely to, are you?
In fairness, no; I don't expect you to change your opinion purely because lots of people think otherwise. However, I do expect someone to actually acknowledge that what people think does actually have some basis in fact. Thus far, all you've done is clamped hands to ears and repeated "No, because there are no documents proving that Blair lied", and tried to dismiss it all as paranoia and hypocrisy. You've not made any attempt to actually engage with me or anyone else as to the reasons for the belief that Blair is a liar.
As for "how cynical I am on the Iran issue", you might like to have yet another look at the very first post in this thread; I'm not sure how saying that something might be toss or may have a grain of truth in it shows cynicism, but I'm sure you'll explain it all to me.
> But you also made no attempt at clarifying that you were
> acknowledging other methods of going about it.
Apart, of course, from the paragraph stating that it was only one possibility that you're replying to you mean? That...that wasn't an attempt at clarification, no? Okay; no, at the first instance I did not make it completely clear that it was just one possibility. Had I realised that you were going to fall back on sophistry and literal mindedness in order to try and maintain your dogmatic faith in Blair concerning the land grab, I would have been more precise in my language. As is, I gave you credit for being a rational and thinking human being. Clearly, this is an area where no such credit can be given.
> And when it does that, people like you jump and scream at the US for
> what its doing, and bang on about the UN, or by what right do they
> have? They can do no right, and i see why there are so many people in
> the US advocating isolationalism.
Heh. It's so good to see you doing exactly what I've accused you of doing all along; creating a fantasy scenario where I behave in a certain way so that you can continue to wail "But I'm RIGHT!".
Tell me; if I'm so anti american, why did I write an essay on why I despise the anti-americanism of certain elements of the anti war movement? And why are you so keen to assume that, because I oppose the actions of Dubya's Neo-Con government thus far, I will therefore oppose everything America does? Yes, there will always be some people who will complain about what America does no matter what. Your desperate insistence that anyone currently opposing the land grab falls into that camp rather gives away your blinkered zealotry.
> Economic Incentives, hmmm, in what form, and where from. Do not
> forget the US is not a bottomless pit of wealth ready to be dished
> out to all. And please, dont say, well the money they spent on the
> War etc... Because that would not be enough to buy countries in order
> for them to change their stance or maintain it. And the poverty
> issue. Tell me, how poor were the 9/11 hijackers? Wern't 15 of them
> from a not too bad off areas of Saudi?
>
Heh. You sound EXACTLY like a tory; trying to deny that poverty could perhaps give terrorists recruiting grounds. Seriously, I'm not just saying that to annoy you; the only people I've heard trying to deny that poverty provides a recruitment ground for terrorism are Conservatives.
How poor were the 9/11 hijackers? I've got no idea. Were they from well off areas? Got any evidence for that, because I know you're not above making 'facts' up in order to sustain your zealotry. How rich are all of the suicide bombers currently plaguing Iraq? I'm guessing that they're not exactly going to make the Forbes Rich List though.
In what form? Why, writing off of debt for starters. That doesn't require anyone to actually give, does it? Don't say the wealth they spend on the war? Why not? It goes to the same cause and for a better result, so why not? Why wouldn't all of that be enough to change a nations stance? After all, the US bought a number of countries' votes in the UN during the build up to Iraq, didn't they?
Now; seeing as I've been good enough to answer all of your questions, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to me just how an invasion of a nation with no connection whatsoever to bin Laden and who had nothing at all to do with 9/11 has helped stop another such terrorist attack happen? You could even go on to talk about how Iraq has gone from having pretty much no radical Sunni terrorists to now being teeming with them.
I look forward to your reply, if only to see if it contains any evidence whatsoever of independant thought. If so, I'll be happy to respond. If not...well, life is busier than it once was, and unfortunately I have other things to do that waste my time in a debate with a blinkered idealogue who would go to any length to avoid admitting that some people don't actually believe Blair about the land grab.
> But at least the troops were available to be transported.
Indeed they were; I'll be interested to see how the troops from Western Europe are going to be redeployed. Won't you?
> lol, only because they were still doing deals with Saddam.
Ahh, so now it's entirely different because....well, because you want it to be different? Tell me, are you just going to keep manufacturing reasons and excuses why Blair is as pure as the driven snow and fighting the good fight against the evil Eastasians/Eurasians (delete as applicable)? I'm sure you are of course, but I thought I should grant you the courtesy of asking.
You asked me to critique your argument of Dubya's "logic". I've done so. And all you can offer in return is "Yeah, well....you're wrong!" Pathetic.
> Erm, no its not. The US military is DESPERATE for troops. That is
> evident in the massive turn over of Guardsmen going to Iraq at the
> moment. Plus, theres the Logistical needs. The US military simply
> can't send sufficient numbers to Iran, and supply them, and keep the
> troops they have in Iraq there and supply them. Its a simple matter
> of numbers of free equipment and men. The US simply does not have
> enough to go into Iran. And i wasnt saying the US would never be able
> to go into Iran, that too was made clear. But i did state "It
> would be a good long while".
Okay, fair enough. You might be interested to hear however that the argument you've just put forward there is what many doomsayers are using as the basis for their belief that Dubya will re-introduce the draft. I'm not convinced myself, but I feel I should let you know about that arguments existence. After all, you seem singularly incapable of discovering information that falls outside of your idealogical convictions.
> Is that a quote, did i say never? Did i, see my origional post
> please.
It's paraphrasing what I believed to be your argument. If I'm incorrect in that assumption, by all means correct me. But spare me your wailing "you're just cynical/paranoid/four legs good two legs bad" bleating whilst doing so. Your over-reliance on sophistry rather exposes your lack of faith in what you're saying.
> Perhaps i was being overly simplistic. I'll rephrase, you failed(at
> our origional arguments years ago) to see the huge good, i.e. schools
> opening, infastructure being built etc etc etc...
Again, utter noncebiscuits. I don't deny the rebuilding work that's been done. What I do find peculiar is that after a couple of years, the infrastructure is still a long way from being completed, and the oil revenues that should be paying for the work have been leeched away. I accept that in the arguments I have about Iraq, Im generally not the first to bring up the positives. But then, that's because I'm arguing from the point of view that the whole war was based on lies anyway.
[edit] All that said, I can see why you've assumed I don't see any good being done there; I've never had to argue against anyone who's tried to say that, which means I've almost certainly never specifically said "I accept that there is a lot of rebuilding work going on".
>
>
> WOW! The two are almost One arn't they. Well Gee Wizz. There's no
> difference with the opinions and actions taken by all parties
> concerned. And what about the circumstances for friction, although
> generally similar, specifically there are BIG differences. I mean,
> look at the nuclear program, the one in Iran poses a colossal threat
> to the region. Iraq, nuclear programs were not so much a percieved
> threat.
Oh really? So those arguments about Iraq having WMD that could be deployed within 45 minutes and thus posed a huge threat to the region; you don't find them similar to the arguments now being peddled concerning Iran, it's possible WMD, and how it could threaten the region? Or am I to understand that you feel that, because Iraq's supposed threat was alleged to be Biological and Chemical, that's wildly different from Iran's supposed threat being nuclear?
Really skarra; trying to sound contemptuous whilst having to grudgingly give more and more ground on your initial position that the two scenarios are not the same just...well, you just sound desperate to provoke me into missing just how full of holes your learned-by-rote party propaganda is.
> Did i not say, THIS TIME? The US is WAY more open to EU influence
> because it needs them far more than it did before Iraq.
Oh, does it really? Would you like to explain just why it needs the EU more. After all, logical thinking would suggest that a concensus of EU nations would have been needed to invade Iraq, if only to make logistical planning and support somewhat easier. It didn't happen though, did it?
This is the point I'm making when drawing the comparison between the situation as it was with Iraq, and the situation as it is now with Iran. And I'm afraid that simply saying "It's different because it just is" whilst providing no explanation as to what makes you think it's different just isn't good enough.
So, as a favour, I'll answer that one for you; it's different because the UK, having been built up in the US as the #1 ally and having given some legitimacy to the Iraqi land grab by being the only other nation to provide any substantial military support, are not on board with the idea of an invasion of Iran. Without the UK, it stops being a coalition, and starts being an indefensible act of international warmongering. Although in fairness, you make the exact same point below.
> Well the EU and UK, Ruling out military intervention for the time
> being, and the US not.
Yup, sounds good to me.
> Erm, you didn't address the question, does it not show some duality
> and hypocracy in yourself? It does, does it not?
Not hugely; I put to you a simple point about your ludicrous grounds for refusing to accept any culpability on Blairs part, and used Hitler's non-signature of any documents relating to the Holocaust as a comparison as to just how absurd it is. You responded with a petulant little rant and included something about "your iraq hate". Frankly, I didn't understand what you were talking about, and even if I had it didn't change the simple fact that you constantly refuse to address that comparison. Happily, further down in your last post, you finally do so. Well done. It only took about 5 attempts.
Also, if you were to look at the next point I made, you'd have found that I did indeed answer your point about whether or not I was presuming something with no evidence in support. It seems that in your rush to try and provoke me into the kind of squealing fit that you keep having whenever your glorious leader is questioned, you sorta forgot that.
>
> But the Hitler thing has no bearing. Hitler wasnt the entire
> Extermination Group was he. All's he had to do was give it the nod,
> Himler and co. could do the rest. But anyways, back to the
> "Lies". I tell you what, when Tony Blair is found guilty of
> misleading the nation to go to war in a court of law, i will
> acknowledge absolutly that it was wrong etc etc... Is there/ WILL
> THERE EVER(and yes, i meat ever, like in 100 years or something) be
> sufficient proof that he personally ordered/ was aware of lies and
> information he knew to be wrong???
Heh. So it has no bearing at all? Right, so using the logic you've just applied, anyone who says Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust is completely incorrect, yes? After all, there is no documentary evidence with Hitlers signature on it stating that Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and Mentals should be butchered, is there?
And of course, to use your own rather desperate argument against you, all Blair had to do was to give the nod, the Geoff Hoon and co could do the rest, couldn't they? Now do you see why I find your insistence that a document stating "I dun it; I lied. Signed Tony" is required before anyone can even suggest that Blair lied to the country is so completely ridiculous?
