President gives speech Dems spaz....

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Regime change was what it was about, all along, as I wrote, and not "al Qaeda" or any such opportunistic nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I disagree with your opinion and don't think any amount of arguing will change it.

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't this one of the Right's most prized insinuations?

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant that I don't believe Saddam called up these 19 guys and said, "Could you knock down the WTC buildings for me?". I do think there are some connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but not that solid, yet.

On a final note, it seems to me that it is rather ironic that Cyrus chooses to decry right-wing propaganda while repeating left-wing propaganda.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that it is rather ironic that Cyrus chooses to decry right-wing propaganda while repeating left-wing propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is supported by the findings on the ground, while you have nothing to show but innuendoes, leaps of logic and non sequiturs - in short, the stuff that propaganda is made of.

But a significant number of Americans is with you, still, despite the veritable avalanche of contrarian evidence, eg Downing Str. memo. Take heart in that.

[[censored]]

Hi Cyrus,

You spend alot of time argueing that the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq are different than the real reasons President Bush took the country into war.

Would I be correct in assuming that regardless of the reasons used, ie if the stated reasons in your opinion matched the real reasons, that you would still be against going to war with Iraq?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You spend a lot of time arguing that the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq are different than the real reasons President Bush took the country into war.


[/ QUOTE ] You are correct about "a lot of time".


[ QUOTE ]
Would I be correct in assuming that regardless of the reasons used, ie if the stated reasons in your opinion matched the real reasons, that you would still be against going to war with Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean if Iraq truly had WMDs?

I will (for the umpteenth time) repeat what Zbig Brzezinsky has said numerous times, on TV, pre-invasion: "If the prez has solid evidence and no matter of such evidence is presentable to the world or defensible in the UN, then the prez shoujld take action against Iraq as soon and as hard as possible! This must be done without any hesitation or delaying consultation, on the basis of a clear and present danger threatening the country." (I paraphrase.)

"But if there is no such strong evidence and the US is simply after regime change for any number of reasons, then the US should strive for consult with its allies, build a strong coalition and guide this through the diplomatic and UN channels, before committing the military to a war, and a post-war nation-building engagement, because preserving our status in the world and our long-standing alliances is vital to the interests of the country."

What could be more logical ?

--Cyrus

PS Note that the loss of America's status and alliances (along with the asymmetrical commitment of American might in godforsaken Mesopotamia) have been strongly lamented by Robert Kaplan in his Atlantic article about the real challenges facing America! And those certainly don't include tinpot dictators, baby.

I linked to that article in another post.

[[censored]]

No not if Iraq had WMD's as we both know it wasn't about that but if the stated reasons for war had been something along the lines of Saddam is a bad guy and we are going to war to remove him from power.

Also what exactly are your opinions as to what the real reasons were?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You spend a lot of time arguing that the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq are different than the real reasons President Bush took the country into war.


[/ QUOTE ] You are correct about "a lot of time".


[ QUOTE ]
Would I be correct in assuming that regardless of the reasons used, ie if the stated reasons in your opinion matched the real reasons, that you would still be against going to war with Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean if Iraq truly had WMDs?

I will (for the umpteenth time) repeat what Zbig Brzezinsky has said numerous times, on TV, pre-invasion: "If the prez has solid evidence and no matter of such evidence is presentable to the world or defensible in the UN, then the prez shoujld take action against Iraq as soon and as hard as possible! This must be done without any hesitation or delaying consultation, on the basis of a clear and present danger threatening the country." (I paraphrase.)

"But if there is no such strong evidence and the US is simply after regime change for any number of reasons, then the US should strive for consult with its allies, build a strong coalition and guide this through the diplomatic and UN channels, before committing the military to a war, and a post-war nation-building engagement, because preserving our status in the world and our long-standing alliances is vital to the interests of the country."

What could be more logical ?



[/ QUOTE ]

Why you almost sound downright Hawkish Cyrus. So really it comes down to the issue of false or even falsefied reasons to go to war as your main objections.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You almost sound downright Hawkish Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are confused. "Hawk" is shorthand for bellicosity and continuous propensity for belligerence; it denotes someone who favors military force or action over diplomatic or generally peaceful means in foreign policy. I support nothing of the sort.

[ QUOTE ]
So really it comes down to the issue of false or even falsified reasons to go to war as your main objections.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct - since, under certain conditions, going to war is not to be avoided. I'm not a pacifist.