Actually it would be more noble to kill someone in hand to hand combat as opposed to killing him from a distance with overwhelming high-caliber firepower. Assuming those were soldiers too.
How is that any more noble? I mean both sides are fighting for the causes of others, for the most part. There really isn't any nobility in killing during a war, or peace time for that matter, save some extreme examples. It's just indiscriminate killing.
anyone notice the news about the deficit topping seven trillion for the first time ever? in a way, i hope he runs this country right into the economic sh!tter, because it'll all come back to haunt him in november.
The movie was a side note and I did say that it was war . . .it was not meant in a judgemental way . . . . though they do seem to be killing a wounded man
''roger"
as for the eyes . . . yeah, I got you allright . . . but it seemed that you got yourself with that one first . .. just needed to bring it to your attention.
By the way . . . polls are showing that anybody but Sharpton would beat Bush if the elections were today!
As far as the war goes, you guys are real funny. I suppose the previous 30 years of SH I guess means nothing? How about all of the UN sactions he broke? How about the, upwards of a million innocents theat SH killed and tortured and raped. How about the outcry for that? How about the joy you should feel that that tyrant is out of power and millions now have a future that does not involve SH?
Bush did not start this war SH did when he invaded Kuwait. He continued it every time he had his soldiers fire upon a plane in the no fly zones. He Continued it when he attempted to assasinate the former Pres. Bush. He continued it when he threatened the US continually.
Where is the same outcry when BC bombed Iraq based on the exact same info? That act was obviously perceived by SH as an act of war. So you could easily blame Clinton for the current war, as a result of him provoking SH by that act. Could this war have been avoided after that? If you want to point fingers.
Intelligence agencies hold a lot responsibility. Congress that cut spending on intel hold a huge chunk of the responsibility. Where is the outrage about that. Bush wasn't even in office then. How is he responsible for that?
I think that you bush haters are wearing out your message very rapidly. I know I am sick of hearing it.
Don't get me wrong, some of your points may be valid. But this mentality that says "Bush got bad intel so that means he lied, and every problem domestically and elsewhere is now his fault.", is just going way over the line. Bush has been handed a lot to manage since 9/11. He may be right and then again maybe not. I believe he is doing the best he can, with all of the politicking and finger-pointing going on (as opposed to actually governing and problem solving) in washington.
NaplesX - thanks for dropping in to offer the viewpoint of the totally blind. Ya got anything on-topic about the Administration disavowing its own economic forecast by passing the blame?
NaplesX - thanks for dropping in to offer the viewpoint of the totally blind. Ya got anything on-topic about the Administration disavowing its own economic forecast by passing the blame?
I hope you are not suggesting that most of the posts have not veered off topic.
Some of what I said can be applied to the current discussion. And yes I have something to add.
I am sure you know that economic predictions can and usually are wrong. Things change. Would you prefer he continue to back a previous prediction that turns out to be wrong? He is acting and reacting to data as it comes in to him.
Where is the story here. like I said just another bash bush thread. You guys use any little article or news blurb as an excuse. It is really getting old. You guys are like lemmings to the media. The media loves dirt and bad news. So do you. There are a lot of good things happening with the economy and the war and other things. Pull yourself away from the computer and the TV a little bit. Come on.
Well I don't mean to say I told you so but I've always been saying Bush's numbers don't match reality and what I see going on around me. It's not that we love bad news it's just that a lot of us suspected that what Bush was saying just wasn't going to happen. I've tried telling a certain member of this forum ( not you Naplesx ) that the jobs weren't coming along with the economy. No job growth = no recovery. Sorry if anyone doesn't like this news but there it is. Also he should at least own up to this and not try to shift the blame. Things like that is why I dislike the man.
Where is the same outcry when BC bombed Iraq based on the exact same info? That act was obviously perceived by SH as an act of war. So you could easily blame Clinton for the current war, as a result of him provoking SH by that act. Could this war have been avoided after that? If you want to point fingers.
This seems to suggest that Hussain provoked this current invasion through some sort of aggressive action.
Is your grasp of the recent past that distorted?!?
