Possibly the most disgusting and idiotic article I have ever seen in my entire life..

[OklahomaTuba]

What a dumb *** POS.


Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.


I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Fine leftist thought. Void of any intelligence, just hate.

[yermom]

the second part you quoted doesn't seem that far off base

[OklahomaTuba]

Only to you and these people it doesn't.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/shoottheirofficers.jpg

[yermom]

I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.

that isn't too hateful

[OklahomaTuba]

Nice to know we have people on here that also believe our brave men and women fighting for this country are nothing but "imperialistic tools".

[OklahomaTuba]

that isn't too hateful
Well good, you found one paragrah he was able to control his leftist hate.

one out of how many?

:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/sc...find.html?_r=1


Brain scans confirm the irrationality of partisan political thinking. MRIs of 30 partisan Democrats and Republicans show each group judging flip-flops by the other's candidate (Bush or Kerry) harshly. But when exposed to flip-flops by its own candidate, each group shows activation of brain regions that regulate negative feelings, administer forgiveness, and express relief and happiness. "The 'cold reasoning' regions of the cortex were relatively quiet."

[yermom]

Only to you and these people it doesn't.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/shoottheirofficers.jpg

so not throwing them a parade is the same as shooting their officers? :confused:

i don't see anywhere where he condones violence

saying "i support the troops" could be a little weak if you don't agree with what they are doing in Iraq, that is how i read it

[OklahomaTuba]

saying "i support the troops" could be a little weak if you don't agree with what they are doing in Iraq, that is how i read it

Hmm, ok.

So if you don't support the troops and what they are doing(whether you like it or not, they are doing it), does that then mean you hope they fail at the job they are doing?

And since having them fail means they get killed and we lose a war, does that then mean you hope they all die and hope your country loses a war??

Disgusting. Anyone who thinks like that should just move. Maybe to Iran.

[KaiserSooner]

Nice to know we have people on here that also believe our brave men and women fighting for this country are nothing but "imperialistic tools".

Well, our brave men and women are at the behest of Washington's policy.

The judgement isn't against those who join up, but against those who formulate the policy in DC.

Wait, I'm trying to reason with Tuba. Never the twain shall meet.

[yermom]

Hmm, ok.

So if you don't support the troops and what they are doing(whether you like it or not, they are doing it), does that then mean you hope they fail at the job they are doing?

And since having them fail means they get killed and we lose a war, does that then mean you hope they all die and hope your country loses a war??

Disgusting. Anyone who thinks like that should just move. Maybe to Iran.

i don't remember reading where he said that he wanted them to fail

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, our brave men and women are at the behest of Washington's policy.

The judgement isn't against those who join up, but against those who formulate the policy in DC.

Wait, I'm trying to reason with Tuba. Never the twain shall meet.

No, you're trying (very poorly as well) to defend the words and actions of a nutcase. Which isn't out of the norm for you it seems.

[Hatfield]

Hmm, ok.

So if you don't support the troops and what they are doing(whether you like it or not, they are doing it), does that then mean you hope they fail at the job they are doing?

And since having them fail means they get killed and we lose a war, does that then mean you hope they all die and hope your country loses a war??

Disgusting. Anyone who thinks like that should just move. Maybe to Iran.


jesus tap dancing christ.

to me I understand when people say they have a hard time "supporting the troops" when they don't support the war. That makes sense...how can you support the instruments of the thing you don't support.

Does that mean you don't want the troops safe return? of course not.
does it mean you want the U.S. to fail? of course not.
does it mean you want the troops to die? hell no.

[OklahomaTuba]

i don't remember reading where he said that he wanted them to failNo, he just doesn't support them succeeding in a job they really had no choice in doing. Its common sense really.

[Pieces Hit]

Oh, it's hit the fan NOW.

[1stTimeCaller]

Tuba = SoonerScooter?

who knew? ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

to me I understand when people say they have a hard time "supporting the troops" when they don't support the war. That makes sense...how can you support the instruments of the thing you don't support.

Very easily. We are there, so we better win and get our men and women home. You can hate the war on terror all you want, the fact is we are there. Nothing will change that.

As an American, its your duty to support the people that defend us and sacrifice their lives for us.

To do anything other than that is UnAmerican, and frankly disgusting.

If you are too blinded by HATE for our President, our troops, or you just like the idea of your country failing in a war to liberate millions and keep you and your family safe, than maybe you need to stop drinking the koolaid.

[IronSooner]

Just because your kids do something you don't like or agree with doesn't mean you don't like your kids.

[OklahomaTuba]

Just because your kids do something you don't like or agree with doesn't mean you don't like your kids.Not true if you are a far left wacko it would seem.

[Ike]

this is a great thread.













http://press.comedycentral.com/images/press/gallery/h/commies/triumph.jpg
FOR ME TO POOP ON!

and yes, the large image was intentional

[JohnnyMack]

Tuba called somebody else a nutcase.

Heh.

[achiro]

You'd think that someone so smart could figure out how to downsize such a HUGE picture!;)

[WisconsinSooner]

"LA Times: I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.

But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam."

So many errors and so little time but to throw out my two cents: 1. I guess some ethnic genocide is more important than others hence the author ignoring the genocide of the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq. Deposing Milosevic or deposing Saddam Hussein I don't see much difference other than Saddam Hussein was much more of a direct threat to the U.S. than Milosevic. 2. Tool of American Imperialism? "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations." By definition I just don't see how that fits unless you are willing to believe we will continue to exercise predominant influence over the Iraqi political system for the long term which I for one do not.

And the bias it takes to consider this war and the Vietnam war comparable deserves it’s own thread.

Back to work. :(

[GrapevineSooner]

Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

Talk about moving the goalposts.

[OklahomaTuba]

With a paper that writes crap like this, no wonder...
http://media.michellemalkin.com/images/trb.pnghttp://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TRB&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

[Cam]

Serious question:

If you know that it's going to **** you off, why do you read it? Do you just need something to be ****ed about?

The guy has an opinion, just as the rest of us do. The great thing about this country is that he's allowed to express it.

Would you really want to live in a world where everybody thought the same? I don't really think I would.

[85Sooner]

Right with ya tuba. Just too tired to argue right now.

[soonerscuba]

The most retarded thing a nation can do is make it's leader interchangeable with the state.

Liberal: I'm against the war.
Conservative: Well, you must not like Bush.
Liberal: Not really.
Conservative: I guess you hate America too?
Liberal: Not really.
Conservative: Whatever, comrade.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well, our brave men and women are at the behest of Washington's policy.

The judgement isn't against those who join up, but against those who formulate the policy in DC.

Wait, I'm trying to reason with Tuba. Never the twain shall meet.:P In my humble opinion, you are just trying to reason...AND FAILING. Those who join up know that they might well have to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, and a good number of them join up BECAUSE they will go to fight the war against terrorism in one of those places.

[Jerk]

The most retarded thing a nation can do is make it's leader interchangeable with the state.

Liberal: I'm against the war.
Conservative: Well, you must not like Bush.
Liberal: Not really.
Conservative: I guess you hate America too?
Liberal: Not really.
Conservative: Whatever, comrade.

This cuts both ways. After the OKC bombing, anyone who wanted to reduce the size and scope of government and believed that .gov had too much power was painted as a right wing nut case in the same mold as Mcviegh by the Clinton Admin.

[Hatfield]

i think the important thing here is that you always find a way to place blame back on clinton...that will make everything better...and somehow relevant to the current topic of conversation. ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i think the important thing here is that you always find a way to place blame back on clinton...that will make everything better...and somehow relevant to the current topic of conversation. ;)You guys always hammer on why Bush hasn't yet caught Bin Laden. Well, your man Clinton had Bin Laden for the taking more than once, but turned down the opportunities. Is his blaming der schlickmeister so far off base?

[proud gonzo]

Very easily. We are there, so we better win and get our men and women home. You can hate the war on terror all you want, the fact is we are there. Nothing will change that.

As an American, its your duty to support the people that defend us and sacrifice their lives for us.

To do anything other than that is UnAmerican, and frankly disgusting.

