The funny thing is that I know that, to you, all of the above, including wearing maple leafs, is meant as an insult. I have no problem with any of it, however, so feel free to call me that all you want. It's pretty much true, except I don't really go for beer all that much. And the point wasn't really to scoff, anyways. It was to point out to you that you yourself have shifted...unless you are going to claim that you have been telling us for months that Saddam buried WMD 'programs' in the riverbed.
I hoped that it was in a jovial tone, but I hadn't really seen that kind of friendly, good natured, banter between you two before, so I thought it was meant to be insulting.
That is absolutely false. I am convinced that Iraq was collaborating with Al Queda, and the UK Telegraph possesses the smoking gun. The imminent threat was not proven false. You are wrong again, and this point will be settled soon. The uranium link is ABSOLUTELY true according to British intelligence, and the trends is absolutely clear. Saddam was developing WMD and refused to allow anybody to inspect his nation. He will die for this mistake. MacBeth, do you realize that the biological and chemical weapons in question would fit in a few large train boxcars? Do you think if you had a desert the size of California that you might find a way to hide the stuff? Yes, I am done with this subject. We can go around and around, and nobody's mind will change. I think that if nothing is found by the end of the year, I will admit that I am wrong. Also, don't flatter yourself that I don't post here because of any arguments or remarks directed my way. I am very busy with work, a marriage, and new vol. activities, so time has become a valuable commodity for me.
1) What is false? That you said those things weren't true, or that they are true to begin with? Either way, jh, you are wrong, and it is on record. Which one do I need to prove? 2) Well, remain convinced. Unfortunately for you, the NIE report completely disagrees with you...You know the NIE, the compliation of all of our intel assets? It said A) No connection, and B) No threat, either directly or through terrorists. And nothing has happened since to make anyone question that finding. Sorry, bud. 3) I am wrong about the reconstituded nuclear weapns!?!?!? Where, pray, are we hiding these weapons we have found? What is your inside source? Seriously, john, do you want me to fish out old posts of yours saying that they have been found/are just about to be found from months back? Would that have any effect on you? 4) John....I don't know how to break this to you...the argument over the uranium isn't is it true anymore...the administration, including both Rumsfeld on This Week, and Wolfowitz, on the same program ( and I think the VP on another program, but I'm not sure) have admitted this. Not conceding that games have been lost after the gun's gone off doesn't do wonders for your cred. 5) I don't realize that "hundreds of thousands of tons" would fit in a a few boxcars, no, but forget that for a second, and reverse the argument. If, as you say, they are so small and hard to find....and we now know that our intel services were telling us there was no imminent threat...why did we not give the Un inspectors more time? If it's that hard to find... 6) No joke, I appreciate the last point. You are, I think, the first pro-war person to go on record about a deadline. I anticipate argument over what constitutes " nothing", but I admire you making any kind of deadline at all.
You are wrong, it is not on "the record", because I never disputed those points. Please search away. You want so badly to be correct that you are willing to ignore Iraqi government papers proving the connection? Your side of this argument will look ridiculous in the next couple of months, because the evidence was under your nose the entire time, but when your nose is in the air, you can't look down- can you? We shall see. The British government stands by their intelligence about Iraq's attempts to procure Iraq in Niger. The record is clear that Iraq attempted to buy African uranium several times during the 90s. Address those points please, because they are all that I offered. Because, THE UN INSPECTORS WERE NOT IN IRAQ TO SEARCH FOR WMD. Geez, what will it take for you to understand this point? They were there to verify Iraqi claims of compliance. Time will tell.
john...I am going to give you a chance here. Try and remember. It was the conversation where you went and asked your grandmother. If you insist on saying that you never disputed those points, you will look really bad. Many people were there and saw it, and I will go and look it up. I am telling you, there is no doubt. You can back down now and say it was bad memory, but if you persist, you will be shown to be certain yet wrong, which will not only reduce all your claims of certainty in the future,but will be used against you time and again. I am seriosuly asking you to be a man and back down on this: you are dead wrong. I am partyl motivated by a desire to avoid going over posts from a year ago, but to once and for all rpove that what you say and what is true are not connected in any way, I am willing to do it. If you persist, just so I have it all together on record at one time, and not have to piece together my post and your response, can you please post a statement which says that you never disputed either the fact that most Americans were opposed to entering WWII before Pearl Harbor, or that Germany declared war on the US. The least you can do considering all the time I'm going to waste looking back over posts. I think it was in a thread about Rumsfeld's comments about the Germans or the French, but I am not sure, so it will take some checking. Again, please save me a lot of work, and you a lot of embarassment. If not, post the above. And, I ask you man to man, if you maintian that you never disputed these things, and I go back and prove you wrong, will you A) apologize, B) admit you were wrong, and C) maybe question your certainty or recollection of things in general?
