PDA

View Full Version : Question for Punching Dummy or (other?) Republicans



Dochter
28th July 04, 01:08 PM
On the link you posted O'Reiley admitted that the decision to go to war on Iraq, and the justification for doing so, was based upon faulty intelligence that the president then presented to the legislature and the American people. And that american and civillians of other nations have in result died.

Given that there aren't really any doubts about where O'Reiley's bias lies on the political spectrum this seems to me to be a pretty large admission.

While I personally think that Bush and his administration purposfully overstated the evidence available, to the point of lying and culpability (possibly criminal) let's set that aside for a moment.

Even if you assume that Bush earnestly believed the intelligence presented to him, his actions were still wrong in the end and the resulted in the death of American soldiers. That sort of failure seems more than enough justification for Bush to not be put into office for a second term. Mistakes like that do not warrant a second term. As president the "buck" stops with you and decisions made are your responsibility. You make the call, its your responsibility.

Agree or disagree?

Stick
28th July 04, 01:16 PM
Republicans won't see a problem until there's evil, nasty, filthy, dirty, sexual misconduct. Lies covering up an extra-marital affair are infinitely more unforgivable than those that start a war.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. This is what I hear every time the talking heads on Fox call Clinton a liar and completely refuse to entertain the question of Bush's honesty in his case for war. If you asked Sean Hannity it almost seems as though a stain on a dress is more damning than 1,000 coalition dead.

Fuck conservatives, family values can kiss my ass. Never trust anyone over 30! Jim Morrison lives!

Gah..... I think I need to go take a shower and whipe away the growing stink of hippy >_<

Gad damned republicans, I hate hippies- by my disagreeing with republicans I'm somehow hippy..... this angers me. Fucking young republicans >_<

Blegh and rargh.

:: foams at the mouth for O'Rielly's benefit ::

kismasher
28th July 04, 02:07 PM
agree with doch. the smokescreen of "well congress came to the same conclusion with the same information" is bullshit as well. congress was BRIEFED by George Tenet.

their access to equal information is an assumption that Bush and Co. want us to make.

also, in the grand scheme of things, who has the greater responsibility to ensure good information in this situation?

Balloonknot
28th July 04, 02:10 PM
Doc, I agree 100%. One could even make a case for impeachment. I'm not advocating Bill Clinton's affairs, but do you folks realize how many POWERFUL leaders, politicians, figure heads, role-models, etc have cheated on their wives and girlfriends and then lied about it later. Damn, it makes me crazy. Let's see what worse...... blow job or killing thousands of people.... mmm?

Some republicans are just too damn cynical for their own good.

punchingdummy
28th July 04, 02:17 PM
Deva vu (all over again)? Didn't I just reply to this on another thread?

I'll add one other nugget...I need to find a copy of the Newsweek interview with Bill Clinton. I found that his defense of Bush on the war issue is incredible - especially given the political year. If I can find it, I'll post the parts where he talks about Bush and "unilateral" action. It's good reading for all partisans.

BTW, I'm actually not Republican or a Bush supporter.

Dochter
28th July 04, 02:29 PM
Yeah, that's why it is in parentheses with a question mark. I originally meant this to be its own thread. Messed up and Shadow of raven cock kept posting on the other thread.

As for Clinton, he, and the whole party apparently, seem to be towing an interesting line of avoiding outright condmenation of Bush.

Leodom
28th July 04, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
...While I personally think that Bush and his administration purposfully overstated the evidence available, to the point of lying and culpability (possibly criminal) let's set that aside for a moment.

Even if you assume that Bush earnestly believed the intelligence presented to him, his actions were still wrong in the end and the resulted in the death of American soldiers. That sort of failure seems more than enough justification for Bush to not be put into office for a second term. Mistakes like that do not warrant a second term. As president the "buck" stops with you and decisions made are your responsibility. You make the call, its your responsibility.

Agree or disagree?

Disagree. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, Bush didn't say much of anything that hadn't already been said by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, and several dozen other Democrats in 1998 when Saddam kicked out the inspectors. The difference is that with Bush, it wasn't just rhetoric, he meant it.

FACT: Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. He demonstrated this when he used them on the Kurds.

FACT: Saddam hadn't accounted for the destruction of these weapons per UN requirements.

FACT: Saddam had contact with terrorists before and after 9/11.

FACT: Saddam knew for over a year that Bush wasn't kidding. Saddam then used his French and Russian friends and the UN to delay any attack as long as possible, giving him time to move weapons to Syria & Jordan and maybe finally destroy some. This, of course, would not stop the invasion because Saddam had proved by his previous actions that he could not be trusted.

FACT: Small quantities of WMDs HAVE been found in Iraq since the beginning of the war.

The Democrats and much of the world were so used to the United States talking a big game and rattling some sabers without actually DOING anything that they didn't take Bush seriously when he started talking about what had to be done to Saddam. They tried calling his bluff and it wasn't a bluff.

The war in Iraq is a tragedy, but it was the right thing to do. Saddam killed more Iraqis in one day than have been killed on both sides, military and civilian in this war.

Bush did what he felt was right, not what was politically expedient. I, for one, believe he was right.