If you are too blinded by HATE for our President, our troops, or you just like the idea of your country failing in a war to liberate millions and keep you and your family safe, than maybe you need to stop drinking the koolaid.

no, it is our duty as americans to question our government and hold the exectutive branch to its responsibilities and keep it in check. There's nothing unamerican about questioning our military goals. NOT taking a critical look would be unamerican.

oh, and btw--expressing opinions is american too.

[KaiserSooner]

:P In my humble opinion, you are just trying to reason...AND FAILING. Those who join up know that they might well have to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, and a good number of them join up BECAUSE they will go to fight the war against terrorism in one of those places.

That's nice and all, but my point had little to do with the motives of those who join up and everything to do with the fact that the military does what Washington tells it, and that those of us who are against the war are not against those serving in the military, but against the policies being promulgated by Washington.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's nice and all, but my point had little to do with the motives of those who join up and everything to do with the fact that the military does what Washington tells it, and that those of us who are against the war are not against those serving in the military, but against the policies being promulgated by Washington.Next election is '08. Bill and Hillary are rarin' to go, and asking for your vote.

[Jerk]

Next election is '08. Bill and Hillary are rarin' to go, and asking for your vote.

Who's going to be her running mate? Hugo Chavez or Jane Fonda?

[Boffingham]

When I find bin Laden, I'm gonna suggest Los Angeles

[OklahomaTuba]

Dumb *** did a radio interview. You can tell he is obviously an intellectual heavyweight. No doubt a hero of the left.


HH: Let me ask you a tough question, Joel, because this is the toughest one. J.P. Blecksmith was a young Marine lieutenant, graduated from Annapolis, killed in Fallujah on November 11th, 2004. Just a tremendous human being and man. If you meet his parents on the street, what do you say to them?
JS: That I'm so, so sorry.

HH: Do you honor the service that their son did?

JS: To honor the service their son...now this is a dumb question, but what do you mean by honor? That's a word you keep using. I'm not entirely...maybe that's my problem. But I'm not entirely sure what you're...

HH: Honor usually means gratitude and esteem. Are you grateful for and esteem what he did? Honestly?

JS: Honestly? I admire the bravery. I don't...you know, I feel like he did something I could never do, so I'm kind of in awe on some level. Am I grateful, that I feel like he protected me? Um, no I don't.

HH: And so, do you think he died in vain?

JS: Yeah. I do. And that's why I'm so horrified by all this, and why I don't want empty sentiments prolonging the war.

HH: And the people who've died in Afghanistan. Have they died in vain?

JS: Well, if they haven't, what have they accomplished?

HH: I'm asking you, Joel. You wrote the column. You tell me. Have they accomplished nothing?

JS: Well, um, do I think that I, as an American, are safer because of what they did?

HH: That wasn't what I asked. I askd did they accomplish anything in going to Afghanistan.

JS: If I were an Afghani, I would probably...if I lived in Kabul, I probably would think that they accomplished something, sure.

HH: All right. Now have you read any books on the military? I mean, do you read this stuff at all, like Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts?

JS: No. No, I'm not an expert at this at all. I mean, I think you certainly can tell.http://radioblogger.com/#001332

[OklahomaTuba]

no, it is our duty as americans to question our government and hold the exectutive branch to its responsibilities and keep it in check. There's nothing unamerican about questioning our military goals. NOT taking a critical look would be unamerican.

oh, and btw--expressing opinions is american too.

Hmm, somewhere you seem to be missing the point.

Where exactly did anyone say ANYTHING about questioning the government in this? Nowhere. The troops didn't decide to go to war. A fact lost on some it seems.

This is about supporting OUR TROOPS.

If you don't support your nations troops fighting in a war, then who are you supporting?

[OklahomaTuba]

That's nice and all, but my point had little to do with the motives of those who join up and everything to do with the fact that the military does what Washington tells it, and that those of us who are against the war are not against those serving in the military, but against the policies being promulgated by Washington.Seems your point of view of supporting the troops but not the job they are doing (which is kind of stupid really) is losing ground among your fellow lefties.

[yermom]

Hmm, somewhere you seem to be missing the point.

Where exactly did anyone say ANYTHING about questioning the government in this? Nowhere. The troops didn't decide to go to war. A fact lost on some it seems.

This is about supporting OUR TROOPS.

If you don't support your nations troops fighting in a war, then who are you supporting?

the writer did, he said they joined up without a choice as to where to go and feels that they are being misused over there

at least that is how i read it

are we reading the same text? i don't see him calling them babykillers or wishing that they all died.

in the above quote he expresses sorrow for a Marine that died, but thinks he died in vain

[OklahomaTuba]

the writer did, he said they joined up without a choice as to where to go and feels that they are being misused over there

at least that is how i read it

Yet he goes out of his way to say he doesn't support them, and saying they have accomplished nothing.

Interesting.

Again, if you can't support your nations troops fighting a war, who do you support?

[JohnnyMack]

Pacificism and Tuba just don't get along.

[yermom]

Yet he goes out of his way to say he doesn't support them, and saying they have accomplished nothing.

Interesting.


are you debating what i wrote? if you are, i don't understand

ok, the edit makes it more clear.

i think part of the problem is that "support" apparently means different things to different people

[OUstudent4life]

Hmm, somewhere you seem to be missing the point.

Where exactly did anyone say ANYTHING about questioning the government in this? Nowhere. The troops didn't decide to go to war. A fact lost on some it seems.

This is about supporting OUR TROOPS.

If you don't support your nations troops fighting in a war, then who are you supporting?

I support our troops...I pay my taxes, and am proud that there are men and women out there doing things I have no desire or ability to do.

But I still disagree with the reasoning behind the war, and don't appreciate a government that doesn't seem to respect the intelligence of it's public.

I support the troops and the war effort, I just don't support the war.

And personally, after seeing how our government often treats its own troops when they get home, I think I support them a lot more than most of the government does. When private organizations have to be formed to get injured troops decent medical care because of the injuries they suffered in the a war they were ordered into, I feel the government has failed them.

But that's just me.

But yes, Tuba, that guy is pretty much an idiot. He just has the means to broadcast his voice further than the general population.

[soonerscuba]

Pacificism and Tuba just don't get along.

I dabbled in pacificism once, not in 'Nam of course.

[yermom]

I dabbled in pacificism once, not in 'Nam of course.

you're not wrong Scuba, you're just an *** hole

[OklahomaTuba]

i think part of the problem is that "support" apparently means different things to different people

Well, if you can't figure out what it means to support your country when your fellow men and women are fighting for freedom abroad, then your one messed up POS.

[OklahomaTuba]

Patriotism and JohnnyMack just don't get along.Fixed it for you.

[OklahomaTuba]

I dabbled in pacificism once, not in 'Nam of course.So did Britain. 1939 I believe. Worked out well for them I hear.

[OUstudent4life]

Well, if you can't figure out what it means to support your country when your fellow men and women are fighting for freedom abroad, then your one messed up POS.

Well, in the interest of an enlightened conversation, what does it mean to you?

[mdklatt]

Well, in the interest of an enlightened conversation, what does it mean to you?

Accept everything the Republicans say and do without question, and reject everything the Democrats say and do without question--duh!

[frankensooner]

Last night we went to see Smuckers' Stars On Ice. There was a lady sitting in front of us. She was very grumpy. Everytime someone walked past her, she sat there shaking her head angrily and huffing and puffing. She seemed so miserable. She seemed to hate everyone. I felt sorry for her, luckily only 2k people showed up for the show, so I moved far away from her, seeing how the Ford Center holds 18k. I think I will do the same with this thread.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well, in the interest of an enlightened conversation, what does it mean to you?

This site does a good job of showing what it means to me.

http://www.americasupportsyou.mil

Showing you care, hoping they do their job and do it well, praying they win and come home safe.

Oh there I go again, with my fascist neo-con rants about winning wars and praying soldiers actually do their job successfully and come home unharmed, and not rooting for their and my countries failure.

[OUstudent4life]

This site does a good job of showing what it means to me.

http://www.americasupportsyou.mil

Showing you care, hoping they do their job and do it well, praying they win and come home safe.

