Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by AllieVi, Aug 3, 2004.
Not true. Not all of us believed the lies, disinformation and yellow journalism.
Yeah, that's the point
The US and the British began the war on March 19, 2003... Once the US was commited to the action there was no turning back. You must complete your goal. This isn't a Monty Python skit here.
Keep that in mind when looking at the dates of these quotes:
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003
"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
CNN Interview April 21, 2004 (I think this was the Larry King appearance)
Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that a "very strong case" had been made to lawmakers in classified briefings about WMDs in Iraq. She also pointed to the February presentation by Powell before the U.N. Security Council, when he said that Iraq had sarin, nerve agents and botulinum toxin
CNN article June 3, 2003
Tony <--Doesn't have to make things up..not a Bush supporter and can't stand flip-flop oportunists that were for the war before and against the war once waged.
I forgot to add this worthless poll. Worthless only because many will refuse to believe that at the time we went into Iraq, most Americans, by a wide margine, were for the invasion. Also many Americans wondered why we didn't do this 12 years ago! (at the time)
April 8, 2003
FIELD POLL: 63% in Bay Area support war to remove dictator
This thread is downright amazing. Yes, there were remarks by Clinton implying that Iraq had WMDs, but he didn't start a full scale invasion of the country.
So far, even ardent Bush supporters would find it hard to make a persuasive case that the Iraq invasion has had ANY tangible positive effects. And no the removal of Saddam does not qualify, because there is nothing to prove that the future Iraqi government will be any better. And the installation of an American puppet government in Baghdad hardly qualifies as giving Iraqis liberty.
I was sure before the invasion, that the WMD explanation was a total farce. How did I conclude that? If Iraq was brimming with WMDs, does anyone here really think Bush would have risked thousands of casualties to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam?
It was the perceived weakness of the Iraq military that put us on the road to invasion.
The facts seems to support the idea the Bush administration wanted to wage this war despite the facts. They delegitimized the inspections taking place prior to the war and pushed hard for the war with the UN with such zeal, it is complete nonsense to suggest the current administration did not want this war. They clearly wanted it, and made calculated moves to ensure it took place. End of story.
How sad it is that you have taken for granted your own freedom so much that you don't see the freedom of millions of Iraqi's as a "tangible possible effect".
There is nothing more important than freedom.
I understand that freedom is important, but if the government can not protect the people, what kind of freedom is that? People are afraid to lurk outside at night for fear of being blown up. The people also have the freedom of having no electricity when temperatures are in the 100s.
Moreover, the current Iraq government is headed by an ex-Baathist who without much of a stretch of the imagination could be considered a strong man.
The US has likely removed one dictator and replaced him with another. Unfortunately, we may learn that the only effective way to rule Iraq is by dictatorship. I was wrong there is one tangible positive effect, we have replaced a dictator who hated us with a strong man who doesn't hate us.
The entire point of this thread is, knowing what we know in August of 2004, would Bush have done anything different? He says he wouldn't have.
The 9/11 commission which Bush insisted on convening contrary to everyone's objections has given us a detailed account of recent events and has debunked the need to do what we did. That means the thousand or so American lives lost and thousands of injured have died/been injured in vain. Bush has succeeded in making it easier for Bin Laden to find followers and made his organization even more committed to attacking us.
The fact that others were equally wrong in their assessment based on the intelligence at the time really doesn't matter to the point of this thread. The unintended consequences of the Iraq war are now evident, but even knowing them, Bush wouldn't have done anything different.
You're right, Tony - once started there can be no turning back. But given the opportunity to make the choice again, Bush would still have taken us down the same road.
Of course, you conveniently ignore the rest of my response:
Bush had much newer and more accurate information that countered the older stuff but he chose to ignore it because the new info didn't support his pre-conceived idea to invade Iraq.
Again, all the quotes from other people and all the polls on what the American public knew were based on, as we now know, older inaccurate intelligence. Bush had much newer and more accurate intelligence available to him and that intelligence was not available to any of the other people quoted nor to the American public. Bush chose to ignore the newer intel in favor of the old because the newer intel did not support his preconceived plan of invasion.
So you support going into Sudan?
1. I will not watch anything Michael Moore has done, ever. If that is your source, please--try to use something that's not fantasy based.
2. Bush's speech to the UN on Spet 12, 2002 for proof about it being partly about freedom.
3. I don't care for the Jewish slur of "neo-con." I'm not a conservative, I'm an Objectivist. I'm an atheist as well.
Yeah, I do.
