Some Questions on Iraq

[yeti]

1. Is there any proof (solid or otherwise) that Saddam was directly involved with Al Qaeda.

2. Whether or not Iraq truly had WMD's, Iraq could only attack with WMD's as far as their SCUD missiles range of about 500? miles. What threat was that to the US?

If this is ridiculous then I am sorry, but I just wanted to get some info.

[trndobrd]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=2


enjoy.

[Mr. Kotter]

From the tone of your questions, here are the answers you want regardles of the "facts:"

1. Absolutely none. None-what-so-ever. They hated each other, and would NEVER have associated with one another.

2. Yup, SCUD missiles were the only way to deliver any purported WMDs. And US allies in the region, soldiers in the region, and interests in the region....well, they were askin' for it. So those WMDs were no threat, to no one, ... anywhere. Period. End of discussion.

I've learned to employ this strategy with my in-laws; just nodd, agree with them, and tell them what they want to hear.

You can now resume your normal posture:

[Radar Chief]

If this is ridiculous then I am sorry, but I just wanted to get some info.

Not ridiculous to ask questions, unless your attempting to lead into some partisan diatribe.

1. Is there any proof (solid or otherwise) that Saddam was directly involved with Al Qaeda.

Yes, one prime example is al-Zarqawi who was injured in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban and Al-Quada against our soldiers and went straight to Iraq where he received medical aid and a safe haven to recuperate.

2. Whether or not Iraq truly had WMD's, Iraq could only attack with WMD's as far as their SCUD missiles range of about 500? miles. What threat was that to the US?

SCUD’s aren’t a very good delivery system for bio/chem. weapons and were originally designed for a short-range nukes by the Ruskies. A better system for delivering bio/chem. weapons is aerosol dispensers like what Saddam had several of his attack planes equipped with, or chemical artillery shells, which are basically an aerosol dispenser fired by a cannon.
But can you answer this, what is the effective range of a terrorist with a backpack full of bio/chem. weapons?

[Radar Chief]

You can now resume your normal posture:

Oh come on, give the guy a chance before making assumptions.
We’ll find out soon enough if Yeti had any ulterior motives with these rehashed questions.

[Iowanian]

new account. Check
First post political. Check.
nutball from Jazotard.com. check

This person will have no interest in answers concerning UN Tagged WMD that are now unaccounted for, Firing at US Warplanes in the No fly zone, Checks to the families of homicide bombers et al.

[Cochise]

new account. Check
First post political. Check.
nutball from Jazotard.com. check

It's hard to tell sometimes whether it's burning4mansteak reincarnated, or another recruited DU tard.

[Iowanian]

Its one of the two.

Everyone knows that Iraq is just one big Amusement park from the get go, and the US just shut down all of the best Roller Coasters.

[SBK]

Question about Iraq

When preparing Iraq first peel the skin off of the back. Then put rub all over the meat, and rub it in. Let Iraq sit in the fridge overnight covered in rub. In the morning put Iraq in your smoker, using hickory chips for a tasty flavor and smoke those bad boys until the meat is pulling back from the bone. If additional heat is needed, add more wood chunks and charcoal accordingly. Mop sauces can add flavor as well, so use those if you like. Once the meat pulls back take Iraq out of the smoker and smother in bbq sauce, then wrap in foil and put back into smoker. Let Iraq simmer for 2 hours or so and BAM, you've got one heckuva dinner.

Wondering about Iraq and first searching a KC board for info must mean you are looking for some BBQ recipies. :p

[Radar Chief]

I guess you guys are probably right.
If Yeti would come back and respond, we’d probably find out.

[Cochise]

I guess you guys are probably right.
If Yeti would come back and respond, we’d probably find out.

I have called out a few of buttstreak's usernames before. Sometimes he denies it, and then later a mod looks into it and bans the name. Or there was another time where he didn't reply again and I never saw that username again.

[Mr. Kotter]

new account. Check
First post political. Check.
nutball from Jazotard.com. check

This person will have no interest in answers concerning UN Tagged WMD that are now unaccounted for, Firing at US Warplanes in the No fly zone, Checks to the families of homicide bombers et al.

Bingo.

Or someone from DU. :rolleyes:

[yeti]

You guys are harsh! I did not have any ulterior motives, but just saw this forum and though I would ask a simple question. I will refrain from posting in this political forum since it upsets so many. However, I hope that the football talk is good over in the lounge, chiefsplanet seems great.

[jAZ]

You guys are harsh! I did not have any ulterior motives, but just saw this forum and though I would ask a simple question. I will refrain from posting in this political forum since it upsets so many. However, I hope that the football talk is good over in the lounge, chiefsplanet seems great.
Don't worry... Bush backers are a little skiddish when it comes to defending the case Bush tried to make for the Iraq war.

It's an uncertain time for them right now.

[Brock]

Don't worry... Bush backers are a little skiddish when it comes to defending the case Bush tried to make for the Iraq war.

It's an uncertain time for them right now.

Yeah. Right. We own you.

[Radar Chief]

You guys are harsh! I did not have any ulterior motives, but just saw this forum and though I would ask a simple question. I will refrain from posting in this political forum since it upsets so many. However, I hope that the football talk is good over in the lounge, chiefsplanet seems great.

Thick skin is a prerequisite for posting here.
jAZ and some others that can’t handle the heat they attempt to dish out have called in DU (Democrat Underground) sack riders for backup before and they’ve arrived spaming up the place, that’s why others are so “skiddish. Also the way you phrased your questions could lead the “skiddish” to think another DU sack rider has arrived.
It’s nothing personal, as long as you don’t act like a jackass, and you should feel free to post here if you like. Just because others will jump all over jAZ, and a few others, doesn’t mean they’re opposed to differing input. There are a small handful of well informed Liberals posting here that get respect, but that’s because they come informed and not spouting some, “Bush lied, people died” mindless rhetoric.
Hope this helps and enjoy your stay. :thumb:

[SBK]

Don't worry... Bush backers are a little skiddish when it comes to defending the case Bush tried to make for the Iraq war.

It's an uncertain time for them right now.

ROFLROFLROFL

Funniest post all year.

Lose presidential election, lose seats in house and in Senate, Republicans control Washington---JAZ comes along "we've got em on the ropes folks, lets keep fighting the good fight!"

[Iowanian]

are a little skiddish .

the only thing "skiddish" is the marks in your liberal bloomers from you crapping your dress in protest of pretty much everything.

Nice of you to bring the other guy who listens to deadair around to help you out though.

[memyselfI]

1. Is there any proof (solid or otherwise) that Saddam was directly involved with Al Qaeda.

2. Whether or not Iraq truly had WMD's, Iraq could only attack with WMD's as far as their SCUD missiles range of about 500? miles. What threat was that to the US?

If this is ridiculous then I am sorry, but I just wanted to get some info.


answer to both questions:

1. depends on who you ask
2. depends on what you want to believe.

Hope that helps. :p

[Radar Chief]

answer to both questions:

1. depends on who you ask
2. depends on what you want to believe.

Hope that helps. :p

Gee, why did I know the moment I spoke of “mindless rhetoric” you’d show up.

[memyselfI]

Gee, why did I know the moment I spoke of “mindless rhetoric” you’d show up.

Yep, I'm here offering the truth about the situation vs. mindless 'rhetoric'. The truth IS the answers to their questions depend on who you ask and what you want to believe...

[Radar Chief]

Yep, I'm here offering the truth about the situation vs. mindless 'rhetoric'.

Right, that’s why you dodged the questions and edited your post, ‘cause you only interested in the truth. :loser:

[WoodDraw]

There are some legitimate reasons for calling Iraq a threat to the United States but the problem is that I could make the same case for Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba, Libya, and Syria just to name a few. Saying that they could aid terrorists sounds scary and all but the same could be said for several other countries. If we narrow down the prerequisites to invade a country down to their ability to arm terrorists than we pretty much give a pass for any country to invade any country. The standard has to be can you prove that the country is an immediate threat which simply didn't happen in this case. Their military had been destroyed a decade ago, WMD weren't around, and the whole country was being effectively contained via no-fly zones, UN inspectors, and to some extent sanctions (with some obvious exceptions/problems). In the end, was what we accomplished worth 1,600 dead American soldiers, 12,000+ wounded, and thousands more dead and wounded Iraqis?

[jettio]

You guys are harsh! I did not have any ulterior motives, but just saw this forum and though I would ask a simple question. I will refrain from posting in this political forum since it upsets so many. However, I hope that the football talk is good over in the lounge, chiefsplanet seems great.

Deciding to refrain from posting in this forum is something that a majority of the 2000 B*sh voters on Chiefs Panet have done.