Oh there I go again, with my fascist neo-con rants about winning wars and praying soldiers actually do their job successfully and come home unharmed, and not rooting for their and my countries failure.

See? I've got no problem with that. So I support my troops, but don't support the war itself. Is that OK?

The only problem with your statement is "praying they win." Nothing wrong at all with praying, heck, nothing at all wrong with "praying they win." I do the same thing. The problem is that our government has stated that we're fighting a "war on terror;" as such, I believe we'll never "win." That war has never been won in the past, and I'm betting won't be won in the future. At this point, in support of our troops, all I want is definable goals so we know when those troops we support are going to be able to come home. I don't like it when the government says "well, we're not going to give a goal, because that's just a form of giving in to the terrorists. They'll let us get to that point, we'll leave, and then it will 'hit the fan'."

[Pricetag]

But yes, Tuba, that guy is pretty much an idiot. He just has the means to broadcast his voice further than the general population.
The funny thing is that he's arguing the same point that most of the pro-war folks have, that you can't support the troops without supporting the war. You'd think they'd at least appreciate his consistency.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Seems your point of view of supporting the troops but not the job they are doing (which is kind of stupid really) is losing ground among your fellow lefties.YES! I remember when I first heard someone say that. I thought "What a crock of s*it!". They seemed to think that was a smart way of protesting. Actually, it makes no sense, because if you don't support their mission, then you are placing our troops into greater likelihood of being attacked and being killed or wounded.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Who's going to be her running mate? Hugo Chavez or Jane Fonda?I'm thinking Robert KKK Byrd, to balance out the ticket.(since Bill Clinton was the country's first black president)

[OklahomaTuba]

The problem is that our government has stated that we're fighting a "war on terror;" as such, I believe we'll never "win." That war has never been won in the past, and I'm betting won't be won in the future.OK, so given we are at war, with soldiers fighting and dying, you don't support the attempt to even try to win?

What do we do then? Run away? Cut'n Run?

In case you havn't noticed, we havn't had a huge attack since 9-11, we have killed a whole lotta terrorists and given two top supporters of terrorism and tyranny a chance at democracy by freeing millions.

Kind of hard to argue the facts.


At this point, in support of our troops, all I want is definable goals so we know when those troops we support are going to be able to come home. I don't like it when the government says "well, we're not going to give a goal, because that's just a form of giving in to the terrorists. They'll let us get to that point, we'll leave, and then it will 'hit the fan'."
This is that stupid argument of telling people what your going to do in a war.

Sorry, but you can't do that and expect to win.

You know, I doubt Bob Stoops would tell Mack Brown what his game plan was going to be for a football game, so forgive me if I think its a really dumb *** idea to do basically the same damn thing in a war with lives on the line, millions of them.

[yermom]

the effortless transition between the Straw Man arguments and the Slippery Slope ones amuse me

[NormanPride]

the effortless transition between the Straw Man arguments and the Slippery Slope ones amuse me

Why?

[WisconsinSooner]

I think it would be more interesting to hear the anti-war movement members of the board try to come up with a logical, factual basis for not supporting the war. It's easy to sit back and say I don't support it. It's quite another to give a reason why.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think it would be more interesting to hear the anti-war movement members of the board try to come up with a logical, factual...

Good job, you just ran the anti-war folks off with that. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

the effortless transition between the Straw Man arguments and the Slippery Slope ones amuse meLike which ones??

[OUstudent4life]

YES! I remember when I first heard someone say that. I thought "What a crock of s*it!". They seemed to think that was a smart way of protesting. Actually, it makes no sense, because if you don't support their mission, then you are placing our troops into greater likelihood of being attacked and being killed or wounded.

Now that makes no sense to me at all. How is my disagreeing with the government's management of the war putting troops in danger? I'm not in charge of the troops. I never could be in charge of ANY troops. Hell, I have a hard time making my dog listen to me; I can't fathom what kind of loyalty one must inspire in those around him/her to lead troops into battle. The troops are there, and I want them to kick *** and get home, and I want our governement to A)get them home safe, and B) do the job right. I just wish grainy pictures hadn't been waved in my face, saying "LOOK! MOBILE CHEMICAL WEAPONS! LET'S GO GET THEM!" You know why I didn't like that? 'cause when I heard it, I thought, well, if they've really got them, we better get over there. We're s'posed to be the most powerful nation on Earth, and the best we can do is start a war on poor intelligence data?

The only reason I continue to argue these points is that I feel there is a growing thought process in the US that if you are in the minority (i.e. a Democrat), you are un-American because you believe the governement should be run differently. To that end...were all the Republicans un-American when the governement was run by somebody else? It's just frustrating to see people think that if I am not 100% pro-USA in EVERY policy we are currently pursuing, I'm the enemy.

If there were never dessenting voices, we'd all still be singing "God Save the Queen."

and now I'll shut up :D.

[OUstudent4life]

Good job, you just ran the anti-war folks off with that. ;)

Sorry, I was typing my preceding post.

[OUstudent4life]

I think it would be more interesting to hear the anti-war movement members of the board try to come up with a logical, factual basis for not supporting the war. It's easy to sit back and say I don't support it. It's quite another to give a reason why.

My current line of reasoning:

1) Iraq's prior leadership = uber bad. Nasty, nasty people that should never have been in charge. As they were the minority in the country, I've never quite figured out how they stayed in charge. Infighting, I guess.
2) Our governement's reasons for war: Iraq had or was close to obtaining WMD. Not that they were trying to obtain them, but that they had them. That was the original stance. Also, there was the tenuous link to Al Qaida, but we won't get into that.
3) If the government had said: look, we don't like Saddam, and we think he shouldn't be in charge any more. He's done ALL this bad crap (solidly proved) and we think we, or a whole big group of us (the world) need to get him out of power, by any means necessary...then I might have been ok with it all. It kinda worked to get Slobodon out of power, I thought we might have learned a little from that.
4) In retrospect, I feel like I was lied to by the government for the reasons behind the war.
5) I don't like being lied to, especially by a group of people that has significant power over me.
6) Therefore, I don't support the government's war effort.
7) The troops have no say in their orders to war. They're ordered, that's their job, they do it and they do it extremely well. A vast majority of them do it in as an ethical manner as possible. I support the heck out of those guys.

There. That's the best I can come up with on the limited amount of information I have. If I had more, I'd be quite open to chaning my mind. I'm reasonable. But it better be home-run-definite information; risking people's lives is too high a price.

[OklahomaTuba]

The only reason I continue to argue these points is that I feel there is a growing thought process in the US that if you are in the minority (i.e. a Democrat), you are un-American because you believe the governement should be run differently.

And I really don't see this growing thought process at all.

Its more of a case-by-case situation, like is fighting terrorism a good thing, is locking up terrorists and treating them as such a good thing, is spying on terrorists a good thing.

In almost every case, there seems to be this sept. 10th mentality that no one is out to get us, there is no war, its all just Bush is bad, Bush is evil, Bush is creating all this bad stuff, etc.

Hell, people were blaming Bush for friggin hurricanes this summer!!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I support the Troops and the War in Iraq, I think Saddam had to be taken out of power because he was more or less the idol of the region...he was the only one who ever stood up to the U.S. and when we took him down it was a huge blow. That being said...great post OUstudent4life, it was well thought out and reasoned. I would remind everyone sometimes there isn't a completely right answer.

[OUstudent4life]

And I really don't see this growing thought process at all.

Its more of a case-by-case situation, like is fighting terrorism a good thing, is locking up terrorists and treating them as such a good thing, is spying on terrorists a good thing.

In almost every case, there seems to be this sept. 10th mentality that no one is out to get us, there is no war, its all just Bush is bad, Bush is evil, Bush is creating all this bad stuff, etc.

Hell, people were blaming Bush for friggin hurricanes this summer!!

And those people are FREAKING INSANE.

