Ha. In the current climate, its anti-Bush everything he does, Anti US policy, anti-war, anti conservative values, anti-religion (in some cases).
Refers to a mythological beast that the Norwegians believed was a marine threat. The gods would "release the Kraken" when they were displeased.
That is totally false. The Maine was not sabotaged by the U.S. Why would we, having a puny navy smaller than Brazil, blow up one of our few capital ships just to pick a fight with a rotting Spanish empire? A lot of capital ships blew up because when you pack that much propellant (powder) in a vessel, you are just asking for trouble. The Japanese lost one of their best battleships in WWII because of a simple magazine explosion. That's the thing I like about conspiracy theories, they are so easy to poke holes into and yet the conspiracy theorists come up with conspiracy theories to cover the explanations of why their theory is false.
It means they just watched We love the 80's and they saw the Clash of the Titans part where the Kracken (Underwater Titan looming below the murky depths to bring death and destruction to a single virgin) comes out of the water only to be turned to stone by Medusa's dead dumb glare...
MacBeth, that may be right if it were the actual policy of the US. I see it as a pretext and justification, so why would you want to extend that to a logical conclusion? Also, if it were policy, your presentation is a straw-man. Even though the parameters have not been completely spelled out, it would be silly to leave it at a one-sentence -- we will attack anyone who is a potential threat -- policy. Tothomas made a very good observation, I thought, in that countries with heavy codependence are disincentivized to attack one another. So, even if Canada and the US are potential threats to one another militarily, each relies on the other's existence and good health for their own profit, and therefore are not likely threats. Iraq, on the other hand, was not heavily integrated into economy nor did it have other significant ties, making it a very easy target to attack. Unfortunately, this defines a class that still has quite a few members in it, though it is a good deal smaller than the whole world.
Im not sure what is a conspiracy theory about this. In 1898 it was thought that a submerged mine destroyed the Maine. Recent research shows that this is not the case. That it was probably an accident, coming from the coal bunker. PBS did a special on it recently extending it further saying not only was it an accident but the current consesus among historians is that the accident was done by the US. i dont have anythign vested in this so I have no reason to made it up. Looking on amazon briefly returned a number of books that describe the situation: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/104-2735795-0537525?v=glance&s=books
Wrong. There is no reason for Europe or Latin America or for the whole Western World for that matter plus India and Japan to think of us as a threat. Nobody is stupid enough to think "The U.S. has WMDs, it has used them in the past, they will probably use them agains us!" Except China, North Korea, and terrorist sponsoring nations. We want those guys to be scared to keep their anti-freedom ideologies in check.
Tell why it would be logical to spend money on a huge, expensive ship like that and then blow it up to pick a fight with someone. They had a documentary on the History Channel where the forensics experts, through the use of extensive computer modeling and actually simulating the conditions of the time, found that there was undeniably conclusive evidence that spontaneous combustion in one of the magazines destroyed the Maine. Now does that make it a pre-emptive war because we reacted to what we thought was an attack? I don't think so.
Forget for a moment the hundreds of examples in history where we clearly wore the baclk and hats, and ask yourself this: HOw could you ever pretend to ever be objective on aything involving the U.S. and anothr party when by your own admission you assume that we're the better party going in?
In that this thread is about logic, answer me this: If Bush said, as he often did, that if Saddam disarmed his WMDs, there would be no attacj, how do you logically conclude that there were a variety of reasons for the attack? Not a variety of expected benefits, but a variety of reasons. Take Afghanistan...we decided to attack for one reason and one reason only: the support/location of Osama and Al QUeada...the other stuff...the other benefits, freeing women from veils, elimintating religious indoctrination, etc. were all additional benefits, but there was only one reason.
In that this is a thread about logic, andswer me this: If Bush did, as happened several times, say WMD= war, no WMD = no war, how do you possibly stretch your loyalty post fact so far as to read that there were several reasons, or that WMD was not the one and only reason. If you remove WMD, no war...Bush's words. Linear logic, like it or not.
P. S., re: the 'attacks of Saddam's people' we are supposedly responding to...do you even know when the vast majority of those occurred, or what part we played?
Who said that I assume anything? That was part of my objective analysis. We enjoy a measure of freedom that is envied around the world. We have so much freedom that it is turning back on us and threatens to undermine our society (i.e. p*rnography, violence et al). We are free to pursue any place of residence and any profession that calls us. Sometimes we con't even have to be the best qualified! Our soldiers who place their lives on the line are not even conscripted. We are a fairly wealthy population. We have a very large middle class. We have our poor, but we also have our rags-to-riches characters. Opportunity abounds. We enjoy fairly good health. Most of our premature deaths are from self-inflicted disease processes (related to obesity, smoking, etc.) We have abundant natural resources. We actually pay people not to grow food. As I've heard others say, we are the only nation on the earth with fat poor people. We enjoy security. We do have problems with violent crime (perhaps spawned by our other freedoms) but we do not fear that our own government will gas us or that we will be taken away in broad daylight because we are political opponents to the powers that be. When there is trouble in the world, we are the ones who get the call to come help.... and often times it doesn't even take a call. We are the first ones on the scene voluntarily.
Macbeth, to paraphrase The Dread Pirate Roberts, truely you have a dizzying intellect! This thread is the most creative one yet! "Logically, the US must attack every country in the world...Bush is the equivalent of Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Judas Iscariot..." Man, you must get light-headed way up there in that ivory tower. you should come down every once in awhile, but watch the rapid descent. wouldn't want you to catch a case of the reality induced bends...
Bush also said that he would go after all nations that harbored or helped terrorists... If it is the case that Iraq harbored and helped Al Queda...would Bush be violating the principle of non-contradiction...? But this has turned into Bush bashing enough... Democrats and Republicans alike stand up for the war and take no flak... Let's say it was faulty intelligence, and that our intentions are noble in Iraq, which I do believe they are otherwise we will revolt....we have not really set a precedent that we have to conform too...Look at Iran, they are cooperating with weapons inspectors...I don't think anyone can really say that Sadaam was cooperating with Blix or any of them...you keep quoting the NIE report as if its your new found Bible, could you please provide a link back to that thread so I can see what all the hubub is about...because all the stuff I've been able to find on the NIE report off google and stuff is just that Iraq has missiles that have a distance beyond the limit of what missile ranges can be under UN Resolution...as well as chemical and biological weapons that were not up to code...I don't know where those are fitting in to your logical code, or what your vendetta is against the president...I mean I respect your guys want for the truth to come out but the bottom line is you will still be missing part of the story...foreign policy isn't usually something CNN gets to report on much. So If this president is to become dictator as so many fear...I really fail to see how given our country's constituion he will be able to pull that off...maybe he'll buy the military as mercenaries and revoke 2nd amendment rights and just enslave us against our will...
