Idiot leftists on the War in Iraq

[johnb]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm

January 8, 2004

Deadly metaphor
Has an antiwar screed by a Beverly Hills sex therapist inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world — even inspiring terrorism?
Yes, according to the Boston Globe.
Susan Block, a California sex therapist who hosts a syndicated radio show and HBO's "Radio Sex TV," wrote an April 15 column titled "The Rape of Iraq" for the antiwar Web site Counterpunch (www.counterpunch.org).
The column used rather elaborate metaphorical language to compare the conquest of Baghdad to rape.
Televised expressions of gratitude by the Iraqi people were being used to justify "the Anglo-American rape of Iraq," Miss Block wrote: "As the rapist would say, 'I gave her what she really wanted.' She needed to be raped. She wanted to be violated."
Such metaphors apparently don't translate well.
On Oct. 22, Yeni Safak, an Islamic journal in Turkey, published an article that said "thousands of Iraqi women are being raped by American soldiers. There are more than 4,000 rape events on the record."
The journal cited "Dr. Susan Block" as its source.
The U.S. Embassy in Turkey responded by condemning the Turkish journal for publishing "outrageous allegations based on a U.S. 'source' best known for her pornographic Web sites and erotic television program," according to the Globe.
Whatever the source, Ilyas Kuncak of Istanbul was enraged by the reports, according to his son, Nurullah Kuncak.
"Didn't you see? The American soldiers raped Iraqi women," the son told the Globe's correspondent in Istanbul. "My father talked to me about it. Thousands of rapes are in the records. Can you imagine how many are still secret?"
On Nov. 19, Ilyas Kuncak drove a car bomb into the Istanbul headquarters of the British bank HSBC, his suicide attack part of four separate al Qaeda-planned car bombings that also destroyed the British Consulate and two synagogues in Istanbul, killing 27 and wounding more than 400.
For her part, Miss Block says she is horrified and tells the Globe she never meant her charge of an American "rape" of Iraq to be taken literally: "I am appalled to be misquoted and even more appalled that the story inspired someone to such violence."

[johnb]

You can find a great quantity of nonsensical, hate filled invective from leftist writers at "

http://www.counterpunch.org/

The web site is run by Alexander Cockburn. If you don't know, ol' Alex was one of these "unilateral disarmament" in the face an aggressive, militaristic, and expansive Soviet threat. The Soviet Gulag was a nice place they sent evil "counter revolutionaries", but Leonard Peltier and Mumia are "political prisoners" proving the despotism of the West and America specifically.

[johnb]

Intra-Islam tensions


By Austin Bay

Nov. 13, 1995, marked the end of a brief but important era in U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia.
On that day, a terror bomb destroyed the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) advisory compound in Riyadh, killing seven people. Two were Americans. In April 1996, four Saudis admitted (on television) to launching the attack. They were executed that May. Three of the terrorists, veterans of Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya, had backgrounds suspiciously similar to al Qaeda "Islamic internationalists."
I was in Riyadh the week before the 1995 bombing. Over dinner, an American officer and I discussed the cultural sensitivities U.S. military and civilian advisers must acknowledge, accept, then occasionally finesse when training foreign troops. The biggest frustration he faced is one I knew many of his Saudi counterparts shared. Saudi society is a tribal society, high-tech feudalism powered by petrodollars. A soldier actively training on Monday may tell his prince on Tuesday he must visit his mother on Wednesday. Maintaining smooth familial and tribal relations meant sending the soldier home to Mom. This trumped training run by American and Saudi colonels.
"We have one big thing going for us over here," my host said. "We're still the Saviors of the Kingdom. I hear that from all sectors. The Saudis believe Saddam wanted them after he invaded Kuwait. We stopped him. Americans are respected guests. We can travel around the country with reasonable safety."
The SANG bombing, 10 days later, put a violent end to the notion of reasonable safety. Saviors and guests were under attack. My host, fortunately, wasn't in the building when the attack occurred.
Other assaults on U.S. facilities followed, including Khobar Towers in 1996. American guests in Saudi Arabia lived an increasingly bunkered and isolated life.
September 11, 2001, ended the notion of "reasonable safety" from terrorists for Americans at home. The Saudis, however, still thought themselves "reasonably safe" from their own al Qaeda Wahabi extremists.
The May 2003 al Qaeda attack in Riyadh, then the terrible suicide bombing at the end of Ramadan, put an end to that blindness.
The aggressive Saudi police response to these attacks is encouraging. It had better be, for the House of Saud is fighting for its own survival.
The Saudis know the War on Terror is an intra-Islam and Arabian Peninsula war writ large. The Saudis certainly understand the intersection of theology and psychological warfare, and are exploiting ideological-theological cracks in al Qaeda that are extremely difficult for the United States to leverage.
The London Times reported Sheikh Nasser al-Fahd, one of al Qaeda's key religious backers, appeared on Saudi TV last November and denounced al Qaeda's attacks in Riyadh. Though jailed for issuing "inflammatory fatwas," he insisted his comments were voluntary.
"Blowing oneself up in such operations [on Muslim soil] is not martyrdom," al-Fahd said, "it is suicide." Islamic law forbids suicide. He added that Islam forbids attacks on non-Muslims who go legally to Islamic countries — meaning they are invited "guests" and, as legal visitors, should enjoy protection. The Times noted: "Although he raised no objection to attacks on America or other non-Islamic countries, his denunciation of bombings on Islamic soil known as internal jihad appears to have caught al Qaeda off-guard."
Al Qaeda Web sites now confront al-Fahd with statements like, "The new strategy for us in our fight with the Americans is based on the expansion of the battlefield and the attrition of the enemy, who has spread his activities all over the globe."
Al Qaeda's response demonstrates more than theological argument, it is also an inadvertent admission that the U.S. strategy of returning the battlefield to the Middle East has worked. Waging the war at its source instead of in Manhattan has exposed Arab and intra-Islam quarrels.
Al Qaeda faces bad choices. In Iraq, al Qaeda infiltrators are unpopular foreigners. Attacking "soft targets" in the Middle East — like the Ramadan revelers — means killing Muslims and guests, further damaging pan-Islamic appeals.
The House of Saud also faces the choice of political evolution or potential revolution. A successful democratic government in Iraq will empower pro-democracy activists throughout the Persian Gulf. This time, saving the Kingdom may mean establishing a constitutional monarchy.

Austin Bay is a nationally syndicated columnist.

[johnb]

Hmm...so Bush's strategery has resulted in US troops fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Saudi police fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Islamofasicsts fighting Islamofascists in the middle east.

Okay. As residents of North America is something wrong with this picture? The Islamofascists are insisting they die for their cause. Our choice is in which zip code our troops kill them. Rather we shoot them in Manhattan or in Mosul?

A side benefit is that the Islamofascists are also turning on the secular dictators in the middle east. Kaddafi is an al Qaeda target, for example.

Again, where's the problem with this?

When was the last time a gang of Islamofascists committed terror attacks in the US?

[dhyatt]

Hmm...so Bush's strategery has resulted in US troops fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Saudi police fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Islamofasicsts fighting Islamofascists in the middle east.