Mostly just the die-nevers are left. Would be better for the forum if everyone still participated, but most of the ones that have come to realize that B*sh is an incompetent sack of Raiders and that Iraq is a incredible folly, just don't post in the forum anymore out of compassion for the permanently wingtarded.

[Mr. Kotter]

Deciding to refrain from posting in this forum is something that a majority of the 2000 B*sh voters on Chiefs Panet have done.

Mostly just the die-nevers are left. Would be better for the forum if everyone still participated, but most of the ones that have come to realize that B*sh is an incompetent sack of Raiders and that Iraq is a incredible folly, just don't post in the forum anymore out of compassion for the permanently wingtarded.

:loser:

Yeti,

Can you tell jettio is ostracized around here; she's bitter about it too...heh.

Mr. K

[Logical]

Deciding to refrain from posting in this forum is something that a majority of the 2000 B*sh voters on Chiefs Panet have done.

Mostly just the die-nevers are left. Would be better for the forum if everyone still participated, but most of the ones that have come to realize that B*sh is an incompetent sack of Raiders and that Iraq is a incredible folly, just don't post in the forum anymore out of compassion for the permanently wingtarded.ROFLROFLROFL Do you really believe anything, anything at all you write? Such generalizations are such total bullshit they make you appear to be even less intelligent than I have found you to be over the years.

[Jenson71]

I really haven't seen many good reasons for the Iraqi war. It wasn't worth the lives and billions of dollars spent. I believe 30 years from now, high school students will say that America was unjustified into going to Iraq just as I say today that 30 some years ago, America was unjustified into going into Vietnam.

Well, I hope things turn out for the best though.

There's just too much of a gray area for me to be comfortable enough to say "yeah, I agree with this."

Kids from my class will go in the army and possibly get killed. Maybe a friend of mine. A relative. Who knows. I'm wondering, for what?

[Logical]

I really haven't seen many good reasons for the Iraqi war. It wasn't worth the lives and billions of dollars spent. I believe 30 years from now, high school students will say that America was unjustified into going to Iraq just as I say today that 30 some years ago, America was unjustified into going into Vietnam.

Wow, so your opinion is how history turns out? Do the Chiefs ever win another Super Bowl?

[Jenson71]

Wow, so your opinion is how history turns out?

No.

[Logical]

No.Dammit Carl!:cuss:

[craneref]

I still know that Sadaam and MANY terrorists were in alliance, and I know that WMD's wee there, nobody ever disputed that he had them. But take those away and share a true story with the planet. In 1998 (Clinton Administration) a Maintenance Officer (Major) in the United State Air Force was in Northern Iraq visiting his troops on the ground and looking around the Kurdish refugee village. He was walking around carefully as they were being shot at occasionally and got to look inside the concrete home that a College Educated Kurdish Widowed mother of 4 was living in. Sadaam's troops had killed her College educated husband and kicked them out of the house. This was the same time that Sadaam in his benevolence was slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Kurds. Anyway, the huts were nothing more than concrete boxes, a pile of military blankets on one side for sleeping, and a make shift wood burning stove on the other. They had open bowls of fuel with a floating wick to light and heat the huts, and all the children had various burns from knocking over or bumping into these candles. When the Major was beginning to leave the woman who spoke a fair amount of English handed her infant to the Major and said "This is all I have in life, this is my future I can deal with that, but what of my baby's life, what future will he face?" The Major didn't have an answer, but he knows to this day why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and any other place than hungers for the freedoms that we take for granted with each breath of freedom we breathe. It isn't about WMD'sor Resolution Violations as much as it is about HOPE. This is why I get up everyday, put on my uniform with pride and protect freedom, because only freedom provides hope, and only hope brings peace, and I pray for a peaceful world for not just my children, but all children. So if I have to make HARD decisions today to provide HOPE for tomorrow, then I am prepared to make them. I think the President Bush understands this, and I know that Major understands this. I know this about the Major because he is know a Colonel, and I am proud to serve in his unit, because he understands that the privilege of being American comes with Responsibility, and is not afraid to step up and help shoulder the load. You can have your own opinion of what is going on Iraq, freedom has given you that option, but I know to the very fiber of my body and to the depths of my soul that doing the right thing is always right, even if is rarely popular. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

[stevieray]

Kids from my class will go in the army and possibly get killed. Maybe a friend of mine. A relative. Who knows. I'm wondering, for what?

some are called to serve. It is their choice. I'd bet that they don't think their service(including taking the oath), is worth nothing.

[jettio]

ROFLROFLROFL Do you really believe anything, anything at all you write? Such generalizations are such total bullshit they make you appear to be even less intelligent than I have found you to be over the years.

Until frazod plops a turd into this cesspool of a sub-forum, I am afraid that I am right.

frazod is not the only one that quit posting about politics once the writing was on the wall.

[Jenson71]

I was reading this article about Vietnam by a Vietnamese American who moved here after the war. He was talking about how America made a huge mistake with Vietnam in how they tried to build the nation, as if it were some new tribe with no history. I kind of brought me to the present. Nation building? I think that's certainly what you could call this thing in Iraq.

I'm glad to see they have their own elections now and people voted and stuff. But how long are we going to be over there fighting insurgents who will try to rip away the democracy? The first thing you need for a successful democracy is people who want it doggunit. People who are going to fight for the stabilization of their own damn future. Why should this be America's problem?

[Jenson71]

some are called to serve. It is their choice. I'd bet that they don't think their service(including taking the oath), is worth nothing.

I'd bet most of them have a pretty clear opinion of how they see the world. I think it's great they want to serve and do that. I don't know if I'd want to though.

[stevieray]

I was reading this article about Vietnam by a Vietnamese American who moved here after the war. He was talking about how America made a huge mistake with Vietnam in how they tried to build the nation, as if it were some new tribe with no history. I kind of brought me to the present. Nation building? I think that's certainly what you could call this thing in Iraq.

I'm glad to see they have their own elections now and people voted and stuff. But how long are we going to be over there fighting insurgents who will try to rip away the democracy? The first thing you need for a successful democracy is people who want it doggunit. People who are going to fight for the stabilization of their own damn future. Why should this be America's problem?
Iraq was already a nation, we are helping build a democracy.

Was Hitler America's problem?

[craneref]

:stupid:

I defend your right to be hateful with my life everyday, please enjoy your freedom with a little more class. I expect my 7 year old to respect other people, and he does a good job of it, what do you teach your children??

[jettio]

I defend your right to be hateful with my life everyday, please enjoy your freedom with a little more class. I expect my 7 year old to respect other people, and he does a good job of it, what do you teach your children??

I deleted that post after reading your post more completely.

No hard feelings.

[stevieray]

I deleted that post after reading your post more completely.

No hard feelings.
damnit, jettio... :cuss:

classy move.

[Mr. Kotter]

...Kids from my class will go in the army and possibly get killed. Maybe a friend of mine. A relative. Who knows. I'm wondering, for what?

If Iraq and Afghanistan turn into stable and aspiring democracies, and they encourage a spread of democracy through the region over the next 30 years....(a big "if" I know, but not at all out of the realm of possibility) will that have made it worth it in retrospect?

Foreign policy is always a guessing game; you make the best educated guess you can, to achieve the results you seek (and not everyone is going to agree.) Did we win in Vietnam? No, of course not; but did we really fail in the big picture?

The resolve demonstrated by the U.S. in Vietnam forced a continuation of defense spending in the Soviet Union that deprived the communist government of the domestic stability that might have very well quieted the inevitable revolution that occurred to "end the Cold War." In other words, American commitment to containment certainly deprived the Soviets of discretionary funds to be spent domestically, and thus hastened the democratic revolutions in Russia and Eastern Europe.

From that perspective, we may have lost the battle but we won the war. If you've not learned this yet, your education is incomplete.

[Jenson71]

Iraq was already a nation, we are helping build a democracy.

Was Hitler America's problem?

Good question.

I believe Japan and Germany were allies. And when Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us, it became our problem, yes.

[stevieray]

Good question.

I believe Japan and Germany were allies. And when Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us, it became our problem, yes.

what do you think would've happend if we didn't go after Hitler?

[craneref]

I deleted that post after reading your post more completely.

No hard feelings.

Thank you, I appreciate your honesty. As a man myself I am prone to not reading the entire questions (or directions) myself, no hard feelings. This is what major politics is missing, the ability to dailogue like human beings.

[craneref]

damnit, jettio... :cuss:

classy move.

Oh yeah, I am always too slow on the perfect post, :banghead: :p

[stevieray]

Oh yeah, I am always too slow on the perfect post, :banghead: :p

:)

[Jenson71]

what do you think would've happend if we didn't go after Hitler?

