mrttao
Well-known member
I have specifically told it to bacle 5 times already.
IIRC the last time was like a month ago.
Every week Bacle pretends to forgot this
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
IIRC the last time was like a month ago.
Every week Bacle pretends to forgot this
And guess what, what you said doesn't change at all how the majority of the US public viewed the WMD claims about Iraq; a smokescreen for Bush Jr's daddy issues.
I know some WMD's, mostly chem that was old and nonviable, were found, and supposedly the good shit was shipped to Syria. That doesn't change the public perception of the justifications around the Iraq invasion.
And the lies about the yellowcake uranium possibly being sold to Osama were a part of the WMD farce too.
You can try to pretend that 'correcting' me about this multiple times somehow changes the majority of public opinion over Iraq, but it won't change things and trying to act like I am ignoring what was said, rather than reiterating how public opinion doesn't care about that excuse and justification, because it was too little, far too late, to salvage the PR of the Iraq invasion.
Yes, and Israel took care of that for us, and by the time of the invasion they had some yellowcake left, that people lied to US intel about, and claimed Saddam was going to sell nuclear weapons/material to terrorists like Osama.
Don't fucking try to gaslight me on this, I remember the lead up to the invasion and how even then most people in the US didn't really buy Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell's bullshit about Iraq, but couldn't stop them from invading.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Who doesn't? It's not hard to make nuclear weapons.
But they didn't actually have any, nor were they seriously capable of making or using any arsenal. Iraq was pretty much neutralized as a threat. But Neocons lied because they wanted to be like their daddies in WW2 and spread democracy by bombs...and over one trillion dollars and four thousand Americans were lost for it.
Not going to lie, I don't believe in the WMD nonsense personally. And frankly I couldn't give a shit if they DID have nuclear weapons.
North Korea and China has nukes, are considerably more threatening and oddly enough we don't obliterate their country and they haven't obliterated ours (yet).
Almost like MAD is a concept.
North Korea and China has nukes, are considerably more threatening and oddly enough we don't obliterate their country and they haven't obliterated ours (yet).
Almost like MAD is a concept.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
added up isn't it more like a third of the 30+ Trillion dollars debt went into the middle eastern kerfuffles? there is a reason that there is a large anti-intervention wing forming on the conservative side.
Last edited:
There's one factor you're forgetting here: North Korea and China, for all their many [and I mean many] faults, aren't suicidal. Yes, they have nuclear weapons. Yes, they would use them for defence if they were invaded. But they wouldn't use them for ideological reasons.
The Middle-East is full of batshit crazy religious nutjobs that wouldn't care if a target, be it fellow Muslims or Christians or the West, and themselves after went up in nuclear fire.
If a Middle-Eastern country, especially Iran or Saddam's Iraq, created or got ahold of a nuclear weapon, it'd only be a matter of time before some Islamist nut or group gets/had gotten a hold of it and uses/used it somewhere. And, because of Islam's nature and the sheer amount of terror groups out there, some funded by billionaires and States, it would've only been a matter of time.
It's also why there were so much concerns over the Soviet Union's stockpile after it dissolved; one or two "going missing", as it were, and appearing on the Black Market.
Fundamentalist religion, especially Islam, will always be an irrational actor, even if there are some rational actors who'd seek to stop this e.g. members of Iran's government, but even then they'd be one or two bandaids covering a few out of a hundred holes in a bucket of water.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
The best way to understand them is that they are rational actors pursuing irrational goals.
Dude I've seen Chinese people do the most comically unhinged suicidal shit possible, things you wouldn't believe if you saw it, I wouldn't trust your average Chinese politician with a grounded modern kitchen appliance, let alone nukes.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Ixian
Professional Gatekeeper
Once again, public education proves that it has a bias against boys and young men. Misandry is very normalized in the west.
Islamic states aren't any more irrational than any other states, you are looking at certain paramilitary groups and pretending they are aligned or equivalent to the nation. Al-Qaeda seems irrational because its goals are the destruction of existing states, even Islamic ones, and not the maintenance of one they currently control. Iraq wasn't some irrational state, even the Gulf War is widely attributed to poor policy on the US side (Saddam thought we were friends and was (wrongly) convinced a US delegate gave him the go ahead to invade.)
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Even among men.
mrttao
Well-known member
See, these are different arguments.
There is the argument of "everyone who said WMD lied"
And then there is the argument of "WMD was a shitty justification to invade them".
WMD is not just nukes. it is nukes OR bioweapons OR chemical weapons. And they objectively had bioweapons and a bioweapon supply chain. Chemical weapons and a chemical supply chain. Used BOTH bioweapons AND chemical weapons. Had partially enriched uranium but no nuclear bomb.
Thus the crazed leftists (and occasionally people like bacle) screaming that it was all lies are just wrong.
Whether those WMDs justified the USA invading them is a whole different question.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
TL;DW.
Religious states always have a degree of instability in them because their fundamentalism drives them to commit actions in the name of their religion or god. While often this is just typical bias for those of their religion, with Islam it's a whole different ball game because the religion is inherently intolerant, expansionist by the point of the sword, and aggressive.
And, yes, I am aware that states driven by other motivations, such as communism or nationalism, can be just as irrational, too. We saw that with Nazi Germany's flavour of government.
But I have zero doubts that if an Islamist had control of a nuclear weapon, he or she would deploy it against those who stand against their religion in their eyes, even if they die in the attempt and regardless of other consequences.
Even a communist would consider the ramifications like any other sane person and go "yeah, maybe firing a nuke at Washington, London, or Tel-Aviv is a bad idea because we'd end up all dead in the aftermath".
An Islamist would be all for it for killing "infidels" and going to "heaven" alongside their friends and family.
Also, Iraq under Saddam wasn't a Muslim state: Yes, it was the official religion, but basically it was a socialist state one short step from outright communism at the top. What they did wasn't in the name of Allah or Islam but nationalism, racism, and political, not religious, ideology.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
But the very islamist Pakistan does have a nuke, but they still haven't used it in some idiotic murder-suicide attempt against India, their Hindu rival.
Once again, Islamists are rational people. They're just pursuing irrational goals for ideological reasons. Goals that they can plausibly achieve.
Point taken about Pakistan: Although they do sponsor various Islamist groups along India's borders "unofficially", they haven't let the nukes fly because they don't want to become radioactive toast.