WMD in Iraq?

[Egeides]

Circular demonstration HERE: "He has these ideas thus he hates America. He hates America thus he has these ideas. Why does he hate America? Cuz he has these ideas. Why does he have these ideas? Because he has these ideas."

Thus, you guys hate me ::)

In what disagreeing = hating? Cuz all he or I did yet is disagree... I even got insults and didn't put some. So who's hating WHO?

On what are you basing yourself to know that "It doesn't matter to Egidies that Chomsky is perhaps the worst place to learn about US foreign policy"? On the fact that you consider it impossible for someone to have Chomsky's ideas.

Until now, each time someone has a different idea you say he hates America. So different ideas = hates America??

Vietnam opponent all hated America, as many said in these times. Being patriotic is not about following your government, it's about making what you think is best for your country.

[Miles]

If it's to get your approbation, I'll answer like I answer to everyone that is asking me to conform. If I am extreme to you, remember that by your own definition of "extreme" you'll also be extreme to me. The same way communism is extreme to capitalism and vice versa.

True, and also extreme virtue and extreme evil. Which side do you think Saddam sits on? You will say that the US sits on the same side, when in fact we do more virtuous things in this world than any one else. No, we're not perfect. We have made mistakes and at times our motives have been questionable, but you ignore the virtue and scream about the evil. That is fanaticism.

For your "politically correct" thing, I believe it is very important even in vocabulary to be clear on something like this. Like everyone saying "anti-american" at everything disagreeing to them.

Then lets make it very clear. I am talking about POLITICS and countries policies. You are fanatically anti-american when you spin ANY action of us into evil intent. That is fanatical and stupid.

For the case you named where USA helped, I in each case see US administration interest.

Case in point. The Afghanis who are living MUCH better lives would probably disagree with you, and the Iraqis are already disagreeing with you. You are fanatically anti-american and will therefore spin any situation to our evil intent.

I also see the same damn thing in many many countries. It is the nature of politics from the moment corporations can lobby to be influenced since $$ is useful in campaigns.

Last time I looked, votes are pretty good for campaigns too. You can have all the money you want, but your policies will determine whether you get elected.

So parties are running for it. But for showing you a case, I showed many on these forums and it takes some time each time... If you want a professional (it's his job thus "professional") on the question, a reknowned work is "Year 501" by Noam Chomsky, which is a few hundred pages (300). You could even just read a part, who cares, up to you. He's one of the US history books cited in "Will Hunting" movie :P

Edit: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm for reference

Adolf Hitler was a professional in politics too, but that doesn't mean I am going to buy into one damn thing he wrote in Mienkompf. Chomsky is a fanatical anti-american by the definition above. Who gives a shit what he thinks.(except other fanaticals)

[Egeides]

And while I am "anti-american" in your definition, then it seems that with your definition it is a good thing to be anti-american, as I would have been anti-british/french/etc in colonial times.

About extreme virtue/evil, I believe Saddam is extreme evil and USA has a melting-pot of evil guys at administration + some that really believe their stuff (hope so...). Both Saddam and the US admin are seeking power and money.

You say that lobby aren't influencing the policies? Then why are they investing incredible amounts of money (millions!!) into it, for FUN??!!

Now, this seriously is orienting on describing the other instead of bringing arguments so I'll let you do it without me. I'm interested in arguments, not describing my opponent.

We are both fanatics because we both have ideas and ready to defend them :O

PS: I refuse to simply qualify, I want to describe, understand.

PPS: Do you know at which point our news channels are showing different things during this war? You didn't even saw Iraqi huge manifestations!!!

[Miles]

And while I am "anti-american" in your definition, then it seems that with your definition it is a good thing to be anti-american, as I would have been anti-british/french/etc in colonial times.

About extreme virtue/evil, I believe Saddam is extreme evil and USA has a melting-pot of evil guys at administration + some that really believe their stuff (hope so...). Both Saddam and the US admin are seeking power and money.

I do not have the naive delusion that our administration is totally virtuous, but I do think that our intentions in Iraq were to finally get rid of an evil murderer and free an oppressed people, as well as protecting our own national security. There is nothing evil about this.

In case some of you have missed it, the link between Saddam and Al Quaeda has been established, unless you believe that Saddam knew nothing of the terrorist camp in the northeast. ;)

You say that lobby aren't influencing the policies? Then why are they investing incredible amounts of money (millions!!) into it, for FUN??!!

I never said that corporations did not influence policies, I said that public opinion will influence them more since Bush depends on us to get reelected.