Okay. As residents of North America is something wrong with this picture? The Islamofascists are insisting they die for their cause. Our choice is in which zip code our troops kill them. Rather we shoot them in Manhattan or in Mosul?

A side benefit is that the Islamofascists are also turning on the secular dictators in the middle east. Kaddafi is an al Qaeda target, for example.

Again, where's the problem with this?

When was the last time a gang of Islamofascists committed terror attacks in the US?

John,
You got it right. There is no problem at all. The more insurgents in Iraq, the better as far as I'm concerned. It's far easier to find them and kill them when they're all hiding in a couple cities where we have thousands of troops. Personally, any *real* terrorist should get his/her butt to Iraq ASAP before things start to simmer down too much. I'm sure they don't want to miss their chance at martyrdom and I'm more than happy to see as many of them succeed as possible. They die - I'm happy and they're happy. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

[francejamie]

Hmm...so Bush's strategery has resulted in US troops fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Saudi police fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Islamofasicsts fighting Islamofascists in the middle east.

Okay. As residents of North America is something wrong with this picture? The Islamofascists are insisting they die for their cause. Our choice is in which zip code our troops kill them. Rather we shoot them in Manhattan or in Mosul?

A side benefit is that the Islamofascists are also turning on the secular dictators in the middle east. Kaddafi is an al Qaeda target, for example.

Again, where's the problem with this?

When was the last time a gang of Islamofascists committed terror attacks in the US?

John,
You got it right. There is no problem at all. The more insurgents in Iraq, the better as far as I'm concerned. It's far easier to find them and kill them when they're all hiding in a couple cities where we have thousands of troops. Personally, any *real* terrorist should get his/her butt to Iraq ASAP before things start to simmer down too much. I'm sure they don't want to miss their chance at martyrdom and I'm more than happy to see as many of them succeed as possible. They die - I'm happy and they're happy. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.


Ah, let's take a walk down memory lane... Here's an example of the right wing view point that has led us (and kept us) in this quagmire.

Can anyone point out what is wronge with this plan? Anyone? Anyone?

[Dharma]

Hmm...so Bush's strategery has resulted in US troops fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Saudi police fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Islamofasicsts fighting Islamofascists in the middle east.

Okay. As residents of North America is something wrong with this picture? The Islamofascists are insisting they die for their cause. Our choice is in which zip code our troops kill them. Rather we shoot them in Manhattan or in Mosul?

A side benefit is that the Islamofascists are also turning on the secular dictators in the middle east. Kaddafi is an al Qaeda target, for example.

Again, where's the problem with this?

When was the last time a gang of Islamofascists committed terror attacks in the US?

John,
You got it right. There is no problem at all. The more insurgents in Iraq, the better as far as I'm concerned. It's far easier to find them and kill them when they're all hiding in a couple cities where we have thousands of troops. Personally, any *real* terrorist should get his/her butt to Iraq ASAP before things start to simmer down too much. I'm sure they don't want to miss their chance at martyrdom and I'm more than happy to see as many of them succeed as possible. They die - I'm happy and they're happy. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.


Ah, let's take a walk down memory lane... Here's an example of the right wing view point that has led us (and kept us) in this quagmire.

Can anyone point out what is wronge with this plan? Anyone? Anyone?

:-''

[dhyatt]

Hmm...so Bush's strategery has resulted in US troops fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Saudi police fighting Islamofascists in the middle east. Islamofasicsts fighting Islamofascists in the middle east.

Okay. As residents of North America is something wrong with this picture? The Islamofascists are insisting they die for their cause. Our choice is in which zip code our troops kill them. Rather we shoot them in Manhattan or in Mosul?

A side benefit is that the Islamofascists are also turning on the secular dictators in the middle east. Kaddafi is an al Qaeda target, for example.

Again, where's the problem with this?

When was the last time a gang of Islamofascists committed terror attacks in the US?

John,
You got it right. There is no problem at all. The more insurgents in Iraq, the better as far as I'm concerned. It's far easier to find them and kill them when they're all hiding in a couple cities where we have thousands of troops. Personally, any *real* terrorist should get his/her butt to Iraq ASAP before things start to simmer down too much. I'm sure they don't want to miss their chance at martyrdom and I'm more than happy to see as many of them succeed as possible. They die - I'm happy and they're happy. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.


Ah, let's take a walk down memory lane... Here's an example of the right wing view point that has led us (and kept us) in this quagmire.

Can anyone point out what is wronge with this plan? Anyone? Anyone?

Nothing's wrong with the plan other than we evidently don't have the stomach for doing what really needs to be done because innocents will surely die in the process. We seem far more willing to watch them kill each other by the thousands than we are to deal with the reality that American soldiers would be responsible for some collateral damage if we really took the fight to them. It's painfully obvious that a majority of Americans think war should be quick, decisive, and pain free. I don't see that changing until many more Americans die on our own soil. When that happens - and it will - many, many more people will die that didn't need to because our response will be decisive and quick and probably quite painless except for those on the fringes of the blast area.

My premise was based on the notion that we really wanted to kill the insurgents and that we were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish that. I was wrong and that's not a good thing.

[Laurie]

Idiot righties on the war in Iraq:

Iraq has WMDs
Iraq was behind 9/11
We'll be greeted as liberators
It will be over in a few months
It will only cost a few billion dollars
Mission accomplished
Stay the course
We're bringing them democracy
Iraq is not in a civil war
Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense this country has ever had.

[dhyatt]

Idiot righties on the war in Iraq:

[snip]

Iraq has WMDs
We couldn't even find the ones we KNOW they had, so who knows???
Iraq was behind 9/11
I don't know anyone informed that ever thought this was true
We'll be greeted as liberators
We were - initially
It will be over in a few months
We obviously lacked (and still do) a basic understanding of the culture - or we don't want to face it for what it is
It will only cost a few billion dollars
Obviously wrong - government estimate wrong??? no surprise there
Mission accomplished
re: famous "banner" Obviously not true - fault lies partially with Bush hot-dogging, partly with over zealous carrier crew
Stay the course
Should not have taken several months of sectarian violence to force course correction - Rumsfeld takes heat for this
We're bringing them democracy
We can only offer them a chance for democracy, they have to embrace it - or not
Iraq is not in a civil war
Baghdad is in a civil war, many parts of the country are at relative peace
Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense this country has ever had.
I'm surprised that made it into Cheney's speech and I doubt history will bear that out

[francejamie]

[
Nothing's wrong with the plan other than we evidently don't have the stomach for doing what really needs to be done because innocents will surely die in the process. We seem far more willing to watch them kill each other by the thousands than we are to deal with the reality that American soldiers would be responsible for some collateral damage if we really took the fight to them. It's painfully obvious that a majority of Americans think war should be quick, decisive, and pain free. I don't see that changing until many more Americans die on our own soil. When that happens - and it will - many, many more people will die that didn't need to because our response will be decisive and quick and probably quite painless except for those on the fringes of the blast area.

My premise was based on the notion that we really wanted to kill the insurgents and that we were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish that. I was wrong and that's not a good thing.

Yes, but has America's thought that war should be quick, decisive and pain free been any different since WWII?
No one with any common sense has ever thought that America would want to be in a long, bloody quagmire.

