Urgent as in, "We have evidence he is planning to attack us." Do I have to spell it out for you?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/iraq/20020926-19.html

The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year.p

No proof offered. Assertion turned out not to be true.

Iraq's regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups -- there are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.

No proof offered. Assertion turned out not to be true.

War is serious business, Makk. We'd better be damned sure of our facts before we go sacrificing people.

The urgency was all about the November, 2002 elections. Face up to it.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

Justify... apologize... you keep running over the same threadbare ground. And there is no support for it.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

U.S. Marines Hand Falluja to Former Saddam General

Do you feel a draft?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

U.S. Abuse of Iraqi Prisoners Inflame Arabs

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

It's not military policy to abuse prisoners, jackass.

So yes, we do need something like a written, detailed plan about how Saddam is going to attack us, written by Saddam, and 100% proved to be written by Saddam, or something to that effect. Is that correct?

If that's not correct tell me what kind of evidence do we need. Do we need to rely on our intelligence agencies, since Saddam isn't likely to walk onto CNN and announce the details of a plan to kill us all?

When a regime has already invaded a soverign nation, still fires upon patrols on no-fly zones, and still tries to obstruct inspectors, I don't understand the point in sitting and waiting for this. You say "Saddam was contained for 12 years". That's plenty of time for good faith gestures from the regime. I say Saddam continued to posture against the stability of the international community for 12 years.

Hey since you're so big on "proof", show me some written, documented, 100% provable evidence the war was all about the 2002 elections. None? A little bit of a double-standard there, don't you think?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Septemopber, 2002:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/timep.rove.tm/

It doesn't help that Rove has the habit of fueling speculation that the White House is wagging the dog. In January he suggested that the war on terror created a political advantage because Americans "trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America." In June a misplaced diskette containing one of Rove's private PowerPoint presentations included advice to candidates to "focus on the war" in their fall campaigns. When friends ask whether Bush really plans to invade Iraq, Rove has been known to reply, "Let me put it this way: If you want to see Baghdad, you'd better visit soon."

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

But yet, some of the jackassess in our military over there did, jackass.

From the article:
The U.S. military has brought criminal charges against six soldiers relating to accusations of abuses from November and December 2003 on some 20 detainees, including indecent acts with another person, maltreatment, battery, dereliction of duty and aggravated assault.

Call me cynical, but I doubt the 6 accused soldiers will get anything more than a slap on the wrist.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

niteowl, you used this quote from me right before your article:

It's not our policy to abuse prisoners. In fact, it's against the rules.

fuzzyman, I don't see how that article responds to my questions, if that was the point at all.

I have another question, unless you're just ignoring them all together now. You say we can't leave Iraq now, because it would become a haven for terrorists. Are you saying it's "urgent" we stay in there, or that Iraq would soon become an "urgent" threat to us and/or the region if we left?

I don't expect you to respond to this, along with the other questions, probably because you realize where these questions are heading.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

I have another question, unless you're just ignoring them all together now. You say we can't leave Iraq now, because it would become a haven for terrorists. Are you saying it's "urgent" we stay in there, or that Iraq would soon become an "urgent" threat to us and/or the region if we left?

I don't expect you to respond to this, along with the other questions, probably because you realize where these questions are heading.

---

Par for the course. You've been ignoring any difficult points I've broughtup, asserting that they aren't points at all, or just not "getting it." Whether this is just the way your brain works or just a ploy I'm not sure.

Your questions about "urgency" are a case in point. I've made my argument clear as crystal every which way to Sunday. Now you've redirected the "urgency" question to whether we stay in Iraq or not. I never said it was urgent that we stay in Iraq or not, only that if we leave before there is a stable government in place then the area would become a haven for terrorists in the midst of a civil war. Civil warriors need weapons and expertise that Al Qaeda would be only too happy to provide in exchange for refuge.

