Bush was right!!!

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by lucysdad
Anyone who defends the murder of innocent people that posed no threat to our nation is, in my opinion, just flat out wrong.

How do you feel about SH killing 100 times that many?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Well, it seemed as if this was what kbeverina was originally saying but it could be that her post just wasn't clear.

If my post wasn't clear, I'd rather you ask me to explain than make something up or intentionally distort it.

There was absolutely nothing in there about pretending Iraqis haven't died in the war or denying that they did.

My post questioned the characterization of "totally unnecessary" from the view of the Iraqi people. How you got self-delusion out of that, I can't figure out.

I'm beginning to think you've got these canned answers prepared ahead of time and throw them out there in your replies. Cause they never seem to fit the post they're replying to. All they do is say, "Huh? What about that? Huh?"

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by lucysdad
It's like listening to a really bad day on the Sean Hannity radio show. .

Did you catch the young woman (19) caller today about 5 pm?

She scared the hell out of me. 9-11 was our fault (mostly I believe she said).

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
No, he's quite serious. He's more concerned about the few thousand unfortunate Iraqi casualties in (what he calls an unnecessary war) than he is about the few hundred thousand Iraqi's killed by SH's henchmen. And he ignores the fact that the mass killings have stopped. Who know how many more mass graves we will find, or won't be found.

Quite a contrast, wouldn't you say?

Wasn't it kbeverina who takes major offense if one speaks for others? I believe that came up on another thread.

Attempts at "justifying" this war for one reason or the other is a futile attempt. Anyone who believes we went in there for the Iraqi people needs a very large dose of reality.

But, it's good to see eveyone on the same RNC "Reason of the Day for Invading Iraq." July 16 - "For the Iraqi People!"

 

[lucysdad]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
How do you feel about SH killing 100 times that many?

Don't like murder in any shape or form. How about you?

 

[lucysdad]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Did you catch the young woman (19) caller today about 5 pm?

She scared the hell out of me. 9-11 was our fault (mostly I believe she said).

Didn't catch that, enlighten me if you would.

Obviously I stayed up later than I intimated.

Can't stay out of the political fray, as I see others can't as well.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles

Attempts at "justifying" this war for one reason or the other is a futile attempt. Anyone who believes we went in there for the Iraqi people needs a very large dose of reality.

Ok, I'll play. Lemme guess, it was for the oil, middle east dominance by the US and to impose US style democracy on a country that obviously didn't want it.

Am I right? Did I win something?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
If my post wasn't clear, I'd rather you ask me to explain than make something up or intentionally distort it.

There was absolutely nothing in there about pretending Iraqis haven't died in the war or denying that they did.

My post questioned the characterization of "totally unnecessary" from the view of the Iraqi people. How you got self-delusion out of that, I can't figure out.

I'm beginning to think you've got these canned answers prepared ahead of time and throw them out there in your replies. Cause they never seem to fit the post they're replying to. All they do is say, "Huh? What about that? Huh?"

Clearness would solve the problem and one wouldn't have to ask.

And your last comment is quite funny because I was just going to say the same thing about your responses! How funny! (You see, when you make such comments they work either way and are next to useless.)

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
No, he's quite serious. He's more concerned about the few thousand unfortunate Iraqi casualties in (what he calls an unnecessary war) than he is about the few hundred thousand Iraqi's killed by SH's henchmen. And he ignores the fact that the mass killings have stopped. Who know how many more mass graves we will find, or won't be found.

Quite a contrast, wouldn't you say?

I just don't understand that line of argument. If you're talking about national security, that's one thing. But if you're going to start arguing about what was best for the Iraqi people--you can't bring up those who died because of the war without honestly looking at those who died under Saddam and his sons. That is pretending.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Wasn't it kbeverina who takes major offense if one speaks for others? I believe that came up on another thread.

Uh, no. You're distorting again.

In that thread, my question was directed to a particular poster because he had seen the movie and I wanted his reaction to one of the clips. He answered and I asked about his answer and then you butted in and said, "He already answered you!" He hadn't. There was no major offense involved.

Attempts at "justifying" this war for one reason or the other is a futile attempt. Anyone who believes we went in there for the Iraqi people needs a very large dose of reality.

