NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, the video is 12 minutes long, but it's a short 12 minutes. Olbermann can be a bit of a blowhard, much like his conservative foil O'Reilly, but tonight, he nailed how I feel about our president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24635229

I share, because I care.

I love how he gets kind of teary eyed at the end.

Ive always loved Olbermann. He's like the liberal Bill O'riely. But smart. And capable of arguing. And win. Without screaming.

First of all, the video is 12 minutes long, but it's a short 12 minutes. Olbermann can be a bit of a blowhard, much like his conservative foil O'Reilly, but tonight, he nailed how I feel about our president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24635229

I share, because I care.

I love how he gets kind of teary eyed at the end.

I think I have a man-crush on this guy. :D

At least the President makes some gesture. Golf is important to him. I don't see Oblerman doing USO or anything else but complain about how bad he thinks things are.

At least the President makes some gesture. Golf is important to him. I don't see Oblerman doing USO or anything else but complain about how bad he thinks things are.

Are you serious? You really, really think this is a legit gesture? Are you really that dense? *remembers who he is talking to* Nevermind.


Whats Olbermann's contribution? He talks about it. He gets it out there. He holds debate.

Far more important then giving up Golf.

Are you serious? You really, really think this is a legit gesture? Are you really that dense? *remembers who he is talking to* Nevermind.


Whats Olbermann's contribution? He talks about it. He gets it out there. He holds debate.

Far more important then giving up Golf.

I see neither giving up golf nor being paid to debate actual sacrifices.

This is the umpteenth really weird thing George Bush has done in the past few months. You know how after a sitcom like Seinfeld or The Simpsons has been on for a few years, the jokes start being more self-referential? Bart will mention how "don't have a cow, man" is his thing, or Jerry will create some word to be discussed over the water cooler the next day. Well, I think the eighth season of Dubya is like that, starting with George Bush implying Dick Cheney was on the Dark Side and continuing with this.

At least the President makes some gesture. Golf is important to him. I don't see Oblerman doing USO or anything else but complain about how bad he thinks things are.

Golf is important to him? So that, in any way, equates with the loss of 4,000 American lives? These kids signed up for the military, and then were sent to a country they didn't understand, with a non-existent battleplan and a lack of interpreters and body armor. And Bush's great sacrifice is giving up golf? And not even giving up golf when he said he did? That doesn't ring hollow to you?

I see neither giving up golf nor being paid to debate actual sacrifices.

This is the umpteenth really weird thing George Bush has done in the past few months. You know how after a sitcom like Seinfeld or The Simpsons has been on for a few years, the jokes start being more self-referential? Bart will mention how "don't have a cow, man" is his thing, or Jerry will create some word to be discussed over the water cooler the next day. Well, I think the eighth season of Dubya is like that, starting with George Bush implying Dick Cheney was on the Dark Side and continuing with this.

That would imply a sense of self-awareness and grasp of language that I believe is beyond this president.

That would imply a sense of self-awareness and grasp of language that I believe is beyond this president.

I was actually just reading an old Slate bushbash about his use of words. It's frightening.

Are you serious? You really, really think this is a legit gesture? Are you really that dense? *remembers who he is talking to* Nevermind.


Whats Olbermann's contribution? He talks about it. He gets it out there. He holds debate.

Far more important then giving up Golf.

Is it? Why? Honestly, why is doing nothing more than complaining more important or valuable than making difficult decisions regarding war and peace? If Olberman really cares about the troops as much as he says, why doesn't he meet wounded soldiers? The President does. Or why doesn't he go to war zones and meet with soldiers? The President does. Fanciful speeches are fine, but that's all they are. Let's not pretend Olberman does anything meaningful.

Tl;dr, Ni, Sos, Stcb

Is it? Why? Honestly, why is doing nothing more than complaining more important or valuable than making difficult decisions regarding war and peace? If Olberman really cares about the troops as much as he says, why doesn't he meet wounded soldiers? The President does. Or why doesn't he go to war zones and meet with soldiers? The President does. Fanciful speeches are fine, but that's all they are. Let's not pretend Olberman does anything meaningful.

The President also has the opportunity to do all of those things, though. I suppose Olberman could visit Walter Reed, or USO like you said, but it's not really expected of him. It is expected of the President, and so it's almost routine for him. I don't mean he is completely heartless about the soldiers difficulties, but he's not really choosing to care about them, it's part of his job.

Is it? Why? Honestly, why is doing nothing more than complaining more important or valuable than making difficult decisions regarding war and peace? If Olberman really cares about the troops as much as he says, why doesn't he meet wounded soldiers? The President does. Or why doesn't he go to war zones and meet with soldiers? The President does. Fanciful speeches are fine, but that's all they are. Let's not pretend Olberman does anything meaningful.

Doing nothing is better then making things consistantly worse. Like George.

Is it? Why? Honestly, why is doing nothing more than complaining more important or valuable than making difficult decisions regarding war and peace? If Olberman really cares about the troops as much as he says, why doesn't he meet wounded soldiers? The President does. Or why doesn't he go to war zones and meet with soldiers? The President does. Fanciful speeches are fine, but that's all they are. Let's not pretend Olberman does anything meaningful.

The funny part is that he didn't even give up golf when he said he did.

Besides, Olbermann isn't the President of the United States. He can't nuke anybody, or Fox News would be long gone.

As bad as the media has become, I wouldn't pretend to say that what they do isn't meaningful. Why do you hate freedom?

The President also has the opportunity to do all of those things, though. I suppose Olberman could visit Walter Reed, or USO like you said, but it's not really expected of him. It is expected of the President, and so it's almost routine for him. I don't mean he is completely heartless about the soldiers difficulties, but he's not really choosing to care about them, it's part of his job.

My point is that if Olberman really did care about the troops as much as he claims he would do those things whether expected or not. But he would rather just pay them lip service in an attempt to gain ratings by bashing the President. To put it bluntly, it's a sad charade he's putting on, pathetic in a way and rich in hypocrisy.

Doing nothing is better then making things consistantly worse. Like George.

Staying true to a strategy that has reduced violence and American causalities is making things worse? Interesting.

My point is that if Olberman really did care about the troops as much as he claims he would do those things whether expected or not. But he would rather just pay them lip service in an attempt to gain ratings by bashing the President. To put it bluntly, it's a sad charade he's putting on, pathetic in a way and rich in hypocrisy.

Because Olbermann's caring about the troops has any bearing on how good Bush is as a President. This is called the fallacy of hypocrisy.

Because Olbermann's caring about the troops has any bearing on how good Bush is as a President. This is called the fallacy of hypocrisy.

Reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't suggest the two issues are related.

Staying true to a strategy that has reduced violence and American causalities is making things worse? Interesting.

.......?


The Iraq war has reduced violence and American causualties?



Oh ok! By "violence" you meant "the American economy to shambles" and by "American causalties" you mean "America's standing in the world".


Gotcha.


Cant there be just one smart Bushevik?

.......?


The Iraq war has reduced violence and American causualties?



Oh ok! By "violence" you meant "the American economy to shambles" and by "American causalties" you mean "America's standing in the world".


Gotcha.


Cant there be just one smart Bushevik?

I was referring to the surge.....

And I lol'd at the notion I'm a Bushevik. Hardly.

Reading comprehension is your friend. I didn't suggest the two issues are related.

No, but you're attempting to attack the validity of Olbermann's commentary by showing that he doesn't do as much as the President. Whether he does or doesn't has no bearing on the power of Olbermann's words.

So, this is a thread about Olbermann's commentary. If your comments on Olbermann's character mean you are trying to debunk his commentary, that's fallacy of hypocrisy. If you are not trying to debunk the commentary and are merely quoting your personal opinion on something totally unrelated, that's threadjacking. :)

Logic is your friend.

God bless Keith.

Thanks for posting this. I was trying to watch it on C&L tonight, and it died on me.

He sugarcoats things too much. He should just say what he means. *nod*

I was referring to the surge.....

And I lol'd at the notion I'm a Bushevik. Hardly.

There has been a surge in violence again.


Doesnt look like that surge is working to well anymore.

He sugarcoats things too much. He should just say what he means. *nod*

The best part was at the end when he yelled "SHUT THE HELL UP!!!" And right before "hell" he paused and you could visibally see him trying not to drop the f-bomb.

No, but you're attempting to attack the validity of Olbermann's commentary by showing that he doesn't do as much as the President. Whether he does or doesn't has no bearing on the power of Olbermann's words.

So, this is a thread about Olbermann's commentary. If your comments on Olbermann's character mean you are trying to debunk his commentary, that's fallacy of hypocrisy. If you are not trying to debunk the commentary and are merely quoting your personal opinion on something totally unrelated, that's threadjacking. :)

Logic is your friend.

In Olberman's commentary he referenced several times "the troops", "sacrifice" "fallen heros", "wounded warriors" or some variation there of. I believe there was even a reference to a marine w/ half his face blown off or something. My point was if he really cared about said troops, he would prove it through actions. He has not. His character debunks his hypocritical commentary. I merely pointed this out.

The best part was at the end when he yelled "SHUT THE HELL UP!!!" And right before "hell" he paused and you could visibally see him trying not to drop the f-bomb.

Yeah, too bad the FCC would have fined him a few million for that. :(

God bless Keith.

Thanks for posting this. I was trying to watch it on C&L tonight, and it died on me.

No problem. He's rising in my estimation, to the point where I catch him every night along with the Daily Show.

Yeah, too bad the FCC would have fined him a few million for that. :(

Totally would have been worth it. It'd be better if they could have bleeped it, but that's the price for live tv.

There has been a surge in violence again.


Doesnt look like that surge is working to well anymore.

Er, no there hasn't. Despite what Olberman the other nay-sayers claim, the surge has in large part worked and is continue to do so. Especially with respect to American causalities.

No problem. He's rising in my estimation, to the point where I catch him every night along with the Daily Show.

I catch him rarely, mostly as I avoid talking heads. However, he at least is a "correct" talking head, and when I do watch him, Im rarely disappointed.

In Olberman's commentary he referenced several times "the troops", "sacrifice" "fallen heros", "wounded warriors" or some variation there of. I believe there was even a reference to a marine w/ half his face blown off or something. My point was if he really cared about said troops, he would prove it through actions. He has not. His character debunks his hypocritical commentary. I merely pointed this out.

You see, that's the nature of the hypocrisy. He's not talking about HIS commitment to the troops; he's talking about the President. His personal hypocrisy has nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

That's a perfect example of the fallacy. I couldn't have made up a better one.

Whew! Never thought I'd be debating Logic 101 with this OP.

I catch him rarely, mostly as I avoid talking heads. However, he at least is a "correct" talking head, and when I do watch him, Im rarely disappointed.

I watch cnn for the news (but they get annoying quick, especially that loudmouth Chris Matthews), and fox news for the hilarity.

I wish we got the BBC.

Damn British. Hogging all the good, serious news broadcasts.

Er, no there hasn't. Despite what Olberman the other nay-sayers claim, the surge has in large part worked and is continue to do so. Especially with respect to American causalities.

What about Iraqi causalities? Do they still not count?

You see, that's the nature of the hypocrisy. He's not talking about HIS commitment to the troops; he's talking about the President. His hypocrisy has nothing to do with the validity of his argument.

That's a perfect example of the fallacy. I couldn't have made up a better one.

Whew! Never thought I'd be debating Logic 101 with this OP.

His blatant hypocrisy aside, his argument is still not valid. He paints a picture of the President disregarding the troops and careless making the decision for war. The facts don't bear this out. Decisions of war and peace are the most difficult any President most face.

Er, no there hasn't. Despite what Olberman the other nay-sayers claim, the surge has in large part worked and is continue to do so. Especially with respect to American causalities.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/OPINION/803110324/1301/OPINION


Welcome to reality.

His blatant hypocrisy aside, his argument is still not valid. He paints a picture of the President disregarding the troops and careless making the decision for war. The facts don't bear this out. Decisions of war and peace are the most difficult any President most face.

Im sure whether to send our troops in with a plan, body armor, and other proper equipment, was a really tough choice.

I watch cnn for the news (but they get annoying quick, especially that loudmouth Chris Matthews), and fox news for the hilarity.

I wish we got the BBC.

Damn British. Hogging all the good, serious news broadcasts.

New York Times, baby.

New York Times, baby.

You mean that baby killing, god-bashing, freedom hating liberal rag?

Fox News...taking over...brain...must...kick...puppy...there! All better. Stupid Rupert Murdoc and his subliminal messaging.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/OPINION/803110324/1301/OPINION


Welcome to reality.

Your article even stated a 60% reduction in violence. Only be followed up by a "oh, violence went from really bad to bad" wise ass comment. Anyone with any sense understands this will be gradual reductions. Further look at this chart of American causalities. Note the sharp decline.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

You mean that baby killing, god-bashing, freedom hating liberal rag?

Fox News...taking over...brain...must...kick...puppy...there! All better. Stupid Rupert Murdoc and his subliminal messaging.