Actually, the Bush regime lied and sold this war as a quick and easy romp, and you people bought it.
Bush still doesn't admit to his mistakes in this, unlike honest and noble politicians like John Edwards and John Kerry, who have said that they originally voted to authorize the use of force (based on lies from the Bush regime) but they realize that this was a mistake, and they would have voted differently knowing what they know now.

Now, Bush is ready to commit more troops, more lives, to his failed war, to try to protect his legacy. He claims that this is a surge in troops to try to win, but as Powell states, they tried that this summer and it didn't work.

When do we say enough is enough?

You say you'd rather fight insurgents over Iraq rather than here. I say that I'd rather we just defend our borders adequately, use diplomacy and spies over there, and have our soldiers alive over here, rather than dead in Iraq. Think of what else we could have done with $350 billion.

[dhyatt]

[snip]
My premise was based on the notion that we really wanted to kill the insurgents and that we were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish that. I was wrong and that's not a good thing.

Yes, but has America's thought that war should be quick, decisive and pain free been any different since WWII?
No one with any common sense has ever thought that America would want to be in a long, bloody quagmire.

Actually, the Bush regime lied and sold this war as a quick and easy romp, and you people bought it.

If by "you people", you mean me, you're just flat wrong. I never thought this would be quick and easy. I actually believed Bush when he said it would be a long hard fight. I find it somewhat ironic that the mood on the war has soured so much when after 3+ years we < 1/3 of the deaths that were anticipated in the first month alone. Where's the sense of perspective here???

I'm sure we disagree is on whether or not Iraq is part of the war on terror, or rather whether or not it should have been a part of the war on terror, and I'll be the first to admit things have not gone as predicted. Wars never go "as predicted" and in this case it's taking longer and has so far resulted in fewer U.S. deaths than originally projected. Of course, IMO that's partly because for the most part we haven't been attacking. We've spent too much time and energy simply protecting hardened installations. This saves American soldier's lives but drags things out and leaves too much of the general population vulnerable to insurgent / sectarian attacks.



Bush still doesn't admit to his mistakes in this, unlike honest and noble politicians like John Edwards and John Kerry ... [snip]

Now you're just trying to tweak me :-)



Now, Bush is ready to commit more troops, more lives, to his failed war, to try to protect his legacy. He claims that this is a surge in troops to try to win, but as Powell states, they tried that this summer and it didn't work.

When do we say enough is enough?


I think it's risky and I also think it's far riskier to simply say "OK - you guys don't want peace? Fine, we're done." It sure is tempting though...



You say you'd rather fight insurgents over Iraq rather than here. I say that I'd rather we just defend our borders adequately, use diplomacy and spies over there, and have our soldiers alive over here, rather than dead in Iraq. Think of what else we could have done with $350 billion.

You sound just like Buchanan ;-) (btw - we tried diplomacy in Iraq, it didn't work. It isn't working in North Korea or Iran or Darfur or with the Palestinians. The list goes on but the theme is the same: Diplomacy with terrorist states just doesn't work - period. And our spies evidently ain't so good.)

[francejamie]

If by "you people", you mean me, you're just flat wrong. I never thought this would be quick and easy. I actually believed Bush when he said it would be a long hard fight. I find it somewhat ironic that the mood on the war has soured so much when after 3+ years we < 1/3 of the deaths that were anticipated in the first month alone. Where's the sense of perspective here???

I'm sure we disagree is on whether or not Iraq is part of the war on terror, or rather whether or not it should have been a part of the war on terror, and I'll be the first to admit things have not gone as predicted. Wars never go "as predicted" and in this case it's taking longer and has so far resulted in fewer U.S. deaths than originally projected. Of course, IMO that's partly because for the most part we haven't been attacking. We've spent too much time and energy simply protecting hardened installations. This saves American soldier's lives but drags things out and leaves too much of the general population vulnerable to insurgent / sectarian attacks.


By "you people," I mean those who supported the US going to war.

Bush never sold this as a long hard fight. He sold this as a quick and easy romp. Once we overthrow Sadaam, we will be welcomed as liberators. After we overthrew Sadaam - "Mission Accomplished!" All lies!

So basically, you are saying that we aren't taking as many casualties, because we are just sitting in hardened sites and not really going out and wining the war. Well, guess who is dying? Our Iraqi allies. By hundreds of thousands.





Bush still doesn't admit to his mistakes in this, unlike honest and noble politicians like John Edwards and John Kerry ... [snip]

Now you're just trying to tweak me :-)


Now, would I do that? :wink: But, actually, I would like to hear Bush admit that he screwed up.






Now, Bush is ready to commit more troops, more lives, to his failed war, to try to protect his legacy. He claims that this is a surge in troops to try to win, but as Powell states, they tried that this summer and it didn't work.

When do we say enough is enough?


I think it's risky and I also think it's far riskier to simply say "OK - you guys don't want peace? Fine, we're done." It sure is tempting though...


This is an unwinable war. It was unwinable from the start. More troops, less troops, we aren't going to win. It's best that we lose it gracefully, and get out troops out of harm's way. We have quotes from Cheney, I believe, back during the first Gulf War, saying that we don't dare to invade Iraq, because we couldn't handle the aftermath.






You say you'd rather fight insurgents over Iraq rather than here. I say that I'd rather we just defend our borders adequately, use diplomacy and spies over there, and have our soldiers alive over here, rather than dead in Iraq. Think of what else we could have done with $350 billion.

You sound just like Buchanan ;-) (btw - we tried diplomacy in Iraq, it didn't work. It isn't working in North Korea or Iran or Darfur or with the Palestinians. The list goes on but the theme is the same: Diplomacy with terrorist states just doesn't work - period. And our spies evidently ain't so good.)

Now, who's tweaking who.... :wink:
It depends on what you comparing it to. Diplomacy is working much better in those places than our sending our troops there would work.

Use the UN for the dirty work. Or build a true coalition. Look how well Gulf War I went with a true coaltion. We never saw the sanctions on Iraq through to the end. The US going in by ourselves and occupying Iraq just makes a lot more anti-US terrorists.

[Wuptdo]

Just a little reminder to those who learned about American History & Government in public high school. We still have troops in Japan, Germany, England, Italy, and South Korea. Lots of troops, and lots of resources as well. Why? The "Cold War" ended 15 years ago. I would suggest you look over the American occupation of those countries and see how long we were there, for no better wording than running the show in those countries. And while you at it, look over what the Marshall Plan was and what effects it had in Europe.

All these folks running things in Government were taught the success we (America) had with how we did things after WWII and Korea. It worked before, why not now in Iraq? In some of the point papers I read, it seemed to me that if Iraq was converted to a democratic society, that it would create a domino effect through out the Middle-East. Much like it did in the Western part of Europe and changed Japan & Korea. Hyatt is absolutely correct about the culture, you can't take thinking (or a society) instantly out of the dark ages (medieval society) and convert to modern-era thinking and democracy. It will take a minimum of 3 to 4 generations of educating the masses and keeping the mullahs away from the children. As a good example, look at Turkey and the history of the Ottoman Empire. Ask yourself, who benefits the most in typical Muslim society? Why would they want to change? IMHO, Islam needs about another 300-400 years to "grow-up" and to continue the bloodshed amongst themselves. Once again, look at the history of Catholics thru the Dark Ages, and the war with Protestants & Jews & Islam. The Vatican finally threw in the towel in 1963.