Oh, I think it's entirely possible that Europe would have been talking German for a long time. At least Western Europe. I'm not sure what would have happened if Hitler went back to Russia.

The Greatest Generation saved Europe. That really hasn't done much for us since then, sadly.

[jettio]

Thank you, I appreciate your honesty. As a man myself I am prone to not reading the entire questions (or directions) myself, no hard feelings. This is what major politics is missing, the ability to dailogue like human beings.

Thanks for being gracious. :thumb:

[craneref]

Thanks for being gracious. :thumb:

I hope we are not starting to sound like the Mutual Admiration Club, could ruin our reps as Homer CHIEFS fans :p

[WoodDraw]

If Iraq and Afghanistan turn into stable and aspiring democracies, and they encourage a spread of democracy through the region over the next 30 years....(a big "if" I know, but not at all out of the realm of possibility) will that have made it worth it in retrospect?

Is that the point? Saying maybe, kind of, it could be better in 30 years isn't exactly the result you want from a war where thousands of people are dead. Again, there has to be a standard that you live to when you decide to take the country to war and invade another country. I feel that the Afghanistan war was justified but look even there... The anti-US protests are all over the news, the country is still in bad shape, and the economy is based off of selling opium. And in Iraq there are still daily insurget attacks and a struggling government. I'm all for democracy but democracy works best when it is an organic movement from within. Look at the ex-Soviet states. Democracy is a process that can be helped along but you can't just make it happen.

Foreign policy is always a guessing game; you make the best educated guess you can, to achieve the results you seek (and not everyone is going to agree.) Did we win in Vietnam? No, of course not; but did we really fail in the big picture?

Yes, I'd say Vietnam was a miserable failure in whatever picture you view it through.

The resolve demonstrated by the U.S. in Vietnam forced a continuation of defense spending in the Soviet Union that deprived the communist government of the domestic stability that might have very well quieted the inevitable revolution that occurred to "end the Cold War." In other words, American commitment to containment certainly deprived the Soviets of discretionary funds to be spent domestically, and thus hastened the democratic revolutions in Russia and Eastern Europe.

That's a gross simplification of the Cold War and I have a hard time believing that us pulling out of Vietnam earlier would have hurt the US in any way.

From that perspective, we may have lost the battle but we won the war. If you've not learned this yet, your education is incomplete.

I always love these Mr. Kotter education lessons. You always find some way to end your posts in a patronizing way.

[Logical]

If Iraq and Afghanistan turn into stable and aspiring democracies, and they encourage a spread of democracy through the region over the next 30 years....(a big "if" I know, but not at all out of the realm of possibility) will that have made it worth it in retrospect?

Foreign policy is always a guessing game; you make the best educated guess you can, to achieve the results you seek (and not everyone is going to agree.) Did we win in Vietnam? No, of course not; but did we really fail in the big picture?

The resolve demonstrated by the U.S. in Vietnam forced a continuation of defense spending in the Soviet Union that deprived the communist government of the domestic stability that might have very well quieted the inevitable revolution that occurred to "end the Cold War." In other words, American commitment to containment certainly deprived the Soviets of discretionary funds to be spent domestically, and thus hastened the democratic revolutions in Russia and Eastern Europe.

From that perspective, we may have lost the battle but we won the war. If you've not learned this yet, your education is incomplete.

Excellent post, Rep

[Mr. Kotter]

Is that the point? Saying maybe, kind of, it could be better in 30 years isn't exactly the result you want from a war where thousands of people are dead. Again, there has to be a standard that you live to when you decide to take the country to war and invade another country. I feel that the Afghanistan war was justified but look even there... The anti-US protests are all over the news, the country is still in bad shape, and the economy is based off of selling opium. And in Iraq there are still daily insurget attacks and a struggling government. I'm all for democracy but democracy works best when it is an organic movement from within. Look at the ex-Soviet states. Democracy is a process that can be helped along but you can't just make it happen.

Yes, I'd say Vietnam was a miserable failure in whatever picture you view it through.

That's a gross simplification of the Cold War and I have a hard time believing that us pulling out of Vietnam earlier would have hurt the US in any way.

I always love these Mr. Kotter education lessons. You always find some way to end your posts in a patronizing way.

Short-term goals and long-term goals? Heard of them much? :rolleyes:


VIETNAM:
Supporting an ally; stoppin the spread of communism in SE Asia....short term goal.

Containment, and gradual institutional and organizational weakening of communism by forcing them into an arms race they CANNOT win. Instability that leads to revolution...long term goals.


IRAQ:
Deposing a dictator who had thumbed his nose at the international community for TWELVE YEARS, and...who appeared to have access to WMD, and possessed a demonstrated willingness to use them...or disburse them to terrorist groups (whether or not it actually had occurred YET.) That was sufficient cause in the minds of the President, and Congress who authorized the action. End of discussion. Hindsight is 20/20.

Democratic governments (or at least, stable evolving republics) in place of tyranical authoritarian governments which contribute to tremendous and persistent instability in an area of vital interest to US national security interests. Appropriate long term goal, wouldn't you say? :hmmm:

Freedom is not free; some have never understood this fact.

Of course my analysis is an oversimplification--this is a message board, and this is a post not a disertation; however, the merits of the analysis are defensible to anyone who has studied the issue. The only disagreement would be over the extent to which we wish to give the arms race credit for expediting the demise of communism.

If we didn't draw the line in Korea and Vietnam, should we have done so in Cuba? If not Cuba, what about Mexico? I get the feeling those who, in retrospect criticize Containment policy as unnecessary or needlessly belligerent would have waited until Texas or California were faced with communist insurgencies....then, and only then, they may have said, "gosh, we ought to do something to stop these guys."

:)

[WoodDraw]

Short-term goals and long-term goals? Heard of them much? :rolleyes:

Ohhh, sarcasm and rolleyes smilie. [cue dramatic effect]


VIETNAM:
Supporting an ally; stoppin the spread of communism in SE Asia....short term goal.

Containment, and gradual institutional and organizational weakening of communism by forcing them into an arms race they CANNOT win. Instability that leads to revolution...long term goals.



If you go back and read my post you'll see that I never said we shouldn't have gone into Vietnam, just that it was a failure. I understand the political situation of the time and the belief in the so-called domino effect. Many historians do disagree on whether the containment of South Eastern countries was in anyway important and the arms race would have happened regardless so you're long terms goals certainly aren't all that convincing and do more to support my statement of Vietnam being a failure.

IRAQ:
Deposing a dictator who had thumbed his nose at the international community for TWELVE YEARS, and...who appeared to have access to WMD, and possessed a demonstrated willingness to use them...or disburse them to terrorist groups (whether or not it actually had occurred YET.) That was sufficient cause in the minds of the President, and Congress who authorized the action. End of discussion. Hindsight is 20/20.

Democratic governments (or at least, stable evolving republics) in place of tyranical authoritarian governments which contribute to tremendous and persistent instability in an area of vital interest to US national security interests. Appropriate long term goal, wouldn't you say? :hmmm:

The hindsight is 20/20 crap might be the lamest arguement I've heard. The idea that we should ignore the incompetence of the intelligence community and Bush's judgements is just idiotic. There were plenty of people that saw the flaws in the war from the beginning and Bush just chose to ignore that information.

I can come up with some glorified, patriotic, sound good goals for anything but that doesn't mean that it would be justified.


If we didn't draw the line in Korea and Vietnam, should we have done so in Cuba? If not Cuba, what about Mexico? I get the feeling those who, in retrospect criticize Containment policy as unnecessary or needlessly belligerent would have waited until Texas or California were faced with communist insurgencies....then, and only then, they may have said, "gosh, we ought to do something to stop these guys."


Who said that we shouldn't draw the line with Korea and Vietnam and Cuba? And how is that in anyway comparable to Iraq?

[Logical]

The hindsight is 20/20 crap might be the lamest arguement I've heard. The idea that we should ignore the incompetence of the intelligence community and Bush's judgements is just idiotic. There were plenty of people that saw the flaws in the war from the beginning and Bush just chose to ignore that information.

Just because pacifists and cowards found reasons to object to the war does not mean they were or are any better at making policy decisions. Frankly I do not want a foreign policy that will make pacifists and cowards happy, if I did I would move to France like Johnny Depp.

[WoodDraw]

Just because pacifists and cowards found reasons to object to the war does not mean they were or are any better at making policy decisions. Frankly I do not want a foreign policy that will make pacifists and cowards happy, if I did I would move to France like Johnny Depp.

