I was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have been in favor of destroying Iran ever since 1979-1980. I was in on the failed rescue effort of the American Embassy hostages.

You worry about Ahmadinejad saying he wants to destroy Israel, and then you say you want to destroy Iran.

Let's not forget our lesson on blowback. In 1953 the U.S. overthrew a popularly elected Prime Minister in Iran, and put a military dictator, the Shah, back in power. The Iranian militants took our diplomats hostage in retaliation.

Seriously, We could subdivide Iran into twenty ethnic regions and thus create twenty mini states.

And where does our authority come from to do this? Not the Constitution, and not international law.

 

[Gunny]

I have been in favor of destroying Iran ever since 1979-1980.

I joined the Marine Corps because I believed we were going to war with Iran. How I overestimated Jimmy.

 

[cbi0090]

I do think that we all forget the circumstances of how this war started. One of the reasons Britain has stuck with us is because we relied so heavily on their intelligence about the WMD's. Remember our intelligence capability was nearly zero in the middle east by that time. Think how many times we were hit and never saw it coming, including 911. In fact, everyone believed they had them, including the Russians, and Saddam was not giving us any evidence to the contrary. In fact, he was doing just the opposite.

As for the WMD's that is still questionable. There are many accounts, including a very reliable one from Saddam's second in command of his air force, who describe how he got them out of Iraq and into Syria. The stuff even surfaced in an attack on Jordan from there several years later and yet the media doesn't want to acknowledge it, although the diplomatic world does. Why do you think Syria has been sitting there like a whipped puppy for the last several years? They've been caught red-handed so many times that even their own kind don't trust them and they've stooped so low as to have to reach out to the likes of Iran, a Persian country and a traditional and religious enemy, for support to have any effect in the region.

I don't think anyone believed that there were "direct" coordination between Iraq and the extremists but Iraq did support their efforts in Palistine and they allowed military training to occur within their borders just to keep peace with them. Remember many of Iraq's military are American and Russian trained. Last thing anyone needed was to have them cozying up.

 

[editec]

She may very well be the only expert on what she believes; however, that does not validate the beliefs themselves.

For instance, anyone that holds the opinion that Bush intentionally lied in order to justify invading Iraq with absolutely no evidence is pretty-much believing what they want to believe.

Sure he sold us on Iraq. That's what politicians do. They sell shit. That doesn't mean he intentionally lied, nor is it somehow worse because Bush did it.

Held to the same standard, Obama's got a lot of 'splainin' to do, Lucy. Does he actually hold a stance now that he did when the Democratic Primaries began? Did HE lie?

It kills me that people on political message boards have this opinion that we are somehow "more politically astute" than the average when they can't even see past their partisan beliefs to see a sales ploy being sold by a salesman for what they are.

So the fuck what?

I get pretty god damned sick of these nitwits insinuating what other people say, Gunny.

And this propensity comes with bells on when far too many of this board's right wing partisans post here.

Not all the right winging partisans, just the ones too lazy to craft a viable argument against what is actually written.

And so instead of responding to what is written, they like to rewrite it, and then argue with the strawmen.

This intellectually dishonest method of responding to other people's well crafted arguments grows a tad thin after a while.

 

[Gunny]

So the fuck what?

I get pretty god damned sick of these nitwits insinuating what other people say, Gunny.

And this propensity comes with bells on when far too many of this board's right wing partisans post here.

Not all the right winging partisans, just the ones too lazy to craft a viable argument against what is actually written.

And so instead of responding to what is written, they like to rewrite it, and then argue with the strawmen.

This intellectually dishonest method of responding to other people's well crafted arguments grows a tad thin after a while.

Pot calling the kettle black, only I have it the other way around, with bells AND whistles. And one of THE biggest BS responses to anything Iraq is "Bush lied." That of course is while on offense. On defense it's "racist", "But McCain did this or that ....," and or complete silence.

How's THIS for an assumption for what other people think or do: conservatives who say they were against the invasion of Iraq now were all gung ho for it originally? The very premise of this thread is EXACTLY what you accuse conservatives of doing.