Will there ever be sufficient proof? Absolutely; the legal advice from Lord Goldsmith for example would go quite some way to proving whether or not we were misled. Shame Blair won't allow it to be released, isn't it? Finding some the WMD that we were warned in such dire tones against would be nice too. As would some indication that there was the tiniest link between Iraq and bin Laden. You seem to be getting upset at me that such evidence does not exist. Perhaps you should spend a little more time worrying whether or not Blair simply lied about it.
But lets go back to the original question; I asked you whether or not you agreed that there is a lot of the evidence currently available indicating, on the balance of probabilities, that Blair lied. You responded with a series of petulant paragraphs which completely avoided answering that question. I'd like to know whether you're even willing to admit the existence of any evidence indicating Blair lied, or whether you're such a zealot that you're incapable of doing that.
> Erm, again, you ducked the question, i mean, if the balance of proof
> is enough, then there was just case for war in Iraq. Even if some of
> the information from the worlds Intelligence Agiencies was blatently
> 'lies', there was still sufficient ground for war. Whats his name,
> David somat, David Kay maybe(former leader of the ISG) said he would
> have gone to war when faced with the intelligence that was about,
> there was sufficient grounds there, uw, but this is you isnt it, and
> your allowed to be hypocritical and criticise Blair, and use a
> similar foundation of logic with no problems.
Ducked the question? Really? I suppose the 2 paragraphs I wrote after that sentence which entirely answered your question don't count because you didn't like them?
As to the rest of this paragraph, basically it looks like you're making up facts again. David Kay said that? Prove it. Show me some evidence dear boy, because I'm sick and tired of reading your repeated lies and half truths in defence of the indefensible. I've stopped taking your word for things, because you've proven so many times that you're willing to simply lie in order to try and shut somebody up. Oh, and before you get all uptight and snarl "When have I ever lied?!", I'd point out that you repeatedly tried to misrepresent the Kelly inquiry as a total vindication for the government about everything to do with the war. Shame is was solely about Gilligan's claim, and specifically stated that it was NOT a critique of how the Government handled the intelligence, isn't it? Same for the Butler inquiry too.
> Growing discontent, where? Did not a recent poll show Labour was
> clawing its way back up the ladder? Not only was it holding its own,
> but it even got 2 Tory seats or something. So, where is this
> "growing discontent", on this board maybe? I think you are
> getting some grandios thoughts that simply arnt representative of the
> public.
Well, the growing discontent is the 2 recent polls by Gallup and Mori that show Labours lead having been cut to two points;
"A MORI poll putting them only two points behind Labour on 37 per cent " (taken from [URL]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1426296,00.html[/URL] )
Oh, and a Guardian poll showing Labours lead cut from 9 to 3 points. That's The Guardian; the Labour supporting newspaper, remember? [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1424896,00.html[/URL]
Not to mention the possible low turnout which would hurt Labour's re-election chances [URL]http://www.mori.com/election2005/index.shtml[/URL]
Heh; Y'know, it occurs to me that your attitude is symptomatic of why New Labour are currently doing so dreadfully in the polls; any criticism is met with arrogant accusations of paranoia and cyncism, and a total refusal to countenance that they may possibly be wrong. Not to mention a blinkered refusal to even admit the existence of any dissent. A little humility goes a long way you know skarra. And it's easier than the mental gymnastics you're having to perform in order to try and maintain your belief that Blair did not lie in any way.
> But you have already condemed Blair as guilty on matters, that if
> true, can only be criminal, on the ammount of proof of civil cases.
> Again, your arguments are filled with duality and hypocracy.
No; I've stated that on the basis of the evidence available (and remember; Labour can release the evidence that would prove they did not lie at any time. Yet they still haven't done so...) I feel that he's guilty. As he's refusing to release reams of evidence, it's not possible to say that he did so beyond reasonable doubt. Which no doubt suits you fine, but as I'm a rational person who likes to form opinions rather than unquestioningly accepting what his glorious leader tells him, I find myself in the position of having to base my opinion on incomplete data. If more evidence is produced that indicates his lack of guilt about lying, then that's great; I get to say "I was wrong" and then go about my day.
And, as I keep saying, I'm not a criminal court. I'm me. And I don't have to stick with a criminal burdon of proof for no reason other than you think I should. If you want to dismiss the massive weight of evidence that Blair lied as "hypocrisy", then you're of course more than welcome to do so. Just don't be surprised when you get laughed at for your inane inability to actually address that evidence with anything more than a "Ah, but there isn't a signed document proving that Blair did it!!". I'm not saying a criminal court would find Blair guilty of lying. I AM saying that a civil court would however. Oddly, you seem unable to rebutt that assertion.
> Erm, yes i do. What else could it be? At best its supposition, and so
> there is no basis for those thoughts to be sufficiently called, hmmm,
> example. You have a line, the middle is about the average way you
> view someone with a good basis of precident and proof for that being
> there. To the right you have the faitfull(probably about half-way
> between is me) and to the left is cynicism and a blind hatred that
> see's no good. That is where you are. I mean, tell me, the Mimimum
> Wage rise comming, or bonus payments to pensioners etc etc, are they
> all Blairish lies and do only Blair any good?
What else would it be? Well, for one it would be a person looking at all the available facts and coming to a conclusion based on them. This is the second time you've tried to mock me for the heinous crime of thinking for myself. What exactly is your problem with that?
No basis for those thoughts to be called example? What, you mean apart from the fact that no WMD were ever found? Oh, and that no link between Saddam and Bin Laden has ever been found? Apart from that you mean?
Ahh, we have the approach of the truly desperate; wailing "what about all the good things eh?" Well, firstly I'd ask you how that means he didn't lie about Iraq. And secondly I'd say that the Minimum wage increasem and bonus payments to pensioners are excellent things that Labour deserve credit for.
Your childish attempt to stifle any criticism of Blair also make a mockery of your claim not to be one of the blindly driven party faithful; frankly, the only time I've encountered someone with more blinkered and ill-supported beliefs about a subject was when Forest Fan tried to explain that the earth was 4000 years old.
Let me ask you something; the enormous number of people who think Blair lied about the war; are they all, every one of them, to be simply dismissed as paranoid?
> If i saw sufficient grounds to change my stance, i would. I have
> already done so on several issues, such as pensioners. When faced
> with the ever increasing events, i changed my stance to not one of
> towing the party line, but of raising the issue with my local Labour
> party. I have not yet seem sufficient grounds to become as critical
> as you are to Iraq, or as cynical you have become on the Iran issue.
> There is simply too much on the other side of the fence keeping me
> there. You canot expect me, or anybody to simply change our stance
> because thats what a lot of other people think?
Well, that's fair enough. However, all I've seen of you is your dogmatic refusal to countenance in any way that anyone could conceivably think that Blair might have lied. You've not seen sufficient grounds? Well no; when you dismiss any argument against Blair with a repeated insistence that there needs to be a signed document saying that Blair authorised lying about the intel for the war, you're not likely to, are you?
In fairness, no; I don't expect you to change your opinion purely because lots of people think otherwise. However, I do expect someone to actually acknowledge that what people think does actually have some basis in fact. Thus far, all you've done is clamped hands to ears and repeated "No, because there are no documents proving that Blair lied", and tried to dismiss it all as paranoia and hypocrisy. You've not made any attempt to actually engage with me or anyone else as to the reasons for the belief that Blair is a liar.
As for "how cynical I am on the Iran issue", you might like to have yet another look at the very first post in this thread; I'm not sure how saying that something might be toss or may have a grain of truth in it shows cynicism, but I'm sure you'll explain it all to me.
> But you also made no attempt at clarifying that you were
> acknowledging other methods of going about it.
Apart, of course, from the paragraph stating that it was only one possibility that you're replying to you mean? That...that wasn't an attempt at clarification, no? Okay; no, at the first instance I did not make it completely clear that it was just one possibility. Had I realised that you were going to fall back on sophistry and literal mindedness in order to try and maintain your dogmatic faith in Blair concerning the land grab, I would have been more precise in my language. As is, I gave you credit for being a rational and thinking human being. Clearly, this is an area where no such credit can be given.
> And when it does that, people like you jump and scream at the US for
> what its doing, and bang on about the UN, or by what right do they
> have? They can do no right, and i see why there are so many people in
> the US advocating isolationalism.
Heh. It's so good to see you doing exactly what I've accused you of doing all along; creating a fantasy scenario where I behave in a certain way so that you can continue to wail "But I'm RIGHT!".
Tell me; if I'm so anti american, why did I write an essay on why I despise the anti-americanism of certain elements of the anti war movement? And why are you so keen to assume that, because I oppose the actions of Dubya's Neo-Con government thus far, I will therefore oppose everything America does? Yes, there will always be some people who will complain about what America does no matter what. Your desperate insistence that anyone currently opposing the land grab falls into that camp rather gives away your blinkered zealotry.
> Economic Incentives, hmmm, in what form, and where from. Do not
> forget the US is not a bottomless pit of wealth ready to be dished
> out to all. And please, dont say, well the money they spent on the
> War etc... Because that would not be enough to buy countries in order
> for them to change their stance or maintain it. And the poverty
> issue. Tell me, how poor were the 9/11 hijackers? Wern't 15 of them
> from a not too bad off areas of Saudi?
>
Heh. You sound EXACTLY like a tory; trying to deny that poverty could perhaps give terrorists recruiting grounds. Seriously, I'm not just saying that to annoy you; the only people I've heard trying to deny that poverty provides a recruitment ground for terrorism are Conservatives.
How poor were the 9/11 hijackers? I've got no idea. Were they from well off areas? Got any evidence for that, because I know you're not above making 'facts' up in order to sustain your zealotry. How rich are all of the suicide bombers currently plaguing Iraq? I'm guessing that they're not exactly going to make the Forbes Rich List though.
In what form? Why, writing off of debt for starters. That doesn't require anyone to actually give, does it? Don't say the wealth they spend on the war? Why not? It goes to the same cause and for a better result, so why not? Why wouldn't all of that be enough to change a nations stance? After all, the US bought a number of countries' votes in the UN during the build up to Iraq, didn't they?
