U.S. threatens Iraq, again.

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185381,00.html

Seems the current junta isn't happy with the direction the Iraqis are taking in establishing their own government so the U.S. is threatening to leave if it doesn't get its way.

I've said all along that the sects that comprise what is Iraq aren't going to get along. As soon as we leave, they'll be at each others throats grasping for power. Anyone who doesn't see that is naive or a W Sunshine Pumper.

This all goes back to the notion of true revolution. Which comes from within.

[GottaHavePride]

What would be so bad about splitting the place into three small countries, so the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds could each have their own?

[Mjcpr]

What would be so bad about splitting the place into three small countries, so the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds could each have their own?

#1 on the hissy fit list is drawing a picture of the Big M
#2 is splitting the holy land



I don't know, sounds alright to me but I'm sure there is some reason Allah wouldn't like it. :rolleyes:

[GottaHavePride]

Benefit #1 - Each of the three new countries would have 1/3 the resources of the former Iraq, making them less of a power threat.

Oh, and you could even make Baghdad sort of an "international zone" straddling all three countries but part of none of them so they don't have to fight over who gets Baghdad.

[Widescreen]

Bill Clinton is a communist.

[mdklatt]

What would be so bad about splitting the place into three small countries, so the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds could each have their own?

Turkey would pop a blood vessel if there was a Kurdish state.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think Iraq would be better off as 3 separate nations myself.

Democracy has a way of separating countries it seems.

[GottaHavePride]

Turkey would pop a blood vessel if there was a Kurdish state.

That's when we say "Suck it, Turkey!"

[Mjcpr]

I think Iraq would be better off as 3 separate nations myself.

Democracy has a way of separating countries it seems.

I thought W was a uniter, not a divider.

:D

[OklahomaTuba]

Benefit #1 - Each of the three new countries would have 1/3 the resources of the former Iraq, making them less of a power threat.

Oh, and you could even make Baghdad sort of an "international zone" straddling all three countries but part of none of them so they don't have to fight over who gets Baghdad.

:rolleyes:

The problem then becomes, who gets the oil? Who gets the refineries, who controls the pipelines, and what about the ports to export the crude?

I doubt the Kurds give a rats *** about Baghdad.

[Rogue]

All of the country isn't oil-rich, so this notion would financially disenfranchise many.

[TexasLidig8r]

Aren't the huge petroleum fields for the most part in Southern Iraq?

The Kurds in the northern part of Iraq want not only independence for themselves, but to have a part of Turkey inhabited largely by Kurds to be merged with them.

Religious differences are incredibly difficult to negotiate a truce or settlement because.. religious beliefs are not based on logic.. but on faith.

[mdklatt]

Benefit #1 - Each of the three new countries would have 1/3 the resources of the former Iraq, making them less of a power threat.



The only resource Iraq has is oil, and the Sunnis wouldn't get any of it. The Sunnis as Shiites will fight each other no matter what it says on their passports. The Kurds will leave the other two alone so they can concentrate on ****ing off the Turks.

[OklahomaTuba]

Turkey would pop a blood vessel if there was a Kurdish state.

Turkey can't do shiat about it if they wanted too. We will have a military base in Kurdistan to protect them, and Turkey wouldn't risk the billions in aid they get from us, not their membership in NATO or a possible EU membership on it.

[JohnnyMack]

:rolleyes:

The problem then becomes, who gets the oil? Who gets the refineries, who controls the pipelines, and what about the ports to export the crude?

I doubt the Kurds give a rats *** about Baghdad.

This is one of the few areas Tuba and I agree on. I plan on using this angle to show him the errors of his ways in his support of W's policy towards Iraq.

[Okieflyer]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185381,00.html

Seems the current junta isn't happy with the direction the Iraqis are taking in establishing their own government so the U.S. is threatening to leave if it doesn't get its way.

I've said all along that the sects that comprise what is Iraq aren't going to get along. As soon as we leave, they'll be at each others throats grasping for power. Anyone who doesn't see that is naive or a W Sunshine Pumper.

This all goes back to the notion of true revolution. Which comes from within.

So what wrong with this. Didn't we win? Shouldn't decide what kind of government they should have?

Myself I think we should have had military govenor until it was finished. Worked after WW2.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yes, since the kurds have no oil, I should stop supporting our efforts in Iraq.

I mean, how dare we free people dammit!

[mdklatt]

Yes, since the kurds have no oil, I should stop supporting our efforts in Iraq.



The Kurds do have some oil, just not as much as the Shiites.

[OklahomaTuba]

The Kurds do have some oil, just not as much as the Shiites.
True.

Its actually the Sunnis that could get hosed the most I think.

Looks like our base in Kirkuk is right on top of a SGOF. Nice.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_oil_2003.jpg

[Widescreen]

Bill Clinton is a communist.
By the way, this comment was in response to the fact that JM likes to make ridiculous remarks about the current administration - e.g. calling them a junta. I wanted in on some of that action.

[JohnnyMack]

By the way, this comment was in response to the fact that JM likes to make ridiculous remarks about the current administration - e.g. calling them a junta. I wanted in on some of that action.

Don't hate me because I have a thesaurus. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Yes, since the kurds have no oil, I should stop supporting our efforts in Iraq.

I mean, how dare we free people dammit!

Looks like this'll take longer than I thought.

[OklahomaTuba]

By the way, this comment was in response to the fact that JM likes to make ridiculous remarks about the current administration - e.g. calling them a junta. I wanted in on some of that action.

Well what do you expect from someone hoping we fail miserably?

[mdklatt]

So what wrong with this. Didn't we win? Shouldn't decide what kind of government they should have?



Isn't it wrong for us to impose our will on a country we invaded in the first place? That just bolsters all the claims "American Imperialism" that we said wasn't going to happen.

[JohnnyMack]

Well what do you expect from someone hoping we fail miserably?

I don't hope we'll fail, I know we'll fail. There is a difference. It's an unwinnable scenario.

[mdklatt]

I don't hope we'll fail, I know we'll fail. There is a difference. It's an unwinnable scenario.

Why do you hate the American children we're at war for?

