BF2S Forums Not everyone needs hindsight - Vote Obama

Obama is a fucking idiot with absolutely no substance WHATSOEVER!

He is a toilet bug in my opinion!! Total and complete empty suit. . . .  Those who buy into his manipulative bullshit are fucking asshats!

Poseidon wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Obama is a fucking idiot with absolutely no substance WHATSOEVER!

He is a toilet bug in my opinion!! Total and complete empty suit. . . .  Those who buy into his manipulative bullshit are fucking asshats!

Because John McCain is so much better! He is our savior! He will turn this country around 360 degrees! (c wut i did thar)

I can talk in all exclamation points too!

Now I cannot speak for who that guy likes, but you have taken a massive assumption that since he dislikes Obama he must like McCain....

I like neither.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Obama couldn't have possibly said that, since according to you, all that was just made up stuff so that Bush could start a war to make his oil company buddies richer. But since Obama said it, he must be in on the conspiracy too and lying as well.

Obama was going on the basis of the intel provided by Bush.
Saddam did develop WMD, covet nuclear weapons etc, by the time of the invasion he had nothing thanks to sanctions and the inspections.
Obama was pressing for the inspections to continue, which at the time and with the benefit of hindsight was the right thing to do.

Bush gets his intel from things like the  national intelligence estimate and the CIA and the NSA and a host of other sources; and if you take a look at the previous administration, congress people and senators from the time of the runup to the war (both parties) as well as international sources, there was a consensus that Hussein either had this stuff, or was at the very least not acting in good faith about disarming...  being very secretive and uncooperative with inspections and even kicked them out of the country...

Obama made this anti-iraq-war speech and even HE acknowledged what the consensus was, and you attribute that to him 'getting it all from bush' 
 
* sigh *

Dilbert_X wrote:

"with the benefit of hindsight"...truer words have never been typed by you. Can't believe you actually said that.

You need to read the whole of the sentence to get the gist
'Obama was pressing for the inspections to continue, which at the time AND with the benefit of hindsight was the right thing to do.' You see people with a bit of wit can work these things out, it doesn't take them five years to twig.
Might also be worth reading the thread title, but then cherry picking stuff to suit your agenda is what you guys do right?

The intel community was grossly manipulated by Bush and Cheney, Bush instructing them to find evidence against Saddam, Cheney standing over their shoulder making sure they did.

Don't you ever get tired of beating that same drum?

Notice your argument was an AND, not an OR.

AT THE TIME, the MAJORITY of world opinion was that Iraq had an active WMD program. AT THE TIME, the MAJORITY of multiple countries' intelligence services felt that Iraq had an active WMD program (at least those that were looking). With the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the intelligence services were reporting the reflections of Iraq's deception campaign against Iran. But it wasn't AT ALL clear at the time.

Cherry picking...the pot calling the kettle black yet again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The intel community was grossly manipulated by Bush and Cheney, Bush instructing them to find evidence against Saddam, Cheney standing over their shoulder making sure they did.

This guy disagrees with your assertion, and backs it up.

Whatever.

Obama was pressing for the inspections to continue, which at the time was the right thing to do.
With the benefit of hindsight it was the right thing to do.

Fixed.

Now maybe you'll understand what the OP was about.

This guy disagrees with your assertion, and backs it up.

I'm not too interested in the opinion of a Bush appointee who is close friends with Rumsfeld and contributes to things like 'Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History'.

Not if he's entirely partisan and involved in it himself, not really.
Any more than I'd be interested in hearing it from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, we know they're liars.

No its lies and uninteresting when its untrue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No its lies and uninteresting when its untrue.

Which is anything that contradicts your views. Got it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Which is anything that contradicts your views. Got it.

And how does that differ from your situation?
No amount of sources, information etc shifts you from your position on anything.

And there you would be wrong. My position on several topics has shifted based partially on posts here. Posts that made me go research the topics a bit more, searching out contradicting views and the data behind them then making objective assessments based on the new information (to me, at least). That doesn't necessarily mean that I've shifted my views 180 degrees from what they were before, but I have certainly changed aspects of my views on certain topics.