Now; seeing as I've been good enough to answer all of your questions, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to me just how an invasion of a nation with no connection whatsoever to bin Laden and who had nothing at all to do with 9/11 has helped stop another such terrorist attack happen? You could even go on to talk about how Iraq has gone from having pretty much no radical Sunni terrorists to now being teeming with them.
I look forward to your reply, if only to see if it contains any evidence whatsoever of independant thought. If so, I'll be happy to respond. If not...well, life is busier than it once was, and unfortunately I have other things to do that waste my time in a debate with a blinkered idealogue who would go to any length to avoid admitting that some people don't actually believe Blair about the land grab.
Light wrote:
> The US wasn't in a position to invade Iraq when it started rattling
> it's sabre, was it? It had to transport troops across, did it not?
But at least the troops were available to be transported.
> Most of the EU (UK excepted) was still making diplomatic overtures to
> Iraq via the UN when Dubya started warmongering too.
lol, only because they were still doing deals with Saddam.
> I'm making a direct comparison between the position when Dubya
> started making noises about Iraq, and the position now that he's
> making noises about Iran. Literally the only difference is that the
> UK isn't on board with the idea of invading Iran. It's rather telling
> that you're trying to compare a snapshot of the situation right now
> with Iran, with the situation in Iraq over a long period of time.
I'M trying to compare the two. I'm not the one who started this comparison stuff. And the very difference in time is inself one of the major differences between Iraq and Iran.
> But your logic that it can't is flawed. Sure, it can't do so right
> now, right at this moment (And it may never do so; you might have
> noticed that in the very first post in this thread I stated that it
> might be a load of old toss); get more troops across (not too
> difficult bearing in mind the troop reductions in Western Europe) and
> that difficulty is negated.
Erm, no its not. The US military is DESPERATE for troops. That is evident in the massive turn over of Guardsmen going to Iraq at the moment. Plus, theres the Logistical needs. The US military simply can't send sufficient numbers to Iran, and supply them, and keep the troops they have in Iraq there and supply them. Its a simple matter of numbers of free equipment and men. The US simply does not have enough to go into Iran. And i wasnt saying the US would never be able to go into Iran, that too was made clear. But i did state "It would be a good long while".
> For the record (and to restate the point) I don't know how likely or
> otherwise any of this is. What I AM saying is that your appeal to
> logic is fatally flawed because you're looking purely at the
> situation as it is right now and stating "therefore it can never
> happen" (or at least, that's how it seems).
Is that a quote, did i say never? Did i, see my origional post please.
> That is utter bull, and what's more you know it. Said that there
> isn't any good? Right...cos of course, the removal of a dictator (ANY
> dictator) is never a good thing...Off the top of my head, I can't
> think of a single person on this board who has tried to say that
> literally not one good thing has come from the war but I'd be
> intrigued to see otherwise.
Perhaps i was being overly simplistic. I'll rephrase, you failed(at our origional arguments years ago) to see the huge good, i.e. schools opening, infastructure being built etc etc etc...
> That's it? That's a fair old amount really, isn't it? It's like
> saying "there's no similarity between oranges and tangerines,
> apart from them looking the same". The situations are VERY
> comparable, even just based on what you're grudgingly allowing as
> similarities. Especially coupled with access to oil, the nation in
> question having embarrassed the US in the past, the nation in
> question being a former ally...like I say, the only difference I can
> see is that the UK aren't jumping in to lend some legitimacy to it.
WOW! The two are almost One arn't they. Well Gee Wizz. There's no difference with the opinions and actions taken by all parties concerned. And what about the circumstances for friction, although generally similar, specifically there are BIG differences. I mean, look at the nuclear program, the one in Iran poses a colossal threat to the region. Iraq, nuclear programs were not so much a percieved threat.
> I think you massively overestimate how much influence the EU has on
> the US; what difference did any EU nations position (with the
> exception of the UK) make to the Iraq land grab? Apart, of course,
> from delaying it a short while?
Did i not say, THIS TIME? The US is WAY more open to EU influence because it needs them far more than it did before Iraq.
> A lot less fractured and divided? What exactly do you mean by that?
> With Iraq, we had two fairly clear camps; to oversimplify it, war
> without delay was one. Delay with the threat of war was the other.
> What are the divisions here?
Well the EU and UK, Ruling out military intervention for the time being, and the US not.
> ...all of which sounds like nothing more than an angry and petulant
> wailing from someone who doesn't want to admit that maybe, just
> maybe, his argument might be a thing writ in water.
Erm, you didn't address the question, does it not show some duality and hypocracy in yourself? It does, does it not?
> No, presumption of it with no evidence to support that presumption is
> not. However, as you well know, there is a lot of evidence to support
> the presumption that the reasons for going to war were lies, isn't
> there? And your only response has been "Well, I haven't seen a
> specific document stating that Blair lied". Hence my repeated
> stating of the Hitler/Holocaust thing, and your repeated avoidance of
> even acknowledging it.
But the Hitler thing has no bearing. Hitler wasnt the entire Extermination Group was he. All's he had to do was give it the nod, Himler and co. could do the rest. But anyways, back to the "Lies". I tell you what, when Tony Blair is found guilty of misleading the nation to go to war in a court of law, i will acknowledge absolutly that it was wrong etc etc... Is there/ WILL THERE EVER(and yes, i meat ever, like in 100 years or something) be sufficient proof that he personally ordered/ was aware of lies and information he knew to be wrong???
> Heh. Nice to see you so visibly rattled...
Erm, again, you ducked the question, i mean, if the balance of proof is enough, then there was just case for war in Iraq. Even if some of the information from the worlds Intelligence Agiencies was blatently 'lies', there was still sufficient ground for war. Whats his name, David somat, David Kay maybe(former leader of the ISG) said he would have gone to war when faced with the intelligence that was about, there was sufficient grounds there, uw, but this is you isnt it, and your allowed to be hypocritical and criticise Blair, and use a similar foundation of logic with no problems.
> However, as we're not talking about a court of law, you'll pardon me
> for laughing in your face as you grow red-faced with impotent anger
> at being unable to dismiss the growing discontent with your precious
> leader.
Growing discontent, where? Did not a recent poll show Labour was clawing its way back up the ladder? Not only was it holding its own, but it even got 2 Tory seats or something. So, where is this "growing discontent", on this board maybe? I think you are getting some grandios thoughts that simply arnt representative of the public.
> Oh, and just so you know; civil cases in the UK are decided on the
> Balance of Probabilities, not Beyond Reasonable Doubt. So it's not as
> if I've just made up a standard of proof in order to justify my
> opinion. And the main objection to using that for the Terror cases is
> that we'd be using a lesser Civil law standard of proof for Criminal
> cases. Really skarra; check your facts before launching off into a
> 'scathing' reply. That way, you might look a little bit less...well,
> less of a zealot.
But you have already condemed Blair as guilty on matters, that if true, can only be criminal, on the ammount of proof of civil cases. Again, your arguments are filled with duality and hypocracy.
> Not every statement, no. But a huge number of them, yes. And, as I
> say, the majority of the evidence concerning the reasons for this war
> indicates that one is right to view statements from the Government
> with suspicion. As near as I can tell, judging by your little
> outburst in your previous post, you regard pretty much all suspicion
> of Blair as either "paranoia" or "cynicism".
Erm, yes i do. What else could it be? At best its supposition, and so there is no basis for those thoughts to be sufficiently called, hmmm, example. You have a line, the middle is about the average way you view someone with a good basis of precident and proof for that being there. To the right you have the faitfull(probably about half-way between is me) and to the left is cynicism and a blind hatred that see's no good. That is where you are. I mean, tell me, the Mimimum Wage rise comming, or bonus payments to pensioners etc etc, are they all Blairish lies and do only Blair any good?
> That you're so blinded by your Labour sympathies that you're
> unwilling to subject the honeyed pearls of wisdom that drip from your
> glorious leader's lips to any kind of critical analysis is not my
> problem. Nor is your need to create scenario's in your own head where
> you get to tell other people what they REALLY meant in order for you
> to maintain your own personal dogma.
If i saw sufficient grounds to change my stance, i would. I have already done so on several issues, such as pensioners. When faced with the ever increasing events, i changed my stance to not one of towing the party line, but of raising the issue with my local Labour party. I have not yet seem sufficient grounds to become as critical as you are to Iraq, or as cynical you have become on the Iran issue. There is simply too much on the other side of the fence keeping me there. You canot expect me, or anybody to simply change our stance because thats what a lot of other people think?
> ~sigh~ I gave one possibility skarra. I didn't try and claim it was
> the be all and end all. Unless you're trying to say that the
> withdrawal of the coalition won't affect insurgent attacks at all?
> Please; do clarify what you're saying. It's difficult to ascertain
> the exact meaning of what you're saying due to breathtakingly
> childish, reedy, "Oh, so you think so? Eh? Eh? Do you? Eh? Right
> then! Right!" nature of your replies.
But you also made no attempt at clarifying that you were acknowledging other methods of going about it.
> How about with a sustained police action led by the US (as it is
> unquestionably the most influential world power)
And when it does that, people like you jump and scream at the US for what its doing, and bang on about the UN, or by what right do they have? They can do no right, and i see why there are so many people in the US advocating isolationalism.
> and garnering the
> support of all democratic governments and offering economic
> incentives to authoritarian and dictatorial governments to co-operate
> and comply with measures designed to both alleviate the massive
> poverty that provide terrorists with their recruiting grounds and aid
> the hunt for the main terrorist leaders?
Economic Incentives, hmmm, in what form, and where from. Do not forget the US is not a bottomless pit of wealth ready to be dished out to all. And please, dont say, well the money they spent on the War etc... Because that would not be enough to buy countries in order for them to change their stance or maintain it. And the poverty issue. Tell me, how poor were the 9/11 hijackers? Wern't 15 of them from a not too bad off areas of Saudi?
> Y'know, just as a possibility...