So now anyone who doesn't agree with the war is a pacifist or coward. Nice...

[Logical]

So now anyone who doesn't agree with the war is a pacifist or coward. Nice...

You were talking about those who objected at the start. So yes.

[WoodDraw]

You were talking about those who objected at the start. So yes.

You can object to a war without being a coward or pacifist.

[Logical]

You can object to a war without being a coward or pacifist.

Not in this case. Oh I forget there are some Psychics that new what Bush was thinking. ROFL

[WoodDraw]

Not in this case. Oh I forget there are some Psychics that new what Bush was thinking. ROFL

What in the hell are you talking about?

[Logical]

What in the hell are you talking about?Those idiots who try to claim they knew at the time that Bush had the information to know there were no WOMD in Iraq but Bush wanted a war himself so he disregarded the reports being given to him by the intelligence community. Amazing mind readers, they should have probably used their great and all powerful minds to control Bush's thoughts and avoid the war. I mean only about 80% of the country supported the Iraq war when it started.

However I did leave out one other category who objected to the war initially, pussies. Sorry maybe you fit that category instead of the pacifist category I had you pegged for initially.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Those idiots who try to claim they knew at the time that Bush had the information to know there were no WOMD in Iraq but Bush wanted a war himself so he disregarded the reports being given to him by the intelligence community. Amazing mind readers, they should have probably used their great and all powerful minds to control Bush's thoughts and avoid the war. I mean only about 80% of the country supported the Iraq war when it started.

However I did leave out one other category who objected to the war initially, pussies. Sorry maybe you fit that category instead of the pacifist category I had you pegged for initially.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark. ROFL

[Jenson71]

From that perspective, we may have lost the battle but we won the war. If you've not learned this yet, your education is incomplete.

Why we were we so worried about communism in the first place? This domino effect we thought would take over America sometime - an idea that is, I guess, kind of too extreme.

Yes, "we" would ultimately "win" the Cold War. Now tens of thousands of Americans died in Vietnam, to what? Put a dent in the Soviet Union's economy? That just doesn't seem justified enough.

There are so many factors for the fall of the Soviet Union, I wonder if we could give a percentage to the Vietnam war, how much that would be. I'm guessing not much at all.

Anyway, America was paranoid by the idea of communism. This domino effect was an idea used by American politicians to gain power. That's all really.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Why we were we so worried about communism in the first place? This domino effect we thought would take over America sometime - an idea that is, I guess, kind of too extreme.

Had communism gone unabated and unchallenged it could and likely would have been disastrous for our country.

Yes, "we" would ultimately "win" the Cold War. Now tens of thousands of Americans died in Vietnam, to what? Put a dent in the Soviet Union's economy? That just doesn't seem justified enough.

If you think that was our sole motivation for involvement in 'Nam, you need to repeat the 'American History - the 1950's thru 1970's' course.

There are so many factors for the fall of the Soviet Union, I wonder if we could give a percentage to the Vietnam war, how much that would be. I'm guessing not much at all.

The involvement in Korea and 'Nam were INdirect and not DIRECT contributors to the demise of the old SU.

Anyway, America was paranoid by the idea of communism. This domino effect was an idea used by American politicians to gain power. That's all really.

Really? Let's examine that theory for a minute. 1) What happened after Vietnam fell to the Reds? Remember anything about Laos? Border clashes with Thailand? 2) What about Central America? El Salvador? Do you see a pattern developing here?

[memyselfI]

There are a small handful of well informed Liberals posting here that get respect, but that’s because they come informed and not spouting some, “Bush lied, people died” mindless rhetoric.

Hope this helps and enjoy your stay. :thumb:

Likewise, there are a number of DUHbya lambs that no matter what the facts and how informed the information presented is, they will ignore it and insist the point being made is 'mindless rhetoric'...


It becomes the virtual equivalent of a hamster on a wheel. Hence, my original point of the truth/facts being dependent on whom you ask and what you choose to believe.

[Radar Chief]

Likewise, there are a number of DUHbya lambs that no matter what the facts and how informed the information presented is, they will ignore it and insist the point being made is 'mindless rhetoric'...


It becomes the virtual equivalent of a hamster on a wheel. Hence, my original point of the truth/facts being dependent on whom you ask and what you choose to believe.

Sorry Denise, but the only point you’ve made is between your ears.
The facts are facts, verifiable, and only when rhetoric is presented as “fact” does it become dependent on what you want to believe.
This isn’t religion, it doesn’t require a belief structure, at least for those that can see the facts for themselves.

[Radar Chief]

There are some legitimate reasons for calling Iraq a threat to the United States but the problem is that I could make the same case for Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba, Libya, and Syria just to name a few. Saying that they could aid terrorist’s sounds scary and all but the same could be said for several other countries. If we narrow down the prerequisites to invade a country down to their ability to arm terrorists than we pretty much give a pass for any country to invade any country. The standard has to be can you prove that the country is an immediate threat which simply didn't happen in this case. Their military had been destroyed a decade ago, WMD weren't around, and the whole country was being effectively contained via no-fly zones, UN inspectors, and to some extent sanctions (with some obvious exceptions/problems). In the end, was what we accomplished worth 1,600 dead American soldiers, 12,000+ wounded, and thousands more dead and wounded Iraqis?

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people that wish to ignore the thousands of gallons of chemical and biological weapons that were found and now missing, along with the attempt at developing nukes, and just brush it aside like it never was.
Saddam’s military had hardly been “destroyed a decade ago”, he maintained a comparatively (for the region) strong military. Nothing that was gonna stop ours but that’s as much because of tactics as equipment or manpower.
The “no fly zones” didn’t keep him from continuing to slaughter thousands of Kurds and Shiites.
The sanctions didn’t keep him from building a dozen more lavish palaces or using his money in an attempt to destabilize the region.
And just exactly how do you “contain” terrorists without boots on the ground?

You’re perfectly welcome to feel as you do, but your ignoring a lot of evidence to do so.

[Mr. Kotter]

If you go back and read my post you'll see that I never said we shouldn't have gone into Vietnam, just that it was a failure. I understand the political situation of the time and the belief in the so-called domino effect. Many historians do disagree on whether the containment of South Eastern countries was in anyway important and the arms race would have happened regardless so you're long terms goals certainly aren't all that convincing and do more to support my statement of Vietnam being a failure.

The hindsight is 20/20 crap might be the lamest arguement I've heard. The idea that we should ignore the incompetence of the intelligence community and Bush's judgements is just idiotic. There were plenty of people that saw the flaws in the war from the beginning and Bush just chose to ignore that information.

I can come up with some glorified, patriotic, sound good goals for anything but that doesn't mean that it would be justified.

Who said that we shouldn't draw the line with Korea and Vietnam and Cuba? And how is that in anyway comparable to Iraq?

Historians will of course disagree over any issue. The fact remains was that a majority of opinion of advisors in the administrations at the time, among national security experts, and even among the public (until late in the war) backed what we were doing. Any other interpretation of opinion about the war AT THE TIME, is historical revisionism with the benefit of hindsight.

No one is saying we should ignore "incompetence" or poor "judgement" by anyone: but, at the time, CONGRESS and the American people disagreed with those opinions--both in Vietnam and Iraq. That in your mind, your opinion turned out to be right....is of no consequence to decisions made 25-30 years ago. Should we trust the opinion of pacifist minorities, or the opinion of Congress and our elected leaders? I'll go with the latter every time. We saw where appeasement policies got us in the 1930s and 1940s.

Its EASY to second guess past decisions with the benefit of hindsight. However that is precisely the fallacy of historical revisionism. If we had KNOWN then, what we KNOW now....decisions may have been different. But so what, we didn't KNOW. Knowlege and facts are one thing; competing opinions and analysis by national security advisors and the intelligence community have to be sorted out all the time. Generally, we are right more often than wrong.

Demonstrating resolve to go after terrorists, and sending a clear message to countries that might offer safe haven and assistance to terrorist serves an important national security interest in the minds of many Americans in the post 9/11 era. You may not think so. And the intitial justification for the action itself may have faded due to poor intelligence and, in your mind, poor judgement. For many of us, there was nothing "pre-emptive" about a strike against a tyrant who had thumbed his nose at the international community for twelve years--and a dictator that had rendered the UN a joke.

I'm convinced the US is safer as a result. I'm sure you disagree. But in both cases, we have only our opinions to offer at this point. History will determine who was right.

[Mr. Kotter]

Why we were we so worried about communism in the first place? This domino effect we thought would take over America sometime - an idea that is, I guess, kind of too extreme.