Oh, and WMD's? What wasn't buried was removed by Russian Special Forces and trucked to either Russia or Syria before we invaded. We just don't want to embarrass Russia, especially with all those diamonds, natural gas and their assitance on the Warr on Terror. Remember each country in the world operates on the the notion what is best for them. In the case of the U.S. - the Oil Must Flow!

The more you know......

Wuptdo B-)

[francejamie]

Just a little reminder to those who learned about American History & Government in public high school. We still have troops in Japan, Germany, England, Italy, and South Korea. Lots of troops, and lots of resources as well. Why? The "Cold War" ended 15 years ago. I would suggest you look over the American occupation of those countries and see how long we were there, for no better wording than running the show in those countries. And while you at it, look over what the Marshall Plan was and what effects it had in Europe.


The argument is not about keeping some small force in Iraq after wining the war, but whether we should continue to have all the troops of our full invading force in Iraq, or if we should start to pull out troops, i.e., to end the war.

The Marshall plan was about giving US money to European countries to purchase goods made in the US and to pay US ships to ship them to Europe. In some ways, it was a direct infusion of cash to US business as well.

Unfortunately, the goods being purchased and used in Iraq are mostly NOT of US manufacture, at least according to the soldiers I've spoken to who were there, and the other accounts I've read of what's happening there.



All these folks running things in Government were taught the success we (America) had with how we did things after WWII and Korea. It worked before, why not now in Iraq? In some of the point papers I read, it seemed to me that if Iraq was converted to a democratic society, that it would create a domino effect through out the Middle-East. Much like it did in the Western part of Europe and changed Japan & Korea. Hyatt is absolutely correct about the culture, you can't take thinking (or a society) instantly out of the dark ages (medieval society) and convert to modern-era thinking and democracy. It will take a minimum of 3 to 4 generations of educating the masses and keeping the mullahs away from the children. As a good example, look at Turkey and the history of the Ottoman Empire. Ask yourself, who benefits the most in typical Muslim society? Why would they want to change? IMHO, Islam needs about another 300-400 years to "grow-up" and to continue the bloodshed amongst themselves. Once again, look at the history of Catholics thru the Dark Ages, and the war with Protestants & Jews & Islam. The Vatican finally threw in the towel in 1963.

Iraq is not post WWII or Korea. It bears far more resemblance to Vietnam. How did your "domino effect" work out there? Did communism spread to the world? Not only is your "domino effect" unsubstantiated, but it's been proven wrong already. Do you even read the right wing propaganda before spreading it?

So we should spend thousands of US troop lives and trillions of trillions of dollars in Iraq spending 3-4 generations there, to "educate the masses and keep[ing] the mullahs away from the children." All because we hope it will make Iraq democratic and that will make other countries decide to be democratic.
First of all, you contradict yourself. If it takes 3-4 generations of occupation, and "keeping the mullahs away from the children." Then, what will magically make Iran decide to be democratic once Iraq is stable? Or Syria? Or Jordan? Or Saudia Arabia?
Also, let's get back to the "keeping the mullahs away from the children" idea. So you are going to prevent their priests from passing religious instruction on to the next generation? Could you imagine the fight an occupier would have in the US if they forbade priests from teaching children? Of course, they could still learn from the parents, so maybe you'd better just round up everyone older the 10, and put them into concentration camps, while you gas all those you determine not to fit into your new world order. Yes, I'm exaggerating here, but not that much. I see why they say that extreme right wingers are getting pretty close to fascism.



Oh, and WMD's? What wasn't buried was removed by Russian Special Forces and trucked to either Russia or Syria before we invaded. We just don't want to embarrass Russia, especially with all those diamonds, natural gas and their assistance on the War on Terror. Remember each country in the world operates on the notion what is best for them. In the case of the U.S. - the Oil Must Flow!

The more you know......

Wuptdo B-)

This is pure conjecture on your part, without a shred of evidence. Since we aren't playing make believe, I'd prefer to stick with verifiable facts.

fact - extensive UN inspections determined that there were no WMDs in Iraq
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

From a speech of GW Bush in Dec 2005:

"It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.
We did not find those weapons."


The CIA gave up looking for any evidence of WMDs last April
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/


So, on one side, we have reports from the UN, the President, and the CIA, and on the other side, conjecture.

I'm guessing you are referring to that book by the Iraqi general claiming there were WMDS sent to Syria.
Once again, pure conjecture without evidence.

[Laurie]

Iraq was behind 9/11
I don't know anyone informed that ever thought this was true]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/
A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

[Laurie]

Iraq has WMDs
We couldn't even find the ones we KNOW they had, so who knows???
The inspectors did not find any WMDs. The inspectors wanted to keep working and finish their job, but Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove wanted them out. If the inspectors had finished without finding any WMDs, then it would have been harder for B/C/R/R to invaded Iraq.

Now why would any country (North Korea and Iran come to mind) comply with any resolutions, sanctions, inspections, etc when they could be invaded anyway at the whim of a George Bush type person?


We're bringing them democracy
We can only offer them a chance for democracy, they have to embrace it - or not
It's not up to us to force democracy on anyone. Invading a country and killing 600,000 people is force. A country cannot have a democracy when people can be jailed, raped or killed for violating religious laws and when women aren't valued or treated as people.


Iraq is not in a civil war
Baghdad is in a civil war, many parts of the country are at relative peace
I wouldn't want to live in that relative peace.


Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense this country has ever had.
I'm surprised that made it into Cheney's speech and I doubt history will bear that out
Doubt?!?!?!

[dhyatt]

Iraq has WMDs
We couldn't even find the ones we KNOW they had, so who knows???
The inspectors did not find any WMDs. The inspectors wanted to keep working and finish their job, but Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove wanted them out. If the inspectors had finished without finding any WMDs, then it would have been harder for B/C/R/R to invaded Iraq.

[snip]

This is not true. After the Gulf War in 1991 UN inspectors inventoried, cataloged and counted them. Some were known to have been destroyed before the inspectors were eventually ordered out by Bush - for their own safety, after repeatedly being denied access to sites they were suspicious of. Though old, tons and tons of nerve gas and mustard gas were thought to still exist. Very small quantities were found but the bulk of it remains unaccounted for to this day. Iraq under Hussein failed to demonstrate that they were destroyed and he prevented the inspectors from completing their job by denying them access to "sensitive sites" and thus proving it one way or the other. Hans Blix himself admitted frustration when trying to account for WMD's that were inventoried immediately after Gulf War I.

Perhaps if Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq in 1998 hadn't withdrawn his team under pressure from President Clinton, we would have an answer to the mystery. As it is, Butler left, we bombed on and off for several months (during the Clinton admin mind you), and Bush (as a condition of one of several worthless U.N. "resolutions" on Iraq) sent back in inspectors. Blix among them. They didn't find anything new and they didn't even find they stuff Butler's team had found. They did find some broken seals though.