Anything causing that much vitriol in the likes of Bill O'rielly and Fox News is worthy of great respect.

Im sure whether to send our troops in with a plan, body armor, and other proper equipment, was a really tough choice.

they were given those things and defeated the Iraqi military in less than 6 months.

His blatant hypocrisy aside, his argument is still not valid. He paints a picture of the President disregarding the troops and careless making the decision for war. The facts don't bear this out. Decisions of war and peace are the most difficult any President most face.

I totally forgot. Bush did completely exhaust diplomacy when dealing with Iraq. War was the only option, what with the weapons of mass destruction we found and the direct link we found between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And the war did pay for itself through oil revenue, and it only lasted six months. Bush really was careful in the buildup for this war, and completely understood all the aspects of the invasion.

Oh, and the invasion also helped us catch Osama. That was a good call.

Your article even stated a 60% reduction in violence. Only be followed up by a "oh, violence went from really bad to bad" wise ass comment. Anyone with any sense understands this will be gradual reductions. Further look at this chart of American causalities. Note the sharp decline.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

There is a big jump in April. And its only the begining of may. Its really too early to see whether may will be as bad yet.


So, really that just showed violence DID increase.

Anything causing that much vitriol in the likes of Bill O'rielly and Fox News is worthy of great respect.

True, but I'm not entirely sure Murdoc doesn't pick his targets for the week by dartboard.

Random thought: Wasn't Murdoc also the name of the ultimate badguy from MacGyver?

they were given those things and defeated the Iraqi military in less than 6 months.

Wow.


Its well documented that they were not given adequent supplies, an adequent post-war plan, and its also well documented that they didnt have enough body armor. Many troops went armorless.


And they defeated a demoralized Iraqi army that surrendered and deserted in droves on day one.


Its easy to win when your enemy doesnt really fight back.

There is a big jump in April. And its only the begining of may. Its really too early to see whether may will be as bad yet.


So, really that just showed violence DID increase.

It's the middle of May last time I checked. Causalities are on pace to be half of what they were in April and more line with recent months previously.

Wow.


Its well documented that they were not given adequent supplies, an adequent post-war plan, and its also well documented that they didnt have enough body armor. Many troops went armorless.


And they defeated a demoralized Iraqi army that surrendered and deserted in droves on day one.


Its easy to win when your enemy doesnt really fight back.

way to give the troops zero credit

I totally forgot. Bush did completely exhaust diplomacy when dealing with Iraq. War was the only option, what with the weapons of mass destruction we found and the direct link we found between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And the war did pay for itself through oil revenue, and it only lasted six months. Bush really was careful in the buildup for this war, and completely understood all the aspects of the invasion.

Oh, and the invasion also helped us catch Osama. That was a good call.

UN Res. 1441 passed unanimously in the Security Council. Can you name a major nation that disagreed with the assessment that Iraq had WMD? Was Abu Musab al-Zarquai(the former head of AQI) not already freely within Iraq prior to the invasion? Finally, a refresher. The war did last less than six months. What we are in now and have been in, is the post-war phase.

I totally forgot. Bush did completely exhaust diplomacy when dealing with Iraq. War was the only option, what with the weapons of mass destruction we found and the direct link we found between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And the war did pay for itself through oil revenue, and it only lasted six months. Bush really was careful in the buildup for this war, and completely understood all the aspects of the invasion.

Oh, and the invasion also helped us catch Osama. That was a good call.
...
Will you be my friend?


UN Res. 1441 passed unanimously in the Security Council. Can you name a major nation that disagreed with the assessment that Iraq had WMD? Was Abu Musab al-Zarquai(the former head of AQI) not already freely within Iraq prior to the invasion? Finally, a refresher. The war did last less than six months. What we are in now and have been in, is the post-war phase.

Yeah, I'm sure that's a real comfort to the thousands of American troops and Iraqi civilians who've lost their lives.

"shut the hell up!"

too bad Bushy-poo won't listen, that's good advice.

way to give the troops zero credit
The troops get credit for showing up and doing their job to the best of their ability with what they had. They didn't have much, not much armor, not much manpower, not much in the way of a plan. They did what they could, it's not their fault shit hit the fan. I can criticize the way the leadership acted without dissing the troops.

UN Res. 1441 passed unanimously in the Security Council. Can you name a major nation that disagreed with the assessment that Iraq had WMD? Was Abu Musab al-Zarquai(the former head of AQI) not already freely within Iraq prior to the invasion? Finally, a refresher. The war did last less than six months. What we are in now and have been in, is the post-war phase.

Uh-huh. Mission accomplished and all that. People are still getting blown up. It might not be an organized foe, but I still call it a war. Hell, Bush even still calls it a war. It's part of his larger "War on Terror", remember?

Like you said, going to war is one of the most difficult decisions that a President must make. He has to be right; Bush wasn't. In any of those respects. Cheney said we'd only be in iraq for six weeks, and doubted we'd be there for six months.

Still, the most important miscalculation was the basic misunderstanding of the dynamics of the country. Here's a nation, arbitrarily drawn by the British, sitting on potentially the world's richest oil reserves, ruled over by an iron-fisted dictator of the majority Muslim sect, who keeps the lid on simmering religious tensions by brutally suppressing any resistance by using the Iraqi Army, rag-tag though it was.

What kind of retard thinks that removing him and his army would cause us to "be greeted as liberators"? They hate America. We already fought one war with them, and didn't remove him then because we were worried about the post-war insurgency. Hell, Cheney, at that time, said getting saddam wouldn't be worth the trouble of getting bogged down over there! What the hell? How can you not realize shit is going down when you remove him? Your VP knew it going in!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

...
Will you be my friend?


Friended. :p

First of all, the video is 12 minutes long, but it's a short 12 minutes. Olbermann can be a bit of a blowhard, much like his conservative foil O'Reilly, but tonight, he nailed how I feel about our president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24635229

I share, because I care.

I love how he gets kind of teary eyed at the end.

What I love is the idea that he still clings to the WMD lie...whether or not there were (Which I entirly, along with UN inspectors, believe there wern't) the fact is that he assaulted Iraq in an aggressive manner that the rest of the world accepted. We can easily blaim this on George Bush but we can't rule out the coalition that gladly embraced the war and blinding followed in (Although we can congradulate alot of them for realizing the lost cause and pulling out). If we had focused on Afghanistan there would be no lost 4,000 soldiers and only a dead Osama. We might have located him before he escaped to Pakistan (Or whereever, thats where I think) but instead we hit the nation...sat for awhile then turned on Saddam under false information. Is it a wonder why the world hates the US? I feel bad because we as a people are grouped together with out idiotic presidents bad choices and aggressive acts in order to gain a profit of either cheaper oil or to build a nation that would provide said cheap oil to us. Cheaper oil failed, and the rebuilding of Iraq is failing as well...don't you love it all?

Gotta say, I think it would've meant a lot more if Bush had given up illegal executive actions instead of golf.

Gotta say, I think it would've meant a lot more if Bush had given up illegal executive actions instead of golf.

I think it be more fitting for him to have given up his position as of 2004...but you know, your avarage american neither knows the Bill of rights nor can name them all as well as cares what this president has done. Idiotic fearful americans prefer to watch American Idol and vote for that then vote for who leads their nation.

1- There were no WMDs.

2- Resolution 1441 did not call for war.

3- The war was, thus, illegal.

4- Bush forced it through, with no regard for the well-being of, yes, the troops he would send there, whom he saw as expendable. As he saw the innocents in Iraq.

5- And yet here you are, defending the indefensible: To start a war of choice with little to no evidence; To make little to no planning for the aftermath; To ignore reality, all the while libeling as un-American whoever dared to oppose. Here you are, defending the thesis that a President that sent troops to die so he could use Iraq as a sandbox for his little pals cares more about said troops than a journalist that's pointing these facts out and calling on said president to stop using them as if they were chess pieces. Because that's the case you're trying to make.

I was against this war from the get-go, because of the facts of which no doubt everyone is now aware. I am still against it now. I got called names, I got screwed over because of it, and now that even 70% of your people admit that the war was a mistake, I got very little to show for it.

But one thing Bush or the neocons that equate dissent with hatred towards their country will never take away from me:

I. Was. RIGHT.

Gotta say, I think it would've meant a lot more if Bush had given up illegal executive actions instead of golf.

Nice move! Clean, quick, witty. Good one, really! :D

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/OPINION/803110324/1301/OPINION


Welcome to reality.

Damn reality and it's liberal bias!

See, now THAT is what the American press is supposed to be like. Instead of being shameless pandering fools whose sole purpose is to parrot back whatever the Powers That Be tell them to say, the press is supposed to challenge, to question, and to hold the Powers to task.

Too bad we're stuck with the likes of Faux News for most of our reporting. Shame on every single anchor who hasn't spoken out the way Olbermann did.

I. Was. RIGHT.

Is this for everyone else's benefit, or for yours?

See, now THAT is what the American press is supposed to be like. Instead of being shameless pandering fools whose sole purpose is to parrot back whatever the Powers That Be tell them to say, the press is supposed to challenge, to question, and to hold the Powers to task.

Too bad we're stuck with the likes of Faux News for most of our reporting. Shame on every single anchor who hasn't spoken out the way Olbermann did.

The problem is, the news has been incorporated into the entertainment part of the news corporations. As such, they are expected to turn a profit. Since the news has been turned into a money-making venture, they can't dare offend their viewers with something as bothersome as the truth about the war. Therefore, they must put out the most meaningless crap highlighting Britney Spears or Anna Nicole Smith, and let our political leaders off the hook.

That's why I like Olbermann. He doesn't pander, and he just reports it like he sees it. Of course, he's human, so he can get all fired up about the insignificant, but every once in a while he really hits it out of the park.

Gotta say, I think it would've meant a lot more if Bush had given up illegal executive actions instead of golf.

But he's the President! Nothing the President can do can be illegal! Doesn't he make the laws? And enforce them? And then change the laws so he can enforce them with torture?

I was against this war from the get-go, because of the facts of which no doubt everyone is now aware. I am still against it now. I got called names, I got screwed over because of it, and now that even 70% of your people admit that the war was a mistake, I got very little to show for it.

But one thing Bush or the neocons that equate dissent with hatred towards their country will never take away from me:

I. Was. RIGHT.

*cookie* There, now you can't say you got very little to show for it.

It's chocolate chip.

PS-I'm always against pre-emptive wars, and was against this one. That's not what the US is supposed to be all about.

Is this for everyone else's benefit, or for yours?

Yes.

*cookie* There, now you can't say you got very little to show for it.

It's chocolate chip.

PS-I'm always against pre-emptive wars, and was against this one. That's not what the US is supposed to be all about.

*Exchanges cookies with Bellania.*

:D

Yes.

I walked into that one. Why should I have expected an answer more sensible than 'my opinion is right'?

I walked into that one. Why should I have expected an answer more sensible than 'my opinion is right'?

Well, you see, I have "opinions" on stuff like color combination and food preferences.

I have facts on stuff like preemptive wars of choice with no evidence to show for their necessity.

Little difference.

Fantastic. I like the way he switches from angry to calm and back again.

Fantastic. I like the way he switches from angry to calm and back again.

You do realize caps may as well be used for emphasis?

Ah well, let me just bold it.

Edit: Oh, wait, you meant Olberman! :D

Well, you see, I have "opinions" on stuff like color combination and food preferences.

I have FACTS on stuff like PREEMPTIVE WARS OF CHOICE WITH NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR NECESSITY TO SHOW FOR IT.

Little difference.

From all that I've seen - and let's face it, I think everyone here has seen 'I am right!' plenty of times since you decided to repeat it ad nauseum - the 'fact' that you claim to be right about is that the war was wrong, or was illegal. Neither of these are facts - the first is opinion and the second, well, if you could kindly point out which law the Iraq war broke we can discuss its illegality further.

The only fact that you seem to be be right about is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but if you feel that you need some sort of special congratulation for that then please show me why you rather than myself or the millions of others who doubted the existence if WMDs are special.

From all that I've seen - and let's face it, I think everyone here has seen 'I am right!' plenty of times since you decided to repeat it ad nauseum - the 'fact' that you claim to be right about is that the war was wrong, or was illegal. Neither of these are facts - the first is opinion and the second, well, if you could kindly point out which law the Iraq war broke we can discuss its illegality further.

The only fact that you seem to be be right about is that there were no WMDs in Iraq, but if you feel that you need some sort of special congratulation for that then please show me why you rather than myself or the millions of others who doubted the existence if WMDs are special.

1- I didn't only say there were no WMDs, I also said the war was wrong. Did anything good come from it to disprove my point? Furthermore, is any "preemptive" war ever not wrong?

2- Resolution 1441 did not call for war. Preemptive wars are illegal. So I was also right in calling it illegal.

3- You were right in that there were no WMDs too. So was I. On that, I congratulate both us and the rest of the people that knew there were none.

Fantastic. I like the way he switches from angry to calm and back again.