[JohnnyMack]

Isn't it wrong for us to impose our will on a country we invaded in the first place? That just bolsters all the claims "American Imperialism" that we said wasn't going to happen.

But we're not imperialists, we're "spreading democracy". There is a difference.

Condi? Condi, where's that 75mm I gave you to "spread democracy" in Iran with?

[KABOOKIE]

There were whiners in WWII too. But that was a "just" war. :rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

There were whiners in WWII too. But that was a "just" war. :rolleyes:

You do see the differences between WWII and Iraq, right?

[JohnnyMack]

There were whiners in WWII too. But that was a "just" war. :rolleyes:

When you talk about whiners are you talking about me or the U.S. policymakers who aren't getting their way in Iraq right now? Mr. no-pizza-delivery-guy-tipper. :D

[Widescreen]

Don't hate me because I have a thesaurus. ;)
Books. Pfft.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/

[IronHorseSooner]

Turkey can't do shiat about it if they wanted too. We will have a military base in Kurdistan to protect them, and Turkey wouldn't risk the billions in aid they get from us, not their membership in NATO or a possible EU membership on it.

Having just spent two out of the last three years there, let me break it down:

First, we don't have any bases in Kurdistan. The Kurds have the Peshmerga, and NOBODY messes with them. Second, the Turks are more concerned with money right now than anything. Outside of Halliburton, that everybody knows, most of our money goes to Turkish businesses. You are correct about the Turks having a fit about the Kurds in the North. Turkomen and Kurds don't exactly get along (to say it nicely), and haven't for centuries. The Kurds are the largest ethnic group on earth without a country of their own. Therefore, the status quo in Iraq is just fine for the Turks. BTW, there's A LOT of anti-Americanism coming out of Turkey. Some of it is ideological, I believe that most of it comes from money...Democracy is great, when those whom you want in office get elected. A Shi'a government would be the worst because it would likely ally itself with Iran. Remember, the holiest of sites in Shi'a Islam are in Iraq....What we need is patience. An early withdrawal of troops would be a mistake, due to destabilization.

[KABOOKIE]

When you talk about whiners are you talking about me or the U.S. policymakers who aren't getting their way in Iraq right now? Mr. no-pizza-delivery-guy-tipper. :D

Does the shoe fit? :)

I'm just merely pointing out there where whiners during WWII. Not that I would know from personal experience. I heard the internet was slow back then.


You do see the differences between WWII and Iraq, right?

Not when it comes to the whiners. :eddie:

[Herr Scholz]

Well what do you expect from someone hoping we fail miserably?
When you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Don't you think these revelations should have been discussed before we went to war there and decided to rebuild their country? What did we think was going to happen? Or did Bush really think they'd be throwing roses at us in the streets and the Sunni and Shia would suddenly become best pals?


The ambassador reminded the Iraqis that the United States has spent billions to build up Iraq's police and army and "we are not going to invest the resources of the American people and build forces that are run by people who are sectarian."

Sunni Arabs accuse the Shiite-led Interior Ministry of human rights abuses and using Shiite militias against Sunni civilians under the cover of fighting the insurgency. Shiites deny the charge and say they must control security forces to protect Shiites against attacks by Sunni religious extremists.

[TexasLidig8r]

A question for our more liberal brethren on this site .... What, if anything, should have been done about Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

Keep in mind that of course, the UN was not inclined to support any action against Iraq for its blatant and long standing violations of sanctions since both France and Russia were economically benefitting from such violations and as permanent members of the Security Council, would have vetoed any attempt?

Hussein was not allowing UN inspectors to perform their functions and Hussein had shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the past.

Direct ties to terrorism and Al Quaida? In the past it is murky and unclear.. after 9-11 and since the American resolve was to get them out of Afghanistan, was Iraq a logical next place from which to utilize their operations?

Economic sanctions were hurting the people of Iraq.. not its leadership.

So, ... what should have been done?

[Herr Scholz]

Personally, I don't think Iraq was a threat to us. We didn't need to spread the war from Afghanistan to Baghdad. Call it hindsight but this has cost us too many lives and too much money.

We should have let Iraqis handle their own problems with their leader. Not our job to do that. The idea of a melting pot democracy with the Shia and Sunni and Kurds was always outlandish if you ask me.

[JohnnyMack]

A question for our more liberal brethren on this site .... What, if anything, should have been done about Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

Keep in mind that of course, the UN was not inclined to support any action against Iraq for its blatant and long standing violations of sanctions since both France and Russia were economically benefitting from such violations and as permanent members of the Security Council, would have vetoed any attempt?

Hussein was not allowing UN inspectors to perform their functions and Hussein had shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction in the past.

Direct ties to terrorism and Al Quaida? In the past it is murky and unclear.. after 9-11 and since the American resolve was to get them out of Afghanistan, was Iraq a logical next place from which to utilize their operations?

Economic sanctions were hurting the people of Iraq.. not its leadership.

So, ... what should have been done?


Do you have any proof that Iraq attacked us or aided Al Qaida? Iraq was a crippled shell of its former self. It had all the military capacity of Delaware. Hussein wasn't removed from power because he was a direct threat to us, he was removed because he was the easiest domino to knock over. Iraq allowed us the foothold in the middle east necessary (in W's mind) to begin the process of imperialism.....errr.....democracy spreading.

What should have been done? In terms of Iraq, nothing. Was Hussein a bad man? Yes. There are lots of leaders of lots of countries who are dirty diabolical theiving oppressors, but we can't (and shouldn't be responsible) for taking each and every one of them out. Iraq wasn't about WMD's or making sure it remained safe for you to prowl uptown bars trolling for your latest conquest, it was about trying to stabilize a region that was becoming increasingly unstable.

Why we spent the lives and money in Iraq is still beyond me. If we're trying to "spread democracy" why don't we carpet bomb Cuba into submission? Didn't anyone watch Red Dawn???/ Don't you know what they're capable of??????///

[KABOOKIE]

It doesn't matter. Had the US not invaded Iraq and the US suffered another 9/11 type attack that Bush haters would have bitched about him not doing enough. It's always something.

