PDA

View Full Version : Dead Americans..not good for Bush..sometimes it takes images like this for people to change their minds...


reeds
04-01-2004, 05:15 PM
Gruesome Iraq Images Could Shake U.S. Opinion
1 hour, 56 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Graphic images of Americans being mutilated in Iraq (news - web sites) could powerfully shake U.S. public support for the occupation and may play into the presidential campaign, pollsters and media analysts said on Thursday.



After initially hesitating, U.S. TV networks began showing the images of cheering Iraqis in Falluja celebrating the murders of four American security contractors whose bodies were burned, mutilated and strung up for public view.


Newspapers carried front-page pictures showing charred bodies surrounded by exulting mobs.


"These pictures speak volumes. It's just what the Bush administration did not want. Americans are seen here as real victims, not just statistics," said pollster John Zogby.


The images immediately evoked comparisons to the 1993 killings of 18 U.S. troops in Mogadishu, when crowds were filmed dragging the corpses of U.S. soldiers through the streets. Washington ended its military presence in Somalia soon afterwards.


"The media is linking the Falluja incident to Mogadishu and those images are already imprinted on our collective visual memory. Images are always processed through the previous knowledge that we have," said Cara Finnegan, a communications professor at the University of Illinois.


In the case of Mogadishu, the power and freshness of those memories were vastly reinforced when the incident became the basis for a 2002 Hollywood movie, "Black Hawk Down."


State Department spokesman Adam Ereli rejected the parallel with Mogadishu. "The Mogadishu precedent was that following attacks, we left. And that's not going to happen here, I can tell you right now," he said.


The Bush administration has said it will not be deflected from its determination to stabilize the country and hand sovereignty back to Iraqis at the end of June.


Temple University communications professor Andrew Mendelson said it was much too soon to say how U.S. opinion would react, although Americans would certainly be shocked and angry.


"Images like this, especially of dead Americans, resonate very deeply," he said.


The Falluja images spread quickly on the Internet on Wednesday. Even as some U.S. networks tried to tone them down, they were available in full and graphic detail on some Web Internet sites.


TIME TO SINK IN


Barbie Zelizer, of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania, who has studied the impact of media images, said such events could crystallize public opinion that was already moving in a certain direction rather than dramatically changing it.


"What is striking is that all of the sudden, the headlines are proclaiming that this war is horrific. It's been horrific all along. The only thing that changed was that a cameraman happened to be on the spot this time and captured the pictures," she said.


The administration has made strenuous efforts to keep the news from Iraq as upbeat as possible. It has banned TV crews from filming at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where the bodies of dead U.S. servicemen arrive back to the country. President Bush (news - web sites) has not attended any funerals of personnel killed in Iraq.


A Los Angeles Times poll taken before the Falluja killings showed the country closely divided over Bush's handling of Iraq with 49 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving.





Asked whether the war with Iraq was worth it, 48 percent including 81 percent of Republicans thought that it was, while 45 percent, including seven in 10 Democrats thought not. Independent voters were split down the middle.

But with the presidential race between Bush and Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) virtually tied, any erosion of support for Bush could be crucial. He has made his role as a "war president" fighting global terrorism a key feature of his campaign.

EricaLubarsky
04-01-2004, 06:02 PM
I was afraid this was going to be a direct partisan attack on Bush and I'm glad it wasn't. I really dislike Bush but I dislike the kind of partisan feuding that has gone on here more.

Basically whether you support the war or not, you support our troops and our countrymen overseas. Bush is a leader who is willing to be unpopular for his persistence whether its good or bad. Those that support Bush have a very good argument that seeing the cost of what we are doing should not undermine what we are trying to do. Some things are costly. Some leaders in history have done the costly and unpopular thing and have changed history for the better.

There are, however cases of leaders that have not been up to the best things and have not listened to the people. Vietnam immediately comes to mind. Is Bush wasting American lives and destabilizing the Middle East? Is this another quagmire that we shouldn't have gotten into? People start to question and whether for the better or worse, Bush has to stand by his insistence on going to war in Iraq.

Drbio
04-01-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

Basically whether you support the war or not, you support our troops and our countrymen overseas. Bush is a leader who is willing to be unpopular for his persistence whether its good or bad. Those that support Bush have a very good argument that seeing the cost of what we are doing should not undermine what we are trying to do. Some things are costly. Some leaders in history have done the costly and unpopular thing and have changed history for the better.


I think this is perfection in words.

reeds
04-01-2004, 07:17 PM
Agreed..i do NOT support the war, but will always support our troops...

MavKikiNYC
04-01-2004, 07:40 PM
I tend to think that these images will not crystallize opinion AGAINST the war, but rather that they will stiffen the resolve of the American people to see a functioning democracy installed in Iraq.

The Bush administration will have to continue to make the point that a democratic Iraq is part of the basic underpinning of American security, and I personally don't think this will be a difficult sell for the majority of Americans, pollsters and Democrats be damned.

The bottom line, is that terrorist attacks are occuring in Iraq, NOT on American soil; and further, as heart-breaking as the deaths of soldiers are, the attacks are occuring against armed forces TRAINED and ARMED to defend themselves such that casualties are minimized, NOT against INNOCENT, UNARMED civilians on American soil.

These soldiers are giving their lives so that we Americans can live more safely, and not a day goes by that I am not grateful for what they are doing.

Chiwas
04-01-2004, 07:54 PM
I don't understand the support to the troops.

- Should they stay and maybe die for obscure reasons

- or should they go home and live in peace and tranquility as do politicians, critics and supporters?

I forgot the mission in Iraq. What was it?

reeds
04-01-2004, 09:27 PM
Chiwas- I agree...im just saying since the troops are NOT coming home, I wish them well... I would much rather have them all pulled out and sent back home, but I know that isnt going to happen- the Mr. Bush in office anyway

MavKikiNYC
04-01-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by: Chiwas
I don't understand the support to the troops.

- Should they stay and maybe die for obscure reasons

- or should they go home and live in peace and tranquility as do politicians, critics and supporters?

I forgot the mission in Iraq. What was it?

3030 casualties on 11 September 2001 are hardly obscure reasons, and should the Western forces withdraw prematurely from Iraq, neither they nor their supporters, nor their critics, nor the politicians will live in peace and tranquility. They will live in fear, awaiting the next attack, as surely the Madrileños are, as surely as the French are, as surely as the British are, as surely as the Italians are, and so on. Military forces tend to be far better equipped to deal with these threats with minimal casualties, than are civilian populations.

The mission in Iraq was to depose a ruthless, brutal, violent, murderously oppressive regime, believed by some to be a government supportive of terrorist efforts against the U.S and Western interests, and believed by some to have the capacity to use weapons of mass destruction. Whether either of these two fears is ever ultimately confirmed, the threat was too great, and the danger of inaction was to risky.

A less popularly acknowledged motive for the Iraqi invasion, but one of at least as much importance, was to send a clear message to other regimes in the region, that continuning to support terrorist initiatives against the U.S. would no longer be tolerated.

Pragmatism is the step-sister of Idealism--less attractive, less innocent, but longer-lived.

FishForLunch
04-01-2004, 11:50 PM
I don't understand the support to the troops.

- Should they stay and maybe die for obscure reasons

- or should they go home and live in peace and tranquility as do politicians, critics and supporters?

I forgot the mission in Iraq. What was it?



The mission in Iraq was a pre-emptive attack to prevent Saddam from getting a Nuclear Bomb in distant future. It happened now since the country was in the right mood to support such an action. What did you think people join the Armed forces to live in peace and tranquility? When you join the Armed forces you know you have joined a high risk occupation.

dude1394
04-02-2004, 12:03 AM
And when you join the services you are willing to put yourself in harms way so that others may live in peace tonight. They are the best of us all..

EricaLubarsky
04-02-2004, 12:42 AM
How was Saddam related to September 11th again? I'm fine with all the talk about Saddam being a bad guy. He was horrible. Im fine with talk about his early support of Hamas in Israel. Im not fine with the talk of WMDs and links to Al Qaeda since no link has been found.

dude1394
04-02-2004, 01:31 AM
Ok listen closely. The US and the western world for a very long time had treated islamist terrorism as a criminal event, to be supoened and brought to trial. They ignored the growing threat of islamic terrorism all over the world. Al quaida, terrorism support in iraq, iran, libya, syria, saudia arabia. When the us was hit, the government decided that treating terrorism like a crime was not working nor would it. It had to be defeated at it's source and the roots. This is before those same terrorists managed to find a way to get wmds. Once that happened our only recourse would be to basically totally annihilate the arab nations. If they could continue to drop wmds on us and we know they would if they could we would have to do something drastic.

Therefore what is the source of islamic terrorism? Is it money? no since many are wealthy arabs? Is it lack of modernity, lack of freedoms, lack of democracy. The government decided that we could not allow an arab country to threaten to develop wmds that was a supporter of terrorism. Islamic terrorism is bigger than even al queida. It is a cultural malignant tumour within the arab world. It cannot be extracted by the status quo. Ergo the policy to actively target countries that openly support terrorist organizations. From now until they are stamped out.

In the meantime while we have toppled the sadaam regime, we are also helping the iraqis to become a free, democratic country in the hope that it, afghanistan, turkey can begin to transform the middle-east and the arab culture into something that is worth a crap. A culture that has accomplished more than teaching their children to strap bombs to themselves to blow up schoolbusses and innocent civilaans.

Well aren't you the one, since I'm sure YOU knew better than the rest of the world that sadaam had NO wmds? right? As the president he saw a country WITH either WMD stockpiles or capabilities and damn sure the willingness to use them. We could have left him there to wear down the world so he could have restarted his programs, but this president didn't think it was a good strategy to hope like hell that sadaam "wised" up.

And their actually are ties between Sadaam and al quida. I will try to find the links of the meetings between sadaam intelligence sources and mohammad atta I believe.

MavKikiNYC
04-02-2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Originally posted by: Chiwas
I don't understand the support to the troops.

- Should they stay and maybe die for obscure reasons

- or should they go home and live in peace and tranquility as do politicians, critics and supporters?

I forgot the mission in Iraq. What was it?

.....They will live in fear, awaiting the next attack, as surely the Madrileños are, as surely as the French are, as surely as the British are, as surely as the Italians are, and so on. .....

Bomb Found on Rail Line in Spain
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 2, 2004

Filed at 8:51 a.m. ET

MADRID, Spain (AP) -- Police found a bomb Friday under the track of Spain's bullet train line between Madrid and Seville, the Spanish interior minister said. Bomb-disposal experts alerted by a railway employee found 22-24 pounds of explosive that might be dynamite about 40 miles south of Madrid, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.

The explosives were connected to a detonator with a 450-foot cable, the minister told a news conference.

The track is used by Spain's Ave trains, which can reach speeds of 186 mph.

Acebes said it was not known who placed the bomb.

The bomb's discovery came less than a month after 10 backpack bombs ripped through four commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people and injuring more than 1,800. The focus of the investigation is a Moroccan extremist group with links to al-Qaida. The bombs were detonated with cell phones attached to the explosives.

On Thursday, police in northern Spain defused three letter bombs addressed to journalists in Madrid.

Acebes said the origin of the letter bombs has not been determined, although the mechanism of the bombs is similar to those that have been used by anarchist groups on previous occasions.''

madape
04-02-2004, 10:22 AM
America is not Spain. It will not react to the killings with appeasement. This is not the Clinton administration. We won't pull out of Iraq in a Mogadishu-like exhibit of cowardice. Al Qaeda made the biggest mistake of their lives when they hit the trade towers. They underestimated Bush's response. They anticipated that we'd react like Clinton would have prefered us to react - with retreat. But America under Bush does not cower - this is a fact that Al-Qaeda has learned the hard way. Now it is a fact that will come crashing down in bloody fury upon the heads of those mass-murdering fuck wads in Fujallah. In America, we do NOT react to images of our brethren being burned up and dragged through the street with cowardice. We do not retreat at the first sign of blood. We are stronger than that. We react with force and resolve.

Terrorism exists because people with relatively little power think that they can intimidate large nations with violence. It has proven to be a successful tactic against weaker European administrations and some shameful past American ones. But the second that the terrorists realize their actions against America WILL NOT met with retreat, but instead will be met with an increasing amount of force is the second that terrorism ends in America.

dude1394
04-03-2004, 12:06 AM
You go ape...The ONE thing that is sure to bring more terrorism is to appease terrorists. The israelis are finally figuring it out, that there is no bargaining with the palestinians. 911 has changed changed the world allright and as we did in the cold war, we will be the steadfast, steady upholders of democracy and liberty. We'll uphold it at the business end of a gun if need be and for as long as it takes to finish the job.

EricaLubarsky
04-03-2004, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
You go ape...The ONE thing that is sure to bring more terrorism is to appease terrorists. The israelis are finally figuring it out, that there is no bargaining with the palestinians. 911 has changed changed the world allright and as we did in the cold war, we will be the steadfast, steady upholders of democracy and liberty. We'll uphold it at the business end of a gun if need be and for as long as it takes to finish the job.

