he said a lot. for one thing he pointed out that even the most avid anti war democrats are not brazen evenough to put forth such lies as you would.

Well, have you read the book? And by the way, he's got a very exhaustive bibliography listing his sources and material. Again, I always quote my sources, all of which quote their sources, and yet the only response I get is

"biased liberal lies!!!"

Yet, the on-the-ground truth remains that the commander of the entire U.S military was against the invasion and was one-hundred-percent correct in his analysis that the plan cooked up by Rumsfeld and other civilian politicians was woefully inadequate and would lead to needless bloodshed and insurgency.

The reaction? He was fired by Rumsfeld.

This is not a "liberal biased opinion" but pure fact which is exposed, not just by Ricks but by military journalists themselves.

Did you know that Rumsfeld declared war on the pentagon the day before the 9/11 attacks- he wasn't very popular and stated that the Pentagon was it's own worst enemy and would therefore have much of it's functions be outsourced to the private sector. Hello expanded contracts for Halliburton, Triple Canopy and Blackwater.

But no, just sit back and content yourself with the fact that since the journalist is a "liberal" therefore everything  he reports is clearly garbage and there is no necessity to actually pay attention to any of it

I just love authors who refer to other authors as sources.

Even if the original story was somewhat correct, the constant need to rewrite it will have produced something awesome.

You really think that quoting sources that quote sources that are also opinion pieces without actual evidence makes your stories more believable? It doesn't matter how many people quote the lies, they remain lies.

I have read too much from you that you claimed you gave sources for, too much that was so highly unlikely, physically impossible, or that directly contradicted the direct evidence I saw myself, to believe that your sources that quote sources are very valuable.

In fact I do believe that what you yourself make up is probably more reliable information that the stuff you quote from sources that quote other sources.

Speaking of sources based on (unconfirmed) sources, there's an old saw about how to succeed in medical academia - write a series of articles along the following lines:

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure"

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure: Five Years On"

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure: A Review of the Literature"

"Stool Velocity in Congestive Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis"

By that time, you're an expert.

I really cannot be bothered to check your sources every time when you yourself say that they are books quoting other books.

I have been disappointed by your sources in the past, I don't want to confirm your sources just to be disappointed again.

If you want me to believe something you say, say something that makes sense.

You keep referring to "interesting reads" but you don't understand that that means NOTHING to me. Give me a link to a neutral source, a primary source, or a gallery of pictures, and you will be convincing. But give me the names of other people like you who quote each other, and you won't be.

_I_ claim that Iraq was Russia's ally, not America's. My evidence is the pictures I myself took of Russian, not American, weapons I found in Iraq. My evidence is also that I myself talked to people who confirmed to me that what I claimed is true.

Give me something like that as evidence, and we will have got something.

But you have made so many ridiculous claims that are also often physically impossible (like vanishing a few hundred thousands bodies in Iran) and tried to back them up (ha!) by referring to some loony who apparently wrote the book where the story was first mentioned, that I have started not to bother checking your "evidence" any more.

From now on, if you want to say something and want me to believe it, post a picture or a link to a picture.

(Obviously not a picture on a Reuters site. They photoshop.)

You can repeat whatever claim you want to repeat.

You don't get it. You just don't get it.

It DOESN'T MATTER to me how often you repeat a statement or how many people you can name who also make such claims.

I want EVIDENCE, not your word for the fact that people I have never heard of agree with you.

I totally believe you when you say that [insert liberal author here] wrote a book which makes the same claims as you do. What you don't understand is that that fact means absolutely nothing to me.

Oh no, my good man. I "get it" just fine. The position that you're taking requires the minimum amount of effort (and knowledge) on your part as you refuse to even consider the points I put forward because of this little tidbit:

You have assumed, that because I am a "liberal" (I'm actually not, by the way as there is more to political persuasions than the ridiculously oversimplified left vs right argument we are spoonfed) that that means that by default ALL sources and books I provide will be written by liberal authors merely spouting their opinion/propaganda.

