I am not saying Saddam Hussein was a good guy. No one agrees that he is. The conversation is not about whether or not Saddam Hussein was a good guy or not or the quality of life in the Middle East. That is your way of deflecting attention from a losing argument.

The conversation was simply about WMD's and my remarks were about whether or not it was necessary to invade Iraq because of WMD's. My opinion was no. Simple.

Alex, quite simple, Hussein was an ass, a despot meglomanic moron oppressing a whole nation... but that wasn't why the US went to Iraq.

The US went to Iraq for WMD and a supposed link to Al qaeda.

Neither was found.

The surgery was a success. The patient died.

US military official I heard on the radio today said that it is likely that the person(s) who placed this weapon had no idea of the contents, it was likely something pulled out of an ammo dump somewhere. Rigging up this type of shell with a trigger is a very common way to make roadside bombs at this point.

Alex

ok...so you are saying wait and see what he did before we went in?

He balked at our warnings...plain and simple. He called our bluff and we delivered a message to him and let that be a warning to any other dictator who thinks they can govern a country by strongarming their citizens.

because he does not have to Meni. It is not to his political advantage to testify. stop being an idiot. you think you are making a point and in reality people are tuning you out.[/b][/quote]
cuz he don't have to?
so you accept that?
you are a typical redneck
blow me

Two former weapons inspectors — Hans Blix and David Kay — said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify that Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons.


Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn't know it contained the nerve agent.

I don't give a fuck about this right wing board
Have you seen me post lately?
I saw my NAME in the thread so I clicked it
otherwise stay with your right wing religious zealot Bush
I hope it get dropped in November
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ows/jesus/view/



"One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust... Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?... All that (Bush) wants is Iraqi oil."
Nelson Mandela, 30-Jan-03



Last edited by Meni at May 17 2004, 08:09 PM

Last time we checked Oprano was pretty libertarian on social values and balanced on economic.

http://buildinganempire.com/politics/ratings.txt
http://buildinganempire.com/politics/results.html

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalc...naire.pl?page=1

Wow, that's pretty profound. Did you get that from Our Weekly Reader, or what?

Do you think that's really going to deter any dictators from strongarming their citizens?

Do you think that an Iraq crawling with real live genuine alQaida types really makes things safter for the U.S. than Saddam's occassional ineffective firing of a missle at our planes in his own air space?

Do you really think that a poorly planned and even more poorly executed occupation is going to make the U.S. safer?

"Calling bluffs" and "delivering messages" is great for the 6th grade playground - or sleazy bars, if you're over 21 but still thinking like a 6th grader. It's place in international relations is a little more suspect than that.

One shell with some sarin gas might remind us all that maybe there is more out there but it doesn't, in my mind, justify the WMD argument to go to war. Now, maybe Bush should have used a different argument. War would have been as justifiable on the argument of Saddam's continual defiance. It would have even been as justifiable to say "We're going to rid the world of an evil dictator". I'm not saying it would be justifiable to everyone - just that it would be as justifiable. But Bush hung it all on the WMD argument. This set up the possibility of failure. To me, it seems this was the case because Bush, Cheney, and Tenet especially were so certain that Saddam had WMD they were willing to bet it all on that fact. If you believe Bob Woodward's new book, Saddam's past behaviors entered largely into that equation. Saddam has the final laugh - maybe.

Colin, that is what I never understood. Bush decided to hang his "war" hat on the most outrageous and least provable claims, and those claims divided the world on the subject. All the fancy naming (coalition of the willing) tried to cover up that only a few countries would really send any noticable forces to the front.

I guess at the end of the day, there was no other way to have this war, the words and the gestures made on both sides pretty much ended up suckering Bush into it. One too many "oh yeahs", he didn't leave himself many options. No war? America would be laughed at for years to come.

I just wish Bush hadn't been so dead set on tackling Hussein so abruptly. It shows a certain lack of strategy...

Alex

What it shows me is that Bush likely based his decision to use WMD's as the primary reason on BAD info.

No one, not even Bush, would be so stupid as to plan this knowing there was a chance nothing would be found.