[mdklatt]

So, ... what should have been done?

I supported getting Saddam out of there regardless of WMDs, but doesn't it now seem apparent to you that we had absolutely no idea what to do with Iraq once we had it in our control? Well, that's a misnomer since we've never had it completely in our control. Our only "plan" was same vague notion that democracy would spontaneously break out and we'd be home for Christmas.

Apparently our leaders are ****-poor students of history and political science, because if you read anything about that you'll see that unless all the precursors to democracy are already in place it's not going to go well. The Colonies inherited their democratic institutions from the British long before the Declaration of Independence was written. We were able to democratize Japan on the Western model, but that was already a unified nation before we got there.

I bought into the government rhetoric (spread dutifully by the media for the most part) that Iraq was a perfect candidate for democracy to flourish, but I would hope that the government would have known better.

[Herr Scholz]

It doesn't matter. Had the US not invaded Iraq and the US suffered another 9/11 type attack that Bush haters would have bitched about him not doing enough. It's always something.
So your contention is that our presence in Iraq has kept people in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia from planning another 9/11?

It's not always something. It's not always $300 Billion dollars and thousands of Americans dying on foreign soil. No sir, it's not.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You do see the differences between WWII and Iraq, right?Please tell us the differences you see, and the similarities, too. Thanks

[KABOOKIE]

So your contention is that our presence in Iraq has kept people in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia from planning another 9/11?

It's not always something. It's not always $300 Billion dollars and thousands of Americans dying on foreign soil. No sir, it's not.


No :rolleyes: , my contention is no matter what happened post 9/11 people would still bitch about something. Life's easier when you're a bitch.

[Herr Scholz]

No :rolleyes: , my contention is no matter what happened post 9/11 people would still bitch about something. Life's easier when you're a bitch.
I was very pro-Bush after 9/11. He squandered all the good will away with his poor decision making.

Can't have a civil political conversation?

[JohnnyMack]

No :rolleyes: , my contention is no matter what happened post 9/11 people would still bitch about something. Life's easier when you're a bitch.

If post 09/11 we continued taking the fight to the terrorists with the same vigor in which we steamrolled into Iraq I wouldn't be bitching.

If we had carpet bombed the ever loving sh*t out of Tora Bora or wherever the hell that place was back in tha day, I wouldn't be bitching.

If two weeks ago had 12 of 13 undercover TSA agents not passed undetected through LAX security with guns, knives, etc. I wouldn't be bitching.

If I felt like W had taken the necessary steps to protect us from terrorist threats I wouldn't be bitching.

[mdklatt]

Please tell us the differences you see, and the similarities, too. Thanks


Differences:

Iraq did not attack us. Iraq did not attack our allies. Iraq was not about to take over Europe or Asia. The German and Japanese people were very contrite in defeat; the Iraqi people really didn't do anything wrong so why the hell should they have to listen to us?

Similarities:

Hitler was a bad dude that needed to be stopped sooner rather than later; Saddam was a bad dude that needed to be stopped sooner rather than later. WW II freed hundreds millions of people from shady governments and occupiers. The war in Iraq freed millions of people from a shady government.

[Octavian]

As soon as we leave, they'll be at each others throats grasping for power.

So you're predicting a ****storm power struggle in Iraq in 2057?

;)

[Frozen Sooner]

:rolleyes:

The problem then becomes, who gets the oil? Who gets the refineries, who controls the pipelines, and what about the ports to export the crude?

I doubt the Kurds give a rats *** about Baghdad.

agree.

The Sunnis will not agree to any division of the country that doesn't involve them having control of the oil-and I don't think the oil is in predominantly Sunni land. First thing that happens if we do that? The Sunnis declare war on the Kurds.

[usmc-sooner]

you guys are ate up with this political talk.

Bush this, Bush that

wah wah wah wah

[JohnnyMack]

you guys are ate up with this political talk.

Bush this, Bush that

wah wah wah wah

Spring football hasn't started yet.

[Herr Scholz]

you guys are ate up with this political talk.

It's kind of required if you're an American citizen.


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." [Theodore Roosevelt ]

[Widescreen]

Kabookie is right that if Iraq's WMD's had fallen into terrorist hands and those WMD's had been used against us, he would've been impeached. I don't think Iraq has been managed very well after the capturing of Baghdad although lots of good things have happened (which we don't hear about through the media). However, just about every intelligence service in the world indicated Iraq still had WMD's - in many cases they probably knew because their governments provided the weapons or the components. So Bush was somehow supposed to be clairvoyant enough to say "I think every intelligence agency is wrong so we're not going to go into Iraq." He could not have risked it.

I don't have a problem with people complaining about poor performance in post-war Iraq as long as they are even-handed enough to recognize the positives as well. I do have a problem with people continuing to use the lame "NO WMD" mantra.

[KABOOKIE]

If post 09/11 we continued taking the fight to the terrorists with the same vigor in which we steamrolled into Iraq I wouldn't be bitching.

Right. And people would bitch about how lives were lost and the skyrocketing cost. Not to mention how the US annihilated an outnumbered and overmatched enemy.


If we had carpet bombed the ever loving sh*t out of Tora Bora or wherever the hell that place was back in tha day, I wouldn't be bitching.

Right. And Osama would have walked out of the same cave. Commence bitching.


If two weeks ago had 12 of 13 undercover TSA agents not passed undetected through LAX security with guns, knives, etc. I wouldn't be bitching.

I don't know who's worse at catching terrorist. TSA Agents or Undercover TSA Agents testing out their own kind. One thing is for sure, they know how to frisk 80 year old grannies and make life for GA pilots a royal pain in the ***. Feel free to bitch.


If I felt like W had taken the necessary steps to protect us from terrorist threats I wouldn't be bitching.

But it's always something! ;)

[JohnnyMack]

I don't have a problem with people complaining about poor performance in post-war Iraq as long as they are even-handed enough to recognize the positives as well. I do have a problem with people continuing to use the lame "NO WMD" mantra.

