DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/01/2005 06:34:22 PM · #126
Originally posted by RonB:

So just sit back, do nothing, and complain about the ride. I can take it - after all, I've reared three teenagers who were just like that - until they became more mature.


Don't worry RonB, am far from disengaged and complacent. In fact, am quite eager to engage against your camp -- though I must admit that posting in this forum is tedious and distracting... We both know that neither you nor I will convince the other of what we consider to be right, and am perfectly fine with that. I'd rather do my work by reaching out to like-minded folk, and by participating in the process wherever I can (off-line, in the real world, with friends and neighbors). I look forward to the many fights ahead between our camps, and chomp at the bits over the thought of the many political battles ahead. And, hey, don't condescend to me by liking me to your teenagers... however, out of respect for the old I will refrain from responding in kind and simply let it go.

Message edited by author 2005-02-02 12:22:12.
02/01/2005 06:38:50 PM · #127
Originally posted by RonB:

It is only in RETROSPECT that we can see that the rationale was based on erroneous intelligence. For that, unlike you, I do not blame Bush, Cheney, et.al. I blame the CIA, the NSA, and the intelligence gathering organizations of our allies.


If we indeed have a liberal media as so many think, I would not have to be correcting the above thinking time and time again.

From the NY Times: How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence and diagram aluminum tubes

Also this PBS Frontline movie Truth War and Consequences does a good job of showing the lead up to the war and many of the Whitehouse sources. Can be viewed online.

Building opinions off a false premise is what got us into this mess in the 1st place.

Message edited by author 2005-02-01 18:48:09.
02/01/2005 06:40:54 PM · #128
Whoa you guys bicker to much. How about the serious issues like if we can democratize Iraq maybe we can get them to ban smoking in their restaurants? You know this is an issue that I haven’t heard and I’m sure the loss of lives from smoking related diseases has to be astronomical. Maybe being there will be a godsend to the Iraqi people after all.
02/02/2005 07:25:48 AM · #129
Originally posted by ericlimon:

That's funny ron, you twist other peoples words yourself. Maybe you should watch what you "complain" about?

Here's an example of RonB twisting other peoples words:

Originally posted by RonB:
From Ericlimon's profile:
"I'm a total...dork.
I've...been taken...so I...post...photos."


Now, does everyone see the "flip-flop"? I'm curious, how do you expect anyone to take what you post seriously?

Here's what my profile actually says: (bold are the words RonB twisted)
"I'm a photographer. I have 3 children, I'm happily married, and I'm a total photo/camera dork. I worked in a photo lab for 4+ years, and for a newspaper for 3+ years. Now I shoot weddings to feed the family and pay the bills. Wedding photography is not my true passion, but hey, gotta work right? I've just joined and most of my photos in the past have been taken with transparency/neg film so It might be awhile till I post more portfolio photos.

I thought after showing you an example ron, you might get the drift? Here's my example:
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, he LIED; he DID lie, it can be PROVEN, Bush really did think that he said he wasn't worried about OBL. I can believe that he did lie because I, too, have. I represent the majority in that respect.
- from rons post (this is a twisting of RonBs words, he said these things, just not in this exact order)

Now, maybe you shouldn't complain about other people twisting words around when you seem to think it's OK for you to do it? Or, maybe you just think what's good for the right is not good for the left?


It looks like you are in need of an English lesson - so here's the lesson for today: The term is called ELLIPSIS, and it's defined thusly: "A mark or series of marks ( . . . or · · · , for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words."

So, when "quoting" someone, an honest person will show, thru the use of ELLIPSIS if/where words have been omitted in that quotation. Now note that in the posting which I made, in which I "quoted" your profile bio, that I actually did CLEARLY indicate that words were omitted by the use of ELLIPSIS. ( Note, too, that I didn't move words around into other than their original position, but that's a lesson for another day ).
Since I neither rearranged words, nor failed to indicate where words were omitted, I didn't TWIST your words.

Now look at YOUR example.

