quote: When the goal of the Bush administration is the destruction of America, and the Republicans are backing up the Bush administration, hurting the Republicans in any way they can is a worthy goal from the standpoint of Americans.
posted
Neomon, my assertions are that after the first Gulf War Saddam agreed to terms set forth by the UN. He agreed to let UN weapons inspectors in, and all kinds of other things. From the start he stalled, delayed, lied, and then kicked out the inspectors. Nothing happened to him, well, excpet that he made untold millions by the corrupt Oil for Food program. So what did he, and the other thugs and dictators around the world, learn? That if you violate UN resolutions you will just have them pass another UN resolution and nothing will happen to you. I believe that emboldened Iraq and Bin Laden to believe that the UN is nothing but a corrupt powerless group and the US is simply a paper tiger. People like Hussein and Bin laden felt that they had nothing to fear anymore so why not get more and more ruthless in their attacks
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, you must have missed my post. I asked you why you thought that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to the future of the United States. I'm very curious to hear your response.
[Edit - Ah, never mind--I see that you were posting your response at the same time I was repeating the question. ]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, Bush put forth more than one tiny case for invading Iraq you are just stuck on the WMD's. As far as the lies go, that means that Clinton, the UN, Kerry, Germany, France, and on and on all lied about the WMD's in Iraq. So it was a global conspiracy to lie about the WMD's in Iraq?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I can assure that I have not gouged out my eyes and replaced them with shrubbery. But thanks for that well meaning mental image.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I've read your response, but I'm not sure that it really answers the question. Yes, Iraq was indisputably in violation of the terms the UN had set forth. That Iraq was able to do so for years without the UN moving against him militarily certainly does underscore the fact that the UN really doesn't have any teeth.
Am I right in thinking that you're arguing that the invasion of Iraq was conducted, in significant part, to protect and enhance the authroity of the United Nations?
I'm also curious about your assertion that not having invaded Iraq would have left Bin Laden with the impression that the US was a paper tiger. Are you arguing that showing Bin Laden that the US means business was the reason why invading Iraq was necessary to the future of the US? It may seem redundant for me to be asking this again, but please bear with me--I want to make absoluely sure that I understand your argument, and am not putting words in your mouth.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The hatred of Bush is important because they will believe anything negative about Bush, or people who support Bush, and will not even think about anything positive that can happen."
I'm sure there are some people like that. However, that doesn't mean that's the motivation for every criticism. Independant thinkers can discuss policy, actions, and repercussions.
"The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future. Other than Iraq what area over there has become more destabilized?"
For one, Iraq was a check for Iran, which is why the US sold weapons to Saddam in the first place. The entire balance of power in the mideast is what is destabalized, besides just the chaos within Iraq.
"Terrorists have existed before, and will exist after Bush is President."
Again, not what anyone said. I said the war created MORE terrorists.
"Terrorists are not created by Bush. Terrorists are created by thugs and madmen who teach children from birth how to hate."
Blowing up those children's homes and killing their fathers sure does help the recruitment drive, though. I'm talking about war, btw, not Bush. The Iraqi people may have been happy to get rid of Saddam, but it seems they don't want us over there either.
"Imagine the possibilities of a free Iraq. Imagine what could happen with a democratic Iraq."
They could vote in an islamic fundamentalist government? Ok, that's the cynical answer. Yes, I do think it would be great if more of the world was free and democratic. I just think that's more likely accomplished by a gradual cultural change than invasion by an outside military power. But hey, I'd love to be wrong on this one. I can disagree with the USA going to war but then still be happy if some good does come out of it.
"Or you can just hate Bush."
Or you can refuse to accept that there could be a reason someone would disagree with (most of) his policies other than having something against Bush individually.
--Enigmatic
PS: I know it's tacky to post in a debate thread then leave, but I have to be afk for a while now. Sorry.
