A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You guys are brilliant in your hindsight. VERY impressive.

WTF are you on about? We said all those things AT THE TIME.

So you werent listening at the time, fine. But its NOT a question of us benefiting from hindsight. We said it at the time.

Not just us. Many European politicians and media and UN officials made all those unheeded warnings, at the time. Your politicians, even Democrats, and your media, ignored it. But you can look up the A2K threads from those times, and see all our forewarnings. So dont bring this "well its easy for you to say this all in hindsight" ****.

Just because you were blind at the time doesnt mean that we all were, and dont even try to imply any such "well none of us could have known at the time" BS. Many of us predicted the mess that followed.

0 Replies

As a matter of fact, the largest demonstration in the world against the war was just before the US attacked Iraq. London and other major cities around the world had huge crowds - against the war. That's fact.

0 Replies

I was in that protest, in Austin.

It was difficult for me, as well; I was a Bush supporter, after all, and it wasn't until the Iraq war started sounding like it was going to happen that I figured out what the f*ck these bastards were doing: giving up on catching Bin Laden, so they could pursue their dreams of empire.

And I've been completely and 100% vindicated in those views. I was right. I don't feel arrogant or cocky saying it, just sad. Sad that others bought into the bullsh*t, sad that fear of one's life trumps logic so damn quick.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Even in the US; from the BBC.

Sunday, 19 January, 2003, 02:58 GMT
Global protests against Iraq war

Marchers in San Francisco lend their voice to protests

A day of worldwide protests against a looming US-led war on Iraq has culminated in giant peace rallies in Washington, San Francisco and other US cities.
More than 50,000 Americans converged on the National Mall in the centre of Washington, in one of the biggest protests since the build-up for war began.

The most popular chant was "No War For Oil". The crowds carried placards saying "Regime Change Starts at Home" and "Would Jesus Bomb Them?"

In San Francisco, a group of nude women called for President George W Bush to rein in his "naked aggression" against Iraq.

Anti-war demonstrations spanned the world on Saturday, including rallies in Japan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Russia, France, Britain, Argentina and Mexico.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As a matter of fact, the largest demonstration in the world against the war was just before the US attacked Iraq. London and other major cities around the world had huge crowds - against the war. That's fact.

Yep - in 2003, we were already demonstrating, to warn against those same things that posters like O'Bill now say are easy to observe "with hindsight". I was in the Amsterdam one.

Hindsight my *ss.

There was a long thread right here on A2K about the various anti-war demonstrations around the world we'd gone to, or heard of:

SHARE YOUR CITY'S PEACE RALLY HERE.

41 pages. February-March 2003.

0 Replies

On February 16, 2003, I wrote:

nimh wrote:

The war Bush Jr is proposing to start will impact the degree of stability and security in the world, to a much greater degree, it seems at the moment, than Iraq now could. [..]

Bush is on a mission. In a way he is very idealist, more idealistic even than his opponents, who insist on following the procedures and rules of international law, respecting some kind of balance of powers, practicing compromise etc. He does not just present the war against Iraq as a matter of national security - he presents it as if he's saving the world from evil. [..] What if the world doesnt want to be saved - not in this way - considers the saving more dangerous than that which they are to be saved from? [..]

As for the threats the US are claiming to act against, to speak with Joschka Fischer: I am not convinced. And neither are the actual officials assigned to research it, it seems. Blix himself said that no ties with AL-Qaeda were apparent. The "proofs" presented by Powell c.s. - on this and on the WMD - are purely circumstantial, even according to his own collaborators ("there is no smoking gun"). Blix himself said that thus far, there are no indications that Iraq has WMD to "give up". It might have 'em - but for now, no proof, no lead even.

It speaks volumes that Powell c.s. are trumpeting 'proof' like rockets that can reach just a few miles further than the limited range accorded by the US-led coalition earlier, or pipes that could be used for building WMD, or pictures of the Iraqi's "hiding" things from the UN observers that Blix later brushed aside saying they could equally show routine manoeuvres - nothing proven, no believers, not the UN inspectors, not many of the US's traditional allies, not the Nobleprize-winning scientists who collectively called on Bush not to attack on the basis of this circumstantial proof ...

So we are supposed to create - condone and partake in - war and with it, havoc in the region, mass hoistility among Muslims worldwide and a global economic crisis, on the basis of mere assumptions - we're simply to trust Bush on them. The anti-war sentiment is pointed towards the United States because at this moment, the US are the only country steering for a war.

[Maxsdadeo asks] how it is "significant" what "anyone else in the world" thinks or feels about the war [..].

[S]ignificant? If, in some hazy future, the EU would decide to start a risky and all-out war against a Mexico or Cuba it has decided poses an imminent threat to the world - when neither you nor your country's government would be convinced by their arguments - when it would set off an intense resentment of all things Western, and possibly a new inflow into anti-Western terrorist movements that would make no distinction between EU and US, across Latin-America - would you want your and your country's "feelings" to be considered "significant"??

0 Replies

nimh, That's an excellent piece of information to question why Bush would continue to pursue his misguided war in Iraq after four years, and continue to ignore the world community on this very issue. It's not only illegal according to international laws, but one man continues to pursue his war with abandon. There is something drastically wrong.

Our congress received a mandate to change, but they failed in their responsibility to the American People and the world - again. It's beyond frustration when so many lives are being lost and maimed.

0 Replies

Settle down Nimh. The term "hindsight" was not used to suggest there wasn't an Anti-War crowd or predictions of disaster. The little frenzy going on here is feeding on itself, not anything I said. "Hindsight" was used to describe the indignant certainty that Iraq possessed no WMD (IE Fake Gun). Everyone here that was just as certain about that in 2003; raise your hand, and I'll be by pin a button to your lapel that reads "Liar". Protesting the War and being certain Saddam possessed no WMD are hardly synonymous. A significant portion of the anti-war crowd wouldn't have changed their minds if a smoking gun had been found... or if the Intel was 100% accurate and the current conditions in Iraq would lend itself to decent argument for them. I know you would want every possible avenue explored thoroughly before you'd ever get behind such an action. None of which changes the simple FACT that "hindsight" is the only tool that grants any degree of certainty on the subject of WMD in Iraq.

0 Replies

I seem to recall the WMD inspectors, right before the war, saying 'there aren't any WMD here that we can find. Give us more time to look.'

And they were right.

So, yes, I will raise my hand, and you can pin whatever you want on me. I listened to and believed those who were there, who had experience in these things, and who had no reason to lie.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OBill, The horse is already dead; you're beating a dead one. Hans Blix said they couldn't find any WMDs in Iraq, and they were in the process to look for them when Bush chased them out to start his war.

To now say "we didn't know" has no credibility when we were actively searching for them. When the inspectors are chased out, you can't continue to use the argument "we didn't know."

The invasion only proved what Blix has said all along; he couldn't find any.

0 Replies

WTF is confusing here. Before you suspected there was no WMD, now you are sure. This is the benefit of hindsight. "Still looking" means "Don't know".

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

WTF is confusing here. Before you suspected there was no WMD, now you are sure. This is the benefit of hindsight. "Still looking" means "Don't know".

I didn't need to be sure about that, and neither did you. It certainly wasn't worth going to war about.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That's right: "don't know" is not a justification to attack a sovereign nation and kill thousands of people. That's contrary to all international laws and humanity. "I don't know" means find out. That's what we were trying to do. There was no urgency; except for Bushco.

0 Replies

Even if you wer pretty sure... no intellectually honest person could say their degree of surety hasn't benefited from hindsight.

0 Replies

"Pretty sure" is enough to continue the investigation for WMDs. FYI, that's what was being done. It still doesn't justify going to war over it, especially since Saddam was in no position to deliver his weapons in attack beyond a very short range - and certainly not against the US.

Bush continues to say "for our security." That's long been poopoed along with his "they'll attack us here."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Pretty sure" is enough to continue the investigation for WMDs. FYI, that's what was being done. It still doesn't justify going to war over it, especially since Saddam was in no position to deliver his weapons in attack beyond a very short range - and certainly not against the US.

Bush continues to say "for our security." That's long been poopoed along with his "they'll attack us here."

Your request to move the goal posts is denied. I was blamed for starting this digression with a comment about YOU benefiting from hindsight to boldly proclaim "fake gun". There can be no doubt your degree of surety has indeed benefited from hindsight; so all of this indignant yapping is unjustified.

This shouldn't be difficult for an intellectually honest person to admit. Denial of same is tantamount to lying.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
"Pretty sure" is enough to continue the investigation for WMDs. FYI, that's what was being done. It still doesn't justify going to war over it, especially since Saddam was in no position to deliver his weapons in attack beyond a very short range - and certainly not against the US.

Bush continues to say "for our security." That's long been poopoed along with his "they'll attack us here."
Your request to move the goal posts is denied. I was blamed for starting this digression with a comment about YOU benefiting from hindsight to boldly proclaim "fake gun". There can be no doubt your degree of surety has indeed benefited from hindsight; so all of this indignant yapping is unjustified.

This shouldn't be difficult for an intellectually honest person to admit. Denial of same is tantamount to lying.

Wrong. If I am 90% sure that a gun is fake, that's plenty of evidence that it is fake. I don't need to take agressive action to make sure that it is fake - especially if the guy isn't threatening me with the gun!!!

There is no moving the goalposts, except for you saying 'well, you may have been pretty sure but not 100% sure.' This is immaterial to the conversation. Most people have the ability to take knowledge available and combine it with common sense to come up with a good answer. Those of you who swallowed the administration line apparently didn't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Even if you wer pretty sure... no intellectually honest person could say their degree of surety hasn't benefited from hindsight.

No intellectually honest person would say that war made sense when Bushco decided on it.

0 Replies

With all due respect to Bill and CI and Cyclop, this thread is drifting. That is fine but it does mean that the original title of it is for naught. McCain etc.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Even if you wer pretty sure... no intellectually honest person could say their degree of surety hasn't benefited from hindsight.

No intellectually honest person would say that war made sense when Bushco decided on it.

Be that as it may; nothing you, Cyclops or CI has written does anything to disprove the what you've quoted. Their desire to prove parallel points (in the wrong thread) has blinded them to the fact that what I've written is undeniably accurate.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know