The sad thing is that the administration felt that the atrocities would get no traction in the world community.
They were right because even now the only thing that matters in certain circles is WMD. The disgusting things that the Iraqi people endured for so long are not even mentioned.
Almost every speech that GWB gave mentioned the brutal nature of the regime, yet even now that reason is passed over like that doesn't matter.
Not to seem jaded, but 600 lives have been lost in this effort. I wonder how many Iraqi lives were saved by this action. I would venture to say 10 to 100 times that. That fact totally escapes the "Bush Lied" crowd. It is as if they do not care about Iraqi civilians. I mean the more I think about it, the more I really feel sorry for these heartless people.
It does appear that bush was right about the atrocities that were going on and that life for the Iraqi people is better now. It appears that he was right about democracy taking hold. He was right about removing a destabilizing influence in the MI. He seems to be right that showing force will influence other nations to fall in line. It appears he was right about the UN being unable to make the situation go away, in fact he may have been more right then he knew. He also appears to have been right not to cow-tow to the French and Germans and Russians, being that they were being corrupted by the UN.
Despite all of this, the one thing that gets a held on to is the WMD thing. This goes in the face of just about every intelligence agency in the world believing he had WMD's or at least programs and plans for them.
If the atrocities of the Iraqi regime had been even part of the reason that this Administration went to war I'd be astounded.
Two final questions: Did Iraq have WMD's? How do you suppose that came about if it weren't for even the "failed" UN inspections?
Ummm..now wait. Isn't one of your arguments that "the ends don't justify the means?" It works both ways. Saddam did not cooperate. You cannot possibly say that he did.
Would you have felt differently if the UN enforced 1441?
What are you talking about? When did I ever say the ends don't justify the means? This is always true, it is a truism. It is simply the extent of the means that should be pursued. UN inspections worked, Saddam didn't fully cooperate, but the entire course of the 1990's functioned to rid him of his weapons and his potential to make them... I am not one of the "liberals" who argued against UN sanctions...
You know the funny thing is I'd be willing to bet Al-Queda members came from all over. That still doesn't mean all of these countries had some kind of secret base or were worth attacking.
Iraq had an obligation to show proof of disarmament. Total and full disclosure. Inspections did not accomplish that. This was made evident every time they found something that was banned by the UN resolutions.
They worked in what way exactly?
No WOMD when we got there! This was by the way what the inspectors were saying before the war.
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.
If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.
You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?
You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.
The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.
Clearly the President should have been bombing Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, India, North Korea, the former Soviet Union last year instead of focusing on a country that didn't have the WMDs needed to sell to terrorists...
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.
If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.
You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?
You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.
The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.
When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.
If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.
Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.
Clearly the President should have been bombing Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, India, North Korea, the former Soviet Union last year instead of focusing on a country that didn't have the WMDs needed to sell to terrorists...
Oh yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. In fact, it is a totally flawed line of reasoning.
You know, I hadn't even thought about that until now. That argument is pretty much out the window, isn't it?
You'd think, but it keeps rearing it's empty head. I mean ugly head.
Someone how it's come up twice in this thread alone, and I can only assume the people typing it actually believe it. I not sure how they can bend the laws of science far enough to make it fit into their world view, but they do.
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.
When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.
If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.
Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.
If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.
You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?
You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.
The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.
How much more time do you need? Forever?
I'd be dreaming of all those needless deaths.
No one to date has made a concrete connection between Al-Queda and Iraq ( as in support for terrorists ). So yes no one's made the case because there isn't any.
The president did risk thousands of lives and spent billions of dollars over this falsehood.
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?
SH was a criminal nobody's arguing that point. However SH isn't president of this country and if there's even the slightest possibility of guilt it needs to be examined. This has much more far reaching consequences for us if true. And I'm sorry but it's looking more like he did know what was up all the time. To believe the other possibilty simply means he and his staff are incompetent and should be removed. Take your pick.
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.
Does your avoidance mean you agree that you just can't go around killing when you're scared?
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.
Does your avoidance mean you agree that you just can't go around killing when you're scared?
I guess it was OK when a democrat did it.
I do agree with your statement, but that was not the reason.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
The sad thing is that the administration felt that the atrocities would get no traction in the world community.
They were right because even now the only thing that matters in certain circles is WMD. The disgusting things that the Iraqi people endured for so long are not even mentioned.
Almost every speech that GWB gave mentioned the brutal nature of the regime, yet even now that reason is passed over like that doesn't matter.
Not to seem jaded, but 600 lives have been lost in this effort. I wonder how many Iraqi lives were saved by this action. I would venture to say 10 to 100 times that. That fact totally escapes the "Bush Lied" crowd. It is as if they do not care about Iraqi civilians. I mean the more I think about it, the more I really feel sorry for these heartless people.