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
12 years and 16 UN resolutions. I am saying that ONE of the reasons is to help protect and enhance the authority of the UN. The UN had its own reasons, such as Kofi and son getting rich off the Oil for Food program, for not wanting to take the steps that they outlined in their resolutions against Iraq. When the US was struck several times by terrorists (1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, and so on) we really had no response. Bin Laden knew he was offered to us by the Saudis (I think it was the Saudis) and we did nothing because it was a police matter. To be more clear, it is not just bin laden, but the "bin laden" type, meaning people who want to use the US as the Great Impotent Satan of the world to furthur their own agendas. Other reasons are the atrocities being committed by Saddam and his sons. Rape rooms, mass graves, child slavery all were happening in Iraq. WMD's are also another reason. None were found, but he did have them at one time. Where did they go? I am at work and just finishing lunch so it is hard to type out everything coherently and succinctly.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Just because you didn't read it in this thread, doesn't mean it hasn't happened
Thank you for clarifying. I didn't know who your comments were directed to, and since most of the posts here were far from that extreme, you seemed to be making strawman arguements. I guess I'm just somewhere in the middle-to-left on this one, as I don't like Bush's policy decisions, but don't agree with the posted quotes about him.
Really do have to run now, --Enigmatic
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The hatred of Bush is important because they will believe anything negative about Bush, or people who support Bush, and will not even think about anything positive that can happen. The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future.
It sounds to me like you're about as religious in your own opinions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not referring to being mistaken about there being WMDs in Iraq, I'm referring to using lies in order to support that notion, which is a very different thing, something that the UN did not do, that Kerry did not do, that Clinton did not do, that Germany did not do, that France did not do, but that the Bush administration did (this is all stated under the current evidence available to us, of course).
As for the case Bush made, Bush justified his authority to invade Iraq with UN and Congressional resolutions, but the reasons put forward rested firmly upon the hasty National Threat Assessment on Iraq, which was all about the possibilities of WMD.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, I definitely understand about trying to post from work--if it takes you a while to respond, or if you don't have time to polish your phrasing, no problem.
What I'm trying to get to the bottom of is why you think that it was necessary to the future of the United States that we invade Iraq--not just why an invasion was a good thing, but why it was necessary for the survival of the United States (which is what I took you to mean when you said "The war in Iraq was and is necessary for our future." If I'm misunderstanding what you meant there, definitely tell me).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my mind, war should be the absolute last resort to a conflict, only available after every other option has been thoroughly explored. I would like to have seen Bush at least pretend that he was willing to work with other countries in pursuing other alternatives to war.
There may have been many reasons why Saddam did not deserve to rule Iraq, yet the WMD issue was the only one that Bush used to promote the war. He used it knowing that the perception of the immediate threat to our lives from Saddam was the only thing that would gain him support for his war.
So if this war is justified, should the U.S. now seek to invade nuclear threats (Syria, N Korea, Iran), threats to democracy (Russia), and any other country that personally offends our sensibilities? I think the war on Iraq creates a bad perception in the eyes of other countries that now sees the U.S. as a superpower willing to bully other countries into submission. But it's not just a perception, it's a reality.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Being against how this war was sold to America does not make someone against the war. It means that they believe the war could be handled better.
Being against the numerous errors made by the administration does not make someone against the war. Such errors include the lack of post-war planning, the installation of crooks and conterfeiters into the Iraqi government by the US (recently the main purchaser of weapons for the Iraqi army and police was shown to be embezzeling millions of dollars that should be going to protect those Iraqi police who are diing by the handfulls every day and will replace our troops eventually.) and yes, the espousing of Saddam Huseins WMD and AlQueda ties. It means that some believe this war was planned badly.
Being against the corruption of contractors like Haliburton, and their ties to members of this administration does not mean we are against those hard working people who risk their lives in Iraq.
And mostly, being against problems in the administration policies does not mean we hate the President. It means we don't like or trust those policies.
Now I can understand where criticizing the Presidents policies could be seen by his backers as hating the President. After all, his policies are so important to him that he chooses his facts to support those policies, instead of creating policies that reflect the facts. He's done this in everything from Global Warming, to Iraq to the cost of Prescription Coverage in Medi-care. So perhaps he's so closely linked himself to his policies and his version of reality that anyone with different--actual--facts that attacks his policies is seen as hating him.