It's great, because you can watch the artificial veneer of the news anchor slip away, then return, and then get annihilated by anger at the retardedness of our leader, only to be replaced by some sort of desperate exasperation at the futility of arguing politics with a two-year-old.

It's great, because you can watch the artificial veneer of the news anchor slip away, then return, and then get annihilated by anger at the retardedness of our leader, only to be replaced by some sort of desperate exasperation at the futility of arguing politics with a two-year-old.

*Looks from one side to another.*

*Plagiarizes this description, because it's so good.*

It's great, because you can watch the artificial veneer of the news anchor slip away, then return, and then get annihilated by anger at the retardedness of our leader, only to be replaced by some sort of desperate exasperation at the futility of arguing politics with a two-year-old.

:D

Nice move! Clean, quick, witty. Good one, really! :D

Thanks! But in all seriousness, were I in Bush's position, I really would be less ashamed about mothers seeing me playing golf than I would about them seeing me flouting the Constitution their sons swore to protect.

Oh, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/05/14/BL2008051401929_pf.html) cites a blog comment on Wonkette which is by far the wittiest thing I've heard on this subject:

And a Wonkette commenter suggests: "Has he thought about giving up Iraq for golf?"

Snip.

MAGNIFICENT! BRAVO! BELISSIMO! HAHAHAHA! EXCELLENT!

:D

1- I didn't only say there were no WMDs, I also said the war was wrong. Did anything good come from it to disprove my point? Furthermore, is any "preemptive" war ever not wrong?

2- Resolution 1441 did not call for war. Preemptive wars are illegal. So I was also right in calling it illegal.

Good things came from the war. Bad things came from the war. There are further potential good and bad things that could come from the war. In deciding whether the war was right or wrong one must weigh these actual and potential positives with the actual and potential negatives. That weighting is entirely subjective to a persons individual preferences on how important various factors are and as such is opinion and not fact.

Last I checked, no UN member or the ICC has attempted to contradict the legal rationale that the US and UK have given for launching the war. With no formal legal challenge made against the justification used for the war then it cannot be described as illegal.

*Looks from one side to another.*

*Plagiarizes this description, because it's so good.*



:D

It's nice to have a fan, even if you are a klepto.

Good things came from the war. Bad things came from the war. There are further potential good and bad things that could come from the war. In deciding whether the war was right or wrong one must weigh these actual and potential positives with the actual and potential negatives. That weighting is entirely subjective to a persons individual preferences on how important various factors are and as such is opinion and not fact.

Last I checked, no UN member or the ICC has attempted to contradict the legal rationale that the US and UK have given for launching the war. With no formal legal challenge made against the justification used for the war then it cannot be described as illegal.

What good things came from the war?

I really want to know.

Good things came from the war. Bad things came from the war. There are further potential good and bad things that could come from the war. In deciding whether the war was right or wrong one must weigh these actual and potential positives with the actual and potential negatives. That weighting is entirely subjective to a persons individual preferences on how important various factors are and as such is opinion and not fact.

Last I checked, no UN member or the ICC has attempted to contradict the legal rationale that the US and UK have given for launching the war. With no formal legal challenge made against the justification used for the war then it cannot be described as illegal.

1- Name the good things as you see them and tell me how they make up for thousands of dead, chaos, and a lost infrastructure.

2- By your logic, if nobody sues for, say, a grave-robbing, then it's not a crime.

It's nice to have a fan, even if you are a klepto.

I know how it feels. :D

I know how it feels. :D

Rofl

1- Name the good things as you see them and tell me how they make up for thousands of dead, chaos, and a lost infrastructure.

Well, I can think of two good things off the top of my head and those are the greater autonomy that the Kurdish regions desired and have now achieved and the representation of the Shi'ite majority in government. But I'm not myopic - I also consider the potential benefits that could arise in years to come. One of these in not having a nation that likes to rattle the sabre with three of the biggest powers in the region. How these make up for the loss of life is an entirely personal consideration - just because others believe they do make up for it and you don't doesn't make you right and them wrong. Its just a difference of opinion.

2- By your logic, if nobody sues for, say, a grave-robbing, then it's not a crime.

There is legal precedent to consider such an action a crime with little debate. Whether the US and the UK had the legal right can be easily interpreted in more than one way - to say that it was or wasn't a crime with no ruling or similar ruling having been made in the past is impossible.

What good things came from the war?

I really want to know.

See above.

What good things came from the war?

I really want to know.

1- Name the good things as you see them and tell me how they make up for thousands of dead, chaos, and a lost infrastructure.

2- By your logic, if nobody sues for, say, a grave-robbing, then it's not a crime.

Man, you're good. You did that even before seeing my post.

Well, I can think of two good things off the top of my head and those are the greater autonomy that the Kurdish regions desired and have now achieved and the representation of the Shi'ite majority in government. But I'm not myopic - I also consider the potential benefits that could arise in years to come. One of these in not having a nation that likes to rattle the sabre with three of the biggest powers in the region. How these make up for the loss of life is an entirely personal consideration - just because others believe they do make up for it and you don't doesn't make you right and them wrong. Its just a difference of opinion.

You see, potentially, Iraq will drown more and more into chaos, increasing Iran's influence and tearing the Middle East apart. So, should we really be arguing potential?

There is legal precedent to consider such an action a crime with little debate. Whether the US and the UK had the legal right can be easily interpreted in more than one way - to say that it was or wasn't a crime with no ruling or similar ruling having been made in the past is impossible.

Question: What country would be insane enough to try and drive that point up to debate against the most powerful nation in the world, one currently controlled by a psychopath?

Man, you're good. You did that even before seeing my post.

For the record, I DID post that before seeing your post. I only plagiarize playfully. :D

You see, potentially, Iraq will drown more and more into chaos, increasing Iran's influence and tearing the Middle East apart. So, should we really be arguing potential?

Of course - one should consider potential in any decision making situation. Many decisions involve outcomes that occur in the future and are uncertain. The likelihood and effect of thse outcomes must be taken into account when making a decision, whether personal, business or in the course of foreign policy.

Question: What country would be insane enough to try and drive that point up to debate against the most powerful nation in the world, one currently controlled by a psychopath?

One of the countries which has already shown that it is willing to challenge the United States - Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China - or any member of the EU that carries enough clout not to worry about any supposed threat of action from America, like France or Germany.

Of course - one should consider potential in any decision making situation. Many decisions involve outcomes that occur in the future and are uncertain. The likelihood and effect of thse outcomes must be taken into account when making a decision, whether personal, business or in the course of foreign policy.

So, you see, the potential ills ALSO outweigh the potential boons.

One of the countries which has already shown that it is willing to challenge the United States - Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China - or any member of the EU that carries enough clout not to worry about any supposed threat of action from America, like France or Germany.

No worries about economical sanctions? About having someone like Bush with a grudge against them? Bush supported a coup attempt against Chávez not too long ago. Why are we to believe his sanity?

Well, I can think of two good things off the top of my head and those are the greater autonomy that the Kurdish regions desired and have now achieved and the representation of the Shi'ite majority in government. But I'm not myopic - I also consider the potential benefits that could arise in years to come. One of these in not having a nation that likes to rattle the sabre with three of the biggest powers in the region. How these make up for the loss of life is an entirely personal consideration - just because others believe they do make up for it and you don't doesn't make you right and them wrong. Its just a difference of opinion.

The best case, and most realistic, scenario, purely for the U.S., is that the country ethnically cleanses itself into three distinct regions controlled by the three main groups. Baghdad becomes Berlin during the West/East Germany years. Iraq's government, reformed after we leave, taps into the 15 or so billion dollars it is sitting on in oil revenue and spreads the money around, increasing oil production in the process. The Shi'a group, in the interest of not pissing off the largest consumer of oil in the world, decides to remain friendly but not allied with Iran.

Of course, this will take several years and probably another couple hundred thousand dead Iraqis, but who cares when gas goes down by 20 cents a gallon? And that is the best, realistic scenario.

If our world were inhabited by magical bunnies and unicorns, I'd say the best case scenario is that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'a all hold hands and ululate together in unity and give us oil for free. Unfortunately, reality is a bitch, and there's no way in hell that will ever happen. That divide goes back 1300 years, and will probably go on for another 1300.

So, you see, the potential ills ALSO outweigh the potential boons.

Incorrect: the potential ills may outweigh the potential boons depending on your opinion of what those boons or ills are and the relative weighting you assign to them. So once again, its a matter of opinion and not fact.

No worries about economical sanctions? About having someone like Bush with a grudge against them? Bush supported a coup attempt against Chávez not too long ago. Why are we to believe his sanity?

None of those nations has worried about Bush before - two have been very vocal about their opinions of America in general and Bush in particular, one tested a nuclear weapon despite an express warning not to and other continues to challenge America over missile defence and its relationship with various nations. Why would they perform all these acts with impunity then get jittery over a legal challenge?

The best case, and most realistic, scenario, purely for the U.S., is that the country ethnically cleanses itself into three distinct regions controlled by the three main groups. Baghdad becomes Berlin during the West/East Germany years. Iraq's government, reformed after we leave, taps into the 15 or so billion dollars it is sitting on in oil revenue and spreads the money around, increasing oil production in the process. The Shi'a group, in the interest of not pissing off the largest consumer of oil in the world, decides to remain friendly but not allied with Iran.

Of course, this will take several years and probably another couple hundred thousand dead Iraqis, but who cares when gas goes down by 20 cents a gallon? And that is the best, realistic scenario.

If our world were inhabited by magical bunnies and unicorns, I'd say the best case scenario is that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'a all hold hands and uulate together in unity and give us oil for free. Unfortunately, reality is a bitch, and there's no way in hell that will ever happen. That divide goes back 1300 years, and will probably go on for another 1300.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. Just don't try to present it as being the 'right' opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. Just don't try to present it as being the 'right' opinion.

What, I'm going to present it as the wrong opinion?

As for the video I think Olberman got off on a bit too much of a rant there and ignored certain points of view to make for a good spiel. His rant about Bush saying if you elect a democrat the country will possibly be attacked again. That's actually true, it's possible we could, eventually be attacked again. Now I doubt it's more likely than if a Republican was elected.

What, I'm going to present it as the wrong opinion?

No, that would be just as bad. When people claim that their opinion is either right or wrong, it begins to sound like claiming your religion is right or wrong.

What, I'm going to present it as the wrong opinion?Well, for one it spells doom for any peace in the region, as both Iran and Turkey will go nuts if there's a Kurdish state.

As for the video I think Olberman got off on a bit too much of a rant there and ignored certain points of view to make for a good spiel. His rant about Bush saying if you elect a democrat the country will possibly be attacked again. That's actually true, it's possible we could, eventually be attacked again. Now I doubt it's more likely than if a Republican was elected.Of course the connotation of not saying that shouldn't be ignored.

Well, for one it spells doom for any peace in the region, as both Iran and Turkey will go nuts if there's a Kurdish state.

I never said that the Kurds would be their own state. I meant that the same defacto autonomy they have been enjoying wouldn't change. This is best case, remember.

No, that would be just as bad. When people claim that their opinion is either right or wrong, it begins to sound like claiming your religion is right or wrong.

What happens when one's opinion about the future turns out to have been correct? Were they not right in the past, simply because it was an opinion?

And Cosmo, I'm curious as to what your opinion on the best case realistic scenario for Iraq is.

What happens when one's opinion about the future turns out to have been correct? Were they not right in the past, simply because it was an opinion?Depends on the situation.

I never said that the Kurds would be their own state. I meant that the same defacto autonomy they have been enjoying wouldn't change. This is best case, remember.What do you think will happen when the Kurds decide Iraq can't protect them and form their own state? It's highly unlikely they'll maintain national unity in the face of ethnic cleansing.

What do you think will happen when the Kurds decide Iraq can't protect them and form their own state? It's highly unlikely they'll maintain national unity in the face of ethnic cleansing.

Once again, this is best case. We're assuming the whole country doesn't go straight to hell when we leave, descending into all out civil war, which would give Iran an opportunity to "peacekeep" and clean house while an impotent Dem or retarded Repub sits with their thumbs up their ass.

I figure that since the Kurds have been left alone for the past 13 years or so that it's reasonable to assume the status quo can remain constant in a fictional view of a post-American Iraq.

Once again, this is best case. We're assuming the whole country doesn't go straight to hell when we leave, descending into all out civil war, which would give Iran an opportunity to "peacekeep" and clean house while an impotent Dem or retarded Repub sits with their thumbs up their ass.

I figure that since the Kurds have been left alone for the past 13 years or so that it's reasonable to assume the status quo can remain constant in a fictional view of a post-American Iraq.No, the best case is what you mentioned earlier involving free oil and misspelled ululations.

Is this supposed to be a news report? Or what? I have never seen so many value judgements.

No, the best case is what you mentioned earlier involving free oil and misspelled ululations.

*sigh*

Thank you, typo police. No, that's the fairy tale version. I was trying to stay within the bounds of reality.

Is this supposed to be a news report? Or what? I have never seen so many value judgements.It's not news, it's an editorial. They're necessary, but unfortunately MSNBC doesn't really provide the necessary amount of news to compensate.