Israel's decades of violence really stopped terrorism there....

And I'm not quite sure how we can give people freedom and "liberty" by putting guns in their faces....

dude1394
04-03-2004, 12:23 AM
Same way we did for japan and germany erica. No israel's decades of trying to negotiate with the plo is what continued to cause terrorism there.

Oh shouldn't have stopped there at all. South Korea, Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania,...eastern bloc countries (my geography fails me), Russia, afghanistan. Only a few were provided liberty by americas steadfast struggle against tyrants, tyrannies and communists.

EricaLubarsky
04-03-2004, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Same way we did for japan and germany erica. No israel's decades of trying to negotiate with the plo is what continued to cause terrorism there.

Oh shouldn't have stopped there at all. South Korea, Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania,...eastern bloc countries (my geography fails me), Russia, afghanistan. Only a few were provided liberty by americas steadfast struggle against tyrants, tyrannies and communists.

Have you taken a history class, Dude? Israel has been using force for decades. For years Hamas has answered helicopter and rocket attacks with bombings. Im sure that just slipped your mind. In your attempt to defend your point you have completely overlooked the ceasefires that have been acheived through negotiations and the years of violence by the Israelis. You have also failed to mention the living conditions of the Palestinian people and how the bulldozing and rocketing of their houses has led to greater hostility and more successful recruiting for terrorist cells.

and you forget to mention that terrorist warfare is totally and completely different than 20th century warfare. WWII was state to state warfare. The war on terror is state to individual group warfare. We would have to take over the entire world if we wanted to do what you want. Terrorist organizations don't need a government. They don't need a factory or a supermall to operate. They have been operating in the USA, Germany and France for years. They only need a hotel room or apartment to run. How are we going to destroy terrorism if terrorists are all over the globe? We certainly can't invade every country that has a terrorist cell in it because all of Europe would be guilty of that. The war on terror is like the war in Vietnam. There are tunnels all over the globe and terrorists pop up out of nowhere. The best we can do is use the BILLIONS of dollars we are spending helping terrorist recruiters in the Middle East and protect our own borders and people.


P.S. For every "Gallant" act of heroism America has done two acts of terror. Noriega was our man, Suharto in Indonesia, Mobuto in Zaire, Saddam Hussein government in Iraq. How about this piece from The Guardian

From the Guardian (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/October/29%20o/US%20Support%20for%20Dictators%20Breeds%20Future%2 0Monsters%20George%20Monbiot.htm)

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.

Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like dissidents in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.

But Uzbekistan, as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq once was, is seen by the US government as a key western asset. Since 1999, US special forces have been training President Islam Karimov’s soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taleban.

These actions are directly in conflict to your politically motivated idealism. The fact is that the US murders innocent people and supports dictators who are "assets" to the United States. Noriega had mass graves but it wasn't until he stopped obeying orders from Reagan that we went into Panama. The fact is that both political parties are guilty of heinous crimes and are uninterested in "americas steadfast struggle against tyrants, tyrannies and communists."

FishForLunch
04-03-2004, 01:59 AM
The mission in Iraq was a pre-emptive attack to prevent Saddam from getting a Nuclear Bomb in distant future. So Iraq trying to aquire a Nuke does not bother people, I find it strange, there always seems to be an excuse to ignore facts and hide behind phony peace to world blather. How in the world can anyone reason with Saddam or trust him to not use nukes if he was allowed to aquire them. The Israelis destroy on reactor that did not stop them, they were trying again with the pakistanis help to rebuild the program.

I dont know why a resoucreful county like the US cannot fight AlQeda and Iraq at the same time.

EricaLubarsky
04-03-2004, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by: FishForLunch
The mission in Iraq was a pre-emptive attack to prevent Saddam from getting a Nuclear Bomb in distant future. So Iraq trying to aquire a Nuke does not bother people, I find it strange, there always seems to be an excuse to ignore facts and hide behind phony peace to world blather. How in the world can anyone reason with Saddam or trust him to not use nukes if he was allowed to aquire them. The Israelis destroy on reactor that did not stop them, they were trying again with the pakistanis help to rebuild the program.

I dont know why a resoucreful county like the US cannot fight AlQeda and Iraq at the same time.

We trusted him to used Chemical weapons after we gave them to him.

I've never heard the nuclear idea before. We found evidence that a decade ago he had the parts for nuclear processing which could have been for a power plant. He hadn't as far as the evidence that has been released tried to renew that program. If it was about Nukes North Korea and Pakistan would be much better targets. Pakistan has nuclear information laying around and a leader that was selling information. North Korea is very close to having a bomb and is known to traffic weapons to terrorists.

MavKikiNYC
04-03-2004, 09:16 AM
Seems like this thread has been pulled off-question a bit.

To return to the original question: Will the past week's events in Iraq cause Americans to change their minds regarding the presence of American troops in Iraq, similar to the Clinton administration's debacle of a weak response to Somalia?

Interesting response from ABC's Martha Raddatch on Gwen Ifill's Washington Week Link (http://javascript:videopopup220('20040402')).

To summarize, she says that she doesn't think that the reponse will be similar at all; that that despite the brutality, the American people understand because of previous casualties the potential for violence and loss of life; that the only American response will be to go after the perpetrators; that the terrorism in Fallujah, unlike in Somalia, where American troops were being used as part of a humanitarian mission, and the American people weren't prepared for casualties, will not not be motivated to withdraw.

Some interesting content at that link. Check it out.

mercury_rev
04-03-2004, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
The mission in Iraq was a pre-emptive attack to prevent Saddam from getting a Nuclear Bomb in distant future. So Iraq trying to aquire a Nuke does not bother people, I find it strange, there always seems to be an excuse to ignore facts and hide behind phony peace to world blather. How in the world can anyone reason with Saddam or trust him to not use nukes if he was allowed to aquire them. The Israelis destroy on reactor that did not stop them, they were trying again with the pakistanis help to rebuild the program.

I dont know why a resoucreful county like the US cannot fight AlQeda and Iraq at the same time.

We trusted him to used Chemical weapons after we gave them to him.

I've never heard the nuclear idea before. We found evidence that a decade ago he had the parts for nuclear processing which could have been for a power plant. He hadn't as far as the evidence that has been released tried to renew that program. If it was about Nukes North Korea and Pakistan would be much better targets. Pakistan has nuclear information laying around and a leader that was selling information. North Korea is very close to having a bomb and is known to traffic weapons to terrorists.

Why would a despotic oil-rich regime pursue "nuclear power?" Thank you, Israel, for bombing Osirak in 1981. Iran may be next.

MavKikiNYC
04-03-2004, 09:38 AM
Wow. Even John Kerry seems to get it. At least for today.

Analysis from Shields and Brooks on The News Hour.

The latest news from Iraq

JIM LEHRER: Okay. The Fallujah killings and the body mutilations. These images went all over the country. What do you think their impact is going to be, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I'm not sure what the impact will be, Jim. I think immediately it's very, very negative. First of all the argument the administration made about the progress, how safe and secure things were has been undermined. Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former marine four-star general who commanded that area, said this means increasingly we are going to be going alone, there will be less chance of other nations participating.

JIM LEHRER: This will scare them off?

MARK SHIELDS: Scare them off. Add to that, Jim, the sense that the only way to respond to this kind of barbaric massacre is through military, a show of military strength, a show of military strength is inevitably going to involve some civilian casualties and --

JIM LEHRER: And also marine casualties.

MARK SHIELDS: Which will start a further cycle of violence and antipathy toward the United States . And there are questions, in spite of the significant material improvements, whether schools or utilities or whatever -- whether in fact those are weighed by the fact that we were the invading and occupying army that we are.

JIM LEHRER: Tough time?

DAVID BROOKS: It's tough for all of us to see those images. First of all I wouldn't generalize from Fallujah across the country. I think the Sunni Triangle is one area. The rest of the country is doing a whole lot better. You are not seeing this kind of massacre; you wouldn't see that kind of mob violence. But I think you see in this what we fully expected to see, which is a regime that was really psychologically damaged, base on sadism and the sadists don't go away.
The people who are victims are victimized by it and the people who perpetrated the atrocities of the regime, their mentality is still the same. You get violence like you saw in Fallujah by the people who really ran the regime and the mob reaction you get. Will the American people pull back? If you saw John Kerry's comments and George Bush's comments -- no, I don't think there is any evidence that they will pull back. Nor do I think there is evidence the American people will want to pull back because of this. There was a lot of talk after Mogadishu that the American people couldn't take a look at those pictures and still want to....

JIM LEHRER: Somalia.

DAVID BROOKS: And want to go on with that. But if you look at the polling and the actual evidence of polling at that time, there was people ascribe the American people's view that we want to get out because it is too horrifying. In reality, the polling never moved. I think that's going to be the case here. It will be harder to get international allies because of the sense that we are in a crisis, but once this sovereignty moves over to the Iraqis, the Iraqis will then have to police Fallujah and they'll do a better job of it than we are capable of doing.

MARK SHIELDS: Everybody I've talked to, Jim, Republicans and Democrats, members of Congress, have come back with the same sort of dispirited attitude and report to make. I mean about lack of security, about two senators, one Republican, one Democrat today tell me about being over there in a similar situation with these very folks -- the company that -- driving 95 miles an hour, simply to avoid, through a city, to avoid being shot at -- and that you are constantly aware of this and constantly surrounded by armament. I think that what it adds is fuel to the argument that the administration was unprepared for any post-war plans, that they really misread the situation there, that whatever you say Fallujah in 2004 is not to be confused with Paris in 1944.

JIM LEHRER: So when you said a moment ago, David, that this was expected, did you really mean that? That this kind of stuff....

DAVID BROOKS: I expected it and I said it on this program.

JIM LEHRER: You're right.

DAVID BROOKS: There were some things not expected. It was not expected that there were so many rejectionists, so many Sunnis would be rejecting the new Iraq. On the other hand, in the past several months, politically, there has been a lot of progress on that front. The Sunnis have been more involved in constitution making and the violence has come from foreign nationals apparently. And that, too, is not quite expected. Nonetheless, I guess none of us, neither Mark nor I have been there, but I guess we talked to different people because I've heard horrible things about the Sunni Triangle. I've heard reasonable progress in other parts of Iraq where the economy is beginning to pick up where the security situation is improved. The main problem that we face is getting out and handing over sovereignty to a real government because it will be only up to the Iraqis.

EricaLubarsky
04-03-2004, 09:39 AM
We've lost 650+ lives already and there really isnt a sense that the couple that were brutalized will change anything. As the original article says, the change in public opinion was only swayed 1-2% and with the margin of error it could have been zero. There really is no evidence that people that once supported the war are changing their minds.

Another important difference between Somalia and Iraq is that Iraq is in the Middle East. The US has traditionally had little patience with African nations. The unfortunate opinion is that they aren't worth as much. Americans are also more aware that there is more at stake here because whether you supported the war or not in the beginning, no one believes that it is right to pull out without rebuilding and stabilizing the country.

edit except for that snake, Kucinich

dude1394
04-03-2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394

P.S. For every "Gallant" act of heroism America has done two acts of terror. Noriega was our man, Suharto in Indonesia, Mobuto in Zaire, Saddam Hussein government in Iraq. How about this piece from The Guardian

Obviously you and I will never see eye to eye. Since you feel that america is the source of the worlds woes whereas I see it as the beacon of light and has been for the last century. Sorry that you feel so badly about your own country and belittling of the great things this country and your forefathers have sacrificed to do.

You sadly pick up situations where the US had to choose to support unsavory characters in our battle with communism in the cold war or to just retreat into our shell and let the soviets go uncontested.

Sad that you cannot or do not see russia and the soviet union for the "evil empire" that Ronald Reagan and our forefathers did. If you honestly believe that for every good(great) thing that america has done we have done two other acts of terror without weighing the horrific damage the soviet union was doing then I cannot relate to your perspective.

Mavdog
04-03-2004, 10:15 AM
IMHO there are fundamental differences between the macabre treatment of the GI in Somalia and what happened in Fallujah. First is that the Iraq War is just that...and deaths such as we saw is expected to a great degree. Second, the American public expected Somalia to be a peacekeeping/humanitarian program, and when the images of a war-like scenario appeared it shocked the American public. This is even more the case when the public asks itself if they should support a program that gives food and help to people that hate us.

We all knew (well, some knew) that there was going to be deaths from Iraq. Anybody who believed the whole population was going to throw us roses were delusional.

The fact is that we ARE in Iraq, and that can't be erased. In spite of barabaric acts like in Fallujah, even with the daily count of 2, 3 or more GI's killed, the US must remain and complete the rebuilding. The only course of action available to us, if we don't wish to be blamed for the deaths and fanaticism of civil war, is to leave it (whenever that will be) in better shape than when we attacked.