Dochter
28th July 04, 02:54 PM
Fact: He claimed that ties between Iraq and Al Queda and the actions of 9/11 along with "Stockpiles" of WMD's made Iraq an immediate risk to the region and to the US. That was the case for entry into war that was given by the administration.

Both those points have since been demonstrated to be false. Faulty intelligence resulted in America going to war and cost the lives of both soldiers and civilian Iraqis (yes there is such a thing). That is a major failure on the part of a president, who making decisions is responsible for them.

Dochter
28th July 04, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Leodom

Bush did what he felt was right, not what was politically expedient. I, for one, believe he was right. This is complete bullshit by the way. It was the politically smart thing to do. A case was made for what was done which was largely believed. This resulted in huge popularity ratings for the president. At the time there would have been no chance anyone else could have been elected.

Hell, I believed what Powell told the UN and so supported action into Iraq as well. We were lied to (intentionally or not we were told things that weren't true).

Leodom
28th July 04, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
This is complete bullshit by the way. It was the politically smart thing to do. A case was made for what was done which was largely believed. This resulted in huge popularity ratings for the president. At the time there would have been no chance anyone else could have been elected.

Hell, I believed what Powell told the UN and so supported action into Iraq as well. We were lied to (intentionally or not we were told things that weren't true).

My how short our memories. In February and March of 2003 (Before the start of the war in Iraq) Bush was already being hanged in the media and by many Democrats. They were realizing by this time that he wasn't bluffing and they were feeling heat from the "Peace at any cost" crowd. The UN, France, Germany, and many US Democrat leaders were whining about Bush's "Rush to War". He could have come off as a great "Diplomat" and given Saddam more time to comply to the 12 years worth of resolutions that had been ignored. He didn't.

Leodom
28th July 04, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Fact: He claimed that ties between Iraq and Al Queda and the actions of 9/11 along with "Stockpiles" of WMD's made Iraq an immediate risk to the region and to the US. That was the case for entry into war that was given by the administration.

Both those points have since been demonstrated to be false. Faulty intelligence resulted in America going to war and cost the lives of both soldiers and civilian Iraqis (yes there is such a thing). That is a major failure on the part of a president, who making decisions is responsible for them.

Find the quote where Bush connected Iraq with the attack on 9/11? Post a link from a reputable source. The fact is, Bush never connected Iraq to 9/11 other than that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists and Saddam Hussein supports terrorism and terrorists.

The stockpiles of WMDs existed unless you believe that Saddam waited until he kicked out the UN inspectors before getting rid of them. He had been playing a shell game with the inspectors for years and got tired of it. Along comes George Bush who doesn't bluff. Saddam then has almost a year from when He realizes that Bush isn't bluffing until the invasion to finally get rid of the weapons or hide them better.

I believe that a large quantity of the WMDs are in Syria and Jordan. Of course, we can't go find out because now that would cause a HUGE outcry from the appeasement and peace at any cost crowd.

Dochter
28th July 04, 03:14 PM
What did the people think: The majority approved. It was a politically smart move. If there had been stockpiles of WMD's this presidential race would be far different. There weren't.

I know Bush thinks he is the annointed of god. Doesn't mean he was being martyred by the democrats though.



Also if you recall Bush wasn't being disagreed with about going to war, he was being criticized for the way he fumbled getting traditional allies on board.

Raven
28th July 04, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Yeah, that's why it is in parentheses with a question mark. I originally meant this to be its own thread. Messed up and Shadow of raven cock kept posting on the other thread.



Ass

I was in the prcoess of replying when you stated it's in the worng thread.

I'm still asking questions pertaining to out originl discussion. I had no idea this was not directed at me.

Dochter
28th July 04, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Find the quote where Bush connected Iraq with the attack on 9/11? Post a link from a reputable source. The fact is, Bush never connected Iraq to 9/11 other than that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists and Saddam Hussein supports terrorism and terrorists.

Thursday, January 30, 2003 Posted: 3:49 AM EST (0849 GMT)
Cnn.com
quote of Pres. Bush:
"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said



Give me a break. They're accused of being collabarators.

Any other loopholes you'd like to point out?

Dochter
28th July 04, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Raven
Ass

Yep :D

TylerDurden
28th July 04, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Disagree. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, Bush didn't say much of anything that hadn't already been said by Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, and several dozen other Democrats in 1998 when Saddam kicked out the inspectors. The difference is that with Bush, it wasn't just rhetoric, he meant it.

FACT: Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction. He demonstrated this when he used them on the Kurds.

FACT: Saddam hadn't accounted for the destruction of these weapons per UN requirements.

FACT: Saddam had contact with terrorists before and after 9/11.

FACT: Saddam knew for over a year that Bush wasn't kidding. Saddam then used his French and Russian friends and the UN to delay any attack as long as possible, giving him time to move weapons to Syria & Jordan and maybe finally destroy some. This, of course, would not stop the invasion because Saddam had proved by his previous actions that he could not be trusted.

FACT: Small quantities of WMDs HAVE been found in Iraq since the beginning of the war.


FACT : We sold him the nerve agents used on the Kurds. It's the same gas we sold them to use on Iran. When they used it on Iran we sent a diplomatic envoy to strenghten ties with Saddam. That man's name? Donald Rumsfeld of course!