I do not hate President Bush.
I do not want to see him hurt or humiliated. Out of office, yes, but not punished.
I do consider much of what he has to say and propose and consider it deeply and I hope with an open mind. But an open mind goes both ways. I admit that he may be right on occasion, but I admit he may be wrong on occasion. He and his supporters have not done that often.
When you say, "those are just Bush haters" those who are reading your comments know that they are not "Bush haters" so ignore anything else you say. That is not good for presenting your point of view.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: From the start he stalled, delayed, lied, and then kicked out the inspectors. Nothing happened to him, well, excpet that he made untold millions by the corrupt Oil for Food program. So what did he, and the other thugs and dictators around the world, learn? That if you violate UN resolutions you will just have them pass another UN resolution and nothing will happen to you.
You forget that before we went to war, Saddam agreed to let inspectors back in without restriction, they could go anywhere they wanted to anytime without warning. Those were the terms negotiated when the US threatened to invade. Bush gave them something like five weeks then said they were wasting time, they asked for more time, certainly five weeks wasn't long enough. Bush said they should have found the weapons by now and they were ineffective.
So then we invaded. Five weeks in, the world said "where are the weapons?" and Bush said five weeks wasn't enough, he needed more time. If you can't find the irony and hipocrisy in there, you need a magnifying glass. It's amazing that Bush expected 200 guys in UN jeeps, to do what 250,000 troops in tanks and humvees and planes and helicopters couldn't accomplish.
Thus, if I were you I would leave out the entire UN argument. We didn't invade to protect the power and authority of the UN, we invaded for ourselves. Had it been for the UN, we would have supported the inspectors for longer.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You forget that before we went to war, Saddam agreed to let inspectors back in without restriction, they could go anywhere they wanted to anytime without warning. Those were the terms negotiated when the US threatened to invade.
"March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.
The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain co-sponsor another resolution stating that Iraq "will have failed" to comply with Resolution 1441 unless Baghdad cooperates with its disarmament obligations by March 17. The draft resolution implies that the council members would take military action if Iraq failed to meet the deadline."
The inspectors were not allowed to go where they wanted without restriction nor were they being cooperative as set forth by the resolution
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the correct amount of time that UN inspectors should have been allowed free access was more like 12 years, not 5 weeks
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So if this war is justified, should the U.S. now seek to invade nuclear threats (Syria, N Korea, Iran), threats to democracy (Russia), and any other country that personally offends our sensibilities?
They are complete different situations. But yes if Syria were to invade Kuwait, then be forcibly removed, agree to terms set forth by the UN, then not abide by those same terms for over a decade, posses WMD's, commit some of the most horrible human rights violations known to man, if they do all of those things (and all the other stuff Saddam has done) then yes, we should go to war against them. Syria is starting to be dealt with. The first time would be to secure the border between Iraq and Syria and see how much the terrorist threat drops in Iraq. North Korea is currently in negotations. Russia is not a threat to democracy, they are barely surviving as a country. We are helping them, although we should be doing more, destroy their nuclear arsenal. We did not go to war against anyone because the offended our sensibilities.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do apologize for the rudeness of posting and leaving, but it's past my quittin' time and I have wrestling practice tonight Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Yeah, just as we should imagine what could happen with a democratic Afghanistan instead of the warlord-ruled drug state currently in place . . . maybe we should invade . . .
Why would we invade a country we still have military forces based in??? I don't remember us ever pulling out of Afghanistan. In fact I have a few friends still stationed over there.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think perhaps you missed my point. We invaded, and have since royally botched the follow through, leaving the country a drug state in control of the warlords.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be counterproductive to say "I told you so"?