So if we left, yes, it would eventualy become an urgent Afghanistan-like situation. (Note that if we had uncovered evidence of plans for 9/11 prior to the attack I would have had no qualms about going in and kicking some Taliban ass). But I don't see how creating an "urgent" sitation by leaving now has any bearing on whether there was an "urgent" situation before we attacked.

I look forward the the Bizzaro-world logic of your response, but I will admit to tiring of this back and forth. I feel like I am pounding my head against the wall. I could make the most cogent, well-written argument and you would still not get it.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

Show me a point I haven't responded to, or a time when I dismissed your point by saying "you don't get it".

I asked you what "evidence of urgency was" and you said proof we are going to be attacked. I asked what form this "proof" must take, offering some examples, and you didn't respond. Your point is not crystal clear.

Show me the proof that this would happen.

Show me the proof this would happen!

The alternative being sitting and waiting for an attack unless the attackers release a press release forewarning of the attack.

You've defined the need to stay on as much speculation (or less) than I used to describe my thoughts on us needing to take out Saddam. That's why the point is relevant.

That's because I've asked you to use your own arguments to explain your thoughts on the current military action. I can understand why it's frustrating, because your arguments weren't practical.

Unless maybe you could clarify: What would constitute "evidence of urgency". If you can't pin it down, you being able to say "well no doubt Al-Qaeda would take over Iraq and launch an attack on us" isn't different than me saying "surely Saddam would do anything in his power to covertly attack us as long as he is in power".

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

niteowl, you used this quote from me right before your article:

It's not our policy to abuse prisoners. In fact, it's against the rules.

---

And your point is...?

My point is that your proclamation of the military being oh soooo moral and ethical during this invasion is a crock of shit.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Fuzzy, I think everyone not named MaKK_BeNN who has posted to this thread probably feels the same way.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

quote:

---

And your point is...?

My point is that your proclamation of the military being oh soooo moral and ethical during this invasion is a crock of shit.

---

My point is, even if you can't stop all abuses, I'd rather have a military whose policy is to not abuse prisoners versus a military where torturing prisoners is considered the norm.

We have cases of police abuse in brutality in the U.S., but I'd still say our system is better than the Saudi government, because we at least have governmental protections from abuse and cruel and unusual punishment. At least you have avenues of recouse that might redress the situation, at least you have a chance of bringing the people that abuse you to justice, at least the government makes a stand against it.

I'd much rather stand by the U.S. military whose policy is to treat prisoners according to the Geneva convention, instead of it being the norm to revel in dragging their mutilated bodies through the streets.

That's just me, though, apparently.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Yeah, that's what the military SAYS their policy is, but I can't see the higher-ups sending a message to troops that says, "Don't abuse prisoners, or you'll be in deep doo-doo!".

So does that mean we should liberate, er invade Saudi Arabia next?

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

And back to my thread!

Was Saddam amassing troops and equipment within striking distance of the US?

But America hit him even though he hadn't deployed troops near them! How come it was okay for you to do that, but it wouldn't be for him?

quote:

---

A good parellel would be the 7 days war with Israel.

If Iran snuck in chemical weapons to a military base, when we had nothing poised to strike them

---

The US is incapable of striking Iran within minutes if it chooses to?

Let's analyse the recent attack on Iraq, then. Let's agree that these statements are true:

1. Iraq had not attacked the US, and was not amassing troops within attacking distance of the US.
2. The US only attacked military targets.

Was the pre-emptive strike justified, then, by your definition? No. Under your model it was terrorism. Oops!

So does that mean we should liberate, er invade Saudi Arabia next?

---

Did I say that, or anything that would lead you to believe I meant to imply that?

quote:

---

quote:

---

To apply to this argument, the U.S. would have to be amassing troops and equipment within striking distance of Iran.

---

Was Saddam amassing troops and equipment within striking distance of the US?

