RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war?

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:36:32 PM)
puella: and so do soldiers, and the women and men in the navy, and our National Guard.. who are supposed to be defending our actual homeland.. and... aid workers, and people working for the 'rebuilding effort'... We are defending the homeland by engaging the threat away from our borders. The aid workers and others involved with the rebuilding effort have more than the US military to defend them. They have contract security teams and they have the Iraqi and coalition militaries. Our main objective is to neutralize the enemy, followed by civil administration and reconstruction. We would have to deploy more forces over there to thoroughly defend every person that you say we should be defending. puella: But what we discredit and never pay attention to is all the people who more than anyone else shouldn't be dying.. because they didn't sign up for this, and they didn't support any faction of a government which brought this upon them... the innocent Iraqi people... The majority of the Iraqi people were looking forward to our invading Iraq. The looks on the faces of the Iraqis during the fall of Baghdad spoke volumes. Many Iraqis were going to commit suicide if the U.S. did not start the bombing. The majority of the Iraqis wanted Saddam out. puella: We watch the death tolls of our troops and don't even blink an eye at the hugely disproportionate numbers of civilians being killed , and which have been killed as a direct result of our 'efforts'. Actually, the majority of the Iraqi casualties were in the hands of the terrorists. They were not in any better condition before the invasion, as the hundreds of thousands of remains in mass graves could indicate. Our military takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties. They do not always succeed, but that is far better than terrorists barging into people’s homes and executing the occupants. puella:And we don't even have all that lovely oil he promised us... George Bush did not promise us any oil out of the deal. Besides, the majority of our oil comes out of this side of the Hemisphere.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:38:59 PM)
juliaoceania: Plain and simple... war is a failure of diplomacy. If you are talking about failures in diplomacy leading to war, I will agree to some extent. Not all diplomacy failures lead to war. Some do. But I don’t see war as a failure in diplomacy. There are wars that start without prior diplomatic efforts. In Iraq’s case, not only did we exhaust all diplomatic efforts, we were using the same ones over and over again. Adds meaning to the definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results. Well, we did something different and we got results - end to Iraq’s WMD program. juliaoceania: People can always justify starting a war, but the ironic thing is those who start it do not die in it. Not always. There are leaders that started wars who ended up dieing in them. If you are implying that Bush started this war, keep in mind that we have been militarily engaged against Iraq for years. We have been bombing Iraq for years leading up to the invasion. George Bush continued a policy that was in place by his predecessor. Regime change was a goal of the Clinton administration. Heck, this war’s real start is in 1991. The cease fire was a temporary halt to a war, not the beginning of peace. juliaoceania: It is always those with the least to gain that actually die in wars. Take the soldiers we have in Iraq, most are not from affluent families. Most will not profit from this war, yet they die in it. People in the military come from all walks of life, and from all social strata. There are those from rich families, middle class families, and from poor families. All races are represented. We have corporate execs who are serving in Iraq right now. This was true in Vietnam as well.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:40:48 PM)
puella: You can not blame this War we brought to Iraq on Clinton, no matter how badly you may want to... This war’s real beginning started before the current Bush entered the White House. Operation Desert Fox began years of heavy Iraq bombardment. This was in 1998. This is one of the reasons to why we were able to make quick progress. Prior to an invasion, you have a pre invasion bombardment. The Clinton Administration adopted a regime change policy for Iraq. Before that, we had the cease fire which placed a temporary halt to the war. We were involved with low intensity warfare in Iraq throughout the 90’s and into the buildup, when the low intensity warfare became a pre - invasion bombardment. puella: Blame him for getting head in the Oval Office.. okay.. sure.. I will also blame him for helping the Chinese go from This: HMMM, if we launch our nuclear missiles, it might come close to hitting its target, or it might just blow up on launch… To this: He, he, we have the Ability to strike U.S. targets with pin point accuracy. I will also blame him for losing the nuclear launch codes absent mindedly. The books, Dereliction of Duty, Catastrophe, Legacy, etc have gem after gem of things that we could blame Clinton on. puella: but GW did this, solicited and fabricated the information to get us there and decided before he went to congress that this was going to happen No, he did not solicit and fabricate favorable information so that he could have an excuse to invade Iraq. http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp quote: From the American Enterprise: Urban Legends About the Iraq War Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Reality: Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’” Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….” Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.” In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address.... puella: (remember the Downing Street Memos). There were too many inconsistencies with the Downing Street Memos. For example, they were allegedly retyped to protect the sensitive information that they contained. Why not mark out the sensitive material instead like what is normally done? The classified designations and markings were not consistent with what a classified document would have - heck, there were no real classified markings. Now I am bouncing this off marking procedures for NATO confidential, secret, etc publications where each paragraph is marked. It was too amateur to be a serious document, or to be one produced by a government. Not to mention, thanks to the Internet, anybody could drum up a document and claim that it was a secret government memo, or a sensitive personal file. Just ask Rather and company. puella: Clinton advocated the weapons inspectors... He also advocating bombing countries. The weapons inspectors were kicked out during his watch, they returned during Bush’s watch. Sadman thought that he would get similar reactions that he got from Clinton, boy was he wrong. :D puella: he did not invade a country which did not attack us in any way. No, but that did not stop him from ordering an air attack against a country without U.N. Security Council approval. http://www.unlawreports.com/19990401.HTM quote: NATO attack against FRY without Security Council authorization occasions legal debate in Council as Russia seeks condemnation of attack; arguments favoring its draft are technically but not emotionally supportable under circumstances of massive atrocities; 1977 indictment of Serb leader Arkan unsealed by ICTY Prosecutor. puella: GW wanted this war.. well, he fought to get it and got it, and he now has to own up to all that means. No, he did not want this war. Matter of fact, he gave Saddam and company an X amount of hours to move out of the country. Had Saddam done that, the war could have very well been averted.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:42:44 PM)
