Bush was right

[TCPluto]

You need to remove the blinkers.

Rich::

Dang it Richie!! You're making this hard. Do you mean "remove the blinders", because that makes some sense (although it's you that are wearing them). I don't know what blinkers are, other than turn signals on a car.

 

[dcentity2000]

We ignored the UN (aka Russia, China, Germany and France) because they were "in the tank" for Saddam. They were up to their necks in oil......for food, and had every financial incentive for keeping him in power. If anything, we had too much patience and should have not given Saddam 2 months lead time to move the WMDs to Syria.

Are you suggesting that everyone from the UN has been bribed? Sauce, pleace.

As for the WMDs, well, provide a source. The inspectors concluded there weren't any and intelligence backed it up.



Rich::

 

[TCPluto]

Learn from the older, more experienced countries - invasions always fail to work.

Rich::

Not so much interested in following your minority view Richie, but you're not surprised I'm sure.

Your country, and ours, chose to lead in this case. We'll accept that and continue to move forward. You can come along too.

 

[dcentity2000]

Dang it Richie!! You're making this hard. Do you mean "remove the blinders", because that makes some sense (although it's you that are wearing them). I don't know what blinkers are, other than turn signals on a car.

Blinkers, I believe, is a slang term for a device that horses wear so as to view the world in tunnel vision; this may be different in the USA (for instance, I've never heard the term applied to cars).

I use the term due to your inability to recognise the state of intelligence prior to war; you are convinced that the war was great, contrary to public opinion, UN opinion, post war intelligence et al.

In other words, you only see what you want to see.



Rich::

 

[TCPluto]

Sauce, pleace.

Rich::

Just so I'm clear, are "blinkers, sauce, and pleace" code for something in the UK? I want to make sure I'm on the same page in responses....

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You're absolutely right Tigger. I would love to not have to be in the position we're in. I would prefer to let everyone take care of their own problems, because I know we can take care of ours, and we would do a better job at home if we could ignore the world. But we can't.

N. Koreas has to be dealt with, you're right. It's not easy being the leader of the free world, and I think President Bush is doing better than Kerry, Dean, or AlGore would have.

That's all.

Is it true that the hawk has no natural enemies... except man?

 

[LakeAriel]

B. Please go back and research the murder and mayehm that was taking place in Iraq before we arrived. Isn't that why Saddam is on trial?


No. Saddam is being charged with suppressing an assassination attempt on his life in the 80's and killing dozen's of the "insurgents." Amazing isn't it? Hard to believe? We have so much on him he is being charged with crimes from the 80's!!! When he was our buddy! OK? Try to pay more attention next time. He is not on trial for anything that was happening when we arrived.

 

[dcentity2000]

Not so much interested in following your minority view Richie, but you're not surprised I'm sure.

Your country, and ours, chose to lead in this case. We'll accept that and continue to move forward. You can come along too.

Minority?

I repost for those with short term memory loss:

Iraq Update - What does the world think?

Well. Poll time.

Some 41,856 people were questioned in the poll for the BBC's World Service.

In other words, it's quite comprehensive.

People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.

Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.

That's quite major, but not too surprising. Why? We've invaded a country - resistance is inevitable (in the form of nationals) both in and from Iraq. On top of this, you get existing terrorists who will perceive the invasion as yet another reason why we should die.

In most countries, more people think removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake than think it was the right decision.

...

The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 is seen as a mistake in 21 countries, compared with 11 countries where more people view it as the right decision. Three countries are divided.

It's interesting to note this; personally I would have expected the opposite; however I can understand the sentiment - Saddam was a crackpot who intimidated his people, keeping the factions under wraps. Removing him had the same effect as restarting a food blender without the lid on.

Alternatives? A rebellion was seen as an eventual certainty, but not in the immediate future. NATO or UN led missions would have calmed the world I guess whilst sanctions were "working" - a "success".

Still, if there had to be one good thing out of this mess, it would have to be: an evil man has been detained. It may have encouraged violence, civil war and terrorism, but we got him. Whether all that was worth it is subjective; most people agree that it wasn't.

In 20 countries, there is overall support for US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq in the next few months.

Only in nine of the remaining 15 countries do more people believe US-led forces should remain until the situation is stabilised. Six countries are divided.

Whilst withdrawal is certainly a good thing, the timing in my opinion is not yet satisfactory. We made this mess - the least we can do is try to help clean it up.

On the other hand, troop presence is fuelling terrorists and their propaganda machines; it is also encouraging violence in Iraq. The majority feels that the latter makes the better case.

However, the picture would be very different should the new Iraqi government ask US-led forces to remain until the situation was stabilised.

In that case, there is support in 21 of 34 countries for the coalition to stay.

No brainer. Better to be invited than to crash the party.

Iraqis themselves are sharply divided over whether US-led forces should leave, with 49% favouring their removal and 49% favouring them to remain.

Support for troops staying rises only slightly, to 53%, if the Iraqi government requests it.

That's a toughie; there's no clear answer here.

Of all the interviewed countries, Iraq was the most thankful for the removal of Saddam, with 74% agreeing with the move, which is good - no-one wants to see him again.

Graphs:

Source of quotes, statistics and visuals: GlobeScan, BBC News (International).



