Political - Why can't he admit a mistake ?

[wvrevy]

1 - So, you people have no problem invading a country just because we don't like the way it's leader treats it's citizens ? Despite the fact that they are no threat to us ? (and yes, that's FACT, no matter how you spin it)

2 - Yes, I said gullible. Don't give me that "freedom is paid for in blood" crap, because it's not OUR freedom we're talking about here. Again, NOT A THREAT.

3 - To the person asking about intelligence failures, have you been out of the country for a while or something ? Pick up a newspaper.

4 - About those "unwashed masses"...you aren't as "mass" as you might think...The majority of the country thinks Iraq was a bad idea now, let alone had we invaded with accurate information being given from the beginning.

5 - You don't think there was a better use of troops to be had than invading a country that didn't even represent a slight threat to us ? Like, oh, I dunno...maybe finishing the job in Afghanistan ?

6 - Give me a reason why we should stop here ? Why should the Bush doctrine of invading any potential threat stop at Iraq ? Hell, why START at Iraq, since it's a LONG way down the list of potential threats to our actual security ?

7 - Should the US sjust go ahead and take over the world ? After all, that would certainly eliminate any "potential threats" that are out there, and it's the EXACT same "thinking" that lead to Iraq.

8 - If you can honestly say that you're also in favor of invading Sudan, Cuba, North Korea, China, and pretty much every other nation on earth that has a government more interested in it's own continued existance than it's citizens well being, then I guess you are right to be supportive of "preventative" war in Iraq as well.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by shortbun

Weapons inspectors had come out saying they could find nothing
prior to our invading Iraq.

weapons inspectors also said they weren't allowed to go to a lot of places they wanted to , and they were also kicked out by Saddam..

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Oh, I don't count you in as one of the unwashed masses!

Does anything at all bother you about Bush's policy in Iraq? If so, are you willing to overlook it because his philosophy jives with everything else you agree with?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm gonna answer Yes, there's plenty that bothers me about President Bush's policy in Iraq.

For starters, as someone who did a good bit of contingency planning specifically dealing with Iraq, anyone who thought a post-Saddam Iraq would be anything other than a big mess was looking through rose colored glasses.

But I guess what it boils down to is this... we're there and we can't change the past. We can change the present and future.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for analyzing what went wrong. But don't dwell on it. Look at what the best course of action is now.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
Actually, not much bothers me about it. I think we may have been a bit timid and we may have needed more forces there from time to time. If you accept the declared nature of the war on terror it is perfectly consistent not to have trouble with the policy in Iraq. If you do not accept it it makes sense to be against the policy in Iraq. What makes less sense is the formulation that the President can't just be "wrong" .....he must also be "evil".....

I wasn't asking why he can't admit to being Satan I just want an example where he has actually admitted he was wrong about something...Hell, it doesn't even have to be this issue....Pick an item Are you honestly telling me the man has never been wrong about anything ?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
weapons inspectors also said they weren't allowed to go to a lot of places they wanted to , and they were also kicked out by Saddam..

That's a lie...They left because of our impending invasion, not because Saddam forced them (at least, not that time).

 

[JMD]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That's a lie...They left because of our impending invasion, not because Saddam forced them (at least, not that time).

That's a lie. There have been weapons inspectors in Iraq for over a decade. And during that time there were many places they were kept out of. This was happening long before any impending invasion.

 

[jrydberg]

On several occasions during the past decade, weapons inspectors had been kicked out by Saddam. Not sure of the exact timeframe, but I'm pretty sure they were kicked out not all that long before the talk of war started. I'd have to check though.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy


1 - So, you people have no problem invading a country just because we don't like the way it's leader treats it's citizens ? Despite the fact that they are no threat to us ? (and yes, that's FACT, no matter how you spin it)

Before the war, were you in favor of dropping sanctions against Saddam?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That's a lie...They left because of our impending invasion, not because Saddam forced them (at least, not that time).

you calling me a liar...?????

I didn't say they were kicked out the last time....they were kicked out numerous times...why do you think that is,,,perhaps they were getting too close and he neded time to move stuff around...