Therefore, again, you can sit back and say "lies, all lies"

I have provided my evidence, from disimilar authors on different subjects. This doesn't make me "right" or correct anymore than your two weeks in Iraq "proved" that Saddam was an ally of the Soviet Union and not the U.S (to which again I answer he was allies to both in different capacities)

Oh Leauki,

I can't be held accountable for the fact that you've misconstrued my views to fit your narrow mythic narrative of what's going on in the world. In regards to that topic, again, I never stated that using human shields is an acceptable tactic. I -did- try to communicate the fact that the IDF had essentially turned all of Lebanon (in 2006) or Gaza (most recently) into one huge free-fire zone, thereby exposing literally the entire area to air and artillery strikes. My friend's families' in south Lebanon -did- evacuate but were run off the road several times by air strikes. And of course nevermind that roads, bridges, and the airport in Beirut were all possible "terrorist transit points" and therefore open to attack, leaving the multitude of civillians trying to flee virtually stranded.

-so- while everyone in the entire country was in danger of being hit, the IDF justified this by saying that Hezbollah was hiding behind human shields. Again, Hezbollah only having less then 10,000 combatants and succesfully stymying the IDF's ground assault (with tens of thousands of troops, armor, air and artillery support while Hezbollah was heavily outnumbered light infantry) is proof that the majority of Hezbollah weren't hiding behind women and children, they were mostly out in the field, in small squad sized groups harrassing the IDF. -IF- the majority of Hezbollah were actually hiding behind civillians, and not in the field fighting the IDF, then the massive ground force would have easily rolled through south Lebanon in less than a day!

But you are right, this is beside the point of the topic at hand-

You keep saying that I don't understand your point, but I do indeed my good fellow. If you had spent more than two seconds actually looking into the sources I provide, you will see that they provide proof (not just reference to an opinion piece) to back up their claims.

But you really don't have to believe me. The proof is in the pudding, and the various situations have been repeated, over, and over and over again in different countries all over the globe.

That situation being, that we don't really care about democracy or freedom for the world. What we do care about, is having leaders in other countries that will act in our interest. So long as they play to our tune, we keep them around and support them (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly) and if they rebel, then we cut them loose. Sometimes this merely means withdrawing support. Sometimes this means financing and backing a coup or election to replace them with someone who WILL dance to our tune. Sometimes this means an actual invasion.

If you look at the number of 'good' dictators that we supported for years or decades over the years (information which is widely available from multiple sources but seldom studied) you'll see this bears out. Again, I use the term 'good' dictator sarcastically because for the most part they were good for us and we didn't give a damn about what they did to our people.

And you know what?

We're not the only ones who do this. This is an age old formula, which right now the Russians are using in Chechnya. Right now, Ramzan Kadyrov is the Russian's man in office, their "guy" running Chechnya. If however, he ever bites the hand that feeds him you can be rest assured that his benefactors in Moscow will suddenly produce a trove of massive evidence supporting the fact that he is a corrupt, evil little man who tortures and disapears anyone even suspected of being an opponent of his supposed democratic regime.

Right now, Hamid Karzai is "our" man in Afghanistan, but he's been tilting away from the U.S recently what with the fact that one too many times dozens of civillians have been killed in indiscriminate airstrikes and he's been complaining a bit too much for Washington's liking. If he doesn't shape up, we'll probably find a way to get him out of power or dispose of him.

President Diem of South Vietnam was "our guy" there until he started turning away from our interests. Then we backed a coup in which his generals took control and executed him.

This has played out so many times over the years and is not just the crackpot musings of "liberal" authors but is widely available information.

At the end of the day, we do not care about being the good guys. We care about our interests, as is the only way an empire can be succesfully run and all else be damned!

I didn't do anything like that. I was merely referring to the discussion on Lebanon were you claimed that using human shields is a perfectly normal strategy and that the American forces would do it too if the US were attacked.

(Oddly enough the Israeli military doesn't use that strategy and never has. The Israeli population was instead evacuated. And I remember you claimed that Lebanon didn't have the time to evacuate southern Lebanon. And I told you that I found that odd since Hizbullah had been firing rockets at Israel for five years, which is ample time to evacuate the region so that no civilian would die when Israel strikes back. Israel also dropped leaflets before she dropped bombs so that people could get away.)

And that's a lie, my friend. The IDF never did turn anything into a "huge free-fire" zone. Certain anti-Israel people claimed such, but it wasn't true.

And I offered proof. I showed you a picture of a village used by Hizbullah were everything was destroyed except the mosque. The pictures proves that the IDF knew exactly what they were targeting and how to avoid targeting what shouldn't be targeted. It proves that the claim that Lebanon was a "free-fire zone" was a lie.