How about my lame "We have no business in Iraq at all" mantra. :D

[Herr Scholz]

Kabookie is right that if Iraq's WMD's had fallen into terrorist hands and those WMD's had been used against us...
So, I guess we're going to invade North Korea, Iran and Pakistan next? Saddam wasn't as loopy as Kim Jong Il or the Iranian guy. At least Saddam accepts that the Holocaust happened.

[TexasLidig8r]

But Herr and JMack.. you have ignored the other issues... the UN had economic sanctions in place.. the sanctions were not effective and in fact, the leadership was not impacted. The UN Security Council was not going to enforce sanctions since two of their members were financially benefitting from the sanctions.

Hussein was also prohibiting UN inspectors complete and total access, as was required by the UN.

Hussein had used WMD on prior occasions.

Hussein attempted to escalate the first Gulf War by using Scuds against Israel.

If, as suggested by both of you, we do nothing about Iraq, then, why should we continue to remain in the UN? If we will not stand behind decrees and sanctions issued by the UN but knowingly, stand by while those decrees are flaunted, then.. why remain with a "body" that has no integrity, no will and no force?

For example, suppose Iran continues to develop its nuclear plant (and as a result, its bomb-making technology) in direct contravention of international accords and UN decrees, should we "do nothing?" Surely, you see that Iran poses an immediate danger to the international community in the event it develops nuclear capability.

Do we do nothing then even if the UN does not vote to intervene? (which is more than likely if France and/or Russia supply technology, parts and equipment to the Iranians).

[Herr Scholz]

Are you saying we should invade Iran? Unilaterally like with Iraq?

[JohnnyMack]

I don't care if we remain in the UN or not. It's a political eunuch.

[KABOOKIE]

Are you saying we should invade Iran? Unilaterally like with Iraq?


Unilaterally with like other countries and stuff. :rolleyes:

I can't say what's going to happen with Iran but, I'm sure no matter what the US does we can count on you to point out our errors.

[mdklatt]

I'm sure no matter what the US does we can count on you to point out our errors

Isn't having errors pointed out a good thing?

[usmc-sooner]

Unilaterally with like other countries and stuff. :rolleyes:

I can't say what's going to happen with Iran but, I'm sure no matter what the US does we can count on you to point out our errors.

I think you mean bitch

[Herr Scholz]

I can't say what's going to happen with Iran but, I'm sure no matter what the US does we can count on you to point out our errors.
And in that same veign, I'm sure you'll defend Bush vigorously no matter how many times he messes up.

[TexasLidig8r]

Are you saying we should invade Iran? Unilaterally like with Iraq?

Is.. or should, the test be.. "Is it in the United States best interests to . . . [insert whatever action you wish]"

Or.. does there have to be a grander, more "world-wide" scale?

[Herr Scholz]

Is.. or should, the test be.. "Is it in the United States best interests to . . . [insert whatever action you wish]"

Or.. does there have to be a grander, more "world-wide" scale?
We'll run out of money and soldiers at some point policing the world by ourselves.

[mdklatt]

I think you mean bitch

You said it; what kind of country would we be if we started letting people criticize the government whenvever they want?

[JohnnyMack]

Is.. or should, the test be.. "Is it in the United States best interests to . . . [insert whatever action you wish]"

Or.. does there have to be a grander, more "world-wide" scale?

I'm becoming much more of an isolationist. I say **** 'em. They mess with us, they get it with both barrels. I'm tired of playing policeman/conqueror.

[KABOOKIE]

Isn't having errors pointed out a good thing?

perpetually pointing out errors = bitching. Thanks usmc.

[usmc-sooner]

And in that same veign, I'm sure you'll defend Bush vigorously no matter how many times he messes up.

this is my whole problem with the anti-Bush crowd, you get knuckleheads who have no idea what is going on just bashing Bush because it's popular. Herr has no idea if Bush has messed up. Not many people do. They don't sit in on the briefings the President does, they don't have all the intel, the President's team does. They don't know jack but they are quick to start with an all out bitch fit over something they have no solution to.

[TexasLidig8r]

I'm becoming much more of an isolationist. I say **** 'em. They mess with us, they get it with both barrels. I'm tired of playing policeman/conqueror.

They're going to revoke your "I'm a Tree Hugging Liberal" card with an attitude like that JMack! :D

[mdklatt]

I'm tired of playing policeman/conqueror.

Bush said the same thing in his 2000 campaign. But we're at war for the children now.

[KABOOKIE]

And in that same veign, I'm sure you'll defend Bush vigorously no matter how many times he messes up.


This is bigger than Bush. I wish you could see that.

[usmc-sooner]

You said it; what kind of country would we be if we started letting people criticize the government whenvever they want?

never said you couldn't be critical but I don't know what the President knows so I'm not going to bitch.

I'm talking about the whole Bush hates Black people, Bush is a liar, Bush caused Katrina thing.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No :rolleyes: , my contention is no matter what happened post 9/11 people would still bitch about something. Life's easier when you're a bitch.HEAR HERE!!!

[mdklatt]

I'm talking about the whole Bush hates Black people, Bush is a liar, Bush caused Katrina thing.

Ah yes, there's plenty of stupidity to go around.

[usmc-sooner]

This is bigger than Bush. I wish you could see that.

exactly a lot of these morons are on an all out Bush bitch fit, Nothing is ever one man's fault. I don't think some of these morons even realize Bush can't be re-elected. It's like their campaigning against a guy who can't even run.

[Octavian]

Not many people do. They don't sit in on the briefings the President does, they don't have all the intel, the President's team does.

the team that cherrypicked intel reports to fit a pre-determined policy? Yeah, no thanks.

[usmc-sooner]

the team that cherrypicked intel reports to fit a pre-determined policy? Yeah, no thanks.

most of the intel was gather by the previous Democrat administration.

but don't let that stop you from your blind Bush hating bitch fit.

Are all you anti-Bush guys oblivious to facts or what.