Yes, "we" would ultimately "win" the Cold War. Now tens of thousands of Americans died in Vietnam, to what? Put a dent in the Soviet Union's economy? That just doesn't seem justified enough.

There are so many factors for the fall of the Soviet Union, I wonder if we could give a percentage to the Vietnam war, how much that would be. I'm guessing not much at all.

Anyway, America was paranoid by the idea of communism. This domino effect was an idea used by American politicians to gain power. That's all really.

Jenson: let me guess...you've got pacifists/former hippies who have been teaching you history. I'll bet they wear a pony-tail, and celebrate Earth Day enthusiastically every Spring. Am I right? :p

From the comfort of 2005, with no memory of the real terrors of the Cold War....I understand your willingness to accept a marginalization of the threat of communism. However, that is myopic and does not comport with the reality of the time. Go talk to people who actually LIVED through the 1950s and into the 1960s--and don't limit yourself to pacifist-Hippy types; talk to middle class AVERAGE Americans...those that were a part of the "silent majority." You owe it to yourself to hear both sides, as I have.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and I'm telling you there was NO certainty in "winning the Cold War." Only in hindsight, do we have the luxury of saying "Eh, we'd have won anyway--eventually."

Vietnam was America drawing a line in the sand. Had we NOT taken a stand there, it would have been quite likely that communism would have spread much more quickly and broadly than it did. I consider it akin to chemotherapy to stop cancer---short-term pain and sacrifice for the long term good.

FTR, I'm not saying the Vietnam War itself played a significant role in the break-up of the former Soviet Union. I'm saying a commitment to CONTAINMENT policy and stopping the SPREAD of communism (of which Vietnam was a part) was the key to hastening the demise of the Soviets. That is an important distinction, so please don't misunderstand me.

Of course we were paranoid. Foreign policy between the superpowers was predicated upon a policy of "mutually assured destruction." American's today have no sense of how close we came to nuclear catastrophe on a couple of occaisions--most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you think America was the only superpower trying to "gain power" you are blind. It was an intense rivalry and competition, and if we had allowed the Soviets to do as they pleased....the world today would be a far different place than it is. Keep studying with an open-mind so that you will be able to obtain a complete and accurate picture of those very difficult years in world history.

I was fortunate to have teachers from both perspectives--doves and hawks. Being open to both sides of the discussion will allow you to really make up your own mind, rather than being spoon-fed someone's propaganda.

[Nightfyre]

Historians will of course disagree over any issue. The fact remains was that a majority of opinion of advisors in the administrations at the time, among national security experts, and even among the public (until late in the war) backed what we were doing. Any other interpretation of opinion about the war AT THE TIME, is historical revisionism with the benefit of hindsight.

No one is saying we should ignore "incompetence" or poor "judgement" by anyone: but, at the time, CONGRESS and the American people disagreed with those opinions--both in Vietnam and Iraq. That in your mind, your opinion turned out to be right....is of no consequence to decisions made 25-30 years ago. Should we trust the opinion of pacifist minorities, or the opinion of Congress and our elected leaders? I'll go with the latter every time. We saw where appeasement policies got us in the 1930s and 1940s.

Its EASY to second guess past decisions with the benefit of hindsight. However that is precisely the fallacy of historical revisionism. If we had KNOWN then, what we KNOW now....decisions may have been different. But so what, we didn't KNOW. Knowlege and facts are one thing; competing opinions and analysis by national security advisors and the intelligence community have to be sorted out all the time. Generally, we are right more often than wrong.

Demonstrating resolve to go after terrorists, and sending a clear message to countries that might offer safe haven and assistance to terrorist serves an important national security interest in the minds of many Americans in the post 9/11 era. You may not think so. And the intitial justification for the action itself may have faded due to poor intelligence and, in your mind, poor judgement. For many of us, there was nothing "pre-emptive" about a strike against a tyrant who had thumbed his nose at the international community for twelve years--and a dictator that had rendered the UN a joke.

I'm convinced the US is safer as a result. I'm sure you disagree. But in both cases, we have only our opinions to offer at this point. History will determine who was right.
You know, I agreed with going into the war.
But I have since backtracked on that decision, with the hindsight available. There were many lives lost on both sides of the war, and to what end? Regardless of whether or not Saddam had the WMDs, they are still out there, and in the hands of dangerous people who can give them to even more dangerous people. Additionally, the war on terror was not even prevalent in this argument at the time of this war's inception. Why should it be now? The fact of the matter is, while the war may have been justified, Bush did not go into it in a tactically sound manner and secure the WMDs and he certainly did not have a fallback "get out" plan as Powell suggested. He seems to have, in fact, ignored his advisors advice and acted rashly.

*Disclaimer: This is not to be mistaken for lack of support of our troops. If anything, it is with their safety in mind that I must disagree with the way the US engaged Iraq. Additionally, this is very much a perception, hopefully to bring a few new avenues into the discussion.*
Thoughts?

[Mr. Kotter]

You know, I agreed with going into the war.
But I have since backtracked on that decision, with the hindsight available. There were many lives lost on both sides of the war, and to what end? Regardless of whether or not Saddam had the WMDs, they are still out there, and in the hands of dangerous people who can give them to even more dangerous people. Additionally, the war on terror was not even prevalent in this argument at the time of this war's inception. Why should it be now? The fact of the matter is, while the war may have been justified, Bush did not go into it in a tactically sound manner and secure the WMDs and he certainly did not have a fallback "get out" plan as Powell suggested. He seems to have, in fact, ignored his advisors advice and acted rashly.

*Disclaimer: This is not to be mistaken for lack of support of our troops. If anything, it is with their safety in mind that I must disagree with the way the US engaged Iraq. Additionally, this is very much a perception, hopefully to bring a few new avenues into the discussion.*
Thoughts?

That's a fair assessment. However, we ARE THERE and the question now becomes...what do we do now? Even John Kerry didn't favor an immediate or even a scheduled pull-out. I guess confessions by the N. Vietnamese after Vietnam, that the anti-war movement, the Jane Fondas of America, and the sense they could hold out longer than us, may have shown him the error of that type of thinking.

Actually, the WMDs were all about the war on terrorism; we were worried they would fall into the hands of Saddams neighbors who have ties to Al Queda. Saddam got rid of what he had (to Syria or elsewhere) and he probably exaggerated (to his own people) what he had. That's not OUR problem. However, if you want a civil war....if you want chaos in Iraq and the ME, generally....go ahead an urge a rapid pull-out by US troops. THAT would be a disaster. It needs to be relatively quick, but on the terms of the new Iraqi government....no some knee-jerk, "let's get out now!" impulse.

I suspect once the Iraqi people are trained and ready to take back the reins, they will do so. The sooner, the better. However, we will likely need to help with a relatively small military presence "nearby" and continued military and economic assistance until the insurgents realize the Iraqi people were NOT pushed to complacency by the quagmire that became Vietnam.

[Radar Chief]

Jenson: let me you've got pacifists/former hippies who have been teaching you history. I'll bet they wear a ponytail, and celebrate Earth Day enthusiastically every Spring. Am I right? :p

From the comfort of 2005, with no memory of the real terrors of the Cold War....I understand your willingness to accept a marginalization of the threat of communism. However, that is myopic and does not comport with the reality of the time. Go talk to people who actually LIVED through the 1950s and into the 1960s--and don't limit yourself to pacifist-Hippy types; talk to middle class AVERAGE Americans...those that were a part of the "silent majority." You owe it to yourself to hear both sides, as I have.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and I'm telling you there was NO certainty in "winning the Cold War." Only in hindsight, do we have the luxury of saying "Eh, we'd have won anyway--eventually."


I see we’re ‘bout the same age then. :thumb:
To further add to what Mr. Kotter posted, I believe some of the “ponytail wear’n hippies” now claiming the fall of the Soviet Union was “inevitable” were preaching back in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s that the eventual world domination by communism was “inevitable”. Now that they’ve been proven FOS, they’re apparently attempting to marginalize how bad the threat actually was.

[Radar Chief]

You know, I agreed with going into the war.
But I have since backtracked on that decision, with the hindsight available. There were many lives lost on both sides of the war, and to what end? Regardless of whether or not Saddam had the WMDs, they are still out there, and in the hands of dangerous people who can give them to even more dangerous people. Additionally, the war on terror was not even prevalent in this argument at the time of this war's inception. Why should it be now? The fact of the matter is, while the war may have been justified, Bush did not go into it in a tactically sound manner and secure the WMDs and he certainly did not have a fallback "get out" plan as Powell suggested. He seems to have, in fact, ignored his advisors advice and acted rashly.