The greatest and most discouraging result of the Fallujah desecration will be the reluctance of the Intl community to do anything with us in Iraq. The world community can bring a lot to the table which would shorten the timeline on Iraqi recovery.

dude1394
04-03-2004, 10:22 AM
The greatest and most discouraging result of the Fallujah desecration will be the reluctance of the Intl community to do anything with us in Iraq. The world community can bring a lot to the table which would shorten the timeline on Iraqi recovery.

Agreed... The world community hasn't shown much backbone in recent years, starting with kosovo...

Victor Davis Hanson had an interesting article this week about our military pull-out from western european nations. His premise was that only by pulling out and removing the europeans "security" blanket will they become strong and responsible allies again. Like petulant children who carp about how little their parents are doing for them all the while doing little for themselves.

dude1394
04-03-2004, 12:25 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-seal3apr03,1,5546329.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The family is asking that memorial contributions be sent to a fund created for the victims of the attack. In their statement, they said that checks may be made payable to "Memorial Fund" and sent to: Memorial Fund, P.O. Box 159, Moyock, NC 27958.

Death Came Brutally to a Man Who 'Never Quit'

By Deborah Schoch, Julie Tamaki and Monte Morin, Times Staff Writers

Stephen "Scott" Helvenston was Hollywood's image of a soldier — blond, bronzed and broad shouldered. In fact, the 38-year-old former Navy SEAL trained health-conscious Californians how to pump iron like commandos and coached movie stars to play the role of combat-ready recruits.

Days after the private security contractor and three colleagues were killed by an angry Iraqi mob, friends and colleagues recalled Helvenston as a man whose energy and athleticism helped him parlay his military service into work as a film consultant, a fitness guru and an international hired gun. But as family members prepared Friday for the return of Helvenston's remains, relatives lamented that the patriotic soldier and devoted father they once knew had become a symbol of American foreign policy.

dude1394
04-04-2004, 06:02 PM
SEVEN SIMPLE QUESTIONS

Christopher Hitchens writes:

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered.

His questions are:

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?

2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?

4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Bring on the answers, anti-warriors.

Mavdog
04-04-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
SEVEN SIMPLE QUESTIONS

Christopher Hitchens writes:

I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered.

He didn't ask me. This looks easy. Guess he doesn't talk to many people.


His questions are:

1. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein’s regime was inevitable or not?

No. He could die tomorrow and the regime go thru change.


2. Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better?

It would be impossible to predict what the post saddam iraqi administration would be.


3. Do you know that Saddam’s envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March?

That is not surprising.


4. Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke’s word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York?

Saddam hated America.


5. Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"?

I would not have done anything that reduced pressure on Saddam.


6. Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us?

Silly me, I thought they were fighting for themselves and their country.



7. Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?

Any confrontation should be the result of the actions/inactions of the players involved. At the least Saddam always chose the timing by way of his response.



Bring on the answers, anti-warriors.

OK, here's some more questions.

As there were no WMD, was there an urgent need to attack?

If there was no "imminent threat" wasn't the voice of restaint the correct one?

Did the anti-american voices gain credibility from America rushing to invade only to not find any evidence of WMD?

When the decision was made to launch an attack, should there be a plan established and ready to go for the post conflict administration?

Shouldn't a decision to attack be delayed until the ability to establish the civil administration is at hand?

Has the invasion of Iraq impeded/stopped/prevented al Queda from carrying out terrorist attacks?

How is America safer from aterrorist attack with Saddam removed?

Bring on the answers, warmongers.

Drbio
04-04-2004, 07:40 PM
As there were no WMD, was there an urgent need to attack?
Absolutely. The lives of hundreds of thousands Iraqis depended on it.


As there were no WMD, was there an urgent need to attack?

Absolutely. See above. Thousands of Iraqi families are now safe.



If there was no "imminent threat" wasn't the voice of restaint the correct one?

This is a liberal attempt at deflection of actuality. There was an imminent threat...actually it was an ongoing threat. Ask any family member of a raped, murdered, tortured, kidnap etc IRaqi.


Did the anti-american voices gain credibility from America rushing to invade only to not find any evidence of WMD?

WMD's were only a part of the total package of justification by Bush to invade Iraq. None have been found that we know of to date, however, the overwhelming package of justification could have stood alone without WMD's.


When the decision was made to launch an attack, should there be a plan established and ready to go for the post conflict administration?

A plan was in place and is being executed at this time. You may not agree wiht it, but to say there was none is wrong.


Shouldn't a decision to attack be delayed until the ability to establish the civil administration is at hand?

(First of all.....the plan was made (see above). I'll play along anyways even though the liberal spin on this isdrenched in inaccuracy. No. Why sit idly by and wait for hundreds of thousands of other atrocities to be forced onto innocent people?


Has the invasion of Iraq impeded/stopped/prevented al Queda from carrying out terrorist attacks?

I guarantee you it has gotten their attention. Would you have us allow them free reign on the world? Would you have us allow them to go unchecked for the murder of approximately 3000 of the worlds citizens? They are running and operating scared like the cowards they are. To not pursue them would be wrong. Do you think we should let them run amock unchallenged? I suppose you would rather us say "please stop or we will say stop again". That would be spineless and pathetic.


How is America safer from aterrorist attack with Saddam removed?

Saddam allowed a pipeline for terrorist funds and a safehaven for those who would attack the democracies of theorld. Some have shown links to saddam and terror (though I am not going to the effort of links right now - see other threads). Removing Saddam interferes with the ability of Al Quaeda and other chickenshit spineless f*cks to operate.


Bring on the answers, warmongers
Nice to see the liberal jab. Being in favor of the removal of Saddam and being in favor of saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people hardly makes one a warmonger. It's another use of deflection and an attempt to grope for something by liberals that isn't there.


Have a nice day.

madape
04-04-2004, 08:20 PM
Raze Fallujah

By Tammy Bruce
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 2, 2004

The latest reminder of the type of brutality that has ruled Iraq under the thumb of Saddam Hussein is in the action of his supporters, and their al-Qaeda mentors, in Fallujah. The murder and desecration of the bodies of American contractors reminds us that, while the Iraqis everywhere appreciate and support their liberation, there are a few rats who would prefer a return to the hell of Saddam’s depraved tyranny.

Fallujah has remained a hotbed of support for the brutal past regime, and for reasons that can only be explained by political correctness, we have not, up to this point, destroyed that base of murder, terrorism and bestial violence.

I contend it is now time to raze Fallujah.

I’ll remind you of what it took to quell the beasts of Germany and Japan in 1945: complete and total destruction. There was a reason why we bombed Dresden into oblivion. There was a reason why Berlin was not saved. There was a reason why two atomic bombs had to be dropped on Japan after Hiroshima: they still refused to surrender unconditionally.

Beasts of violence and destruction understand one thing: destruction. The media, of course, are comparing the Fallujah horror with Mogadishu. Almost with gleeful hysteria, the Left and their water boys, the mainstream media, seem desperate to cast this as Mogadishu. Why? To make George W. Bush look bad, that’s why. Because they revel in horror. Because they need Americans to be just like them. We must see a pit like Fallujah as Saddam's last bunker. The time for political correctness, worry about inflaming the situation, and restraint, are over. This is war. The people of Fallujah have decided to continue the war, so it should indeed be visited upon them with no mercy.

But consider this inane comment to the New York Times by Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, chief spokesman for the American military command in Iraq, as he tried to explain why American forces have yet to enter the city:

"I think that there was a well-thought-out decision on the part of the Marines that let's not rush headlong into there, there may be ambushes set up a pre-emptive attack into the city could have taken a bad situation and made it even worse."

Really? With this kind of response, if Kimmitt was making decisions in April 1945, perhaps we would have simply put a fence around Berlin in an effort not to inflame Hitler.

Really, now, how can we make a situation where Americans have been murdered, set aflame and their bodies dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge worse?

Let’s be honest here. The violent only understand violence. Gentility emboldens them. Kindness disgusts them. And it should. Even the barbaric have no respect for being handled with care. Even they know they should be destroyed.

Kimmitt is now making noises that we will be teaching Fallujah a lesson. What that would be from the man who didn’t want to make the situation worse I can’t imagine. Kimmitt should be reminded of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The brutal respond to and understand brutal might, especially when it is delivered by the decent.

This is a good time to remember, however, the difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Bill Clinton was afraid and retreated out of Somalia, which as we know, is what so empowered bin Laden and made him feel Americans would cower when confronted.

We now know bin Laden was behind the Somali warlord in Mogadishu, and when we turned and ran like frightened rabbits, did that help the world situation? Was our cowardice then supposed to help save American lives? While it was supposed to, it did quite the opposite on September 11, 2001. Three thousand Americans died, mostly civilians, because the American military, neutered by a terrified Clinton government, told the beasts that we have no character, no conviction. Clinton, soft and afraid, told bin Laden that Americans were soft and afraid.

For those of you conflicted, ask yourself, would World War II have ended more quickly if we threw up our hands and said, oh let Hitler have it! Yes, of course. And then what? The disease of Hitler would have metastasized to our homeland, replete, no doubt, with smiling German-speaking Frenchmen leading the charge. After all, so many Jews, so little time!

Were we not supposed to know the consequences of showing the Radical Islamist animals our underside? Did we not understand, despite examples through thousands of years, that murderous despots and terrorists are never appeased, they are made more bold by the retreat of the decent?

Of course, we knew, but we are apt to take our President’s lead when it comes to what is right. Even today, we have just learned that Clinton knew of the Hutus "final solution" in Rwanda, and the genocide of Tutsis that took place. For years Clinton denied knowing the scope of the slaughter.

Now, intelligence reports obtained using the U.S. Freedom of Information Act show Clinton knew of the genocide with his senior officials privately using the word within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly. Why? Because the president had already decided not to intervene because he remained terrified of "another Mogadishu."

With these reports, it appears the legacy of our first "black president" is that he chose to ignore the murderous slaughter of 800,000 black people.

We must decide what we’re made of because how we handle the barbarians in Iraq will send a message to beasts everywhere. Are we to be like George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? It's an easy question. Just ask Rwanda's surviving Tutsis who they prefer we be like.

I wonder, as Clinton sits around his office with his cigars, Hillary (or some other woman. It really doesnąt matter, does it?) and John Kerry, does he ever wonder what it’s like to be hacked to death with a machete? Heck, why do I even ask this of a man whose only concern has been with women whose limbs can do him some good?

Today’s Democrats, who are Clinton’s Democrats, still have no stomach to do what’s right. Why not? Because they cannot see beyond themselves and wanting to save their own skin. The malignant narcissists who run the Democratic Party and American leftists who control our culture, feel there is nothing worth fighting for except their own power.

Facing down the depraved takes courage, perseverance and the resolve to put the bad guys where they belong. We did not leave the world to the Germans because we’re better than that. And we will not leave the world to the Islamists, because we are still better than that. No matter how much nihilistic American leftists and the media would prefer us to return to the days of fear and cowardice, we will still refuse to be like them.

reeds
04-05-2004, 12:13 AM
"The mission in Iraq was a pre-emptive attack to prevent Saddam from getting a Nuclear Bomb in distant future" ???? ARE you kidding me Fish???? Please tell me you said that just to get a reaction... If that were true, we better hurry up and attack IRAN and NORTH KOREA... Seriously, thats BS and everyone knows it

Mavdog
04-05-2004, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by: Drbio
[quote]
As there were no WMD, was there an urgent need to attack?
Absolutely. The lives of hundreds of thousands Iraqis depended on it.

So the War was not needed due to any threat to the US but rather a humanitarian mission? If the justification for an attack was not due to any threat to the US, should we now continue the policy of humanitarian war and invade all the other totalitarian states in the world? Why not?


As there were no WMD, was there an urgent need to attack?

Absolutely. See above. Thousands of Iraqi families are now safe.

Are you then advocating that we invade any totalitarian government that exists? Why not? Is the apparent "suffering" by a country's citizens a valid reason for invasion by the US?


If there was no "imminent threat" wasn't the voice of restaint the correct one?

This is a liberal attempt at deflection of actuality. There was an imminent threat...actually it was an ongoing threat. Ask any family member of a raped, murdered, tortured, kidnap etc IRaqi.

Your warhawk attempt of deflection isn't truthful nor factual. The phrase "imminent threat" was NOT used to describe the state of the Iraqi civilians but rather said by Bush Administration in regard to the military capabilities of Iraq. If there were such an imminent threat to the Iraqi civilians, why was the attack done when it was? why not years earlier? Your premise is bogus.


Did the anti-american voices gain credibility from America rushing to invade only to not find any evidence of WMD?

WMD's were only a part of the total package of justification by Bush to invade Iraq. None have been found that we know of to date, however, the overwhelming package of justification could have stood alone without WMD's.

And that "overwhelming justification" included what besides the threat of WMD? Just what UN Resolutions can be used to legitimize any invasion except for the resolutions pertaining to the WMD program?


