quote:

Originally posted by LuvTiesto Why can't we just accept that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is probably the worst foreign policy we could have ever adopted?

So we should not be allies with the British, Canadians, Germans, ANYONE!?!?

Please...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Tell that to DonnyFrasco, and he'll say, "But but, we didn't know he would turn against us!! OH NO!!!..."

If you've got a crystal ball, by all means, do tell us the future, oh gifted one.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco If you've got a crystal ball, by all means, do tell us the future, oh gifted one.

You don't need a crystal ball. I already told you, it's called "critical thinking". You can take a course in critical thinking or philosophy at your local university if it's that hard for you to understand...Critical thinking is what we would expect from our leadership! How hard is that for you to understand? I already gave you a very simple example, which again, you've failed to answer to. The example, again of critical thinking...

"What will be the consequences of exporting chemical/biological precursors to a socialist dictorial regime?"

You don't need a crystal ball. You can do critical thinking based on past and present knowledge. We already knew Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. So when you say, "We didn't know he would turn against us." I've just demonstrated to you that no, that is not a valid excuse. I'm still waiting for non-anecdotal response from you...

I just watched the 60 Minutes interview with George Piro earlier today. While we all seem to be focused on WMD's in this thread, I'd like to also point out that Piro also asked Saddam what his feelings were about Osama bin Laden and if Al-Queada training camps were actually staged in Iraq. Saddam answered that he considered bin Laden a religious fanatic and would not give him any support. So that whole basis about Iraq supporting Al-Queada seems to go right out the window, and that would further prove that George Bush, or his intelligence, did lie about that.

You can now carry on with your WMD discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So we should not be allies with the British, Canadians, Germans, ANYONE!?!? Please...

No, No. They are genuine friends, You've misunderstood.

I'm talking about leader like Ngô Đình Diệm of South Vietnam, the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc.

Some of these talk radio pundits really piss me off. As if on cue, they basically take the side of what donnybrasco did in this thread. Any freshmen with a semester of logic/philosophy can use it to rip their arguments apart, exactly as it was done here in this thread. Too bad I couldn't call in to give em a piece of my mind. Seems like National Public Radio is the only place to get a real opinion on the radio, based not on fucking GOP rhetoric. Don't take me as hating on the GOP, but when EVERY SINGLE SHOW is nothing but a GOP mouthpiece, it gets me heated...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Some of these talk radio pundits really piss me off. As if on cue, they basically take the side of what donnybrasco did in this thread. Any freshmen with a semester of logic/philosophy can use it to rip their arguments apart, exactly as it was done here in this thread. Too bad I couldn't call in to give em a piece of my mind. Seems like National Public Radio is the only place to get a real opinion on the radio, based not on fucking GOP rhetoric. Don't take me as hating on the GOP, but when EVERY SINGLE SHOW is nothing but a GOP mouthpiece, it gets me heated...

I want to know how it happened that they became so commonplace.

Perhaps they were placed there for posterity.

Someone realized that by having a common enemy, they could unite the people of their nation to move to drastic ends.

It's really a god damn shame that we've been moved to destroy and hate, as opposed to the polar opposite senses of empathy and equilibrium.

Imagine what we could have done with all the money we've pumped into the war in iraq. We could have made the entire planet a more connected medium.

As you have more people thinking in different ways from different areas, and more and more connection and information streaming in, it exponentially increases the progression of technologies, spiritualities, and education.

We've just got to keep an eye on our culture. We've got to combat this apathy we've come to accept with something. It's no good at all, there's no hope anymore, and we need that sense of hope as the driving force for our species.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You don't need a crystal ball. I already told you, it's called "critical thinking". You can take a course in critical thinking or philosophy at your local university if it's that hard for you to understand...Critical thinking is what we would expect from our leadership! How hard is that for you to understand? I already gave you a very simple example, which again, you've failed to answer to. The example, again of critical thinking... "What will be the consequences of exporting chemical/biological precursors to a socialist dictorial regime?" You don't need a crystal ball. You can do critical thinking based on past and present knowledge. We already knew Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. So when you say, "We didn't know he would turn against us." I've just demonstrated to you that no, that is not a valid excuse. I'm still waiting for non-anecdotal response from you...

If the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and you truly want your enemy destroyed, you might very well give him the tools he needs to destroy your enemy. That is your immediate concern. I'm sure that the possibility that he could turn on us one day was considered when he was first supplied (you don't give the Intelligence Community much credit, do you? Don't you think that they probably thought out as far ahead as you're advocating they needed to back then? It is their full-time job to protect us, you know ). But where I take issue with you is that you seem to think it should have been a fore-gone conclusion that they should have known Saddam would turn against us, FOR SURE, 100%!

We didn't give Saddam nuclear capabilities, now did we? Although we certainly could have if we chose to. No, I'd say that if any WMD's were given to Saddam, it was with the knowledge that should he ever turn on us, we still held a bigger "stick" in our arsenal to deal with the threat (our nuclear capability)...something which was in fact, an implied threat made to Saddam by Bush Sr. in the first Gulf War. We basically told him; "Fight this war the conventional way. If you use your WMD's, we'll one-up you and go nuclear".