Don't you get one of the CENTRAL facts that is a reason for people's problem with the whole Iraq THING?!
namely, that the United States, which had always "talked softly but carried a Big Stick", and prided itself on justice and a balenced even hand, pre-emptively invaded a country based on information that was faulty at best . . . at best!
even though that faultiness seemed obviouse to the rest of the world at the time
Pre-emption = meaning that we were the aggressors in the 21st century . . . so I'm not sure what kind of thinking gets you saying this: "as a result of him provoking SH by that act."
Well I don't mean to say I told you so but I've always been saying Bush's numbers don't match reality and what I see going on around me. It's not that we love bad news it's just that a lot of us suspected that what Bush was saying just wasn't going to happen. I've tried telling a certain member of this forum ( not you Naplesx ) that the jobs weren't coming along with the economy. No job growth = no recovery. Sorry if anyone doesn't like this news but there it is. Also he should at least own up to this and not try to shift the blame. Things like that is why I dislike the man.
The lesson to be gleaned from this is, don't follow predictions or make predictions, you will almost always be disappointed. Jimmac will remember I predicted a revelation when it came to WMD and it did not happen yet. I learned a lesson. No-one can see the future, not Bush not Kerry not Clinton, and yet all actions have results good and bad. Such is life
This seems to suggest that Hussain provoked this current invasion through some sort of aggressive action.
Kuwait. Remember them How about Iran?
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Is your grasp of the recent past that distorted?!?
Is yours?
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Don't you get one of the CENTRAL facts to people's problem with the whole Iraq THING?!
namely, that the United States, which had always "talked softly but carried a Big Stick", and prided itself on justice and a balenced even hand, [B}pre-emptively invaded a country based on information that was faulty at best . . . at best![/B]
You forget that the last time the us was attacked it caused the US to join a world war. That was a "fair" military attack and not an attack on thousands of civilians.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
even though that faultiness seemed obviouse to the rest of the world at the time
You are spreading revisionist history. In fact, the rest of the world had the same information and also believed SH had the WMD.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Pre-emption = meaning that we were the aggressors in the 21st century . . . so I'm not sure what kind of thinking gets you saying this: "as a result of him provoking SH by that act."
Provoking him to what?
To continue NOT making Nukes?!
Sending a missile or missiles to Iraq. Do you honestly think SH just blew that of as no big deal? Get some perspective.
The Kuwait invasion is NOT the issue . . . are you truly that obliviouse?
and, get this, WE were supporters of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war!
we gave Iraq lots of money and weapons so that Hussain could over turn a government that we thought was dangerous.
There are even famous pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussain during the Iran/Iraq war . . . . where were you?
Quote:
You forget that the last time the us was attacked it caused the US to join a world war. That was a "fair" military attack and not an attack on thousands of civilians.
What does this have to do with anything?
Yes, we were attacked in WW2 . . . and on 911 Al Queda attacked us and we retaliated by invading Afghanistan . . . a war I backed and still do.
What does that have to do with the Pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?
Quote:
You are spreading revisionist history. In fact, the rest of the world had the same information and also believed SH had the WMD.
Are you referring to the famous "coalition of the willing"?
. . . countries like Poland (who have since admitted that they only did it for the potential oil!) and assorted island nations hoping to get in the good graces of the US?!
oh yeah there was Great Britain too . . . . um, what's all that scandal about over there?
I think they call it "sexying up" . . . whereas, over here we simply call it "lies"
We ridiculed France and Germany for not backing us . . . but now we should rspect them for sticking up for what they believe . . . they saw Powell's "secret data" and came out and said 'it is not convincing enough"
why?
Because it was obviouse to their intelligence agents and thus to their leaders as well
Quote:
Sending a missile or missiles to Iraq. Do you honestly think SH just blew that of as no big deal? Get some perspective.
Could you enlighten me on this?
What the hell are you talking about?
What context are you imagining where this supports some argument?
I don't know the stats, that's true . . . but many Iraqis died during the invasion, and we never think of them here . . . why?