Lordandmaster: Exactly what Hans Blix wanted to do: continue with the regime of inspections. Which is precisely what we could not afford to do. Saddam was pulling the same stunts during the second round of inspections as he was during the first round of inspections. He was playing games in hopes that he could outlast the sanctions. He would then go back and carry out his WMD programs to completion.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:47:17 PM)
Kedikat The best way to win a war is to avoid it. In order to win a war, you have to fight one. You don’t win a war if you are not engaged in one. Avoiding a war is not always the best policy either. Iraq was playing games for 12 years, their leader was pursuing WMD programs, while the terrorist group that slaughtered thousands of people on American soil is actively seeking WMD. We could try to avoid war alright but…. Not when we are dealing with this type of mentality: http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null quote: From video clip We have ruled the world before and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world. What’s it to the Palestinians as to who rules what outside of the Middle East? Compare that to the Iranian leader’s rhetoric and to Sadman’s making death to America threats. No, we can’t avoid this war in any way, shape or form. Saddam’s Iraq was a part of the threat, and we had to deal with him. Not doing what we did would have brought long term consequences for us. The Iraq war is a necessary front in this asymmetrical war that we find ourselves in. Avoiding this war would have been a mistake. Kedikat The seeds of wars are usually very obvious. The steps towards war almost a predictable routine If you are talking about the Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests and our failure to address them with a real solution, as well as our failure to take out Bin Laden when we had the chance (back in the 90’s), I would agree with you here. The claim that the seeds of wars are obvious is inductive fallacy. It may be the case when one studies history, when they have the gift of hind site. But we could look at any number of events around the world and see events that might lead to war and other events that do not lead to war. Kedikat Most wars are initiated by a government that is failing to solve it's country's problems, Not necessarily the case. Many wars are caused when interests are threatened. These interests could take on any shape or form. Wars have been fought over resources. Wars have been fought over security reasons. Wars have been fought as part of a venture to enrich the country. Wars have been fought to settle border disputes. We did not invade Mexico because we were having problems here at home that we failed to address. We had a border disagreement and we had an ambition to stretch from sea to shining sea. There were other reasons as well. There are multitudes of reasons to why we fought the Iraq War. The reason of most concern to me - as it should be to most Americans - is our security interests under asymmetrical warfare. Kedikat and casting the blame on another country or convenient race/religion. Most the war histories that I have read did not have one country blaming another country, race, or religion for internal problems. Germany does come up as an example, but it is not the norm. The Iraq war is not an attempt to shift blame elsewhere. Saddam’s Iraq was a real threat that had to be dealt with. Kedikat Most government failings are the result of basing success on ever expanding wealth and selling good governmental concepts for popular votes. Not quite. Most government failings result in inefficient government and poor leadership. Corruption falls under the leadership aspect of this. Perfect examples of inefficient governments could be found among the communist and socialistic governments. Expanding wealth is something that the common populace engages in. With the mention of “popular votes”, there is another dimension that contributes to government failings. The people’s failure, as an electorate, to exercise their civic duties. Many people think that their civic influence on the government ends at the ballot box. Yet there are methods that are in place where the common man/woman can get bills introduced to the state or government legislative floors. Our government gets away with things partly because WE the people let them get away with it. However, I don’t see this “government failings” in terms of the US invading Iraq. Our failing to invade Iraq would have demonstrated a government failing though. Kedikat Most short sighted governments, primed to start wars to prop themselves up, are elected by short sighted voters who believe what they want the politicians to tell them. If these governments are shortsighted, as this statement shows, they would not have the foresight to get elected and the foresight to carry out their war. The Germans prior to World War II, and the Venezuelans prior to Chavez, would be examples of short sighted voters not seeing what their leaders would get them into. However, if this is implying that the Bush voters are short sighted and that the Bush Administration is short sighted, this statement would be flat out wrong. One of the reasons to why I voted for Bush is for security reasons. I did this twice. Clinton gutted the military when it was obvious to most in the military that threats were still present. Bush is right on track in terms of security, maintaining the course in Iraq, liberalized trade, and permanent tax cuts. All of these are going to secure our future and set us - and a large portion of the world - on to a road of prosperity. Then you have to look at the other option that we had in 2004 - an incompetent. Now our voting for him would definitely have reflected short sightedness on our part. A Gore presidency would also have reflected short sightedness. Even many democrats breathed a sigh of relief when it was apparent that Gore was not the president after the 9/11 attacks. But back to Bush. In case this statement is implying that Bush’s low approval ratings among his base reflects their wishing that they did not vote for him: The low approval that he is getting from his base is not their all of a sudden “waking up” and embracing left of center thought. It is not their having a bout of buyers remorse. It is their disapproval of his not sticking to their conservative values and to his cozying up to the liberals. Kedikat I am saddened by the multitudes who shout about patriotism, their childrens future, world peace and democracy. It goes this way. U.S. government and U.S. military - we have to stay the course in Iraq. Terrorists - American go home! Leave Iraq! Pro War - We have to stay the course in Iraq. Anti war - Out of Iraq now! Return the troops home! Now, let us break this down into two groups: Stay the course in Iraq: U.S. government/U.S. military and pro war crowd. Leave Iraq: Terrorists and anti war crowd. The patriots are for America, just as they were for America during the Revolutionary War. Out of those that oppose the war, there are two groups: (1) Those that honest to god don’t like the U.S. and what it stands for. (2) Those that are under the assumption that their course of action would benefit America the most. The first group of people may be outright traitors. The second group, without