It does appear that bush was right about the atrocities that were going on and that life for the Iraqi people is better now. It appears that he was right about democracy taking hold. He was right about removing a destabilizing influence in the MI. He seems to be right that showing force will influence other nations to fall in line. It appears he was right about the UN being unable to make the situation go away, in fact he may have been more right then he knew. He also appears to have been right not to cow-tow to the French and Germans and Russians, being that they were being corrupted by the UN.
Despite all of this, the one thing that gets a held on to is the WMD thing. This goes in the face of just about every intelligence agency in the world believing he had WMD's or at least programs and plans for them.
If the atrocities of the Iraqi regime had been even part of the reason that this Administration went to war I'd be astounded.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Two final questions: Did Iraq have WMD's? How do you suppose that came about if it weren't for even the "failed" UN inspections?
Ummm..now wait. Isn't one of your arguments that "the ends don't justify the means?" It works both ways. Saddam did not cooperate. You cannot possibly say that he did.
Would you have felt differently if the UN enforced 1441?
Originally posted by NaplesX
ok then:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AB0894DC404482
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/132000.shtml
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/j...eda_link.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2730253.stm
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0308_1_n.shtml
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../67731/1/.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html
http://www.meta-religion.com/Hate_Gr...r_al-islam.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm
You know the funny thing is I'd be willing to bet Al-Queda members came from all over. That still doesn't mean all of these countries had some kind of secret base or were worth attacking.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Twelve years of inspection did not work.
Obviously you're wrong.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Iraq had an obligation to show proof of disarmament. Total and full disclosure. Inspections did not accomplish that. This was made evident every time they found something that was banned by the UN resolutions.
They worked in what way exactly?
No WOMD when we got there! This was by the way what the inspectors were saying before the war.
Originally posted by bunge
Obviously you're wrong.
You know, I hadn't even thought about that until now. That argument is pretty much out the window, isn't it?
Originally posted by bunge
Obviously you're wrong.
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.
If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.
You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?
You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.
The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.
If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.
You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?
You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.
The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.
When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.
If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.
Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.
Libertarian
Originally posted by billybobsky
Clearly the President should have been bombing Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, India, North Korea, the former Soviet Union last year instead of focusing on a country that didn't have the WMDs needed to sell to terrorists...
Oh yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. In fact, it is a totally flawed line of reasoning.
You are just jabbing i hope.
Originally posted by midwinter
You know, I hadn't even thought about that until now. That argument is pretty much out the window, isn't it?
You'd think, but it keeps rearing it's empty head. I mean ugly head.
Someone how it's come up twice in this thread alone, and I can only assume the people typing it actually believe it. I not sure how they can bend the laws of science far enough to make it fit into their world view, but they do.
Originally posted by bunge
Here's the kicker: you can't just attack when you're scared.
When I'm on public transportation at 2 AM and I see a scary looking person who I think might attack me and steal my wallet, I can't pre-emptively kick his ass and knock him off the train.
If you think this type of action is legitimate, you're a fascist/racist prick.
Laws and rules are set up for a reason, and they're not all so you can sleep better at night. Besides, if you sleep better at night because of what we've done in Iraq you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's not a catch-22. There will be another '9/11', oh wait, there just WAS another '9/11'. It was on March 11th, in Madrid.
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Time will only tell if the admin was wrong about the WMD thing, not a bunch of people saying he purposely misled the nation.
If I were president, I would sleep better being wrong about that one thing rather than worrying about the possibility of another and possibly worse attack than 9/11.
You see no-one has made a case that there wasn't that possibility. There is the catch 22 now isn't it?
You apparently would be willing to take that chance with possibly thousands of more lives.
The president would be taking a risk either way he went on that one I think.
How much more time do you need? Forever?
I'd be dreaming of all those needless deaths.
No one to date has made a concrete connection between Al-Queda and Iraq ( as in support for terrorists ). So yes no one's made the case because there isn't any.
The president did risk thousands of lives and spent billions of dollars over this falsehood.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?
SH was a criminal nobody's arguing that point. However SH isn't president of this country and if there's even the slightest possibility of guilt it needs to be examined. This has much more far reaching consequences for us if true. And I'm sorry but it's looking more like he did know what was up all the time. To believe the other possibilty simply means he and his staff are incompetent and should be removed. Take your pick.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Tell me why SH can skirt the law and you accept it and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you feel an action by this government (remember congress approved it) is questionable you question honesty and then only the president?
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.
Does your avoidance mean you agree that you just can't go around killing when you're scared?
Originally posted by bunge
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.
Don't diss Finland now.
Originally posted by bunge
I certainly hold my leaders up to a higher standard than those of Finland, Egypt, Taiwan or Iraq. Leaders of the US represent ME. I won't have a dishonest prick killing people in my name.
Does your avoidance mean you agree that you just can't go around killing when you're scared?
I guess it was OK when a democrat did it.
I do agree with your statement, but that was not the reason.