and please forgive my inability to either type or spell.mudering should be murdering.
You know, it is very easy to find facts that support your viewpoint, left or right.
The administration has admitted there were no WMD’s in Iraq at the time of the invasion, regardless of whether or not he had some at one point in the past.
The administration would like more than anything to be able to stand up and show the world that Iraq had WMD’s.
Though many reasons were listed for war, the biggest items were the fact that there appeared to be linkages between Iraq and terrorists in concert with WMD’s.
Given that US officials routinely have conversations with bad folks in other countries, it would be just as easy to tie the US to terrorist organizations as it is to tie Iraq to them.
The US is a great and free society with many opportunities for all and it is sacrificing it’s citizens in order to bring a chance at freedom to the Iraqi people – whether or not anyone can agree on the reason.
However, there is nothing wrong with thinking that it is not worth the lives of your own citizens to do this action. The war on terror isn’t going to be won or lost because of events in Iraq, no matter what those events are.
With respect to the war on terror, Iraq is just a place, it isn’t the seat of terrorism. You can leave Iraq today, or ten years from now, it won’t make much difference in the bigger conflict, unless Iraq descends into anarchy and becomes a terrorist haven.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You know, it is very easy to find facts that support your viewpoint, left or right.
The administration has admitted there were no WMD’s in Iraq at the time of the invasion, regardless of whether or not he had some at one point in the past.
The administration would like more than anything to be able to stand up and show the world that Iraq had WMD’s.
Though many reasons were listed for war, the biggest items were the fact that there appeared to be linkages between Iraq and terrorists in concert with WMD’s.
Given that US officials routinely have conversations with bad folks in other countries, it would be just as easy to tie the US to terrorist organizations as it is to tie Iraq to them.
The US is a great and free society with many opportunities for all and it is sacrificing it’s citizens in order to bring a chance at freedom to the Iraqi people – whether or not anyone can agree on the reason.
However, there is nothing wrong with thinking that it is not worth the lives of your own citizens to do this action. The war on terror isn’t going to be won or lost because of events in Iraq, no matter what those events are.
With respect to the war on terror, Iraq is just a place, it isn’t the seat of terrorism. You can leave Iraq today, or ten years from now, it won’t make much difference in the bigger conflict, unless Iraq descends into anarchy and becomes a terrorist haven.[/quote]
Very good post.
Facts are Iraq did not attack us, a terror org. that we at one time supported did.
I just wish we were able to focus our efforts on the people who now force me to look out at a 16 acer hole in the ground everyday when I am at work.
[quote]DB297 wrote:
Very good post.
Facts are Iraq did not attack us, a terror org. that we at one time supported did.
I just wish we were able to focus our efforts on the people who now force me to look out at a 16 acer hole in the ground everyday when I am at work. [/quote]
This is a myth. I keep having to point it out to people, but nobody seems to learn it.
We never supported Osama, or Al-Qaeda. This is a myth born out of us supporting a large group of fighters in Afghanistan. What people do not know is that there was a second large group fighting in Afghanistan who did not want USA support, and refused to have anything to do with the USA, including funding. Osama was very big in that group.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You know, it is very easy to find facts that support your viewpoint, left or right. [/quote]
People too often spend too much time trying to win debates instead of looking for the truth. I really do care about the real facts, and keep trying to dispel the myths people keep spreading. I have succeeded, and at times I have been wrong.
Getting at the truth, and doing what is right is more important then some debate. If I state something it is not to win debates, but because I believe it. (Yes I know your statement was pointed at everyone.)
[quote]The administration has admitted there were no WMD’s in Iraq at the time of the invasion, regardless of whether or not he had some at one point in the past.
The administration would like more than anything to be able to stand up and show the world that Iraq had WMD’s.
Though many reasons were listed for war, the biggest items were the fact that there appeared to be linkages between Iraq and terrorists in concert with WMD’s. [/quote]
Ok, for the first time here I will say that I do believe WMD’s were an excuse, though a good one, to get rid of Saddam. I agreed, and still agree with getting rid of Saddam. Bush took advantage of the political environment of the time to go in. This had the side effect of drawing Al-Qaeda into Iraq, which I believe was also part of the plan. (Though I believe they expected to be more successful in that arena then they were.)
I also think they took too long going into Iraq, playing those stupid political games, didn’t use the forces as effectively as they could have, ran a stupid PC war, and let Al-Qaeda get more of a foothold then they ever should have gotten.
