The conservs here talked a lot of trash about going to Iraq. Then it happened and we watched the "spins", it's about WMD, no wait it's about Iraqi freedom, no wait it's about ousting a cruel dictator, even the recent comment while visiting Africa, I'm sure at some point in time there was a WMD program
, etc.
In the mean time, no WMD have been found, with the recent audio tapes (of course who knows how credible they may be) the only indications point to Saddam being alive and well, Iraqis are definately not free being policed by U.S. soldiers, there is more anti-U.S. sentiment in the Arabic community, there is no end to our occupation of Iraq in sight, we've incurred incredible amounts of debt to carry on this SNAFU, Coalition force and Iraqi lives have been lost, over half of the American public now realizes that they were lied to or misled as to the motives to strike, and the traditional scape goat has been put into place (George Tenet).
However to my knowledge none of those convers have admitted that attacking Iraq may not have been the best idea.
In the mean time, no WMD have been found, with the recent audio tapes (of course who knows how credible they may be) the only indications point to Saddam being alive and well, Iraqis are definately not free being policed by U.S. soldiers, there is more anti-U.S. sentiment in the Arabic community, there is no end to our occupation of Iraq in sight, we've incurred incredible amounts of debt to carry on this SNAFU, Coalition force and Iraqi lives have been lost, over half of the American public now realizes that they were lied to or misled as to the motives to strike, and the traditional scape goat has been put into place (George Tenet).
However to my knowledge none of those convers have admitted that attacking Iraq may not have been the best idea.
ok out,
Yeah it was a great idea, none of the motives have proven true, we're stuck in what may become the modern day Vietnam, and U.S. soldiers/kids are getting killed over there for no apparent reason, while we go deeper and deeper into debt. Yeah great phucking idea.
"it had to be done"
Because of??? Hello?!?!?! None of the supposed motives have turned out to be true! Supposing that Saddam was as evil a leader as he is alleged to have been, other than his removal name one positive thing to come out of this.
You're in some serious denial buddy.
Yeah it was a great idea, none of the motives have proven true, we're stuck in what may become the modern day Vietnam, and U.S. soldiers/kids are getting killed over there for no apparent reason, while we go deeper and deeper into debt. Yeah great phucking idea.
"it had to be done"
Because of??? Hello?!?!?! None of the supposed motives have turned out to be true! Supposing that Saddam was as evil a leader as he is alleged to have been, other than his removal name one positive thing to come out of this.
You're in some serious denial buddy.
No out,
You buy into Bush2's fabrication of a threat, that's very different. No concrete proof was ever presented of any real threat to the U.S. They didn't even have the capability to defend themselves much less attack someone else.
Supposing that Saddam was as evil a leader as he is alleged to have been, other than his removal name one positive thing to come out of this.
You're in some serious denial buddy.
You buy into Bush2's fabrication of a threat, that's very different. No concrete proof was ever presented of any real threat to the U.S. They didn't even have the capability to defend themselves much less attack someone else.
Supposing that Saddam was as evil a leader as he is alleged to have been, other than his removal name one positive thing to come out of this.
You're in some serious denial buddy.
outandup, anyone else who supported the war in Iraq for that matter ... you know that comparing Bush2 to Clinton for me is like taking my pick of the clap or a case of crabs; I'm not longing for the gentle wisdom of the man who brought us Waco I can assure you.
But how can you seriously state that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US or any other nation, given the almost total and nearly immediate collapse of his regime once troops got there? I mean, it's one thing to say "We believed he was a threat, but perhaps we were wrong" but to keep on insisting that the war was justified in light of the "imminent threat" of Hussein is ludicrous. Tony Blair is facing losing his job over his silly-ass assertions that Hussein could launch an attack on Britain "within 45 minutes."
Given the fact that the White House finally acknowledges the gaps in the intelligence, (note that these gaps were pointed out almost immediately after the intelligence was presented as a justification, but only just now happen to be acknowledged ... very Clinton-like behaviour imho) how do you keep clinging to the same tired argument? Can't you at least modify it somewhat to fit the facts, like "At the time ..." or "In good faith based on the recommendations of ..." etc.?
The man was not a threat, he was labeled as not a threat by the CIA, and now the CIA gets to take the heat for Bush2 using information which everyone including himself knew was not accurate. The man who was sent to Africa to investigate the nuclear claims has publicly questioned the apparent brush-off of the facts his research determined.
Yet it's the same old argument, he was a threat, WMD's etc. The fact that Clinton was also wrong doesn't make Bush any more right. The fact that the US provided HUssein with WMD's years ago doesn't mean he's still got them and planning to use them on little babies and puppies and whatnot in the American Breadbasket. Let it go, guys; there's got to be some other shiny point in the administration to cling to.
Phaedrus
But how can you seriously state that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US or any other nation, given the almost total and nearly immediate collapse of his regime once troops got there? I mean, it's one thing to say "We believed he was a threat, but perhaps we were wrong" but to keep on insisting that the war was justified in light of the "imminent threat" of Hussein is ludicrous. Tony Blair is facing losing his job over his silly-ass assertions that Hussein could launch an attack on Britain "within 45 minutes."