realizing it, are working to the same ends as our enemy. Given the information that is out there and is available for research and examination, THIS IS about democracy and ultimate peace and prosperity. Kedikat But sell it all out on the ballot, for a tax break. A vote for Bush was a vote for a more common sense tax approach. Statistics and studies show that nations with lower tax rates do better economically than comparable nations with higher tax rates. But a vote for Bush was not just a vote for a more common sense tax rate. It was also a vote for a more common sense security policy. It was a vote for policies that would lead to increased prosperity. It was a vote for a more common sense foreign policy. It was also a vote for a man that would contribute to bringing this country back to the right track. The first vote for Bush was also a vote to return honor to the White House. The list goes on. There was no selling out going on in terms of both votes for Bush. Kedikat Yes the government wastes a lot of money. So does any huge business. Just because many huge businesses waste money does not mean that we have to tolerate our government wasting money. When huge businesses waste money, they are wasting their money, something they earned. When our government wastes money, they are wasting OUR tax dollars. Additionally, a company that wastes too much money ends up suffering the consequences - to include fighting for its survival. Kedikat You get what you pay for. If that is the case, our government should be running with better quality than before as government spending is up. It is collecting more tax revenues now than in the past. Government is bigger now than before and getting more money. Congress’s approval rating should be rocketing through the roof. We pay more money into our Department of Education than many countries in the world. If “you get what you pay for” were applicable here, our student’s scores would reflect that. Yet countries that spend less than we do on education have students that are blowing our students out the door when it comes to standardize tests. KedikatYou live what you vote for. Your children die for your mistakes. For your comfort today. The Clinton Presidency is a perfect example of this. Before he became president, the Chinese were lucky if a few of their nuclear missiles found their targets in America. Thanks to his hooking his contributors up - the US company that wanted to sell a specific technology to the Chinese - the Chinese now have the ability to strike our cities with pin point accuracy. Yup, the Chinese have the nuclear knife on the neck of the next American generation because an older generation voted for perceived benefit and their current comfort when they voted for Clinton. However, as far as sending one’s children to die, bear in mind that thousands are volunteering to go to Iraq.

janiceleeinsc -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:48:05 PM)
Clinton cannot take the fall for this one. It was Daddy Bush, and the reason Junior Bush got us into war was clearly revenge for his Daddy. Meanwhile, our troups are being slaughtered and gas prices are out the roof. Now we will probably go to war with Mexico next. What a fun guy this Junior Bush is. Are we better off now than we were six years ago? Respectfully, Mistress_Jan

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:48:40 PM)
Kedikat: It's oil, and Israel. Anybody who peruses a healthy variet of news and information sources would know that. Anybody that has perused a healthy variety of news and information sources would know that there is as much information debunking the “its about Oil!” or the “its about Israel” theory as there are supporting said theory. The oil argument is weak for several reasons, two of them will be laid out here. (1) Saddam offered lucrative oil deals to Bush Senior, to Clinton, and to Bush Junior. All three rejected the offer. If it was simply about the oil, we would have just accepted the lucrative oil deals and made money while at the same time letting the useless inspections continue. Getting the oil that way would have been cheaper than, say, sending an invasion force in and risk life and limb. (2) We get most of our oil from the Western Hemisphere. Out of the oil we get from the Middle East, most is from non Iraqi sources. Israel does play a role, but not in the sense hinted at here. If people look at the map of the Middle East, they would see Jordan, turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq in specific locations. All of these countries are drifting toward more western ways of doing business. Israel is already there. Now, look at the countries in between them. As these other countries progress, more pressure is going to be placed on these other countries to reform. This is part of a bigger game plan that we have of changing the face of the Middle East - to make that region an economically productive region of the world the way Europe and North America are productive. Kedikat: Project for the new American Century laid it all out in it's documents. Signed off with the names of many in the US cabinet today. Black and white. No question about it. http://www.newamericancentury.org quote: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world. Project for the New American Century does not set policy for the United States. It is a non profit organization that wants to bring certain things to the public’s attention and to stir debate. That is reasonable. History has proven the United States to be a capable leader. Just ask the Europeans in terms of how to handle the Balkans. I would rather have the U.S. as a world leader in terms of global affairs than, lets say, China. According to the Chinese, their version of “communism” is supposed to be adopted and changed by the other nations. So, we would create a U.S. communist government based on the Chinese model, but with American characteristics. We could have a Russian leadership! Umm, no thanks to these two alternatives. Kedikat: Saddam was an asshole. One of many the US, USSR, France, Great Britain and others have put in place, used and deposed when it suited them. Hind sight is great in this instance. Back then, if we were the ones that put him there (seen literature that claims we put him there, and other literature that refutes that), we had a bigger fish to fry. But, having said that, if you gave a friend a sword as a gift, and he later turns sour, would you let him cut your throat with that sword because he was your friend when you gave it to him? Kedikat: The middle east was the cradle of civilization. We have raided the cradle ever since. Not quite. We did not start “raiding” that cradle until the Greeks came into the picture. Then the Romans. After the fall of the Romans, it was the Arabs that robbed it. As proof of this, one could ask themselves what the dominating religion in the region is. Then the Europeans came back and screwed things up, living the current despot governments to evolve. We are fixing that, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq. Kedikat: The US has escaped the history of this planet by being one of the last to become a power. But it is also repeating all the follies of those before. This is a game that is going to be played till the end of time. Every nation has interests. If the US is not doing what it is doing now, another country would step in and do the very things we are doing. Kedikat: It's the oil folks. No, it is not just because of the oil. Kedikat: And it's getting scarcer every second......... What is getting scarier every second is how correct these guys were about many people in the U.S. today: “Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack nby Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military…. This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operations other than military means.. (Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, 1999). Given the larger picture of what is going on, it is scary how many are missing the point as to why we need to do what we are doing in the Middle East. Kedikat: Soon there won't be much to war over.... If you are talking about how regionalization moves like the E.U., NAFTA, ASEAN + China + India + other Asian nations, etc is leading to ultimate global integration, I would be with you. Until then, as long as the highest forms of governments - national - are pursing their own interests, the chances for war are still there. Kedikat: Except what your next door neighbour has, that you need to feed your family....What is your government doing about that? My next door neighbors don’t want what I have and I don’t want what they have. Nope, nothing to war about in my neighborhood.