The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Radhil]

Glad to be of service.

Goin' back to sleep now.

[Dr Maturin]

Glad to be of service.

Goin' back to sleep now.

Boring like my wife...

[AaronB]

You guys are boring.

And we love you too.

[Dr Maturin]

All of these hot-button issues right now and no one is posting here...

Why is discourse dead?

[David Panzer]

And what hot-button issues are there now? Since the catholic church named a new pope, the schiavo debacle is over, and the news consisting mostly of nothing of major importance, it's just the same old, same old.

[Dr Maturin]

And what hot-button issues are there now? Since the catholic church named a new pope, the schiavo debacle is over, and the news consisting mostly of nothing of major importance, it's just the same old, same old.

Funnily, I found the Pope and Schiavo to be non-stories.

Right now we have the filibuster debate, Social Security reform, Operation Lightning, the Newsweak (intentional misspelling) scandal, France's rejection of EU membership, and to a lesser extent, some killings in Ohio and stem cell research.

[Radhil]

The filibuster is no longer a debate, or so I heard. The dems caved and let a few of the judge nominations through, preferring to be weakly negotiable rather than completely irrelevant I guess. The judges that got dropped will likely just get nominated again next time there is an opportunity, as they have before, at which point I will roll my eyes and wonder if being cynical really is a psychic phenomenon.

I am no longer watching any of my regular news wires, so I can't comment on anything else. I'm just too tired for all this junk, and a few problems of my own to fix before I try and fix the world again.

[Towelmaster]

Talk about Rampant and Irresponsible : The dutch are voting for or(more likely) against the new European constitution. I actually read it(it's hundreds of pages) and it sucks. It really is nothing but a compromise of compromises that has nothing to do with a constitution.

Darn, the french are right for once...

[AaronB]

Talk about Rampant and Irresponsible : The dutch are voting for or(more likely) against the new European constitution. I actually read it(it's hundreds of pages) and it sucks. It really is nothing but a compromise of compromises that has nothing to do with a constitution.

Darn, the french are right for once...

At least they picked a good time not to surrender.

Are the polls still showing the no vote ahead in the Netherlands?

[Radhil]

Allright, open bar now.

I found this. It was kind of hard to miss, seeing as how my local paper reported on it front page today, and as I work for said newspaper now (or subsidiary/branch/service-contracter etc. etc. etc.) my usual head-in-sand arrangements did not work out. I probably would have picked up on it in May, had I been paying attention to the wires. I was not. I'd stopped caring. For many good reasons.

The upshot: There is a memo. It appears (as much as anything can in the world of doubleplusgood-re-retractions) this memo confirms what us heathen godless America haters have said from the beginning, that something's not right here. That we are in fact not hallucinating the massive bullshit smell coming from our backyard. That from the beginning, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was just good political drama, not a real threat, and everyone in charge knew it.

I can't even muster the strength to be haughty and give out endless I told you so's. It may be vindication on a personal level, but it sure as hell isn't victory for some heathen liberal cause. The truth remains that this shit happened on our turf, and the greater portion of America not only bought it hook-line-sinker, but was eager and ready to be baited and caught up in it again. Knowing it for sure now only increases the burden of truth.

It's hell being right. Pure and utter hell.

This is the fan board of a man who saw and outlined every single condition and then demonstrated it in a full and human drama how this happens, and it still got bought. Hook. Line. Sinker. HERE..

But now I'm just being bitter and angry.

Go at it. Open bar, as I said. Because the two sides will always be the two sides. Reality can and will enforce itself in the end, but to humanity at large, it doesn't matter. Perspective is ours, and is what we want it to be. So to some this is fake and another left-wing attack, and to some this is real and a light-sizzling blow against the righteous right. To me, it's not a tool. It's a burden. As much as I hate to admit it to myself, as much as I try to ignore, I can't not care.

[David Panzer]

I've been a cynic since I was 11 years old, and in a month I'll be 27. There's a line in B5 that I've believed in for going on 16 years. "Nothing the government does surprises me."

I'm a registered voter in Memphis. When I registered to vote when I turned 18, I left blank the line for political affiliation, or I wrote N/A. I can't remember which. I hold all political parties with mistrust, and I view all politicans with contempt. My idea for elections would have all those running for political office be locked inside a steel cage. The candidates would then fight to death to determine the winner. Then the winner would be mauled by wild animals since you can't trust anyone who would kill someone to be a leader. Among those I've shared this dream, they've said that it's cynical, misanthropic, nihilistic, and amoral.

I agree, and fail to see how it's a problem.

[Dr Maturin]

I don't understand this belief that people have that WMD's were the only real reason to invade Iraq. I have said time and time again that WMD's were just a selling point to invading Iraq. We needed to go in there not only to shut down Saddam, but to stop the nations of France, Germany and Russia from selling the Baathist regime weapons against sanctions set forth by their supposedly precious UN.