Given the fact that the White House finally acknowledges the gaps in the intelligence, (note that these gaps were pointed out almost immediately after the intelligence was presented as a justification, but only just now happen to be acknowledged ... very Clinton-like behaviour imho) how do you keep clinging to the same tired argument? Can't you at least modify it somewhat to fit the facts, like "At the time ..." or "In good faith based on the recommendations of ..." etc.?
The man was not a threat, he was labeled as not a threat by the CIA, and now the CIA gets to take the heat for Bush2 using information which everyone including himself knew was not accurate. The man who was sent to Africa to investigate the nuclear claims has publicly questioned the apparent brush-off of the facts his research determined.
Yet it's the same old argument, he was a threat, WMD's etc. The fact that Clinton was also wrong doesn't make Bush any more right. The fact that the US provided HUssein with WMD's years ago doesn't mean he's still got them and planning to use them on little babies and puppies and whatnot in the American Breadbasket. Let it go, guys; there's got to be some other shiny point in the administration to cling to.
Phaedrus
i think the fact that if saddam ever got his hands on wmd`s(not necessarily chem or bio weapons,but nukes of some sort....and remember there are still some old russian weapons that are unaccounted for out there....and the n koreans would sell there mother they are so cash strapped)that he seems like the one head of state in the middle east that might just use them on israel or pass them off to terrorists....a very big consideration in the decision....like israel or not,they wield some serious juice here in the u.s......
he is the guy that was willing to invade neighboring countries and gas his own people.... he did lob scuds into israel in the first gulf war....and they probably would have been nukes had the israeli`s not bombed the french reactor saddam was building...iraq having nukes would probably have circumvented any move by anyone to extricate him from kuwait....that is obviously why we are treading so softly with n korea....
the sh-tstorm that would follow in the middle east if israel ever got hit with a nuke would be unprecedented....
retaliation would surely follow,and an escalation by neighboring arab staes.....it would be mass destruction and would probably seriously disrupt the world`s oil supply causing economic kaos that would affect the u.s.....maybe trigger ww3...
it obviously doesn`t solve the problem by removing saddam... with the iran`s,the terrorists,the n korea`s and the like still a threat.....
it was more of a preemptive move to stop the most dangerous head of state in the middle east......and saddam`s unwillingness to come clean on the specific destruction and removal of the chemical and biological weapons he definitely had and the lack of willingness to cooperate totally with the u.n. weapons inspectors gave the u.s. the foot in the door they needed to remove him.....
and they did.....acting in their own best interests.....much like france,russia and germany were acting in their own best interests in trying to keep saddam in power....
money,oil,global stability.....maybe sending a message to some of the other,lesser arab bad boys.....flexing a little muscle...
as i`ve said several times before on this forum,the post-war nation building aspect of this endeavor is the real sticky wicket...that is proving to be very true...
he is the guy that was willing to invade neighboring countries and gas his own people.... he did lob scuds into israel in the first gulf war....and they probably would have been nukes had the israeli`s not bombed the french reactor saddam was building...iraq having nukes would probably have circumvented any move by anyone to extricate him from kuwait....that is obviously why we are treading so softly with n korea....
the sh-tstorm that would follow in the middle east if israel ever got hit with a nuke would be unprecedented....
retaliation would surely follow,and an escalation by neighboring arab staes.....it would be mass destruction and would probably seriously disrupt the world`s oil supply causing economic kaos that would affect the u.s.....maybe trigger ww3...
it obviously doesn`t solve the problem by removing saddam... with the iran`s,the terrorists,the n korea`s and the like still a threat.....
it was more of a preemptive move to stop the most dangerous head of state in the middle east......and saddam`s unwillingness to come clean on the specific destruction and removal of the chemical and biological weapons he definitely had and the lack of willingness to cooperate totally with the u.n. weapons inspectors gave the u.s. the foot in the door they needed to remove him.....
and they did.....acting in their own best interests.....much like france,russia and germany were acting in their own best interests in trying to keep saddam in power....
money,oil,global stability.....maybe sending a message to some of the other,lesser arab bad boys.....flexing a little muscle...
as i`ve said several times before on this forum,the post-war nation building aspect of this endeavor is the real sticky wicket...that is proving to be very true...
please respond with the reader digest version, i do not read novels.
i believe saddam has the weapons and given time would have built nukes. i believe saddam had/has chemical and bio weapons that could be passed on to terrorist willing to sneak them into the US. that's enough for me. the message that was sent to the arab leaders in that region was sent up close. end of story.
lets really think about this notion that saddam doesn't have the chems and bio. saddam has mobile labs, saddam used chems up till 1991 on his own people, he admitted to the UN he had them in 1995. so you all believe he destoyed them or got rid of them between 1995 and 2003. i do not.
[This message was edited by outandup on July 12, 2003 at 03:55 PM.]
i believe saddam has the weapons and given time would have built nukes. i believe saddam had/has chemical and bio weapons that could be passed on to terrorist willing to sneak them into the US. that's enough for me. the message that was sent to the arab leaders in that region was sent up close. end of story.
lets really think about this notion that saddam doesn't have the chems and bio. saddam has mobile labs, saddam used chems up till 1991 on his own people, he admitted to the UN he had them in 1995. so you all believe he destoyed them or got rid of them between 1995 and 2003. i do not.