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:50:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren What I found amazing was that the US administration said repeatedly they knew where the WMDs were and yet they couldn't turn over the information to Blix because his people weren't cleared for it. At that point, I was certain the administration didn't know squat and was lying. What I failed to understand was just how badly they were lying. I don’t blame them for not wanting to turn over that information. According to Colonel Stanislav Lunev, highest ranking GRU officer to defect to the U.S., there were spies among the first inspection team. There is every reason to believe that there were spies in the second inspection team as well. Even in the presentation that Powell gave to the UN, he showed the Iraqis clearing out a suspected location just prior to the inspection team arriving. Someone tipped them off. Spies would be able to determine - in a heartbeat - what your surveillance capabilities were if you were to inform them where certain WMD was located. Telling Hans Blix where they were would have amounted to our shooting ourselves in the foot as warning would have been given to the suspected locations and the WMD would have been moved by the time the inspection teams got there.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:51:34 PM)
Kedikat: I think the rest of us have to support you in at least two ways. The appreciation and support through taxes. That is what I would call partial support. You also support the troops by supporting their mission. And completing the overall mission in Iraq is one of their missions. Saying that one supports the troops but not the war is like someone saying that they support firemen, but don’t support their putting the fire out in the old “useless” barn in the countryside. Saying that one supports the troops but not the war is like someone saying that they support policemen, but not the policemen patrolling certain neighborhoods. Kedikat: But more important, to bother to be informed and take real action from the base, as to whether you are put in danger for real good reason. And the majority in the military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere believe in what they are doing. The reasons for going into Iraq are legitimate. We had to address a potential threat before it became a problem. It was a threat that both Republicans and Democrats talked about. The more informed one is about what our enemies are up to, and the method they are going about it, the more one would support what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Kedikat: I feel that miltary personnels lives are being wasted in Iraq, and through mismanagement are being wasted in Afghanistan now. Those lives are not being wasted. What would make their loss a waste is if the U.S. were to pull out of Iraq before its job there is completed. More lives have been lost in prior major wars than in GWOT. Heck, more lives are being lost on our highways. 40,000 + Americans fatally killed each year on American highways. Lets see, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. Multiply 40,000 by 4, and compare that number to our projected cumulative total fatalities in Iraq by the end of this year. Those are deaths due to American negligence on our soil. But how many Americans were killed by enemy action on 9/11? That number still exceeds our total death toll in Iraq. We fight the terrorists there, or they slaughter us here. I vote that we fight them there. Kedikat: Both of these countries issues could have been solved in different ways, less costly in lives. No, if we did not go to war with those countries, the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan, and Saddam would still be in power in Iraq. The inspection team would probably already been kicked out a second time by now. If not, they would still be on a wild goose chase while the Iraqi government runs circles around them. Kedikat: Saddam in Iraq was on the verge of collapse, Saddam had an iron grip on his country, his generals were afraid to lift a finger against him. Saddam would have remained in power for a long time had the coalition not invaded. Kedikat: and US troops were rushed in to take over the remains. Take over the remains? Not hardly. Although many surrendered, many rushed in to engage our troops. We were not taking over the remains, unless you are talking about the remains of Iraq’s infrastructure after Saddam destroyed it for decades. Kedikat: At cost to them, with little benifit to anyone. Actually, there is a large benefit to our going into Iraq. Saddam is no longer in power, and Iraq is no longer a potential source of WMD for Bin Laden. We have one more country rushing to the western fold. That is going to have a long term benefit for the region. If Saudi Arabia and other hard line nations in the region don’t come through with democratic reforms, they are going to find a future Middle East where Iraq and Afghanistan are the regional economic superpowers. Westernized countries setting the tone for the rest of the Middle East? Now THAT is definitely going to be a long lasting benefit. Their economy is projected to grow at 16% next year. Their standard of living is on the way up. This war has its benefits. Kedikat: Afghanistan was abandoned, to rush to Iraq. When Afghanistan was the real deal. It could have been saved and could have been appreciative of it afterwards. US troops were robbed of a truly good job to finish. The reconstruction in Afghanistan continued even with our invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan is ahead of Iraq in terms of recovery. Even if the Iraq war never happened, we would not be further ahead in Afghanistan than we are now. In fact, we could have been behind on the account of a stronger insurgency. If we did not go to Iraq, we would be fighting a tougher insurgency in Afghanistan than what we have been fighting. In this scenario, the foreign fighters that flowed to Iraq would have flowed to Afghanistan. The environment would have been in their favor, not ours! Just talk to the Russians that fought there.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:52:58 PM)