>
>
>
> Skarra, please allow me to give you some advice; you're arguing as an
> idealogue. Which makes you unwilling to consider ideas that don't fit
> in with that ideaology. Which makes you INCREDIBLY easy to run rings
> round in a debate because you only countenance your own
> "side" when it comes to forming your opinions. And it also
> makes it very obvious when you've grown angry and upset, thus making
> whatever you say sound suspect due to the petulant tone you take when
> saying it. I say that without rancour, or without the wish to
> patronise.
> The US wasn't in a position to invade Iraq when it started rattling
> it's sabre, was it? It had to transport troops across, did it not?
But at least the troops were available to be transported.
> Most of the EU (UK excepted) was still making diplomatic overtures to
> Iraq via the UN when Dubya started warmongering too.
lol, only because they were still doing deals with Saddam.
> I'm making a direct comparison between the position when Dubya
> started making noises about Iraq, and the position now that he's
> making noises about Iran. Literally the only difference is that the
> UK isn't on board with the idea of invading Iran. It's rather telling
> that you're trying to compare a snapshot of the situation right now
> with Iran, with the situation in Iraq over a long period of time.
I'M trying to compare the two. I'm not the one who started this comparison stuff. And the very difference in time is inself one of the major differences between Iraq and Iran.
> But your logic that it can't is flawed. Sure, it can't do so right
> now, right at this moment (And it may never do so; you might have
> noticed that in the very first post in this thread I stated that it
> might be a load of old toss); get more troops across (not too
> difficult bearing in mind the troop reductions in Western Europe) and
> that difficulty is negated.
Erm, no its not. The US military is DESPERATE for troops. That is evident in the massive turn over of Guardsmen going to Iraq at the moment. Plus, theres the Logistical needs. The US military simply can't send sufficient numbers to Iran, and supply them, and keep the troops they have in Iraq there and supply them. Its a simple matter of numbers of free equipment and men. The US simply does not have enough to go into Iran. And i wasnt saying the US would never be able to go into Iran, that too was made clear. But i did state "It would be a good long while".
> For the record (and to restate the point) I don't know how likely or
> otherwise any of this is. What I AM saying is that your appeal to
> logic is fatally flawed because you're looking purely at the
> situation as it is right now and stating "therefore it can never
> happen" (or at least, that's how it seems).
Is that a quote, did i say never? Did i, see my origional post please.
> That is utter bull, and what's more you know it. Said that there
> isn't any good? Right...cos of course, the removal of a dictator (ANY
> dictator) is never a good thing...Off the top of my head, I can't
> think of a single person on this board who has tried to say that
> literally not one good thing has come from the war but I'd be
> intrigued to see otherwise.
Perhaps i was being overly simplistic. I'll rephrase, you failed(at our origional arguments years ago) to see the huge good, i.e. schools opening, infastructure being built etc etc etc...
> That's it? That's a fair old amount really, isn't it? It's like
> saying "there's no similarity between oranges and tangerines,
> apart from them looking the same". The situations are VERY
> comparable, even just based on what you're grudgingly allowing as
> similarities. Especially coupled with access to oil, the nation in
> question having embarrassed the US in the past, the nation in
> question being a former ally...like I say, the only difference I can
> see is that the UK aren't jumping in to lend some legitimacy to it.
WOW! The two are almost One arn't they. Well Gee Wizz. There's no difference with the opinions and actions taken by all parties concerned. And what about the circumstances for friction, although generally similar, specifically there are BIG differences. I mean, look at the nuclear program, the one in Iran poses a colossal threat to the region. Iraq, nuclear programs were not so much a percieved threat.
> I think you massively overestimate how much influence the EU has on
> the US; what difference did any EU nations position (with the
> exception of the UK) make to the Iraq land grab? Apart, of course,
> from delaying it a short while?
Did i not say, THIS TIME? The US is WAY more open to EU influence because it needs them far more than it did before Iraq.
> A lot less fractured and divided? What exactly do you mean by that?
> With Iraq, we had two fairly clear camps; to oversimplify it, war
> without delay was one. Delay with the threat of war was the other.
> What are the divisions here?
Well the EU and UK, Ruling out military intervention for the time being, and the US not.
> ...all of which sounds like nothing more than an angry and petulant
> wailing from someone who doesn't want to admit that maybe, just
> maybe, his argument might be a thing writ in water.
Erm, you didn't address the question, does it not show some duality and hypocracy in yourself? It does, does it not?
> No, presumption of it with no evidence to support that presumption is
> not. However, as you well know, there is a lot of evidence to support
> the presumption that the reasons for going to war were lies, isn't
> there? And your only response has been "Well, I haven't seen a
> specific document stating that Blair lied". Hence my repeated
> stating of the Hitler/Holocaust thing, and your repeated avoidance of
> even acknowledging it.
But the Hitler thing has no bearing. Hitler wasnt the entire Extermination Group was he. All's he had to do was give it the nod, Himler and co. could do the rest. But anyways, back to the "Lies". I tell you what, when Tony Blair is found guilty of misleading the nation to go to war in a court of law, i will acknowledge absolutly that it was wrong etc etc... Is there/ WILL THERE EVER(and yes, i meat ever, like in 100 years or something) be sufficient proof that he personally ordered/ was aware of lies and information he knew to be wrong???
> Heh. Nice to see you so visibly rattled...
Erm, again, you ducked the question, i mean, if the balance of proof is enough, then there was just case for war in Iraq. Even if some of the information from the worlds Intelligence Agiencies was blatently 'lies', there was still sufficient ground for war. Whats his name, David somat, David Kay maybe(former leader of the ISG) said he would have gone to war when faced with the intelligence that was about, there was sufficient grounds there, uw, but this is you isnt it, and your allowed to be hypocritical and criticise Blair, and use a similar foundation of logic with no problems.
> However, as we're not talking about a court of law, you'll pardon me
> for laughing in your face as you grow red-faced with impotent anger
> at being unable to dismiss the growing discontent with your precious
> leader.
Growing discontent, where? Did not a recent poll show Labour was clawing its way back up the ladder? Not only was it holding its own, but it even got 2 Tory seats or something. So, where is this "growing discontent", on this board maybe? I think you are getting some grandios thoughts that simply arnt representative of the public.
> Oh, and just so you know; civil cases in the UK are decided on the
> Balance of Probabilities, not Beyond Reasonable Doubt. So it's not as
> if I've just made up a standard of proof in order to justify my
> opinion. And the main objection to using that for the Terror cases is
> that we'd be using a lesser Civil law standard of proof for Criminal
> cases. Really skarra; check your facts before launching off into a
> 'scathing' reply. That way, you might look a little bit less...well,
> less of a zealot.
But you have already condemed Blair as guilty on matters, that if true, can only be criminal, on the ammount of proof of civil cases. Again, your arguments are filled with duality and hypocracy.
> Not every statement, no. But a huge number of them, yes. And, as I
> say, the majority of the evidence concerning the reasons for this war
> indicates that one is right to view statements from the Government
> with suspicion. As near as I can tell, judging by your little
> outburst in your previous post, you regard pretty much all suspicion
> of Blair as either "paranoia" or "cynicism".
Erm, yes i do. What else could it be? At best its supposition, and so there is no basis for those thoughts to be sufficiently called, hmmm, example. You have a line, the middle is about the average way you view someone with a good basis of precident and proof for that being there. To the right you have the faitfull(probably about half-way between is me) and to the left is cynicism and a blind hatred that see's no good. That is where you are. I mean, tell me, the Mimimum Wage rise comming, or bonus payments to pensioners etc etc, are they all Blairish lies and do only Blair any good?
> That you're so blinded by your Labour sympathies that you're
> unwilling to subject the honeyed pearls of wisdom that drip from your
> glorious leader's lips to any kind of critical analysis is not my
> problem. Nor is your need to create scenario's in your own head where
> you get to tell other people what they REALLY meant in order for you
> to maintain your own personal dogma.
If i saw sufficient grounds to change my stance, i would. I have already done so on several issues, such as pensioners. When faced with the ever increasing events, i changed my stance to not one of towing the party line, but of raising the issue with my local Labour party. I have not yet seem sufficient grounds to become as critical as you are to Iraq, or as cynical you have become on the Iran issue. There is simply too much on the other side of the fence keeping me there. You canot expect me, or anybody to simply change our stance because thats what a lot of other people think?
> ~sigh~ I gave one possibility skarra. I didn't try and claim it was
> the be all and end all. Unless you're trying to say that the
> withdrawal of the coalition won't affect insurgent attacks at all?
> Please; do clarify what you're saying. It's difficult to ascertain
> the exact meaning of what you're saying due to breathtakingly
> childish, reedy, "Oh, so you think so? Eh? Eh? Do you? Eh? Right
> then! Right!" nature of your replies.
But you also made no attempt at clarifying that you were acknowledging other methods of going about it.
> How about with a sustained police action led by the US (as it is
> unquestionably the most influential world power)
And when it does that, people like you jump and scream at the US for what its doing, and bang on about the UN, or by what right do they have? They can do no right, and i see why there are so many people in the US advocating isolationalism.
> and garnering the
> support of all democratic governments and offering economic
> incentives to authoritarian and dictatorial governments to co-operate
> and comply with measures designed to both alleviate the massive
> poverty that provide terrorists with their recruiting grounds and aid
> the hunt for the main terrorist leaders?
Economic Incentives, hmmm, in what form, and where from. Do not forget the US is not a bottomless pit of wealth ready to be dished out to all. And please, dont say, well the money they spent on the War etc... Because that would not be enough to buy countries in order for them to change their stance or maintain it. And the poverty issue. Tell me, how poor were the 9/11 hijackers? Wern't 15 of them from a not too bad off areas of Saudi?
> Y'know, just as a possibility...
>
>
>
> Skarra, please allow me to give you some advice; you're arguing as an
> idealogue. Which makes you unwilling to consider ideas that don't fit
> in with that ideaology. Which makes you INCREDIBLY easy to run rings
> round in a debate because you only countenance your own
> "side" when it comes to forming your opinions. And it also
> makes it very obvious when you've grown angry and upset, thus making
> whatever you say sound suspect due to the petulant tone you take when
> saying it. I say that without rancour, or without the wish to
> patronise.