I notice France doesn't.
The fact Bush would still wage war with Iraq given what he knows now is as unsurprising as it is scary. The Bush team never admits mistakes, and they pursue their agenda recklessly in the face of facts that may not support their case.
It is important when war is considered to do a thorough cost benefit analysis. Not only have the two main justifications for war been discredited, but the monetary costs to rebuild Iraq are higher than projected before the war(with Iraq oil revenues falling short of that projected), and the insurgency has been more tenacious than expected. Plus, there seems to be almost no hope that democracy will now take root in the rest of the Middle East(the great dream of the neocons). There have been nearly a thousand American soldiers dead with thousands injured(some seriously). Anywhere from 10,000 to 25,000 Iraqis have died so far as a result of the war. All this to secure a pro-American government in Baghdad. While Bush will remain stubborn and continue to proclaim he would have gone to war with Iraq even with the knowledge he knows now, increasing percentages of Americans are seeing the light and deciding for themselves that the war was not worth the costs.
That is because that is trying to prove a negative... Impossible to argue something that isn't there. I reject that statement. There is no proof he did have more updated intelligence stating there were absolutely no WMD, stating absolutely there were no terrorist links, stating absolutely the threat was non-existant, BEFORE march 19 2003. What hammepned from March 19 on is irrellevant to the invasion. It already occured.
As to what Bush "would have done had he known then what he knows now"
That is another no-win scenario. Let's say Bush relents and says, "Yup, I made a mistake. The intelligence was wrong or I should have listened to less reliable reports that our intelligence was not as accurate as we thought it was." What then? What possible "up side" is there? None! The U.S. is commited in the area. The job has to be finished now. The strategy is to get a government in place and get out once things stabalize.
The tactics are all wrong. But we are there. We are there because AT THE TIME WE WENT THERE we had mountains of evidence that there was a credible threat to our national security. Anything beyond that is politics. Democrats were as much for the invasion at the time of the invasion. What happened a day after the invasion is irrelevant to the fact the US is there and must complete the task.
Unless people see this, I see it as so much Monday-morning quarter-backing. Would'ves and should'evs didn't work when we were kids. But as adults it works in politics?
Jewish slur? Since when did "neocon" have anything to do with Jews or any other religion? "Neo" is a prefix meaning "New". "Con" is a contraction of the word "conservative". I don't see anything jewish about it.
Read the 9/11 Commission's report. You're wrong, as usual. Bush's sources had already been discounted, but he chose to ignore that intel because it didn't coincide with his plans.
As USUAL? Welcome to my killfile troll!
Last words to you from me...
The 9/11 report says nothing about ABSOLUTELY no WMDs. Nothing about ABSOLUTELY no threat. The reports mentioned on the 9/11 commission AT THE TIME were not from sources deemed 100% credible.
Wont see ya
there has always been disruption for some years after a war. That's just historical observation. Most recent one I can think of is Germany at the end of WW2 - very similar to Iraq today.
As for "no electricity" - get a clue - more Iraqis have electricity now than they did under the old regime. Same holds true for other infrastructure items, and it's getting better by the day.
I notice you jump from "could be considered a strong man" to "a strong man who doesn't hate us". By that logic, I could jump from "your dog could bite a child" to "your dog has killed a child" without further evidence.
As for whether we see more freedom and democracy in the Middle East, the jury is still out. These things do NOT happen overnight, or even 'over-year'.
What evidence are you providing that refutes what I' m saying?
If electricity availability has improved, well then maybe I should take that piece back(haven't seen much evidence one way or another). But the rest of it, I stand completely behind. Just because the administration's propaganda is parroted doesn't make it so.
Explain this to me...if Bush cared one iota about facts, why did he not allow the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs? I'll tell you why. Because he and his cronies wanted war with an overmatched foe desperately. They drooled over a quick victory that would give them the admiration of an easily-too-fooled populace. Unfortunately, the one thing they did not count on is the persistence of the insurgency. So over a year later, we are still there without any hope we will be able to extricate ourselves out of there. Unless of course, we always wanted to establish bases there for a permanent presence(a much more logical explanation for the war, than the discredited WMD pretense or the non existent Iraq/Al Qaeda link).
One other reason the war made so little sense is our severe budget shortfalls. Our budget deficits keep getting bigger, and yet the Iraq mess makes it amost impossible to do anything about it. And the surprise of it all, Bush's friends are laughing all the way to the bank with all the war profiteering going on.