bin Ladin dead?

Yup..you would need to hire someone with a functioning brain and communications skills. Tony obviously has neither.

Sad really

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner

And that would be, um, bad?

(thanks for the PDF and other links by the way; ever come out towards Milwaukee you'll be needing to stop out to the house).

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Um, Dave? You won't need a spokesman until you're ready to actually answer questions.

If you want someone to answer questions posed to you, without having to think about them yourself, you don't need me. You need Karl Rove.

-- TP

Actually, I've been pretty straightforward with my responses in this thread. Someone posted 4 links, I gave a link by link analysis of them, and why they didn't say what he was claiming.

Yawn. You forgot to call me a neocon. So tell me, what specifically of my analysis of those four links, do you disagree with? I can post the URL to google's archive if you'd like.

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Why don't you post some links to stuff you wrote in late 2002 or early 2003. My question was about _your_ opinions back _then_.

1) When did _you_ decide that we must topple Saddam? 2) What were _your_ reasons at that time?

-- TP

Probably about the same.

1. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

1. I don't set policy, so I don't see how my reasons matter. If I cared enough about you and your assignment to me, I'd probably find that my biggest gripe at the time was that the UN stupidly gave SH too much time to hide the WMD. What does that have to do with anything? Did you have a point, or are you just making noise?

So yer admitting you can't dispute a single byte of his analysis of the posted articles then? You're in agreement that the poster was engaging in what sentient beings commonly call "lying"?

Dandy! Thanks for the support. :)

Hummm...now that you mention it.....

My pleasure.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Your reasons matter because you are a citizen in a democracy. Perhaps you are even a typical citizen, in which case your reasons represent a large segment of public opinion. So it's worth asking what you thought, and why you thought it, in the run-up to war.

In your "analysis" of Glenn's cites, you assert that Bush did _not_ say that "SH caused 9/11" but _did_ say that "the US is a common enemy to AQ and SH" and that 'Yeah, 9/11 was bad, but SH has shown he can be even worse.'

Assuming your analysis was the same _back_then_, what did you infer from what Bush _did_ say? Did you conclude, then, and do you believe, now, what Bush repeated in his press conference today, namely that "Iraq is part of the Global War On Terror"? That invading Iraq was necessary, if not sufficient, to prevent a future 9/11?

The way things are going, we are getting close to losing more American lives in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. We are getting close to spending more dollars on Iraq than we lost on 9/11. Leaving aside the "morality" of the war, has it been a _smart_ gamble?

-- TP

Of course it matters for that. Why does it matter that _you_ are asking?

See above.

Right. Nice that you read it, thank you.

I have never had a problem differentiating between Iraq and Al Queda. The only people who do, it seems, are those like you who want to pretend that Bush made a connection that he did not. Really, I'm sure that you're just as clear on the distinction as I am, but you choose to pretend that the distinction wasn't made due to your personal political bias.

You're missing the point. SH is no longer in a position to provide real support to AQ. Have incidents been prevented because of that? Hard to say, impossible to prove to Tony's satisfaction in any case, so pointless to discuss. I think it's prevented something that would "dwarf the attacks of 9/11", you of course will disagree.

If nothing else, it's a great lesson to other dictators out there - if you have WMD, and then (allgedly) get rid of them, it's a really bad idea to pretend you still have them, because it tends to be bad for your career.

and fatal to their sons

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Dave Hinz" wrote

I am a citizen in the same democracy.

It may be a complete myth that anybody ever believed Iraq was "payback for

9/11". You know it wasn't, and I know it wasn't, so who's left? But, if you ever do run into somebody who _did_ believe such a thing, back in 2002-03, ask him whether he got that idea from people like me, or from Dick and Dubya, or from Sean and Rush.

The point cuts both ways: if we get hit again, the one man Bush will _not_ be able to pin it on is Saddam Hussein.

You're right: it's hard to know what has been "prevented". But it's perfectly clear what that "prevention" has already _cost_ us: almost as many dead as 9/11, way more injured than 9/11, and a quarter-trillion dollars just out-of-pocket. We have inflicted the cost of another 9/11 on ourselves. If toppling Saddam _actually_ weakened al-Qaida, maybe it was worth it. But if, as you and I agree, SH was _not_ a pillar of support for AQ ...

The "lesson" Lil'Kim and the Iranian ayatollahs have learned may well be different: look what happens if you _don't_ have nukes.

-- TP

You don't get it. Why does it matter to _me_, that you want to know my justifications for my opinions?

And yet, your type has no problem pretending that Bush claimed it was, when he never claimed anything of the sort. This is known as "lying to advance your political point of view".

Thanks for the advice, Tony. Sheesh.

So? One fewer snake in the grass.

Yeah. About the money. Tell me - where does that money that gets spent, go, exactly? Because if it's being pumped into hi-tech manufacturing, it's not as if it evaporates or something, it's employing people. Just a thought.

While arguably preventing something much, much worse.

You thundering moron. This was about preventing AQ getting the resources that we know SH to have had. You keep making that tie that you claim to say Bush made.

Then, we effectively prevented a very bad alliance from happening. Yes.

Right, because these things just come to dictators merely by them wishing they had them, is that it?

Sheesh.

"Dave Hinz" wrote

It doesn't -- unless you worry that maybe "people like me" will out-vote "people like you" come November. Not worried? Good :-)

-- TP

It's quite telling that of all the subtopics in my post, this is the only one you were able to respond to.