Wrong place wrong time....

[Tsunami982]

i dont want to get too much into the politics but i think electing a president with such an antiwar stance would greatly undermine the US military. it might be bush's fault we are over there, it might not be... the point is that are there, and we are going to stay there until its finished (if we pull out early the US will lose a lot of its international influence). i live in an area with lots of military personel and the vast majority support bush because kerry has voted NO on military upgrades and increased spending EVERY TIME and decreasing defense spending would be a very bad thing while we are still at war. most of the personel i am in contact with have very negative views of what kerry would do to the military. if success (and not blame) in the middle east is your prime concern, i personally think that bush would be the better choice. as for the economy and other issues, well thats all up in the air.

 

[cwjerome]

Listening to the anti-Iraqers is funny stuff. They wink at each other about oil, yet the US hasn't taken a drop. They act like Bush is this evil, cunning mastermind and then talk about him being a dimwitted moron. They whine on and on about WMDs, yet Kerry, France, the UN, and virtually everyone in the world thought he had them also. They ignore governments like Britain, Australia, Italy and Japan, and crap their pants about France and Germany not wanting the US to attack so they can preserve their immoral economic schemes with Saddam. These people will take any side and say any thing that they think will serve their political purpose. No wonder they like Kerry.

The issue was crystal clear. Saddam had to follow the 10 or so resolutions that had been passed since 1991 and open up, allow unrestricted access, and prove he destroyed his WMDs. Repeatedly he refused. And instead of looking at the value and worth of our actions there and supporting it, a bunch of stupids are trying their hearts out to use it as political ammo to bring down the president. A strange breed.

Of course there will be people who are ignorant, or self-hating, or guided by racism, or anti-globalization, or environmental freaks... basically the same socialist anti-American bunch during the Cold War who were fierce apologists for communist tyranny and bloodshed. They have simply switched themes to defend the brutal hatred and violence of the next stumbling block to freedom and life. One gets the feeling that any incredible atrocity can occur, but their anguish is only aroused when the United States does anything, no matter how tiny the infraction or accidental and even if it's for noble causes. Like the old marxists who would whitewash the 50+ MILLION dead thanks to Stalin and Mao, but fly into convulsions when a stray US bomb killed a half-dozen people in Honduras. And as during the Cold War, once again they'll end up on the wrong side of history.

They only way to deal with the threats we face is to hit it head on like we're doing in Iraq and setting up westernized governments ike we're doing in Iraq.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Listening to the anti-Iraqers is funny stuff. They wink at each other about oil, yet the US hasn't taken a drop. They act like Bush is this evil, cunning mastermind and then talk about him being a dimwitted moron. They whine on and on about WMDs, yet Kerry, France, the UN, and virtually everyone in the world thought he had them also. They ignore governments like Britain, Australia, Italy and Japan, and crap their pants about France and Germany not wanting the US to attack so they can preserve their immoral economic schemes with Saddam. These people will take any side and say any thing that they think will serve their political purpose. No wonder they like Kerry.

The issue was crystal clear. Saddam had to follow the 10 or so resolutions that had been passed since 1991 and open up, allow unrestricted access, and prove he destroyed his WMDs. Repeatedly he refused. And instead of looking at the value and worth of our actions there and supporting it, a bunch of stupids are trying their hearts out to use it as political ammo to bring down the president. A strange breed.

Of course there will be people who are ignorant, or self-hating, or guided by racism, or anti-globalization, or environmental freaks... basically the same socialist anti-American bunch during the Cold War who were fierce apologists for communist tyranny and bloodshed. They have simply switched themes to defend the brutal hatred and violence of the next stumbling block to freedom and life. One gets the feeling that any incredible atrocity can occur, but their anguish is only aroused when the United States does anything, no matter how tiny the infraction or accidental and even if it's for noble causes. Like the old marxists who would whitewash the 50+ MILLION dead thanks to Stalin and Mao, but fly into convulsions when a stray US bomb killed a half-dozen people in Honduras. And as during the Cold War, once again they'll end up on the wrong side of history.

They only way to deal with the threats we face is to hit it head on like we're doing in Iraq and setting up westernized governments ike we're doing in Iraq.

Have you read the NYTimes article that was just released? If the answer is no, I recommend you read it. Article

It's a long read but it shows the lengths the administration went through to prove Iraq was a threat. All with circumstantial evidence that was proven false every step of the way even before the invasion. The administration(powell, rice, rumsfeld, cheney) decided to ignore the facts and keep on insisting the aluminun tubes could ONLY be used for centrifuges when in FACT Iraqi's had been using those same tubes for years to make rockets. Those aluminun tubes were a "key piece of evidence" on invading Iraq and they wouldn't even held up in the US court of law.

