Civl War has begun in Iraq

[konradv]

When I suspected my son was smoking pot when he was younger.....

I approached him with it. He denied it. I asked if I can check his room and pockets. He allowed me. I found nothing.

A week later, I suspected it again based on my finding him using visine when I saw him walking in the house at midnight.

SO I again asked him if I could check his room and pockets.

He allowed me to check the clothes in the laundry....but got very defensive when I asked to check his nightable draws.

As his father, he had no choice and I found rolling papers.

I knew I would find something as soon as he made it difficult for me to look.

It is not rocket science.

And yet we didn't find anything amounting to a stockpile of working WMDs to justify an invasion. Giving the inspectors time could have told us that. By your logic, before you found the papers, someone would have ordered you out of the house and burned it down. Problem solved or should I say "Mission Accomplished"?!?!

So your position is that we should have continued looking for them until we could not find them?

For 10 years we were unable to find them....but regardless, the intel of MANY countries said they were there. Even Clinton said they were there.

But you say we should have actually found them before taking action?

Do you really think Hussein was going to let them find them?

DO you really think Saddam was going to say to them..."dont open that door"

Do you really think Saddam was going to ket them get within miles of them if they were there?

The minute he breached the agreement, it meant one of two things..

1) I dont want you to find them and you are getting close
2) I dont care about your treaty. I am going to resist and fuck you.

Now...which one was it?

Find them? Find what? There was no there, there and the inspectors could have confirmed that. We didn't find the stockpiles expected. What door wouldn't Saddam have wanted opened? The fact that he allowed the inspectors indicated most had already been destroyed. My position is, Bush didn't want it confirmed. He was going in no matter what and didn't want new intel screwing up the Congressional vote.

 

[Article 15]

I can debate both sides of that...meaning I am not in agreement or disagreement with you.

Why are/were you against the Iraq invasion?

 

[paulitician]

A predictable scenario for sure. And don't be surprised if our own Government uses this Civil War as an excuse to start a War with Iran. Look for one of those 'Incidents' that leads to War with Iran. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex. Prepare for more War people.

 

[Jarhead]

And yet we didn't find anything amounting to a stockpile of working WMDs to justify an invasion. Giving the inspectors time could have told us that. By your logic, before you found the papers, someone would have ordered you out of the house and burned it down. Problem solved or should I say "Mission Accomplished"?!?!

So your position is that we should have continued looking for them until we could not find them?

For 10 years we were unable to find them....but regardless, the intel of MANY countries said they were there. Even Clinton said they were there.

But you say we should have actually found them before taking action?

Do you really think Hussein was going to let them find them?

DO you really think Saddam was going to say to them..."dont open that door"

Do you really think Saddam was going to ket them get within miles of them if they were there?

The minute he breached the agreement, it meant one of two things..

1) I dont want you to find them and you are getting close
2) I dont care about your treaty. I am going to resist and fuck you.

Now...which one was it?

Find them? Find what? There was no there, there and the inspectors could have confirmed that. We didn't find the stockpiles expected. What door wouldn't Saddam have wanted opened? The fact that he allowed the inspectors indicated most had already been destroyed. My position is, Bush didn't want it confirmed. He was going in no matter what and didn't want new intel screwing up the Congressional vote.

I understand that is your position.
But you are basing it on what you THINK Bush wanted....and that is ideologically driven.....

I look at the facts.

1) US Intel said they were there
2) other country intels said they were there
3) Saddam was FORCED to allow the inspections due to a treaty that he agrred to out of fear of being tossed out of power when Bush Senior and congress had our military defeat him. It was not his choice. He HAD NO CHOICE.
4) Saddam started to resist the inspections (you seemed to have forgot about that part)
5) Unlike what many seem to remember...Bush NEVER ONCE insisted that Saddam produce the WMD's. He threatened a strike for several weeks unless Saddam adhered to the treaty and allowed the insepctors free reign to inspect whatever they want.
6) Saddam did not care about the warnings. He refused free access to the inspectors.

Now...ideologically, I did not approve of the attack.

But checking my ideology at the door, I understand why congress voted in favor of the attack.

 

[konradv]

A predictable scenario for sure. And don't be surprised if our own Government uses this Civil War as an excuse to start a War with Iran. Look for one of those 'Incidents' that leads to War with Iran. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex. Prepare for more War people.

What would the current administration's upside be in starting a war with Iran? That sounds like something Paul needs to fight his own party over.

 

[Jarhead]

I can debate both sides of that...meaning I am not in agreement or disagreement with you.

Why are/were you against the Iraq invasion?

They were not an imminent threat to our mainland...and we had bigger fish to fry at the time...Al Quaeda.

I belive Bush and Congress dropped the ball on that one.

But it doesnt mean they did not have a justifiable reason to attack.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Religion is the cause.

Yeah but think for a moment. If George W. Bush had not wanted to avenge Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on his old man Iraq would still be a 3rd world country plodding along trying to get by. God told Bush to invade Iraq and that's when shit began to get out of hand. Saddam had them by the balls....Bush set them free.