Now, this seriously is orienting on describing the other instead of bringing arguments so I'll let you do it without me. I'm interested in arguments, not describing my opponent.

We are both fanatics because we both have ideas and ready to defend them :O

I thought you were going to leave describing the opponent to me ::)

A fanatic is one that has ideas and will not be swayed from them by any evidence. This is YOU. I, on the other hand, will be swayed if my government acts innapropriately, then I will condemn them. I will not deny and create lies to cover it as most of you will do when WMD are proven to be found, and as most are doing now that the jubilation in the Iraqi streets is evident, and since the link to Al Queada has been made.

[Gobalopper]

Don't forget the terrorist camp *in* Baghdad, Salmon Pak.

[SurlyPIG]

Also don't forget the hundreds of thousands of dollars going to the families of those who volunteer to suicide bomb Jewish citizens in Israel.

[Egeides]

I thought you were going to leave describing the opponent to me ::)

A fanatic is one that has ideas and will not be swayed from them by any evidence. This is YOU. I, on the other hand, will be swayed if my government acts innapropriately, then I will condemn them. I will not deny and create lies to cover it as most of you will do when WMD are proven to be found, and as most are doing now that the jubilation in the Iraqi streets is evident, and since the link to Al Queada has been made.

You think you showed me evidence?... naive... I'm not rude by saying this but I believe you aren't conscious at which point human may be hard to convince if they have an entire base to deconstruct, should it be mine or yours (and I sincerly believe in my main axioms). So I showed you what I thaught was evidence, and you did same. One of us is wrong, and maybe the two of us are partly wrong on some points (we can't be PERFECTLY right since humans aren't perfect). I believe it is naive from you to think that you are showing more evidence simply because it is an evidence to you. I'm not, I believe, someone who bases himself on nothing: I have many books/writings behind my words and got an opinion by reading from all points of view (dissidence, moderates, maniacs, gvt, followers...) as probably many people here. Do not believe that from the moment you pointed your evidence everyone not believing same than you can't be normal. Otherwise, you are as stubborn than me...

[Miles]

You think you showed me evidence?... naive...

evidence--- Iraqi's cheering in the streets, many possible chem/bio sites and one possible nuclear site, as well as MANY eyewitness accounts from inside Iraqm, terrorist camps in Iraq and even a terrorist training camp inside Baghdad, as Gob pointed out, our recent actions Afghanistan, Kosovo and Kuwait, which you refuse to tell why these show our evil intentions. As I said, you are a fanatic, and refuse to see the evidence.

I'm not rude by saying this but I believe you aren't conscious at which point human may be hard to convince if they have an entire base to deconstruct,

You have shown me no base to deconstruct, only hateful, synical statements with no real evidential base.

should it be mine or yours (and I sincerly believe in my main axioms). So I showed you what I thaught was evidence, and you did same.

What evidence? the rantings of another fanatic? Do you believe what Osama Bin Laden says too, and did you believe the Iraqi information minister in his ridiculous statements?

One of us is wrong,

You're right, and one of us has been partially vindicated and will be proven right in the coming months. I hope you're ready to eat crow.

and maybe the two of us are partly wrong on some points (we can't be PERFECTLY right since humans aren't perfect). I believe it is naive from you to think that you are showing more evidence simply because it is an evidence to you. I'm not, I believe, someone who bases himself on nothing: I have many books/writings behind my words and got an opinion by reading from all points of view (dissidence, moderates, maniacs, gvt, followers...) as probably many people here.

Good for you. And you believed the bullshit and will believe it regardless of what happens in reality. You are a fanatic.

Do not believe that from the moment you pointed your evidence everyone not believing same than you can't be normal. Otherwise, you are as stubborn than me...

I pointed to evidence that you can see on your television and newspapers every day. I showed you evidence of our past actions, and evidence that the link to terror between Saddam and Al Quaeda was, in fact real. You posted the opinions of a fanatic as your evidence. I'll leave it to the others on this board to judge which is more credible.

[Egeides]

evidence--- Iraqi's cheering in the streets, many possible chem/bio sites and one possible nuclear site, as well as MANY eyewitness accounts from inside Iraqm, terrorist camps in Iraq and even a terrorist training camp inside Baghdad, as Gob pointed out, our recent actions Afghanistan, Kosovo and Kuwait, which you refuse to tell why these show our evil intentions. As I said, you are a fanatic, and refuse to see the evidence.