Ohhhh. YOU didn't use ELLIPSIS. That's not good. ( You also rearranged the wording - that's not good, either ). I think that YOU are the only one of us who did some TWISTING.
02/02/2005 07:55:16 AM · #130
edit,
i can't sink as low as you.

it's truely pathetic

Message edited by author 2005-02-02 08:02:06.
02/02/2005 04:26:53 PM · #131
Hey Ron, how about responding to the issues of PNAC or my above articles.
02/02/2005 04:30:25 PM · #132
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Hey Ron, how about responding to the issues of PNAC or my above articles.

Too broad. How about pulling out ONE issue to discuss. For example, if you want to discuss PNAC, how about you open the dialogue by telling us one thing that you feel is an "issue" concerning PNAC, and then we can respond with our views on that issue.
02/02/2005 04:45:51 PM · #133
Well I would be curious your stance on PNAC and that many of the US top level officials are members of PNAC.
02/02/2005 04:49:08 PM · #134
Oh and also my above articles, specifically the Frontline movie and the NYTimes article.
02/02/2005 04:52:14 PM · #135
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Oh and also my above articles, specifically the Frontline movie and the NYTimes article.
Still too broad. How about you pick your favorite topic out of that article and tell us why you think it's spot on.
02/02/2005 04:54:04 PM · #136
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Well I would be curious your stance on PNAC and that many of the US top level officials are members of PNAC.

I don't see a problem with PNAC. Apparently you do. So what do you see as just ONE of the problems with PNAC?
02/02/2005 05:01:41 PM · #137
Ok, how about you READ the NYTimes article and WATCH the Frontline movie (can watch it online). The information is clear if the name of the article dosnt clue you in.

And you dont have a problem with the following members of the US government:

Elliot Abrams – National Security Council
Richard Armitage – Deputy Secretary of State
John Bolton – Under Secretary Arms Control and International Security
Richard Perle – Pentagon Policy Advisor
Zalmay Khalilzad – Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan
Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Secretary of Defense

Being part of the group who has been calling to invade Iraq since the Clinton years? Have you read their Statement of Principles ? Spend some time on their site. This group of men want to take over the world.

Message edited by author 2005-02-02 17:02:10.
02/02/2005 05:14:40 PM · #138
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Ok, how about you READ the NYTimes article and WATCH the Frontline movie (can watch it online). The information is clear if the name of the article dosnt clue you in.

I skimmed that article when it was first published in the Times. I found it boring then, and even more boring now. I say, so what. All the article does is provide more 20/20 hingsight that our intelligence agencies did not do a very good job. But, hey, everybody agrees with that now. The point is that AT THE TIME, everybody who actually VOTED to authorize the use of military force believed that intelligence ( or didn't do their sworn duty ). I have no desire to spend countless hours deciding whether the tubes were or were not capable of being used in nuclear development. Let's agree that they were NOT and get on with issues that face us TODAY not yesterday.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

And you dont have a problem with the following members of the US government:

Elliot Abrams – National Security Council
Richard Armitage – Deputy Secretary of State
John Bolton – Under Secretary Arms Control and International Security
Richard Perle – Pentagon Policy Advisor
Zalmay Khalilzad – Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan
Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Secretary of Defense

Being part of the group who has been calling to invade Iraq since the Clinton years?


No. I don't. I don't have a problem with any of them being leaders in the Boy Scouts, either.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Have you read their Statement of Principles ?

Yep. A lovely piece of writing. Is there a particular principle listed there that you disagree with? If so, could you tell us which one it is? If you could, then we could discuss it. Perhaps it's one of these:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principle

if so, which one do you disagree with? That would be a start.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Spend some time on their site. This group of men want to take over the world.

What specific statements on the site leads you to believe that they want to take over the world? Could you provide them? Or is is just your OPINION? One that is formulated WITHOUT FACTS upon which to base them?

Why is it that you can't articulate one issue at a time, so that we can discuss it?

Message edited by author 2005-02-02 17:18:40.
02/02/2005 06:08:09 PM · #139
Oh well then, I guess the WW2 and Vietnam propaganda you grew up in Ron worked like a champ. Keep on truckin.
02/02/2005 10:22:03 PM · #140
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Oh well then, I guess the WW2 and Vietnam propaganda you grew up in Ron worked like a champ. Keep on truckin.