The Americans and the world were decieved by this administration.

I never supported the war, just for the record. We were never in any danger from Saddam or the Iraqi's. Especially not from WMD which was the one and only reason why the American people backed this war. :/

 

[jackschmittusa]

CADsortaGUY

Ah, so it's "OK" to fight a "wrong war" if there is a reason you accept. gotcha

Sorry, but you were the one to claim there was a contradiction between starting "the wrong war" and not dropping it and walking away. I just supplied a reason why the assumption was false. You can twist and spin all you want but I doubt you can actually show a contradiction. It only sounds good if you don't think too much.

Tsunami982

it might be bush's fault we are over there, it might not be.

Could you offer an alternate person? If not GWB, then who?

(if we pull out early the US will lose a lot of its international influence).

Did you type that with a straight face? Starting the war cost the U.S. most of its international influence that doesn't come at the point of a gun.

if success (and not blame) in the middle east is your prime concern,

Just what success was the war intended to achieve? Anything realistic that you can think of? Certainly not any of the reasons GWB gave for starting the war.

cwjerome

Listening to the anti-Iraqers is funny stuff.

Anti-Iraqers is pretty funny stuff. I thought it was more along the lines of anti-stupid, useless, counter-productive, war based on lies and deceit. I do admit that small terms fit better into small minds.

They act like Bush is this evil, cunning mastermind and then talk about him being a dimwitted moron.

Some of think that he is a moron whose strings are pulled by evil, cunning masterminds. Hope that clears it up for you.

The issue was crystal clear. Saddam had to follow the 10 or so resolutions that had been passed since 1991 and open up, allow unrestricted access, and prove he destroyed his WMDs.

First of all, just as he agreed to unfettered access, GWB pulled the rug out from under the inspectors. So I'd guess you'd have to blame Bush for the ultimate "failure" of the inspections.

Secondly, is there some "magic number" of failures to comply with U.N. resolutions that automatically generates a war? It might suprise you that other countries ignored more of them without us going to war. I hardly consider your position a vadid argument.

Of course there will be people who are ignorant, or self-hating, or guided by racism, or anti-globalization, or environmental freaks... basically the same socialist anti-American bunch during the Cold War who were fierce apologists for communist tyranny and bloodshed. They have simply switched themes to defend the brutal hatred and violence of the next stumbling block to freedom and life. One gets the feeling that any incredible atrocity can occur, but their anguish is only aroused when the United States does anything, no matter how tiny the infraction or accidental and even if it's for noble causes. Like the old marxists who would whitewash the 50+ MILLION dead thanks to Stalin and Mao, but fly into convulsions when a stray US bomb killed a half-dozen people in Honduras. And as during the Cold War, once again they'll end up on the wrong side of history.

Wow! I didn't know you could make a stew out of just different varieties of crap. You certainly paint with a broad brush. Too broad in fact, for me to take any of that seriously.

They only way to deal with the threats we face is to hit it head on like we're doing in Iraq and setting up westernized governments ike we're doing in Iraq.

And how would you define the threat that Iraq posed?.

And force-feeding your preferred form of government on other countries at the point of a gun is not supposed to sound biggoted?

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Listening to the anti-Iraqers is funny stuff. They wink at each other about oil, yet the US hasn't taken a drop. They act like Bush is this evil, cunning mastermind and then talk about him being a dimwitted moron. They whine on and on about WMDs, yet Kerry, France, the UN, and virtually everyone in the world thought he had them also. They ignore governments like Britain, Australia, Italy and Japan, and crap their pants about France and Germany not wanting the US to attack so they can preserve their immoral economic schemes with Saddam. These people will take any side and say any thing that they think will serve their political purpose. No wonder they like Kerry.

The issue was crystal clear. Saddam had to follow the 10 or so resolutions that had been passed since 1991 and open up, allow unrestricted access, and prove he destroyed his WMDs. Repeatedly he refused. And instead of looking at the value and worth of our actions there and supporting it, a bunch of stupids are trying their hearts out to use it as political ammo to bring down the president. A strange breed.

Of course there will be people who are ignorant, or self-hating, or guided by racism, or anti-globalization, or environmental freaks... basically the same socialist anti-American bunch during the Cold War who were fierce apologists for communist tyranny and bloodshed. They have simply switched themes to defend the brutal hatred and violence of the next stumbling block to freedom and life. One gets the feeling that any incredible atrocity can occur, but their anguish is only aroused when the United States does anything, no matter how tiny the infraction or accidental and even if it's for noble causes. Like the old marxists who would whitewash the 50+ MILLION dead thanks to Stalin and Mao, but fly into convulsions when a stray US bomb killed a half-dozen people in Honduras. And as during the Cold War, once again they'll end up on the wrong side of history.