Nothing is evidence to me since all this is stuff I knew. Recent actions in Kuwait/Kosovo/Afghanistan are all messes. Kosovo? Your own damn general said that attacking would kill MORE people! Afghanistan? I was for the attack but who put Laden to power? US! So it's just to stop what they brang for decades! And presently the government they've put is only for US interests. Kuwait? USA brang the problem too by supporting Hussein, by its action over petroleum.

You have shown me no base to deconstruct, only hateful, synical statements with no real evidential base.

I've written entire texts with a whole bunch of quotes, sources and so on. But your text, here, has none, as many of the others... I have arguments each time. Hateful? Saying some leaders are colonialists and mercantilists is hateful? So Mandella is hateful, since he condemn the invasion and talked about USA's oil thirst (same arguments than me).

What evidence? the rantings of another fanatic? Do you believe what Osama Bin Laden says too, and did you believe the Iraqi information minister in his ridiculous statements?

I said Iraqi leadership was bad too about 100 times so stop repeating this. I believe both sides are bad, which I also said 100 times. About "other fanatics", then I can say this to you too... Circular: Why am I false? Cuz I'm fanatic. Why am I fanatic? Cuz I say false stuff.

You're right, and one of us has been partially vindicated and will be proven right in the coming months. I hope you're ready to eat crow.

Sorry, I do not consider other things than arguments and I will eat my daily meal. Can't wait to see the government to be put in place and I expect the possibility of Iraqi discontent since many said they were worried of what USA would do after (but CNN didn't showed all the Iraqi manifestations... "unpatriotic")...

Good for you. And you believed the bullshit and will believe it regardless of what happens in reality. You are a fanatic.

I can turn this sentence on your side, thus logic is showing its non-universality.

I pointed to evidence that you can see on your television and newspapers every day. I showed you evidence of our past actions, and evidence that the link to terror between Saddam and Al Quaeda was, in fact real. You posted the opinions of a fanatic as your evidence. I'll leave it to the others on this board to judge which is more credible.

And we definitly didn't have same stuff on TV since we got an economic report about oil ressources and their strategic impacts... And I didn't limit myself to TV.

I'll do same as you: leave it to others. I have ARGUMENTS, not just treating others of names to say people with this qualificative are false. It's not an argument. Being patriotic isn't to serve your king/president/sheep in chief, it's to serve what YOU believe is good for your country.

[Warlord Ripskar]

So far all of the chemical agents discovered have turned out to be pesticides. We have found a container bearing radiation warnings but I don't think we know whats in it yet.

We are only controling a small area of the country so far, there are literally miles upon miles of desert out there. The search of that area will take months if not years, plus the fact thatthe installations are believed to be heavily concealed, camoflaged or otherwise disguised. The UK has near total surveilance of Ulster but the IRA is still concealing huge arsenals of weaponry. Finding Saddam's stuff will be difficult and drawn out.

[Anathema]

Don't forget the terrorist camp *in* Baghdad, Salmon Pak.

I'm not saying you're wrong Gob, but I haven't heard of it. Do you have an online article? And exactly what terrorist group are we talking about?

[Gobalopper]

Well most of the stuff I read was before the war and in subscription only sites. Here is a recent article:

http://news.bellinghamherald.com/stories/20030407/TopStories/135786.shtml

[Anathema]

Er, the article speaks of a possible terrorist camp outside of Baghdad.

[Miles]

Nothing is evidence to me since all this is stuff I knew. Recent actions in Kuwait/Kosovo/Afghanistan are all messes. Kosovo? Your own damn general said that attacking would kill MORE people!

Did it kill more people? I don't know, but I would guess that when it was all said and done, less people died from the attack then under the ethnic cleansing. Generals also predicted thousands of American casualties before this war. They have been known and proven to be wrong on most occasions. So who gives a shit.

Afghanistan? I was for the attack but who put Laden to power? US! So it's just to stop what they brang for decades! And presently the government they've put is only for US interests. Kuwait? USA brang the problem too by supporting Hussein, by its action over petroleum.

Oh knock it off with this bull. This was during the Cold war, and we supported the Afghanis in fighting the Soviets. We were justified in doing so, but there is NO WAY that we could have known how Bin Laden would have turned out.

And again, Hussein or Khomeini? I think we chose the one of the two that did not call us the "great satan" and called for the killing of Americans. Who was to know that Saddam would turn out the way he did? Once we realized, then our support stopped.

It is not always clear who the good guys and bad guys are. Sometimes, both are bad, and you must chose the lesser of the two evils. Sometimes this is a mistake, but hindsight is 20/20. All we can do is attempt to correct any mistakes made.