meatcleaver: Hans Blix had said, all the evidence was pointing to Iraq not having WMD. Hans Blix knew that the fate of thousands of people hung in the balance of the results of his inspections. That being said, He also came out and listed Saddam’s scuds as “illegal” missiles. The only thing that Blix - as any inspector - could do is make a judgment based on what they have found so far, in the limited areas of their search. However, listening to his progress reports, anybody in the military who has had inventory accountability would know that what Saddam Claimed he had did not match with what was found. His inventory did not balance out and he could not account for parts of his inventory. Anybody reading through the lines would know that Saddam was hiding something. meatcleaver: Chirac and Schroder both said they didn't believe Iraq had WMD, that intelligence they had seen didn't even start to support the idea there was WMD in Iraq or that Iraq were giving aid to terrorists. Not quite. Even French and German intelligence indicated that Saddam was working on WMD programs in secret. Intelligence services from around the world came to this conclusion, not just U.S. intel. Their opposition to the war had nothing to do with whether they believed he was holding WMD or not. It had nothing to do with their supposed moral high ground, or their experiencing the brutality of wars in the past. All of that was just politicking. Had the situation been reversed, IE, they had something to gain from an invasion, they would have argued the same line as the U.S. and U.K. meatcleaver: In fact the French told Britain that there were more terrorists being given shelter in London under the guise of human rights than were in Iraq. That has since appears to have been proved true at the time. Again, the French were protecting their interests in Iraq. Iraq had more terrorists than the U.K. In fact, Saddam hosted radical terrorist conventions, the U.K. government did not do this. The terrorists were not in Britain as a result of that country wanting to harbor terrorists. The claims of the French and Germans have not been proven true. Iraq’s connection to terrorism was not the only justification that we used for going in. meatcleaver: The invasion allowed terrorists to enter Iraq and cause chaos. Terrorists were already in Iraq prior to the invasion. They came in with the blessing of the Iraqi government. Talk to many Iraqis that knew Saddam and many will tell you that Saddam was the grandfather of terrorism. Terrorists entered Iraq after the invasion and they TRIED to cause chaos. But the reality is that they are becoming more insignificant as the weeks and months pass. In fact, the terrorists are fighting each other over there. They are fracturing and splitting as more and more groups are realizing that the terrorist’s cause over there is a loosing one. meatcleaver: I know people like to throw scorn on the French but Chirac has proved to be right. Negative, Chirac has not been proven right. In fact, newly posted Saddam documents prove the U.S. and U.K. governments right and the French, German, Russian, etc governments wrong. The more information that they dig up, the more the French are proven wrong. meatcleaver: I'm not saying French and German reasons for refusing to have anything to do with the war was entirely due to their lack of belief that Iraq had WMD, both had domestic reasons too but they certainly didn't see Iraq as a danger. They refused to believe in information that was going to lead to their having to get off their kishters and take a course of action that was going to end lucrative financial deals that they got. http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html quote: For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake. While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:55:25 PM)
irishbynature: It's odd that we forget the Military Operations that happened a year after the first Gulf War. Our troops stayed behind, finding chemical weapons and disposing of them. Then, we had the "No Fly" zones. They did not find all chemical weapons. It took the inspectors to catch the Iraqis (sneaking elements of a nuclear or biological program) on the act to cause the Iraqi government to come out and admitting that they did - in fact - had something. Before that, they denied having such items, just like they denied having WMD in 2003. irishbynature: (Under Bush I- a president who did a much better job in working w/allies, etc and military brass..I might say). Keep in mind that OIF is not the same war as the Gulf War. The Gulf War was more of a symmetrical war than OIF, witch is more asymmetrical than it is symmetrical. Our “allies” are allies in a Cold War sense. We were still in the Cold War when the first Gulf War occurred. However, the Cold War is over. That type of war is over and we are now under a different type of war, one that calls for fluid and constantly changing alliances. This type of war calls for “coalitions of the willing”. The NATO alliance and any other alliance systems (traditional alliances) that are constant in membership are Cold War dinosaurs. In fact, I would be in favor of NATO dissolving if it fails to adjust to today’s asymmetrical warfare. The Fulda Gap and the North German Plain are no longer the direction that our greatest threat would arrive from. irishbynature: Blaming INTEL is just an excuse to heap blame 'somewhere' other than were it should rest. Tell that to anybody in the military that depends on INTEL to do their job. If that INTEL turns out to be wrong, it is not because of the unit commander’s “negligence”. If the INTEL is wrong, then the blame should go to the ones that provided the INTEL, not the ones that used that INTEL. This is applicable regardless of who uses that INTEL, whether we are talking about a fire squad or a president’s administration. irishbynature: That is, an poorly thought and poorly planned invasion by this administration. ... That statement is incorrect. The invasion was a result of good planning. In a matter of weeks, we mowed down the opposition and had Saddam on the run. The casualty count did not match that of prior major wars (pre Grenada invasion). irishbynature: leaving our troops vulnerable, and now, in the midst of Civil War. Negative. There is no Civil War going on in Iraq, nor is there any civil war on the verge of starting. If security conditions were deteriorating in Iraq, news correspondents in Baghdad would all be wearing helmets and vests - the armor types. Yet, the vast majority of the times I see news from Baghdad, whether I am watching Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or someone else, the correspondent is wearing a short sleeved shirt and no armor. I don’t know about anybody else, but if the country was deteriorating into a civil war, and I were a correspondent in Baghdad, I would be wearing protective clothing. I would not dare be out there reporting in just a short sleeved collared shirt - and hair dancing to the breeze. Our troops are vulnerable anytime they are sent into harms way. They were vulnerable when they were deployed to New Orleans. irishbynature: Don't forget what Military Generals have been stating...is anyone listening to them? I am. The majority of the active duty military generals were in support of this plan. A handful of retired military generals do not represent the views of the dozens of retired military generals. Insinuating that these few generals represent the views of the majority is like insinuating that the KKK represents the views of all white Americans. The military generals that I listen to in regards to what to do in Iraq are the ones that are actually in Iraq - RIGHT NOW. irishbynature: Also, go back--remember....Bush said "WMD" over and over....and the plain truth is....we didn't FIND ANY. Negative, we did find WMD in Iraq. Both Sarin and Mustard gas are chemical weapons - thus WMD. Both were found in Iraq. It was the stockpiles of WMD that they did not find. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html quote: "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." irishbynature: He lied and is still lying...and our troops are still dying. This upsets me a great deal, esp. when ppl try to rationalize all of this as "OK". Then, Bush says, "Oh, it was poor INTEL." George Bush did not lie. In order for one to lie, they would have to deliberately give out information they knew for a fact was wrong. However, the information that the president gave out was matched by the information that other nations – friends or foe – had. As for faulty info: If intelligence prior to the invasion indicated that he had an X amount of WMD and they were at Y location, and they were subsequently moved out of country January 2003, this intelligence report automatically becomes wrong effective January 2003. The last inspection team that we sent in refused to rule out the possibility that they were moved out. Intelligence services of foreign countries indicate that this is what happened. The fact of the matter is that some of his inventory is not accounted for. Another point to note here is that we found things buried in the desert that we did not know were buried there until an Iraqi brought it to our attention. Not even our satellites saw those items being buried. The fact of the matter is that none of the inspection teams dug up every square inch of soil on Iraqi territory. History has fatally frowned on those that assumed that a weapon did not exist simply because said weapon was not sighted. irishbynature: Shakes head and says, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt." Sarin and mustard gas were found in Iraq post invasion. Both are chemical agents, thus are WMD - no matter how tempted one would be to deny this to be the case.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 8:58:50 PM)
JohnWarren: According to Jack McGeorge, who was there despite the best efforts of the White House and the Washington Post, during the last round of inspections, Iraq was quite accommodating. They were quite accommodating when it came to getting the inspectors into buildings that they wanted to see. That does not mean that they were accommodating when it came to uncovering their WMD programs. For example, a kid could hide contraband in his bedroom. He could be accommodating to his mom when she checks his room out for any contraband if he knows that she is looking in places he knows for a fact he does not have any contraband. He could move contraband out of his room if he knows that an inspection is coming. In this case, he would be very accommodating. Does that translate to cooperation? Not always. The Iraqis were pulling the same stunts. Iraqi to inspector: Sure you could look there, here, I will let you in, is there anything else that you need? Same Iraqi’s thoughts while saying the above: Ha! There is no WMD in that room that he wants to look at! They are in X location, but I won’t tell him that! JohnWarren: I recall there was only one case where keys to a lab weren't available on a weekend and it was a few hours before the lab director could be found and brought out, but they hung around the lab and there wasn't any crowd of people inside burning papers or anything like that. Just the sort of thing that could happen at any company on a holiday. This goes back to the kid with the contraband example. In the situation where the kid had his contraband moved prior to a parental inspection, there would be no need for him to fiddle around anywhere in his room in an attempt to hide something from his parents. The inspectors were on a wild goose chase, which should not have been the case. The Iraqis supposedly conducted an inventory and they submitted their reports to the U.N. They should have turned around and lead the U.N. team to all of their sites and cooperated with the inspectors afterwards. By the time they were done, they should have a copy of the inventory sheet and be able to do one of the following: (1) Know which WMD on the inventory was destroyed. (2) Have a record of WMD on the list that was destroyed prior to the arrival of the U.N. inspectors. (3) Know which WMD was not destroyed and their locations. Every single ambiguity should have had an explanation. Yet, when Hans Blix made his report to the U.N., he reported things that did not add up. The Iraqis were nowhere near to showing the desire to dismantle their programs, like the South Africans and Libyans. By the way, the Libyans denied having WMD prior to their agreeing to dismantle their own program.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:00:23 PM)
caitlyn: Everyone will have an opinion on the conflict in Iraq ... you are not going to change other people's and they will not change yours. I know, I actively seek out posts made by people who have absolutely no intentions of changing their minds - and rebutting them. Two sides with no intentions of agreeing with the other in a prolonged debate, now THAT’S fun! caitlyn: Myself, I think our nation should go to war, when we, or our close friends are directly threatened, and only after all other options have been enhausted. The conflict in Iraq passes none of these tests. You are comparing an asymmetrical warfare situation to a symmetrical warfare situation. In a symmetrical war, things are black and white and well defined. You know exactly what country your enemy is located in. You know who the aggressor is and you could view the actions of their military. Iraq, on the other hand, is part of an asymmetrical warfare, where things are not as defined as they are in your scenario. Using symmetrical warfare criteria to determine if you should engage in an asymmetrical war would lead to disaster. When it comes to asymmetrical warfare tests, Saddam’s Iraq flashed an emergency red and had to be taken out. caitlyn: The only reasoning is nebulous information about weapons inspectors and weapons of mass destruction. Hardly worth going to war over. WMD was one of the reasons for our going in. The fact that he was playing games with the UN in reference to his WMD programs, and the fact that Bin Laden was looking for WMD, and the fact that Bin Laden had just celebrated the activities of the 19 hijackers, Saddam’s failure to comply with his part of the cease fire agreement became a grave national emergency issue to us. Under asymmetrical warfare, all you need to be a threat is the potential to be a threat. Saddam was more than a potential threat. He also had a history of aggression to his neighbors and to his own people. caitlyn: Result ... I don't think it's so much the war that is the issue, but the lies that were told to get us into a war. George Bush did not lie. In order for one to lie, one would have to deliberately give out information he/she knew for a fact was wrong. However, the information that the president gave out was matched by the information that other nations – friends or foe – had. As for faulty info: If intelligence prior to the invasion indicated that he had an X amount of WMD and they were at Y location, and they were subsequently moved out of country January 2003, this intelligence report automatically becomes wrong effective January 2003. The last inspection team that we sent in refused to rule out the possibility that they were moved out. Intelligence services of foreign countries indicate that this is what happened. The fact of the matter is that some of his inventory is not accounted for. Another point to note here is that we found things buried in the desert that we did not know were buried there until they were brought to our attention. The fact of the matter is