 

[beattyfamily]

You know there's something else that Sadam was doing that I think is enough grounds to fight back that no one ever mentions. He went against the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War time and time again, shooting at our planes constantly and going into the no-fly zones over and over again and Clinton just let him get away with it.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Before the war, were you in favor of dropping sanctions against Saddam?

Of course not. But Saddam was contained by those sanctions, and wasn't a real threat even to his neighbors any more, let alone to the United States.

Are you trying to say that, because he wasn't in full compliance, that justified the invasion ? Fine. Then why duck asking for a resolution from the UN to authorize force ? You can't use the UN for justification when you duck risking their veto on the actions.

 

[SunshineSis]

What I find humorous about the weapons inspectors is how the U.S. ridiculed Hans Blix and in effect called him incompetent because he and his crew didn't find any WMD's. He must feel a great sense of satisfaction right about now.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by jrydberg
We were not lied to. Judgements based on the best available information at the time have been flawed.

BTW, the administration has not "changed its tune" on why we went to war. There were numerous reasons from the start. When some of those reasons are based on flawed assumptions, of course they will then highlight the others.

As for other countries, I feel very confident in saying that no dictator on the planet over the past 10 years has come close to Saddam Hussein in depravity, cruelty and desire to dominate every aspect of the people of his country. No one is in the same league.

I'm sincerely interested in your sources on this- I haven't found a whole lot of reporting that goes into great, specific detail on Saddam's regime. News has become such an industry here that I'm become quite skeptical of many sources.

I was reading Time magazine (still a bit skeptical, but less so than television) last week and was horrified by a story on Iraqi women and the honor killings that have increased since Saddam's fall from power. Fathers and brothers who are displeased with the actions of thier mothers/sisters (for example, if they leave thier abusive husbands, are raped, etc.) feel justified killing them to uphold the honor of the family. Under Saddam, these actions were beginning to result in significant jail time, but since his fall the killings have increased dramatically, due to the lack of security provided by the peacekeepers.

I am deeply disturbed that the actions of this administration may be making matters worse of women in Iraq, and am even more upset that these issues seem to be absent from the larger media coverage.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
you calling me a liar...?????

I didn't say they were kicked out the last time....they were kicked out numerous times...why do you think that is,,,perhaps they were getting too close and he neded time to move stuff around...

No, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that what you posted was a lie, or at least misleading. The inspectors were IN Iraq prior to our preperations to invade, and they left that time because of US, not because of Saddam.

As to all that "stuff" he was moving around, is that like the nukes that they found the other day that someone on here posted about ?

 

[jrydberg]

Actually, I'd say the fact that Saddam was in constant violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf war constituted enough justification in terms of international law. Obviously that isn't enough to justify the war to the US public though.

 

[ripleysmom]

I saw part of that news conference and it was painful to watch him stumble through it. He didn't even answer the questions that were put to him, just kept justifying what happened or going off on tangents.

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by SunshineSis
What I find humorous about the weapons inspectors is how the U.S. ridiculed Hans Blix and in effect called him incompetent because he and his crew didn't find any WMD's. He must feel a great sense of satisfaction right about now.

That's new to me. Honestly would like to see a source of that information.

 

[Galahad]

I just want an example where he has actually admitted he was wrong about something

Is there a history of Presidents making these sorts of confessions (there may be, I just don't remember any)?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Actually, I'd say the fact that Saddam was in constant violation of the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the first Gulf war constituted enough justification in terms of international law. Obviously that isn't enough to justify the war to the US public though.

Not when we've got a helluva lot bigger fish to fry, no, it wouldn't have been justification enough.

Saddam's "ties" to terror organizations a more tenuous than about half the governments in that region, and certainly more so than an organization like the PLO. Yet, instead of focusing our attention on actual terrorist organizations, we decided to settle old scores. Quite simply, I just believe that there are MUCH more pressing issues that should have been addressed BEFORE taking down a tin-pot dictator who was NOT A THREAT to us.

 

[mommytutu]

Originally posted by wvrevy


2 - Yes, I said gullible. Don't give me that "freedom is paid for in blood" crap, because it's not OUR freedom we're talking about here. Again, NOT A THREAT.

That's a selfish attitude. "it's not our freedom"...are you suggesting that an American life is worth more then an Iraqi life? Those Iraqi people they really don't matter do they?