Palin Flunks Foreign Policy in her Interview

[DiveCon]

That's nice you posted a bunch of Democrat only quotes but you forgot something. Democrats are part of the United States too.

i'm still waiting for your list of countries that said he didnt have any prior to the liberation of Iraq

 

[BrianH]

Everybody else but the United States knew for the most part that Saddam did not have WMDs on the scale that was written.

Saddam didn't think there would be an American President stupid enough to actually play his game of chicken (as in who would back off first) and actually invade Iraq.

Though if we're hanging Saddam for all these crimes against his people, why are we only playing world police in Iraq I ask the Republicans on here?

What about the people in North Korea, Cuba, China, several African nations, and even Russia?

Why are we letting them get away with the abuse of human rights on their own people but playing World Police in Iraq?

Let's really think about this scenario...could you imagine what world opinion would have been like if we had gone in there, wrecked shop, and then left the country in shambles??? I promise you we would have ruined our reputation worse than it already is.

You should have learned, when you were a kid, that when you make a mess, clean it up.

 

[Modbert]

really, what country said he didnt have them?
not France(yet they opposed the op) not Germany(yet they opposed the Op) not Russia(yet they opposed the op)
hmm, so who was it that was screaming "he doesnt have them"
only one i know of was the liar Saddam
btw, while we didnt find the stockpiles we expected, we did find some that Saddam wasnt supposed to have

1.) The UN said they didn't find anything. I don't remember the UN saying "hey everybody isn't going to invade but you should go ahead US."

2.) Dive, did you even read what I said? I said this in the first line.

Everybody else but the United States knew for the most part that Saddam did not have WMDs on the scale that was written.

On the scale that was written, as in he still had some stuff from the 91 war and from when we gave them all those lovely weapons for Iran to kill each other. (Just like we gave Iran weapons to go kill Saddam's people. Gotta love how the US did that.)

My point stands though unless you think the English Language again has a Liberal Bias?

 

[Modbert]

Let's really think about this scenario...could you imagine what world opinion would have been like if we had gone in there, wrecked shop, and then left the country in shambles??? I promise you we would have ruined our reputation worse than it already is.

You should have learned, when you were a kid, that when you make a mess, clean it up.

Well of course we went in there and destroyed everything. After that we have to help clean everything up.

Point is, we shouldn't of been there in the first place.

The mess shouldn't of been made in the first place.

I think that much we can agree upon no?

 

[DiveCon]

1.) The UN said they didn't find anything. I don't remember the UN saying "hey everybody isn't going to invade but you should go ahead US."

2.) Dive, did you even read what I said? I said this in the first line.

Everybody else but the United States knew for the most part that Saddam did not have WMDs on the scale that was written.

On the scale that was written, as in he still had some stuff from the 91 war and from when we gave them all those lovely weapons for Iran to kill each other. (Just like we gave Iran weapons to go kill Saddam's people. Gotta love how the US did that.)

My point stands though unless you think the English Language again has a Liberal Bias?

ok, name that "everyone else"
you have yet to do that, and the UN DOCUMENTED some there and those turned up missing

 

[Isolde]

i'm still waiting for your list of countries that said he didnt have any prior to the liberation of Iraq

Me too, I want that list of countries. At any rate, Saddam was not in compliance with numerous UN resolutions. The first gulf war ended with a cease fire agreement whereby Iraq would have regular UN inspections, which we all know never happened. How on earth did these countries know what NO ONE else knew?

 

[Modbert]

Me too, I want that list of countries. At any rate, Saddam was not in compliance with numerous UN resolutions. The first gulf war ended with a cease fire agreement whereby Iraq would have regular UN inspections, which we all know never happened. How on earth did these countries know what NO ONE else knew?

No one here is denying that Iraq didn't have some weapons. What I'm saying is they didn't think Saddam had them on the scale that the US thought he did. Or do I have to bold it for you? I think I must.

Everybody else but the United States knew for the most part that Saddam did not have WMDs on the scale that was written.

The English Language does NOT have a Liberal Bias.

Saddam did not comply with numerous UN resolutions. Iraq was suppose to have regular UN inspections, which we all know never happened. However that's not the point here. Because if it was as serious as you made it, then all these other countries would of rallied with us and invaded Iraq.

But the reality is, they didn't.

Though I should take away the United States line and replace it with the "COTW."

 

[DiveCon]

no One Here Is Denying That Iraq Didn't Have Some Weapons. What I'm Saying Is They Didn't Think Saddam Had Them On The Scale That The Us Thought He Did. Or Do I Have To Bold It For You? I Think I Must.

everybody Else But The United States Knew For The Most Part That Saddam Did Not Have Wmds On The Scale That Was Written.

The English Language Does Not Have A Liberal Bias.

Saddam Did Not Comply With Numerous Un Resolutions. Iraq Was Suppose To Have Regular Un Inspections, Which We All Know Never Happened. However That's Not The Point Here. Because If It Was As Serious As You Made It, Then All These Other Countries Would Of Rallied With Us And Invaded Iraq.

But The Reality Is, They Didn't.

Though I Should Take Away The United States Line And Replace It With The "cotw."

Who Is Everybody Else???????????????????????????????????