Skarra wrote:
> No, because you wern't making comparisons, you were assuming my
> comments about Iran were about Iraq. I seriously doubt you had the
> intention all along to show the similaraties between the two.
Heh. Now who's getting stuff mixed up? I was making comparisons between the two. If that didn't come across, I apologise for a lack of clarity on my part, and confess a huge portion of cynicism about why you're so determined I wasn't making a comparison on your part.
>
> The US is in no position to attack, thats how. 130, 000 troops next
> door isnt enough to invade. Plus, the US is already working with the
> EU on diplomatic solutions, where as with Iraq you were either with
> them or against then, there is far more willing on the part of the US
> to engage in diplomacy, as you have pointed out several times, that
> was not so with Iraq.
The US wasn't in a position to invade Iraq when it started rattling it's sabre, was it? It had to transport troops across, did it not? Most of the EU (UK excepted) was still making diplomatic overtures to Iraq via the UN when Dubya started warmongering too.
I'm making a direct comparison between the position when Dubya started making noises about Iraq, and the position now that he's making noises about Iran. Literally the only difference is that the UK isn't on board with the idea of invading Iran. It's rather telling that you're trying to compare a snapshot of the situation right now with Iran, with the situation in Iraq over a long period of time.
> Cripes. As i pointed out in my first thread, the Logic i was refering
> to was the Logic that the US probably wouldn't attack because it
> can't. I pointed out in that first thread, QUITE CLEARLY that the
> Logic is in no way reflective of George W's policies or desires.
> PLUS, before Iraq the US was able to invade, the Logic of math's and
> physics tells us they can't attack/invade Iran because they are too
> busy elsewhere. As i pointed out, my Logic was in referance to
> ability, not desire.
But your logic that it can't is flawed. Sure, it can't do so right now, right at this moment (And it may never do so; you might have noticed that in the very first post in this thread I stated that it might be a load of old toss); get more troops across (not too difficult bearing in mind the troop reductions in Western Europe) and that difficulty is negated.
For the record (and to restate the point) I don't know how likely or otherwise any of this is. What I AM saying is that your appeal to logic is fatally flawed because you're looking purely at the situation as it is right now and stating "therefore it can never happen" (or at least, that's how it seems).
> But i did, on several occasions show recognition to the negative. But
> i was trying to convince people that some good was being done over
> there. I believe i gave you some links on the matter. Remember??? I
> did recognise the bad, but failed to acknowledge ANY good, which, as
> i pointed out previously simply isnt so...
That is utter bull, and what's more you know it. Said that there isn't any good? Right...cos of course, the removal of a dictator (ANY dictator) is never a good thing...Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single person on this board who has tried to say that literally not one good thing has come from the war but I'd be intrigued to see otherwise.
> But they arn't. What are the similarities, location, weapons
> build-up, US Sabre rattling. Thats about it isnt it?
That's it? That's a fair old amount really, isn't it? It's like saying "there's no similarity between oranges and tangerines, apart from them looking the same". The situations are VERY comparable, even just based on what you're grudgingly allowing as similarities. Especially coupled with access to oil, the nation in question having embarrassed the US in the past, the nation in question being a former ally...like I say, the only difference I can see is that the UK aren't jumping in to lend some legitimacy to it.
> Apart from with
> Iran, the EU has far more sway with the US because they have been
> involved longer, and the US is trying to patch things up, they don't
> need similar divisions that they had over Iraq again over Iran. Plus,
> the US is in no position to strike, and so there can be no "rush
> to war" as was the case with Iraq. Thus, the diplomatic process
> can be a lot different. Plus, the evidence and International Stance
> towards Iran is far less fractured and divided than was the case with
> Iraq.
I think you massively overestimate how much influence the EU has on the US; what difference did any EU nations position (with the exception of the UK) make to the Iraq land grab? Apart, of course, from delaying it a short while?
A lot less fractured and divided? What exactly do you mean by that? With Iraq, we had two fairly clear camps; to oversimplify it, war without delay was one. Delay with the threat of war was the other. What are the divisions here?
> So presumtion of the existace of evidence is sufficient ey?? And what
> was one of your big hate's of Iraq again???
...all of which sounds like nothing more than an angry and petulant wailing from someone who doesn't want to admit that maybe, just maybe, his argument might be a thing writ in water.
No, presumption of it with no evidence to support that presumption is not. However, as you well know, there is a lot of evidence to support the presumption that the reasons for going to war were lies, isn't there? And your only response has been "Well, I haven't seen a specific document stating that Blair lied". Hence my repeated stating of the Hitler/Holocaust thing, and your repeated avoidance of even acknowledging it.
>
> Oooooo, balance of probabilities. So, you must be in favour of the
> proposed Anti-Terror legislation that says you don't have to be 100%
> proven guilty???
Heh. Nice to see you so visibly rattled...
However, as we're not talking about a court of law, you'll pardon me for laughing in your face as you grow red-faced with impotent anger at being unable to dismiss the growing discontent with your precious leader.
I'm talking about nothing more or less than my opinion, and the opinion of literally millions of other people. Which could, of course, be totally wrong. However, the balance of probabilities based on the evidence available would suggest that he is, in fact, a lying manipulative toad. I'm not trying to say he's definitely guilty of lying beyond all reasonable doubt; so much evidence is unreleased that it's simply not possible to make that judgement.
Oh, and just so you know; civil cases in the UK are decided on the Balance of Probabilities, not Beyond Reasonable Doubt. So it's not as if I've just made up a standard of proof in order to justify my opinion. And the main objection to using that for the Terror cases is that we'd be using a lesser Civil law standard of proof for Criminal cases. Really skarra; check your facts before launching off into a 'scathing' reply. That way, you might look a little bit less...well, less of a zealot.
> There is a difference between being suspicious and being so paraniod
> of 'evil Tony and his cronies' that you see every statement from
> Downing Street as nothing but lies and mis-direction. Every decision
> is purly for Blair's or Bush's benefit, and in NO WAY benefits
> anybody else. Look at the way you were with me, you are so blinded by
> hate you failed to see i wasn't talking about Iraq, but you and your
> 'Red Out' saw i was, and so launched YET ANOTHER attack on the Iraq
> war once again demanding i defend my 'Pro-War' statements, which i
> didn't make in this thread. You only thought you saw them because of
> your tunnel vision your developed.
Not every statement, no. But a huge number of them, yes. And, as I say, the majority of the evidence concerning the reasons for this war indicates that one is right to view statements from the Government with suspicion. As near as I can tell, judging by your little outburst in your previous post, you regard pretty much all suspicion of Blair as either "paranoia" or "cynicism".
That you're so blinded by your Labour sympathies that you're unwilling to subject the honeyed pearls of wisdom that drip from your glorious leader's lips to any kind of critical analysis is not my problem. Nor is your need to create scenario's in your own head where you get to tell other people what they REALLY meant in order for you to maintain your own personal dogma.
> Yes, cus the Iraq's hate the occupation so much, they support the
> folks blowing up fellow Iraqi's? Do you really think the hatred and
> desire for the occupiers to pull out is giving support to the
> "Terrorists"? No, because the Insurgents arn't against the
> occupation so much as they are against the Future Democracy in Iraq.
> Thats why they are no longer making the Occuping forces their no.1
> target, but instead the infastructure of the country. Why do you
> think they target the power lines to the capital? To speed up the
> occupations end? Of course not.
~sigh~ I gave one possibility skarra. I didn't try and claim it was the be all and end all. Unless you're trying to say that the withdrawal of the coalition won't affect insurgent attacks at all? Please; do clarify what you're saying. It's difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of what you're saying due to breathtakingly childish, reedy, "Oh, so you think so? Eh? Eh? Do you? Eh? Right then! Right!" nature of your replies.
>
> And im curious, how do you think the WOT should be fought then? Just
> get all Military deployments around the world to end and return to
> their home countries? Is that why Islamic Extremists do what they
> do??? Hmmm...
How about with a sustained police action led by the US (as it is unquestionably the most influential world power) and garnering the support of all democratic governments and offering economic incentives to authoritarian and dictatorial governments to co-operate and comply with measures designed to both alleviate the massive poverty that provide terrorists with their recruiting grounds and aid the hunt for the main terrorist leaders?
Y'know, just as a possibility...
Skarra, please allow me to give you some advice; you're arguing as an idealogue. Which makes you unwilling to consider ideas that don't fit in with that ideaology. Which makes you INCREDIBLY easy to run rings round in a debate because you only countenance your own "side" when it comes to forming your opinions. And it also makes it very obvious when you've grown angry and upset, thus making whatever you say sound suspect due to the petulant tone you take when saying it. I say that without rancour, or without the wish to patronise.
> No, because you wern't making comparisons, you were assuming my
> comments about Iran were about Iraq. I seriously doubt you had the
> intention all along to show the similaraties between the two.
Heh. Now who's getting stuff mixed up? I was making comparisons between the two. If that didn't come across, I apologise for a lack of clarity on my part, and confess a huge portion of cynicism about why you're so determined I wasn't making a comparison on your part.
>
> The US is in no position to attack, thats how. 130, 000 troops next
> door isnt enough to invade. Plus, the US is already working with the
> EU on diplomatic solutions, where as with Iraq you were either with
> them or against then, there is far more willing on the part of the US
> to engage in diplomacy, as you have pointed out several times, that
> was not so with Iraq.
The US wasn't in a position to invade Iraq when it started rattling it's sabre, was it? It had to transport troops across, did it not? Most of the EU (UK excepted) was still making diplomatic overtures to Iraq via the UN when Dubya started warmongering too.
I'm making a direct comparison between the position when Dubya started making noises about Iraq, and the position now that he's making noises about Iran. Literally the only difference is that the UK isn't on board with the idea of invading Iran. It's rather telling that you're trying to compare a snapshot of the situation right now with Iran, with the situation in Iraq over a long period of time.
> Cripes. As i pointed out in my first thread, the Logic i was refering
> to was the Logic that the US probably wouldn't attack because it
> can't. I pointed out in that first thread, QUITE CLEARLY that the
> Logic is in no way reflective of George W's policies or desires.