Okay, john, I found it. I will bump the thread in question in case you or anyone wants to re-read it; it's in the Forum, so it might have to be moved. Sorry, guys, this is long...but worth john admitting he was dead wrong despite being sure, apologizing, and promising to question himself on other things in the future, no? In the thread entitled "Rumsfeld to punish "German treachery" " on Feb 17th of this year, you had posted several statements about how the US had saved Europe and Germany, etc. with the usual Hollywood rah-rah USA! cliches. Another poster, r-long number was also saying some of the same things, although not as zealously, and I initially introduced the topic of our involvment in WWII thus: " US involvment in WWII was for an even less vague reason than a 'threat to national security'...it was the fact that Hitler declared war on the US immediately following FDR's war statement on Dec. 8th, and Operation Drum Roll was launched within days...said operation being a very successfull U-Boat strike against American shipping in the Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico... This fairy tale many Americans spout about the selfless USA making the ultimate sacrifice at the alter of Freedom is as naive and ill-informed as it gets...If it was about 'Freedom' then most Americans wouldn't have been quite content to let the Germans roll over much of Europe while maintaining that it was none of their affair...but they were..The last pre-Pearl Harbour poll still showed over 3/4 of Americans favoured non-involvment despite the fact that "Freedom" had been backed into a resilient but ever diminishing corner...And post WWII documents from the desk of Speer et al shows that before and during this time America was the biggest trading partner and foreign munitions supplier Nazi Germany had...'war profiteering' was much censured, but only after Dec. 8th..." To which you responded : " Thousands of Americans died as young men during World War Two believing that they were fighting for freedom. My grandfather was one of them, and his letters home prove his intent. MacBeth's views are insulting to the people of the "Greatest Generation" who believed that their sacrifices served a higher purpose. Americans supported the war for many different reasons, and MacBeth's textbook response from the book of cultural relativism reeks of bias. You can't speak for 150,000 Americans when answering questions about why we entered WW2 MacBeth. Your poll showing that 3/4 of Americans supported ignoring Hitler is also meaningless to this discussion if you don't present the poll questions. Your lecture about the self interested Americans of 1940 is simplistic and full of generalizations. btw, my 81 year old grandmother is staying with me, and she thinks you are full of cow poop. " Then when other posters also told you that you were wrong, irrespective of how you or your granny felt about it, like this one : "No offense, johnheath, but have you studied history at all? MacBeth was merely telling it like it was. Frankly, I find your twisted view of history a bit frightening. And my father saw combat in WW2, by the way." ...you responded by saying : "You guys are really reaching now. First we have MacBeth, who will argue ad nauseum that the American population of 1940 was selfish and apathetic, and idealism after the Pearl Harbor attack was the result of propaganda." Observers than again told you you were wrong, as this: "OK, I couldn't let this go. I don't know if you have seen the well-respected documentary series "The World At War", from the 1970s. It devotes an entire episode to the USA's entry into the war. It amazed me to see the interviews, both in 1940, and retrospectively with some of the key players. It certainly portrays a large degree of indifference to the war in Europe. Lest, we forget, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, two years before American entry to WWII. You could probably analogise US reaction to Pearl Harbour to the reaction to 9/11. Perfectly understandable (reasonable even) but not altruistic." and I responded to your post thus: "Okay, first of all, I'm not arguing anything...I'm not taking a position here, I am stating facts. If you choose to continue to act as if it's a matter of debate that the US wouldn't enter the war until after Pearl Harbour, or that the war wasn't going on for over 2 years before that, or that Churchill repeatedly asked the US to honor their treaties, fight for 'freedom' and join the fight, or that FDR wasn't repeatedly turned down by Congress and the American people, or that each and every poll/vote whatever was strongly against American involvment pre-Pearl Harbour , or that Hitler declared war on the US, not the reverse, if you want to continue to act as if revisionist Hollywood history somehow makes these events immaterial, or worse still, non-factual, you can go ahead... But how, exactly, do you explain the over 2 year gap between the start of WWII and American involvment in it? And does the fact that the USA only got involved within days of Pearl Harbour strike you as coincidental? Let me hear your version of what happened, I'm truly interested..." You never got back to me. John. I tried to avoid doing this to you. You insisted. You throw around words like LIAR and FACT with reckless abandon. This is hardly the first time I've caught you out, but please let's let it be the last. Just make sure to discern between fact and opinion, and you'll avoid this kind of thing. You clearly and without reservation disputed the fact that most Americans didn't want to enter the war pre-Pearl Harbor, and as usual you went further and called my simply recording history as insulting, and called it part of reaching a new low. You tried to find a semantic argument about the wording of polls when every poll, every vote in Congress, every survey all arrived at the same conclusion pre-Pearl Harbor. And then you brought in ad hominems about people who had died in the war as though that somehow altered the facts. I am assuming that you will be a man about this, admit you were wrong, apologize, and turn down the certaintly dial on things in the future, and if you'll do yourself a favor you'll try and seperate fact from opinion. If you come back with the usual " I stand by what I said" as though that somehow alters the fact that you were wrong, and said what you were sure you didn't, it will be very dissapointing for me, and telling for others. I think you will make the right call. PEACE JAG
one of nine as of 5:54 AM 8/20/03 because I'd like to give as much time in office as we all gave slick willie
MacBeth, I think you are a little crazy. Show me where I called you a liar because you said that Germany declared war on the U.S. I didn't. Show me where I called you a liar because you said that most Americans were against getting involved in WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor. I wouldn't, because all rational people fear war. You have taken the thread in question out of its context, and put words in my mouth that clearly weren't there. You perplex me. Are you still drunk from last night?