Just one little question:
How many iraqis were dying at the hands of Saddam BEFORE we took him out? Saddam was torturing and killing LOTS of people. I dare say we have lowered the chances of death for innocent Iraqi civilians.
(You are letting your hate for a single man cloud your thinking that ANYTHING the man does MIGHT have ACTUALLY resulted in something GOOD. Take a step back. Is Bush perfect? Nope. He's done good, and bad. But our war has taken a lot of people out from under daily terror from their Govt)
We regret and do out best to avoid civilian deaths. Saddam reveled in them. My (and your) tax dollars buy million dollar missles- that lower civilian casualties. It's not like we are carpet-bombing residential neighborhoods.
The Kuwait invasion is NOT the issue . . . are you truly that obliviouse?
and, get this, WE were supporters of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war!
we gave Iraq lots of money and weapons so that Hussain could over turn a government that we thought was dangerous.
There are even famous pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussain during the Iran/Iraq war . . . . where were you?
[B] What does this have to do with anything?
Yes, we were attacked in WW2 . . . and on 911 Al Queda attacked us and we retaliated by invading Afghanistan . . . a war I backed and still do.
What does that have to do with the Pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?
[B]
Are you referring to the famous "coalition of the willing"?
. . . countries like Poland (who have since admitted that they only did it for the potential oil!) and assorted island nations hoping to get in the good graces of the US?!
oh yeah there was Great Britain too . . . . um, what's all that scandal about over there?
I think they call it "sexying up" . . . whereas, over here we simply call it "lies"
We ridiculed France and Germany for not backing us . . . but now we should rspect them for sticking up for what they believe . . . they saw Powell's "secret data" and came out and said 'it is not convincing enough"
why?
Because it was obviouse to their intelligence agents and thus to their leaders as well
Could you enlighten me on this?
What the hell are you talking about?
What context are you imagining where this supports some argument? [/QUOTEBecause I have neither the time or patience to go into this loop, I will just say we are all entitled to an opinion. So, you may or may not be right in your opinion, However I do not agree with your standpoint. Lets not perpetuate the silly argument knowing that.
You are spreading revisionist history. In fact, the rest of the world had the same information and also believed SH had the WMD.
"the rest of the world believed SH had WMD????"
belief is not proof.
Almost none of the other Canadians I know believed there was proof of current WMD.
Many of us believed the UN Inspectors, IAEA, and other sources that accepted they'd been destroyed or 'expired'
Almost none of the Europeans I know believed SH had proven current WMD.
Many of them believed the UN Inspectors, IAEA, and other sources that accepted they'd been destroyed or 'expired'
Possible? yes. Stockpiles years of UN inspections missed? no.
Some of the Americans I know did believe SH had WMD, but 71% of them thought he was tied to 9/11
Some of those guys need to stop drinking the Rove koolaid
Most of the 'rest of the world' people I know believe Bush/Blair "stovepiped"/"sexed up" questionable intel to fit a facade over a predetermined plan to invade iraq... many believe that Bush was always looking for an excuse, decided on "pre-emption", and Blair went along rather then spoil the 'Special Relationship'
pfflam, naples isn't worth the effort. It's all just pretty colors and shiny objects to him.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
How many iraqis were dying at the hands of Saddam BEFORE we took him out? Saddam was torturing and killing LOTS of people. I dare say we have lowered the chances of death for innocent Iraqi civilians.
(You are letting your hate for a single man cloud your thinking that ANYTHING the man does MIGHT have ACTUALLY resulted in something GOOD. Take a step back. Is Bush perfect? Nope. He's done good, and bad. But our war has taken a lot of people out from under daily terror from their Govt)
The lesson to be gleaned from this is, don't follow predictions or make predictions, you will almost always be disappointed. Jimmac will remember I predicted a revelation when it came to WMD and it did not happen yet. I learned a lesson. No-one can see the future, not Bush not Kerry not Clinton, and yet all actions have results good and bad. Such is life
Yes but how is it I could tell months ago this predicted job growth wasn't going to happen?
I'm not clairvoyant.
Believe me it wasn't the way I would wish it to turn out. I'm sorry but I just don't trust our president.