[Widescreen]

So, I guess we're going to invade North Korea, Iran and Pakistan next? Saddam wasn't as loopy as Kim Jong Il or the Iranian guy. At least Saddam accepts that the Holocaust happened.
That would be ideal. Unfortunately, as it relates to North Korea, 'ideal' went out the window during the Clinton adminstration when we played footsie with him and allowed Kim to get nukes. This made the Korean problem infinitely more complicated. This is why it was important to get rid of Saddam who was trying to get nukes. It's also important to handle a non-nuclear Iran. If we let them get nukes, it's North Korea part II and that one will be on Bush's shoulders.

[JohnnyMack]

the team that cherrypicked intel reports to fit a pre-determined policy? Yeah, no thanks.

Exactly. W had his mind made up that Iraq was where it was going down and the intel was fixed around it to make it plausable and more importantly something that could be sold to the American people.

[Widescreen]

Did you manage to type that with a straight face?

[Harry Beanbag]

We'll run out of money and soldiers at some point policing the world by ourselves.


This is definitely one thing I can agree with you on. Our military isn't large enough to deal with what could be coming down the pike.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

But Herr and JMack.. you have ignored the other issues... the UN had economic sanctions in place.. the sanctions were not effective and in fact, the leadership was not impacted. The UN Security Council was not going to enforce sanctions since two of their members were financially benefitting from the sanctions.

Hussein was also prohibiting UN inspectors complete and total access, as was required by the UN.

Hussein had used WMD on prior occasions.

Hussein attempted to escalate the first Gulf War by using Scuds against Israel.

If, as suggested by both of you, we do nothing about Iraq, then, why should we continue to remain in the UN? If we will not stand behind decrees and sanctions issued by the UN but knowingly, stand by while those decrees are flaunted, then.. why remain with a "body" that has no integrity, no will and no force?

For example, suppose Iran continues to develop its nuclear plant (and as a result, its bomb-making technology) in direct contravention of international accords and UN decrees, should we "do nothing?" Surely, you see that Iran poses an immediate danger to the international community in the event it develops nuclear capability.

Do we do nothing then even if the UN does not vote to intervene? (which is more than likely if France and/or Russia supply technology, parts and equipment to the Iranians).Sometimes, mr. esquire, you don't sound like a sorry-**s whorn! You can add your above monologue to the "differences between the Iraq war and WWII.":eek:

[TexasLidig8r]

Exactly. W had his mind made up that Iraq was where it was going down and the intel was fixed around it to make it plausable and more importantly something that could be sold to the American people.

Tri-laterial Commission?

The Templar Knights?

The New Crusade Against the Heathen Aarabs?

Inquiring minds want to know! ;)

[Octavian]

most of the intel was gather by the previous Democrat administration.

but don't let that stop you from your blind Bush hating bitch fit.

Are all you anti-Bush guys oblivious to facts or what.

yellow cake? Africa?

"slam dunk."

Powell and Armitage have repeatedly stated that the VP's Office and Tenent himself had information not shared w/ them until after the invasion.

[mdklatt]

most of the intel was gather by the previous Democrat administration.



The politicians didn't gather ****. I'm pretty sure the guys who actually do the work could give a rat's *** who is sitting in the Oval Office. However, the political appointees that are in charge do care, and aren't they going to try to keep the boss happy? Especially when that boss has a reputation of punishing disloyalty?

Why was the WMD situation so vastly overstated? Either our intelligence agencies are incompetent and/or they lied. That's certainly something we need to take a look at.

[JohnnyMack]

Tri-laterial Commission?

The Templar Knights?

The New Crusade Against the Heathen Aarabs?

Inquiring minds want to know! ;)

Don't you have some Ike Behar you could be ironing, or something? Anything?

[usmc-sooner]

Exactly. W had his mind made up that Iraq was where it was going down and the intel was fixed around it to make it plausable and more importantly something that could be sold to the American people.

yep Bush manipulated the U.N. and 8 years of the Clinton Adminstrations intel to get us in Iraq. Who would have known he was behind the scenes of the Clinton Administration.

I also think that President Bush caused the Hurricanes that hit the Gulf coast he was planning that from way back as well. He is soley responsible for global warming. He punched a black baby, he is against any civil rights. He is the cause of the 5:00 rush hour traffic.

He is the sole reason for wars, because everyone knows that before Bush came into office the world was such a peaceful place where we all held hands and sang songs, had no use for oil.

sometimes I think you guys would do yourself a big favor if you'd just pull your head out of your *** for a while and think about it.

[Octavian]

However, the political appointees that are in charge do care, and aren't they going to try to keep the boss happy? Especially when that boss has a reputation of punishing disloyalty?

Tenent has said this many times since he stepped down.

"Support the team or there's the door..."

He played ball.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

most of the intel was gather by the previous Democrat administration.

but don't let that stop you from your blind Bush hating bitch fit.

Are all you anti-Bush guys oblivious to facts or what.He can do no right, since they feel he was fraudulently elected...both times!

[Widescreen]

Why was the WMD situation so vastly overstated? Either our intelligence agencies are incompetent and/or they lied. That's certainly something we need to take a look at.
You forgot about all the other intelligence services in the world that said the same thing. We need to look into their incompetence and lies too.

[mdklatt]

sometimes I think you guys would do yourself a big favor if you'd just pull your head out of your *** for a while and think about it.

Bush can do no wrong, Bush can do no right...both sides have their heads up their asses.

[JohnnyMack]

yep Bush manipulated the U.N. and 8 years of the Clinton Adminstrations intel to get us in Iraq. Who would have known he was behind the scenes of the Clinton Administration.

I also think that President Bush caused the Hurricanes that hit the Gulf coast he was planning that from way back as well. He is soley responsible for global warming. He punched a black baby, he is against any civil rights. He is the cause of the 5:00 rush hour traffic.

He is the sole reason for wars, because everyone knows that before Bush came into office the world was such a peaceful place where we all held hands and sang songs, had no use for oil.

sometimes I think you guys would do yourself a big favor if you'd just pull your head out of your *** for a while and think about it.

Settle down Little Tuba, you're getting all worked up. The intel was a big stack of papers that said all kinds of different things. I contend that W used the information that supported his desire to invade Iraq and showed that to the American people while holding back more information that may have shown Iraq wasn't the threat they were purported to be by said President.