FACT : Hans Blix's reports never showed any evidence of finding WMD's anywhere in Iraq. He was told by the Bush administration to "find some" and to "write more strongly worded reports". Bush was looking for an excuse to invade, and any excuse would do.

FACT : You cannot prove something doesn't exist, it's not possible.

FACT : There are rumors members of Al Queada contacted an intelligence officer from Iraq, but those same reports say that they were rebuffed and sent away.

FACT : Russian and France have never been as closely allied with Saddam as the US was all through the 1980's. He was in fact, a CIA asset dating back as far as 1968. The only "relationship" between Saddam and Russia and France was the oil contracts he gave them. Of course now that his government has been removed from power what happened to those contracts? Right, they are being given to Exxon and Haliburton.

FACT : No, there have not been small quantities of any REAL WMD's found. They have found quantities of chlorine gas and some pesticides which can be used in combat but they are just regular old industrial chemicals. You do know that a beer vat can grow biologicals right? So by the Bush reasonins the entire city of Milwaukee could be hiding WMD's.

FACT : You need to do a little more reading and a little less propaganda.

Dochter
28th July 04, 03:32 PM
What was supposed to be inferred by this:


In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Asked whether he had information the panel did not, Cheney said, "Probably."

The spin they put on things is obvious and who they're spinning things to remove any accounatbility for being wrong is even more impressive.

Leodom
28th July 04, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Thursday, January 30, 2003 Posted: 3:49 AM EST (0849 GMT)
Cnn.com
quote of Pres. Bush:
"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said



Give me a break. They're accused of being collabarators.

Any other loopholes you'd like to point out?

Remember, Al Qaeda and 9/11 are not synonymous. There were connections between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda, not 9/11.

Leodom
28th July 04, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by TylerDurden
FACT : We sold him the nerve agents used on the Kurds. It's the same gas we sold them to use on Iran. When they used it on Iran we sent a diplomatic envoy to strenghten ties with Saddam. That man's name? Donald Rumsfeld of course!

FACT : Hans Blix's reports never showed any evidence of finding WMD's anywhere in Iraq. He was told by the Bush administration to "find some" and to "write more strongly worded reports". Bush was looking for an excuse to invade, and any excuse would do.

FACT : You cannot prove something doesn't exist, it's not possible.

FACT : There are rumors members of Al Queada contacted an intelligence officer from Iraq, but those same reports say that they were rebuffed and sent away.

FACT : Russian and France have never been as closely allied with Saddam as the US was all through the 1980's. He was in fact, a CIA asset dating back as far as 1968. The only "relationship" between Saddam and Russia and France was the oil contracts he gave them. Of course now that his government has been removed from power what happened to those contracts? Right, they are being given to Exxon and Haliburton.

FACT : No, there have not been small quantities of any REAL WMD's found. They have found quantities of chlorine gas and some pesticides which can be used in combat but they are just regular old industrial chemicals. You do know that a beer vat can grow biologicals right? So by the Bush reasonins the entire city of Milwaukee could be hiding WMD's.

FACT : You need to do a little more reading and a little less propaganda.

Where Saddam got the nerve gas is a non-sequitur. It is not relevent to the current issue, neither are any connections prior to the first Gulf War in '91. Remember, Iran was the enemy then and the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was in play.

Sarin nerve gas was found, does that grow in beer bottles?

Of course Blix's reports didn't find anything, they were patsies that had no ability to check anywhere without first giving notice because they weren't given free reign.

Stick
28th July 04, 03:45 PM
Oh come on Leodom, you know that's the connection they want people to make and it's the connection people made.

Who was it that told of the administration- Cheney, Bush or Rumsfeld, I can't recal- saying something along the lines of "how can we connect this to Iraq" days after 9-11.

Exact quotes or no, the implication was very clear and often stated. The Bush administration press corps- aka Fox News- certainly put it out as such on more than a few ocassions.

edit:

Originally posted by Leodom
Remember, Al Qaeda and 9/11 are not synonymous. There were connections between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda, not 9/11.

Oh, please! Tell me, how many Americans could even pronounce Al Qaeda- let alone define it as a terrorist organization- before 9-11?

Al Qaeda and 9-11 are synonymous enough. Go out and ask a dozen people what the first thing that comes to mind is when you say that name; I'm willing to bet you get more than a few "September 11th" responses.

This is getting recockulous.

Dochter
28th July 04, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Leodom

Sarin nerve gas was found, does that grow in beer bottles? Miniscule amounts that had obviously been overlooked by everyone. I'd be willing to bet there are some american militants that have got some left over chemical weapons in bunkers somewhere in the US too. The difference: they at least know what they've got.

Jesus, even the bush administration is saying they were wrong about WMD's now. And you're still supporting that fallacy?

kismasher
28th July 04, 03:49 PM
i'm pretty sure that the small amount of sarin gas was found in a un shell.

hardly indicates a well-oiled industrial war machine was at work.

btw, that information was posted by The Wastrel. if only he would come down from the mountain to grace us with his presence, *sobs*.

