5
   

Do you think policies of attacking "whipping boys" are effective?

 
 
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 10:33 am
If the US can't identify who attacked the WTC, they attack Iraq instead. If Israel can't identify those responsible for an attack, they destroy Palestinian homes. Do you think such policies of using"whipping boys" as proxies for punishment are effective, or do you think they only build greater resentment and danger in the Western world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipping_boy
http://i58.tinypic.com/i3556e.png
 
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 11:59 am
@Banana Breath,
A bit of an assumptive question, I think, as the USA knew full well that AQ were behind 9/11, and nearly every member and his grandma lived in and around Yemen.

The Bush regime chose to go to Iraq for reasons nothing to do with 9/11, destabilising it so much it has now largely fallen to ISIS, who just walked in to fill the power vacuum.

Mission accomplished, eh?

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 12:40 pm
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:
If the US can't identify who attacked the WTC, they attack Iraq instead....

We did identify who attacked the WTC. We attacked Iraq for entirely different reasons which were extremely well articulated over and over and over again. As oft repeated, we attacked Iraq for violation of the provision of the treaty signed at the end of the first gulf war which guaranteed UN inspectors free and unfettered access to look for WMD and WMD development programs. After the many explanations of why we were going into Iraq, to claim it was because of the WTC bombing is incredible.
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 01:13 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
After the many explanations of why we were going into Iraq, to claim it was because of the WTC bombing is incredible.

Are you capable of reading? If so, you might want to start by reading the Iraq Resolution (Iraq War Resolution) Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114, the document that authorized use of military force against Iraq in 2002.
The official source of the document is the Government Printing Office of the United States:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;


What part of these paragraphs (and others) don't you understand? Do you need Colin Powell to explain and point out things to you?
http://i62.tinypic.com/wcb6e0.jpg
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 01:30 pm
Granted. I hadn't seen that before, but your main point is still mostly wrong. The primary reason stated in the Iraq resolution, and President Bush's repeatedly stated reason for invasion, was concern with WMD programs. Even had that nonsense about 9/11 not been in the resolution, the possibility that Saddam Hussein had hidden rather than destroyed his former WMD programs is the primary motive. Your statement that we invaded Iraq merely because we couldn't identify the perpetrators of 9/11 is wrong.
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 04:44 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
The primary reason stated in the Iraq resolution, and President Bush's repeatedly stated reason for invasion, was concern with WMD programs.

That claim of course has been proven false and was supported at the time by known false information presented by Colin Powell and others. The Bush administration had decided to prosecute this war and was determined to do so over all advice and legitimate information. This includes reports by the CIA and the Chief Weapons inspector for the United Nations, Hans Blix. Blix is beyond reproach. He earned his PhD from the University of Cambridge; in 1959, he earned a Juris Doctor in International Law at Stockholm University, where he was appointed Associate Professor in International Law the next year. Between 1962 and 1978 Blix was a member of the Swedish delegation at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. He held several other positions in the Swedish administration between 1963 and 1976, and from 1961 to 1981 served on the Swedish delegation to the United Nations. From 1978 to 1979, Blix was the Swedish Foreign Minister. He became Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1981 and 1997, and was hand picked by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. He is quoted in a 2004 interview as saying:

Quote:
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 . . . Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."


The whipping boy explanation is the only reasonable one, although it's possible that a far less sensible reason was the motivation, for instance elevating Halliburton stock or poking Saddam in the eye for thumbing his nose at Bush Senior.
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 05:11 pm
Here we go again. People the world over knew Iraq could not attack the United States and few believed there were WMDs there. But Bush used the panic of 911 to build a wall of hysteria to invade Iraq. Boy was he surprised when the mission was not over when he claimed it was and the real war is still underway.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 05:28 pm
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

Quote:
The primary reason stated in the Iraq resolution, and President Bush's repeatedly stated reason for invasion, was concern with WMD programs.