When the decision was made to launch an attack, should there be a plan established and ready to go for the post conflict administration?

A plan was in place and is being executed at this time. You may not agree wiht it, but to say there was none is wrong.

The abscence of a credible plan is evident in the chaos we see there today.


Shouldn't a decision to attack be delayed until the ability to establish the civil administration is at hand?

(First of all.....the plan was made (see above). I'll play along anyways even though the liberal spin on this isdrenched in inaccuracy. No. Why sit idly by and wait for hundreds of thousands of other atrocities to be forced onto innocent people?

Your responses are the true example of "inaccuracies" BTW. So you state that it is a better course of action to invade with no credible plan for the civil administration, leading to anarchy and violence against the civilians, than to "sit idly by". 6 of one, half dozen of the other...the Iraqi civilians still get screwed.


Has the invasion of Iraq impeded/stopped/prevented al Queda from carrying out terrorist attacks?

I guarantee you it has gotten their attention. Would you have us allow them free reign on the world? Would you have us allow them to go unchecked for the murder of approximately 3000 of the worlds citizens? They are running and operating scared like the cowards they are. To not pursue them would be wrong. Do you think we should let them run amock unchallenged? I suppose you would rather us say "please stop or we will say stop again". That would be spineless and pathetic.

So the answer is NO, the invasion of Iraq has not impeded/stopped/prevented any action of al Queda, there has not been any positive progress in the War on Terror by the invasion of Iraq. Any attempt to link "approximately 3000 of the worlds citizens" who died in the WTC to Iraq is false with no basis in fact. A smokescreen that shows the lack of valid justification for the Iraq invasion.


How is America safer from a terrorist attack with Saddam removed?

Saddam allowed a pipeline for terrorist funds and a safehaven for those who would attack the democracies of theorld. Some have shown links to saddam and terror (though I am not going to the effort of links right now - see other threads). Removing Saddam interferes with the ability of Al Quaeda and other chickenshit spineless f*cks to operate.

Nice, but the facts are that al Queda has not been affected, as no links between Iraq and al Queda been shown, and the threat to America has not decreased. America is no more protected from a terrorist attack due to our invasion of Iraq than we were before the invasion of Iraq.


Bring on the answers, warmongers

Nice to see the liberal jab. Being in favor of the removal of Saddam and being in favor of saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people hardly makes one a warmonger. It's another use of deflection and an attempt to grope for something by liberals that isn't there.


Have a nice day.


Ahh yes, the old "If you were against the invasion you must be for Saddam" tact that is just a deflection away from the facts. The facts are that
1) The rationale for invading Ira (WMD) has been shown to not exist, with
2) The terrorists of al Queda were not involved with Iraq and therefore haven't been affected, meaning
3) America has not increased its safety from invading Iraq, while
4) The US now looks like the anti-islamic brute that our enemies incorrectly push to the Islam community, and
5) The US now has the responsibilty for the rebuilding of Iraq and also the expense of, so
6) The US now must dedicate resources to Iraq that otherwise could be devoted to fighting al Queda, with
7) No progress in the war on terror to show.

The emporer has no clothes...
Have a nice day.

MavsX
09-08-2006, 03:22 PM
eat this.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Mavdog
09-08-2006, 04:31 PM
eat this.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

this weekly standard puff piece has been so discredited bill kristol is embarrassed that it even is able to be found. it is rumoured to have been shadow writted by doug feith, one of those responsible for the mess-o-potania that we read about daily.

perhaps you missed the 9/11 report:

"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al queda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the united states."

you should also read the british memo of feb 2003 that was a focus of a bbc documentary. it shows eveN further that there were (now say it after me) "NO COLLABORATION BETWEEN HUSSEIN AND AL QUEDA"

AxdemxO
09-09-2006, 01:50 AM
The people on here that keep on bringin up Saddam, Iraq, Al Qaeida, WMD, and finding connections betwwen them are seriousy ignorant. How many studies wree here done after the war that foun no WMD, no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and no reason to invade Iraq. THOSE ARE THE FACT PROVEN ON MORE THEN ONE OCCASION...and yet the ignorant on here keep bringing it up as part of their pro war argument....chek you selves and ur info people. I mean obviously i say stuff here that many of you disagree with but thats a part of any discussion, but i dont just come out and sound ignorant while knowing that there is proven info out there stating otherwise.

kg_veteran
09-09-2006, 09:22 AM
I mean obviously i say stuff here that many of you disagree with but thats a part of any discussion, but i dont just come out and sound ignorant while knowing that there is proven info out there stating otherwise.

What's worse -- sounding ignorant, or being ignorant? The fact that you don't realize the lact of factual support for most of the positions that you take is not really something to brag about.

AxdemxO
09-09-2006, 11:36 AM
Ok so are u sayin that whn you say we went to war In Iraq cause they had WMD anbd were connected to Al Qaeida those are facts?? And whn i say that there have been dozens of studies done after the US went in and there were some even before that disproved all tht..are u sayin that these are not facts...cuz if u are u better chek.

kg_veteran
09-09-2006, 12:21 PM
Ok so are u sayin that whn you say we went to war In Iraq cause they had WMD anbd were connected to Al Qaeida those are facts?? And whn i say that there have been dozens of studies done after the US went in and there were some even before that disproved all tht..are u sayin that these are not facts...cuz if u are u better chek.

No, I'm saying that you are ignorant.

AxdemxO
09-09-2006, 12:27 PM
How am i ignorant if i am saying the facts...and there are people here still sayin stuff that has been proven not to be tru over and over again. I say the facts and the truth and i m ignorant?? how is tht?? Those facts mite noe be liked by every1 but they are facts and if sayin em makes me ibnorant thn soo b it.

Arne
09-09-2006, 01:25 PM
Ahh yes, the old "If you were against the invasion you must be for Saddam" tact that is just a deflection away from the facts. The facts are that
1) The rationale for invading Ira (WMD) has been shown to not exist, with
2) The terrorists of al Queda were not involved with Iraq and therefore haven't been affected, meaning
3) America has not increased its safety from invading Iraq, while
4) The US now looks like the anti-islamic brute that our enemies incorrectly push to the Islam community, and
5) The US now has the responsibilty for the rebuilding of Iraq and also the expense of, so
6) The US now must dedicate resources to Iraq that otherwise could be devoted to fighting al Queda, with
7) No progress in the war on terror to show.

Great, great post from the best poster in this forum.

dalmations202
09-10-2006, 09:30 AM
The facts are that
1) The rationale for invading Ira (WMD) has been shown to not exist, with
total LIE -- they did exist. The Gov does have proof, as well as the chemical weapons that were found a few months ago -that were not just plastered all over the media airwaves. Some have been found though, most are known not to be in country though.

2) The terrorists of al Queda were not involved with Iraq and therefore haven't been affected, meaning
Really. Al Queda, Hizbollah, Humas, and the Infintada are not involved together. At least in a round about way. They do have proof of people meeting with people from each of these groups together and also with some of Saddam's people. There is also a money trail.

3) America has not increased its safety from invading Iraq, while
Maybe not, but it has slowed down the terrorist plots, and served notice that we will not try to appease terrorist activity like we did in the 90's. It has stopped some of the genocide and autocricies (sp?) that were happening in that country. It has also put a foot of democracy (and with any luck Christianity) in a region that is part of the LBL.

4) The US now looks like the anti-islamic brute that our enemies incorrectly push to the Islam community, and
Good. I hope we do look like we are a Christian country. In fact, I wish we would do more to promote Jesus to the WORLD. There are many much worse things: than giving your life for your friends, country, or Jesus.

5) The US now has the responsibilty for the rebuilding of Iraq and also the expense of, so
Yes, we should do this, and have Iraq pay for the rebuilding by sending their oil to the world market. Simple Democracy and free trade would make them a very rich country.

6) The US now must dedicate resources to Iraq that otherwise could be devoted to fighting al Queda, with
If the US can't handle Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time, then maybe we just didn't put the resources into the defense budget we needed to. Neither of these are major armies. Lack of training, money, and manpower are not the failings of the military.

7) No progress in the war on terror to show.
LIE -- progress has been made. We have not seen another bombing on the continental US in 5 years. It is coming though. Terrorism won't be stopped with the attitude in the US. Media outlets determine what is shown and when, contrary to truth. Prophecy is being fulfilled in the bible, and most are not studied up enough to even see it.

Unfortunately, we don't win this war. Not because we can't, but because we don't see the source of it, and don't know how to fight it. I guess most will stick their head in the sand, and then be surprised when within 40 years, you cannot worship as you please, and more and more Christians will be killed for their belief. It is happening worldwide now, and has been for 1000 years.

The Media picks what people it wants to back, and what is news worthy.

BEIRUT, 18 July 2006 — Israeli jets pounded Lebanon with a new wave of deadly air raids yesterday, sending the death toll above 200 after less than a week of fighting as Hezbollah again hammered the Israeli city of Haifa.

Death toll of a little more than 300 if memory serves.

Fact Sheet
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Washington, DC
March 25, 2005

Sudan: Death Toll in Darfur

It is estimated that 98-181,000 people have died since March 2003 in the conflict-affected area of Darfur and eastern Chad. Excluding an expected “normal” base mortality total of 35,000 deaths for this population, 63-146,000 “excess” deaths can be attributed to violence, disease, and malnutrition because of the conflict.

Battles still raging.

Only the media seems to think that Israel killing a few hundred is much more newsworthy that Muslims killing thousands in the Sudan.

Hypocrits: them and the Libidiots who think that appeasement is the answer.

Mavdog
09-10-2006, 12:26 PM
total LIE -- they did exist. The Gov does have proof, as well as the chemical weapons that were found a few months ago -that were not just plastered all over the media airwaves. Some have been found though, most are known not to be in country though.

"known"? "proof"? absolutely not. there were no wmd programs producing any wmd. the sanctions had worked in keeping those components from hussein.

Really. Al Queda, Hizbollah, Humas, and the Infintada are not involved together. At least in a round about way. They do have proof of people meeting with people from each of these groups together and also with some of Saddam's people. There is also a money trail.

another ficticious "proof". just this week another in a long line of reports concluded there was no connection in any form between hussein and al queda, and in fact hussein saw the islamists as a "threat".

there is a "money trail" between hussein and hamas and other palestinians. there is NO "money trail" between hussein and al queda.

Maybe not, but it has slowed down the terrorist plots, and served notice that we will not try to appease terrorist activity like we did in the 90's. It has stopped some of the genocide and autocricies (sp?) that were happening in that country. It has also put a foot of democracy (and with any luck Christianity) in a region that is part of the LBL.

the terrorist plots against america were NOT conceived or carried out from iraq...it's a joke to claim the invasion of iraq has "slowed down" any of the possible terrorist plots against the us. those who launched 9/11 were not nor are in iraq!

the invasion has removed a murderous tyrant. as far as your hope for a spiritual revolution to christianity, frankly I find that the weakest (and truthfully the most offensive) rationale for a war that I've heard.

Good. I hope we do look like we are a Christian country. In fact, I wish we would do more to promote Jesus to the WORLD. There are many much worse things: than giving your life for your friends, country, or Jesus.

hmm....sounds errily like someone else..."I hope we look like a muslim country. In fact, I wish we could do more to promote muhammand to the WORLD. There are many much worse things than giving your life to your friends, country or muhammand."

in my view the solution is to get religion OUT of the governments in these parts of the world.

Yes, we should do this, and have Iraq pay for the rebuilding by sending their oil to the world market. Simple Democracy and free trade would make them a very rich country.

we "should" rebuild iraq? I guess since we "broke it" as colin powell famously predicted, perhaps we should.

but we didn't need to "break it" in the first place.

btw, the iraqis need the oil revenue to survive. they won't have the adiitional money to pay us back.

If the US can't handle Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time, then maybe we just didn't put the resources into the defense budget we needed to. Neither of these are major armies. Lack of training, money, and manpower are not the failings of the military.

so your position is that the defense budget is the problem?

LIE -- progress has been made. We have not seen another bombing on the continental US in 5 years. It is coming though. Terrorism won't be stopped with the attitude in the US. Media outlets determine what is shown and when, contrary to truth. Prophecy is being fulfilled in the bible, and most are not studied up enough to even see it.

I guess those terrorist strikes outside of the continental US don't count in the war on terror, eh? they're still out there, still plotting. again, the point is the war in iraq has not reduced nor stopped the terrorists from carryiong out their attacks.

did it occur to you that there are numerous "media outlets" for the apocalyptic belief you profess?

Unfortunately, we don't win this war. Not because we can't, but because we don't see the source of it, and don't know how to fight it. I guess most will stick their head in the sand, and then be surprised when within 40 years, you cannot worship as you please, and more and more Christians will be killed for their belief. It is happening worldwide now, and has been for 1000 years.