This also doesn't explain why when Mr. Bush is so sure about something he's willing to bet our good will, tax dollars, and in the case of Iraq our lives. Then when one of these things doesn't come true he blames it on someone else.
The president has to stand for something.
That's when it's Clinton, Bush, or very possibly Kerry.
With all due respect, Naples is more on the right track as far as countries beliefs about the iraqi weapons programs. Most countries agreed before the invasion that Iraqi was hiding WMD. Where the differentiation came was that the US wanted to go in and attack, and other countries (France, Russia, Germany, etc.) wanted weapons inspectors to provide undeniable proof of it.
Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible.
I was with the latter group, and while I do not like the preemptive action the US took, I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat. And that got done. So while I believe we should hold the powers that be accountable for the failures that have occurred, I also stand behind the ultimate goal. It's a difficult position for me personally, but there it is.
With all due respect, Naples is more on the right track as far as countries beliefs about the iraqi weapons programs. Most countries agreed before the invasion that Iraqi was hiding WMD. Where the differentiation came was that the US wanted to go in and attack, and other countries (France, Russia, Germany, etc.) wanted weapons inspectors to provide undeniable proof of it.
Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible.
I was with the latter group, and while I do not like the preemptive action the US took, I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat. And that got done. So while I believe we should hold the powers that be accountable for the failures that have occurred, I also stand behind the ultimate goal. It's a difficult position for me personally, but there it is.
With all due respect, Naples is more on the right track as far as countries beliefs about the iraqi weapons programs. Most countries agreed before the invasion that Iraqi was hiding WMD. Where the differentiation came was that the US wanted to go in and attack, and other countries (France, Russia, Germany, etc.) wanted weapons inspectors to provide undeniable proof of it.
Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible.
I was with the latter group, and while I do not like the preemptive action the US took, I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat. And that got done. So while I believe we should hold the powers that be accountable for the failures that have occurred, I also stand behind the ultimate goal. It's a difficult position for me personally, but there it is.
belief versus desire for proof. fair analysis. I redact some of my earlier post.
does that make the war a 'faith-based initiative'?
It is obvious that Bush and his handlers only accept data that fit their preordained expectations. The Union of Concerned scientists released a report today on how the Bush administration has ignored, distorted, or buried scientific fact whenever that fact disagreed with their policy on such things as the environment, health, biomedical research, and nuclear weapons. As a biologist I have seen again and again how statements from the White House dealing with anything scientific are mostly bogus. Like someone wrote here already the president likes to identify with the NASCAR crowd and blame us egg-heads for causing trouble.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
Actually it would be more noble to kill someone in hand to hand combat as opposed to killing him from a distance with overwhelming high-caliber firepower. Assuming those were soldiers too.
How is that any more noble? I mean both sides are fighting for the causes of others, for the most part. There really isn't any nobility in killing during a war, or peace time for that matter, save some extreme examples. It's just indiscriminate killing.
''roger"
as for the eyes . . . yeah, I got you allright . . . but it seemed that you got yourself with that one first . .. just needed to bring it to your attention.
By the way . . . polls are showing that anybody but Sharpton would beat Bush if the elections were today!
As far as the war goes, you guys are real funny. I suppose the previous 30 years of SH I guess means nothing? How about all of the UN sactions he broke? How about the, upwards of a million innocents theat SH killed and tortured and raped. How about the outcry for that? How about the joy you should feel that that tyrant is out of power and millions now have a future that does not involve SH?
Bush did not start this war SH did when he invaded Kuwait. He continued it every time he had his soldiers fire upon a plane in the no fly zones. He Continued it when he attempted to assasinate the former Pres. Bush. He continued it when he threatened the US continually.
Where is the same outcry when BC bombed Iraq based on the exact same info? That act was obviously perceived by SH as an act of war. So you could easily blame Clinton for the current war, as a result of him provoking SH by that act. Could this war have been avoided after that? If you want to point fingers.
Intelligence agencies hold a lot responsibility. Congress that cut spending on intel hold a huge chunk of the responsibility. Where is the outrage about that. Bush wasn't even in office then. How is he responsible for that?