That claim of course has been proven false and was supported at the time by known false information presented by Colin Powell and others. The Bush administration had decided to prosecute this war and was determined to do so over all advice and legitimate information. This includes reports by the CIA and the Chief Weapons inspector for the United Nations, Hans Blix. Blix is beyond reproach. He earned his PhD from the University of Cambridge; in 1959, he earned a Juris Doctor in International Law at Stockholm University, where he was appointed Associate Professor in International Law the next year. Between 1962 and 1978 Blix was a member of the Swedish delegation at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. He held several other positions in the Swedish administration between 1963 and 1976, and from 1961 to 1981 served on the Swedish delegation to the United Nations. From 1978 to 1979, Blix was the Swedish Foreign Minister. He became Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1981 and 1997, and was hand picked by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. He is quoted in a 2004 interview as saying:

Quote:
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 . . . Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."


The whipping boy explanation is the only reasonable one, although it's possible that a far less sensible reason was the motivation, for instance elevating Halliburton stock or poking Saddam in the eye for thumbing his nose at Bush Senior.

It has not been proven false that this was the reason for invasion. All that's been shown is that Iraq didn't actually have WMD or hidden versions of its former WMD development programs. It hasn't even remotely been proven false that this was the reason for invasion, and it's certainly the reason George Bush and many other people gave. You can try to read their minds if you like, but this is what they said, and it's what many of the paragraphs in the document you linked in said. Furthermore, it's the reason why I, personally, wanted an invasion at the time. Therefore, your statement that we invaded because we couldn't identify the perpetrators of 9/11 is false. That is at most a very minor part of the reason for invasion.
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 05:49 pm
@Brandon9000,
Actually it's on the record that Bush received but ignored reports from the CIA but chose to ignore them. This includes a comprehensive briefing by George Tenet, CIA Director and reports from French intelligence as well. This is corroborated by Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe and two other senior officers, reported in an interview by 60 minutes. There's really no question at this point, yet you drone on reciting the party line of nonsensical lies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 07:05 pm
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:
Actually it's on the record that Bush received but ignored reports from the CIA but chose to ignore them. This includes a comprehensive briefing by George Tenet, CIA Director and reports from French intelligence as well. This is corroborated by Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe and two other senior officers, reported in an interview by 60 minutes. There's really no question at this point, yet you drone on reciting the party line of nonsensical lies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-spy-speaks-out-21-04-2006/
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

We are not presently debating whether there was good reason to believe hidden WMD programs existed in Iraq. We are debating whether Iraq was invaded because America couldn't identify the perpetrators of 9/11, which was your statement. The reason for invasion given by President Bush and the primary reason given in the document you linked in is the search for hidden WMD and/or WMD development programs. The reason you state is not the one usually given by the government of the time for the invasion. If you like, you can state that the secret reason for the invasion is because of Bush's desire to build a bungalow in Baghdad, but there is no evidence to support it. I am not interested in your efforts at mind reading. An uncertainty in identifying the perpetrators of 9/11 or belief that Iraq perpetrated 9/11 was a negligible part of the motivation according to any objective evidence.
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 10:21 pm
@Brandon9000,
You're living in a fantasy land. Bush knew the CIA, French Intelligence and the United Nations all agreed, there weren't WMD's. It was plain and simple, a lie.
Regardless of the reasons for the lie, Iraq still functioned as a whipping boy. In addition to not having WMDs, It was pretty much common knowledge that:
1) Bin Laden was not there
2) The 9/11 hijackers were not from there
3) There were known hostile parties elsewhere who had attacked the U.S. Military HQ in Riyadh, the USS Cole in Yemen, and the Embassy in Nairobi.
https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/list-of-islamic-attacks-against-america/

Further, you yak on, make grossly incorrect assertions, and haven't produced a single reference to back you up (understandable, given that you want to make false claims) while I've backed up every point. Funny how that works.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 12:45 am
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:
You're living in a fantasy land. Bush knew the CIA, French Intelligence and the United Nations all agreed, there weren't WMD's. It was plain and simple, a lie.
Regardless of the reasons for the lie, Iraq still functioned as a whipping boy. In addition to not having WMDs, It was pretty much common knowledge that:
1) Bin Laden was not there
2) The 9/11 hijackers were not from there
3) There were known hostile parties elsewhere who had attacked the U.S. Military HQ in Riyadh, the USS Cole in Yemen, and the Embassy in Nairobi.
https://factreal.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/list-of-islamic-attacks-against-america/

Further, you yak on, make grossly incorrect assertions, and haven't produced a single reference to back you up (understandable, given that you want to make false claims) while I've backed up every point. Funny how that works.

