WMDs were a bureaucratic reason for war

[schwarzchildradius]

1. WMD
2. Terrorism
3. Regime change
4. Regional stability (oil if you wish)

You forgot 5. Invading Kuwait in 1990 !
That's the only legitimate one. (1 doesn't exist, 2 is a cynical dream, 3 is redundant, 4 is a joke unless you think regional stability is kids playing in nuclear waste and angry Muslims)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sigh, ok.

1. WMD
2. Terrorism
3. Regime change
4. Regional stability (oil if you wish)

You were close, but you didn't quite have it.

I didn't say that I stated all the reasons. I just typed what was on the top of my head.
I listed terrorism ("link to al queda"), and I listed WMD as two separate categories--chem/bio and nuclear.

I suppose that you could take up issue with my counting, because you listed WMDs as one reason, whereas I separated it into two, but that has nothing to do with getting the issues right.

No, because anyone who had paid attention would have heard ALL FOUR reasons cited publicly on many occasions. I didn't make them up and I didn't hear them from the voices inside my head. Again, that quote said they FOCUSED on one reason - but they certainly listed the others. This is the most basic of all debate tactics: List all of your arguements, then focus on the one you believe is strongest to go into detail. And remember, "strongest" is not what is most morally justified or legally right, or whatever. "Strongest" is the one that will sway the most opinions. Big difference.

Of those reasons, freeing the Iraqis and regional stability were mentioned rather peripherally, although the "freeing the iraqis" part was stepped up a bit when they realized that a lot of people were not buying the other reasons.

Regional stability was only mentioned in that they thought that having a "democracy" (really a republic) in the Middle East would cause a domino effect ([sarcasm]much like Turkey has caused[/sarcasm]).

In the beginning of the campaign to sell the war, regional stability was not listed, except as it related to WMD.

I never heard officials say that removing troops from Saudi Arabia was a reason. I think that it is one of the better reasons, but it was not mentioned, and that's what my beef with that is.

I don't think that I can really say any more about the quote, without reading my own implications in it.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero

Oh, and in the context of his entire career, and the current philosophy of teh neocons, lying IS acceptable, anything is acceptable, to achieve the goals of the radicalized right-wing.

What typo??, it say raDicalized, not racialized, it was a read error I would respectfully suggest, aside from that, it is a word as far as I know, to "turn into a radical".

Anyways, scuze my buttin in...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
What typo??, it say raDicalized, not racialized, it was a read error I would respectfully suggest, aside from that, it is a word as far as I know, to "turn into a radical".

Anyways, scuze my buttin in...

LOL, if you look close, you'll see I edited it after he posted...it WAS a typo, and I fixed it.