But, it's good to see eveyone on the same RNC "Reason of the Day for Invading Iraq." July 16 - "For the Iraqi People!"

We went to war to enforce the UN Resolutions. Human rights abuses were part of those resolutions. Saddam was told by the world community, via the UN, to stop committing human rights abuses against his people. This is not an afterthought. It's been in the resolutions all along and was always given as a reason.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Clearness would solve the problem and one wouldn't have to ask.

That may be. However, in the event that my post isn't clear, please ask me to clarify rather than making something up or intentionally distorting what I did say.

And your last comment is quite funny because I was just going to say the same thing about your responses! How funny! (You see, when you make such comments they work either way and are next to useless.)

I don't think the same can be said of my posts, but if you feel that way, okay.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Let's not forget that regime change in Iraqi was signed into law by some other President. Can't recall the name. Somebody, anybody, help me out here.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by lucysdad
Obviously I stayed up later than I intimated.

Can't stay out of the political fray, as I see others can't as well.

Hey, don't go! We get fired up, but we're just as likely to be agreeing on something in another thread.

 

[lucysdad]

True that, but this time I'm off to bed for sure.

Just cuz I disagree, doesn't mean I don't appreciate your opinion. The inability to voice different opinions would be the worst of tragedies.

 

[las3888]

I am going to quote something from the Rush Limbaugh show from yesterday...yes, yes, go ahead sneer, laugh, roll your eyes, call the guy a 'big fat idiot' or whatever you want liberals. I know how you hate the guy - really I know why as well, because he is RIGHT and he changes minds (and yes, this is proven - independent auditors not hired by Rush audit everything he says and he is right 98.5% of the time, right meaning true, correct, not speaking opinion or falsehood). Anyways, I quote him because he says it better than I ever could. And before you totally bash me for getting all of my news from Rush, as I'm sure is your next step in tearing down anything quoted from Rush, I get my news from Rush and Foxnews, but I also watch CBS news everyday as well (nobody could tell you more about the MAJOR differences in how news is reported on mainstream media, ie CBS, versus Foxnews or Rush), but anyways, here's my point, put ever so eloquently by Rush.



You guys are trying to justify "Iraq is unnecessary" because that's the only hope you have of getting Bush out of office. You clearly think Afghanistan was okay, but you think this Iraq war is all illegal and there was no reason to go there and so you want to come up with these things that you have to grasp at straws with to somehow suggest that Iraq wasn't necessary, that Bush did an illegal war for Halliburton and oil or whatever it is, some cockamamie example or excuse, conspiracy kook theory you people come up with. (sigh) The fact of the matter is, we were attacked on 9/11. Saddam Hussein was unfinished business. He was required to do certain things under terms of surrender with the United Nations and the United States after the first Gulf War, (1991 Ceasefire Breached) and he not only didn't do them, he thumbed his nose at us, and continued to expand on his weapons programs and kicked inspectors out of the country.

The only responsible thing to do was to take care of this potential gathering threat in the aftermath of 9/11. It would have simply been irresponsible to ignore this, totally irresponsible, and now people are trying to say, well, this sort of dispels any notion of preemptive action. It better the damn well not, because preemptive action is what the whole business of intelligence gathering is based on, and I know that's been damaged, but this is a totally responsible action -- and I can't believe you people on the left. I thought you cared about oppression. I thought you cared about being tyrannized. I thought you cared about people being murdered in concentration camps and jailed and tortured. I thought you cared about that. I thought you cared about people being dumped in mass graves.

I can't find any liberal that's happy about the liberation of the Iraqi people. I can't find any liberal that thinks it's a good thing that's happened here. If I listen to you all, it's almost like you just assume Saddam would still be in power and that his torture chambers and rape rooms still be open and the mass graves still being dug and filled. I don't understand you people. "Weapons of mass destruction" was by no means the only reason offered for taking Saddam Hussein out. You know, the real question here is not, "Why did Bush do what he did?" There's another equally as interest question: "Why did Saddam do what he did?" Look where he is compared to where he was. Saddam Hussein had 20 palaces, a labyrinth of underground tunnels. He had the life of Riley. He had his two sons running around terrorizing, torturing people; he had the rule of the roost; he was getting a nonstop supply of cigars from Fidel Castro. He was smoking them out there in public. He was raping women wherever he wanted, he was roasting lamb. He had the life of Riley. He's now that 12-by-12 foot cell.