The Media picks what people it wants to back, and what is news worthy.

right now it's the muslims who are being killed.

it needs to stop.

dalmations202
09-10-2006, 12:55 PM
"known"? "proof"? absolutely not. there were no wmd programs producing any wmd. the sanctions had worked in keeping those components from hussein.
Their may not have been a "producing" of WMD in Iraq, but their were WMD in that country. Sanctions had not stopped the buying of them. You are in denial, if you think they weren't there.


another ficticious "proof". just this week another in a long line of reports concluded there was no connection in any form between hussein and al queda, and in fact hussein saw the islamists as a "threat".

there is a "money trail" between hussein and hamas and other palestinians. there is NO "money trail" between hussein and al queda.

A+B=C Sorry if you can't understand that. The same money was going in and out whether Saddam was giving the money to one terrorist group or a different terrorist group, the money was still going to meet the "Big" purpose.



the terrorist plots against america were NOT conceived or carried out from iraq...it's a joke to claim the invasion of iraq has "slowed down" any of the possible terrorist plots against the us. those who launched 9/11 were not nor are in iraq!

the invasion has removed a murderous tyrant.
So what you are saying is that some exceptionally good happened " a murderous tyrant was removed" but since the liberal democrats didn't sanction it -- then it must have been a bad move. Oh, that's right, it is only a bad move according to you because a Republican president is the one who sent troops.


as far as your hope for a spiritual revolution to christianity, frankly I find that the weakest (and truthfully the most offensive) rationale for a war that I've heard.

If it is offensive to you, then sorry. I am sorry for you, I'll pray for you. If I were Muslim, I'd say you were an infidel, and hunt you down and kill you -- and as many of your innocent loved ones as well. Oh, that's right, that is what you are asking for.


hmm....sounds errily like someone else..."I hope we look like a muslim country. In fact, I wish we could do more to promote muhammand to the WORLD. There are many much worse things than giving your life to your friends, country or muhammand."

in my view the solution is to get religion OUT of the governments in these parts of the world.
Promote muhammad? Promote a God that is not the father of Jesus. Promote killing of all people who don't believe like you do. Sounds like you are the one trying to get the innocent killed.


we "should" rebuild iraq? I guess since we "broke it" as colin powell famously predicted, perhaps we should.

but we didn't need to "break it" in the first place.
So you didn't think Iraq was broken in the first place. Maybe you should move to the Sudan then. It isn't broken by your thoughts either. Neither is Iran, or N Korea. Maybe we can take up a collection to move you there, so you can get some first hand actual knowledge of some of these countries, and maybe a little understanding.


btw, the iraqis need the oil revenue to survive. they won't have the adiitional money to pay us back.
They would have enough to rebuild the country on their oil, if they can develop a true free enterprise system. The question is who gets the $$$ from the oil, not whether they could rebuild the country on the $$$.


so your position is that the defense budget is the problem?

No, actually it isn't. It was a problem in the 90's when the military was gutted. Today it isn't the problem though. The problem lies within the attitude of the sheeple of this country.


I guess those terrorist strikes outside of the continental US don't count in the war on terror, eh? they're still out there, still plotting. again, the point is the war in iraq has not reduced nor stopped the terrorists from carryiong out their attacks.

No the war in Iraq has not stopped terrorism. Neither would taking out Iraq, Syria, and numerous other countries that back it. They can slow it down though, and Iraq was a good starting point.


did it occur to you that there are numerous "media outlets" for the apocalyptic belief you profess?

Yes, I know of many media outlets. I know that $$$ means more than truth to most of them, and how the mass majority are owned. I know that most have a liberal leaning, if not a full left turning.



right now it's the muslims who are being killed.

it needs to stop.
You are so mis-informed by major media that you don't even understand that more Christians are killed world wide than Muslims every year. You seem to think the Muslims are the victims, and don't understand that they aren't. You seem to think that Muslims want to co-exist with Christians/Jews -- they don't. World conquest is the only answer for the Muslim religion.

Now they either change, or they change everyone else. Their is no in between.

mcsluggo
09-11-2006, 09:04 AM
You are so mis-informed by major media that you don't even understand that more Christians are killed world wide than Muslims every year. You seem to think the Muslims are the victims, and don't understand that they aren't. You seem to think that Muslims want to co-exist with Christians/Jews -- they don't. World conquest is the only answer for the Muslim religion.

Now they either change, or they change everyone else. Their is no in between.

So, are you calling for a Jihad? (Not sure what the best translation would be: Crusade?)

Do you think the US should declare war on Islam? from your posts, it sounds like "world conquest is the only answer for the CHRISTIAN religion". Thank god Pres Bush is less blind, and has at least TRIED to hold the line between "we are at war with the radicals that are attacking us" and "we are at war with 1.??? billion muslims

you and your ilk scare me. Look in the mirror, imagine a turban on your head and an al-queda tattoo on your forearm and know that your thinking is the CARBON COPY of the thinking that leads to al-queda recruits.

kg_veteran
09-11-2006, 10:29 AM
Mavdog - Are you still talking about conclusive proof of something that you know we can't conclusively prove (one way or the other)? Also, on what do you base your comments that we've made no progress in the war on terror?

Mavdog
09-11-2006, 11:03 AM
Their may not have been a "producing" of WMD in Iraq, but their were WMD in that country. Sanctions had not stopped the buying of them. You are in denial, if you think they weren't there.

even cheney admitted the absence of wmd, and the fact that sanctions had prevented hussein from getting his hands on them.

Q But, Mr. Vice President, the primary rationale given for the war in
Iraq was Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In August of 2002, this is
what you told the VFW. Let's just watch it.
(Video clip is played.)
Q In fact, there is grave doubt because they did not exist along the
lines that you described, the President described and others described.
Based on what you know now, that Saddam did not have the weapons of mass
destruction described, would you still have gone into Iraq?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, Tim, because what the reports also showed --
while he did not have stock piles, and clearly the intelligence that said
he did was wrong.

russert/cheney transcript (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-10-2006/0004429713&EDATE=)

A+B=C Sorry if you can't understand that. The same money was going in and out whether Saddam was giving the money to one terrorist group or a different terrorist group, the money was still going to meet the "Big" purpose.

then by golly we should also be invading saudi arabia, they give money to hamas and the plo...in your convoluted world, all muslims are terrorists, and alll muslim orgs are terrorist orgs.
reality is there are vast differences among these orgs, and (I'll repeat) there is NO connection between iraq, saddam hussein and al queda. none.

So what you are saying is that some exceptionally good happened " a murderous tyrant was removed" but since the liberal democrats didn't sanction it -- then it must have been a bad move. Oh, that's right, it is only a bad move according to you because a Republican president is the one who sent troops.

no, it was a "bad move" because it was done with little understandng of the consequences, both in terms of how it would fracture the iraqi nation, allow for a rise in iran's regional importance and injure the american image around the world.

If it is offensive to you, then sorry. I am sorry for you, I'll pray for you. If I were Muslim, I'd say you were an infidel, and hunt you down and kill you -- and as many of your innocent loved ones as well. Oh, that's right, that is what you are asking for.

it is offensive to me (and a majority of americans) because your assertions, just like the islamist, are an affront to the american concept of the individual's right and freedom to believe in one's religion.

So you didn't think Iraq was broken in the first place. Maybe you should move to the Sudan then. It isn't broken by your thoughts either. Neither is Iran, or N Korea. Maybe we can take up a collection to move you there, so you can get some first hand actual knowledge of some of these countries, and maybe a little understanding.

??? what a deft attempt to not stay on subject.

They would have enough to rebuild the country on their oil, if they can develop a true free enterprise system. The question is who gets the $$$ from the oil, not whether they could rebuild the country on the $$$.

you clearly do not comprehend the costs of this war. estimates vary, but the consensus is the tab will be gretaer than $1 Trillion. some estimates are as high as $1.9 Trillion.

iraq's annual gdp in its heyday was $140 Billion. today it is about $95 Billion. please explain how a country of this economic size could repay over $1 Trillion (plus interest....) to the USA...it can't and still be solvent.

No the war in Iraq has not stopped terrorism. Neither would taking out Iraq, Syria, and numerous other countries that back it. They can slow it down though, and Iraq was a good starting point.

no, it wasn't a "good starting point" because it had nothing to do with al queda....so there was no connection...repeat, NO CONNECTION.

Yes, I know of many media outlets. I know that $$$ means more than truth to most of them, and how the mass majority are owned. I know that most have a liberal leaning, if not a full left turning.

yeah, that rupert murdock and all his "liberal leaning" outlets like fox news... sheesh.

You are so mis-informed by major media that you don't even understand that more Christians are killed world wide than Muslims every year. You seem to think the Muslims are the victims, and don't understand that they aren't. You seem to think that Muslims want to co-exist with Christians/Jews -- they don't. World conquest is the only answer for the Muslim religion.

Now they either change, or they change everyone else. Their is no in between.

first, what data source says that more christians are killed than muslims?
second, it matters not who has the most fatalities, it matters that there ARE fatalities.
third, to claim that the muslims who are killed on a daily basis due to no other fact but that they live in iraq are not "victims" is as closed minded as it comes.
last, the islamist are a minority of the muslim world, and to claim that all muslims do not wish for peace and coexistance with christians, jews and other faiths is wrong. period.

I know who needs to change, and it sure as heck isn't the innocent people, muslims jews or christians. who want to merely live their lives in peace....

Mavdog
09-11-2006, 11:42 AM
Mavdog - Are you still talking about conclusive proof of something that you know we can't conclusively prove (one way or the other)?

we "can't conclusively prove" that the wmd justification was bogus?

seems that the current administration has come to that very conclusion, why haven't you?

Also, on what do you base your comments that we've made no progress in the war on terror?

the statement was that the war in iraq hasn't made a positive affect on the war on terror.

kg_veteran
09-11-2006, 12:33 PM
we "can't conclusively prove" that the wmd justification was bogus?

seems that the current administration has come to that very conclusion, why haven't you?
We've been through this at length before; I see no need to belabor the point again.

The White House (I think you're referring specifically to Cheney's comments, cited above) has stated that their intelligence was wrong. In the sense that they can't prove that WMD stockpiles existed, I suppose they're right.

I read the Russert interview. It's a bit sickening that people like Russert (and apparently you) think that Saddam Hussein should still be in power and we should not be in Iraq.

the statement was that the war in iraq hasn't made a positive affect on the war on terror.
If that was what you meant, I still disagree. From Ralph Peters (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/9_11__five_years_on_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.ht m) today:

Our enemies fear our military again. Despite tragic mistakes in Iraq, we've already accomplished one crucial mission neglected for a generation: We've resurrected the reputation of the American soldier.
After our maddening retreats from Beirut and Mogadishu, and the Clinton administration's unwillingness to retaliate meaningfully after terrorist attacks, Islamist extremists concluded - and bragged - that Americans were cowards who wouldn't fight and hid behind technology. Well, Iraq proved that our troops don't run, but fight more fiercely than any other soldiers on earth. Now it's the terrorists who rely on stand-off weapons - roadside bombs. They're terrified of taking on our forces in combat. The importance of regaining our street cred can't be stressed enough.

Iraq has become al Qaeda's Vietnam. No end of lies have been broadcast about our liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan "creating more terrorists." The terrorists were already there, recruited during the decades we looked away. Our arrival on their turf just brought them out of the woodwork.

As for Iraq, Osama & Co. realized full well how high we'd raised the stakes. They had to fight to prevent the emergence of a Middle Eastern democracy. As a result, they've thrown in their reserves - who've been slaughtered by our soldiers and Marines.

The media obsesses on the price of this fight for us, but the terrorists have been forced to pay a terrible cost in trained fighters - while alienating fellow Muslims with their tactics. Pundits will argue forever over whether deposing Saddam was a diversion from the War on Terror, but the proof of its relevance - even if unexpected - is the unaffordable cost we've forced on al Qaeda.

Mavdog
09-11-2006, 02:43 PM
We've been through this at length before; I see no need to belabor the point again.

The White House (I think you're referring specifically to Cheney's comments, cited above) has stated that their intelligence was wrong. In the sense that they can't prove that WMD stockpiles existed, I suppose they're right.

I read the Russert interview. It's a bit sickening that people like Russert (and apparently you) think that Saddam Hussein should still be in power and we should not be in Iraq.

frankly, I find it "sickening" when others misconstrue and distort the discussion of iraq such as you are guilty of above.

is the debate a simple question of is the world and iraq better off without hussein than with it? no. that is not the question, for the answer is an easy yes. who the hell would anyone with a right mind disagree?

the debate is if the current administration used good judgement in determining when and how to invade iraq, and secondly has the current administration used good judgement in prosecuting the war that they started.

imho they did a piss poor job at both, and they should be held accountable.