[quote]Given that US officials routinely have conversations with bad folks in other countries, it would be just as easy to tie the US to terrorist organizations as it is to tie Iraq to them.
The US is a great and free society with many opportunities for all and it is sacrificing it’s citizens in order to bring a chance at freedom to the Iraqi people – whether or not anyone can agree on the reason.
However, there is nothing wrong with thinking that it is not worth the lives of your own citizens to do this action. The war on terror isn’t going to be won or lost because of events in Iraq, no matter what those events are.
With respect to the war on terror, Iraq is just a place, it isn’t the seat of terrorism. You can leave Iraq today, or ten years from now, it won’t make much difference in the bigger conflict, unless Iraq descends into anarchy and becomes a terrorist haven.[/quote]
You are correct that it won’t stop terrorism, nor is the whole war, but I saw it as a significant battle in the war on terror, not the whole thing by a long shot. From what I have heard from some military experts, we have decimated Al-Qaeda, (not just in Iraq,) and they are no longer what they were before. That is significant because they brought terrorists together, and by making them a cohesive group, they performed better, more intelligently, and in more devastating ways.
But because of how they were set up, all the terrorist groups connected were fairly autonomous groups, they are now terrorist groups all over that are again separate organizations, and no longer wait for any message to attack. Terrorists are weaker, but more likely to attack. These small groups will be much harder to deal with.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The guy is the most arrogant president we have had in a very long time.
I guess that depends on what your definition of is, is.
No, if Clinton were that steadfast and arrogant, he would have simply said that God told him to screw a fat intern. The bible belt would have forgiven him and that would have been the end of it.
[/quote]
Bwhahahhaha! Hilarious.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
vroom wrote:
You know, it is very easy to find facts that support your viewpoint, left or right.
People too often spend too much time trying to win debates instead of looking for the truth. I really do care about the real facts, and keep trying to dispel the myths people keep spreading. I have succeeded, and at times I have been wrong.
Getting at the truth, and doing what is right is more important then some debate. If I state something it is not to win debates, but because I believe it. (Yes I know your statement was pointed at everyone.)
The administration has admitted there were no WMD’s in Iraq at the time of the invasion, regardless of whether or not he had some at one point in the past.
The administration would like more than anything to be able to stand up and show the world that Iraq had WMD’s.
Though many reasons were listed for war, the biggest items were the fact that there appeared to be linkages between Iraq and terrorists in concert with WMD’s.
Ok, for the first time here I will say that I do believe WMD’s were an excuse, though a good one, to get rid of Saddam. I agreed, and still agree with getting rid of Saddam. Bush took advantage of the political environment of the time to go in. This had the side effect of drawing Al-Qaeda into Iraq, which I believe was also part of the plan. (Though I believe they expected to be more successful in that arena then they were.)
I also think they took too long going into Iraq, playing those stupid political games, didn’t use the forces as effectively as they could have, ran a stupid PC war, and let Al-Qaeda get more of a foothold then they ever should have gotten.
Given that US officials routinely have conversations with bad folks in other countries, it would be just as easy to tie the US to terrorist organizations as it is to tie Iraq to them.
The US is a great and free society with many opportunities for all and it is sacrificing it’s citizens in order to bring a chance at freedom to the Iraqi people – whether or not anyone can agree on the reason.
However, there is nothing wrong with thinking that it is not worth the lives of your own citizens to do this action. The war on terror isn’t going to be won or lost because of events in Iraq, no matter what those events are.
With respect to the war on terror, Iraq is just a place, it isn’t the seat of terrorism. You can leave Iraq today, or ten years from now, it won’t make much difference in the bigger conflict, unless Iraq descends into anarchy and becomes a terrorist haven.
You are correct that it won’t stop terrorism, nor is the whole war, but I saw it as a significant battle in the war on terror, not the whole thing by a long shot. From what I have heard from some military experts, we have decimated Al-Qaeda, (not just in Iraq,) and they are no longer what they were before. That is significant because they brought terrorists together, and by making them a cohesive group, they performed better, more intelligently, and in more devastating ways.