They only way to deal with the threats we face is to hit it head on like we're doing in Iraq and setting up westernized governments ike we're doing in Iraq.

Yikes.....that is a very interesting post....

I think you just boiled a lot of my concerns together in that synopsis.

good read, it definitely is different from what I am used to reading around here.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
Have you read the NYTimes article that was just released? If the answer is no, I recommend you read it. Article

It's a long read but it shows the lengths the administration went through to prove Iraq was a threat. All with circumstantial evidence that was proven false every step of the way even before the invasion. The administration(powell, rice, rumsfeld, cheney) decided to ignore the facts and keep on insisting the aluminun tubes could ONLY be used for centrifuges when in FACT Iraqi's had been using those same tubes for years to make rockets. Those aluminun tubes were a "key piece of evidence" on invading Iraq and they wouldn't even held up in the US court of law.

The Americans and the world were decieved by this administration.

I never supported the war, just for the record. We were never in any danger from Saddam or the Iraqi's. Especially not from WMD which was the one and only reason why the American people backed this war. :/

Seeing what has turned up thus far in Iraq.....It begs the question if the world wasn't also duped when Iraq was bombed, and ultimately approved to bomb, Iraq in 1998.

Seeing that the bulk of the WMD?s turning up in Iraq are from the Iran/Iraq war era.....it seems that the prior administration may have pulled the wool over the worlds eyes too.

That, or people actually believed the information that international consensus illustrated.

For us to be intellectually honest here, if G.W. administration went to war under false pretenses, so did Clinton?s it would seem.

This doesn?t make things any different, but does put them into a new perspective I guess.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
Have you read the NYTimes article that was just released? If the answer is no, I recommend you read it. Article

It's a long read but it shows the lengths the administration went through to prove Iraq was a threat. All with circumstantial evidence that was proven false every step of the way even before the invasion. The administration(powell, rice, rumsfeld, cheney) decided to ignore the facts and keep on insisting the aluminun tubes could ONLY be used for centrifuges when in FACT Iraqi's had been using those same tubes for years to make rockets. Those aluminun tubes were a "key piece of evidence" on invading Iraq and they wouldn't even held up in the US court of law.

The Americans and the world were decieved by this administration.

I never supported the war, just for the record. We were never in any danger from Saddam or the Iraqi's. Especially not from WMD which was the one and only reason why the American people backed this war. :/

Seeing what has turned up thus far in Iraq.....It begs the question if the world wasn't also duped when Iraq was bombed, and ultimately approved to bomb, Iraq in 1998.

Seeing that the bulk of the WMD?s turning up in Iraq are from the Iran/Iraq war era.....it seems that the prior administration may have pulled the wool over the worlds eyes too.

That, or people actually believed the information that international consensus illustrated.

For us to be intellectually honest here, if G.W. administration went to war under false pretenses, so did Clinton?s it would seem.

This doesn?t make things any different, but does put them into a new perspective I guess.

You mention the bulk of WMD showing up from the Iran/Iraq war? Links please? I hope you seriously don't consider the bulk that one un-useable shell. We didn't go to war with Iraq because of one missle, or two. Or even 100. We went to war with Iraq because America was in imminent danger from vast stockpiles of WMD that Saddam possessed and could unleash at any minute in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Clinton didn't go to "war" with Iraq. Just because Clinton along with NATO bombed Iraq doesn't mean we were in a war. I don't recall Clinton mobilizing hundreds of thousands of our troops to invade Iraq. He bombed several areas. If Bush knew where the 100's of WMD sites were he could've done the same exact thing. BIG DIFFERENCE between the bombing Clinton did to control Saddam's arms than what Bush did INVADING a country over a couple of aluminun tubes.

Stop trying to pass the buck. Clinton is not the President and 1000+ troops have died and 7,000+ troops are wounded because of a decision Bush made, not Clinton. A very ill-advised decision. The Bush administration ignored evidence that proved contrary to what they wanted to accomplish in invading Iraq. Instead of having the facts form the argument they tried to form the facts around the argument.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Listening to the anti-Iraqers is funny stuff. They wink at each other about oil, yet the US hasn't taken a drop. They act like Bush is this evil, cunning mastermind and then talk about him being a dimwitted moron. They whine on and on about WMDs, yet Kerry, France, the UN, and virtually everyone in the world thought he had them also. They ignore governments like Britain, Australia, Italy and Japan, and crap their pants about France and Germany not wanting the US to attack so they can preserve their immoral economic schemes with Saddam. These people will take any side and say any thing that they think will serve their political purpose. No wonder they like Kerry.