But, our actions in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Afghanistan show that we do not intend to rule these countries. We will make an honest effort to install a representative government to improve the lives of their civilians. Soon, Iraq will fall into this category too, but you will deny it anyway as all fanatics do.

I've written entire texts with a whole bunch of quotes, sources and so on. But your text, here, has none, as many of the others... I have arguments each time.

I don't rely on others to make my arguments for me, and my information comes from sources that anyone can check readily, but sources don't equal truth. They only show that someone else agrees with you. So what?

Hateful? Saying some leaders are colonialists and mercantilists is hateful? So Mandella is hateful, since he condemn the invasion and talked about USA's oil thirst (same arguments than me).

This is my point. You use names like Mandella as if they always spoke absolute truth. So he agrees with you that we should have allowed millions to suffer and die under an oppressive regime. Big deal?

I said Iraqi leadership was bad too about 100 times so stop repeating this. I believe both sides are bad, which I also said 100 times. About "other fanatics", then I can say this to you too... Circular: Why am I false? Cuz I'm fanatic. Why am I fanatic? Cuz I say false stuff.

No the second part is wrong. You are a fanatic because you are blind to other possibilities. You see America as bad, so you will interperet anything we do as evil, even if all evidence is contrary.

If we manage to help set up a legitimate Iraqi government, and the oil is their's to exploit drastically improving the average Iraqi's lives, there will always be fanatics who hate America regardless. They will still point to our actions and find some way to twist them for their ideals.

Afghanistan is a prime example. Go to the street and ask the women if they live better now or before, and you will have your proof.

Sorry, I do not consider other things than arguments and I will eat my daily meal. Can't wait to see the government to be put in place and I expect the possibility of Iraqi discontent since many said they were worried of what USA would do after (but CNN didn't showed all the Iraqi manifestations... "unpatriotic")...

I don't blame the Iraqis for being skeptical. They have the most to lose or gain in this. I hope that we do it right, and install an Iraqi government comprised of mostly Iraqis living inside Iraq, not exiles. If this works out, then I think the discontent will aleviate, and we will see Iraq become an economic powerhouse. This is what I wish for, since it will show all the other oppressed people the possibilities of freedom and democracy. It will also improve our standing in the Arab world.

CNN may not have shown the dissention of many Iraqi civilians, but I can assure you that it has been printed in our media. My local paper's headline yesterday was "Rising Resistance" and it spoke of the Iraqi opinion starting to turn due to the apparent lack of action by our military to create some kind of order. I think, though, that once it is installed, this anamosity will diminish.

I can turn this sentence on your side, thus logic is showing its non-universality.

Wrong, I am one of the first to admit when we are wrong.

And we definitly didn't have same stuff on TV since we got an economic report about oil ressources and their strategic impacts... And I didn't limit myself to TV.

Nor did I. I read reports on the internet, read different newspaper articles from many news sources, and on other issues, I read books and articles on history.

I'll do same as you: leave it to others. I have ARGUMENTS, not just treating others of names to say people with this qualificative are false. It's not an argument. Being patriotic isn't to serve your king/president/sheep in chief, it's to serve what YOU believe is good for your country.

No, you have to use other people's arguments. Then you want me to do the same. I give you my opinion based on what I see, read and hear. I know that my sources can be flawed, which is why I rarely quote directly from them, nor do I stick with one source as absolute truth. Rather, I take in all the information from as many possible sources and judge from there.

I have come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq was in the best interest for my country. I see it as a golden opportunity to show the other Arab countries and others that;

1. The US is interested in helping countries become free, viable democracies that will improve the lives of it's citizens. If it works out, then those other Arabs under dictatorial rule, might reevaluate their own government.

2. That, while the UN may be a cowardly ineffectual paper tiger, the US will not be chained to it. As the UN loses it's credibility, by allowing it's resolutions to be ignored, the US will not go down with that sinking ship.

3. That, while we wish for diplomatic solutions to problems, we will not cower from threat if we have no other choice. I think many countries had that impression after Vietnam and Sarejevo.

4. That mass-murder and extreme oppression of your helpless civilians will not be tolerated. An issue that we have wavered on in the past, but hopefully will take a firmer stance on.

5. That sponsorship of terrorism will NOT be tolerated. It is now proven that Iraq was a safe harbor for Ansar Al Islam who tested and distributed ricin to be used in terrorist attacks. Now Abbas is captured in Baghdad, and a terrorist training camp was found in or near Badhdad in which the hull of a jet was used to train hijackings. The coincidences are mounting, and the skeptics are being proven wrong.

[Gobalopper]

Ok well its close to Baghdad, either way its still a terrorist camp. :)