*Disclaimer: This is not to be mistaken for lack of support of our troops. If anything, it is with their safety in mind that I must disagree with the way the US engaged Iraq. Additionally, this is very much a perception, hopefully to bring a few new avenues into the discussion.*
Thoughts?

Uh, do what? :spock:
This is a first, I’ve read others down playing Iraq’s part in the WOT by say’n he had nothing to do with terrorists, but I’ve never seen anyone claim that it wasn’t mentioned as part of the WOT.

[Nightfyre]

Uh, do what? :spock:
This is a first, I’ve read others down playing Iraq’s part in the WOT by say’n he had nothing to do with terrorists, but I’ve never seen anyone claim that it wasn’t mentioned as part of the WOT.
Find a source pre-war that describes the War on Terror as an objective in the Iraqi excursion...

[stevieray]

"I can do it better"

"How"?

"I can't tell you that"

[Radar Chief]

Find a source pre-war that describes the War on Terror as an objective in the Iraqi excursion...

October 2002 President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)


Snip.......
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.
.......

[Nightfyre]

October 2002 President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)
Thanks, I will drop that point. However, it does not change my stance on the other issues.

[Radar Chief]

Thanks, I will drop that point. However, it does not change my stance on the other issues.

That’s fine, what are they? You never know, we may agree on some of them.
I’d still support this portion of the WOT though.

[mlyonsd]

You know, I agreed with going into the war.
But I have since backtracked on that decision, with the hindsight available. There were many lives lost on both sides of the war, and to what end? Regardless of whether or not Saddam had the WMDs, they are still out there, and in the hands of dangerous people who can give them to even more dangerous people. Additionally, the war on terror was not even prevalent in this argument at the time of this war's inception. Why should it be now? The fact of the matter is, while the war may have been justified, Bush did not go into it in a tactically sound manner and secure the WMDs and he certainly did not have a fallback "get out" plan as Powell suggested. He seems to have, in fact, ignored his advisors advice and acted rashly.

*Disclaimer: This is not to be mistaken for lack of support of our troops. If anything, it is with their safety in mind that I must disagree with the way the US engaged Iraq. Additionally, this is very much a perception, hopefully to bring a few new avenues into the discussion.*
Thoughts?

Am I missing something? You said it yourself in those two sentences.

[Nightfyre]

That’s fine, what are they? You never know, we may agree on some of them.
I’d still support this portion of the WOT though.
Like I say, I feel that he went into the war unprepared with an "exit plan" which Powell specifically warned him about. I also feel he went in unprepared and it lost any WMDs that may have been in Iraq and possibly put them into more dangerous hands.

[Mr. Kotter]

Like I say, I feel that he went into the war unprepared with an "exit plan" which Powell specifically warned him about. I also feel he went in unprepared and it lost any WMDs that may have been in Iraq and possibly put them into more dangerous hands.

Vietnam era soldiers (like Powell) are definitely concerned about, and rightly so, about an exit strategy. Events on the ground have altered that original "plan" somewhat....but suffice it to say, we DID learn our lesson in Vietnam. The generic exit strategy these days.....is after "shock and awe," and restoration of "order," we hand things over to the locals. The hope would be to do that as quickly as possible. Unfortunately the "restoration of order" part was derailed, and has been delayed by the insurgents. However, I can tell you one thing with a reasonable degree of certainty....we won't be there, with a SIGNIFICANT presence, much after the Iraqi government gets going--we won't linger for 8 or 9 years like we did in Vietnam.

Powell will be content, if not over-joyed, with that "exit strategy."

[Radar Chief]

Like I say, I feel that he went into the war unprepared with an "exit plan" which Powell specifically warned him about. I also feel he went in unprepared and it lost any WMDs that may have been in Iraq and possibly put them into more dangerous hands.

As I see it, the “exit plan” is when they have a self-sustainable democracy and functioning capitalist society.
And I think the reason we may have missed the WMD’s is because we dicked around with the UN way too long, giving Saddam (and the UN) “one last chance”.
But that’s JMO.

[Mr. Kotter]

"I can do it better"

"How"?

"I can't tell you that"

Indeed,

That's many critics' "plan."

[bkkcoh]

As I see it, the “exit plan” is when they have a self-sustainable democracy and functioning capitalist society.
And I think the reason we may have missed the WMD’s is because we dicked around with the UN way too long, giving Saddam (and the UN) “one last chance”.
But that’s JMO.


But that makes it sound like you are a RWNJ :toast:

[Mr. Kotter]

...I believe some of the “ponytail wear’n hippies” now claiming the fall of the Soviet Union was “inevitable” were preaching back in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s that the eventual world domination by communism was “inevitable”. Now that they’ve been proven FOS, they’re apparently attempting to marginalize how bad the threat actually was.



Exactly right.

[redbrian]

The comparison of Vietnam and Iraq is only made by those who want to put forth the idea of a “quagmire”.

Vietnam was a civil war in which the US sided with the old Colonial powers.

Iraq was a rouge state in a strategically important part of the world.

[Jenson71]

Jenson: let me guess...you've got pacifists/former hippies who have been teaching you history. I'll bet they wear a pony-tail, and celebrate Earth Day enthusiastically every Spring. Am I right? :p


Why do you think you're better than me? You have a proven identity problem on this board. You have a hard time controlling yourself and yet you think my teachers are the ones who are messed up.

You can leave the personal bullshit out of any discussion if you want to keep having one. It's lame as hell. Now focus on the topic at hand.

Instead of giving me a pathetic lecture on how much I need to study and how I should study with an open mind, I'll advise you to read Tuchman's March of Folly.

[jettio]

I hope we are not starting to sound like the Mutual Admiration Club, could ruin our reps as Homer CHIEFS fans :p

ROFL

No Kidding. forgot for a minute who I was messin' with.

[WoodDraw]

Those idiots who try to claim they knew at the time that Bush had the information to know there were no WOMD in Iraq but Bush wanted a war himself so he disregarded the reports being given to him by the intelligence community. Amazing mind readers, they should have probably used their great and all powerful minds to control Bush's thoughts and avoid the war. I mean only about 80% of the country supported the Iraq war when it started.


Yay for jumping to idiotic conclusions without reason. I don't think Bush misled the country on purpose and I'm sure that he did think Iraq had WMD. That doesn't change the fact that they didn't and he went to war on crappy information. I'm not going to give him a free pass simply because he wanted to do the right thing. Plus, his refusal to admit his mistakes doesn't make it any easier to trust him.

I do think that Bush acted far to quickly in kicking out the UN inspectors. If he knew there where WMD, why couldn't he say where they were? I do think that Bush ignored a lot of the opposing side prewar when he should have been trying to get the whole picture. I do think that he trusted Rumsfeld and Cheney far to much which led to a horrible war plan. If you want to cover your ears and yell "lalalala" at even the slightest mention of this Iraqi war not being being of the utmost legitimacy and importance than that is fine but I don't think my beliefs are all that radical or misguided.

[DanT]

Here's a page that describes some of the satellites that the United States government had available in the past few years.

http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/YugoWarSats.html

[Baby Lee]

Plus, his refusal to admit his mistakes doesn't make it any easier to trust him.
Seriously, why do Bush's critics pretend that an admission of mistakes would've been a positive development in their estimation of the man?
The only upshot of him admitting even one teensy mistake would be an avalanche of "See!!! Even the doofus admits he's an abject failure!!! How can anyone follow someone who knows and readily admits that he's utterly unable to tie his own shoes, let alone lead the country. Blah, blah, BLAH!!!!!!"


But then again, Janet Reno can order the execution a buttload of women and children holed up in Texas, and all she needs to do is offer a contrite "I'b torry" and the world melts for the menopausal wookie.

[DanT]

Seriously, why do Bush's critics pretend that an admission of mistakes would've been a positive development in their estimation of the man?
The only upshot of him admitting even one teensy mistake would be an avalanche of "See!!! Even the doofus admits he's an abject failure!!! How can anyone follow someone who knows and readily admits that he's utterly unable to tie his own shoes, let alone lead the country. Blah, blah, BLAH!!!!!!"


But then again, Janet Reno can order the execution a buttload of women and children holed up in Texas, and all she needs to do is offer a contrite "I'b torry" and the world melts for the menopausal wookie.

When did Janet Reno "offer a contrite 'I'b torry"' about Waco? I don't recall ever hearing an apology from Janet Reno regarding the events at Waco. I'd be interested to hear when you did.

Here's an example of the sort of coverage that "the world" gives Janet Reno.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/352737.stm

Waco comes back to haunt Reno
The stand-off at Waco in Texas put Janet Reno on the spot shortly after she took office as the first woman US attorney-general.
Within a month, she gave the go-ahead for federal agents to conduct the final raid on the Branch Davidian compound.