There are others here that seem to have done the same thing. Unfortunately, you aren't one of them.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm not interested in the opinion of Reith any more than I am in that of Bill O'Reilly, the Pope or Great Uncle Bulgaria.

Who is "Reith"? Do you mean Feith? Of course you wouldn't be interested in his opinion...it's contrary to yours. I'm not saying he's got anything worthwhile to say necessarily, but then again, you'll never know if he does because you limit yourself to what you want to hear and what is in line with your opinions.

We've heard the Bush camp for years, there is no shortage of information on their arguments and reasoning and its been proven wrong.
They based their actions on information they knew to be bogus, and invented stuff out of thin air to boot.
They can't even remember what they've said and haven't said, or what their agreed line was then and is now.
I'm not sure what the point of hearing more from them is.

As the Neo-con 'Team America' is steadily dissolving the insiders who are breaking ranks are beginning to spill the beans.
Feith is still toeing the discredited Cheney line so no I'm not interested in his views.

My position on several topics has shifted based partially on posts here.

Links or it didn't happen.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-05-31 00:48:03)

Dilbert_X wrote:

We've heard the Bush camp for years, there is no shortage of information on their arguments and reasoning and its been proven wrong.

Much of what the Bush admin has done was wrong. But not all. That is your logical fallacy--you can't be objective enough to see it.

Same with Israel. Much of what Israel has done (particularly WRT Palestinians) has been wrong, but not all--you can't be objective enough to see it.

And the list goes on. With the same ending caveat--you can't be objective enough to see both sides.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They based their actions on information they knew to be bogus, and invented stuff out of thin air to boot.

A perfect example of you not being objective. It has been explained--ad nauseum--what happened with that information. The problem is, once again, that you can't be objective enough to recognize that it was simply a decision based on (not known at the time) bad info, not a giant conspiracy to make shit up. The reason for it has been spelled out, but you refuse to accept it because doing so would contradict your fervently-held beliefs.

You can't seem to separate what is known now from what was known then--they are not the same.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They can't even remember what they've said and haven't said, or what their agreed line was then and is now.
I'm not sure what the point of hearing more from them is.

As the Neo-con 'Team America' is steadily dissolving the insiders who are breaking ranks are beginning to spill the beans.
Feith is still toeing the discredited Cheney line so no I'm not interested in his views.

I'm not particularly interested in Feith's views, either, but I still realize they have some merit--even if I disagree with them. You, on the other hand, dismiss any potential for merit in views that contradict your preconceived notions about a given topic. Your typical response: If it's American, it's bad; any action from the current US administration--bad; any action by Israel--bad. And when those positions are shown to be based pretty much on your completely emotional, unobjective kneejerk response, you start accusing people of calling names.

Try objectivity and intellectual honesty. You might just like it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

My position on several topics has shifted based partially on posts here.

Links or it didn't happen.

Use the SEARCH function and read.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Give an example of Israel doing something right.

Engaging with Syria on peace talks. Engaging with the PA on peace talks. Agreeing in principle to give the Golan back to Syria.

Of course, you will say they didn't mean any of it...because you have the ability to read the minds of world leaders.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It was well known at the time that some of the intel was crap. Given how much of it was at best equivocal invasion was not the right move - read the OP for an example of an objective view.

Fixed. The vast majority of the intel wasn't crap. It reflected something that no one realized (or could have realized) until after Saddam was captured. Selective memory isn't very objective, either.

Dilbert_X wrote:

When did I accuse anyone of calling people names, except when people have? You're the one who started off with the 'snot-nosed brat' stuff. Very objective.

My God, you're worse than a woman bringing up old shit like that...which I apologized for at the time (once again, selective memory ftl). Don't recall you ever apologizing for any of your insults. That would mean you would have to admit you were wrong...don't expect to see that any time soon.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I've seen many of your posts, I can't remember a single one where you changed your mind - give us an example.

I've changed my position on Israel (particularly WRT their relationship with the Palestinians). How's that for an example?

I could name one quickly. Pretty sure you can't do the same.

As I said, SEARCH and then read. I can't be bothered to provide proof of my claims...it's obviously your job to find proof of my point (cwutididthar).