What was the true motive behind the Iraq War?

[kat]

I do not expect Kat to defend your position but I am sure on many occasions that she does but I will now put your words into her mouth.

Forewarning...if you try to put anything into my mouth..I will bite your hand and give you a good swift kick in the shins.

I'm living in China for Crissake ... advising corporations how to deal with a fascist state ... You have me lumped in with the 'Liberals'.

You couldn't be further from the truth.

oooh supporting corporates and capitolism...one of the bad guys, I see. Shh..don't let the commie lovin pinkos here know that.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm sorry...but maybe I missed something during my overly hectic summer..but weren't the downing street memo's... copies of supposed real documents...intentionally made to look...like origionals? but that no origionals exist? or did I miss the findings of a REAL document to provide a preponderanceo evidence?? If so..do you have a link to an official news source..cause I'm sure it must be plastered all over the mainstream news?
Thanks in advance!

No, In fact you can go to the site devoted to the momos here and view the documents and related material themselves.

You can also see the resignation letter of the a person in the Attorney General's offices (censored and Uncensored) regarding the question of the legality of the war in general.

So, if it is tampering of official documents that you are looking for, the alteration of a letter of resignation as to the reason for quitting after a 20 year career would fit the bill as I am sure as you will agree.

That was done BY the government and not TO the government.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Shh..don't let the commie lovin pinkos here know that.

If I find any here, I'll let you know.

Im still looking and have my Mao hat and little red book in reserve should the eventuality arrise.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Maybe I just wasn't seeing it before but it seems like everyone around here lately has been getting rather personal. Maybe we can all relax and take it down a notch. The discussion seems to really be suffering.
I'm not blaming or pointing fingers. Just making a suggestion to everyone.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

 

[alexandra]

Maybe I just wasn't seeing it before but it seems like everyone around here lately has been getting rather personal. Maybe we can all relax and take it down a notch. The discussion seems to really be suffering.
I'm not blaming or pointing fingers. Just making a suggestion to everyone.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Too late, I think, TSA - anyone know what's happened to TSM? I am guessing what the line through a name means, but don't know for sure... Where can I read about it?

 

[oldunion]

Maybe I just wasn't seeing it before but it seems like everyone around here lately has been getting rather personal. Maybe we can all relax and take it down a notch. The discussion seems to really be suffering.
I'm not blaming or pointing fingers. Just making a suggestion to everyone.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Agreed.

It seems to me anymore that there is no point in arguing for a point. Facts are usually garbled and always have two sides, a left and right. so where would this leave a society? It leaves it in the midst of chaos where everyone is groping in the dark for something truthful to hold onto.

Perhaps it is a success of Bush that right wingers distrust and write off left wingers as crackpots. If there was one truth, a concrete and obviouscourse of events, people could learn to get along better and would be separated only by their interpretation of the event-not by different versions of the event which may have been engineered a certain way to provoke a certain response.

Sometimes i think about how much is kept from the people, and then i realize that the mistakes the citizens do catch could be the tip of a metaphorical iceberg, the base of which is much more sophisticated and misunderstood. I am quick to believe a conspiracy, where some people get annoyed and devise a tirade on liberals for even thinking someone could believe some of these things floating around. But I am wondering why that gap exists, is it possible that it is more than just a difference of personality and perhaps a great success of social engineering?

 

[russ_watters]

Facts are usually garbled and always have two sides, a left and right...

Perhaps it is a success of Bush that right wingers distrust and write off left wingers as crackpots. If there was one truth, a concrete and obviouscourse of events, people could learn to get along better and would be separated only by their interpretation of the event-not by different versions of the event which may have been engineered a certain way to provoke a certain response.

I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.

 

[oldunion]

I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.

Thas an interesting facet of human progression.

My theory is that if people imagine something, say laser weapons in a movie, there eventually will be laser weapons because imagination is powerful and when coupled with experimentation and scientific progression, it is only a matter of time. This is due to free thinking.

In our example though, there may be no evidence that bush stole the election (or there may be i don't know), but assuming there is none, it is up to the free thinking people who detest him to discover the evidence. If people only ever made decisions on hard facts, humanity would be very boring and progression very very slow.