Seriously though, it frustrates me when I hear some say we could not have known things would go this way when we started this war. Why not? Why did the "experts" have such unrealistic expectations to begin with? I argued even before the war that Iraq would become an Islamic state rather than a democracy, that Iraq would be in disorder for a long time after Saddam was eliminated, and that the most likely result would be a new terrorist haven working against us. The media was warning against similar possibilities. Why then are the experts in power only just now, two years later, coming to those same conclusions? How am I supposed to trust the government if regular, non-expert citizens can predict the outcome of their wars better than they do - especially after they claimed to be certain there would be WMDs in Iraq and were so wrong?
I think we are learning a lesson the hard way, but only if we actually DO learn the lesson and change the way we approach our foreign policy. You can't just invade people and force them to change. That's not going to solve terrorism, for one thing, and it's not going to help them in the long run. Instead, it's going to make us look imperialist, it's going to increase terrorism, and it's going to create conflict in the nations in question. I am all in favor of supporting democracy in the world, but not through unilateral, unprovoked force.
At this point, we should stay in Iraq until we get the job done. However, at the same time, we need to learn from this.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's still not clear exactly what is going to happen over there. We should start a new thread on the Iraqi Constitutional debate going on right now.
The Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurdish peoples all have a virtual veto over the constitution if it doesn't match up to what they want. The Shiites and the Kurds want the three regions to have autonomy, but nominally united as the nation of Iraq. The Sunnis want it to be one united nation with no autonomy, and they want a share in the oil of the north and south, whereas they would be economically devastated by the plan supported in the north and south currently.
Also, the Kurds have a decent record on democracy and civil rights. It's not stellar, but compared to other middle eastern nations, it's pretty good. The Sunnis have always been lenient on woman's rights, compared to nations like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
My point is, we don't know what's going to happen yet, we can only guess, and to a certain degree, hope.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have been called a traitor for saying exactly what is being leaked by "administration sources" now. Do you have any idea how that makes me feel? For one thing, it makes me feel vindicated in that, while I was pretty sure I was right about this war all along, it's nice to have people who supposedly have had all the data all along come to the same realizations I did back before they started it.
Secondly, I feel as if the whole Administration must now be traitors too. 'Cuz if I was one for saying what I did about the war, then now that they are saying the same things, it must mean that they've joined me in treason. Either that or I was never a traitor and I'm owed a HUGE frequin' apology by the people on the right who kept saying that failure to support this war harmed the US...
I certainly am one who hates the idea of GWB as President. I think you earlier used the typical "well Clinton did xxx" gambit. I have never said I enjoyed having Bill Clinton as President either. But... I do believe that George W Bush is among the worst "leaders" this country has ever had. He's shown in numerous ways that I have set down here and elsewhere.
What I want to know, however, is how you're going to feel when we end up with an Islamist republic in Iraq. When Afghanistan just turns out to be a flat fiasco that we conveniently ignore. And when the result of all our efforts over there are just a mass of casualties and a huge debt.
How, pray tell, is that better than having stalemated Saddam for another x years? What will we have achieved for us or for the Iraqi people?
Do you not understand what's being said in these back-channel leaks? Do you really believe that these leaks are happening without the Administration's knowledge of it all? It's called floating a trial balloon. The President is using this to see how bad the fall out will be.
Or...there are massive defections from high up in the Administration.
Or...it's all a pack of lies that the press is blowing out of proportion.
I'm anxious to see which it is. I fear it's Bush's trial ballooning to see if he can escape from this situation without destroying his power base for the next GOP Administration.
Seriously.
The next worst case is that there are high-level defections. That means this Administration is unraveling from the top down, the inside out. And you know what that means, don't you? It means that we'll have some rapid disintegration pretty soon.
I hope that doesn't happen either.
In fact, for once, I'm just praying that this whole thing is a tempest in a teacup that some enterprising reporter cooked up out of scraps just before deadline. Only that scenario, in which the Administration really isn't trying to lower expectations on Iraq, leaves me believing that this country has a chance of recovering gradually and with some semblance of "face" after the debacle of this war.