---

The arguement was applied to Iran mobilizing an attack against the U.S. under the assumption that we were going to attack them. We only attack people militarily, we don't fund terror cells to sneak in and kill civilians, so it's pretty obvious when we're going to attack someone.

Also it's not like we just jumped out of the blue into this war, it had a ten-year context of us policing the no-fly zones which were constantly violated and trying to force Saddam to obey the terms of peace.

Also the U.S. is one of the few countries that has the ability and will to protect the soverignty of other nations. We weren't in the Persian Gulf the first war to protect ourselves, we were there to protect Kuwait. It's a different situation all together, so obviously the argument I used about Iran attacking us isn't going to have the same application.

But America hit him even though he hadn't deployed troops near them! How come it was okay for you to do that, but it wouldn't be for him?

---

I don't really see how that question applies to the new quote but I'll try to answer it in this new context.

We engaged in an act of war even though Saddam wasn't making obvious an act of war against us, and we attacked his military. This would be an act of "war" not "terror", in response to your re-posting of my quote. It's different from a sneak attack by Iran on a military base because we declared war through the international community, we didn't just sneak in, gas some troops, and sneak away.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A good parellel would be the 7 days war with Israel.

If Iran snuck in chemical weapons to a military base, when we had nothing poised to strike them

---

The US is incapable of striking Iran within minutes if it chooses to?

---

We could just fire missiles into Iran if that's what you mean. And Iran could fire missiles into Iraq, and Turkey could fire missiles into Greece, what's your point? We couldn't invade and threaten the government of Iran at the drop of a hat.

If you're suggesting that the U.S. is a constant, legitimate military target because of our missile capabilities I just think you're wrong. We use our military capabilities on good authority, and it's why we are a nation that polices instead of a nation that needs to be policed.

Let's analyse the recent attack on Iraq, then. Let's agree that these statements are true:

1. Iraq had not attacked the US, and was not amassing troops within attacking distance of the US.
2. The US only attacked military targets.

Was the pre-emptive strike justified, then, by your definition? No. Under your model it was terrorism. Oops!

---

The United States has a history and policy of defending other nations and people from agression. That's what we're doing in the Middle East. No, I wouldn't apply the same conditions to Iran because they sponsor terror and probably wouldn't have the interests of the international community if they decided to invade Iraq to uninstall Saddam.

Our invasion of Iraq has a context, the first Gulf War, that's my point. I was describing how ridiculous a military attack by Iran would be against us becuase of the lack of context. Without us marching into Tehran, without us flying patrols over their countries after we forced them back from an invasion, there is no justifiable context for an attack by them against the U.S.

"Whoops, under my model it's terrorism?" You're right, we just sailed in out of the blue and arrested a peace-loving Saddam. God what did we do?

I answered the question "Why is the United States invading Iraq different from Iran funding terrorists to covertly gas and kill troops in the U.S." By your statement I can only assume you see no difference between the two. Is this correct? And why do you not see a difference?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

If you're going to beg the question, we'll just go round in circles.

Socrates: "Does a pre-emptive strike by the US on Iraq count as terrorism?"
Makk: "No."
Socrates: "Would a pre-emptive strike by Iran on the US count as terrorism?"
Makk: "Yes."
Socrates: "Why?"
Makk: "Because Iran sponsors terror and the US doesn't."

Do you see that this is what you're saying?

The difference between America spending six years continuously bombing the north of Iraq - including farms and other civilian facilities when they couldn't find any legitimate targets - and Iran sending a squad of suicide bombers into an army base in the US? You're right, I can't see it. I'm blind. Please help me to see.

quote:

---

Socrates: "Does a pre-emptive strike by the US on Iraq count as terrorism?"
Makk: "No."
Socrates: "Would a pre-emptive strike by Iran on the US count as terrorism?"
Makk: "Yes."
Socrates: "Why?"
Makk: "Because Iran sponsors terror and the US doesn't."

Do you see that this is what you're saying?

