Now you've gone and done it. We were arguing all this stuff on the other thread ("No WMDs...sorry for killing you").

Is this what's meant by "regional spread" and "escalation" ? I think I'm gonna make like the Swiss on this one and stand on the sidelines ;-)

do not dismiss the fact that Hussein was the ENORMOUS threat to the US.

Ugh. Please read the report.

Even if he had WMDs, which he didn't, who cares? Had he ever used them against the US? No. Did he have plans to use them against the US? No. Did he have plans to give them to some terrorist group to use against the US? No.

The worst he ever managed to do to harm us was an incompetent attempt on Bush I's life. Years ago. He was simply not a threat at all, let alone an ENORMOUS threat.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

When can we all admit we don't really know what's going on?

I've learned that you can make up a number of different stories based on the same facts and considering we aren't privy to all the facts why even try?


edit: I need to say I'm not advocating being lead around like a bunch of sheep just that we can't claim to know what's going on like President Bush does (well let's hope he does..) or any other person in a position like his.

Read it about 15 times in the past 2 years....



Could you answer 2 questions...

1) Why did Slick Willy bomb Iraq?

2) What happen b/w 1998 and when Bush called troops to Iraq to prompt such a move?

Read it about 15 times in the past 2 years....

No, Smitty, I mean the one that just got released. The one that says the sanctions were working, and even if they were lifted, which they weren't going to be, Saddam didn't want WMDs to use against us. That report.

1) Why did Slick Willy bomb Iraq? You know the article you posted talks about Clinton bombing a plant in Sudan, right?

2) What happen b/w 1998 and when Bush called troops to Iraq to prompt such a move Lots of stuff, none of it justifying an invasion of Iraq.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Vitus -

I'll answer your questions...but I'm really hoping you'll answer mine.

Yep, read the article about the WMDs. Really makes me wonder why Clinton's admin stripped all that money away from the CIA in the 1st place. It's pretty sad when the CIA director (that Clinton put into position) had such crappy information. However, you must undertand that the invasion of Iraq was due the lack of cooperation of UN sanction 1441, not b/c we had (or didn't) direct proof WMD. How much longer should we have waited? When do you take action? If you answer is "never"...that's quite sad. It wasn't b/c we had direct proof (at the time) of WMDs.

So, here are the questions I have for you.

1) Why did Clinton bomb Iraq in 1998?

2) If Iraq didn't have WMDs, then why wouldn't they let UN inspectors in the country?

3) In the Senate Vote, 29 Democrats "for" attacking Iraq, 21 "against" it. Are you aware of this?

3a) If so, then why aren't you holding them accountable? (They were given the same report as Bush)

4) Since WMDs weren't found, do you think Saddam Hussein should be let out of jail free and returned to power in Iraq?

Thanks for your response....

1) Why did Clinton bomb Iraq in 1998? I don't see how it's relevant, really.

2) If Iraq didn't have WMDs, then why wouldn't they let UN inspectors in the country? I'd be guessing, but probably to save face and put on a show of strength for his neighbors. Which isn't a reason to go to war.

3) In the Senate Vote, 29 Democrats "for" attacking Iraq, 21 "against" it. Are you aware of this? Yep.

3a) If so, then why aren't you holding them accountable? Who says I'm not? First of all, I'm not a Democrat. Second of all, I hold each and every Congressional coward who abdicated his duty and voted "yes" accountable. But they didn't drive the process, the administration did.

4) Since WMDs weren't found, do you think Saddam Hussein should be let out of jail free and returned to power in Iraq? No, the damage has been done, and I'm no supporter of Hussein.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

#1 is actually the most relavent b/c it shows there was a precedent for action before GW took over. I'm not a massive "GW" supporter, but it does really bother me how the partisan political folks blame each side.

But, I am a big Colin Powell supporter and do admire his position and candor throughout this process. I'm just hoping his wife allows him to run in 2008.

As for #2, not allowing inspectors to visit specific sites IS CONSIDERED grounds for war according the resolution (According to the UN)

"But they didn't drive the process, the administration did" Are you kidding me? Tom Daschle cast the WINNING vote...and was quite proud of it! Don't tell me the Bush administration has anything to do with his vote.....

#4) I'm a bit surprised with your answer. You someone agree with the outcome, but yet not the means?



The only thing that urks me about the entire process is the amount of $ that we are spending...on both the "war" and on homeland security. I think it's all worthless. I just wanna be able to keep some of my paycheck, which is increasingly difficult every year.