Giving up already? Even after I tried to jump start you by giving you some direct quotes off the principles web page you seemed to be so outraged about, asking you which of the principles you disagreed with? Is it because you're afraid to actually name one for fear that it shows your true colors?
At first I was inclined to say I'm disappointed, but in retrospect, it's more of what I expected. Whenever liberals are held to account, their reaction is predictably to throw out some vague meaningless aspersion meant to show that they consider their opponent unworthy, then flee. I fleetingly thought that you might be different. Guess I was wrong.

Keep on truckin, yourself. Be careful out there.
02/02/2005 10:39:02 PM · #141
Ron, Mad and the rest, sorry about my anti smoking in Iraq obfuscation. I enjoy your endless debates. Thanks for the interesting read.
02/03/2005 01:10:19 AM · #142
Originally posted by RonB:
Just WHY is it so important to you dwell on the circumstances of how we got into the "situation" we now find ourselves in?

...get on with issues that face us TODAY not yesterday.


RonB: It looks like YOU are in need of a history lesson, so here is your lesson for today.

History connects our national past with current events and provides a context within which to understand them. Without this context, it becomes too easy for the political spin-meisters and idealogues to appropriate history for their own ends. If we don't look back with a critical eye, and if we are incapable of putting current events into their proper context, we are more likely to become the victims of unscrupulous manipulators who want to sell us something, be it a political ideology or perhaps a war.

"History, by apprising [citizens] of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."
Thomas Jefferson
02/03/2005 06:11:43 AM · #143
Originally posted by RonB:

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values


That right there, is so un-democratic. It has nothing to do to what other cultures might want as an ideal lifeway for them (and don't mention terrorism as their ideal, it's merely their way to challenge the hostile regime being exported from the US).
02/03/2005 08:24:37 AM · #144
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:
Just WHY is it so important to you dwell on the circumstances of how we got into the "situation" we now find ourselves in?

...get on with issues that face us TODAY not yesterday.


RonB: It looks like YOU are in need of a history lesson, so here is your lesson for today.

History connects our national past with current events and provides a context within which to understand them. Without this context, it becomes too easy for the political spin-meisters and idealogues to appropriate history for their own ends. If we don't look back with a critical eye, and if we are incapable of putting current events into their proper context, we are more likely to become the victims of unscrupulous manipulators who want to sell us something, be it a political ideology or perhaps a war.

"History, by apprising [citizens] of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."
Thomas Jefferson

I absolutely do not disagree with you that we need to look back with a critical eye, and, in fact have done so, and are doing so. The latest evidence that we are doing so is the re-assessment being done by the CIA on its WMD intelligence. As reported by the Reuters News Agency in this article

"The CIA has finally admitted that its WMD estimates were wrong," Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said in a statement.

She also called on CIA officials to conduct a vigorous review of intelligence on Iran and North Korea, "where active WMD programs are known to exist."

And, given the added scrutiny that will be given to future intelligence reports, I'm sure that Ms. Harman's caution will be heeded.

That being said, my question was more concerned with the LEVEL of attention being given to delegating blame vs. that being given to addressing the current issues. It seems to me that liberals want to focus MORE on the past than on the present/future, and that reversal of priority is what I believe is not in the best interests of anyone.
02/03/2005 08:50:18 AM · #145
Originally posted by grandmarginal:

Originally posted by RonB:

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values


That right there, is so un-democratic. It has nothing to do to what other cultures might want as an ideal lifeway for them (and don't mention terrorism as their ideal, it's merely their way to challenge the hostile regime being exported from the US).

It may come as a surprise to most liberals, but the US is not a democracy - it is a democratic republic. As such, we do not establish national law via popular vote - rather we elect REPRESENTATIVES to the national congress. It is they who we entrust to establish laws and programs designed to create an environment that will insure safety and welfare for all the people. The assumption is that those REPRESENTATIVES will execute their charge diligently - to carefully consider all evidence brought before them, and conduct their own research, as necessary, to make well reasoned decisions on matters of national interest. Furthermore, the assumption is that they will faithfully REPRESENT the best interests of their constituency, regardless of whether the majority of that constituency agrees with their decisions or not. If that were not so, and we were a pure democracy, then every tax law on the books would be repealed at the next election.
It is in that light, that the PNAC holds as principle that we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values. The interests and values are not specifically delineated, but one must assume that they are not morally corrupt ( e.g. it's NOT about the oil ). If you find evidence that they ARE, then we can have futher discussion.
02/03/2005 09:22:26 AM · #146
It is amazing that people quote history here but don't pay any attention to more recent history than Thomas Jefferson.