> PLUS, before Iraq the US was able to invade, the Logic of math's and
> physics tells us they can't attack/invade Iran because they are too
> busy elsewhere. As i pointed out, my Logic was in referance to
> ability, not desire.
But your logic that it can't is flawed. Sure, it can't do so right now, right at this moment (And it may never do so; you might have noticed that in the very first post in this thread I stated that it might be a load of old toss); get more troops across (not too difficult bearing in mind the troop reductions in Western Europe) and that difficulty is negated.
For the record (and to restate the point) I don't know how likely or otherwise any of this is. What I AM saying is that your appeal to logic is fatally flawed because you're looking purely at the situation as it is right now and stating "therefore it can never happen" (or at least, that's how it seems).
> But i did, on several occasions show recognition to the negative. But
> i was trying to convince people that some good was being done over
> there. I believe i gave you some links on the matter. Remember??? I
> did recognise the bad, but failed to acknowledge ANY good, which, as
> i pointed out previously simply isnt so...
That is utter bull, and what's more you know it. Said that there isn't any good? Right...cos of course, the removal of a dictator (ANY dictator) is never a good thing...Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single person on this board who has tried to say that literally not one good thing has come from the war but I'd be intrigued to see otherwise.
> But they arn't. What are the similarities, location, weapons
> build-up, US Sabre rattling. Thats about it isnt it?
That's it? That's a fair old amount really, isn't it? It's like saying "there's no similarity between oranges and tangerines, apart from them looking the same". The situations are VERY comparable, even just based on what you're grudgingly allowing as similarities. Especially coupled with access to oil, the nation in question having embarrassed the US in the past, the nation in question being a former ally...like I say, the only difference I can see is that the UK aren't jumping in to lend some legitimacy to it.
> Apart from with
> Iran, the EU has far more sway with the US because they have been
> involved longer, and the US is trying to patch things up, they don't
> need similar divisions that they had over Iraq again over Iran. Plus,
> the US is in no position to strike, and so there can be no "rush
> to war" as was the case with Iraq. Thus, the diplomatic process
> can be a lot different. Plus, the evidence and International Stance
> towards Iran is far less fractured and divided than was the case with
> Iraq.
I think you massively overestimate how much influence the EU has on the US; what difference did any EU nations position (with the exception of the UK) make to the Iraq land grab? Apart, of course, from delaying it a short while?
A lot less fractured and divided? What exactly do you mean by that? With Iraq, we had two fairly clear camps; to oversimplify it, war without delay was one. Delay with the threat of war was the other. What are the divisions here?
> So presumtion of the existace of evidence is sufficient ey?? And what
> was one of your big hate's of Iraq again???
...all of which sounds like nothing more than an angry and petulant wailing from someone who doesn't want to admit that maybe, just maybe, his argument might be a thing writ in water.
No, presumption of it with no evidence to support that presumption is not. However, as you well know, there is a lot of evidence to support the presumption that the reasons for going to war were lies, isn't there? And your only response has been "Well, I haven't seen a specific document stating that Blair lied". Hence my repeated stating of the Hitler/Holocaust thing, and your repeated avoidance of even acknowledging it.
>
> Oooooo, balance of probabilities. So, you must be in favour of the
> proposed Anti-Terror legislation that says you don't have to be 100%
> proven guilty???
Heh. Nice to see you so visibly rattled...
However, as we're not talking about a court of law, you'll pardon me for laughing in your face as you grow red-faced with impotent anger at being unable to dismiss the growing discontent with your precious leader.
I'm talking about nothing more or less than my opinion, and the opinion of literally millions of other people. Which could, of course, be totally wrong. However, the balance of probabilities based on the evidence available would suggest that he is, in fact, a lying manipulative toad. I'm not trying to say he's definitely guilty of lying beyond all reasonable doubt; so much evidence is unreleased that it's simply not possible to make that judgement.
Oh, and just so you know; civil cases in the UK are decided on the Balance of Probabilities, not Beyond Reasonable Doubt. So it's not as if I've just made up a standard of proof in order to justify my opinion. And the main objection to using that for the Terror cases is that we'd be using a lesser Civil law standard of proof for Criminal cases. Really skarra; check your facts before launching off into a 'scathing' reply. That way, you might look a little bit less...well, less of a zealot.
> There is a difference between being suspicious and being so paraniod
> of 'evil Tony and his cronies' that you see every statement from
> Downing Street as nothing but lies and mis-direction. Every decision
> is purly for Blair's or Bush's benefit, and in NO WAY benefits
> anybody else. Look at the way you were with me, you are so blinded by
> hate you failed to see i wasn't talking about Iraq, but you and your
> 'Red Out' saw i was, and so launched YET ANOTHER attack on the Iraq
> war once again demanding i defend my 'Pro-War' statements, which i
> didn't make in this thread. You only thought you saw them because of
> your tunnel vision your developed.
Not every statement, no. But a huge number of them, yes. And, as I say, the majority of the evidence concerning the reasons for this war indicates that one is right to view statements from the Government with suspicion. As near as I can tell, judging by your little outburst in your previous post, you regard pretty much all suspicion of Blair as either "paranoia" or "cynicism".
That you're so blinded by your Labour sympathies that you're unwilling to subject the honeyed pearls of wisdom that drip from your glorious leader's lips to any kind of critical analysis is not my problem. Nor is your need to create scenario's in your own head where you get to tell other people what they REALLY meant in order for you to maintain your own personal dogma.
> Yes, cus the Iraq's hate the occupation so much, they support the
> folks blowing up fellow Iraqi's? Do you really think the hatred and
> desire for the occupiers to pull out is giving support to the
> "Terrorists"? No, because the Insurgents arn't against the
> occupation so much as they are against the Future Democracy in Iraq.
> Thats why they are no longer making the Occuping forces their no.1
> target, but instead the infastructure of the country. Why do you
> think they target the power lines to the capital? To speed up the
> occupations end? Of course not.
~sigh~ I gave one possibility skarra. I didn't try and claim it was the be all and end all. Unless you're trying to say that the withdrawal of the coalition won't affect insurgent attacks at all? Please; do clarify what you're saying. It's difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of what you're saying due to breathtakingly childish, reedy, "Oh, so you think so? Eh? Eh? Do you? Eh? Right then! Right!" nature of your replies.
>
> And im curious, how do you think the WOT should be fought then? Just
> get all Military deployments around the world to end and return to
> their home countries? Is that why Islamic Extremists do what they
> do??? Hmmm...
How about with a sustained police action led by the US (as it is unquestionably the most influential world power) and garnering the support of all democratic governments and offering economic incentives to authoritarian and dictatorial governments to co-operate and comply with measures designed to both alleviate the massive poverty that provide terrorists with their recruiting grounds and aid the hunt for the main terrorist leaders?
Y'know, just as a possibility...
Skarra, please allow me to give you some advice; you're arguing as an idealogue. Which makes you unwilling to consider ideas that don't fit in with that ideaology. Which makes you INCREDIBLY easy to run rings round in a debate because you only countenance your own "side" when it comes to forming your opinions. And it also makes it very obvious when you've grown angry and upset, thus making whatever you say sound suspect due to the petulant tone you take when saying it. I say that without rancour, or without the wish to patronise.
Light wrote:
> Well, fair point. However, as the possible attack on Iran shares an
> awful lot of features with the build up to the attack on Iraq, surely
> you can see my point?
No, because you wern't making comparisons, you were assuming my comments about Iran were about Iraq. I seriously doubt you had the intention all along to show the similaraties between the two.
> - You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
>
> With regards to IRAN.
>
> Because it's different to Iraq...how exactly?
The US is in no position to attack, thats how. 130, 000 troops next door isnt enough to invade. Plus, the US is already working with the EU on diplomatic solutions, where as with Iraq you were either with them or against then, there is far more willing on the part of the US to engage in diplomacy, as you have pointed out several times, that was not so with Iraq.
> No, but you did say "lets not forget logic here..." in
> reference to Iran. Yet it's the same US president who's spoiling for
> a fight with Iran who caused the war with Iraq, no? Hence I was
> continuing to compare the two. Okay, so you're right in that it's a
> subject for another thread, but the point remains.
Cripes. As i pointed out in my first thread, the Logic i was refering to was the Logic that the US probably wouldn't attack because it can't. I pointed out in that first thread, QUITE CLEARLY that the Logic is in no way reflective of George W's policies or desires. PLUS, before Iraq the US was able to invade, the Logic of math's and physics tells us they can't attack/invade Iran because they are too busy elsewhere. As i pointed out, my Logic was in referance to ability, not desire.
> Fair enough; my irritation at that stems from your constant refusal
> to either admit that anything is going wrong out there, or seeking to
> justify what has gone on.
But i did, on several occasions show recognition to the negative. But i was trying to convince people that some good was being done over there. I believe i gave you some links on the matter. Remember??? I did recognise the bad, but failed to acknowledge ANY good, which, as i pointed out previously simply isnt so...
> And again, I'm saying that the 2 situations are directly comparable.
> One cannot simply comment on International Politics in isolation of
> one country to another.
But they arn't. What are the similarities, location, weapons build-up, US Sabre rattling. Thats about it isnt it? Apart from with Iran, the EU has far more sway with the US because they have been involved longer, and the US is trying to patch things up, they don't need similar divisions that they had over Iraq again over Iran. Plus, the US is in no position to strike, and so there can be no "rush to war" as was the case with Iraq. Thus, the diplomatic process can be a lot different. Plus, the evidence and International Stance towards Iran is far less fractured and divided than was the case with Iraq.
> Yes it is. And in those other threads, it was repeatedly pointed out
> to you that there are still unclassified documents from the second
> world war. And that there are no orders signed by Hitler authorising
> the holocaust. You sort of went quiet after that.
So presumtion of the existace of evidence is sufficient ey?? And what was one of your big hate's of Iraq again???
> Coupled with Blair's refusal to release Lord Goldsmith's
> advice...well, if you're trying to deny that the balance of
> probabilities indicates that Blair lied, then you're more of a zealot
> than I thought.
Oooooo, balance of probabilities. So, you must be in favour of the proposed Anti-Terror legislation that says you don't have to be 100% proven guilty???