[mdklatt]

You forgot about all the other intelligence services in the world that said the same thing. We need to look into their incompetence and lies too.

Yes, we do.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Don't you have some Ike Behar you could be ironing, or something? Anything?Na, he's more of a Zegna sort.:)

[usmc-sooner]

The politicians didn't gather ****. I'm pretty sure the guys who actually do the work could give a rat's *** who is sitting in the Oval Office. However, the political appointees that are in charge do care, and aren't they going to try to keep the boss happy? Especially when that boss has a reputation of punishing disloyalty?

Why was the WMD situation so vastly overstated? Either our intelligence agencies are incompetent and/or they lied. That's certainly something we need to take a look at.


exactly the politicians don't gather it, they just have a team that reads it over and tries to make the best decision they can. That is one of the reasons I think these Bush bashers are retarded. Also their is evidence of WMD's but when you refuse to look at the facts, and just want to bitch about one man you're not going to look at the facts. Sadaam's son in law has stated that he helped move the WMD's out of Iraq before the invasion.

[usmc-sooner]

Settle down Little Tuba, you're getting all worked up. The intel was a big stack of papers that said all kinds of different things. I contend that W used the information that supported his desire to invade Iraq and showed that to the American people while holding back more information that may have shown Iraq wasn't the threat they were purported to be by said President.

Herr Jr calling me little Tuba:D

Oh well it made me laugh

[JohnnyMack]

Herr Jr calling me little Tuba:D

Oh well it made me laugh

:D You can neg me if you like. I deserve it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bush can do no wrong, Bush can do no right...both sides have their heads up their asses.I haven't heard anyone saying Bush can do no wrong.

[usmc-sooner]

:D You can neg me if you like. I deserve it.

nah I actually laughed out loud when I read it.

I could picture that chick from SNL going "simmer down now"

[usmc-sooner]

Bush can do no wrong, Bush can do no right...both sides have their heads up their asses.


I don't think he can do no wrong.

I think he's making a huge mistake with the issues on the Mexican border.

[mdklatt]

Sadaam's son in law has stated that he helped move the WMD's out of Iraq before the invasion.

Saddam implied he was going to use WMDs against our troops if we invaded. Why didn't he? Maybe that was all hot air, or maybe Saddam really did think he had WMDs ready to go. Talk about a leader who punished disloyalty...imagine all the sunshine pumpers he had around him. There were a lot of Iraqi defectors telling us what we wanted to hear before the war, so why should we trust any Iraqi defectors now?

[Widescreen]

I don't think he can do no wrong.

I think he's making a huge mistake with the issues on the Mexican border.
And his spend-like-the-wind attitude. I was hoping he'd be a fiscal conservative. Obviously he's not.

[1stTimeCaller]

I'll take the USA and give the points

[mdklatt]

I don't think he can do no wrong.



Then you're in a small (but growing) minority in the Republican party, if you are a Republcian.

Why did we arguably create a new front in the War on Terror halfway around the world if we're unwilling to protect our own back yard?

[JohnnyMack]

Let's say all the intel on Iraq was in 10 file folders labeled 1 - 10.

Let's say file folders 1,2,3 & 4 say nothing as to whether or not Iraq is a threat to us.

Let's say file folders 5 & 6 say Iraq IS a threat to us.

Let's say file folders 7 & 8 say nothing as to whether or not Iraq is a threat to us.

Let's say file folders 9 & 10 say Iraq IS NOT a threat to us.

Then let's say W and his peeps peruse all ten file folders and only grab file folders 5 & 6 and show them to the Congress, the public, etc.

That's my opinion of what happened. They had intel that told them what they wanted it to and used it to try and scare the American people into getting behind them and their cause for war. We weren't necessarily lied to, we just weren't told the whole truth.

[Harry Beanbag]

I swear I've read this exact thread about 50 times in the last 3 years.

[mdklatt]

That's my opinion of what happened. They had intel that told them what they wanted it to and used it to try and scare the American people into getting behind them and their cause for war. We weren't necessarily lied to, we just weren't told the whole truth.

I think that too--right war, wrong reasons. What really disturbs me is the idea that maybe the administration believed their stories. The American government should be at least a tad less gullible than the American people, IMO.

[mdklatt]

I swear I've read this exact thread about 50 times in the last 3 years.

And we need to keep it up until everybody agrees with me.

[usmc-sooner]

Then you're in a small (but growing) minority in the Republican party, if you are a Republcian.

Why did we arguably create a new front in the War on Terror halfway around the world if we're unwilling to protect our own back yard?

yes I'm a Republican I switched from Dem to Republican right before 2000, I was not going to serve under Al Gore.

I think the constant silly type crap that some Democrats are doing with this all hate Bush crap is causing the Republicans to rally. Actually if the Democrats were smart they show him a little more leniancy which would probably cause more Republicans to disagree with him.

I also don't think the Mexicans are terrorists just people looking for a better life but they need to do it legally. Nothing like going to South OKC and nobody speaks English.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And his spend-like-the-wind attitude. I was hoping he'd be a fiscal conservative. Obviously he's not.I would think the libz would be kinder to Bush, since he's done so much social spending. They don't even mention that. I gotta believe most conservatives are opposed to that social spending, as well as being unwilling to deal with border security. Nobody I know believes he has done no wrong.:confused:

[Harry Beanbag]

And we need to keep it up until everybody agrees with me.


I hope you're not holding your breath.

[mdklatt]

I think the constant silly type crap that some Democrats are doing...

...is no different than the silly crap the Republicans were doing with Clinton. The Republicans might even have been worse, because a war is sure a lot less trivial than a hummer.




Actually if the Democrats were smart they show him a little more leniancy which would probably cause more Republicans to disagree with him.


This is an excellent point.



I also don't think the Mexicans are terrorists just people looking for a better life but they need to do it legally. Nothing like going to South OKC and nobody speaks English.

Yeah, but it's not just Mexicans that are coming across the border. I have to make sure I'm wearing clean socks when I go to the airport, but Abdulah the suicide bomber can saunter across the Mexican border virtually whenever and wherever he wants.

[TexasLidig8r]

Don't you have some Ike Behar you could be ironing, or something? Anything?