A fire broke out, consuming the cult's headquarters and killing more than 80 people.

She silenced criticism by accepting full responsibility. "I made the decision. I'm accountable. The buck stops with me."

She answered without spin or apology, and it gave her a certain level of popularity and political security.

Now, six years on, the Waco deaths have come back to haunt her with the reports that FBI agents may have fired flammable tear gas into the cult compound.

Her vehement statement that she intended to "get to the bottom" of the matter suggested that it is close to her heart.

Asked if she thought the reversal of position had harmed her position, the attorney-general replied: "I don't think it's very good for my credibility, and that's why I am going to pursue it until I get to the truth."

[WoodDraw]

Seriously, why do Bush's critics pretend that an admission of mistakes would've been a positive development in their estimation of the man?

I just find the whole switching the main goal of the war from WMD to helping the Iraqi people as facts change a little annoying. It probably is unrealistic for him to admit any mistakes given the political climate but there certainly could have been some behind the scenes shakeup. If I was President and had poor intelligence and advice that I based this big of a decision on then I'd want some heads to roll. Again, that's just the coward/pacifist/pussy me though.

[stevieray]

I just find the whole switching the main goal of the war from WMD to helping the Iraqi people as facts change a little annoying. It probably is unrealistic for him to admit any mistakes given the political climate but there certainly could have been some behind the scenes shakeup. If I was President and had poor intelligence and advice that I based this big of a decision on then I'd want some heads to roll. Again, that's just the coward/pacifist/pussy me though.

You should run for Congress, cause those current guys have nothing on you and your intel.

[stevieray]

When did Janet Reno "offer a contrite 'I'b torry"' about Waco? I don't recall ever hearing an apology from Janet Reno regarding the events at Waco. I'd be interested to hear when you did.

Here's an example of the sort of coverage that "the world" gives Janet Reno.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/352737.stm

silly rabbit, the left doesn't offer apologies, they just demand them, or decide who needs one.

[Logical]

Yay for jumping to idiotic conclusions without reason. I don't think Bush misled the country on purpose and I'm sure that he did think Iraq had WMD. That doesn't change the fact that they didn't and he went to war on crappy information. I'm not going to give him a free pass simply because he wanted to do the right thing. Plus, his refusal to admit his mistakes doesn't make it any easier to trust him.

I do think that Bush acted far to quickly in kicking out the UN inspectors. If he knew there where WMD, why couldn't he say where they were? I do think that Bush ignored a lot of the opposing side prewar when he should have been trying to get the whole picture. I do think that he trusted Rumsfeld and Cheney far to much which led to a horrible war plan. If you want to cover your ears and yell "lalalala" at even the slightest mention of this Iraqi war not being being of the utmost legitimacy and importance than that is fine but I don't think my beliefs are all that radical or misguided.Oh my God, so what you would prefer is he do the wrong thing based on the wrong thing based on the information he had at the time. Throw out what you believe is right and do what you think is wrong because the 20% of the country at that time objected to your actions.

By the way if you think he did not mislead the public at the time you really have no argument at all. I will give the wild ass liberals like Jettio credit for at least believing he had the right information and chose to not disclose it to base their silly opposition to the Iraqi regimes overthrow, ridding the world of one of the 3 top despotic world leaders.

[Logical]

When did Janet Reno "offer a contrite 'I'b torry"' about Waco? I don't recall ever hearing an apology from Janet Reno regarding the events at Waco. I'd be interested to hear when you did.

Here's an example of the sort of coverage that "the world" gives Janet Reno.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/352737.stm



OK Dan you lost me, if the liberals Janet Reno did not apologize, why should the conservatives administration wonks let alone the President apologize? I don't think Janet Reno should have apologized nor Bill Clinton for the Waco incident, any more than I think Bush or any of the Bush administration should apologize. Personally I would have less respect for Reno and for any other major political figure who apologized for doing something they believed in to buckle to the press and elements of the opposition.

[jettio]

Oh my God, so what you would prefer is he do the wrong thing based on the wrong thing based on the information he had at the time. Throw out what you believe is right and do what you think is wrong because the 20% of the country at that time objected to your actions.

By the way if you think he did not mislead the public at the time you really have no argument at all. I will give the wild ass liberals like Jettio credit for at least believing he had the right information and chose to not disclose it to base their silly opposition to the Iraqi regimes overthrow, ridding the world of one of the 3 top despotic world leaders.

You have my postion exactly wrong. I don't oppose using our military to kick the sh*t out of tyrants.

B*sh was arguing that Saddam was an inch away from taking over the world. I called BS on that, because anybody with a functioning brain matter knew that Saddam was not even thinking about f*cking with the USA.

B*sh was a phony and was not in good faith in working with other countries to address the "crisis" that he was crying about.

The best solution to verify disarming Iraq was the inspections. He abandoned that in favor of his piss poorly planned collossal clusterf*ck.

If B*sh wants to play Superfriends, he should not be phony about it.

I am going to have to fire you as my press agent if you continue to misrepresent.

[DanT]

OK Dan you lost me, if the liberals Janet Reno did not apologize, why should the conservatives administration wonks let alone the President apologize? I don't think Janet Reno should have apologized nor Bill Clinton for the Waco incident, any more than I think Bush or any of the Bush administration should apologize. Personally I would have less respect for Reno and for any other major political figure who apologized for doing something they believed in to buckle to the press and elements of the opposition.

Baby Lee made a statement based on a factual premise that I was unaware of and which conflicted with my understanding of the facts. I'm asking Baby Lee when some of the facts he claims happened happens. I don't recall Janet Reno ever apologizing about the Waco atrocity, let alone the world melting for her because of it, so I'm curious as to his supporting documentation for the facts he claims.

[memyselfI]

OK Dan you lost me, if the liberals Janet Reno did not apologize, why should the conservatives administration wonks let alone the President apologize? I don't think Janet Reno should have apologized nor Bill Clinton for the Waco incident, any more than I think Bush or any of the Bush administration should apologize. Personally I would have less respect for Reno and for any other major political figure who apologized for doing something they believed in to buckle to the press and elements of the opposition.

Well, I'd agree with you if you were comparing apples to apples but you are not. Janet/Waco was an INTERNAL DOMESTIC issue that the implications would be felt and dealt with interally by the citizens of the US.

Contrast that with the Bush administrations various 'mistakes' that have included misleading and deception to world leaders, gotten their citizens killed or at least in harm's way, and has damaged the US image and status around the world and you can see that there is no way for the world to hold DUHbya accountable for his mistakes or lack of apology...especially if those within the US fail to do it. :hmmm:

Comparing the two is just a pathetic diversion attempt by RWNJs. :rolleyes:

[stevieray]

Well, I'd agree with you if you were comparing apples to apples but you are not. Janet/Waco was an INTERNAL DOMESTIC issue that the implications would be felt and dealt with interally by the citizens of the US.

Contrast that with the Bush administrations various 'mistakes' that have included misleading and deception to world leaders, gotten their citizens killed or at least in harm's way, and has damaged the US image and status around the world and you can see that there is no way for the world to hold DUHbya accountable for his mistakes or lack of apology...especially if those within the US fail to do it. :hmmm:
People keep accusing Bush of lying, but it's only opinion. Why isn't John Kerry leading the charge for prosecution?

Soldiers take an oath knowing the potential for danger already exist, therefore accpeting full consequences. It's shallow that you still use their call to duty and courage so you can play the blame game.

[Mr. Kotter]

An "apology" by Bush would accomplish nothing. All it would do is give his criticss (the same ones demanding an apology) a chance to rip him, to say "SEEEEE, I told you so!"

He's already said, numerous times...."Mistakes were made." If it was good enough for Clinton (Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo--not just Zippergate), it's good enough for Bush. :rolleyes:

[WoodDraw]

Oh my God, so what you would prefer is he do the wrong thing based on the wrong thing based on the information he had at the time. Throw out what you believe is right and do what you think is wrong because the 20% of the country at that time objected to your actions.

By the way if you think he did not mislead the public at the time you really have no argument at all. I will give the wild ass liberals like Jettio credit for at least believing he had the right information and chose to not disclose it to base their silly opposition to the Iraqi regimes overthrow, ridding the world of one of the 3 top despotic world leaders.

I don't believe he misled the public in the sense that he just created up a war. I'm sure that, in his mind, he felt that the war was right. The doesn't excuse the fact that it wasn't. He kicked out UN inspectors without reason, he exagerated the threat the Saddam posed, he put together a shit plan, and he and his close advisors ignored the opposing people and points in favor of the thin intelligence that they had. Just look at yesterday's Wasington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html) article to see what I'm talking about.