---

Maybe we need to get the Official Sponsors of World Terrorism placement.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

So does that mean we should liberate, er invade Saudi Arabia next?

---

Did I say that, or anything that would lead you to believe I meant to imply that?

---

Well gee, if the Saudi government is so mean to their own people, shouldn't we intervene and liberate them? And if they're bad against their own, wouldn't that make them a threat to the world? Hell, they might have weapons too! We should go get 'em! Cause the we're the police of the free world and we don't put up with that trampling the rights of innocent citizens bullshit!

Get the picture yet, MaKK?

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

quote:

---

Socrates: "Does a pre-emptive strike by the US on Iraq count as terrorism?"
Makk: "No."
Socrates: "Would a pre-emptive strike by Iran on the US count as terrorism?"
Makk: "Yes."
Socrates: "Why?"
Makk: "Because Iran sponsors terror and the US doesn't."

Do you see that this is what you're saying?

---

So you're saying you don't see a difference between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the United States?

Are you saying you don't see a difference between a military attack by the United States to remove Saddam Hussein and a gas attack on a military base in the United States by Iranian-sponsored terrorists? I'm really having trouble believing you don't see the difference.

Saddam Hussein could have conceivably threatened the security of the United States, and there is a pretty good context for that argument. Saying that a nation like Iran, which sponsors many terror groups would be akin to the U.S. going into Iraq if they coordinated a terror attack on the U.S. just seems obtuse to me.

The security of a nation that enables and enforces the security of other soverign democracies should supercede that of a nation, like Iran, which undermines the security of democratic and soverign nations.

Do you actually disagree? Do you actually have a switch in your brain that turns off common sense? Can you really say on the world stage that all governments are equal, and the whims of the Iranian government are just as valid as the agenda of the United States or Great Britain? Agree with that notion if you want, but don't just avoid the question.

You're welcome to clarify this if you want. What I'm saying is more complex than your simplifcation, which leaves out big parts of the argument. That's one of the problems with simplifications.

Yeah, I am applying a different standard to the U.S. than Iran. Give me a reason not to.

If we accidently hit civilian targets that doesn't negate the purpose of the no-fly zones, and it doesn't make Saddam less responsible for the military manuverings he continued to execute.

I gather that yes, you are saying an attack on the U.S. by Iranian terrorists would be justified (apparently because you say we missed some military targets in Iraq on occasions which you have not specified or offered proof of). I don't know why you'd place justice in the hands of Hezbolla and radical clerics, but if that's your preference I guess I have to accept it until we round all of you up and throw you in a hole somewhere.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying our classification of nations which sponsor terror is incorrect? If so, how?

quote:

---

Well gee, if the Saudi government is so mean to their own people, shouldn't we intervene and liberate them? And if they're bad against their own, wouldn't that make them a threat to the world? Hell, they might have weapons too! We should go get 'em! Cause the we're the police of the free world and we don't put up with that trampling the rights of innocent citizens bullshit!

Get the picture yet, MaKK?

---

Saudi Arabia hasn't invaded one of its soverign neighbors. They've pledged to fight terror, and demonstrate success in doing so. My qualification for attacking a country was never "they have weapons" or "they don't have great civil rights", and I don't know where your "argument" is coming from.

I guess you, like Spankling, are calling our classification of nations which sponsor terror "bullshit". What is your grievance with this list? Why are the nations on it wrongly catagorized? What would be a better way to handle the situation of terror?

There are plenty of countries that do not have freedoms we afford which we deal with. There are nations that do not agree with the death penalty and still deal with the United States.

In any event, I said I'd rather live in and support a country with more governmental protections of citizens' rights and more ethical rules for engagements in combat situations. I didn't say nations which were less fair should be attacked.

Get the picture yet, idiot?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

You continue to play dense on the "urgency and evidence" issue. Rather than point out when such evidence was given in the summer of 2002, you go down the path of, "Well what would you have called evidence?"