*sigh*

Thank you, typo police. I worked it into a snarky remark without belittling you for it. No need to push it.
No, that's the fairy tale version. I was trying to stay within the bounds of reality.Well, you failed.

First of all, the video is 12 minutes long, but it's a short 12 minutes. Olbermann can be a bit of a blowhard, much like his conservative foil O'Reilly, but tonight, he nailed how I feel about our president.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24635229

I share, because I care.

I love how he gets kind of teary eyed at the end.

i could not take my eyes off the screen when that was on last night. i loved it so much that i made my sister watch it this morning.

maybe keith shouldnt watch politico.com any more. he might have a stroke.

It's not news, it's an editorial. They're necessary, but unfortunately MSNBC doesn't really provide the necessary amount of news to compensate.

Even so, it's pretty bad. Now I think Bush is an idiot and Iraq was a complete fuck up and a terrible idea, but this whole rant is full of rhetoric, conjecture and pedanticness (although there are a few good points). Definitely not the best Bush bash I've ever seen.

Is this supposed to be a news report? Or what? I have never seen so many value judgements.

Olbermann has a news show, similar to O'Reilly, where he goes through the stories of the day. He's got contributors who help color his commentary. Basically, it's a "liberal" show that lambastes the news networks for ignoring all the crap Bush tries to pull.

Olbermann has the balls to state his opinion on the air, which is more than I can say for most journalists. Besides, he does it with an eloquent style that I thought extinct here in America.

Even so, it's pretty bad. Now I think Bush is an idiot and Iraq was a complete fuck up and a terrible idea, but this whole rant is full of rhetoric, conjecture and pedanticness (although there are a few good points). Definitely not the best Bush bash I've ever seen.Not really. Consider Bush got reelected after it was already known what a foolish thing the Iraq war was. Olberman is mad, and rightfully so. Olberman is probably the best political commentator that's not a comedian on American TV.

Not really. Consider Bush got reelected after it was already known what a foolish thing the Iraq war was. Olberman is mad, and rightfully so. Olberman is probably the best political commentator that's not a comedian on American TV.

Yeah, he has every right to be mad, but what he is saying is not exactly an objective analysis, too emotive and too much dwelling on fairly trivial things.

Well, you failed.

Care to state a reason why you think that my realistic version for a possible outcome in Iraq (not the one involving free oil and unicorns) is totally impossible, besides the dealt with Kurdish state objection? Or do you want to just start throwing random, unsubstantiated one-liners back and forth?

Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!

*BLAM*

Not really. Consider Bush got reelected after it was already known what a foolish thing the Iraq war was. Olberman is mad, and rightfully so. Olberman is probably the best political commentator that's not a comedian on American TV.

Yay! We agree!

i could not take my eyes off the screen when that was on last night. i loved it so much that i made my sister watch it this morning.

maybe keith shouldnt watch politico.com any more. he might have a stroke.

The more the merrier.

I hope not. O'Reilly would throw a parade.

Care to state a reason why you think that my realistic version for a possible outcome in Iraq (not the one involving free oil and unicorns) is totally impossible, besides the dealt with Kurdish state objection? Or do you want to just start throwing random, unsubstantiated one-liners back and forth?

Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!

*BLAM*Eh? Not even your fairytale scenario is totally impossible.
That the Kurds won't create their own state should the national unity of Iraq collapse in the way you described is unrealistic, as it is unlikely.

Yeah, he has every right to be mad, but what he is saying is not exactly an objective analysis, too emotive and too much dwelling on fairly trivial things.It's commentary. It's not meant to be objective analysis, it's an opinion. That's what commentary is all about.

But to shift it into the right perspective, check this video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24647139) out from the same site. "Breaking News: Bush invokes Godwin's Law!!!" :rolleyes:

Good God, how I loathe American infotainment channels. Olberman is seriously the only reason to watch MSNBC.

But to shift it into the right perspective, check this video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24635229#24647139) out from the same site. "Breaking News: Bush invokes Godwin's Law!!!" :rolleyes:


I don't really see what's wrong with this video at all. All it is is a report about a comment that Bush made, and then the reporter asks two commentators on their views, and they raise valid points about Bush's hypocrisy and how he is doing the same sort of appeasing in past negotiations also. Nobody mentioned godwins law and dismissed it solely on that basis. The comment by Bush was extreme and worth a report I feel.

Eh? Not even your fairytale scenario is totally impossible.
That the Kurds won't create their own state should the national unity of Iraq collapse in the way you described is unrealistic, as it is unlikely.

Why would they risk being invaded by Turkey when they can have everything they need simply by paying lip service to whatever provisional government survives? "National Unity" is meaningless when describing Iraq. I was not stating that the country would fall apart into totally different states. I was saying that within Iraq, regions would be ethnically cleansed to the point of stability, and that the homogeneous regions would essentially leave each other alone.

The Shi'a have their regions, the Sunni have theirs, the Kurds sit in the north, and everybody leaves everybody else alone in an uneasy truce. Baghdad is sort of a neutral zone where the government sits. It's still Iraq, just ethnically segregated enough to be stable. The Kurds have their region, but not an official state, so Turkey doesn't invade.

That's my best case scenario. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, I'm saying that on this earth, purely from an American standpoint, that's probably the best we can expect. Now, hopefully that ethnic cleansing won't occur, but considering the amount of bloodshed in the past, I don't find that realistic with no American presence in country.

Eh?.

Do you have Bugs Bunny in Germany?

I don't really see what's wrong with this video at all. All it is is a report about a comment that Bush made, and then the reporter asks two commentators on their views, and they raise valid points about Bush's hypocrisy and how he is doing the same sort of appeasing in past negotiations also. Nobody mentioned godwins law and dismissed it solely on that basis. The comment by Bush was extreme and worth a report I feel.But it's certainly not breaking news. Everything gets pushed to increase ratings, and it shows.
Why would they risk being invaded by Turkey when they can have everything they need simply by paying lip service to whatever provisional government survives? "National Unity" is meaningless when describing Iraq. I was not stating that the country would fall apart into totally different states. I was saying that within Iraq, regions would be ethnically cleansed to the point of stability, and that the homogeneous regions would essentially leave each other alone.Need is irrelevant. Want is what's important. Kurds have been wanting their own state for quite some time, and the primary reason why they haven't taken Northern Iraq for it is US pressure. Despite National Unity being a joke when used to describe Iraq, it's still there, in the government. Remove that along with the US occupation forces, add ethnic violence, and the most likely result will be a declaration of independence by the Kurds.
The Shi'a have their regions, the Sunni have theirs, the Kurds sit in the north, and everybody leaves everybody else alone in an uneasy truce. Baghdad is sort of a neutral zone where the government sits. It's still Iraq, just ethnically segregated enough to be stable. The Kurds have their region, but not an official state, so Turkey doesn't invade.Iraq isn't ethnically segregated, though. Despite there being predominantly mono-ethnic regions, this is far from applicable to all of Iraq.
That's my best case scenario. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, I'm saying that on this earth, purely from an American standpoint, that's probably the best we can expect. Now, hopefully that ethnic cleansing won't occur, but considering the amount of bloodshed in the past, I don't find that realistic with no American presence in country.It's not a very realistic assessment, since problems with the Kurds are pretty much guaranteed to arise under the circumstances you described.

Do you have Bugs Bunny in Germany?Along with Canadians.

But it's certainly not breaking news. Everything gets pushed to increase ratings, and it shows.

Well I don't really see how a report like that would help increase ratings, and maybe it was just a slow news day? We get the same sort of reports often here in the UK and it's probably going to interest a good chunk of people interested in the elections. Also the idea of breaking news may vary between different people, to me breaking news just means news that's really new, not nessecerally news that is really important.

Well I don't really see how a report like that would help increase ratings, and maybe it was just a slow news day? We get the same sort of reports often here in the UK and it's probably going to interest a good chunk of people interested in the elections. Also the idea of breaking news may vary between different people, to me breaking news just means news that's really new, not nessecerally news that is really important.To me, breaking news means that it's just in and it's important enough to warrant interrupting the current program. And I am damn glad that CNN International agrees. The entire thing is getting pepped up with "Breaking News!" and "Don't miss this!" and all that. Yeah, they have that over here too. But they also have News Programs. That is not News, that's Infotainment.

To me, breaking news means that it's just in and it's important enough to warrant interrupting the current program. And I am damn glad that CNN International agrees. The entire thing is getting pepped up with "Breaking News!" and "Don't miss this!" and all that. Yeah, they have that over here too. But they also have News Programs. That is not News, that's Infotainment.

Generally news channels play the same thing over and over again until new (breaking) news comes about, and they report on that, nothing wrong with that. I very much doubt they interrupted a scheduled show, most of the time on the news channel there aren't any scheduled shows.

What happens when one's opinion about the future turns out to have been correct? Were they not right in the past, simply because it was an opinion?

And Cosmo, I'm curious as to what your opinion on the best case realistic scenario for Iraq is.

A person can have their opinion on the future turn out to be correct but that does not make their decisions based on that prediction right. We could make the same prediction about likely future events but make two completely different decisions given that knowledge because it all comes down to opinion.

I have not looked deeply enough into possible future situations in Iraq to decide, personally, which one I feel is most likely. Given that I have no experience in Iraqi politics or international relations chances are that my prediction would be largely inaccurate.

I find it amusing though. How many people have forgotten that the UN did actually oppose the war at the onset. Or that Bush first argued to invade Irag on the premise of supplying and assisting Al Qaeda. Then because he suspected they were hiding Osama Bin Laden. And then finally because of suspected WMDs. Or that we sent 5(?) groups of inspectors who all came back with no evidence of WMDs.

For months Bush babbled onward and ranted and raved how Saddam had to be disposed because of these supposed, and unfound, WMDs and that if the UN didn't let America invade then they would be next to suffer.

While I am disappointed they didn't hold true to these opinions and let themselves be bullied into a war they didn't want I can't exactly fault them when they had some psycho shouting in their ear about Death and Murder for months on end.

way to give the troops zero credit

Oh please. You said that we defeated the Iraqi army as if that somehow proved that the numerous reports that our troops were not equiped properly were a lie. I pointed out why we could still have won easily without proper equipment. And this is your rebutle..."B-but...YOU HATE OUR TROOPS!"



I shouldnt have expected any less from you Soviestan.

I thought it was a good commentary. His anger is justified, and his words resonate with me. Bush is, in my mind, the worst president the US has ever seen, and he still lives in a bubble out of touch with reality - as he's yet again demonstrated.

Giving up golf! And the best part, that he's even lying about it! :rolleyes:

Last I checked, no UN member or the ICC has attempted to contradict the legal rationale that the US and UK have given for launching the war. With no formal legal challenge made against the justification used for the war then it cannot be described as illegal.

First of all, you haven't been paying attention. France was very visible when contradicting the legal rationale back in the day, and the UN has openly done so later - I refer you to statements by Mr. Annan (http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm) as examples.

Secondly, the ICC doesn't have the authority nor the jurisdiction to challenge the legality of the war.

Thirdly, the war was illegal. It lies to the UNSC to authorize the use of force against any state, except in self defence. The UNSC did not authorize the use of force. Resolution 1441 does not allow the use of force - as is evident by the fact that the US sought a new resolution until it became clear that they couldn't get support for one, and the statements in the resolution itself - like how it set up an inspection regime, the same regime that the US and the "coalition" demanded leave Iraq before they had completed their mission and delivered their final report; and how the UNSC would "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation"; and how it gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply" but did not threaten with nor authorize the use of force but rather "serious consequences" which is something completely different.

And the argument that the US was somehow authorized to unilaterally resume war is also false, since the US had no authority to decide that the cease-fire agreement the UN imposed was suddenly null and void.

The US has violated international law blatantly and grossly, breached the peace, and commited several war crimes for which the Commander in Chief should be held accountable for - but never will, unfortunately.

First of all, you haven't been paying attention. France was very visible when contradicting the legal rationale back in the day, and the UN has openly done so later - I refer you to statements by Mr. Annan (http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm) as examples.

The opinions of Mr Annan are no more relevant than the personal opinion of any other leading diplomat. And France did not launch any sort of legal challenge.

Secondly, the ICC doesn't have the authority nor the jurisdiction to challenge the legality of the war.

It has jurisdiction over wars of aggression. The UN has not defined such a term which is currently preventing the ICC from exercising its jurisdiction but no attempt has been made either.

Thirdly, the war was illegal. It lies to the UNSC to authorize the use of force against any state, except in self defence. The UNSC did not authorize the use of force. Resolution 1441 does not allow the use of force - as is evident by the fact that the US sought a new resolution until it became clear that they couldn't get support for one, and the statements in the resolution itself - like how it set up an inspection regime, the same regime that the US and the "coalition" demanded leave Iraq before they had completed their mission and delivered their final report; and how the UNSC would "convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation"; and how it gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply" but did not threaten with nor authorize the use of force but rather "serious consequences" which is something completely different.