[Mr. Kotter]

I don't believe he misled the public in the sense that he just created up a war. I'm sure that, in his mind, he felt that the war was right. The doesn't excuse the fact that it wasn't. He kicked out UN inspectors without reason, he exagerated the threat the Saddam posed, he put together a shit plan, and he and his close advisors ignored the opposing people and points in favor of the thin intelligence that they had. Just look at yesterday's Wasington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html) article to see what I'm talking about.

Are you honestly suggesting that W is the first President to cherry-pick intelligence and advice? Sure he does. So has every other President; they choose that which they find most credible, and/or supportive of their policies. It's not as if there was anything approaching a consensus on Iraq, and though "waiting" for a consensus seemed desirable to some...others thought it would cost more American lives to wait.

There are always disagreements and contradictory intelligence to sort through. It's much easier to sort through AFTER the fact, with the benefit of hindsight....as many have done during the time since the operation in Iraq began. Congress had access to the same intelligence and advice as did the President, and gave him the green light anyway. Historical revisionism is an interesting and provacative game of "what if?" but does it really serve any useful purpose other than to impugn those with whom you disagree--as a sort of "SEEEEE, I told you so!"

People still question whether we should have dropped the bomb on Japan. It's an interesting "moral" question, but in 1945....there was very little or no question that it WAS the right thing to do.

[WoodDraw]

Are you honestly suggesting that W is the first President to cherry-pick intelligence and advice? Sure he does. So has every other President; they choose that which they find most credible, and/or supportive of their policies. It's not as if there was anything approaching a consensus on Iraq, and though "waiting" for a consensus seemed desirable to some...others thought it would cost more American lives to wait.

There are always disagreements and contradictory intelligence to sort through. It's much easier to sort through AFTER the fact, with the benefit of hindsight....as many have done during the time since the operation in Iraq began. Congress had access to the same intelligence and advice as did the President, and gave him the green light anyway. Historical revisionism is an interesting and provacative game of "what if?" but does it really serve any useful purpose other than to impugn those with whom you disagree--as a sort of "SEEEEE, I told you so!"

And why is that excusable? Why do we give him a free pass for ignoring certain pieces of intelligence while choosing the thin intelligence that "supports" his position? What the hell kind of excuse is "other Presidents have done it!"?

The link I posted is talking about something that happen pre-war, not post-war. Yes, when our President leads us to war I expect it to be a fully thought out decision that doesn't involved cherry-picking intelligence to fit what he wants it to say. Is that an unreasonable standard?

For some reason you are choosing to completely dehumanize this whole conflict. How many people have to die before you will hold someone accountable? What is an acceptable level of American and Iraqi deaths? How many more mistakes can be made before you will drop the "hindsight is 20/20" defense?

[Mr. Kotter]

And why is that excusable? Why do we give him a free pass for ignoring certain pieces of intelligence while choosing the thin intelligence that "supports" his position? What the hell kind of excuse is "other Presidents have done it!"?

The link I posted is talking about something that happen pre-war, not post-war. Yes, when our President leads us to war I expect it to be a fully thought out decision that doesn't involved cherry-picking intelligence to fit what he wants it to say. Is that an unreasonable standard?

For some reason you are choosing to completely dehumanize this whole conflict. How many people have to die before you will hold someone accountable? What is an acceptable level of American and Iraqi deaths? How many more mistakes can be made before you will drop the "hindsight is 20/20" defense?

War is hell. War sucks. People die. But "Freedom is not Free." Sometimes war is necessary. I spent four years on active duty; six in the reserves, so I know. You and I (and those that supported this) disagree on whether or not is was justified this time, it appears.

My point is some intelligence appears credible during analysis, other intelligence less credible. There is ALWAYS going to be disagreement over what and who is "right." AT THE TIME, they made a decision based on their analysis of the intelligence. Facts and "evidence" has suggested that intelligence was wrong...and other intelligence and analysis was more accurate. That's an easy judgement to make NOW. No one is "givin' him a free pass, but it wasn't an easy judgement to make then. Is there a lesson to be learned? Sure; let's be more careful next time. We can't, now, undo what was done. And despite the protestations of some, W's "call" was not unreasonable at the time (CONGRESS went along, didn't they?)

Hindsight is 20/20. Presidents don't have the benefit of hindsight in making real-time decisions. THAT'S all I'm saying. Those who despise this President want to use second-guessing and hindsight to assail him for something he did, that at the time appeared quite reasonable to MOST Americans--including Congress.

Dehumanization? No, I simply understand what the costs could have been had we NOT taken this action. Do I have proof? No. Do you have proof things would have "cost" less had we done nothing? No. Recent events are beginning to put in place the government the Iraqi people deserve, slowly. And it will not be without setbacks. The new government though, WILL ensure their country and the world is a safer place though. You may not believe that, but many of us do.

[mlyonsd]

Hindsight is 20/20. Presidents don't have the benefit of hindsight in making real-time decisions. THAT'S all I'm saying. Those who despise this President want to use second-guessing and hindsight to assail him for something he did, that at the time appeared quite reasonable to MOST Americans--including Congress.

:clap:

[Loki]

I was reading this article about Vietnam by a Vietnamese American who moved here after the war. He was talking about how America made a huge mistake with Vietnam in how they tried to build the nation, as if it were some new tribe with no history. I kind of brought me to the present. Nation building? I think that's certainly what you could call this thing in Iraq.

I'm glad to see they have their own elections now and people voted and stuff. But how long are we going to be over there fighting insurgents who will try to rip away the democracy? The first thing you need for a successful democracy is people who want it doggunit. People who are going to fight for the stabilization of their own damn future. Why should this be America's problem?

i take it you don't realize that there are iraqi police and defense forces
growing in ranks as we speak despite the fact they're targets of the
insurgents. i would say their resolve for freedom is QUITE strong
knowing that when they join, they automatically have a big target
painted on them and their families.

pretty strong decision to make wouldn't you say?

[Loki]

Anyway, America was paranoid by the idea of communism. This domino effect was an idea used by American politicians to gain power. That's all really.

jenson, this is a pretty weak statement considering you didn't and
don't live in a time when communism is a REAL threat. easy to say
when the berlin wall is down and the soviet hard liners are relatively
powerless.

to dismiss the concept of the spread of communism that our grand-
fathers and fathers dealt with is quite demeaning IMO... the paranoia
and threats were real.

[Loki]

B*sh was a phony and was not in good faith in working with other countries to address the "crisis" that he was crying about.


why do you consistently disregard the fact that major players in the
UN weren't working in "good faith" because they had (and have)
something to hide in regards to iraq?

seems to me that some of the UN players were "crying" about a
crisis in iraq as well (not to mention several nations offereing their
own brand of "crappy intel"). are they as much to blame?

[CHIEF4EVER]

jenson, this is a pretty weak statement considering you didn't and
don't live in a time when communism is a REAL threat. easy to say
when the berlin wall is down and the soviet hard liners are relatively
powerless.

to dismiss the concept of the spread of communism that our grand-
fathers and fathers dealt with is quite demeaning IMO... the paranoia
and threats were real.

Good post. I was stationed in Berlin for 2 tours as a "grunt". 109 miles behind the Iron Curtain. The threat was VERY real. Bombings by the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Army Faction happened frequently in Germany in those times.

[Loki]

Good post. I was stationed in Berlin for 2 tours as a "grunt". 109 miles behind the Iron Curtain. The threat was VERY real. Bombings by the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Red Army Faction happened frequently in Germany in those times.

and they say the troops in s.korea are speed bumps...

good thing the wall came down in the manner it did eh?

[CHIEF4EVER]

and they say the troops in s.korea are speed bumps...

good thing the wall came down in the manner it did eh?

Yup. We were surrounded by 3 Soviet Army GROUPS at the time. All told, the Berlin Garrison consisted of the US Berlin Brigade, a French Regiment (what a bunch of turds, I trained with those conscripts) and a British Brigade. It would have taken the Soviets exactly 15 minutes to overrun us. 14 minutes laughing their azzez off and 60 seconds to pulverize us.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Yup. We were surrounded by 3 Soviet Army GROUPS at the time. All told, the Berlin Garrison consisted of the US Berlin Brigade, a French Regiment (what a bunch of turds, I trained with those conscripts) and a British Brigade. It would have taken the Soviets exactly 15 minutes to overrun us. 14 minutes laughing their azzez off and 60 seconds to pulverize us.

That being said, they had no need to pulverize us. They simply had to hang signs over the Wall saying "Berlin Internment Center" or some such and it would have been the largest POW camp in history.