Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that was polite- good show!

Briticisms don't become you, really. Note that this is constructive criticism, not meanness.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Briticisms don't become you, really. Note that this is constructive criticism, not meanness.

you can be thick as a brick- no offense

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you can be thick as a brick- no offense

now that "thick as a brick" line from whatever song is running through my head. Again, constructive.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What do you think was the underlying reason for the war, then, if WMDs were a pretext?

I think that after Guld war I, the conventional wisdowm was that Saddam would fall to the Shiites and the Kurds. HW Bush has said many times that that was what he assumed. Saddam lasted longer than anyone imagined. The no flight zones were gettting harder to enforce and it was just a matter of time before one of our pilots got shot down and was captured by Saddam. He had completely disregarded the treaty that ended Gulf War I and the sanctions were only hurting the natives. The status quo couldn't last. The US had the choice of giving up on forcing him to comply with the treaty and cooperating wiht the inspectors or invade. After 9-11, I think the administration decided that this what not a time to act weak by giving up on enforcing the treaty and giving up on the Weapons Inspections. In addition, they probably thought that considering there were terrorists out there it was just a matter of time before they hooked up with the Iraqi regime. So the choice was 1) leave a hostile regime, that might hook up with other terrorrists (maybe giving them a WMD) that is constantly thumbing its nose at us by shooting at our planes and stopping the inspectors, and since we had fought him before, new we could take him out pretty easily, 2) or invade, solve all those problems and show the terrorists and the rest of the world that rules had completely changed after 9-11.

Number 2 was the only choice. They just tried to package it the best they could.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Pretty much. I think the conventional wisdom was so strong that there were WMDs that any evidence to the contrary was dismissed. Everyone overestimated Saddam's mental stability and intelligence. I should also point out, I think we still would have done to war if intelligence had discovered definitely there were not WMDs (although I have no idea how intelligence can prove a negative) but the administration would have focused on another excuse of the war.

If you're going to start in on one of those Halliburton rants, I'm telling BRC.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
How about Saddam's utter disregard of over 17 UN Security Council Resolutions over a 12 year period?

Bush was just that offended about the violations of international law.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bush was just that offended about the violations of international law.

No but you lose credibility if you are part of these resolutions and nothing is done. The US sits on the security council and was part of the proceedings that issued these resolutions. There is nothing worse to ones crediblity than empty threats. And in the international community, if a country's resolve is in question then other countries will be more inclined to disregard your national interest. The UN kept issuing these resolutions, letting their inspectors be pushed around, and continue to let Saddam flout the resolutions. Every time one of these resolutions was issued and not backed, was another day that the UN's credibilty and the US's credibilty diminshed. From my point of view we had two choices. Enforce the UN resolutions or leave the UN. Personally I think the CinC made the right call.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So the answer when someone brings up what was initially the top domestic priority of his second term is to change the subject?

He decided to spend political capital. But he made a very poor investment. Hmmmm. Sounds like an analogy is in there somewhere.

Oh, I agree that it's a bad idea, one that should go down in flames. It's just that, to me, "Folly" implies something so bad and haunting that it drags down lots of other stuff, as well as the effectiveness and standing of the proponent.

I don't see that happening here. If it does die, (and there's no guarantee it will), I think it just sails away into the sunset, and we all move on.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You might be right. However, it is remarkable that you say things like this, and yet seem to believe that your positions/perceptions are somehow more rational and well-supported, and less motivated/colored by ideology, than Ty's.

S_A_M

I guess I don't get this. The evidence seems to at least strongly suggest that Davis was taking money in exchange for doing specific things that he would probably not have done. I've seen no such evidence concerning Arnold.

Besides, if this were my ideology speaking, wouldn't I be supporting someone who was a Republican?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's just that, to me, "Folly" implies something so bad and haunting that it drags down lots of other stuff, as well as the effectiveness and standing of the proponent.

I don't think so. Here's a usage example: "Despite the follies of Bilmore's youth, he has matured into a fine, upstanding, Republican with a good stiff stick firmly entrenched up his ass."

dtb, ruling please?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't think so. Here's a usage example: "Despite the follies of Bilmore's youth, he has matured into a fine, upstanding, Republican with a good stiff stick firmly entrenched up his ass."

dtb, ruling please?

I don't think you do nuance well. Note that "Folly" is capitalized. "George's Folly" has a completely different implication than the simple use of the word "follies" in a sentence.

dtb would likely tell you to work on your use of commas.

I would simply add that, looking to the election results, it's a wonder the stick ended up in my ass when it's you who spent all that time bent over.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I would simply add that, looking to the election results, it's a wonder the stick ended up in my ass when it's you who spent all that time bent over.

The administration is too preoccupied reaming the elderly to worry about me -- they just keep working on giving me more tax breaks. Funny that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The administration is too preoccupied reaming the elderly . . .

Given that that's the richest subset of our population, can I take this as your call to Bush to not back down on tax cuts?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Given that that's the richest subset of our population, can I take this as your call to Bush to not back down on tax cuts?

My father living on a military pension is truly pleased to be part of the richest subset of the population. I'm sure he'd love to know that cuts in benefits for retired military are going to fund tax cuts for the wealthy elderly.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
My father living on a military pension is truly pleased to be part of the richest subset of the population. I'm sure he'd love to know that cuts in benefits for retired military are going to fund tax cuts for the wealthy elderly.

If you guys are right about the "endless war" he'll probably be called back to active duty soon- and i believe the entails a pay raise.