that none of the inspection teams dug up every square inch of soil on Iraqi territory. Whatever conclusions they come up with is only applicable to those limited areas that they searched in. caitlyn: History teaches us that powerful nations are going to be involved in wars like the one in Iraq. That doesn't mean that we have to accept our government lying to the citizens that foot the bill. History has also fatally frowned on those that assumed that a weapon did not exist simply because said weapon was not sighted. Again, the government did not lie to the citizens to get us into Iraq. In order to lie, you have to deliberately tell someone something that you know for a fact was not true. The Bush Administration was not doing that. caitlyn: At least in the previous wars you mentioned (and I would throw in the First Gulf War), there was a clear reason, and a reason that wasn't an out-and-out lie. That is the biggest difference with this war. I don't believe our government was telling the truth to it's own citizens. That is just unacceptable. The above statement perfectly illustrates what these two Chinese colonels say when they stated this: Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack nby Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military…. This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operations other than military means.. (Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, 1999). In the book, Unrestricted Warfare, the United States Military is interchanged with the US in general and the west. Frequency bandwidths: How a person sees a war how they see a threat. What a person views as “war” and its threats. The frequency bandwidths they talk about is the assumption that all wars are going to be like the past wars such was World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc. The gist of their book is to attack the enemy - in this case, the West - by using war concepts that the west would not see or associate as war or as threatening events. Yes, there is a clear reason in the prior wars, those fit the frequency bandwidth that many people have. Unfortunately, the Iraq War, and the greater war on terrorism, is not like the prior wars. The idea that Saddam could provide Bin Laden WMD for use on U.S. soil is outside the frequency bandwidth of those that refuse to see Iraq for the threat that it really was.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:06:02 PM)
JohnWarren: That was true in the early days of the program. However, after they had been kicked out and then invited back, Iraq seemed to be leaning over backward to cooperate. They wanted to give the appearance of cooperation. But what they did was nowhere near what South Africa and Libya did when it came to dismantling their WMD programs. If a person was doing drugs, and he heard that the cops were coming in, he might try to go out of his way flushing the evidence down the toilet, pouring it down the drain, etc. He may even challenge the cops about their warrants. If the cops came in and searched a room in the house - other than the one with contraband - I am pretty sure that one being searched would have been very cooperative. That cooperativeness does not mean that the person is innocent, anymore than Saddam’s “cooperation” made him “innocent.”

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:07:58 PM)
quote: Original: ArtCatDom Leaving Afghanistan in ruins after we promised to help them rebuild worked so well didn't it? How can you advocate this when you are so strongly against allowing situations that brew terrorism? Destroying a country and leaving it in economic and physical shambles is the surest way to have a new generation raised with hatred of the US and Western nations, ready to commit acts of terrorism. meow We did not abandon Afghanistan when we went to Iraq. Even if we did not go into Iraq, we would still have the same numbers of troops in Afghanistan that we have right now. There is only so much our troops could do there. We have spent more time training the Afghan military than we have training the Iraqi military. Their military is further ahead than the Iraqi military when it comes to dealing with terrorist threats. Heck, in Afghanistan, you have U.S. service members living in safe houses out in town. They even have the convenience of ordering pizza. Even the tourists are coming back to Afghanistan. They have seen tremendous progress since we entered Iraq.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:09:17 PM)
meatcleaver: If isolated quotes prove a person's opinion I could prove Bush had every intention of invading Iraq before 9/11 and before he was president. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Hans Blix had said, all the evidence was pointing to Iraq not having WMD. Chirac and Schroder both said they didn't believe Iraq had WMD, CHIRAC: "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, Interview, L'Orient-Le Jour (seems to be a Lebanese newspaper) http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/1016chirac.htm French President Jacques Chirac, in February 2003, spoke about "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq," noting "the international community is right ... in having decided that Iraq should be disarmed." Sorry, I don't have the direct source, but I found the quote here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36952 These appear to be statements made that contradicted the claims in the quoted statement. If Chirac said that he did not believe that Iraq had WMD, then who was the “Chirac” that made the above statements? This was the intent of displaying the quotes. meatcleaver: The overall view in Europe and particularly in France and Germany was that Iraq having WMD was fantasy. That was why Chirac and Schroder wouldn't have anything to do with the invasion and why 70% of the British public was against the war and 4% of the British public actually demonstrated against the war on a single day, the biggest demonstration in Britain's history. Which illustrates the linked article: http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html quote: For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake. While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice. meatcleaver: The qoutes you supply are at best unequivical They are quotes, and they were made, and they do contradict the claims that Chirac never believed that Iraq had WMD. meatcleaver: and you seem to use the Bush tactic of saying something long enough and loud enough and it will be true. What he is doing is repeating a set of facts over and over again. Kind of like someone saying, over and over again, that 1 + 1 = 2, not 11. These quotes prove the statement wrong that certain politicians did not believe that Iraq had WMD’s. Whether one believes them to be unequivocal or not is beside the point. These quotes were made. meatcleaver: I repeat, the atomosphere in Europe was that WMD was an invention of the Bush administration. In fact the term WMD was an invention of the Bush administration. No one had heard of that term before Bush, certainly not this side of the Atlantic anyway. http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html quote: For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake. While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice. meatcleaver: Hmm Having just read WorldNetDaily.com, it hardly seems the font of independent thought. A quote is a quote is a quote, regardless of which publication publishes it. Does the alleged lack of independent thought surrounding the WorldNetDaily website news negate the fact that those quotes were indeed made?