If that was what you meant, I still disagree. From Ralph Peters (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/9_11__five_years_on_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.ht m) today:

what a puff piece.
the terrorists "fear" our military, that is why they resort to suicide bombs and ied rather than confronting headon.
iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or afganistan.
the terrorists benefit from a lack of a strong government in iraq.
apparently iraq has not stopped the terrorists from attacking.

dalmations202
09-11-2006, 03:50 PM
Mav,
I am through arguing with you.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in;

1Co 14:38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

kg_veteran
09-11-2006, 07:14 PM
frankly, I find it "sickening" when others misconstrue and distort the discussion of iraq such as you are guilty of above.

I didn't miscontrue anything.

is the debate a simple question of is the world and iraq better off without hussein than with it? no. that is not the question, for the answer is an easy yes. who the hell would anyone with a right mind disagree?

That's just one issue, but I'm glad we agree on that.

the debate is if the current administration used good judgement in determining when and how to invade iraq

I think that a case can certainly be made that the administration was anxious to invade Iraq. I think a case can also be made that the United States (and the rest of the civilized world) had bad intelligence regarding the state of Iraq's WMD stockpile. I think a decent case can be made that Bush was in too much of a hurry to invade Iraq.

I don't think even a decent case can be made that Bush knowingly misled the country in order to invade Iraq.

, and secondly has the current administration used good judgement in prosecuting the war that they started.

I think we'd all agree that the administration has made mistakes in prosecuting the war since Saddam was deposed.

imho they did a piss poor job at both, and they should be held accountable.

That's fine. You have a right to that opinion.

What would you have us do in Iraq now?

what a puff piece.
the terrorists "fear" our military, that is why they resort to suicide bombs and ied rather than confronting headon.
iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or afganistan.
the terrorists benefit from a lack of a strong government in iraq.
apparently iraq has not stopped the terrorists from attacking.

Wow, what a convincing critique.

Peters is dead on with his comments about Iraq becoming al Qaeda's Vietnam.

AxdemxO
09-11-2006, 07:32 PM
there was nothin wrong with the US removing saddam, in fact i am sure many Iraqis would have supported that, but the US didnt stop there they Invaded Iraq and messed it up and are stil there not knowing how to fix it. The people want their country back, and dont tell me if some1 invaded the US and the country was in ruins that you would not fight to get them out and get your country back. The problem with Iraq is that its soo unstable that If teh US leaves it will blow up, but if they stay the fighting will continue, soo basiclaly the US has put the people of Iraq and its self into a situation that has no solution in the near future.

kg_veteran
09-11-2006, 07:36 PM
there was nothin wrong with the US removing saddam, in fact i am sure many Iraqis would have supported that, but the US didnt stop there they Invaded Iraq and messed it up and are stil there not knowing how to fix it.

How would you have removed Saddam without invading the country?

The people want their country back, and dont tell me if some1 invaded the US and the country was in ruins that you would not fight to get them out and get your country back.

You're operating on a false premise. We haven't taken their country from them. We are trying to empower them to govern themselves. Unfortunately, that is a rather difficult proposition in Iraq.

The problem with Iraq is that its soo unstable that If teh US leaves it will blow up, but if they stay the fighting will continue, soo basiclaly the US has put the people of Iraq and its self into a situation that has no solution in the near future.

Whether we stay or go, the fighting will continue. If you were in charge, what would you do?

AxdemxO
09-11-2006, 07:37 PM
You are very ignorant for even sayin that what proof do you have. Maybe there are moe Christians killed in the world becasue there is a greater number of them but what are they killed by?? I can tell you for sure that more mulsims get killed each year than Christians or jews. Just look at how mant get killed in palestine alone and then you can go from there.



You are so mis-informed by major media that you don't even understand that more Christians are killed world wide than Muslims every year. You seem to think the Muslims are the victims, and don't understand that they aren't. You seem to think that Muslims want to co-exist with Christians/Jews -- they don't. World conquest is the only answer for the Muslim religion.

Now they either change, or they change everyone else. Their is no in between.[/QUOTE]

AxdemxO
09-11-2006, 07:39 PM
See how can you say that tou are not taking their country from them when your there and their everday life is affected by ur presence. Its like some1 comming to the Us and affecting ur life on an everdya basis, wouldnt you feel violated and want them out??

kg_veteran
09-11-2006, 08:04 PM
See how can you say that tou are not taking their country from them when your there and their everday life is affected by ur presence.

Their everyday life was affected by Saddam when he was in power. I can say we aren't "taking their country from them" because we are trying to help them establish their own government, not governing them.

Its like some1 comming to the Us and affecting ur life on an everdya basis, wouldnt you feel violated and want them out??

You really need to learn how to type in complete English sentences.

I'll ask you again:

How would you have removed Saddam without invading the country?

If you were in charge now, what would you do in Iraq?

dude1394
09-11-2006, 08:13 PM
The only answer he knows kg is to:

run like a scalded ape

Mavdog
09-11-2006, 10:01 PM
I didn't miscontrue anything.

sure you did, you misconstrued the central issue of the iraq debate.

I don't think even a decent case can be made that Bush knowingly misled the country in order to invade Iraq.

if you're asking if I believe that the current administration purposely fabricated intelligence to justify the war, no, I don't believe that.

if the question is asked, do I believe the current administration wanted a justifcation to invade, and consequently endorsed and believed in any intelligence that got there, yes, I do believe that occured. that is why mistakes were made, their zeal to find the "smoking gun" led to false intelligence conclusions.

What would you have us do in Iraq now?

I'm not sure it's salvagable. at this point a splintering seems not only inevitable but probably best for the iraqis. that is not what's best for america tho.

Wow, what a convincing critique.

yup, thanks.

Peters is dead on with his comments about Iraq becoming al Qaeda's Vietnam.

how so?
his premise is that al queda paid a "terrible cost in trained fighters" when it's NOT a war of being waged that way.

vietnam became a "quagmire" as the us didn't want the embarassment of leaving yet wasn't willing to do what was needed to win. no one would know if al queda left, and they will do anything possible to win.

how's it al queda's vietnam?

kg_veteran
09-11-2006, 11:09 PM
sure you did, you misconstrued the central issue of the iraq debate.

Um, no I didn't.


if the question is asked, do I believe the current administration wanted a justifcation to invade, and consequently endorsed and believed in any intelligence that got there, yes, I do believe that occured. that is why mistakes were made, their zeal to find the "smoking gun" led to false intelligence conclusions.

I agree that they wanted a justification to invade. I don't believe that led them to endorse and believe "any intelligence that got there." It's easy in retrospect to forget the timeline of how things occurred, but we hardly rushed to attack. Iraq wasn't invaded until March of 2003, and the "smoking gun" you're talking about wasn't just how the United States saw things. It was how Israel, Europe, and intelligence services around the world saw things.

It's easy to criticize in hindsight. Bush would have been criticized even more harshly if Saddam had, in fact, used WMD and the United States had not deposed him first.

I'm not sure it's salvagable. at this point a splintering seems not only inevitable but probably best for the iraqis. that is not what's best for america tho.

It seems to me that perhaps the country should be separated into 2-3 new countries. Of course, that would also potentially create problems, but it might allow each major group (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds) to have autonomy. Obviously, it's a complex problem, and it's the main issue where the administration miscalculated. Without a brutal dictator like Saddam ruling with an iron fist, there are competing factions that just don't want to get along in a democratic state.

yup, thanks.

I guess you'll take any compliment, even a sarcastic one. ;)


how so?
his premise is that al queda paid a "terrible cost in trained fighters" when it's NOT a war of being waged that way.

vietnam became a "quagmire" as the us didn't want the embarassment of leaving yet wasn't willing to do what was needed to win. no one would know if al queda left, and they will do anything possible to win.

how's it al queda's vietnam?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's "not a war being waged that way." If you mean that it isn't a conventional war, I'd agree, but it still relies on manpower just like a conventional war.

Al Qaeda has been substantially weakened. They can't leave the fight for fear that democracy will be established in Iraq, but they are not equipped to fight our soldiers straight up. It is a war they don't want but can't afford to pull out of.

Arne
09-12-2006, 05:19 AM
I agree that they wanted a justification to invade. I don't believe that led them to endorse and believe "any intelligence that got there." It's easy in retrospect to forget the timeline of how things occurred, but we hardly rushed to attack. Iraq wasn't invaded until March of 2003, and the "smoking gun" you're talking about wasn't just how the United States saw things. It was how Israel, Europe, and intelligence services around the world saw things.
It certainly wasn't like the UN inspektors were seeing it and when you try to invade Iraq based on an UN resolution you should at least listen to them. There were noumerous voices Bush could've listened to, but chose not to listen to.

Scott Ritter: "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. "

Hans Blix: "I now turn to the role and results of our current inspections. Evidently if we had found any ‘smoking gun’ we would have reported it to the Council. Similarly, if we had met a denial of access or other impediment to our inspections we would have reported it to the Council. We have not submitted any such reports."

So please don't make it look like the whole world believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In Germany pictures of Hans Blix shaking his head on sight of seeing Bush's complete ignorance towards the inspector's work were shown on TV.

Mavdog
09-12-2006, 10:01 AM
Um, no I didn't.

sure you did, you said "It's a bit sickening that people like Russert (and apparently you) think that Saddam Hussein should still be in power and we should not be in Iraq." There is no opposition to the assertion that hussein was a despot, and that is not the issue. the issue is the decision to invade iraq as the current administration did, and the prosecution of the war after the invasion.

I agree that they wanted a justification to invade. I don't believe that led them to endorse and believe "any intelligence that got there." It's easy in retrospect to forget the timeline of how things occurred, but we hardly rushed to attack. Iraq wasn't invaded until March of 2003, and the "smoking gun" you're talking about wasn't just how the United States saw things. It was how Israel, Europe, and intelligence services around the world saw things.

this administration not only rushed to invade, they ignored the advise of our allies in europe and also domestic opposition who advised caution.

thise allies saw the same intelligence and they didn't jumpt to the same conclusions on the need to rush an invasion.

It's easy to criticize in hindsight. Bush would have been criticized even more harshly if Saddam had, in fact, used WMD and the United States had not deposed him first.

absurd assertion. hussein could not use what he did not have.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's "not a war being waged that way." If you mean that it isn't a conventional war, I'd agree, but it still relies on manpower just like a conventional war.

Al Qaeda has been substantially weakened. They can't leave the fight for fear that democracy will be established in Iraq, but they are not equipped to fight our soldiers straight up. It is a war they don't want but can't afford to pull out of.

the terrorists don't need the manpower of soldiers to wage their war. just a couple people can be effective.

al queda was weakened when afganistan was taken from their friends, the taliban. no more safe harbor. the war in iraq hasn't "weakened" al queda, and it's a mystery to me why you would make that assertion. fear of a democracy? democracy can bring radical leaders to power, see hitler and the palestinians electing hamas members as examples.

kg_veteran
09-12-2006, 11:12 AM
It certainly wasn't like the UN inspektors were seeing it and when you try to invade Iraq based on an UN resolution you should at least listen to them. There were noumerous voices Bush could've listened to, but chose not to listen to.

Scott Ritter: "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. "

Hans Blix: "I now turn to the role and results of our current inspections. Evidently if we had found any ‘smoking gun’ we would have reported it to the Council. Similarly, if we had met a denial of access or other impediment to our inspections we would have reported it to the Council. We have not submitted any such reports."

So please don't make it look like the whole world believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. In Germany pictures of Hans Blix shaking his head on sight of seeing Bush's complete ignorance towards the inspector's work were shown on TV.

First, it's interesting that you would cite quotes made after the fact when discussing the mindset of the world (or of UN inspectors) at that time. Second, it is well-known that Blix was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. His comments after the fact really don't impress me much. However, at the time, Blix told a different story:

Dec. 19, 2002: Hans Blix tells the U.N. Security Council the declaration (provided by Iraq in response to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441) "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. link (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/war_timeline.html)

Feb. 14, 2003: Hans Blix says Iraq has taken steps to assist U.N. inspections but the country refuses to account for chemical and biological agents. link (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/war_timeline.html)

You also have to consider the context. Iraq had defied the U.N. inspectors for a decade. Again, from Blix:

Feb. 14, 2003: "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming." link (http://www.themoderntribune.com/hans_blix_report_to_un_february_14_2003_full_text_-_war_on_iraq_-_inspections.htm)

Iraq had defied and continued to defy inspectors. Certainly, the United States could have taken the position that countries like France and Russia did -- more time for inspections to work. That had been given over a decade, and there still wasn't proof that Saddam was disarmed. We now know that France and Russia had other motives as well (e.g., The Oil for Food scandal). They were never going to approve an invasion, regardless of how much Saddam defied inspectors.

kg_veteran
09-12-2006, 11:47 AM
sure you did, you said "It's a bit sickening that people like Russert (and apparently you) think that Saddam Hussein should still be in power and we should not be in Iraq." There is no opposition to the assertion that hussein was a despot, and that is not the issue. the issue is the decision to invade iraq as the current administration did, and the prosecution of the war after the invasion.