Sad. Well, the record speaks for itself. You called me a liar about it in subsequent posts. The question here was simply had you or had you not disputed either of these facts. I proved that you had disputed US sentiment towards getting involved pre-Pearl Harbor. I am not going to search for other posts where you disputed the declaration of war aspect in specifics, especially as this is your incredible reaction to this. John, I really am dissapointed. You know that ostriches can be seen, even when their head is in the sand, right?
Yes, the record is clear. You claimed that I called you a liar for a specific reason, and your own thread proves you wrong. MacBeth, you are the one who needs to step back and take a second look at himself. Look at your initial charge against me, look at the way you could not support your charge, and look at your reaction despite the fact your own words betray you
sadly, his knowledge base for history appears to be same as that used by Reagan, and now Bush: Old John Wayne movies. Mac, does it really matter if he called you a liar some time ago? As one who sometimes beats a point to death, I recognize the telltale signs of overkill. Expecting a Bushie to know history is like expecting a dog to know how to juggle.
John...look at the question, as phrased, that I specifically asked you to say yay or noy to before I went hunting. This is pretty weak...The whole " the best defense is a good..." stuff looks silly when it's all down in black and white. " If you persist, just so I have it all together on record at one time, and not have to piece together my post and your response, can you please post a statement which says that you never disputed either the fact that most Americans were opposed to entering WWII before Pearl Harbor, or that Germany declared war on the US. ...And, I ask you man to man, if you maintian that you never disputed these things, and I go back and prove you wrong, will you A) apologize, B) admit you were wrong, and C) maybe question your certainty or recollection of things in general?" JH : "I agree to A, B, and C." Pretty damn clear. I am actually annoyed, jh. Seriously.
Sorry for quoting so much of MacBeth's post, but I thought I had to include enough to give someone reading this one some context. First, I would like to express my appreciation for you responding to my question about Lugar's break with the Administration, although I think it's worthy of far more discussion, but you did respond and Trader_Jorge ran away from that like it was going to bite him or something. That alone puts paid to the notion, which you should find insulting, that you are one and the same poster. But I was the guy who posted: "No offense, johnheath, but have you studied history at all? MacBeth was merely telling it like it was. Frankly, I find your twisted view of history a bit frightening. And my father saw combat in WW2, by the way." Now, in retrospect, I could have put what I posted in a more diplomatic fashion, for which I apologize, but I recall the discussion as having grown rather heated. I was wondering what your take was on Clark possibly entering the race? Don't you think, if he got the nomination, that he could be a formidable opponent for Bush? He's unlike any of the other Democratic candidates. I think he would have an excellent shot at winning.
To close this silliness, I still dispute your poll, because I don't have access to the poll questions. You have also taken the entire discussion way out of context. I also NEVER argued that Germany did not declare war on the United States. That is a flat out falsehood. I have nothing more to say to you about these points. We clearly will not agree FOR THE SAME REASONS that we always disagree. You base the vast majority of your arguments on faulty premises. This is a perfect example of your glaring flaw. To make your point, you are forced to contextually warp an argument on one point, and admit that you don't have any evidence for your other point (Germany). This carousel is child's play, and I am getting off here.
Since you addressed me Deckard, I have three quick points for you. 1. I am extremely flattered whenever I am compared to TJ. Half of his posts are completely sarcastic, and I can spot his intent a mile away. He is one smart cookie. 2. I was offended in that thread because MacBeth claimed that American patriotism after December 7 was the result of propaganda, not true love for country and altruism. That is the context in which my statements above should be judged. 3. Clark is interesting for Democrats, because he can't be viewed as weak on defense, and he will be coached closely by Bill Clinton. Clark's Iraq war analysis was very public though, and he looked inept with his forecasting. I don't know enough about him to really comment further, but my gut tells me that Clark will be a loose cannon like Dean, and Clark will never be accepted by the far left for his actions in Kosovo. I want to read more about General Clark to have a more educated opinion about the man.
The Bombing of London had taken place before we got into the war. Half of Europe had already been pillaged. REPUBLICANS were isolationists.
johnheath, I don't recall MacBeth saying American patriotism was a result of propaganda AFTER December 7th. In fact, it was a reaction exactly like the one after 9/11... in other words, the opposite. And I don't remember MacBeth saying anything differently, although I don't have the thread in front of me to look at. Friendly Fan, the recruiting offices were a mob scene after December 7th. My father volunteered, as did countless others. Yes, there was a draft, but the patriotic ferver was real and unmistakable. Vietnam was a completely different kettle of fish. I was of draft age back then and remember the period well. Were you? I was also against the war, but that's another thread.