Look, here's my final viewpoint on the war in Iraq. I think there are people out to get us. I think the war on terror is actually a just and noble cause. In terms of the other stuff, I don't think Bush is evil, I just don't think he's running the government correctly and I don't like the feeling that we got into Iraq without really knowing what we were getting in to. But since I voted for the other guy, and lost, all I can do right now is complain on the internet :D.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well if Jesus Kanye West says that Bush causes Hurricans and hates black people...who am I to argue ;)


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/25/west_narrowweb__300x364,0.jpg

[OklahomaTuba]

My current line of reasoning:

1) Iraq's prior leadership = uber bad. Nasty, nasty people that should never have been in charge. As they were the minority in the country, I've never quite figured out how they stayed in charge. Infighting, I guess.
Same here. Our support & the Cold war had something to do with that though.


2) Our governement's reasons for war: Iraq had or was close to obtaining WMD. Not that they were trying to obtain them, but that they had them. That was the original stance. Also, there was the tenuous link to Al Qaida, but we won't get into that.
All very true, and I will say that if you were the prez, and you got all this info after 3,000 people lay dead in the streets of NYC, you might have a different view on things.


3) If the government had said: look, we don't like Saddam, and we think he shouldn't be in charge any more. He's done ALL this bad crap (solidly proved) and we think we, or a whole big group of us (the world) need to get him out of power, by any means necessary...then I might have been ok with it all. It kinda worked to get Slobodon out of power, I thought we might have learned a little from that.
But the problem with this is, everyone thought he has WMD. Even the nations that Saddam had in his back pocket that opposed the war told us this. And it turned out he had some capabilities and ton of enriched uranium. Also, he had plenty of time to get stuff to Syria. As for Milosovich, that really isn't a model of how stuff needs to go. He is still on trial.


4) In retrospect, I feel like I was lied to by the government for the reasons behind the war.But if everyone said the same thing, going back over 10 years, how can you feel lied too? Being wrong and being lied to are two very different things.


5) I don't like being lied to, especially by a group of people that has significant power over me.See above.


6) Therefore, I don't support the government's war effort.
Very closed minded in my opinion. You may have opposed going to war, but that doesn't change the FACT that we are there. Would you say you don't want us to win then??


7) The troops have no say in their orders to war. They're ordered, that's their job, they do it and they do it extremely well. A vast majority of them do it in as an ethical manner as possible. I support the heck out of those guys.
Actually, they did have a say in their orders.

Remember the 2004 Presidential election? I think I saw that 80% of the Armed Forces voted for Bush.

Also, they seem to have many people that volunteered for more tours of duty.

And another thing, many people are still joining the armed forces. Only one branch had problems, but the others are AHEAD in recruiting last I saw. Let us remember that military service is still a choice right now. Lets hope the problems with Iran don't make it a mandatory duty.

[mdklatt]

I think it would be more interesting to hear the anti-war movement members of the board try to come up with a logical, factual basis for not supporting the war. It's easy to sit back and say I don't support it. It's quite another to give a reason why.

I'm not anti-war, but there are legitimate arguments for why we should leave now and why we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Why we should leave now:

The Iraqi military and police will never become a viable force as long as they're being overshadowed by the US military. They need to stand on their own.

The military is severely overextended. There's no way we could react to a protracted conflict somewhere else in the world right now--Korea, perhaps. We'd have a hard time reacting to another reginal flare-up. Why do you think we're letting the Europeans deal with Iran right now? We can't even protect our own border with Mexico.

Supporting the troops means above all wanting them not dead. They're a lot less likely to die at Fort Hood than in a Baghdad alley. If we don't even have the money (or the foresight) to properly equip them with body armor what the hell are they doing in harm's way? And because of budget cuts--guess why?--veterans are getting the shaft on health benefits.



Why we shouldn't have been there in the first place:

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the safety of the US. Even at the height of his power, Saddam only seemed interested in harassing his neighbors. After 1991 he didn't even have the capacity to do that. Even if/when he developed WMDs he didn't have the capability to directly hit the US with them.

Iraq was not the front line of the War on Terror as the Bush Administration tried to sell us (although it is now). All Iraqi terrorist support was to regional groups (e.g Palestinian suicide bombers) that did not actively target Western interests.

Read my lips: The US should not be in the business of nation building. Sound familiar? That was a key point of Bush's 2000 campaign, which resonated with all the Republicans (and me) wondering WTF we were doing policing ****holes like Yugoslavia and Somalia (although Bush Sr. started that one).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Now that makes no sense to me at all. How is my disagreeing with the government's management of the war putting troops in danger? I'm not in charge of the troops. I never could be in charge of ANY troops. Hell, I have a hard time making my dog listen to me; I can't fathom what kind of loyalty one must inspire in those around him/her to lead troops into battle. The troops are there, and I want them to kick *** and get home, and I want our governement to A)get them home safe, and B) do the job right. I just wish grainy pictures hadn't been waved in my face, saying "LOOK! MOBILE CHEMICAL WEAPONS! LET'S GO GET THEM!" You know why I didn't like that? 'cause when I heard it, I thought, well, if they've really got them, we better get over there. We're s'posed to be the most powerful nation on Earth, and the best we can do is start a war on poor intelligence data?

The only reason I continue to argue these points is that I feel there is a growing thought process in the US that if you are in the minority (i.e. a Democrat), you are un-American because you believe the governement should be run differently. To that end...were all the Republicans un-American when the governement was run by somebody else? It's just frustrating to see people think that if I am not 100% pro-USA in EVERY policy we are currently pursuing, I'm the enemy.

If there were never dessenting voices, we'd all still be singing "God Save the Queen."

and now I'll shut up :D.Sounds pretty much like you do support the war effort-that of WINNING, not cut and run like so many on the left.

[yermom]

I'm not anti-war, but there are legitimate arguments for why we should leave now and why we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Why we should leave now:

The Iraqi military and police will never become a viable force as long as they're being overshadowed by the US military. They need to stand on their own.

The military is severely overextended. There's no way we could react to a protracted conflict somewhere else in the world right now--Korea, perhaps. We'd have a hard time reacting to another reginal flare-up. Why do you think we're letting the Europeans deal with Iran right now? We can't even protect our own border with Mexico.


Why we shouldn't have been there in the first place:

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the safety of the US. Even at the height of his power, Saddam only seemed interested in harassing his neighbors. After 1991 he didn't even have the capacity to do that. Even if/when he developed WMDs he didn't have the capability to directly hit the US with them.

Iraq was not the front line of the War on Terror as the Bush Administration tried to sell us (although it is now). All Iraqi terrorist support was to regional groups (e.g Palestinian suicide bombers) that did not actively target Western interests.

Read my lips: The US should not be in the business of nation building. Sound familiar? That was a key point of Bush's 2000 campaign, which resonated with all the Republicans wondering WTF we were doing policing ****holes like Yugoslavia and Somalia (although Bush Sr. started that one).


so, what you are saying is that you don't support the troops

[1stTimeCaller]

If you hate those that excercise their First Amendment Rights you hate America.

[OklahomaTuba]

If you hate those that excercise their First Amendment Rights you hate America.Does that also apply to those that excercise their 2nd amendment rights as well? Cause we seem to have plenty of those.

[mdklatt]

Does that also apply to those that excercise their 2nd amendment rights as well?

Yes.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you hate those that excercise their First Amendment Rights you hate America. What you talkin' bout, huh?

[1stTimeCaller]

the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Ever heard of it? ;)

[NormanPride]

I thought we'd already won? The whole "Mission Accomplished" thing? But then again, I hate the news and try to stay in my little hole as much as possible.

[mdklatt]

I thought we'd already won? The whole "Mission Accomplished" thing? But then again, I hate the news and try to stay in my little hole as much as possible.

That mission was accomplished. Iraq is ours. Now we just need to figure out what to do with it.

[NormanPride]

That mission was accomplished. Iraq is ours. Now we just need to figure out what to do with it.

Um... is this where the chocolate city comes in? Because I thought we established that wouldn't work with the new Willy Wonka movie.

[Pricetag]

We can't even protect our own border with Mexico.
Great post, but I only wanted to quote the part that I wanted to expand on.