WingChun Lawyer
28th July 04, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Of course Blix's reports didn't find anything, they were patsies that had no ability to check anywhere without first giving notice because they weren't given free reign.

As opposed to those brave US Army people who have not found anything until now? And please - of course Saddam HAD those WMD, the USA has the receipts to prove that. That is not relevant to the discussion, as long as you do not try to insist on that half a pint of chemical stuff they found on a roadside in Iraq.

Stick
28th July 04, 03:53 PM
One mortar shell filled with gas jury-rigged into a booby-trap does not a well developed WMD program reveal.

Hell, when I first heard the report that the gas had been found I was eagerly awaiting a follow up telling me that a stockpile had been found and we were right all along...... yeah, that hasn't happened and likely won't. Even if it had happened, it was a mortar shell filled with sarin, not an ICBM.

Dochter
28th July 04, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Remember, Al Qaeda and 9/11 are not synonymous. There were connections between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda, not 9/11. No there weren't the connections were wrong. Contact yes, a collabarative relationship? The answer seems to be no.

Al queda was responsible for 9/11.

I'm now going to repeat that 100 times.

Al queda is tied collabaratively with Iraq.

I'm now going to repeat that 100 times.




Huh. I wonder what the point of doing that would be.

Leodom
28th July 04, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Miniscule amounts that had obviously been overlooked by everyone. I'd be willing to bet there are some american militants that have got some left over chemical weapons in bunkers somewhere in the US too. The difference: they at least know what they've got.

Jesus, even the bush administration is saying they were wrong about WMD's now. And you're still supporting that fallacy?

If I recall correctly, the Sarin gas was found in a roadside bomb.

Where/when did the Bush administration admit they were wrong about WMDs? I've heard them downplay WMDs and say they may never be found but I haven't heard any of them say they were wrong about them ever being there in the first place. Without proof, they are understandably emphasizing other reasons for the war and stressing the fact that Saddam can no longer create and fill mass graves of Iraqi citizens.

Gotta go for now. Be back later.

Dochter
28th July 04, 03:56 PM
Al Queda Saddam link:
Bush

Bush has painted an alarming picture of Iraq's ties to the al-Qaeda terror network both at public rallies and in the Oval Office.

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror," he said.

Stick
28th July 04, 03:58 PM
"The American people are safeer.....
the American people are safer.....
the American people are safer.....
the American people- and the world!- are safer!"

It would seem the Bush administrations strategy for combating terrorism is repitition.

(Blatantly taken from the Daily Show)

KhorneliusPraxx
28th July 04, 04:15 PM
go get'em, Leo.

Dochter
28th July 04, 04:22 PM
People died fighting a war that was based on assertions that were wrong.

That is incompetence. You don't reelect someone who is incompetent. Even if they were "mistaken".

Hell even O'Reiley is saying they were erroneous assertions:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

Zendetta
28th July 04, 04:29 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leodom
[B]Where Saddam got the nerve gas is a non-sequitur. It is not relevent to the current issue, neither are any connections prior to the first Gulf War in '91. Remember, Iran was the enemy then and the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was in play.

Leodom - I think you are getting owned here, care of the good Dochtor.

The source of Saddam's chem weapons are hugely relevant - if we supplied them we should not claim the moral high ground to rationalize the inva - sorry I meant "liberation".

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - this kind of attitude, while perhaps inevitable, is totally fuqqing up US foreign policy. It is EXACTLY why we now have al Qaeda gunning for us.

Matt Bernius
28th July 04, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Find the quote where Bush connected Iraq with the attack on 9/11? Post a link from a reputable source. The fact is, Bush never connected Iraq to 9/11 other than that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists and Saddam Hussein supports terrorism and terrorists. Explicity stated that they were linked, perhaps not. A member of his senior staff implicitly suggesting a link, how about:

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney

“If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney

“With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

(ed note: Evidence suggests that this meeting never happened)

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney

“VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, . . . new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. . . . "

Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/8/2002).

Once again, I agree that there are no explicit links. However, in everyone of these statements there is definitely an implict link between the two.

Dochter
28th July 04, 05:17 PM
We all, you included Leodom, believed what they wanted us to. That there was an immenient threat posed to the US by Iraq through their use of WMD's, ties to al Queda and to 9-11.

punchingdummy
28th July 04, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Also if you recall Bush wasn't being disagreed with about going to war, he was being criticized for the way he fumbled getting traditional allies on board.

Oddly enough, this is one of the areas where Clinton defends Bush. Basicly, their approached were different but they often wound up in the same place - unilateral action.

**starts looking for that article**

Dochter
28th July 04, 05:43 PM
Even more ironic Bush's dad, who Clinton ousted, did the exact opposite and actually assembled a real coalition.

punchingdummy
28th July 04, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Thursday, January 30, 2003 Posted: 3:49 AM EST (0849 GMT)
Cnn.com
quote of Pres. Bush:
"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said



Give me a break. They're accused of being collabarators.

Any other loopholes you'd like to point out?

There is a HUGE distinction between connections with Al Queda and connection to 9-11. It's been pretty well established that there was an ongoing contacts over years with Al Queda, but that relationship did not reach an operational phase.

