Originally posted by faust9If this is what you consider "considerable amount of assets were in the area" then you are sorely mistanken. The number (12,000) which you posted above is 1/10 that which is there now. Your idea that we had significant forces in the area so, eh, lets topple us a dictator is flawed. Look at how many reservists have been called up for the WMD war.
As of Feb-12, about 150,000 reservists had been activated, and that doesn't include the number of regular forces. If we can have 130,000 troops in Iraq why couldn't we have that many hunting OBL? Why did our priorities get skewed? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in536144.shtml
If we are talking only about ground forces, you are right. But we are also talking about air and sea assets. What was in the general area was nothing to sneeze at. I never said that it was enough to do the job, but merely a significant amount.
Originally posted by faust9
Yet again, this is inconsequential to the real issue. Why have we toppled a two-bit dictator while the real bad man runs free? Why are we pouring 150 Billion + into rebuilding Iraq when we could be using that money on the home front? An interesting aside: Tax cuts have a much smaller effect on the economy than direct government spending in areas such as technology development, and infrastructure improvements (give people a job and they have money to spend). Imagine what a boost 150 Billion in direct spending would do for the job market. Imagine not having to worry about the possible future drag on the economy caused by this endless spending.
One point at a time.
Saddam was considered a threat by the whole world community. Ask the citizens of Kuwait if he wasn't a real bad man, ask the kurds and turkey.
UBL is not just roaming free, aloof like a carefree jet-setter. He is hiding and traveling in dark damp caves, hoping that a missile does not land in a bush when he is taking a dump in the morning. And now he has the Pakistani military on his ass also. So your premise is a bit false. Not only that, we did not pull all of our resources out of Afghanistan, they have been hunting for UBL since the beginning, so from that respect your premise is also wrong.
I still don't understand what good 150,000 troops in afghanistan would do if he just sipped over into Pakistan. Many experts felt without pakistani support we would never find him. Now we have that support so maybe we will finally get him.
Originally posted by faust9
Another thing, you asked "What if they found WMD...." Where are they going to find these weapons? The people who would have made them said "Ain't here." The places where they would have been made were searched and searched again to no avail. The only WMD we found was in the form of a bearing and bearing support mechanism for a very old gas centrifuge design stashed in a scientists garden. How did we find it? The scientist said "here it is." Get over the prospect of finding WMD they are most likely not there according to David Kay (the Iraq war hawk turn weapons inspector turn BushCo detractor).
A great many people have lied and least of which is not SH. I think time will bear out the WMD thing. I don't care if they ever find them, I personally am satisfied with the reasons given to me. You quote Kay but he said that Iraq was far more dangerous than known before the war despite not finding WMD's. He also leaves the possibility open to finding them in the future.
WMD's, humanitarian threat, Broken ceasefire, broken UN resolutions, and aggressive destabilizing force in the MI. There may be more reasons for the war, but these are the ones I can think of. 4 out of 5 is a good record, and the 5th one will only be proven right or wrong through time. Even if Bush and the rest of the world was wrong about WMD's i will not change my mind because of the overall good that has been accomplished. I am sorry that I have to stick to my convictions here.
Originally posted by faust9
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck.
As Gilsch said read what you've said, and then repeat the I'm not a Bush supporter.
Next, your assertion that other reasons for the war were given is technically correct, but lets look at the 2003 sate of the union address to see how much weight was given to WMD versus those other reasons (highlghted in red).
Hmmmm, so much was said about WMD and how SH used WMD, but so little was said about the human rights. I wonder why that is? It kind of puts the Bush administrations focus into perspective when you look at how much was said about WMD and how much was said about "other".
I have said before, isn't it sad that those other reasons would not have been enough and would have gotten no traction? A sad state of our representatives. But just some have said you know and I know that despite haw bad a guy he was, no-one cared about the plight of the Iraqi people.
Originally posted by faust9I'm with Gilsch again. I gave GW the benefit--I voted for him. He dragged us into a war while the real bad guy prances and writes poetry in Afganastan/Pakistan. He's added massave ammounts of debt for your children to pay off. He's sending $$$ overseas to rebuild another country while 5.6% (this number would be much higher is job market drop out were factored in) of the US is unemployed.
You can proclaim to be protecting the man with out alterior motives (why someone with zero vested interest would do such a thing is well beyond me) but at some point you have to say "Wow that's a good valid point. I'll look into that" I was big enough to say that point 2 was your strongest point, yet I've never seen you say "Wow man, I never thought that so many people would be jumping ship from the administration. Maybe they ARE right."
I replied to the UBL thing above.
Clinton attacked Iraq based on the same reasons Bush invaded Iraq. It is a good litmus test on this subject. I don't care about clinton except when partisans try to hold Bush to standards they never had or will hold Clinton to. Intellectual honesty is very important here.
I don't care how many people jump ship, do I have to jump ship like a lemming? I think not. I am not even on that ship to jump off of it. So that makes no sense.
I am not really arguing the WMD point, I take acceptation to people saying "Bush lied" because of a miscalculation on WMD's, not to mention that almost everyone made the same miscalculation. It is just wrong to go there.
If you think he is not fit to be president, go, vote against him and if the majority of people in the US agree with you then Kerry is the next POTUS. I am not stopping that from happening. I am sticking up for a guy that is not here to defend himself. You have to admit it is becoming sickeningly usual that a perfectly good thread turns into a Bash Bush free for all or a Bush lied about WMD's. I just can't sit there and let this crap go on without saying anything.
The unemployment rate is is not that bad in perspective, but once again perspective is severely lacking here. But OK, I will agree it could be better. But once again what does unemployment have to do with helping another country out. If the money wasn't going there I am sure that politicians would find some social program or something to spend it on and the unemployment rate would be the same.
Hey maybe I am just all wrong.