In the end, I'm sure that the U.S. Government felt they could trust and/or contain Saddam with the weapons that we gave him. And so it turned out that way (that we were able to contain him in the first Gulf War, despite his possession of WMD's)...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ...Some of these talk radio pundits really piss me off. As if on cue, they basically take the side of what donnybrasco did in this thread. Any freshmen with a semester of logic/philosophy can use it to rip their arguments apart, exactly as it was done here in this thread...

You'd like to think so...

quote:

Originally posted by LuvTiesto No, No. They are genuine friends, You've misunderstood. I'm talking about leader like Ngô Đình Diệm of South Vietnam, the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc.

It's either have the enemy of your enemy help you in the fight, or you get to do all of the work yourself.

We were allies with Russia in WW2. Yet, ideologically, economically and spiritually, we couldn't have been on more different plains. But we fought together to defeat a common enemy. And sure enough, as soon as WW2 was over and we didn't need Russia anymore and Russia didn't need us, we were at immediate odds with each other and the cold war began. I don't think there were too many people in high places who didn't see it coming either! (Churchill, for one).

Sometimes, it's a matter of defeating the greater evil by allying yourself with the lesser of the two at that time. It's tactically sound thinking.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

Last edited by donnybrasco on Feb-01-2008 at 04:18

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco If the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and you truly want your enemy destroyed, you might very well give him the tools he needs to destroy your enemy.

And it just had to be chemical/biological precursors?

quote:

I'm sure that the possibility that he could turn on us one day was considered when he was first supplied (you don't give the Intelligence Community much credit, do you? Don't you think that they probably thought out as far ahead as you're advocating they needed to back then? It is their full-time job to protect us, you know ). But where I take issue with you is that you seem to think it should have been a fore-gone conclusion that they should have known Saddam would turn against us, FOR SURE, 100%!

All the is irrelevant. What is the US proliferating WMDs and then coming back around and condemning any other country that decides on the exact same course of action? I don't whether they knew or didn't know. It doesn't matter! We're arguing over little technicalities. It's irrelevant. CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG!?

quote:

We didn't give Saddam nuclear capabilities, now did we? Although we certainly could have if we chose to. No, I'd say that if any WMD's were given to Saddam, it was with the knowledge that should he ever turn on us, we still held a bigger "stick" in our arsenal to deal with the threat (our nuclear capability)...something which was in fact, an implied threat made to Saddam by Bush Sr. in the first Gulf War. We basically told him; "Fight this war the conventional way. If you use your WMD's, we'll one-up you and go nuclear".

Sure we did. The west is responsible for the very things it claims its fighting against. WMD proliferation! Everyone is guilty; tyrants and democracies. Please read the following of western WMD proliferation to this tyrant...

quote:

After 6 months Paris agreed to sell 72 kg of 93% Uranium and built the atomic power station without International Atomic Energy Agency control at a price of $3 billion. In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein ordered the creation of a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs were assisted by a wide variety of firms and governments in the 1970s and 1980s. As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. Five other German firms supplied equipment to manufacture botulin toxin and mycotoxin for germ warfare. In 1988, German engineers presented centrifuge data that helped Iraq expand its nuclear weapons program. Laboratory equipment and other information was provided, involving many German engineers. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. The State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP) ordered culture media and incubators from Germany's Water Engineering Trading. France built Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s. Israel claimed that Iraq was getting close to building nuclear weapons, and so bombed it in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel. France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. Strains of dual-use biological material also helped advance Iraq’s biological warfare program. Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium. Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade. Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. These materials included anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism, as well as Brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Some of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development. Sources http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm Hamza, Khidhir (September/October 1998). Inside Saddam's secret nuclear program. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved on 2006-06-10. What Iraq Admitted About its Chemical Weapons Program (GIF). Retrieved on 2006-04-28. (July 18 1993) "Iraq's Purchases in the A-Bomb Supermarket" (PDF). The New York Times: E5. Retrieved on 2006-04-28. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, Chapter 4 - Nuclear (September 30, 2004). Retrieved on 2007-09-13. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, Chapter 5 - Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program (September 30, 2004). Retrieved on 2007-09-13. Tony Paterson (December 18 2002). "Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam". "The Independent (UK). McGee, Maggie. "We Have Surprises", Der Spiegel, October 10, 1990, pp. 1148-152. Associated Press (October 1, 2002). Iraq got seeds for bioweapons from U.S.. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved on 2006-06-09.

quote:

In the end, I'm sure that the U.S. Government felt they could trust and/or contain Saddam with the weapons that we gave him. And so it turned out that way (that we were able to contain him in the first Gulf War, despite his possession of WMD's)...