It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush. He certainly shoulders much of the blame for our current situation in Iraq but frankly I'm way past tired of hearing about how the WMDs were all one big lie to justify us going into war. It's kind of funny in a way though... Many of the pundits pounding Bush on this are the same ones that defended Clinton when he used WMDs as justification for stepping up almost daily bombing raids on Iraq - back in the summer of 1999.

Of course that was a democrat administration so the indiscriminate killing of whoever those bombs landed on didn't seem to matter very much then.

[Laurie]

Iraq has WMDs
We couldn't even find the ones we KNOW they had, so who knows???
The inspectors did not find any WMDs. The inspectors wanted to keep working and finish their job, but Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove wanted them out. If the inspectors had finished without finding any WMDs, then it would have been harder for B/C/R/R to invaded Iraq.

[snip]

This is not true. After the Gulf War in 1991 UN inspectors inventoried, cataloged and counted them.
What I said is true for 2002. 1991 - I guess Bush was over a decade late with the current war, then.


It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush. .

Exactly what you are doing by going back to 1991 to say that there were WMDs in 2002.

[Laurie]

Idiot righties on the war in Iraq:

[snip]

Iraq was behind 9/11
I don't know anyone informed that ever thought this was true

Found more:

Excerpts from The Joint Resolution on Iraq

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[dhyatt]

Idiot righties on the war in Iraq:

[snip]

Iraq was behind 9/11
I don't know anyone informed that ever thought this was true

Found more:

Excerpts from The Joint Resolution on Iraq

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Providing safe harbor to terrorists - which Hussein did - is not the same thing as saying Iraq was behind 9/11. I agree both Congress and Bush have been repeatedly fuzzy on the issue, allowing many uninformed people to believe Iraq was behind it. However, the combination of Congressional resolutions and statements by Bush say nothing more than terrorists were behind the attacks and that Iraq is a threat. They certainly imply but do not state that Iraq was behind the terrorists. I have to believe that was certainly some presumption along those lines though. It's also interesting to note that recovered documents prove a closer relationship between al-Queada and Hussein than we knew while at the same time offering nothing in the way of evidence that Iraq had any direct involvement in 9/11.

[dhyatt]

Iraq has WMDs
We couldn't even find the ones we KNOW they had, so who knows???
The inspectors did not find any WMDs. The inspectors wanted to keep working and finish their job, but Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove wanted them out. If the inspectors had finished without finding any WMDs, then it would have been harder for B/C/R/R to invaded Iraq.

[snip]

This is not true. After the Gulf War in 1991 UN inspectors inventoried, cataloged and counted them.
What I said is true for 2002. 1991 - I guess Bush was over a decade late with the current war, then.

I'm sure historians will debate for centuries whether or not Bush I should have continued on to Bagdhad.




It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush. .

Exactly what you are doing by going back to 1991 to say that there were WMDs in 2002.

Except I only went as far back as 1998 and there was no revisionism involved. It is an indisputable fact that significant quantities of aged WMDs disappeared between 1998 and 2002 with no record of where they went and only Hussein's word that they were destroyed.

[francejamie]

This is not true. After the Gulf War in 1991 UN inspectors inventoried, cataloged and counted them. Some were known to have been destroyed before the inspectors were eventually ordered out by Bush - for their own safety, after repeatedly being denied access to sites they were suspicious of. Though old, tons and tons of nerve gas and mustard gas were thought to still exist. Very small quantities were found but the bulk of it remains unaccounted for to this day. Iraq under Hussein failed to demonstrate that they were destroyed and he prevented the inspectors from completing their job by denying them access to "sensitive sites" and thus proving it one way or the other. Hans Blix himself admitted frustration when trying to account for WMD's that were inventoried immediately after Gulf War I.

Perhaps if Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq in 1998 hadn't withdrawn his team under pressure from President Clinton, we would have an answer to the mystery. As it is, Butler left, we bombed on and off for several months (during the Clinton admin mind you), and Bush (as a condition of one of several worthless U.N. "resolutions" on Iraq) sent back in inspectors. Blix among them. They didn't find anything new and they didn't even find they stuff Butler's team had found. They did find some broken seals though.

It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush. He certainly shoulders much of the blame for our current situation in Iraq but frankly I'm way past tired of hearing about how the WMDs were all one big lie to justify us going into war. It's kind of funny in a way though... Many of the pundits pounding Bush on this are the same ones that defended Clinton when he used WMDs as justification for stepping up almost daily bombing raids on Iraq - back in the summer of 1999.

Of course that was a democrat administration so the indiscriminate killing of whoever those bombs landed on didn't seem to matter very much then.

This is absurd. The lies that Bush used to deceive and manipulate the country into a war were about Sadaam getting his on new WMDs, most specifically nuclear.

Here's one of the more famous examples:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Here's another quote from the same speech showing how the Bush regime manipulated people into linking Iraq to 9/11.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

You can say all you want that no informed person believed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, but I disagree. The Bush regime did everything they could to make people believe that they did, except state it outright. They couldn't get away with saying it outright, because it was a lie and people would have called them on that.

[Dharma]

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i175/onedharma/bushcheny.jpg

A leading economist says the true cost of Iraq is far higher than President Bush claims -- and America will pay the price for decades to come. Are you ready for a $2 trillion price tag for a BOGUS war (where there were no WMDs)? Like Jamie said, think what we could have done with that money. Instead, we've killed 600,000 Iraqi citizens, lost nearly 3,000 US soldiers and ruined Iraq.
George Sr. and his cabinet UNDERSTOOD that Iraq was comprised of several sects and it would throw Iraq into a civial war. It was Cheny and his neocon buddies who planned this war YEARS ago. The WMD information was only used as a way to get the American people behind the action.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12855294/national_affairs_the_2_trillion_dollar_war

[Laurie]

I agree both Congress and Bush have been repeatedly fuzzy on the issue, allowing many uninformed people to believe Iraq was behind it.

Repeat from above:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/
A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism , said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

[Laurie]

Except I only went as far back as 1998 and there was no revisionism involved. It is an indisputable fact that significant quantities of aged WMDs disappeared between 1998 and 2002 with no record of where they went and only Hussein's word that they were destroyed.

It's revisionism to use old info from 1991 or 1998 instead of the then current 2002 info. The inspectors found no WMDs in 2002 and Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, thus no justification for war. All information B/C/R/R had and ignored because it did not fit their plan.

[Laurie]

Idiot righties on the war in Iraq:

Iraq has WMDs
Iraq was behind 9/11
We'll be greeted as liberators
It will be over in a few months
It will only cost a few billion dollars
Mission accomplished
Stay the course
We're bringing them democracy
Iraq is not in a civil war
Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense this country has ever had.

Absolutely we're winning the war in Iraq
(One month later) We're not winning. We're not losing.
In history, the war in Iraq will be a comma
Bring 'em on

[Dharma]

It's revisionism to use old info from 1991 or 1998 instead of the then current 2002 info. The inspectors found no WMDs in 2002 and Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, thus no justification for war. All information B/C/R/R had and ignored because it did not fit their plan.