> Heh. Spoken like a true Blairite; any disagreement with you is just
> "cynicism". Because of course, all the lies and
> manipulation doesn't give anyone reason to be suspicious now, does
> it?
There is a difference between being suspicious and being so paraniod of 'evil Tony and his cronies' that you see every statement from Downing Street as nothing but lies and mis-direction. Every decision is purly for Blair's or Bush's benefit, and in NO WAY benefits anybody else. Look at the way you were with me, you are so blinded by hate you failed to see i wasn't talking about Iraq, but you and your 'Red Out' saw i was, and so launched YET ANOTHER attack on the Iraq war once again demanding i defend my 'Pro-War' statements, which i didn't make in this thread. You only thought you saw them because of your tunnel vision your developed.
> Nope, not for an instant. But once they've gone, the militants lose
> one of their biggest excuses to get ordinary Iraqis (in particular
> Shia's who are engaged in terrorism) on their side. And less support
> means less terrorism. Which is pretty much the way this whole sorry,
> pitiful, deceitful war on terror should have been fought...
Yes, cus the Iraq's hate the occupation so much, they support the folks blowing up fellow Iraqi's? Do you really think the hatred and desire for the occupiers to pull out is giving support to the "Terrorists"? No, because the Insurgents arn't against the occupation so much as they are against the Future Democracy in Iraq. Thats why they are no longer making the Occuping forces their no.1 target, but instead the infastructure of the country. Why do you think they target the power lines to the capital? To speed up the occupations end? Of course not.
And im curious, how do you think the WOT should be fought then? Just get all Military deployments around the world to end and return to their home countries? Is that why Islamic Extremists do what they do??? Hmmm...
> Well, fair point. However, as the possible attack on Iran shares an
> awful lot of features with the build up to the attack on Iraq, surely
> you can see my point?
No, because you wern't making comparisons, you were assuming my comments about Iran were about Iraq. I seriously doubt you had the intention all along to show the similaraties between the two.
> - You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
>
> With regards to IRAN.
>
> Because it's different to Iraq...how exactly?
The US is in no position to attack, thats how. 130, 000 troops next door isnt enough to invade. Plus, the US is already working with the EU on diplomatic solutions, where as with Iraq you were either with them or against then, there is far more willing on the part of the US to engage in diplomacy, as you have pointed out several times, that was not so with Iraq.
> No, but you did say "lets not forget logic here..." in
> reference to Iran. Yet it's the same US president who's spoiling for
> a fight with Iran who caused the war with Iraq, no? Hence I was
> continuing to compare the two. Okay, so you're right in that it's a
> subject for another thread, but the point remains.
Cripes. As i pointed out in my first thread, the Logic i was refering to was the Logic that the US probably wouldn't attack because it can't. I pointed out in that first thread, QUITE CLEARLY that the Logic is in no way reflective of George W's policies or desires. PLUS, before Iraq the US was able to invade, the Logic of math's and physics tells us they can't attack/invade Iran because they are too busy elsewhere. As i pointed out, my Logic was in referance to ability, not desire.
> Fair enough; my irritation at that stems from your constant refusal
> to either admit that anything is going wrong out there, or seeking to
> justify what has gone on.
But i did, on several occasions show recognition to the negative. But i was trying to convince people that some good was being done over there. I believe i gave you some links on the matter. Remember??? I did recognise the bad, but failed to acknowledge ANY good, which, as i pointed out previously simply isnt so...
> And again, I'm saying that the 2 situations are directly comparable.
> One cannot simply comment on International Politics in isolation of
> one country to another.
But they arn't. What are the similarities, location, weapons build-up, US Sabre rattling. Thats about it isnt it? Apart from with Iran, the EU has far more sway with the US because they have been involved longer, and the US is trying to patch things up, they don't need similar divisions that they had over Iraq again over Iran. Plus, the US is in no position to strike, and so there can be no "rush to war" as was the case with Iraq. Thus, the diplomatic process can be a lot different. Plus, the evidence and International Stance towards Iran is far less fractured and divided than was the case with Iraq.
> Yes it is. And in those other threads, it was repeatedly pointed out
> to you that there are still unclassified documents from the second
> world war. And that there are no orders signed by Hitler authorising
> the holocaust. You sort of went quiet after that.
So presumtion of the existace of evidence is sufficient ey?? And what was one of your big hate's of Iraq again???
> Coupled with Blair's refusal to release Lord Goldsmith's
> advice...well, if you're trying to deny that the balance of
> probabilities indicates that Blair lied, then you're more of a zealot
> than I thought.
Oooooo, balance of probabilities. So, you must be in favour of the proposed Anti-Terror legislation that says you don't have to be 100% proven guilty???
> Heh. Spoken like a true Blairite; any disagreement with you is just
> "cynicism". Because of course, all the lies and
> manipulation doesn't give anyone reason to be suspicious now, does
> it?
There is a difference between being suspicious and being so paraniod of 'evil Tony and his cronies' that you see every statement from Downing Street as nothing but lies and mis-direction. Every decision is purly for Blair's or Bush's benefit, and in NO WAY benefits anybody else. Look at the way you were with me, you are so blinded by hate you failed to see i wasn't talking about Iraq, but you and your 'Red Out' saw i was, and so launched YET ANOTHER attack on the Iraq war once again demanding i defend my 'Pro-War' statements, which i didn't make in this thread. You only thought you saw them because of your tunnel vision your developed.
> Nope, not for an instant. But once they've gone, the militants lose
> one of their biggest excuses to get ordinary Iraqis (in particular
> Shia's who are engaged in terrorism) on their side. And less support
> means less terrorism. Which is pretty much the way this whole sorry,
> pitiful, deceitful war on terror should have been fought...
Yes, cus the Iraq's hate the occupation so much, they support the folks blowing up fellow Iraqi's? Do you really think the hatred and desire for the occupiers to pull out is giving support to the "Terrorists"? No, because the Insurgents arn't against the occupation so much as they are against the Future Democracy in Iraq. Thats why they are no longer making the Occuping forces their no.1 target, but instead the infastructure of the country. Why do you think they target the power lines to the capital? To speed up the occupations end? Of course not.
And im curious, how do you think the WOT should be fought then? Just get all Military deployments around the world to end and return to their home countries? Is that why Islamic Extremists do what they do??? Hmmm...
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> You are REALLY mixing stuff up here. My logic was being used with
> regards to a possible attack on IRAN, i made no mention of Iraq. And
> i stated, quite clearly that my reason for doubting the attack in the
> article was not because of policy, or Geroge W's wish's, but because
> of military reasons. Perhaps you should step aways for a while and
> look at the threat from a fresh persective, not you, 'oh, its Skarra,
> he MUST be on about Iraq again'. It was not i who raised this.
Well, fair point. However, as the possible attack on Iran shares an awful lot of features with the build up to the attack on Iraq, surely you can see my point?
>
> - You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
>
> With regards to IRAN.
Because it's different to Iraq...how exactly?
>
> - I say "Where was the logic behind Dubya's war?"
>
> I in no way was refering to the logic behing Iraq. You question the
> logic behind it, fair enough, but i wasnt reffering to that now was
> i!
No, but you did say "lets not forget logic here..." in reference to Iran. Yet it's the same US president who's spoiling for a fight with Iran who caused the war with Iraq, no? Hence I was continuing to compare the two. Okay, so you're right in that it's a subject for another thread, but the point remains.
>
> - You say "Well...look at all the good things since the
> war"
>
> In reply to comments that no good was happening there.
Fair enough; my irritation at that stems from your constant refusal to either admit that anything is going wrong out there, or seeking to justify what has gone on.
>
> - I say "What has that to do with the logic behind starting
> it
>
> Again, you are confusing my comments made about IRAN, with IRAQ.
And again, I'm saying that the 2 situations are directly comparable. One cannot simply comment on International Politics in isolation of one country to another.
> Sais you. But you have yet to show me any substantian paper trail
> showing the mass lies. But thats for another thread.
Yes it is. And in those other threads, it was repeatedly pointed out to you that there are still unclassified documents from the second world war. And that there are no orders signed by Hitler authorising the holocaust. You sort of went quiet after that.
Coupled with Blair's refusal to release Lord Goldsmith's advice...well, if you're trying to deny that the balance of probabilities indicates that Blair lied, then you're more of a zealot than I thought.
>
> An interview with some Whitehouse aid or somat, he said it was going
> to be investigated on the hush. If your sinicism leads you to expect
> a whitewash, fair enough. I couldn't care any less to be honest.
Heh. Spoken like a true Blairite; any disagreement with you is just "cynicism". Because of course, all the lies and manipulation doesn't give anyone reason to be suspicious now, does it?
Any idea where this interview can be found? Not that I don't believe you, but...well, actually I just plain don't believe you.
> What, you REALLY think the insurgents just want the occuping forces
> to leave. You dont think they have a problem with the emerging
> democracy there? Really?
Nope, not for an instant. But once they've gone, the militants lose one of their biggest excuses to get ordinary Iraqis (in particular Shia's who are engaged in terrorism) on their side. And less support means less terrorism. Which is pretty much the way this whole sorry, pitiful, deceitful war on terror should have been fought...
> Light wrote:
> You are REALLY mixing stuff up here. My logic was being used with
> regards to a possible attack on IRAN, i made no mention of Iraq. And
> i stated, quite clearly that my reason for doubting the attack in the
> article was not because of policy, or Geroge W's wish's, but because
> of military reasons. Perhaps you should step aways for a while and
> look at the threat from a fresh persective, not you, 'oh, its Skarra,
> he MUST be on about Iraq again'. It was not i who raised this.
Well, fair point. However, as the possible attack on Iran shares an awful lot of features with the build up to the attack on Iraq, surely you can see my point?
>
> - You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
>
> With regards to IRAN.
Because it's different to Iraq...how exactly?
>
> - I say "Where was the logic behind Dubya's war?"
>
> I in no way was refering to the logic behing Iraq. You question the
> logic behind it, fair enough, but i wasnt reffering to that now was
> i!
