[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied overIraq?Onwhatbasis?

[Robert Lindauer]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>>>
>>>>IF Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq illegally. And you supported
>>>>him would you be, in your view, a thug coddler?
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Whether Bush had bad intel is irrelevant to the issue of whether the
>>>invasion was illegal.
>>>

>>>...
>>>      
>>>
>>An analogy for -people like you-. 
>>    
>>
>
>I do believe I've been treated in a prejudicial or stereotypical
>manner.
>  
>

No you've been acting like a moronic pathological prevaricator, I tried 
to make things simple so you could understand while simultaneously 
taking us out of the context so there would be no felt need on your part 
to make new things up. 

>  
>
>>Say I say "I have a gun in my 
>>pocket."  You may be inclined to do what I ask of you if I say it in
>>a threatening voice.  Now say I say "I may have a gun in my pocket." 
>>You may be inclined to reply with "show me the gun, then we'll talk."
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>What kind of crazy person carries around a gun and threatens people
>>with maybe they have one?  The point, MAYBE is a lot less
>>threatening than DOES.
>>    
>>
>
>Which is why people don't claim they have a weapon when they don't
>unless they are crazy, even sociopathic, or absolutely positive there
>is no way you can verify their claim. If someone comes up behind you
>and sticks a pen against your back, claims it is a gun, and if you make
>one move you are dead, are you going to debate whether it's actually a
>pen or actually a gun if you can't verify without risking death?
>  
>

It was an analogy the point of which obviously escaped you. 

>In the case of Iraq, the picture that has seemed to emerge is that
>Saddam believed he had WMD developed, because his underlings told him
>so. 
>

I thought we agreed that you would stop making things up.

>Whether he actually did or not was irrelevant, he acted like he had
>them: he had mobile weapons labs built, he had chemical weapons spray
>planes made out of Mig jets (which have no use as crop dusters). 
>  
>

This is irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether Bush had any reliable 
evidence that Saddam had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons before 
we invaded.  On this point I think we are universally agreed that Bush 
had no such evidence or that if he did he's keeping it awfully close to 
his chest.

>>Maybe I'll get cancer.  Maybe I'll get run over by a truck.  Maybe a 
>>homocidal maniac will kill my in my sleep.  Maybe the sun will
>>explode.  
>>    
>>
>
>If you have a risk of cancer, you take precautions, change behavior.
>If, in the example of some women with virtually a 100% chance of breast
>cancer for heritable reasons, you may seriously consider having your
>breasts cut off as soon as your last kid is weaned, if not sooner, as
>many other women have done. If you have a high risk of prostate cancer,
>you get your prostate cut out at the very first sign of odd behavior by
>that organ.
>  
>

Oy vey, it's an ANALOGY.  A short story meant to illustrate a point in 
similarity.  I know now that it was a little too complicated for you.  
I'm sorry for trying.

>You might get run over by a truck, but you don't refuse to look both
>ways when crossing the street, and if you are smart, you will purchase
>and learn to use and carry a gun to protect yourself against homicidal
>maniacs (or move some place where they are less likely to be). A smart
>person takes intelligent preemptive actions to minimize risks to
>themselves. An idiot keeps doing the same old things, ignoring the
>risk, and blaming everybody else, especially those who warned them,
>when it actually happens...
>
>  
>
>>Maybe the Iraqi's have nuclear weapons.  You see how that goes.
>>
>>NONE OF THESE CONSTITUTE A MATTER FOR WAR.
>>    
>>
>
>Bullshit. If someone who is a documented nutter (like Kim Jong Il)
>

Are you in posession of documentation of Mr. Kim's nutter-ness or is 
this a non-professional non-technical use of the term.

As I see it Kim's the smart one here.  He knows that the US won't risk 
an actual nuclear conflict so he, probably, lied about having nuclear 
weapons in order to give himself time to actually get them.

Had Saddam ACTUALLY said he was already in possession of nuclear weapons 
and the ability to deliver them I guarantee we wouldn't have been 
foolhardy enough to put 100,000 troops on the ground within range of them.



>, or
>has a documented record of using WMD in the past on innocents (as
>Saddam does)
>
Of course, we gave them to him in the 80's to help him fight the Kurds 
and Iranians and helped him use them.  The disposition of the 
"leftovers" if there are any is unknown but after 10 years of weapons 
inspections even the UN inspectors sincerly and publicly doubted whether 
there was anything left at all.  This is very different from what Mr. 
Bush SAID which was that they KNEW they had them at the time of Bush's 
statements. 

> actually has them, particularly if they posess them in
>conflict with international agreements they've signed and ratified to
>not posess them (not just UN resolutions, cease fire agreements, but
>also the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), I am going to seriously
>consider it, particularly if those individuals have established records
>of funding terrorism (as Saddam does in offering $50k bounties to the
>families of homicide bombers), and sending assasination squads into my country.
>  
>

So if I might have a nuclear weapon (and I might!), you'll be sending 
over troops to come and get me and my 100,000 closest neighbors?

Ladies and gentlemen, on your left you'll see the rocky mountains and on 
the right the dry plains of idiotstanbul capital of dumbfuckistan.  Mr. 
Lorry is the dipshit who thinks he's going to be in charge one day.  
Heaven help us!.

Robbie Lindauer