The issue was crystal clear. Saddam had to follow the 10 or so resolutions that had been passed since 1991 and open up, allow unrestricted access, and prove he destroyed his WMDs. Repeatedly he refused. And instead of looking at the value and worth of our actions there and supporting it, a bunch of stupids are trying their hearts out to use it as political ammo to bring down the president. A strange breed.

Of course there will be people who are ignorant, or self-hating, or guided by racism, or anti-globalization, or environmental freaks... basically the same socialist anti-American bunch during the Cold War who were fierce apologists for communist tyranny and bloodshed. They have simply switched themes to defend the brutal hatred and violence of the next stumbling block to freedom and life. One gets the feeling that any incredible atrocity can occur, but their anguish is only aroused when the United States does anything, no matter how tiny the infraction or accidental and even if it's for noble causes. Like the old marxists who would whitewash the 50+ MILLION dead thanks to Stalin and Mao, but fly into convulsions when a stray US bomb killed a half-dozen people in Honduras. And as during the Cold War, once again they'll end up on the wrong side of history.

They only way to deal with the threats we face is to hit it head on like we're doing in Iraq and setting up westernized governments ike we're doing in Iraq.

Yikes.....that is a very interesting post....

I think you just boiled a lot of my concerns together in that synopsis.

good read, it definitely is different from what I am used to reading around here.

Misery will always find a companion.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

You mention the bulk of WMD showing up from the Iran/Iraq war? Links please? I hope you seriously don't consider the bulk that one un-useable shell. We didn't go to war with Iraq because of one missle, or two. Or even 100. We went to war with Iraq because America was in imminent danger from vast stockpiles of WMD that Saddam possessed and could unleash at any minute in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Everything found?.(ie..bulk) in Iraq today, thus far, has predated the first Gulf War.

Clinton didn't go to "war" with Iraq. Just because Clinton along with NATO bombed Iraq doesn't mean we were in a war. I don't recall Clinton mobilizing hundreds of thousands of our troops to invade Iraq. He bombed several areas. If Bush knew where the 100's of WMD sites were he could've done the same exact thing. BIG DIFFERENCE between the bombing Clinton did to control Saddam's arms than what Bush did INVADING a country over a couple of aluminun tubes.

I?m getting this feeling that you don?t remember why the 1998 bombing campaign allegedly took place.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS...anscripts/clinton.html

So let me get this straight?since we didn?t set out to take over Iraq?.it doesn?t count as a war? Just dropping bombs on a country is what then? Fun?

I don?t remember hundreds of thousands of troops being mobilized to occupy Iraq during the Gulf War either, but somehow that still ended up costing this nation sixty two billion dollars, around one hundred and forty eight battle deaths and two hundred and thirty five more in theatre casualties.

Stop trying to pass the buck. Clinton is not the President and 1000+ troops have died and 7,000+ troops are wounded because of a decision Bush made, not Clinton. A very ill-advised decision. The Bush administration ignored evidence that proved contrary to what they wanted to accomplish in invading Iraq. Instead of having the facts form the argument they tried to form the facts around the argument.

Hmm?you seemed to have eluded my point.

Seeing how not a single piece of WMD have been found from this 98 era bombing crusade?either Clinton was a real good shot (meaning he hit everything he set out to get), or that entire skirmish was bogus as well.

Here?s my problem?I?m trying to figure out why American Presidents have this nasty habit of fabricating evidence in order to go to war over materials that simply did not exist.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO

You mention the bulk of WMD showing up from the Iran/Iraq war? Links please? I hope you seriously don't consider the bulk that one un-useable shell. We didn't go to war with Iraq because of one missle, or two. Or even 100. We went to war with Iraq because America was in imminent danger from vast stockpiles of WMD that Saddam possessed and could unleash at any minute in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Everything found?.(ie..bulk) in Iraq today, thus far, has predated the first Gulf War.

Clinton didn't go to "war" with Iraq. Just because Clinton along with NATO bombed Iraq doesn't mean we were in a war. I don't recall Clinton mobilizing hundreds of thousands of our troops to invade Iraq. He bombed several areas. If Bush knew where the 100's of WMD sites were he could've done the same exact thing. BIG DIFFERENCE between the bombing Clinton did to control Saddam's arms than what Bush did INVADING a country over a couple of aluminun tubes.