I have zero hope of this war turning out well. They never do. There's no such thing as a good outcome. There's only less bad than it could've been. I'm surprised at our leaders (many of whom have experienced war) for not recognizing this fact and acting accordingly. But it's awfully tempting to see war as a solution. Especially if one has only a short amount of time in which to demonstrate progress.
It's why, secretly, I'm hoping that America really does have a wakeup call over this. I think it's time we changed the way we give (or rather loan) power to people. Our election system has consistently given us lack-luster performers for decades. We need a better way. Maybe now people will recognize the dangers of letting incompetent, manipulative, egotistical, border-line sociopaths into high government positions.
At any rate, while I think it's fun to watch you support the President, I haven't seen you address the possibilities that are raised by the opening post in this thread. What if this "lowered expectation" stuff is true?
How does the described result equate to success on any but a purely speculative scale? It's a success because Saddam would've been worse. Except that he wasn't supporting terrorists like we thought, he didn't have WMD like we thought, and he wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons like we thought. Sure, he was a complete nightmare as a leader and I'm personally glad he's not in power, but the point is he wasn't OUR nightmare and we might, apparently, be leaving the Iraqi people with an even worse nightmare to follow.
I'm not sure if you just think it's all going to turn out great, or what? I know it's going to be short of our goals. I knew it immediately. I said so then. And I was called "traitor" by people like you (if not you indeed). So...now that it's no longer traitorous to say that things aren't going so great for us over there...just exactly how is it that this is all going to turn into a bed of roses?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe the correct amount of time that UN inspectors should have been allowed free access was more like 12 years, not 5 weeks
No, until they were allowed reentry in 2003, they hadn't been in country in several years. Bush expected them to find the weapons in a week, and when they didn't he invaded, then claimed he needed a year to do it. You're missing the point.
Further, if that which they are accused of is not disarming, where is your proof? Or for that matter, the President's?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I have not called you or anyone else a traitor. We disagree on the war, but no one has called you a traitor, nor implied it. If you can be critical of the Government, then I can be critical of you, and you can be critical of me. No one is a traitor, relax a little. I have not even remotely come close to calling anyone a traitor. The worst I have said is people being a Bush hater, and the only bad thing about that is not everyone is really a 'hater', they are more 'dislikers'. We all have the same rights of Free Speech, I absolutely respect your right to agree or disagree with the Government or anything else.
quote: What I want to know, however, is how you're going to feel when we end up with an Islamist republic in Iraq. When Afghanistan just turns out to be a flat fiasco that we conveniently ignore. And when the result of all our efforts over there are just a mass of casualties and a huge debt.
How are you going to feel if it doesn't happen? Will you apologize and ask for forgiveness for not believing in the Iraqis and Afghanis?
quote: I have zero hope of this war turning out well. They never do. There's no such thing as a good outcome.
Unless you count countries like Japan and Germany.
Lyrhawn
quote: No, until they were allowed reentry in 2003, they hadn't been in country in several years.
That is exactly my point. Saddam should have NEVER been allowed to kick them out for YEARS in the first place
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, whether or not Afghanistan turns out well in the long run, we've failed it so far. It is (again) a drug state run by warlords because we allowed it to become one after kicking out the Taliban.
And that failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration, and demonstrates how bad their follow-through gets if the public lets it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Beren I think calling someone a traitor because they disagree with the Goverment is just dumb. I really mad at both Democrats and Republicans for not doing anything, or not doing more about illegal immigration and securing the borders. Democrats are at least starting to talk about that issue.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is exactly my point. Saddam should have NEVER been allowed to kick them out for YEARS in the first place
That wasn't really the point you were making though, not from what you actually said. You tried to make it sound like defending the UN was part of our rationale for invading, or that we had UN authority to invade when we did. Neither of which is true. No, the inspectors never should have been allowed to be kicked out (same thing for North Korea, but who is raising a fuss about that?), but the point is that they were, and we, along with the rest of the world let it happen. But then we got them back in.
