Downing Street memo

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:50 pm

iaafan wrote: so attacking Iraq has done little to advance our cause, which is a just cause, of ridding the world of terrorists.

.

It seems to me that we are killing or capturing terrorists everyday in Iraq. They are coming to take on the mighty US Armed Forces and losing.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:57 pm

Well said El Gato.

What were those 20+ sanctions put on Iraq by the UN which led up to this confrontation for anyways?

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:15 pm

El_Gato wrote: BTW, do you deny that Saddam gassed the Kurds back in the 90's? If not, are you aware that the gas used in that slaughter IS a WMD?

Gato, that was fifteen years ago -- in what way does it prove that Saddam had WMDs during the time directly leading up to our attack?

Now, before anybody starts tar-and-feathering me and calling me a sign-waving liberal hippie from the People's Republic of New York, let me say that I am not a Bush hater, nor am I a Democrat or even a liberal. I am a centrist who votes Republican as often as Democrat, and I am undecided as to whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do or not. I am not arguing that Bush actually knew Saddam had no WMDs and intentionally lied to us, because I have no way of knowing what he actually knew or did not know.

What I AM saying is this: we were led to believe, prior to the war, that the administration knew TO A CERTAINTY that WMDs existed. As of now, I think it is fair to say that has been proven false -- any evidence the administration did have would have come out during the election campaign, when Bush was getting trounced early on in the polls (prior to the RNC). Thus, whatever the administration knew or didn't know, I think it is fair to say that they could not have been as certain about the existence of WMDs as we were led to believe.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:17 pm

El_Gato wrote:iaa,

Please share with us the entirety of your obvious first-hand knowledge that Bush & Blair KNEW there were no WMD's in Iraq when we attacked. That's an amazing statement with absolutely NO proof. Take all the time & space you need; and please don't waste that time & space by quoting unnamed/uncorroborated/unsubstantiated rumors consistently found in the traditional media.

If there were "smoking gun"-esque memos or communications by & between high-level Bush/Blair folks demonstrating that the WMD justification for war was a lie, I'm pretty sure ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the NY Times, Newsweek etc. etc. would be screaming about them every day! You know those organizations are just DROOLING over the thought of getting their hands on something like that.

The bottom line is that at this point, no such smoking gun exists, so your statement is pure speculation on your part as a venom-spewing liberal who so desperately WANTS your statement to be true that you've simply made up your mind that it is, regardless of a total lack of factual foundation.

BTW, do you deny that Saddam gassed the Kurds back in the 90's? If not, are you aware that the gas used in that slaughter IS a WMD?

So essentially the burden of proof you are placing on iaa is higher than it was for us to go to war in the first place. Therein lies a problem.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:23 pm

BobCatFan wrote:
iaafan wrote: so attacking Iraq has done little to advance our cause, which is a just cause, of ridding the world of terrorists.

.
It seems to me that we are killing or capturing terrorists everyday in Iraq. They are coming to take on the mighty US Armed Forces and losing.

Following that theory, I guess we should invade more countries. The more people that hate us, the more "terrorists" we get to kill. Although, ideally, I think we'd prefer that the net number of people belonging to terrorist organizations around the world start going down. Invading someone's homeland and killing a few of them doesn't generally have that effect.

That's not to say that we should pull out of Iraq, but simply pointing out a flaw in the logic.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:34 pm

There’s nothing in my posts that should lead anyone to believe that I think I have first-hand knowledge of this. I assuming that you would take what I’m saying as my opinion based on what has been reported and logic. So once again I ask that you not stuff words in my mouth. I did post a report by Mark Danner. It pretty much sums up my thoughts. Please read it.

No I don’t know all these organizations (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYTimes, Newsweek, etc. etc. – you left out FOX by the way) are drooling to get their hands on this kind of thing. I’d say where’s YOUR proof of that? Please take all the time and space you need sir.

So if I speculate, I’m venom-spewing, but if Bush speculates, that’s OK cuz he’s the preznit? Is that what you’re saying? And to answer what are probably just rhetorical questions, no, I don’t deny that Saddam gassed the Kurds and I do realize that the gas used is a WMD.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:39 pm

Grizlaw... you are nothing but a sign-waving liberal hippie

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:43 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't really want to get back into this discussion.......

Then you shouldn't have. I think you and iaa have beat this horse about a thousand times too many which is why I have stayed out of it until now. Follow my lead and find something else to argue - this one is more than old.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:10 pm

WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't really want to get back into this discussion.......
Then you shouldn't have. I think you and iaa have beat this horse about a thousand times too many which is why I have stayed out of it until now. Follow my lead and find something else to argue - this one is more than old.

Thank you for your insight on that question. However, as it does take two sides to "argue", you should also be telling those who hold opposite opinions to mine to withhold their discussion on this topic as well.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:14 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't really want to get back into this discussion.......
Then you shouldn't have. I think you and iaa have beat this horse about a thousand times too many which is why I have stayed out of it until now. Follow my lead and find something else to argue - this one is more than old.
Thank you for your insight on that question. However, as it does take two sides to "argue", you should also be telling those who hold opposite opinions to mine to withhold their discussion on this topic as well.