Fact, the Earth is flat-up to the free thinkers to find a way to say "no it isnt."
geocentricity, 9/11, aliens, whatever. you never have hard facts, never. its always someone observes, records, and then tells. or worse yet, someone is not regulated in their observations so you get a whisper down the lane effect, or even worse they don't want you to know things so you are working with a partial truth.

 

[edward]

I really don't get why people continually confuse this propaganda with an actual plan. I seriously doubt the plan has changed much and I seriously doubt you or anyone else on this forum has seen the actual plan.

You are right. No one has seen the actual plan except for an elite inner circle. Only the methods of proceeding with the plan have changed.

Bush has, however, frequently refereed to the situation in Iraq as though he has a plan. But like I described, his posture keeps changing.

A global war on terrorism conducted primarily in Iraq, is not a global war.

The whole thing reminds me of the old "street Lamp" theory. If you walk home in the dark and upon arriving at your house you realize that you have dropped your keys along the way, the first place you will tend to look is under the street lamp. Is Iraq now our global street lamp?

What is waiting for us out there in the dark where no one is looking?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Too late, I think, TSA - anyone know what's happened to TSM? I am guessing what the line through a name means, but don't know for sure... Where can I read about it?

I'm pretty sure it means he was kicked. That wasn't my intention though ofcourse. I think quite a few people have been getting rather personal around here. We didn't get along very well to begin with but I'm sorry to see him go.

 

[Burnsys]

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

 

[vanesch]

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

I agree, if it is true that TSM was kicked, I'd find this sad, because his contributions here were often well-informed, and especially witty. (remember his 99 dead baboons, and the suicide bomber song "Allah Me, Why don't you take Allah Me ?" :-)

 

[alexandra]

I was just wondering, though, where we can read to find out the rules about how being kicked off works? What must one do to get kicked off? I searched the PF site yesterday and read some general guidelines for posting in the PF and MKaku forums, but are there specific rules for this section of the boards? What is the 'law' and where can I read its specifics?

EDIT: And perhaps if one voluntarily 'deregisters', the name gets crossed out? Perhaps TSM had enough and just withdrew? I hope it was his decision rather than anything else, in any case (as you say, vanesch).

So my other question is: if someone deregisters from this site, is that what happens to that person's name? I imagine this may be the case.

 

[Daminc]

I just thought he had just given up smoking ?

 

[BobG]

I was thinking the other day how everyone is waiting for the iraw war to end and for everyone to come home etc etc. I also recall bush saying that "you're either with us or you're against us," referring to other countries.

Well it is unreasonable to assume that 9/11 (which i believe was an intelligence success) was orchestrated just to allow bush to declare war on iraq; his mission must have been on a much larger scale.

I don't think bush is going to pack up and come home and give iraq back to its people, if it is given back it will be to people who are 100% loyal to bush/his regime under any circumstance.

Thus, i believe that bush's plan is to subdue the world.

speaking in generalities, a few terrorists attacked the usa, bush attacks the nation of afghanistan, bush attacks the nation of iraq, patriot acts are set in place to ensure the submission of the us people is made legal as possible.

London attacks take place, although no fowl play has been propogated as yet, they have brought the people back into the mindset of "the world is dangerous and we must listen to the people who know."

These are my thoughts, the usa plans to conquer the world over a long period of time.

I agree that the invasion of Iraq is an early stage of something that will be a recurring theme, even if I disagree with most of your details (not quite the first stage, since wars have been started for oil, before - Japan vs. the US, for example).

Oil is as essential as food and water for an industrial nation. With the industrial expansion in China, India, and other Asian nations, the competition for oil is increasing. Whether right or wrong, countries can be expected to do what they have to do in order to secure a reliable supply of oil (in other words, it's not just profits for Halliburton that motivate a war for oil).

Bush assembled the 'Dream Team' of national security right off the bat - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. A more aggressive US could be expected before 9/11 ever occurred.

The no-fly zone the US imposed on Iraq gave Northern Kurds and Southern Shiites over 10 years to strengthen their political structure and made them more ready to step into a void left by Hussein (even if not quite as ready as we would have liked?)