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:11:13 PM)
SirCumSpank: First I must look at the reason for war...Japan bombed us, war was a result of counterstrike. Considering that Iraq is part of an asymmetrical war, and World War II is an example of a symmetrical war, this would not be a good criteria to use to decide if Iraq was a justified war or not. SirCumSpank: Iraq was a bunch of people in the dessert with sheets and no real technology and of course their own religion and views of life. If that were the case, then our invasion propelled them into the modern era. Evan I would not give our invasion that much credit! http://www.gng.org/pictures/1.html SirCumSpank: Had it been a war like Japan, it would have been over quickly, but since we had to change horses in the middle of the stream, several times as I recall, we had to strategically pick our moves. Nuking a couple of Iraqi cities would not have gone well with the international community. As far as changing horses in the middle of the stream? Considering that this is low intensity warfare, theater commanders rotating in and out of Iraq should not affect the ultimate outcome. SirCumSpank: And it reflects another war which still raises the hair on the back of my neck. http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp quote: Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories. And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. That’s why everyday citizens have surged into politics instead. Contrary to slanted media reporting, things are progressing with each passing month, year. Note that two years after the German surrender, we fought an insurgency group there that used many of the similar tactics the Iraqi insurgents used today. SirCumSpank: As for the pros and cons that we, as a nation are to gain from this, well lets see..... Our free country has less freedom For the terrorist, yes, there would be less freedom. Gone is their opportunity to carry out a terrorist attack before a search warrant authorizes a search of their equipment. For the rest of us, we still have the same amount of freedom that we had before. SirCumSpank: Our Liberty is taxed to the brink My liberty is not taxed to the brink. I pay the same types of tax I have been paying prior to Bush becoming president. My liberties are not being infringed upon either. SirCumSpank: Those who ran into war, have profitted rediculously while the country had to sit back and pay for their profits. If you are talking about the companies involved with the military, well, we as a country are going to pay their profits during peace time just as we would during wartime. Companies need to make a profit to survive, and they get that profit from the economy. They get it from consumers like us or from other businesses. It is like this everywhere in the world. Heck, their drive to make more profit does more to create jobs than what any sitting president can do. SirCumSpank: However, we do have a man we claim is responsible for the deaths of over 600 lives. If you are talking about Sadman, make that hundreds of thousands of deaths. SirCumSpank: Let's not forget, this same group who rushed to war against him put him in power. Saddam was in power long before the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration removed him from power. I don’t believe that the Bush Administration was in power when Sadman was brought to power. Now picture this… You give your friend a cutlass for his birthday. Ten years down the road, he turns soar. Would you let him cut you in the throat because he was your friend once? Circumstances change. If we were the ones that put him in power, we had a good reason for doing it. SirCumSpank: Now let's get back to those 600 he killed, it only cost close to ten times that to catch him. Anybody seeing the mathematics in this. I see the mathematics, but one of the variables to your equation needs to be adjusted. Before I do that, (10)(600) = 6000. Our casualty count in Iraq is not even half that. Close to ten times that? OK, 5,400. Umm, not quite. He killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not just 600. Now, compare the number of casualties that we had up to the time that we caught him to, say 100,000 people. The mathematics gets more interesting considering that more than 100,000 people were killed by Sadman and company. SirCumSpank: In most of the rest of the world, we are now despised. Funny but I see their point. We have been despised by most of the world long before this war started. I saw this up front when I was overseas in the 70’s, 80’s, as well as the 90’s. We are in a global leadership position, and not every decision we make is going to please everybody.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:12:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: skosterow Man - you really need to READ history! while Einstein did indeed worn about the nazi threat, that WAS NOT THE REASON WE joined the war! Churchill was begging America to join the war. Roosevelt on the same hand was agreeing. It was the public opinion that held us out as long as it did. It was only after we wera attacked - wich conensidently were now finding evidence that we may have KNOWN about those attacks prior to them happening, by way of japanees radio tranmissions and fleet movements, did America rise up again the worlds greatest foe. Stop spinning history! it is what the german people did while hitler was handing out his edicts! I read the post of his that you are referring to. He was not saying that we went to war with Germany because they were building a nuclear bomb. He was making the point of how ridiculous it would have been to apply the anti Iraq War crowd’s solutions to World War II had other events were not taking place. He made a point about the warnings we got from Einstein about Germany’s atom bomb program. Absent the Japanese attack on us, and absent our involvement in the Atlantic under the cloak of neutrality as well as our land lease program, he was painting a picture of what it would have been like if we adopted the attitude of the anti war crowd to Germany. All other events not happening, what would the wisdom be if we decided to disregard Einstein’s warning until there was actual proof that Germany had an atom bomb.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: skosterow man you really need to get ut more - they have those - i forget the iranian name for it - but the idiots that run at gun nests with NO WEAPON - with the thought that they will overrun them, just because of shear numbers. they also have this little key around there neck that gives them access to the holy land, when their cut down by US Marines. Did you know there numbers are up by 50%? or does the FACTS blind you? Hence Iran still not being in position to invade. DelightMachine pointed out some - but not all - of the reasons to why Iran was not in position to invade. Lets say they launched an invasion of Iraq back during the inspection periods. France, Germany, Russia, and China lose their cash cow. How many of those countries are on the Security Council? Those countries opposed the invasion on the account that they stood to lose lucrative deals. Had the Iranians taken that away, those countries would have had every reason to authorize an invasion of Iraq. No matter how you look at it, even if the Iranians want to invade, they are not in position to do so.

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:15:36 PM)
JohnWarren: Allow the inspectors to do their job and generally contain the bastard. The problem with getting rid of bastards who run countries is there are just so damned many of them. Which means that we would have allowed them to continue to play games with the U.N. Weapons Inspection team. We would be doing the same thing we have been doing since the Gulf War cease fire. Yes, we have too many bastards like him running around. The thing is that not all of them are making death to America threats, hosting terrorist conventions, or are violating cease fire agreements that we have with them - if any. JohnWarren: As Bush said during his campaign for president, the United States shouldn't be in the business of regime change, What I do remember him saying is that we should not be involved with nation building. I agree, we should not repeat Somalia. Then 9/11 happened. In this case, nation building is a part of asymmetrical war. What we are doing in Iraq is not what we did in Somalia.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125