So they found WMD

[DaBeeeenster]

How would you suggest I conduct my argument? With absurd rhetoric and msiguided assumptions gleaned from a tabloid paper?

Outside links and facts eh? Who needs them

[Bazzlad]

You could try assumptions and conspirisy theorys gained from random web sites and other sources.
Your sources are no more valid than mine, just because you don't happen to like them.

[Saracen]

This thread is starting to get a bit personal. Calm it down, please, guys.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
What a load of *EDIT*, you're here spouting off like you're some super informed indivudals, but all the time you know as much or as little as we do. You read properganda, just from the other side, Da beensteir I try to avoid arguing with people whos idea of a debate is to find outside links, I'm sure I could find twice as many pro war sites and *cough* facts to help my argument, but I don't need to. Saddam has commited millions of war crimes and murdered millions of innocent people, he was failing to comply with UN inspectors AND wasn't dismantling his weapons, he stalled to remove his WOMD and they probably reside in the hands of one of the terrorist factions he supports,
As I said earlier, you're one of those people who'd have us attack Iraq AFTER they'd bombed thousands of people (Which they have done before)

The reason I have to edit my message was that it was at 4am that I typed it because I found your arguments so blatantly absurd that I have to reply to it before I go to bed and thanks to my tiredness, I made grammatical mistakes and I tried to correct as many of them as possible. I resent your accusations.

There are lots of reading materials if you look hard enough, however, I believe after acquiring the data, you need to digest it first (read: think it through) before it become useful. I’m fully aware that there’re lots of sites out there that are full of ‘supporting facts’ for the case for war. However, how many of them are actually offering anything close to be considered ‘independently verifiable’ sources? The fact is: there are few.

The leaders of the US and the UK were so blinded by their obsession to pick a fight with Saddam, they were not only willing to stretch the evidence as far as it would go, but were also more than willing to do anything in their power (legally or otherwise) to shut up the doubters. The problem for the doubters is that in order to make their reservations known, they run the risk of being publicly ridiculed by the supportors of the war, ie. the governments and the agencies working for them. The doubters’ messages were drowned out and washed over and the doubters themselves were made to shut up. There was no room to for doubters. Well, what kind of a show are these leaders think they’re running. This is not some kind of a board game, where you send plastic pieces across oceans to fight other plastic pieces. This is war. There are people in wars - soldiers and civilians made in flesh and blood.

Moreover, we, as tax payers, have to fund this war. We, as electorate, elected this government to achieve the following goals:

- long-term economic stability
- rising living standards for all
- expanded higher education as we raise standards in secondary schools
- a healthier nation with fast treatment, free at the point of use
- full employment in every region
- opportunity for all children, security for all pensioners
- a modern criminal justice system
- strong and accountable local government
- British ideas leading a reformed and enlarged Europe
- global poverty and climate change tackled

The Labour Party 2001 General Election manifesto taken from the Labour Party web site. (full document)

None of the above points mentioned the invasion of another sovereign country. If you argue that the invasion of Iraq was to provide security to this country, the argument was invalid and the evidence ambiguous.

It can be argue that the evidence of intention to build WDMs and the fact that papers and plans to achieve such goals have been found was sufficient to justify the case for war. However, this is not the age of Minority Report. Intent is not good enough to as evidence (although in homicide cases, it is often used a secondary evidence). Additionally, I would like to point out that since the Iraqis had WDMs prior to 2000, they must have existing plans and technical know-how for these weapons. Does it mean they intend to use them again? Again we cannot unlearn acquired knowledge and technical abilities.

Ultimately, you and I probably read from the same sources. However, I choose to use the one ability that set human beings above other animals - we have a large and sophisticated brain that is capable of logical thought process and I choose to use this ability to analyze the material I come across and come up with my own judgment and positions on issues. I noticed that you haven’t actually made any direct reference to any of my assessments in my previous post. I’m assuming that you are in agreement with my comments and that there was no case for war.

On another note, DaBeeeenster and I have cross swords many times on a number of issues and topics. However, we’ve managed to keep our arguments in a relatively civilized manner. I sincerely hope that you can conduct this debate in a similar fashion. (Because I dearly love to see what other ‘evidence’ you can come up with which is so revealing to the world that even the best intelligence powers on this planet have failed to unearth.)

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
You could try assumptions and conspirisy theorys gained from random web sites and other sources.
Your sources are no more valid than mine, just because you don't happen to like them.

You haven't quoted a link to a single source in this entire thread!

