Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[grumbler]

Nothing I have said contradicts the Washington Post article.  There were WMD in Iraq.  That's a fact.  That the statement that "WMD were not present" is untrue is a fact.  No number of strawman arguments by CC and Valmy can hope to change those facts.

[crazy canuck]

/grumbler/ argument by assertion /grumbler/

[grumbler]

crazy canuck: [weasel] grumbler blah blah [/weasel]

[Berkut]

The problem clearly was that the WMD was not the actual reason they wanted to invade Iraq, it was just the casus belli pretext so the Vice-President and company were not too motivated to dwell on details like maybe what they were saying was not as solidly supported as they implied.

Yes, exactly.  Therein lies the deceit.  They wanted to invade for other reasons but they needed to get others, both domestic and international, to support their cause and so the WMD story was created.

THose "other reasons" were articulated as well. It's not like the basic idea of getting rid of a dictator and replacing them with democratic institution was some double secret plan.

And again, the WMD story was not "created". That is another lie. The irony of your repeated lies about other people lies is delicious, albeit certainly completely opaque to you.

[Berkut]

crazy canuck: [weasel] grumbler blah blah [/weasel]

His citing of an article that directly contradicts the narrative he is trying to create is amusing, and very similar to the WH response to a court oredering them to pay $2 million in damages as a result of a lawsuit. "Well, we are please that the court found in our favor by not making us pay $4 million in damages!"

It does go to show that the use of myth and propaganda to push a political narrative is hardly the unique provenance of the Trumps of the world. The CCs play that game as enthusiastically as anyone else.

[Duque de Bragança]

Irak

Why do you translate your own country's name into English but not Iraq? Goes to Viper too. 

Because Canada is spelled the same in English and in French, duh!


I keep forgetting about Irak/Iraq.

It's not a translation technically, but a different transcription, since different languages have different rules for transliterating Arabic.

[Barrister]

Irak

Why do you translate your own country's name into English but not Iraq? Goes to Viper too. 

Because Canada is spelled the same in English and in French, duh!


I keep forgetting about Irak/Iraq.

It's not a translation technically, but a different transcription, since different languages have different rules for transliterating Arabic.

No, I think Iraq is the English name for that country, not just a transliteration of Arabic.  It's like we call Germany Germany, not Deutschland.

[Duque de Bragança]

Irak

Why do you translate your own country's name into English but not Iraq? Goes to Viper too. 

Because Canada is spelled the same in English and in French, duh!


I keep forgetting about Irak/Iraq.

It's not a translation technically, but a different transcription, since different languages have different rules for transliterating Arabic.

No, I think Iraq is the English name for that country, not just a transliteration of Arabic.  It's like we call Germany Germany, not Deutschland.

Iraq is the English transliteration or English spelling if you will of (al-)Irāq in latinised Arabic.
Germany is not a transliteration of Deutschland, it is the English exonym of Roman origin.
Not the same. 

PS: the (disused) English exonym for Iraq would be Mesopotamia.

[Syt]

[crazy canuck]

The problem clearly was that the WMD was not the actual reason they wanted to invade Iraq, it was just the casus belli pretext so the Vice-President and company were not too motivated to dwell on details like maybe what they were saying was not as solidly supported as they implied.

Yes, exactly.  Therein lies the deceit.  They wanted to invade for other reasons but they needed to get others, both domestic and international, to support their cause and so the WMD story was created.

THose "other reasons" were articulated as well. It's not like the basic idea of getting rid of a dictator and replacing them with democratic institution was some double secret plan.

And again, the WMD story was not "created". That is another lie. The irony of your repeated lies about other people lies is delicious, albeit certainly completely opaque to you.

Your first sentence is not responsive to mine. 

Your second sentence is beyond the pale offensive.

[Valmy]

Nothing I have said contradicts the Washington Post article.  There were WMD in Iraq.  That's a fact.  That the statement that "WMD were not present" is untrue is a fact.  No number of strawman arguments by CC and Valmy can hope to change those facts.

The facts are misleading though. I don't think the "WMD" that were in Iraq are actually weapons that could cause much destruction, except maybe against Iraqi civilians, and certainly considerably less destruction than conventional weaponry. Weapons that are no threat at all to the United States because they have proven to be ineffective for the past hundred years is more like it.

Does that matter at all or is the technicality the important thing?

[Duque de Bragança]

It would be a fair bit of hubris to argue that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

But I don't think one can also easily argue that sitting back and continuing to watch Saddam & Sons run a multi-million person sadistic torture chamber while simultaneously feeding regional and international terrorism was a great alternative either.

Saddam got rid of Abu Nidal, one of the worst terrorist pre 2001, by "suicide" and you call that feeding international terrorism?

[Eddie Teach]

The problem clearly was that the WMD was not the actual reason they wanted to invade Iraq, it was just the casus belli pretext so the Vice-President and company were not too motivated to dwell on details like maybe what they were saying was not as solidly supported as they implied.

Yes, exactly.  Therein lies the deceit.  They wanted to invade for other reasons but they needed to get others, both domestic and international, to support their cause and so the WMD story was created.

THose "other reasons" were articulated as well. It's not like the basic idea of getting rid of a dictator and replacing them with democratic institution was some double secret plan.

And again, the WMD story was not "created". That is another lie. The irony of your repeated lies about other people lies is delicious, albeit certainly completely opaque to you.

Your first sentence is not responsive to mine. 

Your second sentence is beyond the pale offensive.

You do know the difference between a sentence and a paragraph, don't you?

[grumbler]

Nothing I have said contradicts the Washington Post article.  There were WMD in Iraq.  That's a fact.  That the statement that "WMD were not present" is untrue is a fact.  No number of strawman arguments by CC and Valmy can hope to change those facts.

The facts are misleading though. I don't think the "WMD" that were in Iraq are actually weapons that could cause much destruction, except maybe against Iraqi civilians, and certainly considerably less destruction than conventional weaponry. Weapons that are no threat at all to the United States because they have proven to be ineffective for the past hundred years is more like it.

Does that matter at all or is the technicality the important thing?

I am not sure exactly why you insist that the facts are not important when I point out a factual untruth, and insist that the truth is a mere "technicality."  Don't we frown on the position that "the truth is a technicality" any more?  Are you really going to take the position opposed to mine, that the truth is "misleading" and so an untruth is preferable?

It seems to me that all of your technicalities glossing over the fact that WMDs were, in fact, found in Iraq are far more technicalities than my simple observation that they were.

[Syt]

Don't feed the grumbler.