Rich::

You can read, right?



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Just so I'm clear, are "blinkers, sauce, and pleace" code for something in the UK? I want to make sure I'm on the same page in responses....

It's a secret



Rich::

 

[LakeAriel]

Minority?

I repost for those with short term memory loss:



You can read, right?



Rich::

You expect THEM to understand this? They still think they are in the majority!

 

[TCPluto]

Blinkers, I believe, is a slang term for a device that horses wear so as to view the world in tunnel vision; this may be different in the USA (for instance, I've never heard the term applied to cars).

I use the term due to your inability to recognise the state of intelligence prior to war; you are convinced that the war was great, contrary to public opinion, UN opinion, post war intelligence et al.

In other words, you only see what you want to see.

Rich::

I can't comment about the UK, but horses wear blinders in the US.

War is not great, you're reading into it if you think I believe that. I do believe there comes a time when it is necessary, like now.

My inability to recognize, or my refusal to believe what the liberal side wants me to believe? Yep, that's it. I choose to analyze all the facts and make up my own mind, how dare I, right?

 

[dcentity2000]

You expect THEM to understand this? They still think they are in the majority!

It won't matter to them - international opinion is something only liberals bother with.

Us foreigners are blood sucking evil ghosts not worthy of attention, after all.





Rich::

 

[TCPluto]

B. Please go back and research the murder and mayehm that was taking place in Iraq before we arrived. Isn't that why Saddam is on trial?


No. Saddam is being charged with suppressing an assassination attempt on his life in the 80's and killing dozen's of the "insurgents." Amazing isn't it? Hard to believe? We have so much on him he is being charged with crimes from the 80's!!! When he was our buddy! OK? Try to pay more attention next time. He is not on trial for anything that was happening when we arrived.

A fundemental flaw in your arguement is that WE are not trying him, the Iraqi people are. Please try to absorb that fact.

 

[dcentity2000]

I can't comment about the UK, but horses wear blinders in the US.

War is not great, you're reading into it if you think I believe that. I do believe there comes a time when it is necessary, like now.

My inability to recognize, or my refusal to believe what the liberal side wants me to believe? Yep, that's it. I choose to analyze all the facts and make up my own mind, how dare I, right?

We just all believe that you've arrived at the wrong departure gate.

Was was not necessary - according to Ms. Rice, the regime was on the way out. Downing Street pointed out that Saddam was "not threatening" his neighbours. The US government, before the war, agreed that Saddam had no WMDs and had no capacity to develop them.

So we attacked them.

Problem, why?

Well, it's a problem because every military in the world is limited and cannot respond to all calls at once. By choosing Iraq over Iran, Darfur, Zimbabwe et al we opted to attack something very low down the list.

We could have done so much better, yet Bush ploughed on

Even worse, we entered into the war with no discussion as to post-war Iraq; it's now on the brink of civil war. By the same token, invading without the UN gave cause to so many considering joining Al Queda - we fuelled terrorism. It's sad.



Rich::

 

[LuvDuke]

I can't comment about the UK, but horses wear blinders in the US.

War is not great, you're reading into it if you think I believe that. I do believe there comes a time when it is necessary, like now.

My inability to recognize, or my refusal to believe what the liberal side wants me to believe? Yep, that's it. I choose to analyze all the facts and make up my own mind, how dare I, right?

Two points here:

1) if you had analyzed the facts about Iraq, WMD's, and ties to Al-Qaeda, you wouldn't be supporting this war.

2) If you truly make up your own mind, you wouldn't be here regurgitating talking points heard everyday on rightwing radio and FOX.

There are certain absolutes in this world. The sun will rise in the East, set in the West, and whatever BS is peddled on rightwing talk radio will make it's way here through someone pretending to have an original thought.

 

[LakeAriel]

A fundemental flaw in your arguement is that WE are not trying him, the Iraqi people are. Please try to absorb that fact.

Aren't you changing the subject? Like what he is being tried for and whether we needed to rush in there and start this bloodshed?
If you think the Iraqi people are trying him (can you say puppet) you are hopeless.

 

[TCPluto]

Us foreigners are blood sucking evil ghosts not worthy of attention, after all.
Rich::

Fortunately, you speak for yourself only and not your country. Let's keep perspective.

 

[TCPluto]

There are certain absolutes in this world. The sun will rise in the East, set in the West, and whatever BS is peddled on rightwing talk radio will make it's way here through someone pretending to have an original thought.

The same can be said for the liberal mainstream press, and the spewing forth of all the ka-ka they report, right? You're position is so widely supported, you couldn't even get Al Franken and Air America to live on its own. Wait, that means no one was interested in what they had to say...interesting.

 

[TCPluto]

Aren't you changing the subject? Like what he is being tried for and whether we needed to rush in there and start this bloodshed?
If you think the Iraqi people are trying him (can you say puppet) you are hopeless.

Sorry Lake, I was responding to you, you brought it up.

 

[TCPluto]

if you had analyzed the facts about Iraq, WMD's, and ties to Al-Qaeda, you wouldn't be supporting this war.

Without the benefit of hindsight, which we haven't perfected as yet, no one could have known then all that we know now. I'm not so sure it would change anything, other than an earlier entry.