"Even if he had WMDs, which he didn't, who cares?"
- - Actually, the last time anyone was able to check, HE DID have them. Ass-uming that he had somehow gotten rid of them, but wouldn't allow inspectors to verify just because he's an arrogant dick, would have been a heinously careless response. Just imagine the response if Hussein (or someone using weapons from Hussein) had attacked the US or some American military base abroad...

"Had he ever used them against the US? No. Did he have plans to use them against the US? No. Did he have plans to give them to some terrorist group to use against the US? No."
- - See above. Assuming the crazy guy on the subway with the AK-47 has no plans to shoot anyone is reckless beyond words.

"The worst he ever managed to do to harm us was an incompetent attempt on Bush I's life."
- - You say that like it's no big deal. Personally, I think THAT one should have been enough all by itself. If a foreign dictator attempts to kill a former president, I think the US should go get him before the sun goes down.

Meanwhile let's not forget Hussein thumbing his nose at SEVENTEEN UN resolutions, all of which were in direct consequence to his invasion of Kuwait.

My only problem with the war in Iraq is WTF took us so long?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"2) What happen b/w 1998 and when Bush called troops to Iraq to prompt such a move Lots of stuff, none of it justifying an invasion of Iraq."

SEVENTEEN UN resolutions and an attempt to assassinate a former US president doesn't justify the invasion? Just exactly how high is your threshold for this?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"You say that like it's no big deal. Personally, I think THAT one should have been enough all by itself. If a foreign dictator attempts to kill a former president, I think the US should go get him before the sun goes down. "

What if it's the other way around? For all the countries whose leaders we've assassinated or tried to assassinate, are they justified in attacking the US?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, I was on a aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf 3 times after Gulf War 1 and we bombed them more than once. I believe the rule was if they turned on a radar in the southern no-fly zone we would turn it off for them. And since planes don't land on carriers while armed guess what we did with the munitions they took off with? Not saying your right or wrong just adding some personal experience.

The reason we are in Iraq keeps evolving. That is wrong.

It only keeps evolving because it's a political issue. Would we be going around like this if it weren't an election year?

Politics are playing a huge role in this matter. Issues are being made and the hindsight scenarios are evolving because someone wants to be in office.

Is it justified to look back at the reasons and criticize the intelligence? Most certainly. However, go back to the mood and consensus back when we decided to invade and you'll find an entirely different perspective. At the time, over 70% of Americans supported the war. Intelligence pointed to the presence of weapons, and Iraq was not compliant to many UN mandates. I seriously doubt that any President would not have gone to war.

"For all the countries whose leaders we've assassinated or tried to assassinate"

You'll have to help me with that one. Perhaps you could list all the foreign leaders we've assassinated. All I know is it's against the law and US policy to do so. I'm not naïve enough to believe that we've never done it, but if we have, I'd expect an outraged response. Of course the bigger picture is that we have the ability to attack a nation whose leader attempts to assassinate ours, and basically no one has the ability to attack us.

Setting aside peripheral issues of what may have happened under previous administrations, I stand by my statement. If a foreign leader attempts to assassinate a US president (even if it's Kerry) should feel the full force of US military might by sundown.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

castro.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

It is evolving because if the war was about WMDs, the war was fought for nothing. There must be a reason we went to war. Since there are no WMDs we are wrong. Bush wont admit that.

"Perhaps you could list all the foreign leaders we've assassinated. All I know is it's against the law and US policy to do so."

I don't know if our initial strike in this war counts as an attempt but this reminded me of that...



Yes democrats voted to go to war but I remember waaaay back then the general attitude in this country was still heavily influenced by 9/11. It was un-patriotic to vote/voice against this administrations attempts to do whatever they deemed necessary to "protect" us.

"You'll have to help me with that one."

Well, just to pick on the ones that have been publicly acknowledged, let's go with the list of assassinations or attempts investigated by the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, otherwise known as the Church Committee. Included in that investigationg were the deaths of General Renee Schneider of Chile during a CIA sponsored kidnapping, the death of Vietnamese President Diem during a U.S. sponsored coup attempt, suspiscion that the u.S. provided weapons used to kill Dominican President Trujillo, and failed attempts on the lives of Congo's Premier Patrice Lumumba and Castro in Cuba.

"All I know is it's against the law and US policy to do so."

Not quite true. There is no law against assassinations. The Church Committee recommended laws be passed, but instead, all that was passed were Executive Orders which carry the force of law, but which don't, in and of themselves, provide for any penalty for breaking them, and they can be rescinded at any time by the Executive without letting anyone know.

"Of course the bigger picture is that we have the ability to attack a nation whose leader attempts to assassinate ours, and basically no one has the ability to attack us."