And the argument that the US was somehow authorized to unilaterally resume war is also false, since the US had no authority to decide that the cease-fire agreement the UN imposed was suddenly null and void.

The US has violated international law blatantly and grossly, breached the peace, and commited several war crimes for which the Commander in Chief should be held accountable for - but never will, unfortunately.

None of the applicable UN resolutions are set in stone - it is ludicrous to suggest that they cover anything definite. The true legal consequence of those resolutions, as with any piece of legislation containing some ambiguity - can only be decided in a court of law. Until then the legality of the war of the war is debatable - no side can claim it to be legal or illegal with certainty.

The US has violated international law blatantly and grossly, breached the peace, and commited several war crimes for which the Commander in Chief should be held accountable for - but never will, unfortunately.

Do you know how much I would give to see Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzalez, and Ashcroft summoned before the Hague to face War Crime charges?

The opinions of Mr Annan are no more relevant than the personal opinion of any other leading diplomat.

As the Secretary-General, speaking in the capacity of being the Secretary-General of the UN, I assure you that it is both more relevant and carries more weight than the "personal opinion of any other leading diplomat".

And France did not launch any sort of legal challenge.
They had no legal means to challenge the decision, except through the UN and other diplomatic measures. Like declaring their stance:
Mr. de Villepin became familiar to many Americans as the svelte senior French diplomat who successfully led a broad coalition at the United Nations to block attempts by the United States and Britain to secure Security Council authorization for last week's invasion of Iraq. France regards the war in Iraq as illegal.
Article from march 2003 (http://http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3DF1639F93BA15750C0A9659C8B63)

It has jurisdiction over wars of aggression.
The ICC only has jurisdiction over members of the court, as per article 12 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - and the US is not a member.

The UN has not defined such a term which is currently preventing the ICC from exercising its jurisdiction but no attempt has been made either.
...again, showing that they can't prosecute those types of crimes, in addition to undelining the fact that it's not up to the ICC to challenge the legality of this war.


None of the applicable UN resolutions are set in stone - it is ludicrous to suggest that they cover anything definite. The true legal consequence of those resolutions, as with any piece of legislation containing some ambiguity - can only be decided in a court of law. Until then the legality of the war of the war is debatable - no side can claim it to be legal or illegal with certainty.
I disagree a little. It is up to the US to prove that the invasion was legal, since the basic stance is that the use of force is illegal except when mandated by the UNSC (and for self defence). As such, our starting point is that the US have violated international law. And as I've shown, I don't believe that there was an authorization to use force. Hence, the invasion was illegal, and the US have not shown differently. The burden of proof lies with the Bush administration.

1- There were no WMDs.

unknown at the time

2- Resolution 1441 did not call for war.
the language was vague. Some consider war to be "serious consequences"

3- The war was, thus, illegal.
Illegal to whom? The UN decisions aren't gospel.

4- Bush forced it through, with no regard for the well-being of, yes, the troops he would send there, whom he saw as expendable. As he saw the innocents in Iraq.
baseless claim of extremist naiveté.

5- And yet here you are, defending the indefensible: To start a war of choice with little to no evidence; To make little to no planning for the aftermath; To ignore reality, all the while libeling as un-American whoever dared to oppose. Here you are, defending the thesis that a President that sent troops to die so he could use Iraq as a sandbox for his little pals cares more about said troops than a journalist that's pointing these facts out and calling on said president to stop using them as if they were chess pieces. Because that's the case you're trying to make.
see above

I was against this war from the get-go, because of the facts of which no doubt everyone is now aware. I am still against it now. I got called names, I got screwed over because of it, and now that even 70% of your people admit that the war was a mistake, I got very little to show for it.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps knowing what we know now, perhaps the war was a mistake. Perhaps not. However, it's foolish to claim Bush intentionally misled or forced this war. If you recall the debate wasn't whether Iraq had WMD(since everyone agreed they did) but rather, what to do about it. It wasn't just America's war either. The British, Australians, Italians, Spanish, Koreans, Japanese, among others joined.


I. Was. RIGHT.
would you like a fucking cookie?

Do you know how much I would give to see Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gonzalez, and Ashcroft summoned before the Hague to face War Crime charges?

Half of what I would give to see them convicted?

unknown at the time
No excuse. They should have known.

the language was vague. Some consider war to be "serious consequences"
Some don't know how to read and interpret UNSC resolutions. No justification.

Illegal to whom? The UN decisions aren't gospel.
Illegal under international law.


Hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps knowing what we know now, perhaps the war was a mistake. Perhaps not.
Perhaps not? Oh my, I would like to hear your rationale for how it can possibly be "perhaps not".

However, it's foolish to claim Bush intentionally misled or forced this war.
With this president Bush? Hardly. It might not be true, but to call it foolish would be, well, foolish...

If you recall the debate wasn't whether Iraq had WMD(since everyone agreed they did)
That's not the debate I remember, nor is it what Colin Powell remembers after he tried to convince the UN of just that in his infamous PowerPoint-presentation.

Hans Blix and the inspectors on the ground said differently. To say that "everyone agreed" is blatantly false.

unknown at the time

Because Bush wouldn't let the inspectors do their jobs.

the language was vague. Some consider war to be "serious consequences"

The UN, that PASSED it, didn't interpret it as so.

Illegal to whom? The UN decisions aren't gospel.

See above.

baseless claim of extremist naiveté.

Do you have any means to disprove what I said besides calling it names? Because, you know, you don't win arguments by gainsaying. This isn't Monty Python.

see above

See above.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps knowing what we know now, perhaps the war was a mistake. Perhaps not. However, it's foolish to claim Bush intentionally misled or forced this war. If you recall the debate wasn't whether Iraq had WMD(since everyone agreed they did) but rather, what to do about it. It wasn't just America's war either. The British, Australians, Italians, Spanish, Koreans, Japanese, among others joined.

Everyone agreed that it did after Bush fed them skewed faux-evidence.

would you like a fucking cookie?

No, I would like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove to be sacrificed in a ritual to try to raise back from the dead the Iraqis whose deaths he's responsible for. But we don't always get what we want.

Barring that, admission and acknowledging that I was right would be just swell.

Because Bush wouldn't let the inspectors do their jobs.
they had ample time to do so.


The UN, that PASSED it, didn't interpret it as so.



See above.
Irregardless. Legal documents shouldn't have such blatant vagueness. Such documents would likely be thrown out of American courtrooms for such a reason. Don't blame the Bush administration for incompetent UN legal procedure.


Do you have any means to disprove what I said besides calling it names? Because, you know, you don't win arguments by gainsaying. This isn't Monty Python.

You can't scream omg war criminal and expect that to count as a valid argument. You have nothing to back your claim up with.

No excuse. They should have known.


No one's perfect


Illegal under international law.


even if illegal, illegal =/= illegitimate

Perhaps not? Oh my, I would like to hear your rationale for how it can possibly be "perhaps not".
removing a serious human rights abuser and establishing a growing democracy, may not be the worst thing in the world.

they had ample time to do so.

They ASKED FOR MORE. And THEY had the competence to decide how much they needed. Not Bush.

Irregardless. Legal documents shouldn't have such blatant vagueness. Such documents would likely be thrown out of American courtrooms for such a reason. Don't blame the Bush administration for incompetent UN legal procedure.

The UN, that passed it, was the organ responsible for its interpretation. And since it did NOT mention war, the US has no point in claiming it was part of the options.

You can't scream omg war criminal and expect that to count as a valid argument. You have nothing to back your claim up with.

What about the fact that he declared a war, that the war was illegal, and that he waged it in all the kinds of shady ways?

I was right.

No one's perfect

Tell that to the dead Iraqis.

even if illegal, illegal =/= illegitimate

A distinction that would have a point if this war weren't BOTH.

removing a serious human rights abuser and establishing a growing democracy, may not be the worst thing in the world.

Iraq is not a growing democracy right now. Nor will this war ever make it one. Even if democracy-building WERE a legitimate casus belli. Which it isn't.

I was right.

They ASKED FOR MORE. And THEY had the competence to decide how much they needed. Not Bush.

The intelligence at the time suggested time was of the essence. It would have been reckless given said intelligence to allow the inspectors to walk around the desert indefinitely.

The UN, that passed it, was the organ responsible for its interpretation. And since it did NOT mention war, the US has no point in claiming it was part of the options.

Nor did it prohibit war. Again, don't blame the US for UN legal incompetence.

What about the fact that he declared a war, that the war was illegal, and that he waged it in all the kinds of shady ways?


The UN doesn't get to decide US foreign policy. The war had US Congressional authorization. That makes it legal enough.

unknown at the time


Fail. THey had no reason to suspect WMDs. They had only shoddy evidence to indicate there were. Shoddy evidence that almost everyone in America and elsewhere were intelligent enough to recognize as poor investigative work.


Hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps knowing what we know now, perhaps the war was a mistake. Perhaps not. However, it's foolish to claim Bush intentionally misled or forced this war. If you recall the debate wasn't whether Iraq had WMD(since everyone agreed they did) but rather, what to do about it. It wasn't just America's war either. The British, Australians, Italians, Spanish, Koreans, Japanese, among others joined.



In foresight it was a mistake. In hindsight it is as well. Whether Bush misled intentionally he did in fact FORCE the war. He pushed for it at the begining of his War on Terror claiming that Hussein supported the terrorists with weapons and other provisions. This was rejected. He pushed for the invasion again. Citing that Hussein and Bin Laden were acquaintances and had possibly conspired together for the attack on 9/11 and the Bin Laden was probably hiding in Iraq. That attempt to push an invasion failed again. It was only after both these attempts to push an invasion of Iraq failed that the suspicion of WMDs appeared.

Weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq multiple times, and they also came back with the same report. It was POSSIBLE that Iraq COULD produce WMDs. They had the technology and resources available to do so but there was no EVIDENCE that they were producing WMDs.

Bush and his administration cited that Hussein wouldn't let weapons inspectors into certain locations as proof that he was hiding these WMDs. He combined this speculation with some crappy photos that indicated someone ejaculated on a lens and forgot to wipe it off as much as indicators of WMDs.

The intelligence at the time suggested time was of the essence. It would have been reckless given said intelligence to allow the inspectors to walk around the desert indefinitely.

You mean the intelligence Bush so kindly faked to get the war through?

Nor did it prohibit war. Again, don't blame the US for UN legal incompetence.

So, unless I put up a sign on my house where it read "don't steal this house", I don't have a leg to stand on should I sue someone for its theft?

The UN doesn't get to decide US foreign policy. The war had US Congressional authorization. That makes it legal enough.

The US is bound by treaties to the UN. That makes the war illegal. The US congress does NOT have the authority to defy other countries' sovereignty!

they had ample time to do so.
And their preliminary reports were negative, but they didn't get to finish the job because the US decided to invade.

Irregardless. Legal documents shouldn't have such blatant vagueness. Such documents would likely be thrown out of American courtrooms for such a reason.
You have never seen a legal document in your life, have you? Let me show you an example:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Naaah. Such vagueness would never be accepted in American courtrooms.

Don't blame the Bush administration for incompetent UN legal procedure.
Why not? The American diplomatic mission to the UN was instrumental in the creation of the resolution. They share the blame.

No one's perfect
No excuse. They should have known, and it was gross negligence that they didn't.

even if illegal, illegal =/= illegitimate
Irrelevant. It was illegal AND illegitimate. And the fact that it was illegal is a helluva lot more serious than any question of legitimacy. The illegality of the act makes it a Breach of Peace.

removing a serious human rights abuser and establishing a growing democracy, may not be the worst thing in the world.
Maybe not, but it was still a mistake, seeing as how it was done for false reasons, and the American public was mislead. It was a mistake because it doesn't justify a pre-emptive attack on another country. Just because some good came of it doesn't make it any less of a mistake.

The intelligence at the time suggested time was of the essence. It would have been reckless given said intelligence to allow the inspectors to walk around the desert indefinitely.
No, it did not. No intelligence suggested any such thing. The reason why the invasion was launched at that time was that it would be too hot if it was launched later, closer to the summer.

Stop trying to rewrite history.

Nor did it prohibit war.
No, but it was never supposed to do that. The UN charter does, so you'd need a Resolution to authorize the use of force - you do not need any resolutions to prohibit the use of force.

Again, don't blame the US for UN legal incompetence.
See above, and add that when the US ignores the UN like they did here, it's not the fault of the UN.


The UN doesn't get to decide US foreign policy. The war had US Congressional authorization. That makes it legal enough.
No, it doesn't - and not just because the Congressional authorization was given on a false basis.

removing a serious human rights abuser and establishing a growing democracy, may not be the worst thing in the world.

1. What growing democracy?
2. We removed a serious human rights abuser and replaced it with a slightly less serious human rights abuser, as well as various small militia human rights abusers.



You can't scream omg war criminal and expect that to count as a valid argument. You have nothing to back your claim up with.

Violating the Geneva Convention when you signed it makes one a war criminal.

No one's perfect


No, but Bush is so utterly far from perfect hes almost its antithesis.