I?m getting this feeling that you don?t remember why the 1998 bombing campaign allegedly took place.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS...anscripts/clinton.html

So let me get this straight?since we didn?t set out to take over Iraq?.it doesn?t count as a war? Just dropping bombs on a country is what then? Fun?

I don?t remember hundreds of thousands of troops being mobilized to occupy Iraq during the Gulf War either, but somehow that still ended up costing this nation sixty two billion dollars, around one hundred and forty eight battle deaths and two hundred and thirty five more in theatre casualties.

Stop trying to pass the buck. Clinton is not the President and 1000+ troops have died and 7,000+ troops are wounded because of a decision Bush made, not Clinton. A very ill-advised decision. The Bush administration ignored evidence that proved contrary to what they wanted to accomplish in invading Iraq. Instead of having the facts form the argument they tried to form the facts around the argument.

Hmm?you seemed to have eluded my point.

Seeing how not a single piece of WMD have been found from this 98 era bombing crusade?either Clinton was a real good shot (meaning he hit everything he set out to get), or that entire skirmish was bogus as well.

Here?s my problem?I?m trying to figure out why American Presidents have this nasty habit of fabricating evidence in order to go to war over materials that simply did not exist.

Wow, after reading that I miss Clinton.

About not finding anything.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

So, it just wasn't based on WMD alone unlike this time around and I'm sure Clinton made that very clear at the time. I'm sure he took out tanks, rocket launchers, mobile missle platforms, and the likes. Plus since the UN Inspectors were getting blocked from certain areas I'm sure they just told Clinton to bomb those buildings. I'm sure they did their own intelligence and found out for sure if it was worth bombing or not. Just because we didn't find an intact WMD from 98 doesn't mean that they weren't working in the background at the time and even then that wasn't our soul reason for attacking.

This time around though UN Inspectors weren't being blocked and said they were given full reign on whereever they wanted to go. Plus the key factor was they did not agree with the US that Iraq was developing WMD's. They disagreed with the "key piece of evidence", those aluminum tubes, as evidence and this administration fully disregarded it. All the bombing from Clinton and Gulf War 1 had truly screwed over Saddam's WMD programs.

All signs show that the US wanted to invade Iraq for whatever reason even though the evidence didn't support it. France saw this and Germany saw this and even the UN saw this. It's just sad that our troops are paying the price for this administrations agenda.

 

[Thump553]

What is this "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" thing? It seemed to be Bush's catchphrase during the first debate, given the number of times he said it-even when it wasn't remotely relevant. Is it the GOP "talking point" of the day as to what is wrong with his opponent?

 

[J Heartless Slick]

Originally posted by: element
To pull support for the war. It's not wrong war wrong place wrong time kerry fans.

What IS wrong, is pulling support for the war at this juncture. Where where you chickensh!ts before the war started? Now is the time to support the president and support our troops in Iraq not play monday morning quarterback.

I was against the invasion of Iraq before it happened. GWB has shown incredibly bad judgement with this war in Iraq. He and his supporters used faulty information, ie Saddam was connected to the 9/11/01 attacks and intel to justify this war. I will not write that they lied....

He does not deserve my support.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Thump553
What is this "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" thing? It seemed to be Bush's catchphrase during the first debate, given the number of times he said it-even when it wasn't remotely relevant. Is it the GOP "talking point" of the day as to what is wrong with his opponent?

It's a phrase Kerry has used a few times while stumping recently.

 

[cwjerome]

Jhonny: Yeah I read the NYT article, and it doesn't PROVE anything. All it does is insinuate -rather badly I might add- which is a great big surprise coming from a left-leaning newspaper who has been harshly against the Iraq War from the very beginning. Of course the administration when to great lengths to justify attacking Iraq, is that surprising or wrong? I suppose you would rather have them NOT present evidence or argument before starting a major military operation? Uh... right. The bottom line is not everyone was "tricked" like you and some others around here. I pushed for the war before Bush did, and there's a lot of people like me who advocated action and still support the war fully.

Jack: It looks like I've given you more credit than you deserve. You say things like the war is "stupid, useless, counter-productive, based on lies and deciet", but little talking point sound bites aren't arguments or serious. Small minds indeed.