Oh wait, Laurie! Remember, Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said they FOUND WMDs in Iraq??? That was in 2006!! No revisionist history there nor was there any revisionist history in the fact that the US armed Saddam with poisonous gasses to kill all those Iranians and Kurds in the 1980s.
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i175/onedharma/rummy.jpg
Gee, Rummy and Saddy are looking quite chummy here.

[dhyatt]

It's revisionism to use old info from 1991 or 1998 instead of the then current 2002 info. The inspectors found no WMDs in 2002 and Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, thus no justification for war. All information B/C/R/R had and ignored because it did not fit their plan.

Oh wait, Laurie! Remember, Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said they FOUND WMDs in Iraq??? That was in 2006!! No revisionist history there nor was there any revisionist history in the fact that the US armed Saddam with poisonous gasses to kill all those Iranians and Kurds in the 1980s.
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i175/onedharma/rummy.jpg
Gee, Rummy and Saddy are looking quite chummy here.

I guess you two are willing to take Saddam at his word. He said he destroyed the stuff, you believe him. End of discussion and fine with me. There's a far distressing point here though and it's the one you bring up about us arming Saddam to begin with. (warning: stop presuming what I'm about to say right now...)

We did arm Hussein as well as many other corrupt regimes around the world. We have done so in the past and we continue to do so now. The U.S., Russia, China, North Korea, Germany, France, the U.K, Australia (and I'm sure others) make billions and billions selling arms to 3rd world, 2-bit dictators who then typically use them to subvert and often kill their political enemies. Conventional wisdom is that the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It did not. It simply spread out a little bit, with China, Russia, North Korea, and France (to a lesser extent Germany) all vying to be the 3rd world's premiere purveyor of power.

What's really fascinating is how Egypt, Syria, and Iran play into this. They are large enough 'customers' that they buy new stuff in bulk and pass on last year's models to various militias and terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. There's a lot of truth in the statement "buying a gallon of gas puts another bullet in a bad guy's rifle".

The U.S. throughout the last century has had to pick and choose who we were going to support when. Our default position is often based on little more than picking the side that seems to need help - an unbelievably simplistic way to pick sides. This plays well to American's sense of fairness but tends to drag out conflicts and often escalates them beyond what they would be otherwise. Even worse is that fact that we have often supported regimes for no reason other than they seemed to be the slightly less of two or more evils.

There exists a conundrum in the fact that to achieve stability, there needs to be clear winners and losers - and yet we teach that everyone can and should be a 'winner'. This is nonsense. How often have we heard the words "it's a win-win for everyone!"? That's almost always B.S. - somebody lost and they're trying to spin it as positively as possible. All of which is fine until that mindset invades our collective political will and slams up against the reality of war.

In a war there are three types of players: the winners, the losers, and the dead. Using some form of diplomacy or negotiated settlement can often reduce the #'s of dead but it can not hide the fact that there are still winners and losers. In Iraq, there are different flavors of Shiites, Sunnis, terrorists, Bathists and what passes for an average citizen all doing battle - militarily, economically and politically. There are shadow governments backing and supplying each and every one of the various factions. Someone(s) must lose before any kind of stability will be achieved. Who will the winner be? ...and more importantly, what are the consequences if "our side" - the average citizen - loses?

[Dharma]

When most people have finally seen Bush and his plans for Iraq are crazy, you still support him and this war. Take a look at Scarborough last night.


December 21st, 2006
Scarborough Sees The Light—Barnicle: “Bush is delusional”

Scarborough has made a definite turn-around on Bush over the past year, but it hasn't been as evident as it was on Wednesday's Scarborough Country. Joe appears to be totally fed up with the non-stop spin and ignorance coming from the White House and Bush's press conference apparently put the final nail in that coffin. While discussing Bush's possible plan of increasing troop levels, regardless of what the generals say, Scarborough even mentioned how there would be impeachment talk if Clinton was President and saying he would ignore our top military commanders.

Mike Barnicle was also on fire during this segment. He feels that Bush is delusional and going to place more lives in danger. I must say that I also feel the same way.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[Dharma]

Some interesting thoughts to ponder...

DEMOCRATIC IRAQ

Listening to news commentators, talking heads and politicians we should be very confused about the causes of the intense havoc in Iraq. When there are so many opinions, each contradicting the others then most of them must be wrong and may be all of them. At the risk of being no more wrong than most of them, you could help me formulate a totally different opinion.

Suppose you were a Saudi Prince. You would be extremely rich just one among a hundred or so Princes, each as stupendously rich as you. While the Royal family wallows in wealth the badly suppressed Saudi commoner is very poor, a similar situation among the many Kingdoms and Dictatorships in the Middle East.

Now let’s go back a little in time. The U S invades and swiftly conquers Iraq. Now assume the hypothetical: they are greeted with flowers and a successful democracy is immediately put in place. The economic programs as installed in Germany and Japan after World War II are set up in a similar successful manner. The Iraqi people would be enjoying a prosperity that would make them the envy of the countries around them. So brother I as a Prince would be extremely nervous that our masses would rebel to seek this kind of Democracy. Would you be? I think us brethren should hold a meeting and analyze this situation. We should invite all the Royalty in the area. We would not only lose our power, but the wealth so disproportionate will certainly be confiscated. We saw what happened in the French Revolution. Like their aristocrats we too may find our heads separated from our bodies. The meeting and any resolutions should be of extreme secrecy. If the U S found out then there would be more nations added to the ‘axis of evil’.

Since the United States feels it essential to force Democracy into our area then ultimately all of us are at risk from their military intrusion. Democracy may only be their excuse. They like establishing military bases. Their document: Project of the New American Century clearly indicates their intentions.

Would you agree there absolutely must not be a successful democracy in Iraq? We could funnel in money, arms and even paid militia. They could attack various Government operations particularly the Police to make the Democracy look like a failure.

Rumor has it that the Iraqis are not capable of fighting, because the supposedly well-trained Iraqis trained by Americans are not able to subdue the insurgents. Well the insurgents are Iraqis giving both the Government forces and Americans hell.

The Iranians already a part of Bush’s axis of evil, will do just about what we are thinking of doing. As soon as the Americans can iron out Iraq they will be next. It will be easier for them to fight on Iraq territory and at the same time discourage the Americans from their hoped conquest of the Middle East. The occupation of Iran promises more difficulty than Iraq.

Look how brilliantly the British separated the Muslims and Hindus in India creating havoc across the country; we can split the Sunnis and Shiites. Attack some of their temples and families, put the blame on the other side and there after they will keep this turmoil broiling.

This plan cannot work, as the American forces are too strong? History shows that in gorilla warfare the gorillas do extremely well. The Viet Cong defeated the Americans. The Algerians made the French give up. Ironically the American gorillas in their revolutionary war against the most powerful British military defeated them.

This program will butcher the poor Iraqi people? As bad as that may be it will be a lesser mess that the entire Middle East victim to a massive blood bath. The onus is on the ambitious George Bush, he, is ‘the axis of evil’.

[Laurie]

It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush.
Bush is the decider. He gets the blame for all of his wrong decisions.


I guess you two are willing to take Saddam at his word.
I haven't heard or read of anyone taking Saddam's word for anything. What a stupid and insulting assumption to make about people who don't agree with you.