Not really as "they" didn't bring it up AGAIN, and "they" don't annoy me as much as you and iaa do. There is a big difference between argueing one's position/views and what you two are doing. The only thing left out of this thread is the reference to the similarities between Hitler and Bush. I suppose all in good time though.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:23 pm

WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't really want to get back into this discussion.......
Then you shouldn't have. I think you and iaa have beat this horse about a thousand times too many which is why I have stayed out of it until now. Follow my lead and find something else to argue - this one is more than old.
Thank you for your insight on that question. However, as it does take two sides to "argue", you should also be telling those who hold opposite opinions to mine to withhold their discussion on this topic as well.
Not really as "they" didn't bring it up AGAIN, and "they" don't annoy me as much as you and iaa do.

I haven't posted for two weeks, and only did to respond to point out something that I found to be untrue, so I didn't really bring anything up.

So really, you're only saying that you just don't like reading opinions that you don't agree with. That leaves you with a couple options:

1. Don't read any posts that you don't agree with

2. Respond to posts that you disagree with in order to refute the assertions made in those posts with facts, opinions, or rants (as opposed to simply saying that you do or don't like them)

One option you do NOT have is to tell everyone that you disagree with to stop posting, but to give a free pass to the people you do agree with. That would make for a pretty slow boring board, and none of us would ever learn anything through these debates.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:29 pm

WYCAT wrote:Not really as "they" didn't bring it up AGAIN, and "they" don't annoy me as much as you and iaa do. There is a big difference between argueing one's position/views and what you two are doing. The only thing left out of this thread is the reference to the similarities between Hitler and Bush. I suppose all in good time though.

Hmmm... you edited the post while I was in mid-stream.

Please explain to me how anything I have ever posted is NOT arguing one's position. How else would you describe it? I assume you are suggesting that I have somehow been unfair? Please explain.

I take personal exception anytime a Hitler reference has been made, and have been quite vocal on that count, so I would appreciate it if allusions to that sort of thing aren't thrown anywhere near me.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:31 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't really want to get back into this discussion.......
Then you shouldn't have. I think you and iaa have beat this horse about a thousand times too many which is why I have stayed out of it until now. Follow my lead and find something else to argue - this one is more than old.
Thank you for your insight on that question. However, as it does take two sides to "argue", you should also be telling those who hold opposite opinions to mine to withhold their discussion on this topic as well.
Not really as "they" didn't bring it up AGAIN, and "they" don't annoy me as much as you and iaa do.
I haven't posted for two weeks, and only did to respond to point out something that I found to be untrue, so I didn't really bring anything up.

So really, you're only saying that you just don't like reading opinions that you don't agree with. That leaves you with a couple options:

1. Don't read any posts that you don't agree with

2. Respond to posts that you disagree with in order to refute the assertions made in those posts with facts, opinions, or rants (as opposed to simply saying that you do or don't like them)

One option you do NOT have is to tell everyone that you disagree with to stop posting, but to give a free pass to the people you do agree with. That would make for a pretty slow boring board, and none of us would ever learn anything through these debates.

Never did that BAC. I simply said you should have done what YOU said you should have which was to not post on this topic anymore. I have no problem with alternate views (you of all people have a lot of nerve telling something this) but when open unsubstantiated claims, i.e. Bush knew of WMD vs. suspected, are not backed up over and over again I get frustrated and there is no learning (as you claim there is) going on. And please, don't tell me what my options are - I can figure that type of thing out all by myself. You pompous and controlling attitude grows old.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:32 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I take personal exception anytime a Hitler reference has been made, and have been quite vocal on that count, so I would appreciate it if allusions to that sort of thing aren't thrown anywhere near me.

I will give you that one and I did appreciate your comments the last time these references were made.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

WYCAT wrote:Never did that BAC. I simply said you should have done what YOU said you should have which was to not post on this topic anymore. I have no problem with alternate views (you of all people have a lot of nerve telling something this) but when open unsubstantiated claims, i.e. Bush knew of WMD vs. suspected, are not backed up over and over again I get frustrated and there is no learning (as you claim there is) going on. And please, don't tell me what my options are - I can figure that type of thing out all by myself. You pompous and controlling attitude grows old.

For the record, I found it a little pompous and controlling on your part to tell me what I should and shouldn't post about (semantics aside, that's what you did) while giving a free pass to everyone else to post every unsubstantiated thing they can muster as long as it falls in line with your general view on the topic. At least, that's how I read your comments. Perhaps I was wrong.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:04 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Perhaps I was wrong.

Believe it or not, you were, but I am tired of argueing with you - AGAIN.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:07 pm

I'm just glad no one is called venom-spewing any more.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:20 pm

WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Perhaps I was wrong.
Believe it or not, you were, but I am tired of argueing with you - AGAIN.

So does that mean I can post on any topic I want without your editorial comments as to the worthiness of the post, or is it still taboo to comment about U.S. foreign policy sans pom poms? I just need to make sure, 'cause it's still a little confusing, and I'd hate to make this mistake again.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:31 pm

BAC you are a little testy today…

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:43 pm

mquast53000 wrote:BAC you are a little testy today…

Not really, actually ... pretty mellow ... just hangin' round the office ya know, chillin' and kickin' it yaknowhatimsayin?

By the way, why do I get a testy jab and WYCAT gets nothing? Didn't he start that whole thing? In the spirit of giving, I'd like to share at least half of my accolades with him.