Let's take a look at the next thing you say: "Some of think that he is a moron whose strings are pulled by evil, cunning masterminds." First, I think anyone who thinks something like that is a blind partisan, and it will just turn off more rational moderate/independents... so politically speaking it's a dumb thing to say. However, some people do enjoy a good conspiracy, but like most all conspiracies they're impossible to prove... very convenient. The worst thing though is the telling psychology of such thinking. Only the most cynical and pessimistic could believe in evil, shadowy masterminds pulling the strings of a dopey president. What does it say about such people's attitudes towards the presidency, the government, the public, and America? It says volumes... no wonder such thinkers are some of the most negative and hateful people around. Here's a news flash for those grounded in reality: You don't go to the best schools, fly fighter jets, run large businesses, be a governor, and be president if you're a idiot. In my opinion, attacking Bush's intelligence is just weak-minded ad hominem and exposes those people for what they are.

Jack says: "First of all, just as he agreed to unfettered access, GWB pulled the rug out from under the inspectors. So I'd guess you'd have to blame Bush for the ultimate "failure" of the inspections. Secondly, is there some "magic number" of failures to comply with U.N. resolutions that automatically generates a war? It might suprise you that other countries ignored more of them without us going to war. I hardly consider your position a vadid argument."

First of all he had agreed to unfetted access only about 10 times previously-- before AND after kicking out inspectors. How naive can we be to continue to play the song and dance game of the past? That's exactly the point, and that's what some of us learned after 9/11. We cannot play the fool's game of before, the status quo aint gonna work, and we have to take serious action at certain times. The fact that you would trust a murderous madman with a track record of evil AFTER 9/11 tells me you're willing to risk LA, DC, or your home to another (and possibly more devastating) terrorist attack. I'm glad we have a pro-active president who in not willing to take that risk. Blaming Bush for the "failure" of inspections is just plain laughable... as I said in my last post, the blame America first crowd will turn anything around.

And no, there is no magic number for violated resolutions. But when it's connected to a previous war, and it deals with a rogue nation, and there's major potential for this regime to cause harm, then I definately would take those violations into consideration.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Jhonny: Yeah I read the NYT article, and it doesn't PROVE anything. All it does is insinuate -rather badly I might add- which is a great big surprise coming from a left-leaning newspaper who has been harshly against the Iraq War from the very beginning.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Oh...LMAO!!!!

sorry...couldn't read any further...laughing...tooo.....hard.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
Wow, after reading that I miss Clinton.

About not finding anything.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

How is this any different from Bush saying his objective was WMD, stuff, and liberation of the Iraqi people?.then adding in some dribble about the gassing of Kuwait, and every other after thought he could toss into the mix?

So, it just wasn't based on WMD alone unlike this time around and I'm sure Clinton made that very clear at the time.

Crystal clear?as you can see

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I think the gist of my point has been made?.

I'm sure he took out tanks, rocket launchers, mobile missle platforms, and the likes. Plus since the UN Inspectors were getting blocked from certain areas I'm sure they just told Clinton to bomb those buildings. I'm sure they did their own intelligence and found out for sure if it was worth bombing or not. Just because we didn't find an intact WMD from 98 doesn't mean that they weren't working in the background at the time and even then that wasn't our soul reason for attacking.

As much as that administration bolstered the point about Saddam rearming and creating WMD, I find it extremely dubious that not a single shred of evidence has been discovered thus far to validate that claim.

About the U.N. inspectors being blocked?.What about the argument that they left on their own due to the impending attack that was going to take place against Iraq. Over and over again I have been told that Saddam didn?t actually kick the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq in ?98. Does this truly hold no merit?

If not, how, exactly, were the inspectors being blocked at this time?

This time around though UN Inspectors weren't being blocked and said they were given full reign on whereever they wanted to go. Plus the key factor was they did not agree with the US that Iraq was developing WMD's. They disagreed with the "key piece of evidence", those aluminum tubes, as evidence and this administration fully disregarded it. All the bombing from Clinton and Gulf War 1 had truly screwed over Saddam's WMD programs.

Like I have been saying, from the looks of things Clinton bombed a bunch of buildings that did not contain WMD too??.which I believe to be my initial point.

The Gulf War and the U.N. inspections shortly there after seemed to have done an effective job.

All signs show that the US wanted to invade Iraq for whatever reason even though the evidence didn't support it. France saw this and Germany saw this and even the UN saw this. It's just sad that our troops are paying the price for this administrations agenda.

At what time did these other countries realize this?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Hmmm?.wasn?t that a few months before we went into Iraq? Jacques should have shared some of that intel that only him, the Russians (- Putin apparently), and Germany seemed to know.

 

[1EZduzit]

Like I have been saying, from the looks of things Clinton bombed a bunch of buildings that did not contain WMD too??.which I believe to be my initial point.

Clinton didn't invade now did he. Bush made that decision all by himself and now needs to be held accountable by the American people as to whether they think it was a justified action or not. I think most people believe Bush showed bad judgment, the only real question on Iraq at this point is where do we go from here?

