- This topic has 138 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by PerryChase.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM #39855November 13, 2006 at 11:34 AM #39858AnonymousGuest
Obviously the world did NOT believe there were WMDs because the world did not support the invasion as evidenced by the pathetic, non-existant coalition.
In fact, the UN security council specifically voted against military action and Bush basically flipped his middle finger at the rest of the world.
The fact that no WMD was found is an absolute EMBARRASMENT to Bush and the U.S. We specifically distanced ourselves from the UN and world opinion by invading Iraq so it was quite a risk to begin with. If you are going to take a risk like that, you better be right!
Well, clearly it was a disastrous mistake and that is why the Republicans are paying the price.
November 13, 2006 at 11:44 AM #39859surveyorParticipantNo, the world did believe that Iraq had WMDs. They just did not support the war because they hoped appeasement would work better. Also, many European countries had significant Muslim populations and they were fearful of Muslim rioting if they supported the U.S.
Lastly, many European countries were actively doing business with Saddam Hussein and were making loads of money from the situation. They of course were not interested in a war because they would be basically cutting off their own hands. France and Russia, the ones who were most opposed to the war, had billions owed to them by Saddam Hussein. Because the U.S. wouldn’t guarantee their payment, they were vehemently opposed to the war.
November 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM #39862JJGittesParticipantWow, the idiot that can’t string a complete sentence together fooled all of the Democrat rocket scientists quoted above, along with the rest of the “world community.” That Bush, he clearly is an evil genius.
Of course, one must wonder why such an evil genius, knowing WMDs would not be found, did not have them planted ahead of time, did not forsee the discord resulting from them not being found, and ended up as a lame duck with an opposition party now controlling the legislative branch for his final two years. Alas, perhaps the grand plan will unfold in time for our grand children’s history books.
One last question though, what happened to all that non-WMD stuf that rained down on those Kurdish villages that suffocated those thousands of men, women and children? Even after 10 years of inspection (less the 2 or 3 Saddam kicked him out), the Swede lawyer Blix could still not certify that Iraq had destroyed its arsenal. For all our sakes, I hope it does not end up here, via Syria or the Becca Valley, or the worst predictions regarding San Diego’s unfolding real estate plunge will certainly come true.
November 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM #39861powaysellerParticipantjuice, everything you said is so true. You are right. We were lied to by the President, who told us that Saddam Hussein was a thread to our national security. Democratic investigations will reveal that Bush knew WMDs did not exist, and that his advisors knew our war in Iraq would cause the civil war we now see.
JJGittes, excellent quotes.
PD, Your writing sounds almost like a dictatorship, where people are condemned for voicing their opinion and disagreeing with the politicans. I wonder, how do you feel about free speech?
November 13, 2006 at 12:39 PM #39868AnonymousGuestdeadzone – The truth is somewhere in between what you and I said. Much of the world did in fact think he had WMDs, but even WMDs were not enough for them to support an invasion. They preferred more peaceful means, like inspections. Anyway, I think that if you asked the average guy like me, or even the average European, before the war if they had WMDs they would have said ‘yes’ or ‘probably.’
The interesting thing about my statements above is that they don’t require that you believe/believed Iraq didn’t have WMDs. There was a good case that they did in fact have them. I thought they did in 2003. It only requires that you accept the evidence that Bush’s team engaged in a hard sell, ignored intelligence and dissenters and perhaps lied on multiple occasions. After all, what exactly defines lying? Not telling the ‘whole’ truth should qualify in my book. I am certain that proof of this is forthcoming and might even result in the largest scandel to hit the Presidency in decades.
November 13, 2006 at 1:01 PM #39871bubba99ParticipantThe issue was never to stop or not to stop Hussein and his two sons, but how. A quick decapitation of the govt, and military would have done it. Completely dismantling the whole government and army was a mistake. “Stay the course is a mistake.”
I just don’t get how supposed patriots can justify the killing of 100,000’s of people with “Our intentions were good”. Tell it to the families of the dead. They don’t care if it was a terrorist or Bush and company; their loved ones are gone. Our actions in Iraq have made the United States the bad guy. We have raped and tortured innocents, we are holding hundreds without charges nor access to hapeus corpus, we have kidnapped and “Extraordinarily Renditioned” too many people to claim the moral high ground any more.
It will take years for our men and women in uniform to live down this disaster, and they are the ones who will pay the price. Any backwater country can now ignore the Geneva Convention for treatment of prisoners because the U.S. did. Abu Grabe is not an isolated case of a few soldiers going wild, it is part of a system of interrogation that is totally disregards any human dignity and seeks to generate information at any cost – be it good Intel or bad. Torture anyone long enough and they will start talking about something.
November 13, 2006 at 1:02 PM #39873AnonymousGuestI believe the truth will eventually come out, may take many years.
One aspect that I find troubling is that the US, with the most sophisticated intelligence gathering capabilities in the world, could be so wrong. For me, this is not realistic.