However, it's foolish to claim Bush intentionally misled or forced this war.

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I


And then, in 2003, said we'd be greeted as liberators. Not to mention Bush's idiotic comments about how it would be over in a few months.


Bush also said there was a link between Saddam and Bin Ladin. This was utterly false. Everyone knew it. Everyone. The two families are in a feud. The Arab world laughed at us when he said that. Bush knew it was an utter lie too.

So, you were saying?


*continues laughing*

That was more erotic than Sweeney Todd. Love it. Throw in JFK, Keira Knightly, and James Marsden whipping Alan Rickman, and I'd have creamed myself.

That was more erotic than Sweeney Todd. Love it. Throw in JFK, Keira Knightly, and James Marsden whipping Alan Rickman, and I'd have creamed myself.

....

Kinky!



(Whipping Alan Rickman? Really? I never knew...)

....

Kinky!



(Whipping Alan Rickman? Really? I never knew...)

I always thought JFK was the weird part...

I always thought JFK was the weird part...

Are you stalking me? XD

I always thought JFK was the weird part...

Well if you mean in a necrophile manner, or as an undead, you're right. If you mean "as he was when he was alive", like I read it, then I would have to stand by my previous statement :p

I always thought JFK was the weird part...

Who wouldn't do JFK?

For one thing: The cold-blooded killers in our country do not justify the cold-blooded killers in another.

For a second thing: lol, ad hominem.

For a third thing: No stand? Then why is it that there are so many insurgents there right now?

For a fourth thing: We let the social structure dissolve?

For a fifth thing: Incidents of mercenaries breaking the Rules of Engagement and getting away with it are few and far between. Not to mention the number of private contractors in Iraq is heavily outweighed by the number of actual soldiers.

Unless, of course, Keith thinks that actual soldiers are "paid mercenaries". I would not be surprised if he did.

For a sixth thing: Exactly how many terrorists from outside of Iraq have come into Iraq, who were terrorists before this whole thing start?

Al Zarqawi, anyone?

For a seventh thing: He needs to calm the fuck down.

For an eight thing: Congress still voted to go to war. Not to mention, the Congressmen at the time could easily have asked those who were fired by Bush for contradicting them what kind of evidence they had. It was not as if they were dead or exiled or something.

For a ninth thing: I wonder if he pre-writes these speeches, or makes it up on the spot?

For a tenth thing: Most of the 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq were put there in the first place to protect other Americans. Not to look for WMDs.

For an eleventh thing: Not goofing off during a war... Equals bad? Huh? I mean, do not rag on the man for answering a question. Seriously.

For a twelfth thing: "Let theirs sons and daughters be killed"? Huh? He makes it sound like Bush took the gun himself and shot them.

For a thirteenth thing: The only way to get solidarity is for Bush to resign? Huh?

For a fourteenth thing: Why is he acting like golf is the only thing the president has given up?

For a fifteenth thing: Have I said he needs to calm the fuck down yet?

For a sixteenth thing: Stop the ad hom. Seriously.

For a seventeenth thing: What is this all about the running? How does this relate, at all?

For an eighteenth thing: Ooo. Wow. Two months later after he said he would stop. If you can get me a picture from last year, I will have some kind of reaction then.

For a nineteenth thing: When did Bush ever say it was about him? And is there something wrong with expressing grief over the loss of soldiers?

For a twentieth thing: Wait, terrorism does not exist? lol?

For a twenty-first thing: I love how he uses big words in an attempt to confuse the stupider viewers, in order to get them more riled up.

For a twenty-second thing: Once again, BUSH sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths "for nothing"? Huh? For one thing, they all volunteered to join the military. For a second thing, it was not "for nothing".

For a twenty-third thing: lol. Social Liberals are funny.

For a last thing: Herbert Hoover. 'nuff said.

For one thing: The cold-blooded killers in our country do not justify the cold-blooded killers in another.
Cold blooded killers in other countries don't justify invading those countries and ruining them based on incorrect intelligence.

For a second thing: lol, ad hominem.
An ad hominem is when you attack the person, not the argument. What argument was being made that Olberman ignored and who made this argument and was he attacking that person?

For a fourth thing: We let the social structure dissolve?
Not as much let it dissolved as dissolved it. Kind of hard to maintain a social structure in a war zone.

For a fifth thing: Incidents of mercenaries breaking the Rules of Engagement and getting away with it are few and far between.
One is too many.
Not to mention the number of private contractors in Iraq is heavily outweighed by the number of actual soldiers.
Irrelevant.

For a seventh thing: He needs to calm the fuck down.
You can express how pissed off you are at something much better if you act pissed off.

For an eight thing: Congress still voted to go to war. Not to mention, the Congressmen at the time could easily have asked those who were fired by Bush for contradicting them what kind of evidence they had. It was not as if they were dead or exiled or something.
Did Congress know that these people had anything to say?

For a tenth thing: Most of the 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq were put there in the first place to protect other Americans. Not to look for WMDs.
What? There were just some Americans in Iraq randomly and the country was invaded to protect them?



What?

For an eleventh thing: Not goofing off during a war... Equals bad? Huh? I mean, do not rag on the man for answering a question. Seriously.
You missed the point. The point was that the families of the deceased no doubt care a lot more about the fact that their loved ones were sent to war for some bullshit reason(that changes depending on who you ask) and died.

For a twelfth thing: "Let theirs sons and daughters be killed"? Huh? He makes it sound like Bush took the gun himself and shot them.
He sent them to war. He is clearly responsible for the outcome of that war.

For a thirteenth thing: The only way to get solidarity is for Bush to resign? Huh?
That would show that he realises that he's responsible for the large fuck up that is the Iraq War.

For a fourteenth thing: Why is he acting like golf is the only thing the president has given up?
What else has he given up?

For a seventeenth thing: What is this all about the running? How does this relate, at all?
Bush was injured around the time he quit. So maybe he didn't quit for the reasons he claimed, but because of his injury. Get it?

For an eighteenth thing: Ooo. Wow. Two months later after he said he would stop. If you can get me a picture from last year, I will have some kind of reaction then.
Yeah, it's just so hard to stop playing golf. :rolleyes:

For a nineteenth thing: When did Bush ever say it was about him? And is there something wrong with expressing grief over the loss of soldiers?
It's a bit hard to take his grieving seriously, since he started the war that got them killed on the basis of "I think they have WMDs"

For a twenty-first thing: I love how he uses big words in an attempt to confuse the stupider viewers, in order to get them more riled up.
Yes, he couldn't be using big words because they express his feelings and thoughts.

For a twenty-second thing: Once again, BUSH sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths "for nothing"? Huh? For one thing, they all volunteered to join the military. For a second thing, it was not "for nothing".
Yes, it was for nothing. Or rather, it was for WMDs that it turns out never existed. Which is really the same as nothing.

.......?


The Iraq war has reduced violence and American causualties?



Oh ok! By "violence" you meant "the American economy to shambles" and by "American causalties" you mean "America's standing in the world".


Gotcha.


Cant there be just one smart Bushevik?

You don't know Sovietstan if you think he is a Buskevik

For one thing: The cold-blooded killers in our country do not justify the cold-blooded killers in another.
No. So? Bush was talking about the "ideological struggle" against cold-blooded killers, and Olberman claims that Bush is creating such people if he isn't indeed one of them himself - hence, it's an accustion of hypocrisy from Bush, not an attempt to jusify the existence of cold-blooded killers in other countries.


For a third thing: No stand? Then why is it that there are so many insurgents there right now?
Insurgents =/= Al Quaida.

For a fourth thing: We let the social structure dissolve?
Yes, by dissolving the army, by the de-baathification process, and by not providing security.

For a fifth thing: Incidents of mercenaries breaking the Rules of Engagement and getting away with it are few and far between.
Still too many, and enough to have the Iraqi government threaten to throw them out of the country.

Unless, of course, Keith thinks that actual soldiers are "paid mercenaries". I would not be surprised if he did.
I would, based on what he's said in other commentaries.


For a sixth thing: Exactly how many terrorists from outside of Iraq have come into Iraq, who were terrorists before this whole thing start?
Quite a few.

Al Zarqawi, anyone?
Yes, the jordanian was one of them.


For a seventh thing: He needs to calm the fuck down.
Why?

For an eight thing: Congress still voted to go to war. Not to mention, the Congressmen at the time could easily have asked those who were fired by Bush for contradicting them what kind of evidence they had. It was not as if they were dead or exiled or something.
Ever the optimist, eh? They were politically dead.

For a tenth thing: Most of the 4,000 dead Americans in Iraq were put there in the first place to protect other Americans. Not to look for WMDs.
So why are they there?

For an eleventh thing: Not goofing off during a war... Equals bad? Huh? I mean, do not rag on the man for answering a question. Seriously.
Seriously. The best thing Bush could have done was not to answer that question. When answeing it like that he makes himself look arrogant and out of touch with the real world. His offer of sympathy for the fallen is that he no longer plays golf? Seriously indeed! He deserves to be ragged on for answering what he did!

For a twelfth thing: "Let theirs sons and daughters be killed"? Huh? He makes it sound like Bush took the gun himself and shot them.
He is the Commander in Chief. The buck stops with him.

For a thirteenth thing: The only way to get solidarity is for Bush to resign? Huh?
No, it's not the only thing - but it would be a helluva lot better than to simply stop playing golf.

For a fourteenth thing: Why is he acting like golf is the only thing the president has given up?
What else, pray tell, has Bush given up? It sure as Hell isn't his vacation time.

For a fifteenth thing: Have I said he needs to calm the fuck down yet?
Yes, but not why.


For a seventeenth thing: What is this all about the running? How does this relate, at all?
:confused:

For an eighteenth thing: Ooo. Wow. Two months later after he said he would stop. If you can get me a picture from last year, I will have some kind of reaction then.
...missing the point that Bush, claiming that it was the emotional moment when he learns that Sergio de Mello was killed that made him decide to give up golf, is caught in a lie as he is seen playing golf two months later. Either that, or Bush wasn't informed until two months after the fact. With this presidency, both are equally plausible.

And is there something wrong with expressing grief over the loss of soldiers?
By not playing golf? Do you really have to ask?

For a twentieth thing: Wait, terrorism does not exist? lol?
Yes, it does. However, it won't show up just because a democrat is elected.

For a twenty-second thing: Once again, BUSH sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths "for nothing"? Huh? For one thing, they all volunteered to join the military. For a second thing, it was not "for nothing".
What was it for then? None of the pre-war stated reasons...

You don't know Sovietstan if you think he is a Buskevik

He's only a Bushevik when he's run out of other directions to troll from.

And their preliminary reports were negative, but they didn't get to finish the job because the US decided to invade.

again, based on the intelligence at the time, it would have been reckless to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.

You have never seen a legal document in your life, have you? Let me show you an example:


Naaah. Such vagueness would never be accepted in American courtrooms.
I have seen several, actually. To your point, SCOTUS happens to agree with me:
a law must not only allow the reasonable man notice but also "must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges and juries . . . ." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972).



Why not? The American diplomatic mission to the UN was instrumental in the creation of the resolution. They share the blame.
Yes, I'm sure all 14 members just had to go along with it :rolleyes: Not ONE disagreed with the assessment. Let's not play revisionist history here.

No excuse. They should have known, and it was gross negligence that they didn't.
Intelligence is never perfect.

Irrelevant. It was illegal AND illegitimate. And the fact that it was illegal is a helluva lot more serious than any question of legitimacy. The illegality of the act makes it a Breach of Peace.
The Congress signed off on it, this makes it valid.


Stop trying to rewrite history.

you first.


No, it doesn't - and not just because the Congressional authorization was given on a false basis.

Not known at the time however. Everyone can point fingers and play the woulda, coulda, shoulda game. It doesn't change the facts.


1441 was passed with objection
he had used WMD in the past
11/9 was less than two years previous
The war had support from Congress and many NATO allies
Saddam Hussien faced trial and punishment for his crimes
the situation is improving and the surge as led to a reduction in violence

I couldn't listen to very much of it. Not wrong or offensive, just boring.

Are you stalking me? XD

Should I be?


Also, it's not actual attraction to JFK, I just get aroused by documentaries discussing his assasination. I DON'T KNOW WHY.

Soviestan, I hate you so much.

again, based on the intelligence at the time, it would have been reckless to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Based on your posting history, we have reason to believe you are actually an Al Qaeda agent. You have not taken any action as of yet that would construe a potential threat to the United States, but we cannot allow such s reckless policy of leaving you alone until a time when you may construe a full threat. Please stay where you are while your civil rights are stripped and intelligence agents will be along shortly to alter your current "alive" status.

We are certain you would agree to this course of action, and thank you for your cooperation.