I think that you bush haters are wearing out your message very rapidly. I know I am sick of hearing it.
Don't get me wrong, some of your points may be valid. But this mentality that says "Bush got bad intel so that means he lied, and every problem domestically and elsewhere is now his fault.", is just going way over the line. Bush has been handed a lot to manage since 9/11. He may be right and then again maybe not. I believe he is doing the best he can, with all of the politicking and finger-pointing going on (as opposed to actually governing and problem solving) in washington.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
NaplesX - thanks for dropping in to offer the viewpoint of the totally blind. Ya got anything on-topic about the Administration disavowing its own economic forecast by passing the blame?
I hope you are not suggesting that most of the posts have not veered off topic.
Some of what I said can be applied to the current discussion. And yes I have something to add.
I am sure you know that economic predictions can and usually are wrong. Things change. Would you prefer he continue to back a previous prediction that turns out to be wrong? He is acting and reacting to data as it comes in to him.
Where is the story here. like I said just another bash bush thread. You guys use any little article or news blurb as an excuse. It is really getting old. You guys are like lemmings to the media. The media loves dirt and bad news. So do you. There are a lot of good things happening with the economy and the war and other things. Pull yourself away from the computer and the TV a little bit. Come on.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where is the same outcry when BC bombed Iraq based on the exact same info? That act was obviously perceived by SH as an act of war. So you could easily blame Clinton for the current war, as a result of him provoking SH by that act. Could this war have been avoided after that? If you want to point fingers.
This seems to suggest that Hussain provoked this current invasion through some sort of aggressive action.
Is your grasp of the recent past that distorted?!?
Don't you get one of the CENTRAL facts that is a reason for people's problem with the whole Iraq THING?!
namely, that the United States, which had always "talked softly but carried a Big Stick", and prided itself on justice and a balenced even hand, pre-emptively invaded a country based on information that was faulty at best . . . at best!
even though that faultiness seemed obviouse to the rest of the world at the time
Pre-emption = meaning that we were the aggressors in the 21st century . . . so I'm not sure what kind of thinking gets you saying this: "as a result of him provoking SH by that act."
Provoking him to what?
To continue NOT making Nukes?!
Originally posted by jimmac
Well I don't mean to say I told you so but I've always been saying Bush's numbers don't match reality and what I see going on around me. It's not that we love bad news it's just that a lot of us suspected that what Bush was saying just wasn't going to happen. I've tried telling a certain member of this forum ( not you Naplesx ) that the jobs weren't coming along with the economy. No job growth = no recovery. Sorry if anyone doesn't like this news but there it is. Also he should at least own up to this and not try to shift the blame. Things like that is why I dislike the man.
The lesson to be gleaned from this is, don't follow predictions or make predictions, you will almost always be disappointed. Jimmac will remember I predicted a revelation when it came to WMD and it did not happen yet. I learned a lesson. No-one can see the future, not Bush not Kerry not Clinton, and yet all actions have results good and bad. Such is life
Originally posted by pfflam
This seems to suggest that Hussain provoked this current invasion through some sort of aggressive action.
Kuwait. Remember them How about Iran?
Originally posted by pfflam
Is your grasp of the recent past that distorted?!?
Is yours?
Originally posted by pfflam
Don't you get one of the CENTRAL facts to people's problem with the whole Iraq THING?!
namely, that the United States, which had always "talked softly but carried a Big Stick", and prided itself on justice and a balenced even hand, [B}pre-emptively invaded a country based on information that was faulty at best . . . at best![/B]
You forget that the last time the us was attacked it caused the US to join a world war. That was a "fair" military attack and not an attack on thousands of civilians.
Originally posted by pfflam
even though that faultiness seemed obviouse to the rest of the world at the time
You are spreading revisionist history. In fact, the rest of the world had the same information and also believed SH had the WMD.
Originally posted by pfflam
Pre-emption = meaning that we were the aggressors in the 21st century . . . so I'm not sure what kind of thinking gets you saying this: "as a result of him provoking SH by that act."
Provoking him to what?
To continue NOT making Nukes?!