We supported the invasion because we belived in our government and our intelligence. However, we were clearly duped. Meanwhile we are the laughing stock to the rest of the world.
November 13, 2006 at 1:11 PM #39874PDParticipantPowayseller, free speech means only that government may not punish you for voicing your opinion. Have I suggested that the government should lock you up?
Free speech does not mean that others are prohibited from disagreeing with you.
Free speech does not mean that the press can publish/or report a story that aids our enemies (like reporting government secrets, military positions, movements or plans).A good example of people who do not understand free speech is the country band The Dixie Chicks. They bad-mouthed the President while overseas. This resulted in angering many Americans who had previously been their fans. Those same former fans quit listening to The Dixie Chicks (me included). Radio stations quit playing their songs because the people listening did not want to hear them anymore. From the beginning of their stupidity, they have been whining about how their right to free speech has been hampered. This is so absurd. Sure, they have a right to spout their anti-Bush stuff. Their audience also has a right to refuse to listen to them anymore. Their problems have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the fact they are entertainers who rely on their fans for success. No more fans means no more success.
November 13, 2006 at 1:21 PM #39875AnonymousGuestMost rational people don’t base their musical tastes on the political views of the artists. I personally don’t listen to the Dixie Chicks because their music sucks, but so does most country music in my opinion.
November 13, 2006 at 1:23 PM #39876PerryChaseParticipantI’m a fan of the Dixie Chicks for speaking up. In my view, they understand free speech perfectly well. So do Johnnie Depp, Kanye West and other entertainers.
November 13, 2006 at 2:01 PM #39878AnonymousGuest-Rapes happen everywhere and we should not condemn the US Military for ‘raping’ Iraqis.
-How much responsibility should we bear for the fact that Sunnis and Shittes are killing each other? We gave them freedom from a dictator and they are using it to kill each other. We did not kill 150,000 – most of that number is Iraqis killing each other.
-Our original mission was changed mid-course because we did not find WMDs. Bringing democracy to Iraq was a noble cause, but not one we bought into as a nation. The Iraqis have proven that they cannot live in democracy.
-If anything, at least we have proven that democracy in a unified Iraq wont happen. It probably took this invasion to prove that point, and it has implications for the whole Middle East and the manner in which the Western world deals with them in the future. Instead of pushing democracy, perhaps we should be capturing oil fields for our own benefit.
-We should redeploy and either put a strong man in power or divide the place in three. Let them kill each other like barbarians. There are strong men in power across the Middle East – this has been the proven model our allies in the region display to maintain control. Whether it is Egypt or Saudi Arabia, it is clear that we are probably a few hundred years too soon to expect the Middle East to start sprouting democracies. So let’s take the next best alternative and find a ruthless leader we can ally with.
November 13, 2006 at 2:27 PM #39884sdnativesonParticipantIt was the time when wholesale houses close
Their shutters with a moody sense of wealth,
But retail dealers, diligent, let loose
The gas (objected to on score of health),
Convey’d in little solder’d pipes by stealth,
And make it flare in many a brillant form,
That all the powers of darkness it repell’th,
Which to the oil-trade doth great scaith and harm,
And supersedeth quit the use of the glow-worm.November 13, 2006 at 2:32 PM #39885santeemanParticipant“It was the time when wholesale houses close
Their shutters with a moody sense of wealth,
But retail dealers, diligent, let loose
The gas (objected to on score of health),
Convey’d in little solder’d pipes by stealth,
And make it flare in many a brillant form,
That all the powers of darkness it repell’th,
Which to the oil-trade doth great scaith and harm,
And supersedeth quit the use of the glow-worm”I’d like to hear President Bush say that! That’d be funny!
November 13, 2006 at 3:12 PM #39891startingoutParticipantGonna throw my 2 cents in…I don’t really consider myself GOP or Democrat, but I can say I’m not particularly happy with Bush. However, I don’t believe him to be the maniacal evil genius some make him out to be- he just could have done a much better job than he did.
Some points:
-It is true that Europe looks down on Americans. While it is due in large part to our President’s performance and the questionable nature of our dealings in the Middle East, it is also due to the American people themselves and our general ignorance about any country besides our own. I don’t think that really applies to the people on this board, but I think we’ve all seen the “Jaywalking” segment of the Tonight Show. ‘Nuff said.-Arguing about whether or not we should have gone to war in the Middle East is a moot point at this stage in the game. While I don’t necessarily agree with the fact that we went out there in the first place, I do think that it would be a huge mistake to leave Iraq now and pull out our troops. It’s not about “winning,” it’s about the Iraqi people- we promised them freedom, we took away their government and promised them a better one. We should, on principle, follow through with our promise- pulling our troops out now would make the situation much, much worse. I may be optimistic, but I don’t believe the Democrats will just pull the troops out, it would be disastrous.
There is much wrong in our government, but I don’t believe that just the government is to blame- the American people voted those politicians into office. And the typical American way of life is completely out of hand- it only takes a visit to a few other countries to see how ego-centric, wasteful, and obsessed with possessions Americans can be.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.