Bush probably thought that there WERE WMD's (before they were smuggled out), so it's not like he wanted to start a war out of pure evilness. And despite the rampant crusade that the media has gone on to prove wrong the war's justification, I don't remember a single story on "Clinton's" attacks on Iraq or his humanitarian efforts in eastern Europe, which were supported by his political adversaries.

So, to me, whether or not WMD's were used as a centerpiece of the case for invasion is of no concern. We needed to spark change in the ME and Iraq was as good as any of a place to begin.

[Capt.Montoya]

I don't understand this belief that people have that WMD's were the only real reason to invade Iraq. I have said time and time again that WMD's were just a selling point to invading Iraq. We needed to go in there not only to shut down Saddam, but to stop the nations of France, Germany and Russia from selling the Baathist regime weapons against sanctions set forth by their supposedly precious UN.

Bush probably thought that there WERE WMD's (before they were smuggled out), so it's not like he wanted to start a war out of pure evilness. And despite the rampant crusade that the media has gone on to prove wrong the war's justification, I don't remember a single story on "Clinton's" attacks on Iraq or his humanitarian efforts in eastern Europe, which were supported by his political adversaries.

So, to me, whether or not WMD's were used as a centerpiece of the case for invasion is of no concern. We needed to spark change in the ME and Iraq was as good as any of a place to begin.

Your assumption that the hypothetical WMDs were hypothetically smuggled out of Iraq is unsubstantiated. Care to provide any single shred of evidence? And by evidence I don't mean "informed guesses" nor speculation, I don't mean a link to commentary by any "expert" but actual news reports that at least suggest (not just imply) that maybe some WMDs were smuggled out of Iraq.

The problem with the WMDs as the justification for war was that Bush & Co. insisted and insisted that such was the justification.
Any mention of any other "justification" for invading Iraq ever made by Bush & Co. got lost in the noise, and it was them making the ballyhoo about and putting the emphasis on WMDs.
They made their bed, why should they not lie in it?
Especially considering that they made their bed out of lies!

You are saying it yourself: WMDs were the "selling point" and when the product was delivered it didn't have the promised features.
If someone keeps insisting they'll sell you a computer with a top of the line processor and give you one without even a motherboard you'd raise hell.
Is not surprising that when the "selling point" was found to be missing people were very upset.

The other pseudo-justification given by Bush & Co. I remember was that maybe Iraq was hosting terrorists. That one also proved to be false.

But now as a direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq the country has indeed become a host and source of terrorists...

Nice. Very nice. The "war on terror" has caused much more terrorism in Iraq and has potentially become an inspiration for people elsewhere to hate the USA and become terrorists.

You seem to ignore that Iran already had moderates in a government elected democratically, which were struggling to modernize the country and minimize the influence of the religious extremists that used to rule Iran, pushing for further political reform to secularize the government. The invasion of Iraq has only given fodder for the extremists in Iran to resist further changes.
Way to go in helping to democratize the Middle East!

And you forget that there was already one place where the change in the Middle East could have been started: Afghanistan, already invaded to dethrone the Taliban, democratize it and keep it from being a terrorist haven.
But now with the focus in Iraq the situation in Afghanistan has gone backwards or at least not improved sufficiently.

I can agree that the Middle East may have needed change, but I will not agree that an invasion was the path to that change.
Violence only begets violence.

You can see that in the news about Iraq everyday.

Allright, open bar now.

If this really is an open bar I'll have a Black & Tan, and later a Whiskey and Soda.
And if this discussion gets too incensed I think I'll have a Tequila straight.

[Andrew_Swallow]

Bush probably thought that there WERE WMD's (before they were smuggled out), so it's not like he wanted to start a war out of pure evilness. And despite the rampant crusade that the media has gone on to prove wrong the war's justification, I don't remember a single story on "Clinton's" attacks on Iraq or his humanitarian efforts in eastern Europe, which were supported by his political adversaries.

Since the British military thought that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq Bush will have done too.

Here is a URL for a newly leaked Secret briefing paper for the British Cabinet. The minutes for the meeting that discuss the document were leaked 6 weeks ago.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

Dated 21 July 2002

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

{snip}

The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

[Dr Maturin]

After investing further research into this topic, I can now state that this is a BIG NOTHING.

The attorney-general mentioned in the memo who stated that regime change was not a solid reason for invasion was the UK attorney-general. It was not the US AG. And knowing this, our leaders "went ahead anyway." We love our British allies, but the bottom line is that they do not dictate our policies.

In addition, it's an impression of an impression. The reason you don't see this in the big media is that after Memogate and the Newsweak blunder, news organizations are being more careful about what they deem "news."