"hostile to our interests and values" This does not mean governments that do not do what we want, which is what the left thinks it means. They seem to completely overlook the slaughter of millions whether it was Jews in the 30s and 40s or Muslims since the 80s.

I know, insert your Rumsfield picture here. You really show us with that one. I believe if you review history, there were many Americans that had close ties with Hitler before the war and wrongly thought he was a decent man. I bet there were people in the democratic organization that spoke to him. Does that mean they supported him once he went insane?

The same people in this thread claim to support the troops then are only to glad to put the 'Mission Accomplished' picture in their post. Bush did not create the banner, the Navy did. But still you claim 'I support the Troops' which you don't. You just say it so you don't look like a bigger idiot.

Supporting the troops and not supporting their mission is like supporting the Eagles this weekend but not wanting them to win and secretly hoping they don't perform well so the their coach can look bad and you will be able to put in your own coach and make it so they never have to play in that silly game again. The left is so predictable so I will say it for you. "War is not a game and no one dies playing football". Ah you are so smart! War is not a game but it is what the military is trained to do. Every service person knows what they are getting into when they sign on. Many in this conflict and in previous conflicts gladly gave their lives. You cannot support the troops and hope they fail in their mission, their mission approved by CONGRESS.

Many young men and women volunteer to serve their country to protect your right to spew your contempt for military, which really is the root of it all if you are honest with yourself. You hate the fact that the U.S. has a strong military while children go to bed hungry across the planet. Nevermind that it is their own governments that oppress their people and make them hungry. When we try to help them by installing democracy, we some how become an Imperialist country.

"Oh but kids go to bed hungry in the U.S". Not because of lack of governemnt programs and charitiy organizations.

About smoking bans, I think is ironic that you can have abortion in this country but you can't smoke in the waiting room, you might hurt someone.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 09:23:40.
02/03/2005 09:45:19 AM · #147
Originally posted by bdobe:



It's sad to read how much you despise those that served our country, and the ideals that our great nation stands for: democracy, respect for minority opinion, our right to speak truth to power and our right to hold our government accountable. Please read our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you might find them illustrative.

For your information, Operation Truth was founded and is operated by Iraq War Veterans, and their aim is to provide a support network to returning veterans, and to help them navigate through the bureaucracy to obtain medical aid if they need it.

As a former Marine, I know what it was that I pledged to protect and respect: our Constitution and the ideals enshrined therein.

Again, am disappointed to read that you hold our troops, those that served and that support them is such contempt.


Right. Contempt. I am not the one trying to undermine what the troops are trying to accomplish. Your views are lock step with the insurgents. That is what is truly disgusting about you. By listing the casulaty count, you are celebrating that number. Secretly, you want it to increase to a 'more impressive number' so you "can bring the troops home". That sacrifice to you is more noble then the sacrifice of being successful in their mission. I know, insert your WMD crap here. Missions change in war. You should know that marine. We did not set out to liberate the Jews in WWII but rather to help our allies. It was a side benefit.

The left 'celebrated' the death of the 1000 serviceman in Iraq. The looked at that number as a weapon they could use to defeat Bush. It is tragic that that many have died. But to overlook the fact that we were expected to lose that many the first day of battle and not see it as a great victory is idiotic.

You would rather our troops fail to give people hope at freedom so that you can advance your own political agenda. It is you who have contempt for the Iraqi people and the military.
02/03/2005 09:51:15 AM · #148
' . substr('//us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050203/lthumb.cap13902030416.bush_state_of_the_union_cap139.jpg', strrpos('//us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050203/lthumb.cap13902030416.bush_state_of_the_union_cap139.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
First lady Laura Bush, right, applauds as Safia Taleb al-Suhail, leader of the Iraqi Women's Political Council, back to camera, hugs Janet Norwood of Pflugerville, Texas, on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Feb. 2., 2005 during President Bush's State of the Union address. Mrs. Norwood's son Sgt. Byron Norwood was killed in Iraq last Nov. Safia's father was was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service 11 years ago. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

From news reports:

"She thanked us for our son's sacrifice and made sure we knew the people in Iraq were grateful for the sacrifices that were made not just by our son, but by all of them," Janet Norwood said.