Your statement was that the United States invaded Iraq because it couldn't identify the people responsible for 9/11. Your support for this was a link to a Congressional resolution which contains a statement that some members of Al Qaeda and other terrorists were thought to be in Iraq. The linked resolution, however, states as the primary justification for authorizing force that Iraq has or is developing WMD. This, by itself, shows that the latter was the primary reason for the invasion. Furthermore, President Bush repeatedly stated that the search for WMD related materials or activities was the reason for the invasion, as in this speech made a couple of days before the invasion:

"That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned."

From: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq

Where have you proven that Bush and Congress invaded Iraq because they thought they were behind or accessories to 9/11? At most, you've found one statement that Congress thought some Al Qaeda were hiding in Iraq amidst a mass of statements about WMD. You claim that Bush knew that there were no WMD or extant WMD programs in Iraq. Where have you proven that? Bush said we were invading for reasons related to WMD. Congress said (at least mostly) that we were invading for reasons related to WMD. For example:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.


From: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Your statement was that the United States invaded Iraq because it couldn't identify the people responsible for 9/11. Not so. Based on what the people who ordered or authorized the invasion said at the time, their primary motive was related to WMD. This was repeatedly given as the reason for invading before and during the invasion. Therefore, your statement was false.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 07:22 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Granted. I hadn't seen that before, but your main point is still mostly wrong. The primary reason stated in the Iraq resolution, and President Bush's repeatedly stated reason for invasion, was concern with WMD programs. Even had that nonsense about 9/11 not been in the resolution, the possibility that Saddam Hussein had hidden rather than destroyed his former WMD programs is the primary motive. Your statement that we invaded Iraq merely because we couldn't identify the perpetrators of 9/11 is wrong.


Even though you did a great job at making your comment ambiguous, Brandon, by differentiating between "the reason" and "the stated reason"...it leads to a false impression of the actual reason(s).

Mostly the reason for attacking Iraq...was to attack Saddam Hussein, not Iraq. And that had more to do with the reasoning of the neo-con's who were pulling Dubya's strings at that time. Luckily for them, Dubya had the strings attached; was willing to let others do the "strategery" he was unable to handle; and wanted to get back at that bastard who had caused his daddy so much trouble.

But some people (not necessarily you) still want to buy into that WMD nonsense...no problem. But they should excuse the...


  https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgMfgBVSImvSwZGe7EDIiuyiMw_om2L-GrYzZWeL1L9d1ep81j
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 07:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
This is as good a time as any to get something on the record that I think needs to be there.

I was disgusted with the George W. Bush presidency...and I thought he was one of the worst presidents we've ever had...even considering Ronald Reagan.

But he has been an exemplary former president...staying as far out of the picture as possible. There is no sarcasm intended here...I mean what I am saying. He served his terms as best he could...and now is staying out of politics.

Good for him.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 07:40 am
@Banana Breath,
I think just about everyone acknowledges the use of collective punishment is wrong.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 09:20 am
@engineer,
Quote:
I think just about everyone acknowledges the use of collective punishment is wrong.

It's not just the idea of collective punishment, but rather punishment by proxy. It's kind of like being mad at George Bush and deciding to take it out on Obama, hoping that Bush will feel guilty.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 02:49 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
, we attacked Iraq for violation of the provision of the treaty signed at the end of the first gulf war which guaranteed UN inspectors free and unfettered access to look for WMD and WMD development programs. After the many explanations of why we were going into Iraq, to claim it was because of the WTC bombing is incredible.


No, wasn't it for unicorns, or pixie dust, or WMDs, or something else he never had, or was it for oil, something he actually did have? Let's not forget all those Halliburton's shareholders, God bless 'em.

The real violators were the invaders, no WMDs, and no extra time given to Hans Blix to carry out inspections.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 03:23 pm
@izzythepush,
Come on Izzy. every American conservative knows the U N cant be trusted. They might find facts that contradict the "facts" that have been implanted in their "minds?".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Do you think policies of attacking "whipping boys" are effective?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 08:41:55