Sending a missile or missiles to Iraq. Do you honestly think SH just blew that of as no big deal? Get some perspective.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Kuwait. Remember them How about Iran?
We are talking about the current invasion!!!!!
The Kuwait invasion is NOT the issue . . . are you truly that obliviouse?
and, get this, WE were supporters of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war!
we gave Iraq lots of money and weapons so that Hussain could over turn a government that we thought was dangerous.
There are even famous pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussain during the Iran/Iraq war . . . . where were you?
Quote:
You forget that the last time the us was attacked it caused the US to join a world war. That was a "fair" military attack and not an attack on thousands of civilians.
What does this have to do with anything?
Yes, we were attacked in WW2 . . . and on 911 Al Queda attacked us and we retaliated by invading Afghanistan . . . a war I backed and still do.
What does that have to do with the Pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?
Quote:
You are spreading revisionist history. In fact, the rest of the world had the same information and also believed SH had the WMD.
Are you referring to the famous "coalition of the willing"?
. . . countries like Poland (who have since admitted that they only did it for the potential oil!) and assorted island nations hoping to get in the good graces of the US?!
oh yeah there was Great Britain too . . . . um, what's all that scandal about over there?
I think they call it "sexying up" . . . whereas, over here we simply call it "lies"
We ridiculed France and Germany for not backing us . . . but now we should rspect them for sticking up for what they believe . . . they saw Powell's "secret data" and came out and said 'it is not convincing enough"
why?
Because it was obviouse to their intelligence agents and thus to their leaders as well
Quote:
Sending a missile or missiles to Iraq. Do you honestly think SH just blew that of as no big deal? Get some perspective.
Could you enlighten me on this?
What the hell are you talking about?
What context are you imagining where this supports some argument?
Originally posted by pfflam
I don't know the stats, that's true . . . but many Iraqis died during the invasion, and we never think of them here . . . why?
Just one little question:
How many iraqis were dying at the hands of Saddam BEFORE we took him out? Saddam was torturing and killing LOTS of people. I dare say we have lowered the chances of death for innocent Iraqi civilians.
(You are letting your hate for a single man cloud your thinking that ANYTHING the man does MIGHT have ACTUALLY resulted in something GOOD. Take a step back. Is Bush perfect? Nope. He's done good, and bad. But our war has taken a lot of people out from under daily terror from their Govt)
We regret and do out best to avoid civilian deaths. Saddam reveled in them. My (and your) tax dollars buy million dollar missles- that lower civilian casualties. It's not like we are carpet-bombing residential neighborhoods.
[B]We are talking about the current invasion!!!!!
The Kuwait invasion is NOT the issue . . . are you truly that obliviouse?
and, get this, WE were supporters of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war!
we gave Iraq lots of money and weapons so that Hussain could over turn a government that we thought was dangerous.
There are even famous pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussain during the Iran/Iraq war . . . . where were you?
[B] What does this have to do with anything?
Yes, we were attacked in WW2 . . . and on 911 Al Queda attacked us and we retaliated by invading Afghanistan . . . a war I backed and still do.
What does that have to do with the Pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?
[B]
Are you referring to the famous "coalition of the willing"?
. . . countries like Poland (who have since admitted that they only did it for the potential oil!) and assorted island nations hoping to get in the good graces of the US?!
oh yeah there was Great Britain too . . . . um, what's all that scandal about over there?
I think they call it "sexying up" . . . whereas, over here we simply call it "lies"
We ridiculed France and Germany for not backing us . . . but now we should rspect them for sticking up for what they believe . . . they saw Powell's "secret data" and came out and said 'it is not convincing enough"
why?
Because it was obviouse to their intelligence agents and thus to their leaders as well
Could you enlighten me on this?
What the hell are you talking about?
What context are you imagining where this supports some argument? [/QUOTEBecause I have neither the time or patience to go into this loop, I will just say we are all entitled to an opinion. So, you may or may not be right in your opinion, However I do not agree with your standpoint. Lets not perpetuate the silly argument knowing that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are spreading revisionist history. In fact, the rest of the world had the same information and also believed SH had the WMD.
