To our liberal friends

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It says a lot that someone would put silly gaffes ahead of a war that has bankrupted the country and destroyed millions of lives.

Some perspective is clearly lacking.

Still waiting on an answer.

"If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions."

[_Simpson_ 250]

Okay.

Lets try this again. If IRAQ is such a concern for human rights, what is wrong that North Korea is still a functioning government of oppression.

One mountain at a time.

Hopefully this time this one wont result to war.

Edited October 21, 2009 by _Simpson_

[_Simpson_ 250]

Ah yes I heard that one too

and thats probably because its a very valid point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sure you believe that.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I'm sure you believe that.

The faulty intelligence?, at the given time yes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Anger should primarily be directed at the aggressor. We had no business going into one of these countries. None.

Not even Afghanistan? How are these cowards coming into the country not considered aggressors?

I said we had no business going into one of them (Iraq) which, I thought would indicate that we did have business going into the other one (Afghanistan). The problem with the latter is that we had specific business going in there and chose to take our eyes off that business in favor of venturing into a land that we did not have any business venturing into. There's also never been a clear strategy on what to accomplish in either place - only inept strategery...

Would we have business over there had he had nuclear weapons as intelligence led us to believe? If not when is a preemptive attack ok with you?

Nuclear weapons? Saddam? There was no intelligence suggesting he had nuclear weapons. Look, there was an inspection underway that was interrupted by the US administration because the President and his war hungry team couldn't get into Iraq fast enough. Listening to Cheney at the time, they we looking forward to collect all them flowers that we'd be greeted with, remember? And then all them flowers just kept blowing up. Oh right, they weren't flowers, they were IED's.

When is a pre-emptive attack acceptable? When another country poses an immediate threat to our security. Iraq did not meet this criteria - not even close.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you supported the government's case for war, you weren't very well informed.

Good reasons for believing he had the capability.

No, there weren't. This is why there was a verification team on the ground. A few months into their work, unfettered by Saddam's regime, they had still come up empty, they found nothing. This is why Bush&Co wouldn't let them finish the job. The fear was precisely that they would verify that there aren't any WMD's in Iraq. They wanted their war and they set it up so they would get it. There's little doubt on that point anymore, really.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm sure you believe that.

The faulty intelligence?, at the given time yes.

You mean the cherry picked or even fixed intelligence? Sure, that's pretty well documented. I posted this several times before but here we go again - a well documented case of cherry picking intelligence.

Bush said in October 2002 - at the height of getting America riled up for this war that never should have been and days before the Congress authorized the use of force - the following:

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases"

Nice job linking Saddam to the perpetrators of 9/11. But really? We've learned that? Well, sort of. There sure was intelligence obtained suggesting that Iraq trained Al-Qaida operatives with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear efforts. This intelligence was obtained from one Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in February of 2002. However, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued the following comment also in February 2002 regarding this particular piece of intelligence:

This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida's CBRN efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraq's involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where the training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers. Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.

Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide support to a group it cannot control.

Pretty strong caveat on this piece of intelligence that Bush conveniently forgot to mention. And this is but one example of the "faulty" intelligence. Not faulty, my friend. Cherry picked and fixed. They wanted their war and they were doing whatever it took to get it. Remeber the Downing Street Memo?

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Didn't Bush and Cheney falsified some information on the intelligence reports to make the popular consensus that Iraq had WMD? I thought they falsified many reports.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Actually Simpson, it wasn't an issue of hindsight. The insurgencies in both countries were entirely predictable.

To this extent, I think thats debatable but regardless where do you think most of the anger should be directed?

Anger should primarily be directed at the aggressor. We had no business going into one of these countries. None.

Not even Afghanistan? How are these cowards coming into the country not considered aggressors?

I said we had no business going into one of them (Iraq) which, I thought would indicate that we did have business going into the other one (Afghanistan). The problem with the latter is that we had specific business going in there and chose to take our eyes off that business in favor of venturing into a land that we did not have any business venturing into. There's also never been a clear strategy on what to accomplish in either place - only inept strategery...

Would we have business over there had he had nuclear weapons as intelligence led us to believe? If not when is a preemptive attack ok with you?

Nuclear weapons? Saddam? There was no intelligence suggesting he had nuclear weapons. Look, there was an inspection underway that was interrupted by the US administration because the President and his war hungry team couldn't get into Iraq fast enough. Listening to Cheney at the time, they we looking forward to collect all them flowers that we'd be greeted with, remember? And then all them flowers just kept blowing up. Oh right, they weren't flowers, they were IED's.

When is a pre-emptive attack acceptable? When another country poses an immediate threat to our security. Iraq did not meet this criteria - not even close.

Dam, I should of said weapon of mass destruction,not sure what I was thinking there but Im very aware of the situation and how it played out back then. I believe at the time because of intelligence the US and others had that the administration honestly believed there was a serious threat to our security.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anyone familiar with the debate that took place in Europe during 2002-2003 knows that that isn't true.

The Bush administration had decided as early as 2001 that they were going to go to war with Iraq. They simply went through the motions at the United Nations to give it the veneer of legality. In fact, if it wasn't for Tony Blair, the Bush administration would have ignored the UN entirely.

[_Simpson_ 250]

If you supported the government's case for war, you weren't very well informed.

Good reasons for believing he had the capability.

No, there weren't. This is why there was a verification team on the ground. A few months into their work, unfettered by Saddam's regime, they had still come up empty, they found nothing. This is why Bush&Co wouldn't let them finish the job. The fear was precisely that they would verify that there aren't any WMD's in Iraq. They wanted their war and they set it up so they would get it. There's little doubt on that point anymore, really.

Your acting like these searches were golden, please you know that Sadam played nothing but games with these inspectors. The inspections were a joke and we all knew it, furthermore playing all these games gave us even more reasons to believe he might have WMDs. Then there was his past history and also the intelligence from other countries. I really dont buy into these Bush conspiracy theories.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not hard to imagine why Saddam played those games, its the only bargaining chip he had.

"The Bluff" is the oldest trick in the book

[_Simpson_ 250]

Anyone familiar with the debate that took place in Europe during 2002-2003 knows that that isn't true.

The Bush administration had decided as early as 2001 that they were going to go to war with Iraq. They simply went through the motions at the United Nations to give it the veneer of legality. In fact, if it wasn't for Tony Blair, the Bush administration would have ignored the UN entirely.

So you believe that Blair was in on the Bush conspiracy or is it that Bush fooled him? I dont think Blair put his reputation on the line because he had a thirst for blood. I believe he belileved as Bush did that we had a serious threat in Iraq and in light 9/11 we couldnt just let these things fester anymore.

[nowhereman 1]

1. I am not a liberal

2. Your cartoonish perception of "liberals" is something I would expect of a 12 year old growing up with very close-minded and irrational parents, not a grown man.

3. There are a few right leaning VJers (e.g. AlienLoveChild) that I can have an adult debate with. You are not on this list.

You'll have to remind me why I'm supposed to care whether you can or cannot debate with me. And yes you are a liberal. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. You're a liberal with a small "l". Just another follower.

The bottom line is that you consistently make statements that are not remotely supported by facts and you have a very distorted perception of what constitutes a liberal (e.g. in your mind Bill O'Reilly is a liberal). You also have admitted to having views that are far to the right on the political spectrum. It doesn't matter what your pereception of me or my views are, but what does matter is that for the most part your views are based on ignorance and have very little or nothing to do with reality.