9/11 wasn't necessary for an Iraq invasion and it's almost silly to think Bush would fly jet airliners into the World Trade Center. I think the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq regardless of whether 9/11 occurred. In fact, it wasn't hard to prove that there wasn't a link between Hussein and 9/11. The fact that 9/11 occurred just presented an opportunity where political sentiment for an invasion was as high as it ever would be. Without 9/11, the UN sanctions and the threat of WMD would have been enough justification to invade. In fact, 9/11 probably pushed the Iraq invasion up sooner than was really prudent.

The WMD intel was a search to find justification for an invasion - not a search to decide whether an invasion was required or not. The CIA assessment was the only one to support invasion and it was pathetically wrong. There were enough other sources providing opposing assessments that the administration had to intentionally pick the one that supported what they already wanted to do. The level of incompetence required to believe the CIA assessment was the only correct report is just too much for a 'Dream Team'. Granted, the way the invasion has progressed doesn't show much prowess either.

I think your idea of the US trying to subdue the world is overstated, as well. I don't think that's even a capability of the US. But, the Bush administration could believe that one crucial move at the right time could change the future course of history. One democratic Middle East oil supplier, friendly to Western culture, could tip the scales in the favor of both the US and Europe. It would give the West an advantage over Asian countries in the competition for oil.

I don't think this is the first stage of 'US wars for oil'. It's the beginning of several wars for oil that will be initiated by various countries that have to have a reliable oil supply for their economy to survive. The US was just the first to jump into the pond.

 

[Skyhunter]

How can we oppose a policy if we don't know what it is?

Why are we building permanent bases in Iraq, while telling everyone that we want to "stand up" the Iraqi people so we can "stand down"?

The administration won't tell us what their policy is. Just like the build up to the war, we are being decieved again.

I am going to make a bumper sticker that reads in big letters;

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LIAR!

 

[outsider]

How can we oppose a policy if we don't know what it is?

Why are we building permanent bases in Iraq, while telling everyone that we want to "stand up" the Iraqi people so we can "stand down"?

The administration won't tell us what their policy is. Just like the build up to the war, we are being decieved again.

I am going to make a bumper sticker that reads in big letters;

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LIAR!

it is the shroud of confusion that companies use in many cases to mislead the competition or minimize the adverse affects of employees prior to giving them the axe... (if you've ever worked in an office, you know what i mean... the person to get fired is usually the last person to know).

there is a definite plan that is being played out... populous of the world are energy & product consuming pets to big business. I have no real point of view right now... just got back from a little time off... got some family visiting... join y'all later.

 

[Informal Logic]

Too late, I think, TSA - anyone know what's happened to TSM? I am guessing what the line through a name means, but don't know for sure... Where can I read about it?

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

I agree, if it is true that TSM was kicked, I'd find this sad, because his contributions here were often well-informed, and especially witty. (remember his 99 dead baboons, and the suicide bomber song "Allah Me, Why don't you take Allah Me ?" :-)

I was just wondering, though, where we can read to find out the rules about how being kicked off works? What must one do to get kicked off? I searched the PF site yesterday and read some general guidelines for posting in the PF and MKaku forums, but are there specific rules for this section of the boards? What is the 'law' and where can I read its specifics?

EDIT: And perhaps if one voluntarily 'deregisters', the name gets crossed out? Perhaps TSM had enough and just withdrew? I hope it was his decision rather than anything else, in any case (as you say, vanesch).

So my other question is: if someone deregisters from this site, is that what happens to that person's name? I imagine this may be the case.

I agree TSM was a great contributor and it is sad he has been banned. Unfortunately there were probably members complaining to the moderators. Suppressing freedom of speech is not the liberal way, but there are a few members who are far more offensive. Complaints could become a two way street you know.

Back to the topic. Today there are reports of air strikes against Al Qeada in Iraq, but a lot of good this will do. Because Iraqi organizations are rapidly growing into a postwar popular movement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9122485/

So if the terrorists leave, they will be replaced once again with insurgents who are Iraqi. Then what will Bush call them I wonder, and will he blow them to pieces too?

 

[edward]

I agree, if it is true that TSM was kicked, I'd find this sad, because his contributions here were often well-informed, and especially witty. (remember his 99 dead baboons, and the suicide bomber song "Allah Me, Why don't you take Allah Me ?" :-)

I also agree. TSM provided us with more facts and links on the global situation than any other poster.