Pul-eeeze.

You ask what proof I have that the war was politically motivated. I post a quote and article clearly showing the planned linkage between You respond, "I don't see how that article responds to my questions, if that was the point at all."

And of course, I was saying that YOU claim not to get my point (in so many words), but there is another classic case of Makk misdirection.

Proof that would be good enough for me would include, for example, recordings of intercepted telephone conversations, intercepted e-mails, documents, plans, perhaps some WMDs and so on. Not necessarally all of those things, but enough of one or the other to be credible and support each other. You'll note that it took them 6 months to come up with a case for war to present to the U.N., and it turned out to be mostly bullshit.

My point, Makk, is that war is a serious step and you'd better have good evidence that it is necessary before you commit to it. To date the Bush Administration has not presented such evidence, and I challenge you to point out a time when they have.

quote:

---

Show me the proof that this would happen.

---

I think this is a pretty logical extrapolation. Look what happened in Afghanistan. Terrorist organizations thrive where there is unrest.

quote:

---

Show me the proof this would happen!

---

This is my opinion, but I think it is common sense. Do you think this would not happen?

As you say, we are country that polices and does not need to be policed. But that is because we have a certain standard -- namely, not to go to war unless we or an ally is threatened. (Granted this has not always been the case in our history, but it has been pretty much the standard for most of the 20th century). We aren't a country that goes to war for the heck of it, or rather we weren't until recently.

The need to stay is based on an intelligent extrapolation of past events in similar situations and common sense. Ongoing bombings are plenty of evidence for the instability of the situation and the need to stay. I do NOT think that applies to your arguments to go to war.

quote:

---

That's because I've asked you to use your own arguments to explain your thoughts on the current military action. I can understand why it's frustrating, because your arguments weren't practical.

---

My arguments have been entirely practical, they just don't fit in to your context of "attack first, ask questions later" mindset, which is why I think we are going around in circles.

I think I'm going to make come funny cartoons or something.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

So these videos have come out, showing US and UK troops tormenting Iraqi prisoners. Although the soldiers involved say they were obeying high intelligence officials, it is the soldiers who are being probed and punished. This brings to light several truisms, some new, some eternal:

* When the US is firing on an enemy, the enemy has a problem; when the US captures an enemy, the US has a problem.

* In the age of digital video, torture will out, like murder.

* In any counter-insurgency operation, torture is SOP, no matter what the official statements proclaim. (Corollary: Anyone who believes the official statements is a rank sucker.)

* Shit still rolls downhill.

Same as it ever was. A new age of military humanism has, alas, not dawned after all. Is anyone surprised?

---
What others say about boorite!

You continue to play dense on the "urgency and evidence" issue. Rather than point out when such evidence was given in the summer of 2002, you go down the path of, "Well what would you have called evidence?"

---

I still ask, what would be proof of an impending attack? You're the one blowing off my questions, frankly because you have to answer that by saying:

1) Complete and total proof of Saddam's intentions to attack us

Which is ridiculous, and would negate the purpose of a covert attack on his part or:

2) Intelligence sources which indicate there may be a threat

This is reasonable, because it's all we could really hope for. And we thought we had it at the time.

quote:

---

You ask what proof I have that the war was politically motivated. I post a quote and article clearly showing the planned linkage between You respond, "I don't see how that article responds to my questions, if that was the point at all."

And of course, I was saying that YOU claim not to get my point (in so many words), but there is another classic case of Makk misdirection.

---

Oh was that the point of the Karl Rove story? Because I didn't know how it applied.

The whole story is about how people suspect Rove is pulling strings. It mentions that they suspect he had a role in politicizing Iraq, but it still doesn't resolve the question: is he pulling the strings? So how could he be the one who used Iraq for political purposes when it's not clear it was his call to make in the first place? That's his job, to make political issues out of things. It's not his job to go to war.

Show me the proof that this would happen.

