I'll put the posts up so you can reread them. Notice I compliment you several times, including after your initial departure from the debate as you start your predictable slide into posts of wholesale insults. Post #128 Post #131 Post # 132 Post #136 Post #137 Then your slide off the edge begins again with references to mental deficiencies, etc.
I'm not sure what this has to do with any of the substance in my posts. I really don't think I was at all confusing or backtracking. I was very explicit about which portions of rimrockers quotes I was referring too. You could not bring yourself to comprehend this, and got more and more arrogant in your responses. Frankly, you could have cleared all this up from the get-go by not making silly accusations regarding "reversals". Even now, after continued explanations you avoid just admitting you screwed up. Ironic considering how often you accuse me of flying off the handle while I'm the only one ever apologizing for our continued lack of decorum. As for the "PNAC is pro-invasion" comment, I stand by that, and the distinctions I enunciated forthwith. I like that. I slid off the edge, becauase I'm so crazy... - or - I feel like Frodo - "the fellowship stands on the edge of a knife..."
The reason you are the only one apologizing is that you are the one who moves from substantive argument to ad hom attacks. As you can see pretty clearly from the posts I reposted above, you are ad hom'ing even as I am still complimenting you. You see 'arrogance' and attacks where there are none and launch into now predictable and documented ad homs. With that in mind, I'm not sure what I said that would require an apology. As to 'comprehending' your argument about the WS and NYT articles, I clearly make a substantive answer to this point (see post #137, #153, and #158).
I could not care less. No - that answer is incorrect, seeing as the WS article directly says "any serious effort to oust Saddam must also be backed by U.S. military might." outside of the internal uprising you referenced. See post 151, which, incidently, is where you start to lose it - as I try to get away from the silly word game we were previously embroiled in and that I initially tried to avoid. Posts 153 and 158 are where you continue to argue words even as I try to get away from it.
OK, that's fine. If you don't care then I'm at a loss to explain your outrage. First, whether my answer is correct or not it IS a substantive answer - contrary to your earlier expressed opinion that I wasn't responding to your assertion. Second, yes - it is correct. Backing an effort to oust Saddam with US military might does not necessarily mean an invasion. In fact, the option discussed is to use US military might to aid an internal uprising, not to invade Iraq. I even posted this part of the article earlier. It just isn't what you represent it to be.
No, they are responses to your assertion that military action and invasion are synonymous. They aren't as these posts point out, including examples that disprove your assertion and sources actually defining military intervention that show they are not synonymous. Our disagreement basically went like this: jo mamma: the PNAC documents show they were looking at invasion in 1998. HS: point out where they talk about invasion. rhad: they don't but they allude to it. rimrocker: they do - look at these articles. HS: those aren't PNAC documents. they also don't say invasion but use of US military power. rhad: those are synonymous. HS: no they aren't. there are many examples of the use of military power aside from invasion including what the article suggests - aiding an internal uprising. rhad: you're just playing word games.
I disagree. And that's pretty much the whole reason you got me all riled up. You present the above as if it were indisputible fact, and it's not. The arguments are malleable, much like your silly synonym argument was easily disproven. It's arrogant Hayes, since your final assertion is little more than personal opinion, yet you proclaim it as gospel. Worse, you won't back down even after this paradox is (repeatedly) revealed. That's all there is too it - yet you can't even recognize that this statement refutes all the "conclusive" baloney you posted previously. It's amazing that you can say the above, yet spend the entire rest of the thread trying to say it's not true. Are you trying to intentionally be vexing?
just curious, what was PNAC's reasoning behind the need to remove saddam even if it takes the use military power? also when pnac said military power, i think they meant invasion.. isn't that what actually happened?
rhad, two words that are synonymous mean the same thing. military action and invasion do not mean the same thing. i'm not sure what's hard to gasp about that. the rhombus/square example conclusively shows the two cannot be considered synonymous. your position is that anytime you see military action you could substitute invasion. that's just plain ol' incorrect. that the action specified is support for internal uprising, not invasion, goes even further to prove the point.
You're goading again. *sigh* I have never said that - which I already told you in 162. your position is that anytime you see military action one cannot substitute invasion. Equally incorrect. It is synonymous, if the context is correct (see post 156). You say so yourself!! (post 158) The "internal uprising" argument is (like the synonym argument) based on your own personal opinion (post 151). Let me ask that you reread my previous post for my feelings regarding that.
i think there were a myriad of reasons. i don't think so. the only example given talks about supporting internal uprisings and safe zones similar to the kurds territory. nowhere is invasion mentioned. yes, but that decision was made post 9/11/2001, not in 1998. look at the stark contrast between the administration's position in 2000 (which I quote above) and post 2001. that contrast is why looking at the eventuality is not a good way to resolve this particular dispute. 1998: PNAC says we should have a strong military posture in the Gulf. 1998: Weekly Standard and NYT article say we should use the military to support internal uprisings. 2000: the administration says we should NOT be nation builders and that Iraq is not anything to that needs to be urgently addressed. 2001: 9/11 2002: the adminstration says we need to take on Iraq because of WMDs, terrorism, genocide, democratization of the ME etc. The timeline doesn't support the argument that invasion was the goal all along.
doesn't internal uprising with US military action to remove Saddam means the US will definitely be commiting some sort of intrusuion into Iraq?
No, that isn't my argument. Yes, I agree it could mean invasion. But they are not synonyms. They do not inherently mean the same thing. One could always call a square a square or a rhombus, but you cannot look at any rhombus and call it a square. The two are related but not synonymous. However, I agree we would need to look at the context and form an opinion of whether they did mean that in this case. By calling the synonyms you are saying they are the same and that is not necessarily the case. That was my objection. Of course, rhad. That the PNAC documents are not explicitly calling for an invasion (we agree on that IIRC), we must form our opinions based on other factors. The only explicit scenario out of all the information is the call to support internal uprisings and creating safezones in the south similar to those in the north (for the kurds). That is what I base my opinion on. You say the PNAC was definitely pro-invasion and that is what you base your opinion on. Fair enough. But the only explicit reference backs my opinion. Further the opinions expressed by the current administration pre and post election, and pre 9/11 also clearly express a non-interventionist attitude - specifically opposing nation building and specifically declaring Iraq can be deterred. Those also back up my opinion that an outright invasion did not move to the forefront until after 9/11, NOT in 1998.
but it does mention US military power/support.. if you talk about remvoing a leader of a soveriegn country thru US militarily support and internal uprising, some sort of incursion, intrusion, or enroachment will have to take place in order for the objective to be fulfilled right?
I'll just put this here since its part of the same setup. yes, if one assumes an internal uprising would have needed US support (which I would agree was the case). however, i'll save you a step: if your next argument is that 'some sort of intrusion into iraq' is an invasion, then that standard would mean we had been continuously invading iraq since 1991 (enforcement of no fly zones and aid to the kurds started then). that would make most of this debate meaningless since it would be silly to argue that the PNAC was advocating invading iraq in 1998 when we had been continously invading iraq since 1991.
I'm not commenting on the merits of whether the journalist tried to do a hit job on Clinton, but I have to say that I always liked Clinton, that I find him impressive rhetorically, that I think he is highly intelligent and a good person - and that his affair with Lewinsky really doesn't matter whatsoever to me when it comes to judging whether he did a good job as a president or not. (I just think that he should have chosen a hotter chick.)