If he didn't have any of this stuff, what in the hell was he doing? and the only theory that's been advanced is, "Well, he, he thought he had 'em, too, but his people were lying to him." I'm sorry, we have to do better than that. We have to do better. He's listening to somebody who told him Bush wouldn't do what Bush did. He put his trust in the French. He put his trust in the Germans. He put his trust in all these people he had been bribing with his oil-for-food program. You know, you guys, you want to look at the scandal of the illegal Iraq war, and you want to turn the nation's defense over to the United Nations. I would love for you people to have one ounce of interest in the corruption at the UN and the incompetence at the UN and the inability of the UN to do anything.

Two genocides under the UN's watch: Rwanda and one going on in Sudan right now, and you don't care! All you want to do is say, "There was no danger in Iraq. We shouldn't have gone, and Bush and Cheney and Halliburton are a bunch of criminals." Bush and Cheney and Halliburton haven't murdered anybody; they don't have torture rooms; they don't have mass graves, none of this stuff. You people just continually amaze me. You tell me I'm the one making a stretch? You tell me I'm the one that's in a mode of desperation? I think it's just the exact opposite. I think you people are the in midst of a crackup. I think your whole world view is crumbling in front of your very eyes. You saw the nation love and adore Ronald Reagan. That wasn't supposed to happen. That had to really bother you. Now you see success in the Middle East. Now you see an economy roaring back because of tax cuts. Now you see the American people happy about their future and they're optimistic and that just isn't what you need to get your power back.

It boggles the mind the way you people have structured yourselves. Bad news for the country is good news for you. Good news for the country makes you feel bad. It doesn't make sense to me, in a political sense or a human sense -- and this opposition to Bush; the things you come up with him about him, about being a neophyte and a dummy and n SOB and a corrupt -- it's baseless. (story) Gary Trudeau, whatever his name is, the Doonesbury guy. Some interview in some New York magazine; it might be New Yorker, New Yorker, whatever, but he went to Yale with Bush, and so in this interview Trudeau is talking what an idiot Bush was and how he was a "controlling social animal," and that's what his real strength was, was assembling people to do his diabolical deeds because he had this controlling personality, and it's dangerous that somebody like (that is president.) Well, one of them ends up as a cartoonist and one of them ends up the president of the United States, and we listen to the cartoonist tell us about the man who ended up as president!

Nobody elected the cartoonist. The president was elected. Everything here is 180-degrees out of phase. You want to believe a bunch of enemies of this country. You want to align with people like Chirac in France? Believe me, he is no friend and no ally of this country, and I'll tell you what's going on in Europe, but I'm a little long here -- and Kerry had better understand it, because this is something I don't understand. Kerry -- just by virtue of who he is and his charisma, his personality -- is going to be able to get the French and the Germans on board with us whenever we want to go into some country to protect ourselves? Bah, humbug, because the entire interests of Europe have deviated from those of the United States. We're still interested in the whole concept of the sovereign nation state. The Europeans are aligning themselves into the European Union. They are into world internationalism and they want to run it.

The French are in a battle with the Germans to run the European Union. They're into an internationalist world government of sorts with them at the seat of power. They're not interested in helping our sovereignty; they're not interested in helping us. It doesn't matter whether Kerry is president, Bush president or whatever, because our interests and theirs no longer coincide because theirs are not the interests of a sovereign nation state. Theirs are the interests in becoming leadership of a coalition of nations that they hope to rule the world with -- and I don't mean in a mad scientist kind of way. I'm talking about, you know, geopolitical politics here and strategery, and this is why they oppose us. It's not because they don't like Bush. That's not the way nations make decisions! The French are not going to sacrifice their best interests because they like this lug head from Massachusetts. They're going to continue to do what they think is in their best interests, and right now the U.S. is not in their best interests, and they're just a bunch of ingrates for thinking that. But they are what they are; we have to deal with it. You people, you don't know how good you have it compared to how bad it would be if somebody irresponsible had been in the seat of power these last four years.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by lucysdad
Well, then, let's talk about blindness. The U.S. has funded and provided with arms the very terrorists we are now fighting.