"I just told her how happy we were that the elections were successful and told her our son would have been pleased," said Norwood, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America" with her husband, Bill.
02/03/2005 11:59:50 AM · #149
Here's a big difference between conservative analysis and liberal analysis. Conservatives say that the intelligence was amiss which resulted in our invading Iraq. Liberals say that the intelligence was manipulated by the administration to further their aims and agenda of invading that country. I believe the latter, of course, as a number of people within the Bush admin spoke about the Bush's desire to invade Iraq, prior to 9/11, among other reasons.

You also make it sound like the CIA was unanimous in agreeing that Iraq was an immediate threat, but to the contrary, there were many within that organization that dissented. Many of them are gone now in the CIA's reorganization that's taking place, especially with Porter Goss as the new head. Claims by the administration that there existed a link between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda were ludicrous and also shows that what was really going on was more public relations to persuade the American public that an invasion was to our best interests. So either Bush and company was amiss for not heeding all of the available intelligence, or they chose to ignore that part which didn't fit with their agenda.

The CIA's new role in the government is going to be lessened and they will probalby be taking more of a role in domestic intelligence gathering. The Pentagon will be replacing them and this probably means more and more of a militaristic approach to dealing with foreign policy and less and less diplomacy. Bad approach in my opinion. A good example of this happening now is with Iran. The European countries that have been negotiating with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear enrichment program have been begging the United States to get involved with the negotiating process, but the US has refused. Why is that? Shouldn't the US be interested in diplomacy and avoiding more militaristic actions that could destablize the world even more?

Liberals ARE looking towards the future, Ron, but it seems to me that the conservatives are the ones looking back, constantly referring to 9/11. Liberals were the ones looking forward all along, even before that fateful day. In my opinion, and many other, as well, Bush and the neocons and the corporations were fearful of what the left wanted because it represented a lot of what the people on this planet wanted and they feared that their plans would have to be changed. The WTO demostrations in Seattle of late '99 and the demonstrations in Geneva of 2000 and the demonstrations in NY against the World Economic Forum all showed unity by the left of opposing corporate globalization and greed and of a desire by the left to redefine the economics of our times.

Originally posted by RonB:

I absolutely do not disagree with you that we need to look back with a critical eye, and, in fact have done so, and are doing so. The latest evidence that we are doing so is the re-assessment being done by the CIA on its WMD intelligence. As reported by the Reuters News Agency in this article

"The CIA has finally admitted that its WMD estimates were wrong," Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said in a statement.

She also called on CIA officials to conduct a vigorous review of intelligence on Iran and North Korea, "where active WMD programs are known to exist."

And, given the added scrutiny that will be given to future intelligence reports, I'm sure that Ms. Harman's caution will be heeded.

That being said, my question was more concerned with the LEVEL of attention being given to delegating blame vs. that being given to addressing the current issues. It seems to me that liberals want to focus MORE on the past than on the present/future, and that reversal of priority is what I believe is not in the best interests of anyone.
02/03/2005 12:26:02 PM · #150
Conservatives can't look back to 9/11 but Liberal's can look back to before 9/11? A double-standard from the left? The left would believe the nuttier of the two theories while ignoring plans the previous administration had as well. And don't ever blame Saddam for non-compliance. No. Its all Bush's fault for bad intel. Never the FACT that Saddam did not comply with UN resolutions.

You are right. The Fascists and Communists that protest the WTO are a much better solution to economic problems in the world. They've been so successful in the past. As 'bad' as capitalism may be in your eyes, the leaders never murder their civilians by the thousands.

It is ironic, because the governments they support would not allow them to protest like they do.

But capitialism is the most evil thing on the planet. I guess its because it gives people the freedom they are denied under Fascism and Communism.

Government greed will always surpass corporate greed. Government has the ability to confiscate, corporations do not.

Message edited by author 2005-02-03 12:29:06.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 12:47:10 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/17/2021 12:47:10 PM EDT.