 

[jackschmittusa]

cwjerome

Jack: It looks like I've given you more credit than you deserve. You say things like the war is "stupid, useless, counter-productive, based on lies and deciet", but little talking point sound bites aren't arguments or serious. Small minds indeed.

You missed my point completely (Perhaps my fault, I'm not great at sarcasm). I was mocking the catch-all catagory of "anti-Iraqers". People have negative feelings about the war for a multitude of reasons, only a few of which I mentioned. To stereotype them all under one banner is an attempt to dismiss them all without addressing any of the points they have.

I also believe that Bush has been a pawn all his life. His family forged the ties to Saudi oil and developed a name in politics. Bush was a familiar name who could be put into positions of power and influence; he wasn't bright enough to know he was being manipulated (or didn't care); and his greed was not so great as to price him out of the market. A look at his history in business and politics seems to show that he was coddled, carried, and directed by ruthless people who found him to be available, controlable, and affordable. This is my take on it, and you can disagree if you want, but I see no logical fallicy in it.

The inspectors had reported that , indeed, they had finally been given unfettered access. If Bush had really wanted that, he had it. I find it hard to believe that he really wanted that, only to discard it as soon as he got it.

I have seen no evidence either now or before the war that that suggested Sadaam was not "contained" by inspections, sanctions, no-fly zones, etc. to the point the where he presented no credible threat outside his own boarders. The question of trust has no bearing on the threat potential under these circumstances. I didn't trust him, but I saw no particular need to fear him either.

N. Korea has defied U.N. resolutions connected to a previous war and might well be considered a "rogue nation". They also pose a credible threat. Is this then sutable criteria to invade?

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Like I have been saying, from the looks of things Clinton bombed a bunch of buildings that did not contain WMD too??.which I believe to be my initial point.

Clinton didn't invade now did he. Bush made that decision all by himself and now needs to be held accountable by the American people as to whether they think it was a justified action or not. I think most people believe Bush showed bad judgment, the only real question on Iraq at this point is where do we go from here?

Wait....

So bombing the hell out of a country with false information is excusable, but invading one isn't. Are you suggesting that only American casualties matter? Is this your point?

I might have missed an ethics class or two, but both of those skirmishes seem pretty damn unprincipled to me.

(knowing what we do today)

 

[cwjerome]

Well... Jack I'm sad you believe those things about Bush, the government, and our society. I may disagree heavily with different people, but I'm not cynical enough to buy into such meanspirited conspiracies. To me it's a sad statement of the Left believing it's own radical propaganda. But I'm not all about defending Bush... he's a big boy and the reasonable majority will decide his fate. I am though, a huge defender of the Iraq invasion and support our efforts there 100%.

The terrorist armies are fanatical and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's leader was a nutcase and terrorist supporter who had used WMDs before and hated America more than anything. Virtually everyone thought he had them (they may be somewhere, if not Iraq) and it's not a chance worth taking in a post-9/11 environment. Instead of being angry we should be thankful he may not have had WMDs, and thankful he's out of power, and thankful Iraq may be free, and thankful we're waging a battle vs terrorists there and not here.

It's time to re-establish ourselves as the defender of liberty and protector of freedom. It's time to cast off the cloak of moral relativism and declare our beliefs and values superior to the beliefs and values of repression, intolerance, and death. We must be willing to secure them with deadly force. This is a challenge to modern civilization, and we can't just stand around while a new balance of power emerges... where one suicide bomber is equal to one cruise missle, and the balance of power turns into a 'balance of terror' as medieval forces of death gain the upper hand. It's time to send a message and change the status quo. Part of that was removing a gathering threat in Iraq and establishing the only thing that can truly win the war: a westernized government. The dominos are starting to fall, and other groups -and countries- are seeing this and they're scared shitless. Scared that their days are numbered, and they'll do anything they can to stop America's re-structuring of the world to make it a safer, freer place.

Desperate war causalties? We defeated an armed nation and occupied it for well over a year with barely 1000+ deaths... an astonishing feat especially when you look at what we're trying to accomplish. Barely 30 years ago we lost 58,000 lives and failed a useless mission in Southeast Asia... There was probably more deaths in the US from dog bites or bee stings compared to what we lost in the war with Iraq. Misery? The US fights the cleanest war ever, takes out a despot who killed and raped tens of thousands of his own people, killed tens of thousands of other countries' people, liberates them and is attempting to set up a human government and this is misery? The prospect of a free, democratic Iraq is a beacon of hope in a dark region... and our enemy's worst nightmare, which is why they're fighting tooth and nail for us to fail.