Sometimes you do indeed have to pick a side. It's not always the right side. There are times when it is just the best side available at the time.

Think the French still kick themselves for assisting the US in their fight for independance?

Originally posted by lucysdad
Why do you NeoCons always suggest that those of us who oppose the war weren't deeply affected by this tragedy?

Why do Liberals always suggest that those who do not oppose the war aren't deeply affected by the deaths of our military personnel? Or do you think the posting of that list of the 1012 military personnel who have given their lives for their country was done to honor them and not to try to score a political point?

Richard

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I'm just trying to keep my "Reason for Invading Iraq" straight for the day. It changes so often, who can possibly keep up!?!?

Here are the primary reasons in Bush's own words:

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," he said during a visit to Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take."


"The United States, Great Britain and many other nations are determined to expose the threats of terrorism and proliferation and to oppose those threats with all our power."

I oppose just about all of Bush's domestic policies, but I'll be doggone if this isn't the type of leader we need to face down the external threat we are facing.

Smoke 'em out, Dubya. I'll marry my boyfriend in 2008.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Funkyzeit mit Bruno
Here are the primary reasons in Bush's own words:



I oppose just about all of Bush's domestic policies, but I'll be doggone if this isn't the type of leader we need to face down the external threat we are facing.

Smoke 'em out, Dubya. I'll marry my boyfriend in 2008.

Those were his reasons that time he was asked...Just wait 'til he's asked again and you'll get something different

But nice gay-bashing at the end there...I'm impressed

 

[las3888]

Those were his reasons that time he was asked...Just wait 'til he's asked again and you'll get something different

I guess there are alot of different ways it can be said, but it all points to the same stuff here...Saddam was a threat; he was a terrorist; he had the capability of producing WMDs, and we all thought that he had them (including the libs); he wouldn't cooperate after about a billion tries from the UN as far as weapons inspections go....top that off with the biggest attack on American soil from terrorists...there are the reasons--it was self-protection for the USA. There may be a number of ways to say it, and a number of points to be made on the topic, but Bush's point is the same over and over and over and over...

 

[vernon]

The fact of the matter is, we were attacked on 9/11. Saddam Hussein was unfinished business

Interesting you, and the administration, put these two side by side, even though it is now acknowledged by the reports in both the US and the UK that Saddam had no connection to 9/11. Two correct statements, but unconnected.

he thumbed his nose at us, and continued to expand on his weapons programs and kicked inspectors out of the country.

One correct statement, he did indeed thumb his nose at the US and IMHO that was one of the major reasons for the action aganst Iraq. The reports on both sides of the Atlantic conclude that SH did not have a current WMD program, much less it was "expanding". The inspectors left because 1) they found nothing of consiquence and 2) They were advised to do so for their own safety ahead of the invasion.

It better the damn well not, because preemptive action is what the whole business of intelligence gathering is based on, and I know that's been damaged, but this is a totally responsible action

Both the US and UK intel has been severely critisised for being inaccurate. In the UK, at least, the use of that intel was critisised as being misused and inaccurately portrayed. I have no problem with preemptive actions, but you'd better make sure your intel is spot on before you commit the lives of your citizens to a war. Those military personell may well have "known what they were signing up for" as it was put by an earlier poster, but I'm certain they didn't wish to die for an action taken on incorrect intel.
If you're putting peoples lives on the line you gotta be 110% certain of your intel, that was not the case. Not only was the action taken on shakey intel but people close to the decision makers knew that intel was shakey. I can't say with 100% certainty that either Bush or Blair knew how shakey the intel was, but advisers close to them most certainly did. For Bush and Blair to retain any credibility in this matter, those that were responsible for that aspect need to be gone from office.