Dochter
28th July 04, 05:51 PM
The conclusion reached, and what we were asked to reach, is pretty obvious. Even if it was never made explicit.

Did you really think they were saying something else?

Matt's quotes are better examples of this.

Leodom
28th July 04, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Zendetta
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leodom
[B]Where Saddam got the nerve gas is a non-sequitur. It is not relevent to the current issue, neither are any connections prior to the first Gulf War in '91. Remember, Iran was the enemy then and the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was in play.

Leodom - I think you are getting owned here, care of the good Dochtor.

The source of Saddam's chem weapons are hugely relevant - if we supplied them we should not claim the moral high ground to rationalize the inva - sorry I meant "liberation".

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - this kind of attitude, while perhaps inevitable, is totally fuqqing up US foreign policy. It is EXACTLY why we now have al Qaeda gunning for us.

pwnage is irrelevant. The source of the WMDs is irrelevant which is why I didn't challenge the "we sold them to them" charge. This war wasn't an issue of "moral high ground". It was a case of a danger that had to be dealt with.

Consider the following 2 scenarios:

1) Hussein has WMDs and provides them to terrorists who use them on the United States.

2) Hussein doesn't have WMDs but acts as though he does.

Now consider two alternatives for US reaction:

A) Do nothing or wait it out to see what happens.

B) Take decisive action to eliminate the danger (real or perceived)

If Bush took the A) route, he would be pushing the problem out some number of years, most likely to a time when another administration would have to deal with it. In the worst case scenario (for Bush) He acts and then the intelligence is questioned and Bush looks like he's just itching for a fight. (pretty much where we are now). In the worst case scenario for everyone else, Bush doesn't act and then the intelligence is proved correct by another attack on the United States.

For further consideration. Ask yourselves what would have happened if the US military had shot those planes down before they hit the towers. If you are objective, you would have to say that Bush's impeachment trial would have happened within a year. He would be blamed for killing hundreds of civilians on some questionable "intelligence" regarding using planes as weapons.

I'll address some of the other posters and arguments later. I've got a dinner date with my wife.

Zendetta
28th July 04, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
pwnage is irrelevant. The source of the WMDs is irrelevant which is why I didn't challenge the "we sold them to them" charge. This war wasn't an issue of "moral high ground". It was a case of a danger that had to be dealt with.

I'll let you slide on the first point, but... you asked for specific references and Dochter promptly served them up!!!

I heartily disagree with your second point - if the US provided the WMDs that later "justified" the war, then we have some huge questions to ask the people who decide our foreign policy. My opinion is that Bush definitely took the moral high ground to justify the invasion - Saddam as lying, murdering, dictator who used WMDs on his own people, etc.

The official justifications for this war were total bullshit - the real reasons are much colder and more ruthless.

Boyd
28th July 04, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
[B]
Consider the following 2 scenarios:

1) Hussein has WMDs and provides them to terrorists who use them on the United States.

2) Hussein doesn't have WMDs but acts as though he does.

Now consider two alternatives for US reaction:

A) Do nothing or wait it out to see what happens.

B) Take decisive action to eliminate the danger (real or perceived)

If Bush took the A) route, he would be pushing the problem out some number of years, most likely to a time when another administration would have to deal with it. In the worst case scenario (for Bush) He acts and then the intelligence is questioned and Bush looks like he's just itching for a fight. (pretty much where we are now). In the worst case scenario for everyone else, Bush doesn't act and then the intelligence is proved correct by another attack on the United States.
Except the very idea of invading a country every time an substantiated report of them proving to be vaguely threatening to US interests is, at best, reckless, and at worst fucking crazy.


For further consideration. Ask yourselves what would have happened if the US military had shot those planes down before they hit the towers. If you are objective, you would have to say that Bush's impeachment trial would have happened within a year. He would be blamed for killing hundreds of civilians on some questionable "intelligence" regarding using planes as weapons.
By "questionable intelligence", do you mean "terrorists accidentally broadcasting their plans to ground control an hour prior to impact exactly as feared", then yes, you're argument makes no sense.

Freddy
28th July 04, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
pwnage is irrelevant. The source of the WMDs is irrelevant which is why I didn't challenge the "we sold them to them" charge. This war wasn't an issue of "moral high ground". It was a case of a danger that had to be dealt with.

Consider the following 2 scenarios:

1) Hussein has WMDs and provides them to terrorists who use them on the United States.

2) Hussein doesn't have WMDs but acts as though he does.

Now consider two alternatives for US reaction:

A) Do nothing or wait it out to see what happens.

B) Take decisive action to eliminate the danger (real or perceived)



First of all the actions of the U.S. government has certain political fall outs. For one the notion of "pre-emtive strikes" makes other nations more paranoid (and with nations with thier own Nuclear weopons this could be dangerous for all). Second it gives them justification to build their own WMD to assert their right to exist. Third it sets a dangerous presidence and gives justification for other countires to launch their own pre-emtive strikes agaisnt other nations. (That certainly doesnt make the world safer).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now lets adress your comment here:

"2) Hussein doesn't have WMDs but acts as though he does.

Now consider two alternatives for US reaction:

A) Do nothing or wait it out to see what happens.