It's an anti-Semitic lie anyway. It's just a way to put the blame on the Jews even when the IDF actually pays close attention to not harming civilians. (Or do you think the Arabs built field hospitals in Israel to care for the civilian population when the terrorists attack? They don't, but Israel does exactly that when she strikes back. The lie about the "free-fire zone" is designed to overshadow that fact.)

And then there is a third thing you don't understand.

Not EVERYTHING you can possibly say qualifies as wrong. Your story about South-Vietnam might very well be true. I never said anything about the subject. It's a silly example and I don't know why you brought it up. What you don't understand is that these things don't scale. Whatever you say about Vietnam and even when we agree about it does NOT change even the tiniest bit the truth value of anything else you say.

In short: If you lie or repeat a lie about, for example, the Shah, and you give as a "source" a book where somebody makes the same claim (and that's it), my problem is with your belief that finding someone who agrees with you constitutes "evidence" for your claim. And if you say something else, for example about Vietnam, and that claim is true, the first claim is still a lie.

Let's say that I agreed with you about your Vietnam claim. Does that constitute evidence for your story? I don't think it does. It merely constitutes my agreement with your claim. But you cannot use it as a source to back up your claim.

The Lebanon war is a good example of our two different ways of thinking:

You claim that Israel turned Lebanon into a free-fire zone and your evidence was other people who made the same claim.

I claimed that Israel fired at very specific targets and I provided pictures of videos that showed such. I also claimed that Israel had fewer civilian victims because Israel evacuated, and I know that because I was there (and am now) and was evacuated. I also claimed that Israel dropped leaflets asking the Lebanese to evacuate the area, and I have in fact seen those leaflets. (Of course, I cannot myself verify that they really were dropped.)

And you claimed if the leaflets were really dropped, Lebanon didn't have time to evacuate because a million people cannot be evacuated within a few days. Your source for that was, let me think if I recall correctly, other people who made the same claim.

I claimed that millions of people can be evacuated very quickly, and that I know that because I was one of the million who were evacuated very quickly.

Do you still not understand my issue with your version of "evidence"?

You claim X and your source is some other dude claiming X.

I claim Y and my source is what I have myself seen.

I assume we can believe each others' words. And I do believe that you know other people who agree with you. I never doubted your words when you said that author whatever wrote the same thing you just claimed. I am perfectly fine with YOUR word.

But I am not fine with the word of somebody I don't know and who gives me a source which is yet another person I don't know.

And when I or others tell you that there is a problem with your version of "evidence" you turn into whining liberal mode and cry that the only reason we don't accept your "evidence" is because you are a liberal. It's useless.

You just don't know the things you are talking about. And that's the problem. And it doesn't matter to me which side you believe, if you don't apply critical thinking.

Your position on war crimes I find disgusting but other than that my problem with you is that you are incredibly ignorant while fully capable of keeping a lot of information at the ready. It's impressive but for a discussion it is also entirely useless. What can I learn from you? You just tell me what any anti-Semite can tell me and give as a source some other dude making the same claims. It's useless.

A few days ago I was in an Israeli navy base. I met the supreme commander of the Israeli navy (I assume that means "both boats" as the navy is not really big). He looks Chinese. We talked.

I totally expect that if the two of us, you and I, were ever involved in a discussion about what Israeli barracks look like and we happened to disagree about it, I would say that they look like Y and you would claim that they look like Z, and my Y would be what I saw, and you would insist on Z and give me a "source", an article where some other guy also claims Z. Note that I couldn't take pictures in the installation. I did have a camera, but didn't want to find out what would happen if I used it.

Your sources are other people making the same claims. I don't accept those "sources". It doesn't matter how often you "present" them.

My sources for my claim that your sources are other people making the same claims are the links you post to other people making the same claims as you.

Perhaps you don't understand how this works.

I assume that SOME people assume that Israel is guilty until proven completely innocent. That's not how I see the world.

If somebody claims that Israel did bad thing X and he has no evidence, I don't believe the claim.

If somebody claims that Israel did bad thing X and I have evidence to the contrary, even if only anecdotal, I don't believe the claim.

Ask your friend why he didn't team up with his friends to stop Hizbullah from firing rockets into Israel.

You can have positions, but you cannot claim that the position constitutes a fact, even if other people have the same position.

Personal experience is not the only evidence I can use. But it's evidence. Claims made by people, regardless of how many other people they quote, are not evidence.

Wikipeadia...great source!!!