While you fall back to defend a protest sign slogan, I expect the histories yet to be written will have quite a bit more to say.

No, I’ll stand by the analysis and prediction of outcomes I made four years ago, thanks, which are turning out to be correct.

(Love your revised war aims, by the way. You’re doing a much better reconstruction job than US troops in Iraq.)

Dang right, we were right.

Heh. I think you’ve missed something, lrC. Fortunately, we don’t actually have to grasp at reeds. As it turns out, both our analysis of cause and our prediction of outcomes has been vastly more accurate that those of the American invasion’s fans and admirers.

To put it simply: turns out we were right.

>If anyone is playing the revisionist game, it’s the folks who are now forced to concede that it was, in fact, about the oil .

The basic reason for the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and the war in Kuwait which preceded it was never disputed. To now claim that denial of the various flake theories was really denial of the root and implied assumption is to grasp at the thinnest of reeds. You’re behaving rather like the simple-minded people who think a person who is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming rejects the notion of climate change entirely and indulges in asinine sloganeering to that effect. Apparently you’ve all lost your grasp of nuance in the service of what you wish to believe.

If anyone is playing the revisionist game, it’s the folks who are now forced to concede that it was, in fact, about the oil .

So in short, it isn’t about the oil, it about the control of it. Unfortinately Bush really screwed that part of it up too.

The shuffling is by critics trying to revise “it’s all about oil” from meaning “the US is going to take it for themselves” to meaning “for the security of the world’s oil supply”. That’s a change of the war critics’ making after they spent years belaboring the first point. I guess that’s the nice thing about a vague slogan; you can later pretend you meant something else by it.

I am very tired of explain the obvious history to those who still insist “My Country can do no wrong” even when we do the same thing, just as long as we are not as evil as the other guy BS.

If we are the good guys, then we play by the higher standard of rules that we expect all to play by and we do not lower ourselves into the mud and claim it is ok because we are only dirty up to the waste while claiming our enemy is up to his chin,… we would still be in same pit of mud,… and mud is as you know slippery stuff

Let me ask a very simple question, would you permit these methods in your home police interrogation rooms?

If you say “no”, but this is different, then you guilty of “Moral Relativism” which the far-right religous Neo-Clowns always harp about that the Left wing nutters do.

Oh, and Perri, just an FYI, I am a conservative, but I am not a braindead conservative, and if you don’t like my name calling,… there’s the door. Balb may be willing to explain to you why you are wrong, but I grew sick of explain the fucking obvious to the mentally challenged back in 2004. I got sick of explain that there were no WMD’s. I got sick of point out the evidence that support the position that there was no WMD prior to 2003 invasion. I sick of explain that there were link to Iraq and Al Queada prior Bush Optional War of Choice. I go sick of explaining how PNAC and the Office of Special Opperations manipulated the pre war intel. To be honest, I got sick of people who think Fox News if actually Fair and Balanced.

So if Balb want to beat you over the head with a Clue-By-Four, hey, it’s his nickle and he is one of the blog owners. Me I’d rather spend my time debating with people who will actually acknowledge reality.

You can of course continue to flog that long dead horse of George Dubya Bush all you want, but he is retard and complete useless waste of flesh. His Administration regularly ignores internation treaties or finds ways to skirt them and when it comes to USA law he is the same way (ask Ashkoft about the wire taping and Gonzo’s push for the illegal)

Maybe some here would give you the rather long list of the Laws Bush has ignored or decided to reclassify inorder to get around them. Or I have a better Idea, why don’t you go out there and research and learn it yourself.

PS

Sorry Bulb and Stageleft, by I have little use for people like this, even when they are polite about it. These debates have been beaten to death for the last two years and it is like debating whether the world is round or flat today,…

On another note, are you guys going to the Ottawa Blogging get together in August? Balb, would you be up for a dive on the Sunday? Maybe Lock 31? If it is near by.

Zorph

But it is still torture. In fact, the US executed Japanese officers after WWII for doing this very thing. Waterboarding torture was often cited as a reason to go to war against Saddam back in 1990 (along with falaq, the ‘art’ of beating the soles of the feet with a stick, used by Saddam AND by the Amir of Kuwait, but I digress). But when the US does it, you see “no moral equivalence”?

That’s because you don’t want to. You are too afraid to admit that your government and your nation has lost its way and are now the immoral evil ones, just as immoral and evil as those you seem to fight against.

15 minutes of waterboarding and a chickenhawk like you would not only convert to Islam, you’d confess to the Kennedy assassination and the death of JonBenet Ramsey. Not torture my ass. You are truly a dupe and a fool.

Thanks, but we’re all very familiar with the U.S. sanctioned, published casi belli. Foreign Affairs, an excellent (and predominantly right wing) publication, has published a few excellent non-partisan analyses of the “real” causes: check out their website, there may still be some online (they tend to cut them back to abstracts after a few months.) One of the primary ones, not much discussed, was the urgent need to maintain the political primacy and security of Saudi Arabia (ostensibly an American ally) by relocating the approximately 100,000 US troops stationed there: you will recall that was one of the few specific offenses cited by Bin Laden to justify the 9/11 murders.

As for your next point…you know, I’ve yet to read the missing line in the following syllogism:

a) Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and murderer:
b) Missing Logical connection:

Conclusion: therefore the torture and murder of detainees in American custody is totally cool.

Could you provide that missing link?

Now take your retarded ass back to the Freepers where it belongs, fack what a complete moron.

What a wonderful sentiment. It’s certainly a powerful argument when you resort to ad-hominem attacks isn’t it. So typical of “debate” from the left.

Other than hypothermia non of the “tortures” you describe are physically dangerous the the human body. That hardly compares to the rape of women committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, or the physical dismemberment of his regime’s prisoners, including the removal of tongues, eyes, genitals, hands, fingers, toes or other bodily parts.

Waterboarding is effective, but does no damage to the body. Sleep deprivation is effective, but does no lasting damage. I see no moral equivalence here.

Sure if you want to be mass murder nation, go for it skippy.

We didn’t though, and that was the point. We could have done so though, like the Germans did in WWII (they were signatories to the Geneva Convention). The execution of illegal combatants on the battlefield is not a war crime.