The 9/11 terrorists had no problem getting here and staying here to execute the attacks. Our number one priority in response to it should have been protecting ourselves here. That means shutting down the borders, getting any questionable folks already here out, and keeping them out. I've said it before, the days of "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" died on 9/11. It's unfortunate, but it is reality. Anyone coming into this country illegally should be considered a possible terrorist and treated as such.

I'm sure the "taking the fight to the bad guys" argument will come into play here, and I think it is a valid one. Getting them before they get here is a good thing. But I don't like the way we've done it. The 9/11 attacks were done by a small but extremely well organized and funded Islamic terrorist network. IMO, if you want to fight those guys, you fight them on their level. You go after their money. You take them out one cell at a time via super-secret spy type stuff (which, based on the pre-Iraq intel, we suck at, but that's beside the point) and small forces, maybe special ops or something. A massive mobilization to topple a nation state like this is some kind of convential war, followed by a subsequent attempt to build a Western-style democracy where the concept is completely alien is not what I would have done.

[49r]

There are 300 million Americans in the world.


And 5 or 6 billion "terrorists".


that hate America

but Americans--all 300 million of them--don't hate America

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Ever heard of it? ;)I don't
understand why you accused someone of not believing a person should be allowed to exercise right to free speech without being called unpatriotic.

[SoonerProphet]

Great post, but I only wanted to quote the part that I wanted to expand on.

The 9/11 terrorists had no problem getting here and staying here to execute the attacks. Our number one priority in response to it should have been protecting ourselves here. That means shutting down the borders, getting any questionable folks already here out, and keeping them out. I've said it before, the days of "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" died on 9/11. It's unfortunate, but it is reality. Anyone coming into this country illegally should be considered a possible terrorist and treated as such.

I'm sure the "taking the fight to the bad guys" argument will come into play here, and I think it is a valid one. Getting them before they get here is a good thing. But I don't like the way we've done it. The 9/11 attacks were done by a small but extremely well organized and funded Islamic terrorist network. IMO, if you want to fight those guys, you fight them on their level. You go after their money. You take them out one cell at a time via super-secret spy type stuff (which, based on the pre-Iraq intel, we suck at, but that's beside the point) and small forces, maybe special ops or something. A massive mobilization to topple a nation state like this is some kind of convential war, followed by a subsequent attempt to build a Western-style democracy where the concept is completely alien is not what I would have done.

Well said, especially the conventional war and nation building part. Waste of time, money, and lives.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I thought we'd already won? The whole "Mission Accomplished" thing?What a silly, patronizing comment.

[1stTimeCaller]

I don't understand why you accused someone of not believing a person should be allowed to exercise right to free speech without being called unpatriotic.

facts are facts. you can't argue with me on this one because I have the facts behind me.

please do expand on your unpatriotic idea there, Bill.

[yermom]

Great post, but I only wanted to quote the part that I wanted to expand on.

The 9/11 terrorists had no problem getting here and staying here to execute the attacks. Our number one priority in response to it should have been protecting ourselves here. That means shutting down the borders, getting any questionable folks already here out, and keeping them out. I've said it before, the days of "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" died on 9/11. It's unfortunate, but it is reality. Anyone coming into this country illegally should be considered a possible terrorist and treated as such.

I'm sure the "taking the fight to the bad guys" argument will come into play here, and I think it is a valid one. Getting them before they get here is a good thing. But I don't like the way we've done it. The 9/11 attacks were done by a small but extremely well organized and funded Islamic terrorist network. IMO, if you want to fight those guys, you fight them on their level. You go after their money. You take them out one cell at a time via super-secret spy type stuff (which, based on the pre-Iraq intel, we suck at, but that's beside the point) and small forces, maybe special ops or something. A massive mobilization to topple a nation state like this is some kind of convential war, followed by a subsequent attempt to build a Western-style democracy where the concept is completely alien is not what I would have done.


why do you want all our boys to die in Iraq?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

facts are facts. you can't argue with me on this one because I have the facts behind me.

please do expand on your unpatriotic idea there, Bill.Please reiterate the facts you're talking about. Maybe I missed something. I honestly don't know why you made the accusation.

[1stTimeCaller]

Please reiterate the facts you're talking about. Maybe I missed something. I honestly don't know why you made the accusation.

because it is a fact that you still have not disproven.

Silly pubz

[NormanPride]

What a silly, patronizing comment.

er, actaully it's not. I don't watch the news. I do remember people laughing at the display, though. I thought it was mainly because it was overdone.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well said, especially the conventional war and nation building part. Waste of time, money, and lives.
I am sure people in Afganistan and Iraq that turned out to vote on multiple occasions, and the US troops that gave their lives so that could happen would disagree with you.

[OklahomaTuba]

I don't watch the news.
Obviously not. ;)

[WisconsinSooner]

2) Our governement's reasons for war: Iraq had or was close to obtaining WMD. Not that they were trying to obtain them, but that they had them. That was the original stance. Also, there was the tenuous link to Al Qaida, but we won't get into that.
3) If the government had said: look, we don't like Saddam, and we think he shouldn't be in charge any more. He's done ALL this bad crap (solidly proved) and we think we, or a whole big group of us (the world) need to get him out of power, by any means necessary...then I might have been ok with it all. It kinda worked to get Slobodon out of power, I thought we might have learned a little from that.
4) In retrospect, I feel like I was lied to by the government for the reasons behind the war.
5) I don't like being lied to, especially by a group of people that has significant power over me.
6) Therefore, I don't support the government's war effort.

To Lie

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

There has never been a shred of evidence, not a single fact, that the inaccuracies of the evidence presented by the president was done with a deliberate intent to deceive.

The president, along with the rest of the world including the Clinton Administration and Democrats in Congress, believed that some WMD’s were still in the hands of Saddam Hussein. But this was far from the only reason the administration gave for going to war with Iraq, it just happens to the justification the media seized upon.



Here are a few of the reason given by the administration
a. Iraq was rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. (fact)
b. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a range of hundreds of miles in violation of the UN orders and the cease fire agreement. (fact)
c. Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. (fact)
d. Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. (fact) Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger.
e. We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy. (fact)
f. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. (fact) see the Clinton Administrations justification for the cruise missile strike on al Shifa plant in Sudan. see also the numerous meetings held between Uday & Qusay Hussein and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
g. al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq including one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. (fact)
h. Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. (fact)
i. Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. (fact) 500 tons of partially enriched uranium have been found since the war began as well as the equipment to continue the enrichment process. Also found were detailed plans of the regime for moving and hiding the equipment from inspectors.
j. Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. (fact known prior to the war)
k. from 1/02 to 10/02 the Iraqi military fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times. (fact)

For the Clinton Administration Al Qaeda/Saddam Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp)

For the Bush Administration: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp)

This is only a brief synopsis and all I have time to post.

[NormanPride]

Obviously not.

Thus my questions here. I know I can't compete with the likes of you guys on wasted time watching CSPAN, so I don't even try. ;) I figure if I want an opinion, someone else can have it for me. Until I have to vote for something, I don't care.

[OklahomaTuba]

Thus my questions here. I know I can't compete with the likes of you guys on wasted time watching CSPAN, so I don't even try. ;) I figure if I want an opinion, someone else can have it for me. Until I have to vote for something, I don't care.Sorry, meant it in jest really.

[OklahomaTuba]

To Lie

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

There has never been a shred of evidence, not a single fact, that the inaccuracies of the evidence presented by the president was done with a deliberate intent to deceive.

The president, along with the rest of the world including the Clinton Administration and Democrats in Congress, believed that some WMD’s were still in the hands of Saddam Hussein. But this was far from the only reason the administration gave for going to war with Iraq, it just happens to the justification the media seized upon.