First, I didn't say, "The central issue of the Iraq debate is..." I simply made a comment about Russert's position. Did you read the Russert interview? He's not taking the position that we should have invaded Iraq at a different time or in a different manner. He's taking the position that we shouldn't have invaded at all. The implication of that position is clearly that we would be better off with Saddam still in power.

Is it your position that we shouldn't have invaded at all, or just not in the manner that we did? Maybe if you make your position clear we can discuss where/if we disagree.

this administration not only rushed to invade, they ignored the advise of our allies in europe and also domestic opposition who advised caution.

To which allies are you referring? France? Russia? We know what their motivations were. Domestic opposition? Again, to whom are you referring? Congress approved the invasion (77-23 in the Senate; 296-133 in the House).

thise allies saw the same intelligence and they didn't jumpt to the same conclusions on the need to rush an invasion.

At least, unlike Arne, you admit that everyone was operating on the same intelligence. Even the likes of Hillary Clinton has admitted that. As she said in April of 2004:

"The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration. The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/)

As for our allies, again, I'd like to know to which ones you're referring. Quite a few of our allies did see it our way, including Great Britain, Italy, Australia, and Poland, among others.

absurd assertion. hussein could not use what he did not have.

You do realize you're begging the question, right?

The decision had to be made based upon the available intelligence at that time. It's easy for you to sit here NOW and say, "Absurd. Saddam couldn't have done anything because he didn't have WMD." It was impossible for Bush to say that, at the time.

If a cop sees a suspect with a bulge in his front coat pocket and sees that suspect reach into the pocket, I suppose you'd tell the cop to wait to fire until he's fired upon. Otherwise, the cop couldn't possibly know if the suspect had a gun. Of course, there's also the possibility that by the time the cop found out, he'd be dead. But hey, that way he'd know for sure.

the terrorists don't need the manpower of soldiers to wage their war. just a couple people can be effective.

I see your point, but I still think that when we can take out the leaders of al Qaeda (like Zarqawi) and not just the guys who are blowing themselves up, that is valuable. Certainly, they don't need a conventional army, but they do need leaders and organization, which is not something that the majority of al Qaeda's recruits can provide.

al queda was weakened when afganistan was taken from their friends, the taliban. no more safe harbor. the war in iraq hasn't "weakened" al queda, and it's a mystery to me why you would make that assertion. fear of a democracy? democracy can bring radical leaders to power, see hitler and the palestinians electing hamas members as examples.

Saddam was a known quantity, and he was sympathetic to terrorists (including al Qaeda). I acknowledge the possibility that democracy might not work, but it will not make the situation in Iraq worse than it was with respect to terrorism.

With respect to weakening al Qaeda, I'll state again that when al Qaeda leaders such as Zarqawi are eliminated (and, frankly, when many of their trained recruits are eliminated), I believe that al Qaeda is weakened.

Arne
09-12-2006, 12:07 PM
First, it's interesting that you would cite quotes made after the fact when discussing the mindset of the world (or of UN inspectors) at that time. Second, it is well-known that Blix was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. His comments after the fact really don't impress me much. However, at the time, Blix told a different story:

Dec. 19, 2002: Hans Blix tells the U.N. Security Council the declaration (provided by Iraq in response to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441) "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. link (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/war_timeline.html)

Feb. 14, 2003: Hans Blix says Iraq has taken steps to assist U.N. inspections but the country refuses to account for chemical and biological agents. link (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/war_timeline.html)

You also have to consider the context. Iraq had defied the U.N. inspectors for a decade. Again, from Blix:

Feb. 14, 2003: "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming." link (http://www.themoderntribune.com/hans_blix_report_to_un_february_14_2003_full_text_-_war_on_iraq_-_inspections.htm)

Iraq had defied and continued to defy inspectors. Certainly, the United States could have taken the position that countries like France and Russia did -- more time for inspections to work. That had been given over a decade, and there still wasn't proof that Saddam was disarmed. We now know that France and Russia had other motives as well (e.g., The Oil for Food scandal). They were never going to approve an invasion, regardless of how much Saddam defied inspectors.
Scott Ritter: "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. "

July 20, 2002

Hans Blix: "I now turn to the role and results of our current inspections. Evidently if we had found any ‘smoking gun’ we would have reported it to the Council. Similarly, if we had met a denial of access or other impediment to our inspections we would have reported it to the Council. We have not submitted any such reports."

January 9, 2003

kg_veteran
09-12-2006, 12:24 PM
Scott Ritter: "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. "

July 20, 2002

Hans Blix: "I now turn to the role and results of our current inspections. Evidently if we had found any ‘smoking gun’ we would have reported it to the Council. Similarly, if we had met a denial of access or other impediment to our inspections we would have reported it to the Council. We have not submitted any such reports."

January 9, 2003

It would be helpful if you could provide links to the quotes.

In any event, the Ritter quote (which apparently came from an interview he did in a book written by anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt) is contradicted by the Blix comment I cited above. Also, given that Ritter resigned from weapons inspection duties in 1998, I'm not sure how he could vouch for what the state of things were in 2003.

As for the Blix quote, it is contradicted by his quotes that I cited above as well. Clearly, Iraq was denying access and refusing to verify the status of chemical and biological agents. Without complete access, how, exactly, was Blix supposed to come up with a "smoking gun"?

Drbio
09-12-2006, 02:13 PM
Ah....Arne and Mavdog get owned by kg_vet yet again.


Like shooting fish in a barrel. :rolleyes:

dude1394
09-12-2006, 03:10 PM
Ah....Arne and Mavdog get owned by kg_vet yet again.


Like shooting fish in a barrel. :rolleyes:

word...I wouldn't want to tangle with him.

Mavdog
09-12-2006, 03:26 PM
First, I didn't say, "The central issue of the Iraq debate is..." I simply made a comment about Russert's position. Did you read the Russert interview? He's not taking the position that we should have invaded Iraq at a different time or in a different manner. He's taking the position that we shouldn't have invaded at all. The implication of that position is clearly that we would be better off with Saddam still in power.

no, that is just your conclusion. there is a third road, that being the concept that hussein could have been removed by actions short of an invasion. unfortunately we will never know if that third option would have worked or not.

Is it your position that we shouldn't have invaded at all, or just not in the manner that we did? Maybe if you make your position clear we can discuss where/if we disagree.

we should not have invaded in the manner that we did. war is a last resort, a point that we were not at.

To which allies are you referring? France? Russia? We know what their motivations were. Domestic opposition? Again, to whom are you referring? Congress approved the invasion (77-23 in the Senate; 296-133 in the House).

germany for one.

your memory seems to have forgotten that the congressional resolution spoke of the authorization to use force IF the inspections didn't bear fruit. the current administration never allowed that to occur, they removed the inspectors and invaded.

The decision had to be made based upon the available intelligence at that time. It's easy for you to sit here NOW and say, "Absurd. Saddam couldn't have done anything because he didn't have WMD." It was impossible for Bush to say that, at the time.

If a cop sees a suspect with a bulge in his front coat pocket and sees that suspect reach into the pocket, I suppose you'd tell the cop to wait to fire until he's fired upon. Otherwise, the cop couldn't possibly know if the suspect had a gun. Of course, there's also the possibility that by the time the cop found out, he'd be dead. But hey, that way he'd know for sure.

the cop DOES wait to fire, they don't pull the trigger until the hand starts to come out of the coat....they don't fire their weapon solely on the suspicion that there is a possible gun in the coat.

Saddam was a known quantity, and he was sympathetic to terrorists (including al Qaeda). I acknowledge the possibility that democracy might not work, but it will not make the situation in Iraq worse than it was with respect to terrorism.

there you go with the "hussein and al queda" connection. there was none. did you miss this last week's release of the british intelligence report that stated hussein saw al queda as a "threat"? give it up already!

With respect to weakening al Qaeda, I'll state again that when al Qaeda leaders such as Zarqawi are eliminated (and, frankly, when many of their trained recruits are eliminated), I believe that al Qaeda is weakened.

too bad the leaders of al queda (such as bin laden) are running around somewhere freely starring in their videos.....yes, it would be a very positive event should we actually catch them.

kg_veteran
09-12-2006, 04:03 PM
no, that is just your conclusion. there is a third road, that being the concept that hussein could have been removed by actions short of an invasion. unfortunately we will never know if that third option would have worked or not.

Someone else mentioned that in this thread, but when I asked what they meant, I received no response.

How do you believe Hussein could have been removed without invading Iraq?

we should not have invaded in the manner that we did. war is a last resort, a point that we were not at.

In your opinion. Many mistakes have been made, but I don't think the decision to invade (based upon information that we had in real-time, not hindsight) was one of them.

germany for one.

Germany said it would not have participated in war against Iraq even with a U.N. mandate.

Is that the sort of advice you wanted the U.S. following? Not me.

your memory seems to have forgotten that the congressional resolution spoke of the authorization to use force IF the inspections didn't bear fruit. the current administration never allowed that to occur, they removed the inspectors and invaded.

Wow, you sound like you've been reading from the Kerry handbook on hair-splitting. But you're still wrong.

The AUMF didn't say, "If the inspections don't bear fruit, then you can invade..."

As for your assertion that Bush removed the inspectors and invaded, that's just silly. It was only after Saddam continued to defy UN inspections and/or requests for information that Bush moved to invade. As noted above, Iraq refused to account for chemical and biological agents as late as February of 2003 and engaged in a decade-long pattern of obstruction and defiance of UN inspectors.

Let's not act like Iraq was doing their part. We can debate whether we should have invaded or not, but personally I think it's a bit naive to take the "further inspections would have solved everything" approach. A decade of "further inspections" hadn't gotten us anywhere.

the cop DOES wait to fire, they don't pull the trigger until the hand starts to come out of the coat....they don't fire their weapon solely on the suspicion that there is a possible gun in the coat.

Well, now you're trying to add facts that I didn't have in my analogy.

Bottom line, if the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is going to try and attack him, he is authorized to act in self-defense. He doesn't have to wait until he's fired upon.

The same is true here. Your position seems to be that the officer (the United States) should have known there wasn't a gun in the suspect's (Iraq's) pocket. But all indications were that there was a gun, and that the suspect was willing to use it. In fact, to take the analogy further, the suspect had a prior history of violent gun crimes.

Again, the point of the analogy was that it was reasonable to believe, based upon the intelligence at the time and Saddam's history with use of WMD, that Saddam had WMD and posed a threat. Sure, looking back in hindsight is easy to do, but you don't have the benefit of hindsight when you're making a decision.

there you go with the "hussein and al queda" connection. there was none. did you miss this last week's release of the british intelligence report that stated hussein saw al queda as a "threat"? give it up already!

It's funny how you are able to take information favorable to your position as authoritative and yet ignore information to the contrary.

I am aware of the notion that Saddam viewed al Qaeda as a threat, as well as the notion that al Qaeda (or bin Laden) didn't like Saddam because he was too "secular." Nonetheless, there was also intelligence suggesting that the two sides explored collaborative relationships and that Saddam admired al Qaeda's effectiveness in striking American interests.

I think it is fair to say that Iraq and al Qaeda were not intimately connected; however, all I said was that Saddam was sympathetic to terrorists, including al Qaeda. I still believe that. I'm quite certain that Saddam didn't trust many people; that doesn't mean that he and al Qaeda were enemies.

too bad the leaders of al queda (such as bin laden) are running around somewhere freely starring in their videos.....yes, it would be a very positive event should we actually catch them.

Tell it to Clinton. He's the one who had numerous opportunities to kill/capture bin Laden and didn't take advantage of them.

I totally understand the failings of the Bush administration, but don't throw the "we haven't caught bin Laden" crap at me. Clinton had the best shots at the guy, and he wouldn't take them.

Mavdog
09-12-2006, 04:25 PM
Ah....Arne and Mavdog get owned by kg_vet yet again.


Like shooting fish in a barrel. :rolleyes:

we all know why you covet the role of a cheerleader...you think you look hot in the skirt waving the pom poms.

Drbio
09-12-2006, 04:40 PM
*Yawn*

Getting your ass kicked and all you can do is clutter. Typical mavdog crap.


You are embarassing yourself more than usual these days. I thought that was impossible. Guess not.

Mavdog
09-12-2006, 05:08 PM
Someone else mentioned that in this thread, but when I asked what they meant, I received no response.

How do you believe Hussein could have been removed without invading Iraq?

he couldn't continue with the status quo forever. he would slip sooner or later, either by an external or an internal interest.

In your opinion. Many mistakes have been made, but I don't think the decision to invade (based upon information that we had in real-time, not hindsight) was one of them.

as one who opposed the invasion since day 1, I disagree.

Germany said it would not have participated in war against Iraq even with a U.N. mandate.

Is that the sort of advice you wanted the U.S. following? Not me.

what? johan fischer even went so far as to say that the nov 2002 resolution as implicitly giving the us authorization to invade, supporting the us position. perhaps you mean that germany wouldn't provide troops, which isn't anything new about them since ww2.