But because of how they were set up, all the terrorist groups connected were fairly autonomous groups, they are now terrorist groups all over that are again separate organizations, and no longer wait for any message to attack. Terrorists are weaker, but more likely to attack. These small groups will be much harder to deal with.[/quote]
So you admit that the WMD’s were in excuse. As many have stated here on the forum that Cheny and co. cherry-picked intelligence to fit their agenda. So essentially the Prez lied on that point. But that begs the question why? If this administration really had a strong case for invasion why lie? Why not tell the public the truth?
thunderbolt23: I agree that the policy was never to just get rid of any old tyrant however, one with lots of oil and without the capability to put up a real fight fit the bill. We are still in dipolmacy with N.Korea cause they could fight back(got dem’ precious nukes). It has absoltuly nothing to do with dipolmacy.
Mage, nice post.
Something I try to do when people speak their mind instead of talking points is respect their opinion.
Obviously, some people have different priorities between the various principles involved and would judge the president negatively for some things that you might agree with.
Anyhow, the fact you support this or that decision of the administration doesn’t mean you have to defend or explain the administrations actions in general… as I see you are possibly in the midst of getting blasted above.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So you admit that the WMD’s were in excuse. As many have stated here on the forum that Cheny and co. cherry-picked intelligence to fit their agenda. So essentially the Prez lied on that point. But that begs the question why? If this administration really had a strong case for invasion why lie? Why not tell the public the truth?[/quote]
Yes I believe WMD’s were IN excuse. But that does not mean the president lied, or cherry picked the intelligence, so please don’t put words into my mouth. They didn’t need to lie because they had the intelligence there right in front of them.
More like they took advantage of the situation they were in. (Like any politician would.)
What I am saying is that they wanted Saddam out of power. They considered him dangerous, and a real threat to the world. Looking at the WMD situation, and the time we were in, he had the political power to go after Saddam, and he took it.
To those who didn’t notice the words I believe in the statements I made, that means it is my opinion, and not a provable fact. (I at least attempt to differentiate the two.)
[quote]vroom wrote:
Mage, nice post.
Something I try to do when people speak their mind instead of talking points is respect their opinion.
Obviously, some people have different priorities between the various principles involved and would judge the president negatively for some things that you might agree with.
Anyhow, the fact you support this or that decision of the administration doesn’t mean you have to defend or explain the administrations actions in general… as I see you are possibly in the midst of getting blasted above.[/quote]
Hey vroom,
I knew that response was coming, and am surprised at how little there was. But I do have to be honest. If a person cannot be honest then they really need to decide if their beliefs truly are the right ones.
Some people here get so caught up on winning, which I don’t see as the real purpose here, they don’t pay attention to whether they are right or not.
I respect others opinions. I don’t respect when some try to destroy others, or assume others are evil if their opinions don’t happen to match their own. We may not all agree with what the good rules for humanity are, but we need to realize that others have their opinions because they believe they are good for humanity.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
…
Please if anyone has a legitimate reason for being against the war, speak up. I actually do believe there are legitimate reasons to be against this war, or against war in general. But nobody wants to talk about this stuff and instead they just focus on gossip, rumors, innuendo, (say it slowly and you end up with a Spanish porn movie,) lies, myths, and propaganda.
Really I believe that about 80% of the people who are against the Iraq conflict would have been for it if Gore did it. (And about 20 to 25% of the people for it would be against it.) You cannot decide whether you like a presidents decisions and policies based solely on what party they belong to.[/quote]
So now you need a reason to oppose a war? But you don’t need a reason to support the war right?
You’re a fool if you believe that Gore would ever have invaded Iraq.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The Mage wrote:
I will say Bush should have been more aggressive then he was, and not ran a PC kind of war.
I have been sayiong this since the war started. If anything has been “wrong” about this war it is precisely that we didn’t go over there and exterminate the threat with extreme prejudice.
[/quote]
What threat?
No, I’m afraid I must insist.
What threat?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
…
And no I do not expect you to accept that. If they found WMD’s tomorrow you wouldn’t accept that. If they found Osama in Iraq you wouldn’t accept that either. (That’s not Osama, just some guy they found who looks like him.)
Oh yeah, one more thing. You also do not care that one of the inspectors, while saying he found little (again some small amounts found,) said that the programs were still in place, ready to go at a moments notice, and much worse, and much further along then anyone thought. (Paraphrased of course.) He pretty much said he couldn’t believe how extensive the programs were, and said we dodged a bullet.
If nothing else I think that is enough to satisfy me.[/quote]
Oh man, this is so funny. This really cracks me up.
First you speculate that IF WMD’s would be found, X wouldn’t have accepted that. IF Osama would have been found, X wouldn’t have accepted that either.
And then you point out that you don’t accept that no WMD’s nor ties with Osama were found.