B) Take decisive action to eliminate the danger (real or perceived)"


For thing Iraq was still far away from developing nuclear capabilty. So far the U.S. Governemnt's actions has open a free road for North Korea to developed nuclear weopons; in which they are much further ahead from having one than Iraq was. Second it also open the road for Iran to developed thier own nuclear weopons. Summary} In turn the U.S. government (current admin.) actions has created a dangerous counter reaction.
In my personal opinion Saddam Hussein isnt insane (an asshole.. Yes! Insane.. NO!). He brought more stabilty into the region and was a counter balance to Iran's Islamic fundamentalism; which I would fear alot more than what Iraq can ever pull. The last thing we want is a nuclear Jihad by religious fanactics. And with North Korea they do have capabilty to hit the West coast of North America with their Nodong 2 missiles. It would have been much wiser if the U.S. admin adressed North korea first or dealt with Iran. But since they are already pre-occupied with Iraq the road is open for NK and Iran to do as they please.

One day someone could write a book titled: "How North Korea Developed their Atomic Bomb" or "How Iran Developed the A Bomb"
and it points at the screw ups that the Bush adminstration have done to pave that road.

("option B" has been adress from the top of my post. The political fall out of it all is not good.)

punchingdummy
28th July 04, 09:40 PM
Freddy...I agree that the actions have MANY political fall outs. Some bad, but some good.

The current policies are addressing Iran..and Libya...and perhaps Syria. The problem with NK is that NK did not provide the convenient excuse that Hussein did.

WingChun Lawyer
29th July 04, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
The current policies are addressing Iran..and Libya...and perhaps Syria. The problem with NK is that NK did not provide the convenient excuse that Hussein did.

I beg to differ - as I remember, the main problem with North Korea is that they have the capacity to destroy thousands, maybe millions of lives with their conventional weaponry, both in South Korea and Japan, and an attack on them would precipitate that disaster. And there is no way to keep them from doing that.

punchingdummy
30th July 04, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
I beg to differ - as I remember, the main problem with North Korea is that they have the capacity to destroy thousands, maybe millions of lives with their conventional weaponry, both in South Korea and Japan, and an attack on them would precipitate that disaster. And there is no way to keep them from doing that.

Your statement is true WCL, but our observations are not mutually exclusive.

WingChun Lawyer
30th July 04, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Your statement is true WCL, but our observations are not mutually exclusive.

Oh well, they did say they were on the brink of producing WMD, didn´t they? I believe that provides excuse enough - not to mention that the NK government is indeed murderous, and no one could argue with that.

Hell, I would attack NK right now if it were possible to win without accepting millions of civilian casualties, I am sure Bush wouldn´t have a political problem doing the same.

Or maybe you mean NK didn´t provide an excuse in the sense that it was not, nor could it ever be considered an ally of Al Qaeda...then I´ll have to agree with you, there would not be enough political leverage in the USA for attacking it.

punchingdummy
30th July 04, 11:22 AM
Do I sense a bit of sarcasm in your first sentence?

NK also was not shooting at US planes on a regular basis, was not on breach of the Gulf I cease fire agreement, was not cited by Russian intelligence as having plans to attack US interests, etc. etc.

But then I do agree there is no doubt that NK is a serious problem.

WingChun Lawyer
30th July 04, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Do I sense a bit of sarcasm in your first sentence?

NK also was not shooting at US planes on a regular basis, was not on breach of the Gulf I cease fire agreement, was not cited by Russian intelligence as having plans to attack US interests, etc. etc.

But then I do agree there is no doubt that NK is a serious problem.

You may sense it, but it wasn´t meant to be there. I´ll get to it in a moment. :)

Regarding breaching agreements and shooting US planes, well, that is a fair point. But I do believe the mythical (sarcasm intended, can´t help it) link between Al Qaeda and Saddam was essential to provide enough popular support to invade the place.

I mean, if we are talking about ending human suffering by the hands of a bloody dictatorship, which is also a direct threat to local and global peace, you don´t have to look beyond Pyongyang(sp). On the other hand, it is much easier to convince the people that the suspicious arab guy over there was in league with the suspicious arab guys who attacked us; you don´t even have to actuallyy SAY it with all the words, you just have to work enough on their fear.

You may say I am being unfair (and I probably am), but the majority of people on this world, in my opinion, are stupid enough to fall for that one. As for the real reasons for invading Iraq, they are probably not above board - geopolitical control of the entire region, increased control over the world economy by keeping one hand on the oil tap, etc.

punchingdummy
30th July 04, 11:43 AM
The Al Queda link (note I am not supporting the 9-11 link) was one of many issues and, IMHO, one of the least salient. I do not believe the war was simply about WMD or removing a dictator, but somewhat disagree with you on true motives. Yes to preserving access to oil (although, again, not THE issue). Yes to geopolitical strategy. But I actually agree to a large extent with Bill Clinton's assessment (see his comments in "Clinton defends Bush" thread).

WingChun Lawyer
30th July 04, 11:46 AM
But don´t you think that the Al Qaeda link, however mythical, was a great asset for providing popular support?

I´ll get to Bill Clinton´s assessment in a few minutes (I didn´t read it yet).

punchingdummy
30th July 04, 11:50 AM
Not really. I don't think there is great popular support. The people who do support the action in Iraq seem to support it for multiple reasons (at least in the US).

