[Cause]

Did America ever really get to the bottom of how they started a war over WMD when their were none? Was it an honest mistake, an outright lie. Somewhere imbetween. I don't think that ever really got the attention it deserved. One minute you were fighting to stop another 9/11 the next you invaded Iraq over faulty intel.

[Maark Abbott]

Cause, on 25 June 2019 - 12:13 PM, said:

Did America ever really get to the bottom of how they started a war over WMD when their were none? Was it an honest mistake, an outright lie. Somewhere imbetween. I don't think that ever really got the attention it deserved. One minute you were fighting to stop another 9/11 the next you invaded Iraq over faulty intel.

Iraq has this gooey stuff that is worth a lot of the currency that Eye-rakky man didn't want to adopt.

[Illuyankas]

EmperorMagus, on 25 June 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Why are you guys making fun of the war tax? It seems well-suited to the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, which is providing healthcare to veterans of American wars.

[QuickTidal]

 relevant.png (24.9K)
Number of downloads: 1

[Cause]

Illuyankas, on 25 June 2019 - 02:29 PM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 25 June 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

Why are you guys making fun of the war tax? It seems well-suited to the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, which is providing healthcare to veterans of American wars.

I would like to know more

[worry]

If you're asking if the facts ever bore out whether it was a deliberate misinformation campaign to get into a war of choice with Iraq vs. whether it was a horrible but honest failing of intelligence/leadership/decision-making ... it was the former. At this late date, I can't point you to like one article offhand (because of my terrible memory, but maybe someone else w/ a better memory can) that compiles all that evidence.

Now if you're further asking if America did self-reflection after the fact, coming to terms with this bad decision, and did any formal self-corrections since then at any level of decision-making, the answer there is a big fat No. All of the people who lied us into it retired peacefully or continue to work/consult in industries that profit from war. Even the journalists and pundits who did the water-carrying still work. David Frum (who worked for GWB and coined "axis of evil") has a cushy job at The Atlantic, which is ostensibly a progressive outlet. Judith Miller is writing the same things about Iran today that she wrote about Iraq before that war. To say nothing of the actual power brokers in government or quasi-governmental industries. There have been zero negative consequences for anybody involved -- which is, frankly, one of the biggest stains on Pres. Obama's legacy.

[amphibian]

To be fair, we didn't do shit to Kissinger so why would we go after Cheney or whoever?

[worry]

There's still time! He's apparently immortal!

[Malankazooie]

Ok you worthless turds, lets turn the discussion to the first 2020 Democratic Candidates Debates. First round is Wednesday night. You guys think Warren gonna mop the floor with the first round line-up? - folks running who no one has heard of or knows and wouldn't be recognized if their life depended on it?

[Slow Ben]

Malankazooie, on 26 June 2019 - 03:14 AM, said:

You guys think Warren gonna mop the floor with the first round line-up?

Yes

[Malankazooie]

Slow Ben, on 26 June 2019 - 03:43 AM, said:

Malankazooie, on 26 June 2019 - 03:14 AM, said:

You guys think Warren gonna mop the floor with the first round line-up?

Yes

Agree. I would like to see her in the second night with the better competition. Alas, will have to wait for later debates.

This post has been edited by Malankazooie: 26 June 2019 - 03:56 AM

[worry]

Call me a dreamer, call me unrealistic, call me a know-nothing, call me whatever. But if during the debates it's revealed that any of these potential so-called candidates for the 2020 race did even a single thing on my no-no list, they don't have my vote:
No-no list:

Spoiler

1) Put people in concentration camps.2) Raped people (even just one imo).3) Supported fascists/fascism.4) Funneled charity money meant for kids with cancer into their own coffers.
5) Supported white nationalist causes.

Mock me if you must, but those are my terms. Aside from that, I imagine Sanders, Warren, and Inslee (jk, but I wish) will have good showings and hope Biden's lectern is set over a trap door.

[worry]

Yup, you guessed it. I've decided to switch things up and become super obnoxious about my opinions this election season.

[Tsundoku]

Here's a quick (Democrat) candidate low-down.

https://www.theatlan...t-guide/582598/

Mike Gravel seems pretty cool. I love his ads, the fact he's very anti-Bullshit Wars and his campaign seems to be run by some highschool and Uni students.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 26 June 2019 - 10:58 AM

[Aptorian]

worry, on 26 June 2019 - 04:17 AM, said:

Call me a dreamer, call me unrealistic, call me a know-nothing, call me whatever. But if during the debates it's revealed that any of these potential so-called candidates for the 2020 race did even a single thing on my no-no list, they don't have my vote:
No-no list:

Spoiler

1) Put people in concentration camps.2) Raped people (even just one imo).3) Supported fascists/fascism.4) Funneled charity money meant for kids with cancer into their own coffers.
5) Supported white nationalist causes.

Mock me if you must, but those are my terms. Aside from that, I imagine Sanders, Warren, and Inslee (jk, but I wish) will have good showings and hope Biden's lectern is set over a trap door.

That's some very lofty expectations. Realistically, who hasn't done 1 or 2 of these once or twice? I mean, accidents happen. Right? Right.

[Malankazooie]

Samantha Bee has the right of it. Many of these dem candidates running for president should run for Senate instead. John Hickenlooper would absolutely win the seat from ( R ) Cory Gardner in Colorado.

[Gorefest]

But surely that would benefit the country, not their self-interests? It'll never fly.

[Cause]

What is the deal with so many of these near anonymous to the public eye democrats running for. It seems like many stand no chance in hell. Is it for the fifteen minutes?

[Gorefest]

Of course. They know they don't stand a chance, it is just to make a bit of a name for themselves nationally. Same here in the UK with the Tory party leadership contest, you got all sorts of unknowns without a hope in hell crawling out of the woodwork to announce their leadership candidacy. It is painful to watch, shameless career politicking. It's what 'Western democracies' have come to in the age of multimedia.

[Silencer]

Gorefest, on 26 June 2019 - 02:41 PM, said:

Of course. They know they don't stand a chance, it is just to make a bit of a name for themselves nationally. Same here in the UK with the Tory party leadership contest, you got all sorts of unknowns without a hope in hell crawling out of the woodwork to announce their leadership candidacy. It is painful to watch, shameless career politicking. It's what 'Western democracies' have come to in the age of multimedia.

Personality politics and shameless self-advertisement. It's disheartening.

At least if they had some respectable leadership qualities it would be more understandable but so many of them are clearly just career politicians in it for the publicity.


@Cause - it's pretty much just jockeying for position. Yes, the fame is a factor, but a lot of these people hope to make enough of a splash that they get bumped up the party ladder, too. And most of them know this is as close as they will ever get to being able to run, so it literally can't hurt their future. Is it ultimately short-sighted due to the damage it can cause to the actual candidates? Of course. Do they care? No. These people should never have run and let the actual people with a chance run a proper race - and they know it. But they value themselves over literally everything else, so we end up with the Democalypse.