Don't dwell in the past, stick with the present. Invading now, to make up for inspectors being kicked out, what 10 years ago almost? That makes no sense if that is your argument. We never gave the inspectors a chance, it was a calculated plot and PR stunt by the President, and when he felt it had run its course, he did away with it and invaded.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lord I don't know if I dare post here. Too much foaming at the mouth improper usage of the words "impeach" and "war crimes/criminal/liar" etc. etc.
It's what's kept me from posting these many months.
Now back to your regularly scheduled ranting.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. I think the word "impeach" is being used properly, but I think you disagree that it should be done.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How are you going to feel if it doesn't happen? Will you apologize and ask for forgiveness for not believing in the Iraqis and Afghanis?
I asked you first. And since there's an apparently leak from the Administration making my scenario less of a hypothetical, I figure it's a legitimate question for those who continue to support the Administration. I assume you believe the leaks aren't true, but if you believe the need for lowered expectations, or if you're willing to answer a non-hypothetical question about the lowered expecations, I'd appreciate it.
But in answer to your hypothetical, no one would cheer louder than I if we end up with a pro-Western democracy with a strong commitment to the rule of law in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What I'm hearing, though, is what I feared from the very first, that we are not likely to have that, despite the promises made at the beginning of this sad adventure.
quote:Unless you count countries like Japan and Germany.
Do you honestly see the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq as in any way paralleling that of post-war Japan or Germany?
Let's look at a more recent "success" story. Vietnam. We now have diplomatic relations with the government we despised and fought and died to prevent from seizing power. Did that happen because we went to war with them? Hmm...I think that'd be a stretch.
Perhaps I said "never" too hastily. It just hasn't happened in my life time. it happened twice following WWII for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the actual war but certainly have to do with the generosity of the American people, as well as the foresight of some pretty decent leaders acknowledging (in retrospect) that economic hardship can cause people to do crazy things and supports the rise of a malignant form of nationalism. So, we invested in those country's future in part to make sure they didn't slide back into the horrid conditions that fueled the war-like attitudes in the first place.
Of course, such brilliant foresight has been lacking with respect to our middle East policy since the same war. From all accounts, we just ran out of steam or political will to fix ALL the problems we knew existed. And the ripple effects of propping up one nasty regime after another have finally come home to roost, so to speak.
This is not the same model at all. IMHO.
RE: immigration. Maybe we need a new thread on this. I have seen some fairly compelling arguments for curtailing the costly fight against illegal immigration. Basically, we have a few problems related to cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants and, perhaps, some crime to deal with. The main costs we have seem to be in fighting the tide of illegal border crossings. The question is whether it's really in our best interest to stop the people from coming over here in the first place. If we allowed more immigration, more options for temporary status, and controlled the people's comings and goings by letting them in legally and making sure they don't just disappear into the woodwork, we might actually benefit even more than we already do from "illegals."
But that has little to do with whether George Bush is lowering expectations on Iraq and, if so, what the implications are.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Fugu, Bush put forth more than one tiny case for invading Iraq you are just stuck on the WMD's. As far as the lies go, that means that Clinton, the UN, Kerry, Germany, France, and on and on all lied about the WMD's in Iraq. So it was a global conspiracy to lie about the WMD's in Iraq?
Yes, there was also the Iraq/al-Quaeda conflation that was put forth by the administration and it's supporters--without any evidence. More lies.
Lies about WMDs and Iraqi support of al-Queada were the lynchpin of administration strategy to whip up support for the war. So people are understandably upset when they turn out to be utter BS.
As fugu pointed out, Clinton, the UN, and so on didn't make crap up to support the idea of Iraqi WMDs. Nor did they invade. Bush lied and invaded. If you are going to invade a country, you better be damn sure your evidence is solid.
quote:Originally posted by camus: There may have been many reasons why Saddam did not deserve to rule Iraq, yet the WMD issue was the only one that Bush used to promote the war. He used it knowing that the perception of the immediate threat to our lives from Saddam was the only thing that would gain him support for his war.
Exactly. Without WMDs, what domestic support could Bush have gotten for his war? Very little. I supported the Afghanistan invasion despite misgivings because it was the main country supporting al-Queada.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