TSM did, after a prolonged dialog with one of the more antagonistic extreme right wing posters, refer to that poster as a -ick head.

I thought at the time that it might go unnoticed amongst the three pages of diatribe that the antagonist had presented and TSM had patiently replied to. Apparently that person reported it.

The antagonist who is ex military should have not been bothered by the term -ick head, because it is a common expression used in the military. It is one of the more gentle terms used to address a junior ranking person.
I served in the military myself and heard the expression -ick head on a daily basis.

In the context and in the situation in which the term -ick head was used, it was the only term that accurately described the antagonist.

 

[edward]

I agree TSM was a great contributor and it is sad he has been banned. Unfortunately there were probably members complaining to the moderators. Suppressing freedom of speech is not the liberal way, but there are a few members who are far more offensive. Complaints could become a two way street you know.

In the overall context of the posts involved, TSM is the one who was unfairly ridiculed. I saw this as a successful attempt to draw out an explitive from TSM by dumping three pages of pure garbage on him.

The supposedly offensive term could have simply been deleted by the mod.

 

[edward]

he can't be kicked like that... who kicked him? why? i saw his last posts and he didn't brake any forums policies...

He got tired of trying to respond to replies like:

can you read? Seriously? I didn't ask you about that stuff and does nothing to even address the question. I ask you one thing and you run off talking about something completely different...what is wrong with you? Do you take meds?

and

I am right on the money...you are the broken record in capable of original thought and incapable of forming a coherent idea...

from the thread: "Does the U.S. Administration owe an apology to the French" I think on page 10. The last few pages are a good read.

 

[DM]

from the thread: "Does the U.S. Administration owe an apology to the French" I think on page 10. The last few pages are a good read.

Yes, now I remember.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Quote:
can you read? Seriously? I didn't ask you about that stuff and does nothing to even address the question. I ask you one thing and you run off talking about something completely different...what is wrong with you? Do you take meds?

That is offensive. Why isn't the member who posted this banned too? Fair is fair.

 

[Skyhunter]

In the overall context of the posts involved, TSM is the one who was unfairly ridiculed. I saw this as a successful attempt to draw out an explitive from TSM by dumping three pages of pure garbage on him.

The supposedly offensive term could have simply been deleted by the mod.

I have to agree with TSM and his assesment of the antagonist's behavior. Although what he said was a personal insult.

TSM kept repeating his original statement the the antagonist kept misquoting him until finally he lost his temper.

Should have stayed with replying the way he did in earlier posts:

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Skyhunter]

That is offensive. Why isn't the member who posted this banned too? Fair is fair.

I agree, fair is fair.

Insults are insults, and that is a personal insult.

At least TSM added information to the dialogue instead of pure ad hominem.

 

[russ_watters]

What must one do to get kicked off? I searched the PF site yesterday and read some general guidelines for posting in the PF and MKaku forums, but are there specific rules for this section of the boards?

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

 

[edward]

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

I disagree strongly, he had changed his tone greatly since I first started posting here.

 

[Skyhunter]

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

Good to know it was an impartial computer that did the deed.

How does the server determine what is an abusive post?

 

[edward]

There are no specific extra rules for this section of the board. TSM was warned first unofficially, then officially, by Evo quite a number of times for his abusive posts. He would not change his tone and his warning level eventually reached the point where the server automatically banned him (15 points).

Hell the people in poverty by the numbers in China is more then the entire population of most countries on Earth. Its not self-delusion, its called science. But I suppose you don't know what "science" is.

Abuse apparently is all in the eye of the beholder. I see a lot of trash talk like that above. Let's define abuse once and for all.

 

[Art]

Abuse apparently is all in the eye of the beholder. I see a lot of trash talk like that above. Let's define abuse once and for all.