De-baathification was the ultimate case of 'taking the baby out of the bathwater'.

again, based on the intelligence at the time, it would have been reckless to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. Eh? Based on the intelligence at the time, invading instead of using the opportunity provided to gather real intelligence would have been reckless.

the problem is that bush bashing totally missess the point.

i mean sure he's easy to hate, but that's exactly what he's there for, to take all the brick bats while his puppet masters get way with the slight of their other hand.

you know, the illusionists hand your SUPPOSED to see, to be razzle dazzled by, while the other hand is performing the real illusion.

while the buffoon is stumbling over parroting words he may or may not know the meaning of, his real handlers, like chaney, rumsfield, rove, the hearitage and rand think tanks and so on, and their lobbiest chronies and so on and on, are murdering hundrends of thousands, and more then that, making this world a more brutal and dangerous place, all for the sake of an illusory gain of a few, at the expense of all.

=^^=
.../\...

Did anyone see his recent comments about Nazi's and appeasement of terrorists he made in the Israeli Knesset? Sometimes I think he's just a common shock troll, he makes some outrageously ludicrous troll and then just disappears.

De-baathification was the ultimate case of 'taking the baby out of the bathwater'.

I'm pretty sure you mean "Throwing the baby out with the baathwater."

Did anyone see his recent comments about Nazi's and appeasement of terrorists he made in the Israeli Knesset? Sometimes I think he's just a common shock troll, he makes some outrageously ludicrous troll and then just disappears.

Again, much wisdom about kettle from pot.

Again, much wisdom about kettle from pot.

I don't troll, I state truth and people like you are confronted and squirm.

I don't troll, I state truth and people like you are confronted and squirm.Not really.

I'm pretty sure you mean "Throwing the baby out with the baathwater."

You are, once again, going to get smacked when you wake up. What a hideous pun.

I don't troll, I state truth and people like you are confronted and squirm.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You funny!

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You funny!

Confrontation. Response.

I don't troll, I state truth

You often state opinion, not truth. Truth is facts. No more, no less. You take facts and give out your own interpretation and justification on it. That is opinion. It is not fact. Example:

Fact: You were banned once.
Opinion: You were banned for being a douche.

You can try and wriggle around the meaning all you want, but it does not change basic definitions.

You often state opinion, not truth. Truth is facts. No more, no less. You take facts and give out your own interpretation and justification on it. His own? I feel like I'm reading 60s party propaganda when I read his posts. Credit where credit is due.

again, based on the intelligence at the time, it would have been reckless to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Again, based on the intelligence at the time, there was no immediate danger, and absolutely no danger in that form. Find any intelligence assesment that even suggests what the administration claimed about the possibilities of "mushroom clouds". Nobody, not even the US intelligence, suggested that.

I have seen several, actually. To your point, SCOTUS happens to agree with me:
a law must not only allow the reasonable man notice but also "must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges and juries . . . ." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972).
First of all, your post doesn't contradict what I'm saying, nor does it back up your point that a vague legal document would be "thrown out of American courtrooms", a notion that's just ignorant and which SCOTUS does not agree with. Secondly, the second amendment is stil a valid legal document even if it's vague. Thirdly, a UNSC resolution is not a law, and the standards of interpretation follows by customary international law cf. the Vienna convention on the law of treaties.


Yes, I'm sure all 14 members just had to go along with it :rolleyes: Not ONE disagreed with the assessment. Let's not play revisionist history here.
What are you talking about? The assessment was only preliminary when 1441 was created - the resolution set up a regime of weapons inspection to try to determine if there were any weapons.


Intelligence is never perfect.
No, but this wasn't even close. This was horribly botched and twisted, and crucial pieces of intelligence that suggested otherwise was ignored. So still, no excuse. Especially as things developed, and the reports of UNMOVIC and the IAEA suggested differently.

The Congress signed off on it, this makes it valid.
The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, disagrees with you. Also, there's the question of whether or not Congress had the authority to delegate legislative power to the executive branch under the joint resolution they passed.


you first.
Oh no, you're quite mistaken. I am not rewriting history, that would be you. But hey, show me one instance of me doing that. I, unlike you, can back up my statements.


Not known at the time however. Everyone can point fingers and play the woulda, coulda, shoulda game.
Yes, just like we do with (other) criminals. "You shouldn't have murdered that man". The fun part is assigning responsibility. And they should have known.

It doesn't change the facts.


1441 was passed with objection
he had used WMD in the past
11/9 was less than two years previous
The war had support from Congress and many NATO allies
Saddam Hussien faced trial and punishment for his crimes
the situation is improving and the surge as led to a reduction in violence


Irrelevant. 1441 did not authorize the use of force (I assume you mean without). Past use was not conclusive evidence of the presence of weapons. Irrelevant. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 It does not remove the responsibility on the US that others were wrong and supported it. Irrelevant for the decision to go to war. Irrelevant for the decision to go to war.


So the strange thing here is that you don't even manage to bring up relevant facts. Weak.

You often state opinion, not truth. Truth is facts. No more, no less. You take facts and give out your own interpretation and justification on it. That is opinion. It is not fact. Example:

Fact: You were banned once.
Opinion: You were banned for being a douche.

You can try and wriggle around the meaning all you want, but it does not change basic definitions.
No, I was banned because the Mods around here are liberal douches.

For one thing: The cold-blooded killers in our country do not justify the cold-blooded killers in another.

<SNIP>

For a last thing: Herbert Hoover. 'nuff said.

wow, 24 very bad points.

yes he was reading from a script.

i believe he was implying that the president may have stopped playing golf for the same reason he stopped running--bad knee.

and there is video of him playing golf on columbus day 2 months after the death of the guy he claims was the reason he stopped playing. so he has stopped playing but not for the reason stated.

wow, 24 very bad points.

yes he was reading from a script.

i believe he was implying that the president may have stopped playing golf for the same reason he stopped running--bad knee.

and there is video of him playing golf on columbus day 2 months after the death of the guy he claims was the reason he stopped playing. so he has stopped playing but not for the reason stated.Well, Bush isn't known for learning from his mistakes, so perhaps he forgot that playing golf was hurting his knee.

Well, Bush isn't known for learning from his mistakes, so perhaps he forgot that playing golf was hurting his knee.

entirely possible.

he probably DID give up golf (which hurt his knee) because of his stated reason. it just sounded better to put a name to the reason. too bad it was a lie.

wow! now THAT was powerful and sincere!

entirely possible.

he probably DID give up golf (which hurt his knee) because of his stated reason. it just sounded better to put a name to the reason. too bad it was a lie.

Yet another one he's been caught in.

Yet another one he's been caught in.

and such a small lie to piss olbermann off so very badly.

i certainly will be among the celebrants the day bush leaves office.

and such a small lie to piss olbermann off so very badly.

i certainly will be among the celebrants the day bush leaves office.

If any of you can create a The Palace-like program, or a room therein, to celebrate online the mass-murderer's leaving, we could make some fame off of it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_chat

and such a small lie to piss olbermann off so very badly.

i certainly will be among the celebrants the day bush leaves office.

I understand his anger: Catching the president in such a petty and pointless lie. It seems to highlight and illustrate his credibility - or lackthereof.

I will be joining the global conga line when Bush leaves office too.

If any of you can create a The Palace-like program, or a room therein, to celebrate online the mass-murderer's leaving, we could make some fame off of it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_chat

i probably even have a working server for a palace.

the room picture and avatar possiblities are endless. with the talent here it would be well worth trying.

i probably even have a working server for a palace.

the room picture and avatar possiblities are endless. with the talent here it would be well worth trying.

Hey, if you're game, so am I, but we have to let people in the Internets know. ;)

I mean, just imagine it, Bill O'Reilly making rude remarks about us! :D

If you try to find some way to do it, message me. I wanna give out my name as the one with the idea. I want Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh and others of their ilk to HATE me.

Hey, if you're game, so am I, but we have to let people in the Internets know. ;)

I mean, just imagine it, Bill O'Reilly making rude remarks about us! :D

If you try to find some way to do it, message me. I wanna give out my name as the one with the idea. I want Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh and others of their ilk to HATE me.

oh lord that would be funny. id have to dredge up the memory of how to do the simple scripting available to palaces.

.....

hmmmm how to get enough people invovled to make it worth the trouble?

oh lord that would be funny. id have to dredge up the memory of how to do the simple scripting available to palaces.

.....

hmmmm how to get enough people invovled to make it worth the trouble?

Depends. If you're talking help, through here. If you're talking get people to GO THERE, we can simultaneously use sites like MoveOn.org and send "people" like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, messages from "concerned conservatives" to get them to denounce us in their shows and use the polemics as a way to get more fame. See?

Depends. If you're talking help, through here. If you're talking get people to GO THERE, we can simultaneously use sites like MoveOn.org and send "people" like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, messages from "concerned conservatives" to get them to denounce us in their shows and use the polemics as a way to get more fame. See?

let me consider it for a week.... well 2, im going on vacation on tuesday.

my palace is still open. its at socorro.chatserve.com (i just looked it up)

so we would have the framework necessary. it would be great fun but too much work to do for no popularity, if you see what i mean.

let me consider it for a week.... well 2, im going on vacation on tuesday.

my palace is still open. its at socorro.chatserve.com (i just looked it up)

so we would have the framework necessary. it would be great fun but too much work to do for no popularity, if you see what i mean.

Of course I do, but if anything we should be able to gather quite a few party-goers here. Anyways, want to exchange e-mails, MSNs or Yahoos to plan it/consider it?

Of course I do, but if anything we should be able to gather quite a few party-goers here. Anyways, want to exchange e-mails, MSNs or Yahoos to plan it/consider it?

yupyup

ill send you a tg in a moment.

yupyup

ill send you a tg in a moment.

Why would you send me a transgender person?

Oh, a telegram. ;)

If this is the best you've seen then your standards are disappointingly low...

If this is the best you've seen then your standards are disappointingly low...

hey if you have a better anti-bush rant, post it. if i loved this, ill love your that much more eh?

Should I be?


I am awesome, why wouldn't you?

again, based on the intelligence at the time, it would have been reckless to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.
[Quote]

The intelligence at the time- GACK

[QUOTE=Gravlen;13696470]Again, based on the intelligence at the time, there was no immediate danger, and absolutely no danger in that form. Find any intelligence assesment that even suggests what the administration claimed about the possibilities of "mushroom clouds". Nobody, not even the US intelligence, suggested that.


Bastard stole my material. As I was saying. There was no evidence... no intelligence... that suggested Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. None. There was evidence that suggested he could possibly perhaps maybe be hiding WMDs because he had the resources to do it. Of course, similar things were said about Iran and North Korea. Shall we go invade them?


Not known at the time however. Everyone can point fingers and play the woulda, coulda, shoulda game. It doesn't change the facts.


1441 was passed with objection
he had used WMD in the past
11/9 was less than two years previous
The war had support from Congress and many NATO allies
Saddam Hussien faced trial and punishment for his crimes
the situation is improving and the surge as led to a reduction in violence


Congress did indeed object to the invasion of Iraq. So did the UN. I am begining to repeat myself. You seem to think that everyone said, "Let's go to war." And that's that. It didn't unfold even remotely like that at all. Bush and his administration browbeat the Congress with shoddy intelligence work, promises of a short war, and scare tactics. Then when Congress finally caved Bush repeated the process with the UN. And it took him several months to wear down the UN into caving as well. So there were plenty of objections to the war.

America has also used WMDs before as well shall we demand that America disarms immediately or face immediate invasion?

Cant there be just one smart Bushevik?

nope contradiction in terms

Good things came from the war. Bad things came from the war. There are further potential good and bad things that could come from the war. In deciding whether the war was right or wrong one must weigh these actual and potential positives with the actual and potential negatives. That weighting is entirely subjective to a persons individual preferences on how important various factors are and as such is opinion and not fact.

Last I checked, no UN member or the ICC has attempted to contradict the legal rationale that the US and UK have given for launching the war. With no formal legal challenge made against the justification used for the war then it cannot be described as illegal.

good things came from the war???
right the economy! wait no . . .. . hmmmm . . .. . . .Man power went . . . .down. .. .. dmn. . . . .
AHHA! terrorist attacks Stopped . . .no wait they didn't
um the president got impeached? crap nope
American Image went . . .down . . . .
Ahhhhh something was . . . learned . . . .hmmmmmmmmmm . .. . apparently not

homeland security! wait wait thats a bad thing
. . . . .. . .
anyone . . .. help . . . .. . please????

good things came from the war???
right the economy! wait no . . .. . hmmmm . . .. . . .Man power went . . . .down. .. .. dmn. . . . .
AHHA! terrorist attacks Stopped . . .no wait they didn't
um the president got impeached? crap nope
American Image went . . .down . . . .
Ahhhhh something was . . . learned . . . .hmmmmmmmmmm . .. . apparently not

homeland security! wait wait thats a bad thing
. . . . .. . .
anyone . . .. help . . . .. . please????
Very specific people made a lot of money. And that's all the State is for and all that is required to make this war really awesome. The ends justify the means.

Man, bashing Bush, that's a new one on me! Mocking Bush for being a terrible president is like mocking someone in a wheelchair for their subpar running abilities. Too... bloody... easy.

Man, bashing Bush, that's a new one on me! Mocking Bush for being a terrible president is like mocking someone in a wheelchair for their subpar running abilities. Too... bloody... easy.