Of course, none of us will ever have all the facts to make a decision with any degree of certainty.

I think Bush made the decision to go to war against Iraq very shortly after 9-11. First Afghanistan, then Iraq. He then chose his justification but it looks like he probably bet wrong. I agree with Wig ut not sure if in the same way. The people who were most hawkish on Iraq - and there many in this administration - saw in the intelligence what they wanted to see. Many of us (me, for example) used Saddam's past actions as indicative of his future ones. The rational Saddam theory. Ummm, ok. Should have known better. That's what makes "intelligence" intelligence and not fact.

Either way, the administration made a lot of political mistakes. Rumsfeld's labelling France and Germany "Old Europe" was a real error. A really bad one. Then again, there were many administration members of other countries who made similar statements about other countries - such as Chirac calling eastern european countries "childish" for agreeing with the US position. Wasn't there a Canadian official who said something bad about the US that created an uproar? I can't remember it.

The US will have to live up to a higher standard than it is has. The leader of France making such statements is not going to create as much long-term negative will toward it as the US will. Neither will a Canadian or Spanish official. This is just a a political reality. The product of balance of power politics.

Some of the angst was unavoidable once the decision was made. The US had to go to the UN for Blair, for example. Well, none of this is new. The US tried to stop the Suez canal war in the UN and Britain and France vetoed it and went to war anyway. I'm sure there were a few the USSR started too.

I'm still glad Saddam's gone. Was it worth it? Tell you in about ten years.

We invaded a sovereign nation for one round...sweet. Now we're there and oil is skyrocketing; robbing a bank and leaving the fuckin' money behind.

At least georgie jr could have tried to give a better angle...like the 55K people that went missing each year under hussein, the oil, the grudge about his dad, the ongoing expense of containment, etc.,



Last edited by aeon at May 18 2004, 07:56 AM

High oil pricing is more due to the fact that the world economy is going forward - supply and demand - those asian countries producing our TV screens, laptops, mobilphones etc. are all bidding for the same oil.

thats the retarded thing about people. tell them a forest is going to get cut down and people are chaining themselves to trees and up in arms as if it would bring the end of the world as we know it. people are so stupid that they will launch massive propaganda campaigns like "meat is murder" to stop you from killing chickens for food. when did "murder" stop being "murder"?

the simple fact that people are suffering and dying has never been a convincing argument for any significant military action... as long as its "someone else", "somewhere else" who is doing the suffering and dying.

The only thing keeping us from ultimate victory in iraq is ourself... the western world have used 1 year on debating if the war was legitimate or not, given the reason too armed opposition to use this against us. I think many people in the western world live too much in a ideal fantasy world instead in the muddy real world... I´m sure that every human being on this planet atleast 1 time in their lifetime want peace and respect for every other human being on this planet - the issue is just that the very core of life make us not having the same ideals at the same time - thats why the world is muddy.

I bet if the western world use 50% of the time looking at future of iraq instead of the past, then we would see progress daily in Iraq. As every other aspect in western life/culture/democracy, then we are truly our own worst enemy...



Last edited by Rolo at May 18 2004, 10:22 AM

because he does not have to Meni. It is not to his political advantage to testify. stop being an idiot. you think you are making a point and in reality people are tuning you out.[/b][/quote]
JR,
how can you ask Meni to stop being an idiot????

It's not his fault, it's Bush's fault he is retard,
you are very unkind to our Meni.

asking moron to stop being a moron is inpolite!

JR,
how can you ask Meni to stop being an idiot????

It's not his fault, it's Bush's fault he is retard,
you are very unkind to our Meni.

asking moron to stop being a moron is inpolite![/b][/quote]
I think Meni has a valid point.

I think Meni has a valid point.[/b][/quote]
Think, Meni and Valid Point all in the same sentence???? regarding one of Meni's um ... interesting posts

It's past 4:20 there isn't it Joe B)

Think, Meni and Valid Point all in the same sentence???? regarding one of Meni's um ... interesting posts

It's past 4:20 there isn't it Joe B)[/b][/quote]
no but it is getting close... :D