Do you really feel that comfortable letting your government engage in such clandestine activities as WMD proliferation to a totalitarian dictator and then you have the balls to trust your government to have the means of containing a rogue WMD state. Are these chances you really feel real comfortable taking? I sure as hell don't...

^^^Again, you don't read my posts!!

I've NEVER said that I thought the WMD argument was the real reason we went after Saddam, no matter what Bush claims. Nor do I believe that this was a sound enough reason to invade, even if it were 100% true. BUT; I do believe that he and his Administration believed that Saddam really did have WMD's. They then thought it would be a convenient (if somewhat wobbly) excuse to go in to Iraq and over-throw Saddam.

But I also think that Saddam had to go, one way or another. He should have been smart and left Iraq when he had the chance (the infamous "deadline to leave Iraq" that Bush gave him, just days prior to the start of the second war). He could have then formed a government in exile, waited for the WMD theory to be proven wrong, then demanded that he be returned to power in Iraq by the U.N. Who could have stopped him then? No one would have ever dared to make claims of him having WMD's again...and he'd have probably been able to get those economic sanctions lifted, so that he could start to build up his military again. Then he would have truly been left alone to actually acquire WMD's if he chose to (which he probably would have).

Who knows, it could have worked out this way. At the very least, he'd be alive and have a large portion of world public opinion on his side.

I'm glad he didn't though. Saddam was a thorn in the world's side. He had to go, one way or another. Another war with him was inevitable. It's just too bad that he didn't technically start it this time, for the sake of "world opinion."

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Again, you don't read my posts!! I've NEVER said that I thought the WMD argument was the real reason we went after Saddam, no matter what Bush claims. Nor do I believe that this was a sound enough reason to invade, even if it were 100% true. BUT; I do believe that he and his Administration believed that Saddam really did have WMD's. They then thought it would be a convenient (if somewhat wobbly) excuse to go in to Iraq and over-throw Saddam.

If I didn't read your post, I wouldn't reply paragraph by paragraph...

Here are the points that came across to me...

1. Saddam is responsible for the false assumption of the Bush administration that Saddam has WMDs.

I replied to the faulty reasoning behind that argument because the burden of proof was always on the Bush administration, and not Saddam.

2. The West isn't responsible for Saddam's capabilities in WMDs because it didn't know Saddam would not be a trustworthy figure.

I replied that as the executive branch of the USA, they should be well-versed in the methodology of decision making, which requires critical thinking. Contrary to your assertion, you need a crystal ball to predict the future. WRONG. You can certainly make excellent predictions based on knowledge known today. It certainly was no secret Saddam was a tyrant, so I really don't understand your reasoning.

My main points are...

1. The responsibility of the failure of policy on Iraq is that of the Bush administration alone.

2. The West is responsible for Saddam even having the capability of WMDs. Therefore, the West is guilty of the very thing it denounces. WMD proliferation.

quote:

I'm glad he didn't though. Saddam was a thorn in the world's side. He had to go, one way or another. Another war with him was inevitable. It's just too bad that he didn't technically start it this time, for the sake of "world opinion."

That isn't an valid excuse to invade either. I can say that about Kim Jong Ill, or the Burmese junta. Many regimes are currupt, but that still does not mean we march in and dictate to them as a foreign occupier how to run their country.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Some of these talk radio pundits really piss me off. As if on cue, they basically take the side of what donnybrasco did in this thread. Any freshmen with a semester of logic/philosophy can use it to rip their arguments apart, exactly as it was done here in this thread. Too bad I couldn't call in to give em a piece of my mind. Seems like National Public Radio is the only place to get a real opinion on the radio, based not on fucking GOP rhetoric. Don't take me as hating on the GOP, but when EVERY SINGLE SHOW is nothing but a GOP mouthpiece, it gets me heated...

nothing new man, I use to drive a long way to and from work a few years back, way before 911..around the early Clinton YEars....
Use to listen to Rush and I found that by the time I would get home I was wanting to kick the shit out of the cat.

Its been like that for years..... tune to the left side of the FM dial.... NPR is your friend but they also can be a little left leaning....
All things considered is a great show..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Here are the points that came across to me... 1. Saddam is responsible for the false assumption of the Bush administration that Saddam has WMDs.

Never said that, but his culpability is substantial in helping bring about that assumption.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton 2. The West isn't responsible for Saddam's capabilities in WMDs because it didn't know Saddam would not be a trustworthy figure. I replied that as the executive branch of the USA, they should be well-versed in the methodology of decision making, which requires critical thinking...

You hold up this "critical thinking" argument and your supposed superior knowledge of it, the way Trancer posts endlessly about his "troofer" sites. It doesn't hold water, because applying "critical thinking skills" doesn't always mean that you're going to predict the future just by applying them. Your assertions are absurd.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My main points are... 1. The responsibility of the failure of policy on Iraq is that of the Bush administration alone.

Yes, in the end, it has to be theirs. But you'd like to believe that it was done with willful malice...whereas I don't believe that.

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

Last edited by donnybrasco on Feb-03-2008 at 10:19