Here are a few of the reason given by the administration
a. Iraq was rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. (fact)
b. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a range of hundreds of miles in violation of the UN orders and the cease fire agreement. (fact)
c. Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. (fact)
d. Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. (fact) Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger.
e. We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy. (fact)
f. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. (fact) see the Clinton Administrations justification for the cruise missile strike on al Shifa plant in Sudan. see also the numerous meetings held between Uday & Qusay Hussein and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
g. al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq including one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. (fact)
h. Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. (fact)
i. Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. (fact) 500 tons of partially enriched uranium have been found since the war began as well as the equipment to continue the enrichment process. Also found were detailed plans of the regime for moving and hiding the equipment from inspectors.
j. Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. (fact known prior to the war)
k. from 1/02 to 10/02 the Iraqi military fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times. (fact)

For the Clinton Administration Al Qaeda/Saddam Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp)

For the Bush Administration: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp)

This is only a brief synopsis and all I have time to post.

Lets not also forget that CLINTON signed this little known law into existance called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

But somehow, Darth Bush, knowing he would one day seize absolute control of the old republic, used his sith powers to make Clinton sign this into law so Darth Bush could feast on the unlimited barrels of oil and enrich his drinking buddies from Haliburton so they can build hurricanes that kill black people.

I think thats the latest version of the story from Liberal FantasyLand. I can't keep up though, since it changes so much.

[NormanPride]

Sorry, meant it in jest really.

:P No harm no foul, man.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

because it is a fact that you still have not disproven.

Silly pubzSorry, I don't know what you are referring to. I would address it if I knew. We should either start from scratch, or better yet, F'GET ABOUTIT.

[1stTimeCaller]

this is the fact:

If you hate those that excercise their First Amendment Rights you hate America.

GADOCADWI
get a dog or cat and deal with it.

[mdklatt]

To Lie

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.


It's pretty clear that there were lies by omission and distortion of the evidence regarding WMDs. All the dissenting intelligence estimates were squashed at some point. Was this done at the top or by people making sure the administration only heard what it wanted to hear? The Bush administration doesn't come across to me as the kind that encourages alternate viewpoints during the decision-making process.

[OklahomaTuba]

It's pretty clear that there were lies by omission and distortion of the evidence regarding WMDs.
Link?

Cause so far, there hasn't been a one that I have seen.

[OUstudent4life]

And another thing, many people are still joining the armed forces. Only one branch had problems, but the others are AHEAD in recruiting last I saw. Let us remember that military service is still a choice right now. Lets hope the problems with Iran don't make it a mandatory duty.

Just to expand this last point...yes, people are still joining the armed forces, and more power to them, but there's a significant problem: the Army (the workhorse of the current effort, in my thinking) is having to take category IV applicants at a rate that is scary.

But I'll also give it up to the effort...in the end, especially in Iraq, I think we're winning the war on terror. When the thugs start fighting each other, there's a problem. I'm never a fan of the concept of "the ends justify the means" or "might makes right," but we're winning, and that's pretty dang good.

OK, I'm done. I've got one seminar down today, one to go, and a ton of work to do. This thread has given me a decent amount to think about. Of course, since the war effort is screwing my future employment, I may still be angry tomorrow ;), but at least I'm an angry centrist :D.

[WisconsinSooner]

I guess what bothers me the most is that I can see not supporting the war if you're a pacifist. That's your right. I may not agree with you but that's your right. I can see not supporting the war because you don't like George Bush. That's ok, it's your right to feel that way. But what I don't understand is not supporting the war based on information that has no basis in fact. The facts about Iraq, WMD's and Al Qaeda are out there and quite honestly it's scary. We were fortunate to nip the relationship in the bud so to speak and have been extremely fortunate that they haven't used a chemical or biological weapen here. AND that they haven't yet, I believe, is due solely to our invasion of Iraq. To ignore the relationship that existed between al Qaeda, Sudan and Iraq prior to the war is just sticking your head in the sand regarding the facts.

Now I, like OUstudent4life, have allowed this to occupy entirely too much of my day at work.

[WisconsinSooner]

It's pretty clear that there were lies by omission and distortion of the evidence regarding WMDs. All the dissenting intelligence estimates were squashed at some point. Was this done at the top or by people making sure the administration only heard what it wanted to hear? The Bush administration doesn't come across to me as the kind that encourages alternate viewpoints during the decision-making process.

If you believe the Bush administration lied then you believe that John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton not to mention Tony Blair, France, Germany and hundreds of other leaders and politicians lied because they all reached the same conclusion, that Iraq still possessed WMD's. They had the same intellegence and reached the same conclusions.

[WisconsinSooner]

It's pretty clear . . .

So no, it's not pretty clear. It's not clear at all.

[Pieces Hit]

Didn't they truck all that stuff to that sweet little country to the west just before the war started to make us lose face?

I bet so.

[mdklatt]

Link?

Cause so far, there hasn't been a one that I have seen.

Can't find a link; not sure how to search for it.

At the time, all kinds of ex-CIA type people were explaining how intelligence estimates work. They were amazed that the stuff Bush, Powell et. al were quoting was so unequivocal. There was no way, they said, to be certain that Iraq had WMD's--especially when the UN weapons inspectors hadn't found anything. If we knew for sure that Iraq had this stuff why didn't we tell the inspectors where to look? And what about the Yellowcake Document? Are we supposed to believe that American and British intelligence were completely hoodwinked by what was later revealed to be a pretty lame forgery? Given that we haven't found the weapons the CIA was so sure were there--as far as we were told--does that mean they completely screwed the pooch? Either our intelligence agencies were incompetent, or they were distorting their results (probably a mix of both).

I agree with what the Bush administration is trying to do (most of the time), but I disagree with how they're trying to do it. In justifying the Iraq invasion they should have simply been upfront with everybody and said, "We're going into Iraq because Saddam is a bad dude. Even if he doesn't have WMDs now he's going to try to get them sooner or later, and he's already in violation of UN resolutions. You can't trust that rat bastard any farther than you can throw him. Not to mention that he's committing genocide against his own people. Our grand plan to wipe out terrorism and create peace in the Middle East is to spread democracy and freedom throughout the region. And we're starting in Iraq." Instead, Bush pushed the weakest (evidence-wise) arguments the most.

[WisconsinSooner]

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Senator Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also give aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.


If you think this was all on information doctored by Bush Administration check out these from BEFORE 2000.

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.), Congressional Record, February 12, 1998: "Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address. Saddam is a proven aggressor who has time and again turned his wrath on his neighbors and on his own people. Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. . . . The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist - it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will."

Sen. Kerry (Mass.), Congressional Record, March 13, 1998:
"Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interests to do so. . . . I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat. He must be deprived of the ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the weapons inspection standoff - and I will say clearly that I cannot conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point - we must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses."

Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.), Congressional Record, February 12, 1998:
"An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq's transgressions. Conversely, a firm response would enhance deterrence and go a long way toward protecting our citizens from the pernicious threat of proliferation. . . . Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Congressional Record, February 12, 1998:
"Today, the threat may not be as clear to other nations of the world, but its consequences are even more devastating potentially than the real threat, than the realized pain of the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, because the damage that can be inflicted by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous. . . . Mr. President, if this were a domestic situation, a political situation, and we were talking about criminal law in this country, we have something in our law called 'three strikes and you are out,' three crimes and you get locked up for good because we have given up on you. I think Saddam Hussein has had more than three strikes in the international, diplomatic, strategic and military community. So I have grave doubts that a diplomatic solution is possible here. . . . What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships."

Sen. Levin (Mich.), Congressional Record, February 12, 1998:
"Mr. President, this crisis is due entirely to the actions of Saddam Hussein. He alone is responsible. We all wish that diplomacy will cause him to back down but history does not give me cause for optimism that Saddam Hussein will finally get it. . . . Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. . . . Mr. President, the use of military force is a measure of last resort. The best choice of avoiding it will be if Saddam Hussein understands he has no choice except to open up to UNSCOM inspections and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The use of military force may not result in that desired result but it will serve to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten international peace and security. Although not as useful as inspection and destruction, it is still a worthy goal."

[mdklatt]

Then where are these weapons? Either our intelligence agencies suck or they were lying. And no, this isn't a Bush problem, it's a bureacracy problem. The government is just as incompetent regardless of who is in charge, but Americans are all too eager to sit back and trust it if the guy they voted for is in the White House. Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter--all equally clueless.