I concur with all those who have lamented the banning of TSM. The political forum will be severly diminished as a consequence. His unique position as an Englishman based in China added a perspective to the discussions which nobody else here can replace. He will be missed not only because of the extremely interesting posts he contributed, which led many of us into areas which were previously unchartered and so were very educational but also because the knock on effect will be that others of strong minds and persuasive facts will be intimidated by this action.
As others have noted there are many, far more abusive rightwing posters on this site who appear to sail along unscathed whilst insulting all and sundry along the way.
From comments made to me by Evo (in relation to complaints about my own posts) it appears there are many rightwing activists (BTW many of whom never even post on the political forum) who regularly make complaints about posts from people who they believe to be left leaning.
Personally although I have found many many posts from neocon members to be personally insulting and offensive I have never complained about any of them as I believe that a) free speech is paramount and b) generally when people resort to ad hominem attacks it is in lieu of an intelligent argument or c) it is a subject they feel strongly about and so passion overflows at times.

However given that there appears to be an orchestrated attempt by some to have other members excluded I for one will be rethinking my laissez-faire approach!

 

[oldunion]

could a petition be started to get TSM back on PF?

 

[SOS2008]

I concur with all those who have lamented the banning of TSM. The political forum will be severly diminished as a consequence. His unique position as an Englishman based in China added a perspective to the discussions which nobody else here can replace. He will be missed not only because of the extremely interesting posts he contributed, which led many of us into areas which were previously unchartered and so were very educational but also because the knock on effect will be that others of strong minds and persuasive facts will be intimidated by this action. As others have noted there are many, far more abusive rightwing posters on this site who appear to sail along unscathed whilst insulting all and sundry along the way.

From comments made to me by Evo (in relation to complaints about my own posts) it appears there are many rightwing activists (BTW many of whom never even post on the political forum) who regularly make complaints about posts from people who they believe to be left leaning. Personally although I have found many many posts from neocon members to be personally insulting and offensive I have never complained about any of them as I believe that a) free speech is paramount and b) generally when people resort to ad hominem attacks it is in lieu of an intelligent argument or c) it is a subject they feel strongly about and so passion overflows at times.

However given that there appears to be an orchestrated attempt by some to have other members excluded I for one will be rethinking my laissez-faire approach!

Art I agree, and in particular with what I have highlighted.

We have lost quite a few members from this forum such as "number42" for these very reasons. I was sad to see him leave since he was one of the members who inspired me to join. It has reached a point that members are openly voicing concerns, and I for one don't want to see more loss of quality members like TSM. Moderators should be neutral (Evo and several others do a great job IMO), but some seem to struggle with this...some themselves who are borderline with abusive terms--at least anyway in this area, or those who lock threads that are not in their sections? It only hurts this forum if it lacks even-handedness, because members can drift elsewhere.

In any event, I too have never lodged a complaint, and for the same reasons Art stated. Too bad there aren't points against members who constantly post unsubstantiated drivel, because I find these far more annoying in an academic forum than the so-called abusive terms, which are usually instigated/deserved to begin with.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm about to go reply to some posts with as much restraint as I can muster... (Oh, and I would have voted yes to reinstate TSM.) And before moving to a new thread...

YES -- IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LIAR!

 

[solutions in a box]

Driving people away by any means is one of the typical neocon approaches on forums. If they can't make you angry enough to attack, they send threatening Pm's and try scare tactics such as happened to me.

Their tactics are so similar that it appears to be a contrived effort. It reminds me of the Hitlerian tactics of karl Rove.

I am hoping that TSM will take on a new persona and come back and hit them where it hurts, right squarely in their ego.

 

[outsider]

I've just read all the follow ups and I am saddened and steamed to learn of the fate of one of the most if not THE MOST informative member I've ever found on the Internet! I have been warned on multiple occasions for my writing style, however I feel TSM has always been more than gracious to those most undeserving. It is a shame on this system as there are many far more abusive writers on these boards who should first be gone. How do we get TSM back?

 

[Daminc]

I have also felt that I've been insulted now and again but I wouldn't even consider putting a complaint in. If someone crosses the line the moderators should step in. That's what they are there for IMO.

Automatic banning by the server? That seems pretty dumb. Does that mean I could just complain and complain about anyone whom I disagree with and they'll end up getting banned by the server?

IF TSM was guilty of a crime worthy of being banned for then the moderators should probably ban a good 30% of the posters here.

People lose their cool. Especially if faced with a *ick-head. Although we should try and moderate our own behaviour we're only human and our emotions can get the better of us now and again.