No, but you did say "lets not forget logic here..." in reference to Iran. Yet it's the same US president who's spoiling for a fight with Iran who caused the war with Iraq, no? Hence I was continuing to compare the two. Okay, so you're right in that it's a subject for another thread, but the point remains.
>
> - You say "Well...look at all the good things since the
> war"
>
> In reply to comments that no good was happening there.
Fair enough; my irritation at that stems from your constant refusal to either admit that anything is going wrong out there, or seeking to justify what has gone on.
>
> - I say "What has that to do with the logic behind starting
> it
>
> Again, you are confusing my comments made about IRAN, with IRAQ.
And again, I'm saying that the 2 situations are directly comparable. One cannot simply comment on International Politics in isolation of one country to another.
> Sais you. But you have yet to show me any substantian paper trail
> showing the mass lies. But thats for another thread.
Yes it is. And in those other threads, it was repeatedly pointed out to you that there are still unclassified documents from the second world war. And that there are no orders signed by Hitler authorising the holocaust. You sort of went quiet after that.
Coupled with Blair's refusal to release Lord Goldsmith's advice...well, if you're trying to deny that the balance of probabilities indicates that Blair lied, then you're more of a zealot than I thought.
>
> An interview with some Whitehouse aid or somat, he said it was going
> to be investigated on the hush. If your sinicism leads you to expect
> a whitewash, fair enough. I couldn't care any less to be honest.
Heh. Spoken like a true Blairite; any disagreement with you is just "cynicism". Because of course, all the lies and manipulation doesn't give anyone reason to be suspicious now, does it?
Any idea where this interview can be found? Not that I don't believe you, but...well, actually I just plain don't believe you.
> What, you REALLY think the insurgents just want the occuping forces
> to leave. You dont think they have a problem with the emerging
> democracy there? Really?
Nope, not for an instant. But once they've gone, the militants lose one of their biggest excuses to get ordinary Iraqis (in particular Shia's who are engaged in terrorism) on their side. And less support means less terrorism. Which is pretty much the way this whole sorry, pitiful, deceitful war on terror should have been fought...
Light wrote:
You are REALLY mixing stuff up here. My logic was being used with regards to a possible attack on IRAN, i made no mention of Iraq. And i stated, quite clearly that my reason for doubting the attack in the article was not because of policy, or Geroge W's wish's, but because of military reasons. Perhaps you should step aways for a while and look at the threat from a fresh persective, not you, 'oh, its Skarra, he MUST be on about Iraq again'. It was not i who raised this.
> - You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
With regards to IRAN.
> - I say "Where was the logic behind Dubya's war?"
I in no way was refering to the logic behing Iraq. You question the logic behind it, fair enough, but i wasnt reffering to that now was i!
> - You say "Well...look at all the good things since the
> war"
In reply to comments that no good was happening there.
> - I say "What has that to do with the logic behind starting
> it
Again, you are confusing my comments made about IRAN, with IRAQ.
> Simple, isn't it? The reason I keep bringing it up is because I'm
> sick of seeing retarded, sleight of hand arguments to try and
> distract from the one simple constant in all this; the war was based
> on lies.
Sais you. But you have yet to show me any substantian paper trail showing the mass lies. But thats for another thread.
> Please; do tell what you've heard. Because you see, I've heard that
> the issue is being swept under the carpet and will be whitewashed.
> But I'd love to hear otherwise.
An interview with some Whitehouse aid or somat, he said it was going to be investigated on the hush. If your sinicism leads you to expect a whitewash, fair enough. I couldn't care any less to be honest.
> Really? Even though you're more likely to be killed in Iraq now? Of
> course, I'm sure that'll change once the coalition withdraw, but even
> so...
What, you REALLY think the insurgents just want the occuping forces to leave. You dont think they have a problem with the emerging democracy there? Really?
You are REALLY mixing stuff up here. My logic was being used with regards to a possible attack on IRAN, i made no mention of Iraq. And i stated, quite clearly that my reason for doubting the attack in the article was not because of policy, or Geroge W's wish's, but because of military reasons. Perhaps you should step aways for a while and look at the threat from a fresh persective, not you, 'oh, its Skarra, he MUST be on about Iraq again'. It was not i who raised this.
> - You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
With regards to IRAN.
> - I say "Where was the logic behind Dubya's war?"
I in no way was refering to the logic behing Iraq. You question the logic behind it, fair enough, but i wasnt reffering to that now was i!
> - You say "Well...look at all the good things since the
> war"
In reply to comments that no good was happening there.
> - I say "What has that to do with the logic behind starting
> it
Again, you are confusing my comments made about IRAN, with IRAQ.
> Simple, isn't it? The reason I keep bringing it up is because I'm
> sick of seeing retarded, sleight of hand arguments to try and
> distract from the one simple constant in all this; the war was based
> on lies.
Sais you. But you have yet to show me any substantian paper trail showing the mass lies. But thats for another thread.
> Please; do tell what you've heard. Because you see, I've heard that
> the issue is being swept under the carpet and will be whitewashed.
> But I'd love to hear otherwise.
An interview with some Whitehouse aid or somat, he said it was going to be investigated on the hush. If your sinicism leads you to expect a whitewash, fair enough. I couldn't care any less to be honest.
> Really? Even though you're more likely to be killed in Iraq now? Of
> course, I'm sure that'll change once the coalition withdraw, but even
> so...
What, you REALLY think the insurgents just want the occuping forces to leave. You dont think they have a problem with the emerging democracy there? Really?
Skarra wrote:
> Jesus, are you blinded by sinicism? My statments were made with
> regards to the ability of any 'forthcomming attack'. I didn't say War
> on Iran wasn't on its way, nor did i say my reasons for rubishing
> that article were ANYTHING to do with desires or future policies of
> George W. What it was saying was that this attack would probably not
> be comming for a good long while simply because the US lacks
> sufficient military means to do it. For goodness sake, open your eyes
> a little, and look properly at the post before reading what you think
> is there, and not what is there and questioning...
>
Okay...
- You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
- I say "Where was the logic behind Dubya's war?"
- You say "Well...look at all the good things since the war"
- I say "What has that to do with the logic behind starting it"
Simple, isn't it? The reason I keep bringing it up is because I'm sick of seeing retarded, sleight of hand arguments to try and distract from the one simple constant in all this; the war was based on lies.
> The first and third. And the second will come from elsewhere, from
> what i'v heard.
Please; do tell what you've heard. Because you see, I've heard that the issue is being swept under the carpet and will be whitewashed. But I'd love to hear otherwise.
> No, but if i did i'd rather be there now than under Saddam.
Really? Even though you're more likely to be killed in Iraq now? Of course, I'm sure that'll change once the coalition withdraw, but even so...
> Jesus, are you blinded by sinicism? My statments were made with
> regards to the ability of any 'forthcomming attack'. I didn't say War
> on Iran wasn't on its way, nor did i say my reasons for rubishing
> that article were ANYTHING to do with desires or future policies of
> George W. What it was saying was that this attack would probably not
> be comming for a good long while simply because the US lacks
> sufficient military means to do it. For goodness sake, open your eyes
> a little, and look properly at the post before reading what you think
> is there, and not what is there and questioning...
>
Okay...
- You say "Use logic rather than cynicism"
- I say "Where was the logic behind Dubya's war?"
- You say "Well...look at all the good things since the war"
- I say "What has that to do with the logic behind starting it"
Simple, isn't it? The reason I keep bringing it up is because I'm sick of seeing retarded, sleight of hand arguments to try and distract from the one simple constant in all this; the war was based on lies.
> The first and third. And the second will come from elsewhere, from
> what i'v heard.
Please; do tell what you've heard. Because you see, I've heard that the issue is being swept under the carpet and will be whitewashed. But I'd love to hear otherwise.
> No, but if i did i'd rather be there now than under Saddam.
Really? Even though you're more likely to be killed in Iraq now? Of course, I'm sure that'll change once the coalition withdraw, but even so...
mermoid wrote:
> Explain.
Can't be arsed, to be honest. Have a search for a copy of 'The Power Of Nightmares' part 3. It was a documentery shown on the BBC a couple of months ago.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm
There we go, found it for you. There's both the video and a transcript there.
"What the British and American governments have done is both distort and exaggerate the real nature of the threat. There are dangerous and fanatical groups around the world who’ve been inspired by the extreme Islamist theories, and they are prepared to use the techniques of mass terror on civilians. The bombings in Madrid showed this only too clearly. But this is not a new phenomenon. What is new is the way the American and other governments have transformed this complex and disparate threat into a simplistic fantasy of an organised web of uniquely powerful terrorists who may strike anywhere and at any moment. But no one questioned this fantasy because, increasingly, it was serving the interests of so many people. For the press, television, and hundreds of terrorism experts, the fact that it seemed so like fiction made it irresistible to their audiences. And the Islamists, too, began to realise that by feeding this media fantasy they could become a powerful organisation—if only in people’s imaginations"
One of the best pieces of journolism i've seen.
> Explain.
Can't be arsed, to be honest. Have a search for a copy of 'The Power Of Nightmares' part 3. It was a documentery shown on the BBC a couple of months ago.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm
There we go, found it for you. There's both the video and a transcript there.
"What the British and American governments have done is both distort and exaggerate the real nature of the threat. There are dangerous and fanatical groups around the world who’ve been inspired by the extreme Islamist theories, and they are prepared to use the techniques of mass terror on civilians. The bombings in Madrid showed this only too clearly. But this is not a new phenomenon. What is new is the way the American and other governments have transformed this complex and disparate threat into a simplistic fantasy of an organised web of uniquely powerful terrorists who may strike anywhere and at any moment. But no one questioned this fantasy because, increasingly, it was serving the interests of so many people. For the press, television, and hundreds of terrorism experts, the fact that it seemed so like fiction made it irresistible to their audiences. And the Islamists, too, began to realise that by feeding this media fantasy they could become a powerful organisation—if only in people’s imaginations"
One of the best pieces of journolism i've seen.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> al-Queda DOES NOT EXIST.
You're right.
It's al-Qaeda.
> al-Queda DOES NOT EXIST.
You're right.
It's al-Qaeda.
Page: