Foxfyre wrote:OE writes
Quote:Yes, it makes you wrong. It makes you a liar when you say that there was "nearly 100% universal agreement" when there clearly wasn't. I don't have an "all or nothing" attitude, but I despise the rewriting of history a mere 4 years after those events took place.
See? This is what drives me crazy about you. You take something out of context, remove any qualifiers, and then present it with an altered meaning so that you can attack it. I did not say one single lie. And I suggest you go back and read what I wrote VERY carefully before you presume to call somebody a liar. And despite your repetitive demands for retractions, I suppose it would be too much to expect one from you.
I'll even give you a hint as to what to look for. Saying that all those people were in agreement with the REASONS we ultimately invaded Iraq is not at all the same thing as saying they were in agreement with the invasion. But such subtleties apparently are difficult for the liberal mind to discern.
Of course you know that it is nearly impossible to talk about a subject or an argument you have made without at least paraphrasing it. Many posters don't seem to have a problem with this. You, in turn, have complained so many times that I misquoted you or changed the meaning of what you actually said (even when that clearly wasn't the case) that your complaints begin to sound hollow.
If you think that I missed the point of your argument, you can easily point that out without the permanent complaints about taking something out of context.
Let's go back to your statement (I'll provide it again so anybody can read what you have actually written and does not have to rely on what I'm saying you wrote):
Foxfyre wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
You think I misrepresented your point, so I will have to ask you to clarify for me: What reasons exactly do you think were there that "there was nearly 100% universal agreement on"?
What were the reasons that "virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations" agreed upon?
(And again, to nobody in particular, please read the actual quote of what Foxfyre actually wrote as the relevant basis for my questions.)
)I probably wouldn't complain so much at being quoted out of context if you weren't so persistent in doing it amidst personally directed insults.
But as for the REASONS, they have been quoted so often on this thread and elsewhere that one would have to be pretty dense not to know what they were. (Yes, that was a personally directed insult but you deserved it.
The REASONS that immediately come to mind off the top of my head:
1) 9/11 was a recent occurrence and, with the concurrence of and without objection from Congress, the President declared a war on terrorism and advised the world that those who harbored, funded, and/or otherwise aided and abetted terrorists would be treated as terrorists. At that time there were few, if any, who did not agree with that.
2) Saddam Hussein had kept none of the many resolutions against him, all of which had been consented to by the majority of the UN. Rather than enforce the resolutions, however, the UN was content in just passing new ones.
3) With Afghanistan under control, Bush set his sights on Iraq as the next most prominent center of terrorism and one that was requiring too much of the US resources and manpower to contain and for which there was no end in sight. Saddam had just recently kicked the UN inspectors out again. So, in consultation with key members of Congress, with his administration, and with military advisors, he went to Congress to obtain authority to do something about it.
4) Followed several weeks (I'm thinking 12 but anyway a fair number) of petitions to the UN who waffled and wavered and hemmed and hawed and never said no but never said yes. Meanwhile, Saddam was quite aware of all such goings on and had plenty of time to move his WMD, something we were not aware of however. He invited the UN inspectors back in but again they were not given free rein to do on the spot inspections. They never were.
5) Virtually every member of the UN, every member of Bill Clinton's administration, every head of state in the free world, the UN inspectors themselves, and every member of GWB's administration believed Saddam Hussein had WMD and would use them given an opportunity to do so. And of course you can always identify a skeptic here and there who will say he was not certain, but such skeptics were in a tiny minority and had no evidence to back up their skepticism.
So finally, rather than risk our non-friends from pushing through a UN resolution that the US would have had to violate, the decision was made to go ahead and thus the USA and the coalition members did just that.
The invasion was not universally popular though those condemning it at the time were few.
The REASONS for the invasion, however, were pretty much universally understood and agreed with by everybody.
Now, if you can't see that, I can't do any more for you. But please show me where I have lied anywhere, and an apology for calling me a liar would be nice.
Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
Foxfyre wrote:I probably wouldn't complain so much at being quoted out of context if you weren't so persistent in doing it amidst personally directed insults.
But as for the REASONS, they have been quoted so often on this thread and elsewhere that one would have to be pretty dense not to know what they were. (Yes, that was a personally directed insult but you deserved it.
The REASONS that immediately come to mind off the top of my head:
1) 9/11 was a recent occurrence and, with the concurrence of and without objection from Congress, the President declared a war on terrorism and advised the world that those who harbored, funded, and/or otherwise aided and abetted terrorists would be treated as terrorists. At that time there were few, if any, who did not agree with that.
2) Saddam Hussein had kept none of the many resolutions against him, all of which had been consented to by the majority of the UN. Rather than enforce the resolutions, however, the UN was content in just passing new ones.
3) With Afghanistan under control, Bush set his sights on Iraq as the next most prominent center of terrorism and one that was requiring too much of the US resources and manpower to contain and for which there was no end in sight. Saddam had just recently kicked the UN inspectors out again. So, in consultation with key members of Congress, with his administration, and with military advisors, he went to Congress to obtain authority to do something about it.
4) Followed several weeks (I'm thinking 12 but anyway a fair number) of petitions to the UN who waffled and wavered and hemmed and hawed and never said no but never said yes. Meanwhile, Saddam was quite aware of all such goings on and had plenty of time to move his WMD, something we were not aware of however. He invited the UN inspectors back in but again they were not given free rein to do on the spot inspections. They never were.
5) Virtually every member of the UN, every member of Bill Clinton's administration, every head of state in the free world, the UN inspectors themselves, and every member of GWB's administration believed Saddam Hussein had WMD and would use them given an opportunity to do so. And of course you can always identify a skeptic here and there who will say he was not certain, but such skeptics were in a tiny minority and had no evidence to back up their skepticism.
So finally, rather than risk our non-friends from pushing through a UN resolution that the US would have had to violate, the decision was made to go ahead and thus the USA and the coalition members did just that.
The invasion was not universally popular though those condemning it at the time were few.
The REASONS for the invasion, however, were pretty much universally understood and agreed with by everybody.
Now, if you can't see that, I can't do any more for you. But please show me where I have lied anywhere, and an apology for calling me a liar would be nice.
I have to ask for one more clarification before I can answer this post: When you said
Foxfyre wrote:Perhaps you've forgotten that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on the reasons that we invaded Iraq and that included virtually all the members of the UN, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually all members of the US Congress, and all the members of the present and previous administrations.
did you mean that there was nearly 100% universal agreement that those were valid reasons for an invasion of Iraq?
Or did you mean that there was nearly 100% universal agreement on those statements, but that there was nothing near a 100% universal agreement that those statements were valid reasons for an invasion of Iraq?