 

[Truthmatters]

Sadam would still be presenting a problerm for Iran to deal with.

 

[konradv]

So your position is that we should have continued looking for them until we could not find them?

For 10 years we were unable to find them....but regardless, the intel of MANY countries said they were there. Even Clinton said they were there.

But you say we should have actually found them before taking action?

Do you really think Hussein was going to let them find them?

DO you really think Saddam was going to say to them..."dont open that door"

Do you really think Saddam was going to ket them get within miles of them if they were there?

The minute he breached the agreement, it meant one of two things..

1) I dont want you to find them and you are getting close
2) I dont care about your treaty. I am going to resist and fuck you.

Now...which one was it?

Find them? Find what? There was no there, there and the inspectors could have confirmed that. We didn't find the stockpiles expected. What door wouldn't Saddam have wanted opened? The fact that he allowed the inspectors indicated most had already been destroyed. My position is, Bush didn't want it confirmed. He was going in no matter what and didn't want new intel screwing up the Congressional vote.

I understand that is your position.
But you are basing it on what you THINK Bush wanted....and that is ideologically driven.....

I look at the facts.

1) US Intel said they were there
2) other country intels said they were there
3) Saddam was FORCED to allow the inspections due to a treaty that he agrred to out of fear of being tossed out of power when Bush Senior and congress had our military defeat him. It was not his choice. He HAD NO CHOICE.
4) Saddam started to resist the inspections (you seemed to have forgot about that part)
5) Unlike what many seem to remember...Bush NEVER ONCE insisted that Saddam produce the WMD's. He threatened a strike for several weeks unless Saddam adhered to the treaty and allowed the insepctors free reign to inspect whatever they want.
6) Saddam did not care about the warnings. He refused free access to the inspectors.

Now...ideologically, I did not approve of the attack.

But checking my ideology at the door, I understand why congress voted in favor of the attack.

According to inspectors, they weren't refused access anywhere. The only reason they didn't complete the mission is because Bush told them to leave. I didn't forget that Saddam kicked out the inspectors previously. It just didn't seem to have any relevance to the current topic. Bush touted an "immediate threat", but refused to let inspectors determine the truth of that claim.

 

[Jarhead]

Article 15...

Bear in mind...

The way I make decisions...

First I determine if the decision is justified based on the immediate information I have to work with

Then I explore the long term ramficiations of the decision.

And then I act.

I beleive Bush and congress left step 2 out of the decision.

 

[Jarhead]

Find them? Find what? There was no there, there and the inspectors could have confirmed that. We didn't find the stockpiles expected. What door wouldn't Saddam have wanted opened? The fact that he allowed the inspectors indicated most had already been destroyed. My position is, Bush didn't want it confirmed. He was going in no matter what and didn't want new intel screwing up the Congressional vote.

I understand that is your position.
But you are basing it on what you THINK Bush wanted....and that is ideologically driven.....

I look at the facts.

1) US Intel said they were there
2) other country intels said they were there
3) Saddam was FORCED to allow the inspections due to a treaty that he agrred to out of fear of being tossed out of power when Bush Senior and congress had our military defeat him. It was not his choice. He HAD NO CHOICE.
4) Saddam started to resist the inspections (you seemed to have forgot about that part)
5) Unlike what many seem to remember...Bush NEVER ONCE insisted that Saddam produce the WMD's. He threatened a strike for several weeks unless Saddam adhered to the treaty and allowed the insepctors free reign to inspect whatever they want.
6) Saddam did not care about the warnings. He refused free access to the inspectors.

Now...ideologically, I did not approve of the attack.

But checking my ideology at the door, I understand why congress voted in favor of the attack.

According to inspectors, they weren't refused access anywhere. The only reason they didn't complete the mission is because Bush told them to leave. I didn't forget that Saddam kicked out the inspectors previously. It just didn't seem to have any relevance to the current topic. Bush touted an "immediate threat", but refused to let inspectors determine the truth of that claim.

And according to other inspectors, trhey WERE refused access.

Monday morning quarterbacking results in finding those that say things that are ideologically driven.

WHo is telling the truth?

Not sure. Irrelevant now.

But we are Americans. We learn from mistakes

 

[Cowman]

Civil war in Iraq began long before today.

 

[Article 15]

I can debate both sides of that...meaning I am not in agreement or disagreement with you.

Why are/were you against the Iraq invasion?

They were not an imminent threat to our mainland...and we had bigger fish to fry at the time...Al Quaeda.

I belive Bush and Congress dropped the ball on that one.

But it doesnt mean they did not have a justifiable reason to attack.

So after all that you have the same reason for being against it as I do.

lol

You're a trip.

I think we can both agree that justification is a subjective animal as is what the level of military action should be taken once the decision to attack is made.

 

[konradv]

I can debate both sides of that...meaning I am not in agreement or disagreement with you.

Why are/were you against the Iraq invasion?