You’re “satisfied” with a statement from one of the inspectors.
This is ippon right? This must be sudden death right? You’re OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION MAN ! ! !
NEXT ! ! !
The Bush administration lied to get the public behind the war. You either don’t mind/care or you do. Personally I think the war in Iraq needed to happen, I never believed the stories about WMD’s but that didn’t really effect my opinion on ousting Saddam. I don’t have a problem with the War, I have a problem with the way it was prosecuted and the lies told to justify it.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
So now you need a reason to oppose a war? But you don’t need a reason to support the war right? [/quote]
Uh, no. That is not what I said at all, and in fact is quite a stupid statement.
You really need to learn English here. I was not saying Gore would have. The statement was not about gore, but about the people who were for and against the war. I could have used Clinton, Kerry, or any other Democrat. It just happens that he was the one who could have been our president, so that was the choice.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Oh man, this is so funny. This really cracks me up.
First you speculate that IF WMD’s would be found, X wouldn’t have accepted that. IF Osama would have been found, X wouldn’t have accepted that either.
And then you point out that you don’t accept that no WMD’s nor ties with Osama were found.
You’re “satisfied” with a statement from one of the inspectors.
This is ippon right? This must be sudden death right? You’re OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION MAN ! ! !
NEXT ! ! ![/quote]
Yeah man, Out of this discussion.
Ippon man totally ippon. (I hope this is a typo, as I don’t know what the fuck ippon is.)
Uh… what the fuck are you talking about anyway?
Am I not allowed to speculate? Speculation is stupid?
When exactly did I say there were no ties with Osama? Please point this out to me.
My discussion is obviously way beyond your comprehension here.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The Mage wrote:
I will say Bush should have been more aggressive then he was, and not ran a PC kind of war.
I have been sayiong this since the war started. If anything has been “wrong” about this war it is precisely that we didn’t go over there and exterminate the threat with extreme prejudice.
What threat?
No, I’m afraid I must insist.
What threat?
[/quote]
Where are you from? You sound eerily French to me. You wouldn’t know a threat if it was goose stepping up your capital steps.
Why am I not suprised?
[quote]Xvim wrote:
The Bush administration lied to get the public behind the war. You either don’t mind/care or you do. Personally I think the war in Iraq needed to happen, I never believed the stories about WMD’s but that didn’t really effect my opinion on ousting Saddam. I don’t have a problem with the War, I have a problem with the way it was prosecuted and the lies told to justify it. [/quote]
What lie? If he lied, you need to prove it. (You also need to realize I have pointed this out hundreds of times, and nobody can truly challenge this.)
Again, In order to prove a lie, you need to prove that the weapons were not there when Bush said they were there, not after, but at the time.
Then you need to prove he knew it at the time he said it, and the overwhelming evidence is in the other direction, supporting the he actually believed they were there.
And for the billionth time I hope you are not trying to say being incorrect means you are lying. That means that anyone who missed a question on a test is a liar.
So if he didn’t actually lie, does that mean you have no complaint about him ousting Saddam now?
Now children, we need to progress this discussion, not spew hate, lies, or propaganda. Nor must we believe it. This discussion needs to progress, not get stuck in this stupid quandary of a debate we are in. Stuck repeating the same things over and over and over.
Apparently he doesn’t know that Saddam actually had stated publicly that he was at war with us, invaded 5 other countries, and had provable ties to terrorists that have attacked our embassies, a military ship, and tried to assassinate Bush 1.
Or the provable connections to Al-Qaeda. (Read: not 911, but Al-Qaeda. If I don’t point that out they get confused.)
Or the fact that he has committed genocide on the order of (estimated) 1 million people. He had used WMD’s before, so the thought was that he would again.
At one time he had the 5th largest military in the world, and was in fact rebuilding it. The stockpiles man, the stockpiles.
Also he completely lost the meaning of having a fully functioning WMD program in place ready to go at a moments notice. That means he didn’t need to have them simply because he could make them any time he wanted to.
They found plenty of precursors to WMD’s.
There is no doubt that Saddam did in fact violate the UN resolutions that he was to follow to keep us from going in there.
Anyone mention the hemorrhagic fever they found there? Nasty shit.
Oh and he did in fact have a nu-q-ler program in place. Plans for a rail gun for testing some of this stuff, and the materials for building uranium-enrichment centrifuges. What do you think he wanted that stuff for?
People really need to read this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213