WingChun Lawyer
30th July 04, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Not really. I don't think there is great popular support. The people who do support the action in Iraq seem to support it for multiple reasons (at least in the US).

No great popular support? Here in Brazil we are being informed that a bit over 50% of the american people still support the invasion, that does seem quite a lot of support.

And what are the reasons for this support, in your opinion? I would really like to know, as Bush would not have made that move without popular approval.

Freddy
30th July 04, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Freddy...I agree that the actions have MANY political fall outs. Some bad, but some good.

The current policies are addressing Iran..and Libya...and perhaps Syria. The problem with NK is that NK did not provide the convenient excuse that Hussein did.

The problem is that the NK situation now may not be fixable. Now if the U.S. admin dealt with NK first before they invaded Iraq they wouldnt had the justifications as they would now have to build WMD. You seem to underestimate that the threat potential of NK is much greater than Iraq was (when Saddam was still in power). Its not a matter of preception as you stated to Wing Chun Lawyer. The NK was months away in having enrich uranium unlike Iraq and also the missiles to deliver it. This is a fact not an imagine perception. Iraq has no missile delivery system that could reach the U.S. but NK does.

I beleive NK now has the atomic bomb. Unlike a few months ago. Not many bombs but enough (they still need to under go tests).

Dochter
30th July 04, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Not really. I don't think there is great popular support. The people who do support the action in Iraq seem to support it for multiple reasons (at least in the US). There was.

Based on the belief that Iraq posed an immediate threat through use of WMD's and links to al queda as well as their supposed attempt to procure materials for a nuclear program, I too supported the action.

The fact that we were mislead on those things is the problem.

I also wouldn't have had a problem with going there solely because Saddam was a brutal tyrant. Though Iraq may not have been first on my list for that.

punchingdummy
30th July 04, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
The problem is that the NK situation now may not be fixable. Now if the U.S. admin dealt with NK first before they invaded Iraq they wouldnt had the justifications as they would now have to build WMD. You seem to underestimate that the threat potential of NK is much greater than Iraq was (when Saddam was still in power). Its not a matter of preception as you stated to Wing Chun Lawyer. The NK was months away in having enrich uranium unlike Iraq and also the missiles to deliver it. This is a fact not an imagine perception. Iraq has no missile delivery system that could reach the U.S. but NK does.

I beleive NK now has the atomic bomb. Unlike a few months ago. Not many bombs but enough (they still need to under go tests).

...and what would you have suggested the US have done? What were the options with NK, other than the diplomatic apporach taken so far?

BTW, Iran is pretty close to nuclear weapons (if they are not there already). Where NK does much saber rattling, Iran has been active outside its borders...inlcuding the sponsorship of terrorism and direct links to attacks on US personnel in Khobar Towers. While I don't disagree with what you are saying about NK, it was not the only serious threat.

punchingdummy
30th July 04, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
No great popular support? Here in Brazil we are being informed that a bit over 50% of the american people still support the invasion, that does seem quite a lot of support.

And what are the reasons for this support, in your opinion? I would really like to know, as Bush would not have made that move without popular approval.

I have not seen the latest polls, but I would guess the US about split. I guess in my mind, roughly 50% is not "popular".

As Dochtor pointed out, there was more support a year ago with diminishing support over time (and as US casualties climb). As stated before, I think the Bush administration made a horrible mistake in focusing on WMD, and the subsequent lack of WMD has hurt support.

Freddy
31st July 04, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
...and what would you have suggested the US have done? What were the options with NK, other than the diplomatic apporach taken so far?

BTW, Iran is pretty close to nuclear weapons (if they are not there already). Where NK does much saber rattling, Iran has been active outside its borders...inlcuding the sponsorship of terrorism and direct links to attacks on US personnel in Khobar Towers. While I don't disagree with what you are saying about NK, it was not the only serious threat.

First of all the US should have dealt first with NK. Then NK wouldnt have felt threaten from any invasions or have any excuses to developed nuclear weopons. If you recall NK was labeled as an "Axis of Evil" and this only worsend their paranoid view of an invasion by the U.S. Government. When the invasion of Iraq took place this only confirmed their suspicions and entrenched their drive to developed nuclear weopons.

Iran is not even close to developing nuclear weopons. Its even much further away than Iraq was. Iran had some reasons to pist at the U.S. government (not to say I agree with Iran's government. They are assholes). For one thing during the Iran/Contra deal the American admin of the time kept money that was promised and owed to Iran and negated on the agreement when the crap hit the fan back then. The money was nevered paid back. Iran's role in terrorism currently is minimal. They do desire it; no doubt. Whats the evidence that directly links Iran to attack on US personnel in Khobar Towers?

punchingdummy
31st July 04, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
First of all the US should have dealt first with NK. Then NK wouldnt have felt threaten from any invasions or have any excuses to developed nuclear weopons. If you recall NK was labeled as an "Axis of Evil" and this only worsend their paranoid view of an invasion by the U.S. Government. When the invasion of Iraq took place this only confirmed their suspicions and entrenched their drive to developed nuclear weopons.