[Blub2k]

It is a propagandists view that the truth depends on the source, truth is absolute and is not dependent on it. If you do not know when you are being lied to and cannot distinguish when people deny and change things then that is your issue. Goebbels started the idea of the "Big Lie" which basically is that if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth. If you look back at things that are on record contrary statements were made in the run-up to the war and repeated and repeated until ...yes they became mantra for some people. Can you define Evil for example, are there different types? It starts with ludicrous statements like "good and evil" as if there were no absolutes and if you're not on their side your on t'other....please what sensible person believes that? yet it appears milliions do ....oh man oh man oh man.

[VladTheImpaler]

"All you have to do to make the people do your bidding is to convince them they are being attacked, then denounce the protestors for lack of patriotism. Whether a fascist dictatorship, or a democracy, or a communist dictatorship, or a parliamentary government, that is how it works."

-Herrmann Goering

[Ice Kay]

well said that ^ man.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
"All you have to do to make the people do your bidding is to convince them they are being attacked, then denounce the protestors for lack of patriotism. Whether a fascist dictatorship, or a democracy, or a communist dictatorship, or a parliamentary government, that is how it works."

-Herrmann Goering

That's a very good quote and I'm impressed that you managed to find it and quote it in full...

However, that statement is only a good approximation of certain type of national culture. It relies on the 'obedience' of the people, like the Germans before WWII or the Japanese, where the people are generally ‘apolitical’. On the whole, these are ‘conformist’ type culture and the public is not going to question deeply the motivation or hidden agenda of politicians. However, we live in an information age, where people are accustomed to unbiased news reporting and freedom of information. People are allow and often encouraged to make up their own minds about things - hence the dossier on WDM.

[Private Pyle]

Originally posted by Bazzlad

I find this disturbing, and also when the war was happening, how quick the BBC was to point out our losses and deaths but how slow to point out how well we actually did.....

Imagine if the bbc were around during the battle of the somme?

[Bazzlad]

I hated watching the news during the war, it made me so angry.

<bbc voice>Two British men are killed in this horrific war.</bbc voice>

What it didn't say is they took down 20 Iraqis in the fire fight.
Stupid stupid stupid biased BBC.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
I hated watching the news during the war, it made me so angry.

<bbc voice>Two British men are killed in this horrific war.</bbc voice>

What it didn't say is they took down 20 Iraqis in the fire fight.
Stupid stupid stupid biased BBC.

No-one knows what the casualty figures of the Iraqis were.

Bazzlad. I have made a number of legitimate posts in this thread in response to your points and you have ignored every one. Do you want to engage in a discussion or do you just want to present a monologue? If it's the latter, maybe it would be better to start a blog?

[Bazzlad]

My Dabeanmister.
I'm at work. It's very, very difficult to do this, and work and comment on the abortion one.
I felt that this post was going nowhere in general due to the circumstances surrounding everything, IE. We don't know if Iraqis fled and took WMD with them, how long they had to dismantle etc etc. However, I'm 100% sure they will find more, they found evidence of some although I'll admit after being informed correctly by yourself, not WOMD themselves.

The only point left for me to make was indeed the second biggest of the lot, the awful coverage by our Media.

Is that alright with you?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Bazzlad
My Dabeanmister.
I'm at work. It's very, very difficult to do this, and work and comment on the abortion one.
I felt that this post was going nowhere in general due to the circumstances surrounding everything, IE. We don't know if Iraqis fled and took WMD with them, how long they had to dismantle etc etc. However, I'm 100% sure they will find more, they found evidence of some although I'll admit after being informed correctly by yourself, not WOMD themselves.

The only point left for me to make was indeed the second biggest of the lot, the awful coverage by our Media.

Is that alright with you?

If you want to partake in the discussion you really should do just that; discuss. If you dont have time to actually debate, then I dont think you should post at all in QT. Just wait until you do have time to weigh up other people's posts and then make an informed reply. It's extremely frustrating for others if they take the time to reply to your points, only to have you ignore their replies. It's kind of pointless, you know?

[Bazzlad]

It wasn't originally in QT it was in general discussion, I simply wanted to know peoples thoughts on what I believed was a fact, and opinions onwhat I believe as biased media coverage, so when I started WW3 and didn't have time to defend myself with research it got kinda annoying, You know?

[Saracen]

I've got some sympathy with you both over this.

It's nice to have a detailed and well-researched response to a set of points, supporting your viewpoint, but not everybody always has the time to do it, and not every subject lends itself to analytical treatment.

I'd rather have a genuinely expressed opinion, without research, than no post at all, but on the other hand, when someone refutes the basis for that opinion, and supports it with research, it would be nice to have a reaction to that refutation (politely, of course ).