---

I think this is a pretty logical extrapolation. Look what happened in Afghanistan. Terrorist organizations thrive where there is unrest.

---

I agree.

I think it's pretty logical to think Saddam was never going to have a peaceful regime.

Why can we use good logic and historical context for your terror argument, but not for an argument about Saddam Hussein? Terrorists, as far as I know, never completely invaded a neighboring country and threatened a large deal of the world's oil supply.

Show me the proof this would happen!

---

This is my opinion, but I think it is common sense. Do you think this would not happen?

---

No, I definitely do. I think we should stay.

But it's my common sense opinion that says "If Saddam could have hurt Western interests in anyway possible, he would have". I have the common sense to say that, without going off the deepend and asking "Well, so would GREAT BRITAIN!! Why don't we attack them??"

As you say, we are country that polices and does not need to be policed. But that is because we have a certain standard -- namely, not to go to war unless we or an ally is threatened. (Granted this has not always been the case in our history, but it has been pretty much the standard for most of the 20th century). We aren't a country that goes to war for the heck of it, or rather we weren't until recently.

---

Like I said, the notion that we attacked Saddam out of the blue, or "for the heck of it" is false. Also you seem to agree that yes, we should just sit around and wait to be attacked. Is this an incorrect interpretation?

The need to stay is based on an intelligent extrapolation of past events in similar situations and common sense. Ongoing bombings are plenty of evidence for the instability of the situation and the need to stay. I do NOT think that applies to your arguments to go to war.

---

Ongoing attempts to hinder the weapons inspectors didn't speak to the need to go to war? On going military actions in the no-fly zones didn't point to the need to go to war? Constant firings on planes patrolling the no-fly zones (one of the terms of peace) didn't demonstrate a certain attitude of defiance? A historical context of the same regime which invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia (and fired missiles into Israel in an attempt to start World War III) still being in power isn't cause to go in to remove it? The regime which is going around safeguards meant to avoid it building up its war chest, by embezzeling money from the oil for food program? None of this has any logical bearing or historical signifigance?

In any event, my point was more that in once instance you were asking for "proof of urgency" (which you didn't define, except to shrug off the notion that we had it) and in another you ask to use common sense when making a military decision. The only difference I can assume is that you dislike the war, or (more probably) the adiminstration that went to war, as you offer a speculative piece about Karl Rove as "proof" that the administration's only point of going to war was to influence the 2002 elections.

I'm just saying that seems a little biased. Maybe I'm off base though.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

So these videos have come out, showing US and UK troops tormenting Iraqi prisoners. Although the soldiers involved say they were obeying high intelligence officials, it is the soldiers who are being probed and punished. This brings to light several truisms, some new, some eternal:

* When the US is firing on an enemy, the enemy has a problem; when the US captures an enemy, the US has a problem.

* In the age of digital video, torture will out, like murder.

* In any counter-insurgency operation, torture is SOP, no matter what the official statements proclaim. (Corollary: Anyone who believes the official statements is a rank sucker.)

* Shit still rolls downhill.

Same as it ever was. A new age of military humanism has, alas, not dawned after all. Is anyone surprised?

---

Torture doesn't always lead to reliable intelligence, because sometimes people who speak just want to stop the torture. It's not practical.

There could be behind-closed-doors of brutal "interrogations" being used just to take out frustrations on a difficult detainee, you're right, it's naive to assume that doesn't happen (in the military, in law enforcement, etc.) I still doubt it's "unofficial" policy for the reason I state above.

And insurgents using video images of prisoners being captured, tortured, killed, etc., while against the Geneva Convention, is part of assymmetric warfare. I still approve of the general distinction that "we don't do that (violate the Geneva Convention on purpose in terms of POW treatment) even if the enemy does.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I would like to emphasize this point.

quote:

---

Anyone who believes the official statements is a rank sucker.

---

True in the US as it was in the Soviet Union.

---
What others say about boorite!