"the rest of the world believed SH had WMD????"
belief is not proof.
Almost none of the other Canadians I know believed there was proof of current WMD.
Many of us believed the UN Inspectors, IAEA, and other sources that accepted they'd been destroyed or 'expired'
Almost none of the Europeans I know believed SH had proven current WMD.
Many of them believed the UN Inspectors, IAEA, and other sources that accepted they'd been destroyed or 'expired'
Possible? yes. Stockpiles years of UN inspections missed? no.
Some of the Americans I know did believe SH had WMD, but 71% of them thought he was tied to 9/11
Some of those guys need to stop drinking the Rove koolaid
Most of the 'rest of the world' people I know believe Bush/Blair "stovepiped"/"sexed up" questionable intel to fit a facade over a predetermined plan to invade iraq... many believe that Bush was always looking for an excuse, decided on "pre-emption", and Blair went along rather then spoil the 'Special Relationship'
WMD was a laughable excuse then and now.
Honest this Administration is not.
Originally posted by Jubelum
How many iraqis were dying at the hands of Saddam BEFORE we took him out? Saddam was torturing and killing LOTS of people. I dare say we have lowered the chances of death for innocent Iraqi civilians.
(You are letting your hate for a single man cloud your thinking that ANYTHING the man does MIGHT have ACTUALLY resulted in something GOOD. Take a step back. Is Bush perfect? Nope. He's done good, and bad. But our war has taken a lot of people out from under daily terror from their Govt)
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952
Originally posted by NaplesX
The lesson to be gleaned from this is, don't follow predictions or make predictions, you will almost always be disappointed. Jimmac will remember I predicted a revelation when it came to WMD and it did not happen yet. I learned a lesson. No-one can see the future, not Bush not Kerry not Clinton, and yet all actions have results good and bad. Such is life
Yes but how is it I could tell months ago this predicted job growth wasn't going to happen?
I'm not clairvoyant.
Believe me it wasn't the way I would wish it to turn out. I'm sorry but I just don't trust our president.
This also doesn't explain why when Mr. Bush is so sure about something he's willing to bet our good will, tax dollars, and in the case of Iraq our lives. Then when one of these things doesn't come true he blames it on someone else.
The president has to stand for something.
That's when it's Clinton, Bush, or very possibly Kerry.
Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible.
I was with the latter group, and while I do not like the preemptive action the US took, I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat. And that got done. So while I believe we should hold the powers that be accountable for the failures that have occurred, I also stand behind the ultimate goal. It's a difficult position for me personally, but there it is.
Originally posted by rageous
With all due respect, Naples is more on the right track as far as countries beliefs about the iraqi weapons programs. Most countries agreed before the invasion that Iraqi was hiding WMD. Where the differentiation came was that the US wanted to go in and attack, and other countries (France, Russia, Germany, etc.) wanted weapons inspectors to provide undeniable proof of it.
Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible.
I was with the latter group, and while I do not like the preemptive action the US took, I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat. And that got done. So while I believe we should hold the powers that be accountable for the failures that have occurred, I also stand behind the ultimate goal. It's a difficult position for me personally, but there it is.
That sounds reasonable
Originally posted by rageous
With all due respect, Naples is more on the right track as far as countries beliefs about the iraqi weapons programs. Most countries agreed before the invasion that Iraqi was hiding WMD. Where the differentiation came was that the US wanted to go in and attack, and other countries (France, Russia, Germany, etc.) wanted weapons inspectors to provide undeniable proof of it.
Virtually everyone BELIEVED the weapons were there, but not everyone was willing to wage war on belief. Some wanted hard evidence that could be brought forth and be irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible.
I was with the latter group, and while I do not like the preemptive action the US took, I still steadfastly believe Hussein needed to be brought to justice for what he'd done in the past, not his perceived future threat. And that got done. So while I believe we should hold the powers that be accountable for the failures that have occurred, I also stand behind the ultimate goal. It's a difficult position for me personally, but there it is.
belief versus desire for proof. fair analysis. I redact some of my earlier post.
does that make the war a 'faith-based initiative'?
UCS Report