"Why did Saddam do what he did?"
If he didn't have any of this stuff, what in the hell was he doing? and the only theory that's been advanced is, "Well, he, he thought he had 'em, too, but his people were lying to him." I'm sorry, we have to do better than that

I would liken Saddam's approach to local politics to that of a poker player. He used a lot of bluff and tried to "strong arm" his local neighbours using their belief he may have had a viable military threat. By openly showing that he had no WMD threat he would give up his ability to be the "big dog" at the table. Without there being some slither of a possibility he may hold a military threat he would be reduced to being "short stacked" (in poker parlance).

he was getting a nonstop supply of cigars from Fidel Castro. He was smoking them out there in public

OF COURSE !!!! Now here's a very reasonable reason to spend billions of $$S, cause 1,000 of your own citizens to lose their lives, seriously injure 10s of thousands of your citizens and kill and maim many tens of thousands of Iraqis. It all makes perfect sense

Bush and Cheney and Halliburton haven't murdered anybody; they don't have torture rooms

They may not have pulled the triggers, but their actions have caused the deaths of MANY innocent people. Bush is the head of the US armed forces and as such all responsibility for their actions finish up at him. As far as the "torture rooms" , there may not be any on US soil, but the Taguba report left a lot of unanswered questions and hinted at some of the answers. The acts by which "ghost prisoners" are being moved about the world by the American government agencies to places like Diego Garcia, Egypt, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharaib prison and Bhagram airforce base,all places where torture does occur, in order to keep those detainees away from the eyes of the ICRC are arguable in the extreme. It is a very fine line between legitimate intel gathering and illegal or immoral actions. This American administration crossed that line a long time ago and by a great distance. They are hiding behind smoke screens because THEY KNOW what they are doing is wrong. Guantamo was illegal and infringed on their rights. Finally they administration has been told so, by the Supreme court.

You clearly think Afghanistan was okay, but you think this Iraq war is all illegal

You're spot on ( for a change) Afghanistan harboured a group ( or groups) that planned and carried out an attack on US soil ( 9/11) Iraq was no involved in that attack (indeed there is no evidence that Iraq has ever been involved in any attack on American soil or interests), did not pose a threat to the USA and did not have WMD.

Saddam was a threat; he was a terrorist; he had the capability of producing WMDs,he wouldn't cooperate after about a billion tries from the UN as far as weapons inspections go....top that off with the biggest attack on American soil from terrorists...there are the reasons--it was self-protection for the USA.

HE was a threat to his neighbours I'll accept, he was not a threat to the USA.

He gave money to Palestinian "freedom fighters" , but in the Arab world they are seen as that, freedom fighters. In the pro Israeli world they are seen as terrorists. As is often the case, if one agrees with the cause the man is a freedom fighter, if one disagrees he's a terrorist.

Many countries have the ability to produce WMD. The questions are 1) Was he ? And 2) if so would he pass on those technologies and weapons to terrorist groups. The answers are 1) No he wasn't at that time. and 2) We can only use the time when SH did have WMD and that there is no evidence of any kind that he passed on either to any terrorist organisations when he certainly could have done so.

I'll agree he didn't make life easy for the weapons inspectors, but then it's not easy to show that you don't have something when others are convinced you do. Plus it was a vital part to his political abilities to leave a slight doubt in his neighbours minds that he may have something.

9/11 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ ( Jeez how many more times does it have to be said )

I think that's all your reasons either dealt with or given reasonable explanations, oh your last

IT WAS NOT SELF DEFENSE, IRAQ POSED NO THREAT TO THE USA.

One thing I agree on with you, Iraq was however, unfinished business. It was an avowed intention ( long before 9/11) of a close circle around Bush ( again I can't say he was "in on it") to have regime change in Iraq. That group included Dick Chaney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. IMHO this group saw 9/11 as an opportunity to bring about that intention of regime change while the American people were frightened and keen on revenge. The advice from this group was key, IMHO to Bush's decision to launch a war on Iraq.

Bush may well be an honourable man, doing what he thinks is best for America, but IMHO he took his advice from a group who had a slanted view on the situation and that they weren't too caring about the legality and implications of the actions which they set in place. Once those wheels were set in motion I believe there has been a furious scurry to try and justify those actions. As WMD failed to materialise the intel services became highly pressured (both internally and externally) to find some "smoking guns" and this pressure led to individuals and groups cutting corners, legal nicities and running roughshod over human rights conventions. That has ultimately led to the situation in Guantanamo, Abu Gharaib prison and the disgusting possibility that the USA (IMHO the country which until recently was held up as the example the rest of the world should follow as an ideal ,or close to it, society) not only condones torture and human rights abuses, but will stoop to using those tactics if it feels threatened. I would hasten to add I do not mean threatened as in an imminant attack, but threatened in it's political position because it has made a serious error of judgement and those in power are trying to cover their butts.