[Pricetag]

Didn't they truck all that stuff to that sweet little country to the west just before the war started to make us lose face?

I bet so.
This is one theory that I'll never buy. There has been nothing about Saddam's regime, going all the way back to before we de-nutted it in Desert Shield and Storm back in 1991, that gives me the impression that they'd be competent enough to pull something like that off.

IIRC, we encountered Iraqi troops with guns but no bullets during the invasion in 2003, but later found ammunition bunkers fully stocked. If they aren't smart enough to get the bullets to the guns, no way are they smart enough to get the WMD out of the country without us noticing.

[mdklatt]

If they aren't smart enough to get the bullets to the guns, no way are they smart enough to get the WMD out of the country without us noticing.

It's possible that we did notice but we're just keeping quiet for now.

[OklahomaTuba]

This is one theory that I'll never buy. There has been nothing about Saddam's regime, going all the way back to before we de-nutted it in Desert Shield and Storm back in 1991, that gives me the impression that they'd be competent enough to pull something like that off.

IIRC, we encountered Iraqi troops with guns but no bullets during the invasion in 2003, but later found ammunition bunkers fully stocked. If they aren't smart enough to get the bullets to the guns, no way are they smart enough to get the WMD out of the country without us noticing.

Yet Saddam was smart enough to have half the security council in his back pocket with the oil for food scandle.

He may have not been military master-mind, but he sure was corrupt enough to pull of what he had to do to keep power.

[OklahomaTuba]

Can't find a link; not sure how to search for it.

I assure you, in this political climate, if something in the last 4 years had come out showing "Bush lied" or did something like you are saying, he wouldn't be in office today and there would be TONS of links and stories about it.

But, there are no stories (except the ones coming out of liberal fantasyland), and Bush was re-elected.

And the Senate Intel Report proved everything he has said and done correct.

It even revealed that Joe Wilson was a lying POS scumbag sent to Niger on taxpayer money for the purpose of proving Bush was wrong.

Go figure.

[NormanPride]

It's possible that we did notice but we're just keeping quiet for now.

Why would we do that?

[achiro]

I haven't read this thread at all but I figure that this pic should fit somewhere:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y97/92_MUSTANG_GT/phil.jpg

[NormanPride]

I haven't read this thread at all but I figure that this pic should fit somewhere:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y97/92_MUSTANG_GT/phil.jpg

You must hate America.





;)

[mdklatt]

I assure you, in thie political climate, if something in the last 4 years had come out showing "Bush lied" or did something like you are saying, he wouldn't be in office today and there would be TONS of links and stories about it.

But, there are no stories, and Bush was re-elected.

Go figure.


I didn't search for "Bush lies", but I guarantee if you Google that you'll get results--733,000 as a matter of fact, but most of them are probably worthless. I'm not saying Bush lied. He may have been lied to, or at least not told the entire truth.

Ask yourself this: If the Iraq war and the events leading up to it had proceeded exactly the same way with Gore in charge would you be so eager to take everything at face value? Reagan said, "trust, but verify". When it comes to the government I'm not so sure we should even "trust".

[mdklatt]

Why would we do that?

Maybe they're sitting in Syria with armed Predator drones constantly circling. Maybe we're using them as bait to draw out terrorists and/or remnants of Saddam's regime. Maybe we're waiting to use them as evidence to drop the hammer on Syria.

[OklahomaTuba]

If everything happened the same way under Gore, I would feel the same way 100%.

[SoonerProphet]

Those that like to toss out the strawman that everyone believed SH was sitting on a bubbling factory of chemical weapons needs to stop rolling out those old email quotes of every Democratic goon. It is pretty old and who gives a sh*t.

The IAEA had confirmed that Iraq was free of nuclear weapons in 1997. Prior to 9/11 Cheney, Powell, and Condy all publicily stated that SH was contained and did not represent any threat to national or regional interests. The DIA itself was unsure if Iraq had the facilities in place for production, noting that they had been destroyed.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm

As well as the Hussein Kamal bro in law dude who defected and stated that the stuff just wasn't there...then returned to get his *** strung up.

Plenty of differing opinion out there, not only from the intel community, but the international community as well. If you choose not to think that the Bush administration and the PNAC crowd didn't push an agenda that is ok.

[49r]

Lifetime Odds -- Cause of Death
==================================
1-in-5 -- Heart Disease
1-in-7 -- Cancer
1-in-23 -- Stroke
1-in-36 -- Accidental Injury
1-in-100 -- Motor Vehicle Accident*
1-in-121 -- Intentional Self-harm (suicide)
1-in-246 -- Falling Down
1-in-325 -- Assault by Firearm
1-in-1,116 -- Fire or Smoke
1-in-3,357 -- Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.)
1-in-5,000 -- Electrocution*
1-in-8,942 -- Drowning
1-in-20,000 -- Air Travel Accident*
1-in-30,000 -- Flood* (included also in Natural Forces above)
1-in-58,618 -- Legal Execution
1-in-60,000 -- Tornado* (included also in Natural Forces above)
1-in-83,930 -- Lightning Strike (included also in Natural Forces above)
1-in-100,000 -- Snake, Bee or other Venomous Bite or Sting*
1-in-131,890 -- Earthquake (included also in Natural Forces above)
1-in-147,717 -- Dog Attack
1-in-200,000** -- Asteroid Impact*
1-in-500,000 -- Tsunami*
1-in-615,488 -- Fireworks Discharge

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050106_odds_of_dying.html


Hm...

"Terrorist Attack" isn't even in the top three. Odd...

[Stoop Dawg]

Those that like to recall the situation that actually existed prior to the war in Iraq instead of making up revisionist history needs to stop rolling out those old email quotes of every Democratic goon. It is pretty old and who gives a sh*t.

Fixed.

Even if you actually believe what you posted, you gotta give Bush mad props for duping all those morons in congress and the entire country of England. That was quite an accomplishment, don't you think?

[SoonerProphet]

Fixed.

Even if you actually believe what you posted, you gotta give Bush mad props for duping all those morons in congress and the entire country of England. That was quite an accomplishment, don't you think?

Entire = strawman, I'd expect better. I wouldn't give congress props for doing anything unless it was cutting pay, lobbyist, graft, and corruption.

Besides, what is not to believe, those that disagreed with the policy or the intel saw what would happen if they spoke out.

[WisconsinSooner]

Those that like to toss out the strawman that everyone believed SH was sitting on a bubbling factory of chemical weapons needs to stop rolling out those old email quotes of every Democratic goon. It is pretty old and who gives a sh*t.

1. I give a sh*t
2. When people want to throw out that the WMD's were a concoction of the Bush administration and say he lied as a precursor for going to war I am going to continue to point out the fact that just isn't true and give evidence to the contrary as evidenced by the "old quotes". (Which weren't from an email, I don't quote email.)


The IAEA had confirmed that Iraq was free of nuclear weapons in 1997.

They did not possess the weapons themselves but were hiding 1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium, 498 tons of uranium and the equipment to finish the processing for weapons grade material some of which was found in an Iraqi scientists back yard.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.iaea/

To date 500 tons of uranium have been found in Iraq since the beginning of the war.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/8/112447.shtml


Prior to 9/11 Cheney, Powell, and Condy all publicily stated that SH was contained and did not represent any threat to national or regional interests.

That's completely wrong. The issue of Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed to the United States and the region was a huge compaign issue during the 2000 election.


The DIA itself was unsure if Iraq had the facilities in place for production, noting that they had been destroyed.

From the same study: "Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retained production equipment, expertise and chemical precursors and can reconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of an international inspection regime. Iraq's successful use of chemical weapons in the past against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians increases the likelihood of a chemical warfare reconstitution."

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm


If you choose not to think that the Bush administration and the PNAC crowd didn't push an agenda that is ok.

Ya I think he pushed an agenda, he pushed an agenda to do what he believed was in the best interest for the security of the United States.

[SoonerProphet]

1. I give a sh*t
2. When people want to throw out that the WMD's were a concoction of the Bush administration and say he lied as a precursor for going to war I am going to continue to point out the fact that just isn't true and give evidence to the contrary as evidenced by the "old quotes". (Which weren't from an email, I don't quote email.)