Iran is not even close to developing nuclear weopons. Its even much further away than Iraq was. Iran had some reasons to pist at the U.S. government (not to say I agree with Iran's government. They are assholes). For one thing during the Iran/Contra deal the American admin of the time kept money that was promised and owed to Iran and negated on the agreement when the crap hit the fan back then. The money was nevered paid back. Iran's role in terrorism currently is minimal. They do desire it; no doubt. Whats the evidence that directly links Iran to attack on US personnel in Khobar Towers?

Freddy - I have not worked in an intel field for years so perhaps you have some data I don't. However, from what I think I know, I would have to disagree with your assessment.

NK either possessed, or was actively pursuing (i.e. resumed) nuclear weapons prior to the Iraq invasion. The Iraqi invasion did put pressure on that NK regime, which I believe was the intention. As I recall, we got NK back to the negoaiating table after the invasion. Crrect me if my timeline is incorrect.

With regard to Iran, it's pretty clear they are actively pursuing nukes. US intelligence has been notoriously inaccurate in estimating countries nuclear potential - and typically we underestimate.

The relationship between Iran and the US is MUCH more complex than Iran Contra. Since the Shah's fall from power and the American hostage drama which ensued, we have had a difficult relationship with Iran. With regards to terrorism, they are very closely related to Hezbollah -orignally focused in Lebenon and Palestine. Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US Marines in Lebonan, and well as US (CIA and US Marine) abductions, tortures and murders. The US had several fire fights with Iranians in the late 80's which ended with the tragic US Vincennes incident. The Iranian involvment with terrorism has continued to grow with the export of Hezbollah (and terrorist attacks) to numerous countries, as well as covert work by the IRGC (including Qods Force) and MOIS. They have been very active. With regard to Khobar Towers the NSC concluded it was Hezbollah (I presume from electronic communications and other intel). The NSC theory was subsequently confrimed by humint who specifically named the Saudi Hezbollah and Qods Force (including specific leadership involved in the decision and planning).

Dochter
1st August 04, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
I have not seen the latest polls, but I would guess the US about split. I guess in my mind, roughly 50% is not "popular".

As Dochtor pointed out, there was more support a year ago with diminishing support over time (and as US casualties climb). As stated before, I think the Bush administration made a horrible mistake in focusing on WMD, and the subsequent lack of WMD has hurt support. That's all they could have focused on. Saying we took him out/wanted to take him out because he's brutal would rightly be regarded as b.s. There's ton's of other equally brutal dictators.

Freddy
2nd August 04, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Freddy - I have not worked in an intel field for years so perhaps you have some data I don't. However, from what I think I know, I would have to disagree with your assessment.



For your information Iran finished constructing their nuclear reactor not too long ago (this year if I recall correctly). They do not have the capability in terms of enriching nuclear grade uranium to create a single bomb. Plus theres still alot of technical hurdles they have to figure out in the refinement process and the construction of a nuclear device. They are still very far away.

---------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by punchingdummy

NK either possessed, or was actively pursuing (i.e. resumed) nuclear weapons prior to the Iraq invasion. The Iraqi invasion did put pressure on that NK regime, which I believe was the intention. As I recall, we got NK back to the negoaiating table after the invasion. Crrect me if my timeline is incorrect.


Yes that is accurate NK was trying to developed nuclear grade uranium. It is because of thier own security fears (as I mentioned already). I woudnt say the Iraq invasion put pressure on the NK regime I would say it only entrenched thier fears and paranoia of an invasion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by punchingdummy

With regard to Iran, it's pretty clear they are actively pursuing nukes. US intelligence has been notoriously inaccurate in estimating countries nuclear potential - and typically we underestimate.



First of all theres a certain time line for how much Uranium 239 can be enriched to 235. The size of the facilty can also give a rough estimate of how much weopon grade uranium can be produced at a given time. Now if theres international nuclear inspectors (given access to a plant) they can actually tell the grade of of uranium being produced by taking samples from the sole of thier shoes (its too much to explain).

I would agree that Iran is most likely attempting to produce nukes. Their own paranoia of an Iraqi type invasion has exilerated their nuclear weopns program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by punchingdummy

The relationship between Iran and the US is MUCH more complex than Iran Contra. Since the Shah's fall from power and the American hostage drama which ensued, we have had a difficult relationship with Iran. With regards to terrorism, they are very closely related to Hezbollah -orignally focused in Lebenon and Palestine. Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US Marines in Lebonan, and well as US (CIA and US Marine) abductions, tortures and murders. The US had several fire fights with Iranians in the late 80's which ended with the tragic US Vincennes incident. The Iranian involvment with terrorism has continued to grow with the export of Hezbollah (and terrorist attacks) to numerous countries, as well as covert work by the IRGC (including Qods Force) and MOIS. They have been very active. With regard to Khobar Towers the NSC concluded it was Hezbollah (I presume from electronic communications and other intel). The NSC theory was subsequently confrimed by humint who specifically named the Saudi Hezbollah and Qods Force (including specific leadership involved in the decision and planning).

With Iran and terrorism its a different topic so I wont get much into it.
(Not to get off topic too much.) Thier suport of Hezbollah is well known.