Might makes right.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Again, This wasnt the reason I was told we were invading Iraq."
- - Then you weren't paying attention.

"I was told it was for WMDs. The point of this war was WMDs."
- - No, just ONE of the many points of the war was WMDs.

"Where are the friggin WMDs. I was lied to."
- - The status of current intelligence at the time was that we and everyone on earth knew he had had them, and he would not allow anyone to verify that, leading THE ENTIRE WORLD to believe he still had them.
1- If you're going to be wrong on this one, err on the side of caution and make the VERY NATURAL conclusion that he still has them, otherwise why wouldn't he allow verification?
2- A lot of people (and you may be one of them) are saying Bush lied about WMDs. NO NO NO, a lie is a deliberate falsehood. Bush and everyone else had the intel that said WMDs were there. If you were lied to, you were lied to by EVERYONE, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschole, Ted Kennedy... EVERY FRIGGIN' ONE OF 'EM said Saddam had WMDs and we needed to go after him. Every friggin' one of them.

Bush is the only one with the honesty to say he still believes it was the right decision. The liars are all the pissants who are NOW saying we shouldn't have gone.

That is the issue!!!!!!!!

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

" don't know if our initial strike in this war counts as an attempt"

It clearly does not.

"It was un-patriotic to vote/voice against this administrations attempts to do whatever they deemed necessary to "protect" us."

You're memory is conveniently flawed. John Kerry and MANY OTHER Democrat Senators gave impassioned pleas on the floor of the Senate about what a danger Saddam presented and how important it was that we take him down.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Well, just to pick on the ones that have been publicly acknowledged, let's go with the list of ... Church Committee."
- - Thank you. Someone below came up with Castro, which is pretty weak considering most of you guys weren't even born when that happened.

"General Renee Schneider of Chile during a CIA sponsored kidnapping."
- - Chile should have taken action. Unless of course the people of Chile were just as happy to be rid of him.

"Vietnamese President Diem during a U.S. sponsored coup attempt"
- - Bad form I suppose, but we were at war - pardon me, at conflict - with Viet Nam. It was a little late for them to attack us.

"suspiscion that the u.S. provided weapons used to kill Dominican President Trujillo"
- - Nope, suspicion won't fly here.

"failed attempts on the lives of Congo's Premier Patrice Lumumba and Castro in Cuba."
- - Two more for you.

I deeply disapprove of covert attempts to take out even the most heinous of dictators. I believe we should arrest Arafat, Qadafi and several others, but then we'd be accused of bullying. Well tough, that's what I think we should do, and should have done in the instances above.

"There is no law against assassinations... all that was passed were Executive Orders which carry the force of law"
- - OK, you've got me on a technicality. It is still against official US policy to assassinate leaders of foreign nations, regardless of the reason. Does that mean it can't happen? Of course not. We have covert operatives for just his purpose. One of them is a friend of mine. However, he's never been ordered to kill the leader of any nation, just the occasional rebel leader or terrorist leader.

"Might makes right."
- - It doesn't, but it sure gets you close. The world is fortunate that the only standing superpower is one whose policies are so benevolent. Can you imagine the world if the US had folded and the USSR was now the reigning superpower? Can you imagine the world if a coalition of Arab nations should manage to supplant us as such?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"It clearly does not. "

OK what does, more specifically when is trying to kill the leader of a another nation "ok" and when isn't it?

And maybe they did my memory isn't flawed it doesn't exist. I wasn't paying attention specifially to Kerry on the senate floor. I do remember that for awhile any criticism of the administration and war plans was called un american by many people.

"OK what does, more specifically when is trying to kill the leader of a another nation "ok" and when isn't it?"
- - The invasion was a resumption of hostilities under the provisions of the cease fire from Gulf War I and seventeen UNSC resolutions. Saddam was targeted for arrest, not liquidation. You might notice that he's still alive.

"And maybe they did my memory isn't flawed it doesn't exist. I wasn't paying attention specifially to Kerry on the senate floor. I do remember that for awhile any criticism of the administration and war plans was called un american by many people."
- - I believe there were people making those type of statements, probably Limbaugh. However, I don't remember hearing any of that until AFTER we were committed to the offensive and suddenly Democrats took a poll that said a lot of their constituents were against the war and suddenly they flip-flopped and tried to undermine the war effort and depict it as a unilateral action by GW Bush to which they supposedly objected beforehand, even though that's a lie.

Lies are big with Democrats. If the truth doesn't serve them, they seem to have no compunction telling lies.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...