[This message was edited by outandup on July 12, 2003 at 03:55 PM.]
"Readers Digest" ... lol. I know that I'm bad about rambling, and I apologise ... I hate leaving out details and then get sidetracked by an aside ... which reminds me of this time back in 1977 when I was at a Braves game with my father. To put the story in the proper context one must bear in mind some of the more subtle differences between early Mayan culture and things which are blue but nonetheless different in every other way. To quote Lord Acton ... wait ... I'm doing it again, aren't I?
Sorry.
Phaedrus
Sorry.
Phaedrus
The people who were right about the war were the ones who were opposed to it outandup ... sorry.
What I can't understand is how my fellow conservatives can have so little regard for the lives of American soldiers. We have lost over 200 men and women who signed up to serve our country and are not serving it in any way, shape or form while dead. No current prospects on getting any less dead. For what did they die? We're no safer with Saddam out of power. Maybe Kuwait is, but all that oil and they can't buy a few tanks and missile launchers? Israel might have one less enemy to worry about, but I would have had money on them had they ever gotten into a war with Iraq.
Thousands of dead Iraqis too, but frankly if we didn't get em Saddam or starvation or something else would have gotten the dumb bastards eventually. Not really shedding a tear for them -- as one of the only Middle Eastern nations with alost zero gun control, and firearms common in private households, it's their own apalling lack of initiative that kept that batshit camel-fukcer in power for as long as he was.
No WMD have been found, so that means no WMD have been taken out of circulation. So that value hasn't been achieved.
Estimated postwar occupation costs of $ 2 billion per month have been "corrected" to $ 3.9 billion per, which is what the postwar mismanagement has cost thus far. $ 3.9 billion a month is more than 11% of the entire military budget. No telling what that means for the 2004 and subsequent budgets, taxes, etc.
The Senate fact-finding mission spearheaded by Senators Biden and Lugar has determined that an American military presence will be required in Iraq for a minimum of three years and up to five. If Bush fails to get re-elected next year, it will almost certainly be because of this, and his successor will be stupid enough to pander to the peaceniks and attempt an early withdrawal, which means that by the end of the next decade we will be facing the shit all over again.
More than 200 American soldiers dead for this, and counting. Hussein has still yet to be proven to have had anything to do with any terrorist attack on US interests in history, but even if he had it would take one pretty massive terrorist attack to outnumber this toll.
$ 3.9 billion a month, pissing down a hole. That's what an average pre-war Iraqi made in just 1,625,000 short years. Perhaps more importantly, it is also approximately four times Iraq's oil output under it's pre-war infrastructure, which is said to be in a state of disarray to boot.
I am skeptical about virtually all government programs, but I must say that if my initial misgivings about the war in Iraq were in any way wrong, it was only that they were not as strong as they should have been.
Phaedrus
What I can't understand is how my fellow conservatives can have so little regard for the lives of American soldiers. We have lost over 200 men and women who signed up to serve our country and are not serving it in any way, shape or form while dead. No current prospects on getting any less dead. For what did they die? We're no safer with Saddam out of power. Maybe Kuwait is, but all that oil and they can't buy a few tanks and missile launchers? Israel might have one less enemy to worry about, but I would have had money on them had they ever gotten into a war with Iraq.
Thousands of dead Iraqis too, but frankly if we didn't get em Saddam or starvation or something else would have gotten the dumb bastards eventually. Not really shedding a tear for them -- as one of the only Middle Eastern nations with alost zero gun control, and firearms common in private households, it's their own apalling lack of initiative that kept that batshit camel-fukcer in power for as long as he was.
No WMD have been found, so that means no WMD have been taken out of circulation. So that value hasn't been achieved.
Estimated postwar occupation costs of $ 2 billion per month have been "corrected" to $ 3.9 billion per, which is what the postwar mismanagement has cost thus far. $ 3.9 billion a month is more than 11% of the entire military budget. No telling what that means for the 2004 and subsequent budgets, taxes, etc.
The Senate fact-finding mission spearheaded by Senators Biden and Lugar has determined that an American military presence will be required in Iraq for a minimum of three years and up to five. If Bush fails to get re-elected next year, it will almost certainly be because of this, and his successor will be stupid enough to pander to the peaceniks and attempt an early withdrawal, which means that by the end of the next decade we will be facing the shit all over again.
More than 200 American soldiers dead for this, and counting. Hussein has still yet to be proven to have had anything to do with any terrorist attack on US interests in history, but even if he had it would take one pretty massive terrorist attack to outnumber this toll.
$ 3.9 billion a month, pissing down a hole. That's what an average pre-war Iraqi made in just 1,625,000 short years. Perhaps more importantly, it is also approximately four times Iraq's oil output under it's pre-war infrastructure, which is said to be in a state of disarray to boot.
I am skeptical about virtually all government programs, but I must say that if my initial misgivings about the war in Iraq were in any way wrong, it was only that they were not as strong as they should have been.
Phaedrus