Please don't compare me, even indirectly, to that moron.

Man, bashing Bush, that's a new one on me! Mocking Bush for being a terrible president is like mocking someone in a wheelchair for their subpar running abilities. Too... bloody... easy.Please don't compare me, even indirectly, to that moron.


It is a pretty accurate comparison though...

First of all, your post doesn't contradict what I'm saying, nor does it back up your point that a vague legal document would be "thrown out of American courtrooms", a notion that's just ignorant and which SCOTUS does not agree with. Secondly, the second amendment is stil a valid legal document even if it's vague.
How is it vague? There shall be no infringement on the right to bear arms. Is there something you don't understand about that?

Thirdly, a UNSC resolution is not a law, and the standards of interpretation follows by customary international law cf. the Vienna convention on the law of treaties.
Translation: It can be a poorly worded agreement that leads to war because of some diplomacy bullshit. Perhaps the UN should get counsel who can write clearly.


What are you talking about? The assessment was only preliminary when 1441 was created - the resolution set up a regime of weapons inspection to try to determine if there were any weapons.
And their search provide no clear evidence rebuking international intelligence at the time of the invasion.

No, but this wasn't even close. This was horribly botched and twisted, and crucial pieces of intelligence that suggested otherwise was ignored.

no point in crying over spilled milk



Irrelevant. 1441 did not authorize the use of force (I assume you mean without)
it allowed for harsh consequences

Past use was not conclusive evidence of the presence of weapons.
However you could understand how most would see this as it being more likely than not that they were still in possession.

Irrelevant. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
Nor did I make that claim. My point was the attack was still fresh in everyone's minds and administration felt it needed to take any and all steps to prevent further and greater attack.

Irrelevant for the decision to go to war.Irrelevant for the decision to go to war.
perhaps to the initial invasion, I was just pointing out there have been some successes.

If this is the best you've seen then your standards are disappointingly low...

My main reason for enjoying it was he sounded like my dad does whenever I go home to visit for dinner...


Excpet my dad was talking like tha about Bush in 2003....press just woke up it seems

Olbermann often goes on 3-5 minute rants and then follows them with 1 or 2 guests who agree with him completely. O'reilly actually has debates on his show with those who disagree with him, and sometimes he lets the other guy get a few words in. The Factor is a superior show to Countdown, and the ratings prove it.

as a matter of fact, i can't stand anyone on MSNBC. David Shuster, Dan Abrams, Chris Matthews (wow does jon stewart HATE THIS GUY) and that wuss Tucker Carlson. Their morning show is pretty good though, that Willy guy is very funny.

Translation: It can be a poorly worded agreement that leads to war because of some diplomacy bullshit. Perhaps the UN should get counsel who can write clearly. The UN doesn't write resolutions, it's member states do. In this case, the US and the UK.
And their search provide no clear evidence rebuking international intelligence at the time of the invasion. Of course not. Their search was interrupted by the invasion.
no point in crying over spilled milk No reason not to fire the guy that spilled it.
However you could understand how most would see this as it being more likely than not that they were still in possession. And you can't see how most agreed that invading wasn't the answer?
Nor did I make that claim. My point was the attack was still fresh in everyone's minds and administration felt it needed to take any and all steps to prevent further and greater attack. Good thing that it lead to new attacks then.

Olbermann often goes on 3-5 minute rants and then follows them with 1 or 2 guests who agree with him completely. O'reilly actually has debates on his show with those who disagree with him, and sometimes he lets the other guy get a few words in. The Factor is a superior show to Countdown, and the ratings prove it. There's a couple things wrong with this statement. For one, O'Reilly is perfectly willing to invite yes-men to his show. During the Cartoon Controversy at UVa, the only people on his show were three members of the College Republicans that agreed with him that portraying Jesus was wrong and should be stopped.
Secondly, popularity is not a measure of superiority. The Factor remains inferior in terms of getting information to the Countdown. That you shouldn't be getting your news from the Countdown should be obvious to anyone, and that this counts doubly for the Factor should come as no surprise. BILD is superior in circulation to any other European newspaper. It still remains colored toilet paper for its inaccuracies.

How is it vague? There shall be no infringement on the right to bear arms. Is there something you don't understand about that?
I guess it's so clear that SCOTUS is to consider it's meaning just for the fun of it fun.

Yes, it's vague. Who has the right to keep and bear arms? What is an infringement? It is not clear.

Translation: It can be a poorly worded agreement that leads to war because of some diplomacy bullshit. Perhaps the UN should get counsel who can write clearly.
Your "translation" is incorrect and shows that you miss the point entirely, and your criticism should again be leveled at the US delegation.


And their search provide no clear evidence rebuking international intelligence at the time of the invasion.

On March 7, 2003:
As I noted on the 14th of February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist.

Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.
Hans Blix (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html)

The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger, and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was also able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger, and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded
In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons - the most lethal weapons of mass destruction - inspections in Iraq are moving forward. Since the resumption of inspections a little over three months ago - and particularly during the three weeks since my last oral report to the Council - the IAEA has made important progress in identifying what nuclear-related capabilities remain in Iraq, and in its assessment of whether Iraq has made any efforts to revive its past nuclear programme during the intervening four years since inspections were brought to a halt. At this stage, the following can be stated:


There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.


As I stated above, the IAEA will continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.
ElBaradei (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml)

The important informant Curveball was debunked, though that fact was conveniently ignored.
By early 2001, the CIA was getting messages from German intelligence that Curveball was "out of control" and could not be located. Some of Curveball's information was contradicted by other intelligence. His description of a depot for the weapons labs didn't match surveillance images, which showed a wall where Curveball said vehicles were entering and exiting.
Link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm)

When United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors visited the site on February 9, 2003, they found that the wall was a permanent structure and could find nothing to corroborate Curveball's statements.

Just some examples that show that there were serious questions about the intelligence, and no evidence that Iraq had any WMD. And as Laerod said, the inspectors were sent out by the US before they could finish the job.


no point in crying over spilled milk
:rolleyes: Lame, weak bullshit.

it allowed for harsh consequences
Wrong. It allowed for serious consequences, which would be things like a trade embargo or other diplomatic sanctions. Compare it with resolution 678, that allowed for "all necessary means", a much stronger term than "serious consequences". 1441 did not open for the use of force.

However you could understand how most would see this as it being more likely than not that they were still in possession.
Not really, considering that there had been a Gulf war, years of economic sanctions and forced disarmament since then.

Nor did I make that claim. My point was the attack was still fresh in everyone's minds and administration felt it needed to take any and all steps to prevent further and greater attack.
So your "fact" is pointless in this debate, except to show that the US reacted in haste and without due consideration?

perhaps to the initial invasion, I was just pointing out there have been some successes.
Which, still, is completely irrelevant.

If this is the best you've seen then your standards are disappointingly low...

Hey, we've had Bush in office for over seven years. It's a defense mechanism to prevent us from shooting ourselves in the head.

If this is the best you've seen then your standards are disappointingly low...
...there's always room for one more.

First of all, your post doesn't contradict what I'm saying, nor does it back up your point that a vague legal document would be "thrown out of American courtrooms", a notion that's just ignorant and which SCOTUS does not agree with. Secondly, the second amendment is stil a valid legal document even if it's vague. Thirdly, a UNSC resolution is not a law, and the standards of interpretation follows by customary international law cf. the Vienna convention on the law of treaties.


The Court has said that for a law to be determined "sufficiently certain" as to withstand a void for vagueness argument, it must "[employ] words or phrases having a technical or other special meaning, well enough known to enable those within their reach to correctly apply them, or a well-settled common-law meaning, notwithstanding an element of degree in the definition as to which estimates might differ," Connally v. General Construction Company, 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)

pwnd.

The Court has said that for a law to be determined "sufficiently certain" as to withstand a void for vagueness argument, it must "[employ] words or phrases having a technical or other special meaning, well enough known to enable those within their reach to correctly apply them, or a well-settled common-law meaning, notwithstanding an element of degree in the definition as to which estimates might differ," Connally v. General Construction Company, 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)
Indeed. And that's not contrary to what I've said.

It does, however, contradict your earlier point, as SCOTUS sets a standard of acceptable vagueness here.

pwnd.
Sorry. Fail.

Indeed. And that's not contrary to what I've said.


Yes it is. You said "your point that a vague legal document would be "thrown out of American courtrooms", a notion that's just ignorant and which SCOTUS does not agree with."

However Connally says "to withstand a void for vagueness argument." Which means there can be an argument based on vagueness to have documents thrown out.

Further, "It is a general rule that a statute must be reasonably clear and definite to be constitutionally valid. Neeman v. Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, 191 Neb. 672, 217 N.W.2d 166 (1974). The void for vagueness doctrine is based on the due process requirements contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution, and contained in Article I Section 3 of our Nebraska Constitution. U.S.v. Articles of Drug, 825 F.2d 1238 (Sth Cir. 1987); State v. A.H., 198 Neb. 444, 253 N.W.2d 283 (1977)." from Nebraska AG Opinion 90018.

"The void-for-vagueness doctrine incorporates several
important due process principles." Finley v. National Endow-
ment for the Arts, 100 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 1996)

Yes it is. You said "your point that a vague legal document would be "thrown out of American courtrooms", a notion that's just ignorant and which SCOTUS does not agree with."

However Connally says "to withstand a void for vagueness argument." Which means there can be an argument based on vagueness to have documents thrown out.

Further, "It is a general rule that a statute must be reasonably clear and definite to be constitutionally valid. Neeman v. Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, 191 Neb. 672, 217 N.W.2d 166 (1974). The void for vagueness doctrine is based on the due process requirements contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution, and contained in Article I Section 3 of our Nebraska Constitution. U.S.v. Articles of Drug, 825 F.2d 1238 (Sth Cir. 1987); State v. A.H., 198 Neb. 444, 253 N.W.2d 283 (1977)." from Nebraska AG Opinion 90018.

"The void-for-vagueness doctrine incorporates several
important due process principles." Finley v. National Endow-
ment for the Arts, 100 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 1996)
This doesn't contradict me.

Remember, you have to look at the context, since I was responding to your post:
Legal documents shouldn't have such blatant vagueness. Such documents would likely be thrown out of American courtrooms for such a reason.
...which is absolutely false. Even blatant vagueness will be accepted. However, there is a limit. (And that should go without saying)

This doesn't contradict me.

Remember, you have to look at the context, since I was responding to your post:

...which is absolutely false. Even blatant vagueness will be accepted. However, there is a limit. (And that should go without saying)

It's not absolutely false, I was saying vagueness can be grounds to have documents thrown out, which is clearly true. I stated that to back up my point that vagueness can be a bad thing. Particularly in reference to the term 'serious consequences'. If the UN didn't want to deem war as a 'serious consequence' which it clearly is, they should have been explicit.

It's not absolutely false, I was saying vagueness can be grounds to have documents thrown out, which is clearly true. I stated that to back up my point that vagueness can be a bad thing. Particularly in reference to the term 'serious consequences'. If the UN didn't want to deem war as a 'serious consequence' which it clearly is, they should have been explicit.

And you ignore all context and history, as I showed you, and try to interpret the resolution without using the set rules of interpretation and interpretive customs. So you were wrong.

And even in the perspective of a US legal document, there's no way a document would be thrown out due to the void-for-vagueness doctrine for using the above-mentioned term, as you falsely claimed.

And even in the perspective of a US legal document, there's no way a document would be thrown out due to the void-for-vagueness doctrine for using the above-mentioned term, as you falsely claimed.

how can you be sure? Ambiguity exists within perhaps the most important provision, that is how to deal with the violations. Concerning war and peace the term 'serious consequences' should have been much more concise and explicit. Serious consequences can represent an act of war or simply something as benign as economic sanctions.

how can you be sure? Ambiguity exists within perhaps the most important provision, that is how to deal with the violations. Concerning war and peace the term 'serious consequences' should have been much more concise and explicit. Serious consequences can represent an act of war or simply something as benign as economic sanctions.

Allow me to cut'n'paste instead of writing anything:

void for vagueness
adj. referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by the 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
Link (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.Asp?selected=2228)

If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.

The void for vagueness doctrine advances four underlying policies. First, the doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the Due Process Clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, the law becomes a standardless trap for the unwary.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/11152/Void-Vagueness-Doctrine.html

As you can see, there's several conditions that needs to be met before a law would be "thrown out". Even blatant vagueness would be accepted as long as it doesn't violate those conditions, and as long as it's concerning a law describing a criminal act. So your blanket statement was incorrect.

Regarding the specific legal document in question however, while not a law and thusly not at all analogous to the kind of situations the doctrine deals with, and disregarding what I've stated before about context and interpretive customs etc, you're still ignoring the fact that the use of force is the last resort, and any vagueness concerning the term "serious consequences" should be resolved by interpreting the resolution carefully and with consideration for the weaker party (Iraq, who didn't take part in the drafting). Like the US did at the beginning, when they sought a new resolution.