They were not an imminent threat to our mainland...and we had bigger fish to fry at the time...Al Quaeda.

I belive Bush and Congress dropped the ball on that one.

But it doesnt mean they did not have a justifiable reason to attack.

Justification should be based on national interest and at the time our interest was Al Qaeda and the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Look what we have now, an Iraq that may or may not go to civil war and Afghanistan with a Taliban influence that appears to be undiminished.

 

[Article 15]

Article 15...

Bear in mind...

The way I make decisions...

First I determine if the decision is justified based on the immediate information I have to work with

Then I explore the long term ramficiations of the decision.

And then I act.

I beleive Bush and congress left step 2 out of the decision.

And that's a fair way to make a decision.

I think they wanted to do step two but decided it was a much easier sell to just make up their own pie in the sky long term ramifications.

 

[konradv]

I understand that is your position.
But you are basing it on what you THINK Bush wanted....and that is ideologically driven.....

I look at the facts.

1) US Intel said they were there
2) other country intels said they were there
3) Saddam was FORCED to allow the inspections due to a treaty that he agrred to out of fear of being tossed out of power when Bush Senior and congress had our military defeat him. It was not his choice. He HAD NO CHOICE.
4) Saddam started to resist the inspections (you seemed to have forgot about that part)
5) Unlike what many seem to remember...Bush NEVER ONCE insisted that Saddam produce the WMD's. He threatened a strike for several weeks unless Saddam adhered to the treaty and allowed the insepctors free reign to inspect whatever they want.
6) Saddam did not care about the warnings. He refused free access to the inspectors.

Now...ideologically, I did not approve of the attack.

But checking my ideology at the door, I understand why congress voted in favor of the attack.

According to inspectors, they weren't refused access anywhere. The only reason they didn't complete the mission is because Bush told them to leave. I didn't forget that Saddam kicked out the inspectors previously. It just didn't seem to have any relevance to the current topic. Bush touted an "immediate threat", but refused to let inspectors determine the truth of that claim.

And according to other inspectors, trhey WERE refused access.

Monday morning quarterbacking results in finding those that say things that are ideologically driven.

WHo is telling the truth?

Not sure. Irrelevant now.

But we are Americans. We learn from mistakes

Were WMDs found in those places where they were refused access? Even if they were moved, evidence of stockpiles of the sizes estimated would have been hard to cover-up.

 

[GHook93]

Religion is the cause.

First, ONE religion is the cause. It's the Demonic religion of Islam. The only mainstream religion that openly preaches violence and whose prophet was a pedophile, theft, mass-murder, political assasin, rapist, soldier of fortune and merciless war-lord!

It's different than Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism (with only 14 million worshippers it's really not a mainstrean religion).

Second , are you not shocked, but it was inevitable. I don't blame Obama so much for the pull out. Nation-building is a flawed concept. It doesn't work. It wouldn't have happened sooner or later.

This is going to get interesting. There is going to be some significant fighting between the Sunnis and Shias. Secular lines will be drawn all over the country. Eventually the Kurds in the North will declare Independence. At that point Turkey gets involved and expect a bloody, heartless invasion!

Who knows what Iran will do!

And for all the partisans that will blame this on Obama. PLEASE it was inevitable. This was an ill-conceived nation building war!


Wave Of Bombings Across Iraqi Capital Kills At Least 57 | Fox News

 

[paulitician]

A predictable scenario for sure. And don't be surprised if our own Government uses this Civil War as an excuse to start a War with Iran. Look for one of those 'Incidents' that leads to War with Iran. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex. Prepare for more War people.

What would the current administration's upside be in starting a war with Iran? That sounds like something Paul needs to fight his own party over.

Doesn't really matter what the current Administrations's upside would be. That's irrelevant. It's all about the Military Industrial Complex. And they see lots & lots of upsides in War with Iran. So don't be surprised when you see one of those 'incidents' that leads to War with Iran. This Iraq Civil war could be perfect cover for the Military Industrial Complex. They're salivating over the possibilities. So stay tuned.

 

[konradv]

A predictable scenario for sure. And don't be surprised if our own Government uses this Civil War as an excuse to start a War with Iran. Look for one of those 'Incidents' that leads to War with Iran. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the Military Industrial Complex. Prepare for more War people.

What would the current administration's upside be in starting a war with Iran? That sounds like something Paul needs to fight his own party over.

Doesn't really matter what the current Administrations's upside would be. That's irrelevant. It's all about the Military Industrial Complex. And they see lots & lots of upsides in War with Iran. So don't be surprised when you see one of those 'incidents' that leads to War with Iran. This Iraq Civil war could be perfect cover for the Military Industrial Complex. They're salivating over the possibilities. So stay tuned.

If we had a Republican administration, I'd say , "yeah, you're right". I don't see that happening with this administration. Good a reason as any to vote Democratic this November.

 

[007]

Civl War has begun in Iraq

Religion is the cause.

So, right back to doing what muslim arabs do best... kill each other and others. What a shocker.