Some people need to realize that the old ways of doing things is a joke that's led to this whole problem we face with terrorism and WMDs. Containment in Iraq was immoral, dangerous, and didn't solve a damn thing. Just like containment of the Soviet Union didn't work, it takes strong action and challenging the threat to defeat it. Why is it so hard for some people to stand by our universals, ideas that make life worth living, and stand against the perverse ideals of a Middle-Ages mentality.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The more we are seen as an "aggressor nation", the more other countries will have a desire for nukes to defend against us. Once upon a time, the six-gun was considered "the great equalizer" between men. Today, WMD are preceived as the equalizers among nations. Non-proliferation depends on nations not believing that they need them for self defense. A policy of forcing a style of government of our choice on sovereign nations will destroy any prospect of advancing a non-proliferation agenda. IMHO, this is a major element of foeign relations to consider when looking at the "big picture".

Economic development, security, and secular education will do far more to make other countries stable, trustworthy participants in the world community than any number of troops or weapons.

I am not anti-war. But war has always had consequences, and the stakes are higher now than they have ever been in the history of man. War has many more costs than just the initial expenditure of blood and treasure, and we should be sure we are willing to pay them all before we sign off on it.

 

[Genx87]

Wow looks like I have a couple of new well informed fellow posters here.

cwjerome + mockery:

:beer:

 

[gUEv]

I dont discuss whether the war was the right thing or not to do anymore, it kind of seems pointless now.
The fact is we are there. Well...not you or me, but kids my age, people I know (and one who is dead now because of it, RIP James)

The way I look at it is: what's done is done. We are in, and we cannot leave until we make things right (whatever that means). We have sacrificed too much to simply walk away now. Instead of arguing about WMD's and monday morning morals, we should expend that energy towards figuring out solutions to the war/s we are currently engaged in.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CADsortaGUY

Ah, so it's "OK" to fight a "wrong war" if there is a reason you accept. gotcha

Sorry, but you were the one to claim there was a contradiction between starting "the wrong war" and not dropping it and walking away. I just supplied a reason why the assumption was false. You can twist and spin all you want but I doubt you can actually show a contradiction. It only sounds good if you don't think too much.

Wrong.
Why would continuing to "destroy a country's government, military, and infrastructure" be morally acceptable - if you think that's what we're doing? You see, kerry can't take a principled stand on this because he voted for the authorization and says he'll continue the war. Now why exactly would someone willingly continue a "wrong war"? The answer is because he doesn't really believe it is the "wrong war". During the previous administration he was a hawk on Saddam, during this Administration he was a hawk....right up until he needed to change after dean left the race. Now kerry is scamming dean's so-called "principled" opposition to Iraq so he doesn't lose his "base" and so he can be "not Bush".

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Listening to the anti-Iraqers is funny stuff. They wink at each other about oil, yet the US hasn't taken a drop. They act like Bush is this evil, cunning mastermind and then talk about him being a dimwitted moron. They whine on and on about WMDs, yet Kerry, France, the UN, and virtually everyone in the world thought he had them also. They ignore governments like Britain, Australia, Italy and Japan, and crap their pants about France and Germany not wanting the US to attack so they can preserve their immoral economic schemes with Saddam. These people will take any side and say any thing that they think will serve their political purpose. No wonder they like Kerry.

The issue was crystal clear. Saddam had to follow the 10 or so resolutions that had been passed since 1991 and open up, allow unrestricted access, and prove he destroyed his WMDs. Repeatedly he refused. And instead of looking at the value and worth of our actions there and supporting it, a bunch of stupids are trying their hearts out to use it as political ammo to bring down the president. A strange breed.

Of course there will be people who are ignorant, or self-hating, or guided by racism, or anti-globalization, or environmental freaks... basically the same socialist anti-American bunch during the Cold War who were fierce apologists for communist tyranny and bloodshed. They have simply switched themes to defend the brutal hatred and violence of the next stumbling block to freedom and life. One gets the feeling that any incredible atrocity can occur, but their anguish is only aroused when the United States does anything, no matter how tiny the infraction or accidental and even if it's for noble causes. Like the old marxists who would whitewash the 50+ MILLION dead thanks to Stalin and Mao, but fly into convulsions when a stray US bomb killed a half-dozen people in Honduras. And as during the Cold War, once again they'll end up on the wrong side of history.

They only way to deal with the threats we face is to hit it head on like we're doing in Iraq and setting up westernized governments ike we're doing in Iraq.

:beer::beer:

CsG