The inspectors did not find any WMDs. And since you said that Saddam would not say what happened to the WMDs, there is nothing to take Saddam's word on anyway.

[dhyatt]

It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush.
Bush is the decider. He gets the blame for all of his wrong decisions.


I guess you two are willing to take Saddam at his word.
I haven't heard or read of anyone taking Saddam's word for anything. What a stupid and insulting assumption to make about people who don't agree with you.

The inspectors did not find any WMDs. And since you said that Saddam would not say what happened to the WMDs, there is nothing to take Saddam's word on anyway.

I didn't say that and he most certainly DID say what happened to them. I said Saddam said they were destroyed - this is something he repeated over and over again.. You obviously believe him and that's fine. I don't and never did believe him.

No need to get testy. Read it for yourself...

http://carypolitics.org/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

And this isn't even getting into the issue of why known weapons sites were looted and destroyed immediately prior to our invasion nor the allegations - from Iraq Republican Guard members - that WMDs were moved out of the country with the help of Russia and Syria. This is simply the indisputable fact that he had weapons, a few of which we've found when he said he had destroyed them all.

If your definition of WMDs is limited to nuclear weapons then I agree, he didn't have them and we were thankfully able to neutralize him before they were acquired. We failed at that when it comes to North Korea and I'm doubtful we'll be able to stop Iran. The recent small victory by moderates in Iran gives me some hope but I don't think we're out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination.

[Laurie]

I didn't say that and he most certainly DID say what happened to them. I said Saddam said they were destroyed - this is something he repeated over and over again

I didn't paraphrase this very well.

Iraq under Hussein failed to demonstrate that they were destroyed and he prevented the inspectors from completing their job by denying them access to "sensitive sites" and thus proving it one way or the other.
BTW - You are the only one quoting Saddam and saying that anyone believes him.


I guess you two are willing to take Saddam at his word.


The inspectors did not find any WMDs.


Saddam said they were destroyed - this is something he repeated over and over again.. You obviously believe him and that's fine. I don't and never did believe him.

Again -

The inspectors did not find any WMDs.

Wow, you can read and repeat right wing hate filled crap like this, but can't read what anyone who disagrees with you says. So do you also think that democrats hate America and that you can't support the troops while being against an unjustified war? I never really expected something like this from you.

[dhyatt]

[snip]


I guess you two are willing to take Saddam at his word.

Wow, you can read and repeat right wing hate filled crap like this, but can't read what anyone who disagrees with you says. So do you also think that democrats hate America and that you can't support the troops while being against an unjustified war? I never really expected something like this from you.

Please explain to me why you think this is "hate filled crap", "stupid and insulting assumption", etc... I haven't used any hate speech in my discussions. I've simply framed the dilemna, either Saddam lied, or Bush lied, or both - and you haven't stated yet who you believe in this whole sordid tale - nor have you said you believe nobody (which would be perfectly find btw). There's no need for this to be personal. I certainly didn't intend it that way and if you (and others) are insulted by me posing the question as to whom you believe, then I guess we should just politely let this thread die.

btw - here is a link to the U.N. report on Iraq WMDs issued March 6, 2003. Even a cursory scan reveals that Iraqi deception on chemical and biological weapons programs persisted right up until the time we invaded. The report mentions many times that it was incumbent upon Iraq to prove certain things which they did not. It also notes multiple instances of where inspectors caught them in outright lies as to where, when, and how many WMDs were destroyed. I suggest looking it over and seeing if you still feel so strongly about your "Inspectors didn't find any WMD's" statement...

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/UNMOVIC%20UDI%20Working%20Document%206%20March%200 3.pdf

[Dharma]

I thought it might be important to tell you of the BREAKING NEWS this morning that U.S. military deaths in Iraq pass 9/11 toll. :cry: :cry: :cry:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16356321/

Also wanted to note that we went into to Iraq to stop "the war on terror" when Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

[d4vendel]

So, you didn't get a new record player for Christmas. :wink:

[Dharma]

It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush. He certainly shoulders much of the blame for our current situation in Iraq but frankly I'm way past tired of hearing about how the WMDs were all one big lie to justify us going into war.

Oh really?


Put on the Spot, Our Punk President Lies Yet Again
Walter C. Uhler

Whenever I hear President Bush tell another lie (or read that he has told another lie) I'm reminded of the Liar-in-Chief's former professor at the Harvard Business School, Yoshi Tsurumi, and his spot-on recollection of this president's punk past. According to Professor Tsurumi, Bush "showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him." [Mary Jacoby, "The Dunce," Salon.com, 16 September 2004]

Tsurumi concluded: "Behind his smile and his smirk…he was a very insecure, cunning and vengeful guy." "He was just badly brought up, with no discipline, and no compassion." [Ibid] In conservative Lebanon, Pennsylvania, where I grew up during the 1950s and 1960s, such people were called "punks."

Perhaps, it's fair to say that the world would be a much better and safer place if America's mainstream news media had challenged Bush as much as Professor Tsurumi and his classmates did. Alas, it let the punk candidate slide during his first run for president, notwithstanding such smug and asinine assertions as: "I may not know where Kosovo is, but I know what I believe." Thus, alas, many Americans voted for an admitted alcoholic (and, allegedly, a former drug using) twit, who would come to believe that God spoke directly to him and wanted him to be president.

The mainstream news media also failed to challenge seriously the Bush administration's campaign of lies, which it employed to frighten witless Americans into supporting an unprovoked - and, thus, illegal, immoral -- invasion of Iraq. Specifically, the news media paid insufficient attention to an outrageous assertion by Bush that proved he was either a bald-faced liar or an extremely reckless ignoramus.

On September 7, 2002, President Bush asserted: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

Yet, not only was there no such report, but the report actually written by the IAEA in 1998 reached precisely the opposite conclusion: "Based on all credible information available to date…the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." [MSNBC.com, 7 Sept. 2002]

And although a White House official subsequently admitted that the IAEA report did not say what Bush claimed, the spokesman's own dissembling shed further light on the dishonesty driving Bush's push for war: "What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report."[Ibid] Why this entire episode failed to send red flags of suspicion flying across our entire news media remains an open question.

Yet, worse was to come. On October 2, 2002, Bush lied when he told Congressional leaders: "None of us here today desire to see a military conflict." How do we know he lied? Because in March 2003, in the moments "before he gave his national address announcing that the war had just begun, a camera caught Bush pumping his fist as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. 'Feels good,' he said." [Paul Waldman, Fraud, 2004, p.8] Once a punk, always a punk?

In December 2003, months after the Bush administration's reckless assertions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction proved to be false, ABC's Diane Sawyer pressed Bush about justifying a war to the American public by stating "as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he [Saddam] could move to acquire those weapons." Put on the spot, Bush resorted to his punk college ways by responding: "So what's the difference?"

Two months later, Bush weaseled again. When put on the spot by Tim Russert, of Meet the Press, Bush justified his illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq by asserting: "Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and so I'm not going [sic] leave him in power and trust a madman…He had the ability to make weapons, at the very minimum." Such a snotty and infantile excuse for sending thousands to their deaths should have persuaded even the most brain-dead of Bush supporters that he had wasted his vote on a reckless punk.