Email or not, I am disinclined to believe whatever they tell me, politicos by the very nature of the biz are liars and crooks. Sure plenty of folks thought he had drones, mobile labs, and all kinds of stuff...turns out that stuff just ain't there. Never said they lied, just had an agenda.



They did not possess the weapons themselves but were hiding 1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium, 498 tons of uranium and the equipment to finish the processing for weapons grade material some of which was found in an Iraqi scientists back yard.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.iaea/

To date 500 tons of uranium have been found in Iraq since the beginning of the war.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/8/112447.shtml

Bid deal, no reactor, no weapons, not active centriguges, if I have uranium with nothing to make it weaponized I just have a element on the periodic table. Besides, what is partially enriched uranium gonna do for me.




That's completely wrong. The issue of Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed to the United States and the region was a huge compaign issue during the 2000 election.

Then why did the "conservative" Bush team run on a platform of a more humble fp? Why did the Sec. of State make those comments prior to 9/11? Why did most of the international community feel he was a toothless tiger?




From the same study: "Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retained production equipment, expertise and chemical precursors and can reconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of an international inspection regime. Iraq's successful use of chemical weapons in the past against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians increases the likelihood of a chemical warfare reconstitution."

Nevertheless, it just wasn't there. Absent an inspection regime doesn't seem likely either. Sounds like the Iraqi Kurds picked the wrong team to play for during that Arab-Persian dispute, they picked poorly.



Ya I think he pushed an agenda, he pushed an agenda to do what he believed was in the best interest for the security of the United States.

Well, that is where this Admin and I differ. I personally feel that it is a counter-productive policy that has only harmed US interests in the region. Regime change is a bad deal on many levels.

[mdklatt]

Bid deal, no reactor, no weapons, not active centriguges, if I have uranium with nothing to make it weaponized I just have a element on the periodic table. Besides, what is partially enriched uranium gonna do for me.


Why did they have the uranium in the first place? Did the UN weapons inspectors know about this? This is at least evidence that Saddam was up to no good and shouldn't have been trusted, no? But when push came to shove, the UN was perfectly happy to take Saddam's word that he was on the straight and narrow--even though he himself sowed the seeds of doubt when he talked about what would happen to US troops when they invaded.

[WisconsinSooner]

Bid deal, no reactor, no weapons, not active centriguges, if I have uranium with nothing to make it weaponized I just have a element on the periodic table. Besides, what is partially enriched uranium gonna do for me.

Sounds like the same logic Chamberlain used.


Then why did the "conservative" Bush team run on a platform of a more humble fp? Why did the Sec. of State make those comments prior to 9/11? Why did most of the international community feel he was a toothless tiger?

Saddam Hussein looms over U.S. presidential election
September 26, 2000

From CNN website

"Bush -- at least rhetorically -- appears more robust about wanting to do something to depose Saddam"

Condy on deposing Saddam from the same article when asked about opposition groups in Iraq:

Condoleeza Rice, Bush's foreign policy adviser, said in a telephone interview the governor believes the Iraqi opposition "could be effective but they're not going to be effective unless you help them become effective."

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/26/campaign.iraq.reut/


Nevertheless, it just wasn't there. Absent an inspection regime doesn't seem likely either. Sounds like the Iraqi Kurds picked the wrong team to play for during that Arab-Persian dispute, they picked poorly.

I guess by that logic the Jews pick poorly when they decided to move to/stay in Germany during the 1930's.


Well, that is where this Admin and I differ. I personally feel that it is a counter-productive policy that has only harmed US interests in the region. Regime change is a bad deal on many levels.

Regime change is risky, but not a bad deal in a lot of cases. See WWII for 3 obvious examples.

And I guess that's where you and I are going to differ.

[SoonerProphet]

Why did they have the uranium in the first place?

lots of reasons, plenty of LEU around that is not weapons grade. nuclear energy is a a alternative energy source that is cheap, but requires lots of energy to use.


Did the UN weapons inspectors know about this?

yep, big international stink about who it belongs to.


This is at least evidence that Saddam was up to no good and shouldn't have been trusted, no?

not necessarily, but plenty to reasons to distrust the dude. his moustache alone accounts for some dubious character flaws.


But when push came to shove, the UN was perfectly happy to take Saddam's word that he was on the straight and narrow--even though he himself sowed the seeds of doubt when he talked about what would happen to US troops when they invaded.

well, most members of the un were quite content to realize he was just another crackpot dictator. sure, what is he supposed to do when the world's most kickass military is on his doorstep. grovel, cry, now that wouldn't be very mustacheod.


Sounds like the same logic Chamberlain used...Regime change is risky, but not a bad deal in a lot of cases. See WWII for 3 obvious examples


uh-oh, multiple wwii references. this ain't 1939 and hussein was no hitler and tojo wrapped up in a bedouin tent with wmd, but whatever helps.

[Stoop Dawg]

Entire = strawman, I'd expect better. I wouldn't give congress props for doing anything unless it was cutting pay, lobbyist, graft, and corruption.

Besides, what is not to believe, those that disagreed with the policy or the intel saw what would happen if they spoke out.

Your implication is that Bush lied to go to war in Iraq. I only said that it must have been one hell of a snow job. Then you come back with some conspiracy theory that opposition would have been dealt with in some sinister manner. C'mon, you can't really believe most of what you type.

Oh, and I agree with giving congress props for cutting anything, anything at all. Well, except for ... no, I think anything would be fine.

[Stoop Dawg]

not necessarily, but plenty to reasons to distrust the dude. his moustache alone accounts for some dubious character flaws.

See, it's not that hard to find common ground. Any dictator with a moustache like that is begging to be invaded.

[SoonerProphet]

Your implication is that Bush lied to go to war in Iraq.

Implicate my ***, he and some of his hairbrained think tankers wanted a war and they shook the trees till they rattled enough cages and pressured enough technocrats to bite. Nothing more and nothing less, and certainly nothing conspirational about it. That is just how sh*t gets done.

Oh, and I didn't mean he bought and sold votes to get the Democrats to go along with his war plans, nothing sinister, that is for the lobbyists.

[SoonerProphet]

Heh, from the article about the Prez election and fp?


Zalman Khalilzad of the RAND Corp. agreed that Bush and his aides talk more aggressively than Gore about backing the Iraqi opposition as a means of overthrowing Saddam.

Whether Bush actually would do more in this regard if he is elected, "remains to be seen," Khalilzad said.


He is now the us ambassador. Nothing sinister or conspiration, just got a chuckle is all.

[WisconsinSooner]

uh-oh, multiple wwii references. this ain't 1939 and hussein was no hitler and tojo wrapped up in a bedouin tent with wmd, but whatever helps.

No, this didn't, or hasn't, gotten that far. Thankfully we have learned, at least somewhat, from the mistakes leading up to WWII. First and foremost that pacification doesn't work. Luckily Saddam Hussein wasn't able to commit genocide on the scale of Hitler but certainly went a step further than Hitler when it came to his willingness to use chemical and biological weapons. To me Saddam and Hitler are no different. Only Hitler was given an industrial superpower in Germany, and time, to lead us into a world war. We saw to it that Saddam wasn't given the same chance. So go ahead, continue to ignore the facts, ignore history and dig the hole in the sand you have your head stuck in a little deeper. Whatever makes you feel better.

[Jerk]

Pacificism and Tuba just don't get along.

"pacificim" reminds me of that old cliche'

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who don't"

I really wonder about you liberals. You just can't grasp the fact that there are many people out there who would love to murder every single one of us, and most of them are muslim.

"ohhh...if we just reach out to them! Tell them we care! We understand!"

yadda yadda .... they'd still love to cut your throat and watch you bleed to death, and their concious would approve of it because their "allah" commands them to kill the infidel.

They hate us. They hate our freedom. They hate the freedom that our women have.

oh...and, pssssst....they're homophobic!!! Come on, libs. Shouldn't that be reason enough to nuke em till they glow and then shoot them?