Dry cleaning.. always.. and... they pick up and deliver to the office...

Oh... what do we do when Mainland China starts to militarily take back Formosa Island (known to some as Taiwan) since, (like Iraq in the early 90s claims of Kuwait just being another province of Iraq), Mainland China claims Taiwan as simply a break away province and the world seems to be unwilling to recognize that Taiwan is an independent nation.

Do we intervene? Do we acquiesce?

[Herr Scholz]

Then let's say W and his peeps peruse all ten file folders and only grab file folders 5 & 6 and show them to the Congress, the public, etc.

That's my opinion of what happened. They had intel that told them what they wanted it to and used it to try and scare the American people into getting behind them and their cause for war. We weren't necessarily lied to, we just weren't told the whole truth.
That's exactly what happened and has been corroborated by intelligence officials ad nauseum. There was plenty of analysis concluding that Iraq wasn't a real threat that never saw the light of day.

The most ridiculous argument the Bush administration has made concerning the pre-war intelligence is the "We all saw the same intelligence and decided to go..." Congress saw only the intelligence Bush shared with them. The cherry picking and withholding of information is exactly what went on with the wire tap "briefings" as well.

[KABOOKIE]

Unlike those royal princes commanding the Kuwaiti military, with Taiwan we'll sit back and watch their kick *** defense forces bitch slap the dinks. :D

[mdklatt]

I would think the libz would be kinder to Bush, since he's done so much social spending. They don't even mention that.

They won't mention it because they won't be the ones getting credit for it. :rolleyes:



I gotta believe most conservatives are opposed to that social spending, as well as being unwilling to deal with border security. Nobody I know believes he has done no wrong.:confused:

I'm not just talking about the big picture, but on an issue by issue basis. Even if you're a Bush supporter I would hope that it's impossible to believe that the administration has done everything right regarding the Iraq war. There is always room for improvement, but the administration itself seems completely unwilling to process even contructive criticism. This is scary.

[Herr Scholz]

Do we intervene? Do we acquiesce?
China needs our markets too much. They don't want to mess with the most favored nation trade status.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[QUOTE=mdklatt]..."is no different than the silly crap the Republicans were doing with Clinton. The Republicans might even have been worse, because a war is sure a lot less trivial than a hummer." I don't understand how you guys, being of sound mind, with acceptable reading and hearing abilities, can't ever grasp that his impeachment was for perjury before congress, and not sex. You continue to ignore that fact.

[KABOOKIE]

That's exactly what happened and has been corroborated by intelligence officials ad nauseum. There was plenty of analysis concluding that Iraq wasn't a real threat that never saw the light of day.

The most ridiculous argument the Bush administration has made concerning the pre-war intelligence is the "We all saw the same intelligence and decided to go..." Congress saw only the intelligence Bush shared with them. The cherry picking and withholding of information is exactly what went on with the wire tap "briefings" as well.

You forgot about folders 1-4.

I think folder 1 said: KFC should change their name back to Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Folder 2 said: It was the butler, in the bedroom, with the hammer.

Folder 3 said: Never stick your hand in a running lawn mower.

Folder 4 said: Bringing back the Mc Rib is possibly the best advertising stunt McDonald's has ever done!

[JohnnyMack]

I think folder 1 said: KFC should change their name back to Kentucky Fried Chicken.



I could go for some Kentucky Fried. With some of those mashed taters with the gravy.

[Big Red Ron]

:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

I don't understand how you guys, being of sound mind, with acceptable reading and hearing abilities, can't ever grasp that his impeachment was for perjury before congress, and not sex. You continue to ignore that fact.

Why the witch hunt in the first place? Why make him testify before Congress? We knew he did it. He knew we knew he did it. If the Republicans had quit while they were ahead ("I did not have sex with that woman") they wouldn't have come off as the same partisan contrarian blowhards that the Democrats come off as nowadays.

Same ****, different poltical party.

[Big Red Ron]

Let's say all the intel on Iraq was in 10 file folders labeled 1 - 10.

Let's say file folders 1,2,3 & 4 say nothing as to whether or not Iraq is a threat to us.

Let's say file folders 5 & 6 say Iraq IS a threat to us.

Let's say file folders 7 & 8 say nothing as to whether or not Iraq is a threat to us.

Let's say file folders 9 & 10 say Iraq IS NOT a threat to us.

Then let's say W and his peeps peruse all ten file folders and only grab file folders 5 & 6 and show them to the Congress, the public, etc.

That's my opinion of what happened. They had intel that told them what they wanted it to and used it to try and scare the American people into getting behind them and their cause for war. We weren't necessarily lied to, we just weren't told the whole truth.But do we need the whole truth? We elect leaders to lead, no? Wouldn't you rather have a president with some sack and who would rather be safe than sorry or some limp wristed lamo that tells us everything does a poll and hopes things work out. One action is called leadership. The other, well, isn't.

[Big Red Ron]

Why the witch hunt in the first place? Why make him testify before Congress? We knew he did it. He knew we knew he did it. If the Republicans had quit while they were ahead ("I did not have sex with that woman") they wouldn't have come off as the same partisan contrarian blowhards that the Democrats come off as nowadays.

Same ****, different poltical party.Man, he was being sued for sexual harrasment by Paula Jones. It's called a deposition. He lied under oath and tried to block her right to justice. Get it?

[mdklatt]

But do we need the whole truth?

No, but I'd at least like the president and his administration to have the whole truth, or at least have that as a goal. Does there seem to be any interest at all from the White House in either finding the WMDs or finding out why our intelligence was so wrong? Maybe there is and I just haven't been paying attention. They're not interested either because they either don't care if our intelligence was wrong or they knew the truth the whole time and have been lying.

[mdklatt]

Man, he was being sued for sexual harrasment by Paula Jones. It's called a deposition. He lied under oath and tried to block her right to justice. Get it?

Was he impeached for lying under oath in court or lying under oath to Congress?

[JohnnyMack]

But do we need the whole truth? We elect leaders to lead, no? Wouldn't you rather have a president with some sack and who would rather be safe than sorry or some limp wristed lamo that tells us everything does a poll and hopes things work out. One action is called leadership. The other, well, isn't.

Not if his "leadership" consists of getting thousands of U.S. troops killed, trillions of dollars wasted and having no real plan for exiting the scenario and no real assurance that the situation he created is one that will have a lasting positive effect on the populace that elected him to serve.

So, yes, I would like the whole truth and not some loose cannon cowboy bull****. These are peoples lives and your dollars we're talking about, not some movie we're seeing on the big screen.

[Big Red Ron]

Was he impeached for lying under oath in court or lying under oath to Congress?Under oath in a deposition.

[Big Red Ron]

Not if his "leadership" consists of getting thousands of U.S. troops killed, trillions of dollars wasted and having no real plan for exiting the scenario and no real assurance that the situation he created is one that will have a lasting positive effect on the populace that elected him to serve.

So, yes, I would like the whole truth and not some loose cannon cowboy bull****. These are peoples lives and your dollars we're talking about, not some movie we're seeing on the big screen.People die and money gets spent in wars. We are fighting this war over there. Would you rather fight it over here?

Put this war in perspective man. Less than 1% of the troops that died in Vietnam have died here. It's their job and they know when they sign up. Save your bleeding heart for someone that hasn't served and doesn't understand the world beyond 30 second DNC sound bites.

[JohnnyMack]

People die and money gets spent in wars. We are fighting this war over there. Would you rather fight it over here?

Put this war in perspective man. Less than 1% of the troops that died in Vietnam have died here. It's their job and they know when they sign up. Save your bleeding heart for someone that hasn't served and doesn't understand the world beyond 30 second DNC sound bites.

Since when were the Iraqi's at war with us? When did they wrong us?

Cavalier attitudes like yours amaze me.

[mdklatt]

Would you rather fight it over here?



Save your bleeding heart for someone...doesn't understand the world beyond 30 second DNC sound bites.

Speaking of sound bites...what does that mean? "Would you rather fight it over here?" That makes about as much sense as "war for oil". Has the war in Iraq done anything to lessen the threat of domestic terrorism, except for the never-been-proven possibility that Iraq would provide WMDs they probably didn't have to terrorists? If that's really all this war was about I want a refund.

[SoonerProphet]

Hey, speaking of the great Iraq debate, Francis "the end of History" Fukuyama has a new article out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Why the witch hunt in the first place? Why make him testify before Congress? We knew he did it. He knew we knew he did it. If the Republicans had quit while they were ahead ("I did not have sex with that woman") they wouldn't have come off as the same partisan contrarian blowhards that the Democrats come off as nowadays.

Same ****, different poltical party.I didn't think they came off like the dims do now. Trent Lott wimped out. He didn't have the t*sticular fortitude-didn't want the fight. Lott
s beltway mentality let the slick one up, and alive to fight through his "wife" in the future. Clinton should have had a rape charge on the Juanita Broderick case. NOBODY in govt. wanted to deal with that one.:P

[Big Red Ron]

Since when were the Iraqi's at war with us? When did they wrong us? Oh, since 'bout 1991. They also tried to assassinate Former President Bush in around 1997 (thanks for the toughness there Clinton). Glad we stopped it though.


Cavalier attitudes like yours amaze meSame to ya pal, same to ya.

[Frozen Sooner]

Man, he was being sued for sexual harrasment by Paula Jones. It's called a deposition. He lied under oath and tried to block her right to justice. Get it?

I thought the Monica stuff came out during the Whitewater investigation, not during the Paula Jones stuff.

[Widescreen]

I would think the libz would be kinder to Bush, since he's done so much social spending. They don't even mention that. I gotta believe most conservatives are opposed to that social spending, as well as being unwilling to deal with border security. Nobody I know believes he has done no wrong.:confused:
Agreed. It continues to amaze me how the Democrats still whine about lack of education funds when Bush has given more funds than any other president.

Bush doesn't care about our children! (other than spending like a mofo just like we would've done if we were in charge).

[Big Red Ron]

I thought the Monica stuff came out during the Whitewater investigation, not during the Paula Jones stuff.Then you would be mistaken.

[OklahomaTuba]

Agreed. It continues to amaze me how the Democrats still whine about lack of education funds when Bush has given more funds than any other president.
Because this would require knowing what facts are.

Reading this thread, it is painfully obvious that the libz on here no nothing of such things.

[OklahomaTuba]

yellow cake? Africa?

"slam dunk."

Powell and Armitage have repeatedly stated that the VP's Office and Tenent himself had information not shared w/ them until after the invasion.

Funny thing about all that Niger stuff is that it turned out to be TRUE! Something lost on the libz for some reason (its that fact thing again. It just escapes them it seems)

And enough with the conspiracy theories about Cheney being able to keep info away from the CIA. Please, take the tin foil hat off. I think you will be much better off in the long run.

[soonerscuba]

Heh, the Republicans shot their load too fast on Clinton and it cost them '98. But keep telling yourselves that witch hunt was justified.

On the note about Dems showing more solidarity to Bush, in terms of electoral politics this would be about the worst idea ever. The Republican party is doing a pretty decent job of ensuring loss of the House in '06 all by themselves. No need to throw a life preserver to the President when his own party is starting to jump ship.

[OklahomaTuba]

Heh, the Republicans shot their load too fast on Clinton and it cost them '98. But keep telling yourselves that witch hunt was justified.

On the note about Dems showing more solidarity to Bush, in terms of electoral politics this would be about the worst idea ever. The Republican party is doing a pretty decent job of ensuring loss of the House in '06 all by themselves. No need to throw a life preserver to the President when his own party is starting to jump ship.

Funny, I remember hearing almost the exact same thing in 2000, 2002 & 2004.

[JohnnyMack]

Now Iraq tells U.S. to buzz off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663271/

[SoonerProphet]

Now Iraq tells U.S. to buzz off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663271/



U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said on Monday the United States, which led the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, was investing billions of dollars in Iraq and did not want to see that money go to support sectarian politics.

You lobbied for this farce you dumb motherf*cker now deal with it. Importing democracy indeed.