In late 2005, Bush told another lie, when attempting to justify his unconstitutional order permitting the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without obtaining the required court-approved warrants. Bush defended his directive as a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism, evidently forgetting that, in April 2004, he assured an audience in Buffalo, New York: "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

Bush lied again on December 14, 2005, when discussing what intelligence was available to Congress, when it voted to support his decision to invade Iraq. Bush lied when he asserted: "Some of the most irresponsible comments - about manipulated intelligence - have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein."

In fact, the Congressional Research Service (CSR) released a report the very next day that exposed his lie: "The President and a small number of presidentially designated cabinet-level officials, including the vice president …have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive information, including intelligence sources and methods." In all, the report identified "nine key U.S. intelligence 'products' not generally shared with Congress."

And Bush lied again, on the eve of the November 2006 mid-term elections, when he said that he wanted Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to stay on until the end of his presidency. In fact, Bush already had commenced work on replacing Rumsfeld and knew he was lying when he said Rumsfeld would stay on. Bush even admitted to this deliberate deception.

Two days ago, Bush lied again. In a December 19, 2006, interview with the Washington Post , America's Liar-in-Chief was once again put on the spot. According to the Post, when he was asked to reconcile his "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq assertion of October 25, 2006, with his new assertion, "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush "recast" his former assertion "as a prediction rather than an assessment."

Bush's Harvard classmates and Professor Tsurumi would have understood all too well: Once a punk, always a punk.

Indeed, if "once a punk, always a punk," then columnist Joseph L. Galloway is on to something when he asks: "Can nothing save this man from himself?" [See Galloway's splendid article, "Desperation in the White House," Miami Herald at http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/16250266.htm ] And, indeed, if nothing can save Bush from himself, the citizens of the United States have an obligation to remove him from office - impeach, convict, remove - before he does more damage to American and the world.

But only after first removing the thug, who has so perniciously enabled the punk.

[dhyatt]

It's all too convenient to engage in revisionist history and point the finger squarely at Bush. He certainly shoulders much of the blame for our current situation in Iraq but frankly I'm way past tired of hearing about how the WMDs were all one big lie to justify us going into war.

Oh really?



[snip]

Yet, not only was there no such report, but the report actually written by the IAEA in 1998 reached precisely the opposite conclusion: "Based on all credible information available to date…the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." [MSNBC.com, 7 Sept. 2002]

[snip]

I hate to repetitive but.... "If your definition of WMDs is limited to nuclear weapons then I agree, he didn't have them and we were thankfully able to neutralize him before they were acquired. We failed at that when it comes to North Korea and I'm doubtful we'll be able to stop Iran."

[Dharma]

We failed at that when it comes to North Korea and I'm doubtful we'll be able to stop Iran."

Study: Oil decline threatens Iran
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues, income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published Monday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ne...nationworld- hed

Maybe we should consider stopping them some other way rather than militarily and brute force. :wink:

[dhyatt]

We failed at that when it comes to North Korea and I'm doubtful we'll be able to stop Iran."

Study: Oil decline threatens Iran
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues, income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published Monday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ne...nationworld- hed

Maybe we should consider stopping them some other way rather than militarily and brute force. :wink:

Now this presents quite a challenge... (from the article)


...
Stern's analysis, which appears in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports U.S. and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. But, Stern says, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes "as badly as it claims."
...
If the United States can "hold its breath" for a few years it may find Iran a much more conciliatory country, he said. And that, Stern said, is good reason to belay any instinct to take on Iran militarily.

Which will happen first? Economic collapse or development of nuclear weapons? Or do they really need nuclear power after all? And if they do, why didn't they accept they offer of nuclear fuel from Russia, instead of insisting on spending billions to develop their own plants? What happens if there's a collapse only AFTER nuclear weapons have been developed??? What if they simply want nuclear weapons to extort the West - along the lines of North Korea? What if they really do want to annihilate Israel? What if their current radical government is on its way out? Would overt action on our part speed their ouster or only serve to galvanize moderates who have been sitting on the sidelines? If Iran winds up "For Sale" due to economic problems, Russia clearly has a foothold on the situation; what does this mean for world oil supply?

And the biggest IF of all... IF we just bide our time and things turn to crap, who gets the blame? Probably the next president, who will probably be a Democrat... maybe there's an upside afterall ;-) (just kidding of course but it seems like the only thing that matters these days is not the outcome itself but who (or which party) can be blamed for it....)

Can we rely on Middle East governments to police themselves? Their track record so far is abysmal but it seems we are fast approaching the point where we have no choice. In that context, establishing a permanent presence in Iraq may not be such a bad idea (he says as he prepares for the onslaught ;-) ).

[francejamie]

I hate to repetitive but.... "If your definition of WMDs is limited to nuclear weapons then I agree, he didn't have them and we were thankfully able to neutralize him before they were acquired. We failed at that when it comes to North Korea and I'm doubtful we'll be able to stop Iran."

Actually, it would appear from the reports that Iraq wasn't even really close t developing a nuclear weapon. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that from the mushroom cloud, it would appear that N. Korea was a little bit closer.
Hmmmm.. Maybe we have wasted huge numbers of lives and resources invading a neutralized country, while we left the true danger alone.
Another good call by Bush.

[Laurie]

Idiot righties on the war in Iraq:


I guess you two are willing to take Saddam at his word. He said he destroyed the stuff, you believe him. End of discussion and fine with me.


You obviously believe him [Saddam] and that's fine.


I've simply framed the dilemna, either Saddam lied, or Bush lied, or both - and you haven't stated yet who you believe in this whole sordid tale - nor have you said you believe nobody (which would be perfectly find btw).
I still haven't figured out how saying that the inspectors did not find any WMDs means taking Saddam's word for anything. A take on Jack Smith's tactic of when you can't refute the arguement, you revert to personal attack.


You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

[Laurie]

President Bush takes Saddam at his word*:

George W. Bush said

The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.




*According to Hyatt

[dhyatt]

President Bush takes Saddam at his word*:

George W. Bush said

The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.

*According to Hyatt

Perhaps this is what you're looking for from me:

For the record: "I Don Hyatt acknowledge that the quantities and types of WMDs that the world's best intelligence believed were in Iraq and that were used to partly or mostly justify our attack on that sovereign nation (depending on ones point of view) have not been found. They were either never there to begin with or they were successfully hidden from multiple inspection teams. I also apologize for any comments that were construed as personal attacks and promise to never again put someone in the position of having to choose between believing a president they disdain and a ruthless dictator."

[francejamie]

Perhaps this is what you're looking for from me:

For the record: "I Don Hyatt acknowledge that the quantities and types of WMDs that the world's best intelligence believed were in Iraq and that were used to partly or mostly justify our attack on that sovereign nation (depending on ones point of view) have not been found. They were either never there to begin with or they were successfully hidden from multiple inspection teams. I also apologize for any comments that were construed as personal attacks and promise to never again put someone in the position of having to choose between believing a president they disdain and a ruthless dictator."

Whew... It's about time.... :wink:

[Wuptdo]

When I first saw this I thought this is the type of speech we could expect from David Price, but who knew. Anyway, enjoy your new Congress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4WA58rMu0

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wuptdo :wink: