Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Grey Fox]

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.

Where is the K from?

[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?

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.

I never disputed that chemical weapons were found in Iraq. I just think calling them a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is a stretching the truth to the point that the term is meaningless. The assertion was that this was a preemptive attack because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the peace of the world. He had nothing in his possession that could conceivably have been a threat.

But, as I said, I don't think that was the real reason the US and UK thought Saddam needed to be overthrown and to the extent I supported the war it was for reasons other than that anyway. But still I think it is a bad look that the evidence that the primary public reason given for the war was so flimsy.

So yeah technically there were some "WMDs" there but not in the sense that it made any sense to overthrow Saddam Hussein for that reason.

That is just my take on the situation.

[Duque de Bragança]

Where is the K from?

Romance languages like their Q to be followed by U, as in Latin.

[Tonitrus]

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?

Seriously?  That was basically a mob boss doing away with one of his own hit men after he is no longer useful.  And then there was also the  Palestinian suicide bombers or sheltering al-Zarqawi, etc. etc.

[grumbler]

Don't feed the grumbler.

Yep.  I'm the asshole that pointed out that CC's strawman arguments (where he attributed to me positions I do not hold) were just that. 

If I am an asshole for pointing out intellectually dishonest takes, I'll wear that title proudly.

If I'm an asshole for mocking an emo poster who tries to nail himself to a cross, I'll wear that title proudly, too.

[grumbler]

I never disputed that chemical weapons were found in Iraq. I just think calling them a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is a stretching the truth to the point that the term is meaningless. The assertion was that this was a preemptive attack because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the peace of the world. He had nothing in his possession that could conceivably have been a threat.

Isn't this precisely what we would call "a technicality?"  That there were large chemical weapons (which are WMDs by definition) that you think were not really WMDs because... well, reasons?

But, as I said, I don't think that was the real reason the US and UK thought Saddam needed to be overthrown and to the extent I supported the war it was for reasons other than that anyway. But still I think it is a bad look that the evidence that the primary public reason given for the war was so flimsy.

So yeah technically there were some "WMDs" there but not in the sense that it made any sense to overthrow Saddam Hussein for that reason.

That is just my take on the situation.

I am not sure why you are including this digression in our discussion.  I have already stated that I don't agree with the Bush Administration's position that the remaining WMDs were a threat to anyone, and that they didn't comprise a causus belli.  I have clearly stated and repeated that my only objection to the claim that "WMD were not present" is that it is untrue (except in your argument that WMD were not WMD because reasons).

[viper37]

The local family who gathers together on holidays (my parents, my sister and her family, my mother's cousin and his wife, my father's sister, and my mother-in-law)  are all Democrats except my Brother-in-Law and he is...some kind of conspiracy theory type I guess. He hated Hillary but now seems interested in UBC. So maybe he would vote for Yang if he somehow won the nomination.

But because the parties are such big tents we still have plenty of things we can viciously disagree about so I try to avoid the subject.

My grandparents (both sets) had this strict ethos that you don't discuss politics so weirdly I never really knew even who they supported. That generation had a code that politics, money, and religion were taboo subjects and that has kind of carried on in my family.

On my mother's side, her parents were pro Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois, but my aunt and her husband, both teachers, hated the PQ with a passion (20% cut on their wages to control expenses, but reversed a few months later - not their finest moment).  They and their children both carry this hatred today.  My mother has always been a PQ supporter.

On my dad's side, my grandfather and him have always been Liberal, federal&provincial, no question asked.  My very reigious grandpa hesitated a little when a women represented the Liberal Party of Quebec between 1985 and 1994.  What was not made public at the time, is that she had a lesbian affair with someone from her staff...  I think poor grandpa would have had an heart attack, had he known that

Most of my uncles and aunt were PQ supporters.

[The Brain]

I never disputed that chemical weapons were found in Iraq. I just think calling them a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is a stretching the truth to the point that the term is meaningless. The assertion was that this was a preemptive attack because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the peace of the world. He had nothing in his possession that could conceivably have been a threat.

Isn't this precisely what we would call "a technicality?"  That there were large chemical weapons (which are WMDs by definition) that you think were not really WMDs because... well, reasons?

But, as I said, I don't think that was the real reason the US and UK thought Saddam needed to be overthrown and to the extent I supported the war it was for reasons other than that anyway. But still I think it is a bad look that the evidence that the primary public reason given for the war was so flimsy.

So yeah technically there were some "WMDs" there but not in the sense that it made any sense to overthrow Saddam Hussein for that reason.

That is just my take on the situation.

I am not sure why you are including this digression in our discussion.  I have already stated that I don't agree with the Bush Administration's position that the remaining WMDs were a threat to anyone, and that they didn't comprise a causus belli.  I have clearly stated and repeated that my only objection to the claim that "WMD were not present" is that it is untrue (except in your argument that WMD were not WMD because reasons).

Causus belli?

[Zoupa]

What sort of WMDs? I understand there were chemical weapons but they are bulky and difficult to use and not particularly effective, especially against the United States by Iraq. Conventional explosives would be more of a threat.

Were any others?

If you go back to the Washington Post article, they examined that point.  I suspect what Grumbler is talking about, when he asserts without any qualification that WMDs existed, are weapons left over from earlier production.  Which is a complete obfuscation of the facts.   The US did no go to war because of a claim Iraq had weapons which were produced in 1991.  The threat which was claimed was that the weapons were being produced at the time and in the case of nuclear weapons, were actively being developed.  None of that was true.

ANyone who watched the actual case for the war knew exactly what was being claimed - that Saddam had NOT given up his WMD programs (which included both existing and future weapons) and more importantly, had not cooperated in the manner the previous cease fire demanded and in the manner he agreed to cooperate.

There is much to find contemptible about the case made for that war, you don't need to fabricate new outrage based on claims nobody actually made, like "nuclear weapons, were actively being developed" with what that is implying. Nobody who voted for that war or supported the war on the grounds of Saddam violating his agreements around his WMD programs did so because they were concerned that Saddam was on the verge of being a nuclear power any time soon.

What? Do you not remember the smoking gun/ mushroom cloud bullshit? It was repeated by Bush, Cheney and al. in every fucking speech.

[Zoupa]

Don't feed the grumbler.

Yep.  I'm the asshole that pointed out that CC's strawman arguments (where he attributed to me positions I do not hold) were just that. 

If I am an asshole for pointing out intellectually dishonest takes, I'll wear that title proudly.

If I'm an asshole for mocking an emo poster who tries to nail himself to a cross, I'll wear that title proudly, too.

But you're an asshole to begin with. You're just adding layers.

[grumbler]

But you're an asshole to begin with. You're just adding layers.

I'm posting on Languish.  It's all assholes here. Don't feel left out - you are a multilayered asshole yourself.

[Eddie Teach]

I believe we had a vote and declared Katmai the Asshole.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I believe we had a vote and declared Katmai the Asshole.

I still think EmmaUK had it down though.

[Razgovory]

What? Do you not remember the smoking gun/ mushroom cloud bullshit? It was repeated by Bush, Cheney and al. in every fucking speech.

Berkut and Grumbler never could admit they were wrong on this bullshit.  They've been trying to claim they were justified for a decade and a half.

[Berkut]

It's amusing to see supposedly principled members of the "Left" copy the worst of the Fox News propaganda tactics.

If you repeat a lie long enough, at least YOU will start to believe it!