Wow, you sound like you've been reading from the Kerry handbook on hair-splitting. But you're still wrong.

The AUMF didn't say, "If the inspections don't bear fruit, then you can invade..."

section 2, support for us diplomatic efforts.

As for your assertion that Bush removed the inspectors and invaded, that's just silly. It was only after Saddam continued to defy UN inspections and/or requests for information that Bush moved to invade. As noted above, Iraq refused to account for chemical and biological agents as late as February of 2003 and engaged in a decade-long pattern of obstruction and defiance of UN inspectors.

Let's not act like Iraq was doing their part. We can debate whether we should have invaded or not, but personally I think it's a bit naive to take the "further inspections would have solved everything" approach. A decade of "further inspections" hadn't gotten us anywhere.

I'd suggest it's pretty easy to not "account" for agents, or to obstruct inspections, if there isn't anything to account or inspect...

how can it be naive to believe in the effectiveness of the sanctions when it has been proven that the sanctions were successful? hussein didn't have stockpiles of wmd. he didn't have the capability to produce any.

Bottom line, if the officer reasonably believes that the suspect is going to try and attack him, he is authorized to act in self-defense. He doesn't have to wait until he's fired upon.

The same is true here. Your position seems to be that the officer (the United States) should have known there wasn't a gun in the suspect's (Iraq's) pocket. But all indications were that there was a gun, and that the suspect was willing to use it. In fact, to take the analogy further, the suspect had a prior history of violent gun crimes.

Again, the point of the analogy was that it was reasonable to believe, based upon the intelligence at the time and Saddam's history with use of WMD, that Saddam had WMD and posed a threat. Sure, looking back in hindsight is easy to do, but you don't have the benefit of hindsight when you're making a decision.

no, my position is the officer must use every caution before firing his gun, and to shoot a person solely based on the buldge in the pocket is not the way that I'd want my law enforcement done.

it seems odd to hear those who claim that hussein was a threat. he didn't control over half of his country, he was an international pariah, with little hope of getting out from underneath all that. yet here he was, a "threat" to the us.

I am aware of the notion that Saddam viewed al Qaeda as a threat, as well as the notion that al Qaeda (or bin Laden) didn't like Saddam because he was too "secular." Nonetheless, there was also intelligence suggesting that the two sides explored collaborative relationships and that Saddam admired al Qaeda's effectiveness in striking American interests.

I think it is fair to say that Iraq and al Qaeda were not intimately connected; however, all I said was that Saddam was sympathetic to terrorists, including al Qaeda. I still believe that. I'm quite certain that Saddam didn't trust many people; that doesn't mean that he and al Qaeda were enemies.

so what you are saying is in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, you are free to speculate about some link that you cannot support with anything credible.

Tell it to Clinton. He's the one who had numerous opportunities to kill/capture bin Laden and didn't take advantage of them.

I totally understand the failings of the Bush administration, but don't throw the "we haven't caught bin Laden" crap at me. Clinton had the best shots at the guy, and he wouldn't take them.

throw it at you? you are the one who brought up "eliminating" al queda leadership, not me.

so which is worse, not taking him out due to concern for collateral damage (with 9/11 the consequence) or having them commit 9/11 and not be caught and held accountable?

Drbio
09-12-2006, 07:08 PM
bitchslap....sache....
.........bitchslap....sache....
.................bitchslap....sache....

Lather, rinse, repeat.....

kg_veteran
09-12-2006, 11:12 PM
he couldn't continue with the status quo forever. he would slip sooner or later, either by an external or an internal interest.

Wait for Hussein to "slip sooner or later"? Slip on what? A banana peel? I suppose we could have just waited for nature to take its course and he would have died in about 30 years, too, but that's not a plan to REMOVE Hussein. Removing a tyrant like Hussein involves some sort of affirmative action. He wasn't going to remove himself! What would your plan to remove him have been, without invading?

as one who opposed the invasion since day 1, I disagree.

Well, I understand that. That's why I said, "n your opinion."

We might as well agree to disagree on this particular point.

what? johan fischer even went so far as to say that the nov 2002 resolution as implicitly giving the us authorization to invade, supporting the us position. perhaps you mean that germany wouldn't provide troops, which isn't anything new about them since ww2.

Do you understand the word "participate"?

Also, could you please make up your mind? First, you said Germany advised us not to invade. Now you're saying that they supported our position on invasion. Which is it?

section 2, support for us diplomatic efforts.

I've read the AUMF. Have you? Section 2 says that Congress supports the efforts of the President to strictly enforce all UN Security Council resolutions through the UN Security Council, but it doesn't say that the authority granted in Section 3 (yes, there is a Section 3 which you neglected to mention) is contingent upon the results of the efforts described in Section 2. Section 3 says that the President is authorized to use our Armed Forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Your understanding of the AUMF is incorrect.

I'd suggest it's pretty easy to not "account" for agents, or to obstruct inspections, if there isn't anything to account or inspect...

Now you're being obtuse. Do you understand what Blix meant when he said that Iraq refused to account for chemical and biological agents? It meant that they refused to confirm or deny what had happened to them.

As for your repeated assertion that there wasn't anything to inspect, you can beg the question all you want, but you're capable of far more intelligent arguments than that.

Iraq engaged in a repeated and lengthy pattern of defiance and obstruction of UN weapons inspectors. It's my position that it was reasonable for the world to believe that the motivation for such obstruction and defiance was to hide something -- WMD. Whether they were bluffing or not is irrelevant at this point, to me at least, because we're discussing how the administration should have acted based on [i]what they knew then, NOT what we know now. Clearly, if Bush KNEW before invading that Saddam didn't possess WMD, he wouldn't have invaded.

how can it be naive to believe in the effectiveness of the sanctions when it has been proven that the sanctions were successful? hussein didn't have stockpiles of wmd. he didn't have the capability to produce any.

You just don't get it. The only thing that has been proven is that there aren't any WMD in Iraq NOW.

As for Hussein's capability to produce WMD, the Duelfer Report disagrees with you. That report concluded that Saddam did have the ability to produce WMD within a short period of time.

no, my position is the officer must use every caution before firing his gun, and to shoot a person solely based on the buldge in the pocket is not the way that I'd want my law enforcement done.

You're just not following. The suspect was telling the cop, "I've got a gun!"

it seems odd to hear those who claim that hussein was a threat. he didn't control over half of his country, he was an international pariah, with little hope of getting out from underneath all that. yet here he was, a "threat" to the us.

Easy for you to play Monday morning quarterback. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary, no matter how much you protest.

so what you are saying is in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, you are free to speculate about some link that you cannot support with anything credible.

I see. You can speculate that Saddam wouldn't have helped bin Laden, but I can't speculate that he would have.

Right.

throw it at you? you are the one who brought up "eliminating" al queda leadership, not me.

I brought up the elimination of al Qaeda leadership in the war in Iraq, not bin Laden.

so which is worse, not taking him out due to concern for collateral damage (with 9/11 the consequence) or having them commit 9/11 and not be caught and held accountable?

Not taking him out. No question about it.

dude1394
09-12-2006, 11:19 PM
KG...I continue to stand in awe of your patience and your logic.

Mavdog
09-13-2006, 11:17 AM
Wait for Hussein to "slip sooner or later"? Slip on what? A banana peel? I suppose we could have just waited for nature to take its course and he would have died in about 30 years, too, but that's not a plan to REMOVE Hussein. Removing a tyrant like Hussein involves some sort of affirmative action. He wasn't going to remove himself! What would your plan to remove him have been, without invading?

did we need a "plan to remove hussein"? I wasn't aware that there was any such mandate, and as he was boxed in the need for regime change wasn't critical. hussein was no threat to the us.

Do you understand the word "participate"?

Also, could you please make up your mind? First, you said Germany advised us not to invade. Now you're saying that they supported our position on invasion. Which is it?

why don't you define what you intend "participate" to mean.

germany, like many here domestically, advised caution, you asked who preached caution, and I supplied an answer. you belittled the notion that germany was an answer to the question, and suggested they were outright hostile to any action toward iraq. they weren't, while they also saw the pitfalls to the us rush to attack.

claiming that the only nations who did not support the us were those involved in the "food for oil" scandal is just flat out wrong, as shown by the conduct of germany.

I've read the AUMF. Have you? Section 2 says that Congress supports the efforts of the President to strictly enforce all UN Security Council resolutions through the UN Security Council, but it doesn't say that the authority granted in Section 3 (yes, there is a Section 3 which you neglected to mention) is contingent upon the results of the efforts described in Section 2. Section 3 says that the President is authorized to use our Armed Forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Your understanding of the AUMF is incorrect.

why should I mention a section 3? hey, you neglected to mention that there is a section 1...

the votes for the resolution were given by many based on the inclusion of section 2, that all diplomatic means should be used to their conclusion before the use of troops would be justified. it's odd that you would ignore the inclusion of section 2 as just such a statement.

Iraq engaged in a repeated and lengthy pattern of defiance and obstruction of UN weapons inspectors. It's my position that it was reasonable for the world to believe that the motivation for such obstruction and defiance was to hide something -- WMD. Whether they were bluffing or not is irrelevant at this point, to me at least, because we're discussing how the administration should have acted based on what they knew then, NOT what we know now. Clearly, if Bush KNEW before invading that Saddam didn't possess WMD, he wouldn't have invaded.

the point is that they did not "know" iraq possessed any wmd, and the invasion based on the presumption was wrong.

as for if the current administration would have not invaded, that is conjecture. from my seat I believe they would have searched until they found a reason.

As for Hussein's capability to produce WMD, the Duelfer Report disagrees with you. That report concluded that Saddam did have the ability to produce WMD within a short period of time.

you are misrepresenting the duelfer report. it said that the regime maintained an infrastructure so the timeline on resuming the wmd programs would be short, but the critical item is that the sanctions would need to cease before that could occur, to wit:
(from the report)"Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution"

You're just not following. The suspect was telling the cop, "I've got a gun!"

that wasn't in your analogy before...

yes, if a cop sees a criminal who has a buldge in their pocket put their hand in their pocket while they're screaming at the cop "I've got a gun!" the cop has every right to shoot the criminal in the cop's need for self defense.

that certainly isn't an accurate description of the iraq situation however.

I see. You can speculate that Saddam wouldn't have helped bin Laden, but I can't speculate that he would have.

Right.

no, I am referencing the fact that hussein WASN"T involved with bin laden. if you have ANY facts that he was, show them.

Not taking him out. No question about it.

yet taking bin laden out wouldn't have necassarily prevented 9/11, others were there in al queda to carry it out. while not bringing bin laden to justice for 9/11 has given him (and his group) an almost mythical image of being able to defy the us.

both mistakes. both regrettable.

kg_veteran
09-13-2006, 12:07 PM
I started to write a lengthy response, but I think it's easier at this point to just agree to disagree on most of the points we were debating (although I'd still like to know how Hussein could have been removed without an invasion, since you brought it up).

What I'd like to hear is how you propose that the United States should proceed from this point forward. Whether it was a mistake to invade and the fact that mistakes have been made post-invasion is irrelevant to the issue of, "What do you think we should do now?"

Drbio
09-13-2006, 01:20 PM
KG...I continue to stand in awe of your patience and your logic.

*sigh*

It takes the patience of Job when dealing with those who are stuck on stupid.

Mavdog
09-13-2006, 08:08 PM
I started to write a lengthy response, but I think it's easier at this point to just agree to disagree on most of the points we were debating (although I'd still like to know how Hussein could have been removed without an invasion, since you brought it up).

my point was he would at some point be gone.

What I'd like to hear is how you propose that the United States should proceed from this point forward. Whether it was a mistake to invade and the fact that mistakes have been made post-invasion is irrelevant to the issue of, "What do you think we should do now?"

imho there is little that can be done but to allow for the processes already unleashed- the shia flexing their new status, regional factions in parliamant, the eventual break up of the country- to run their course.

we can't make the iraqis do things they don't wish to do. we can hand them a new country complete with a fairly transparent government, but until they have the desire to accept the supremacy of that institution all is for naught.

it could be years until the us troops are gone. many years. and a few trillion dollars.

kg_veteran
09-13-2006, 09:17 PM
my point was he would at some point be gone.

If that was your point, then that's different than the "third road" you were talking about earlier.

Saying at some point Hussein would be gone is a lot different than advocating a method of removing him.

imho there is little that can be done but to allow for the processes already unleashed- the shia flexing their new status, regional factions in parliamant, the eventual break up of the country- to run their course.

we can't make the iraqis do things they don't wish to do. we can hand them a new country complete with a fairly transparent government, but until they have the desire to accept the supremacy of that institution all is for naught.

it could be years until the us troops are gone. many years. and a few trillion dollars.

I'm unclear: Are you saying that you advocate staying or withdrawing?

Mavdog
09-14-2006, 01:54 PM
as I've said before, we can't leave until we fix the mess we created.