 

[Isolde]

No one here is denying that Iraq didn't have some weapons. What I'm saying is they didn't think Saddam had them on the scale that the US thought he did. Or do I have to bold it for you? I think I must.

Everybody else but the United States knew for the most part that Saddam did not have WMDs on the scale that was written.

The English Language does NOT have a Liberal Bias.

Saddam did not comply with numerous UN resolutions. Iraq was suppose to have regular UN inspections, which we all know never happened. However that's not the point here. Because if it was as serious as you made it, then all these other countries would of rallied with us and invaded Iraq.

But the reality is, they didn't.

Though I should take away the United States line and replace it with the "COTW."

I'm sorry, Saddam did not comply with numerous UN resolutions and I think you will agree with me on that. No one could possibly have known that he did not have WMD, because the weapons inspectors were not allowed to do their job. My question for you is how could any country say prior to the post-war weapon's sweep with any certitude that he had no WMD and on what basis could they say it?

Do you understand my question?

 

[Caligirl]

It's the same logic they use to claim Bush is teh stupid and yet in all his stupidity he seemed to know what no body else knew (that Iraq did NOT have WMDs) and therefore lied to us about their existence.

Well, actually, what made his words lies wasn't whether he thought there were weapons or not, but the fact that he only used intelligence that said they did, and ignored any intelligence that said otherwise (to the point that someone in the administration outed Plame.)

It's more accurate to say that he distorted the intelligence, but it's basically lying. If you prefer distortion that's fine.

The downing street memo was another thing that showed he was lying to us. Summer 2002 when the homefront heard all about keeping war as a final option he was talking about fixing the intel to make war inevitable.

 

[Caligirl]

Though if we're hanging Saddam for all these crimes against his people, why are we only playing world police in Iraq I ask the Republicans on here?

What about the people in North Korea, Cuba, China, several African nations, and even Russia?

Why are we letting them get away with the abuse of human rights on their own people but playing World Police in Iraq?

One possibility is that we thought iraq would be a cakewalk and an easy feather in our cap. The other nations are generally stronger than we thought Iraq was.

 

[Silence]

i'm still waiting for your list of countries that said he didnt have any prior to the liberation of Iraq

so now we LIBERATED iraq? did they get that memo yet?

 

[dilloduck]

so now we LIBERATED iraq? did they get that memo yet?

ya--they did--things are settling down and their former dicator and evil sons are dead.

 

[Caligirl]

My question for you is how could any country say prior to the post-war weapon's sweep with any certitude that he had no WMD and on what basis could they say it?

Do you understand my question?

It is my understanding that none of Saddam's neighbors were concerned about the potential of a strike from Iraq. If he had weapons at the scale (to use R's words) that Bush argued, his neighbors would have been concerned. They weren't. Iraq's neighbors are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. Iran in particular would have had reason to be concerned about Iraq developing weapons, and there was no indication of any concern (as far as I recall) on their part.

More to the point, lack of knowledge of the existence of weapons is not a reason to invade a country.

 

[jreeves]

Perfect.

Note to intelligent and informed posters:

Let me clue you in on something. Cons don't care about competence and intelligence. They care about rhetoric. If the GOP can take a chimpanzee, or in this case a small town mayor from Alaska, and train them to effectively deliver about ten rightwing talking points from a prepared script, along with a few zingers about "liberals", that's all cons care about. That's all they need, to feel cool about voting for someone.

This is the crowd that voted for George Dumbya Bush twice. This is the crowd that spent most of September 2005, defending "Heck of a Job" Brownie. If their tool of a candidate can be trained to use the standard rightwing code phrases effectively, that's all that matters. The interests of the country don't matter, competence doesn't matter, good governance doesn't matter.

Absolutely wrong, Palin doesn't suffer from BDS, so she didn't know exactly what Gibson was referring to.

 

[Silence]

ya--they did--things are settling down and their former dicator and evil sons are dead.

and yet troops are still there and men and women are still dying.... hmmmm that's some liberation we worked out for them isn't it?!

 

[Caligirl]

their former dicator.

That almost looks like former dickeater.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm sorry, Saddam did not comply with numerous UN resolutions and I think you will agree with me on that. No one could possibly have known that he did not have WMD, because the weapons inspectors were not allowed to do their job. My question for you is how could any country say prior to the post-war weapon's sweep with any certitude that he had no WMD and on what basis could they say it?

Do you understand my question?

Just because you got lied to, and you bought the lies, that's your fault not mine.

The IAEA reported in March 2003 that they had concluded Saddam didn't have a nuclear weapons program. The CIA concluded that Saddam considered Al Qaeda an enemy and would be very unlikely to give them WMD unless,perhaps, if we invaded him.

That leaves us with the possiblity that, in March 2003, all we knew is that Saddam may have had some mustard gas and sarin. Although the UN inspectors weren't turning anything up in spite of reporting that they had relatively free access to go anywhere they wanted by February and March 2003.

Please tell me you didn't cheerlead us into a fucking trillion dollar war, because Saddam had some fucking mustard gas. You can't possibly be that idiotic. Or maybe you are, you voted for Bush twice.

Mustard gas and sarin are marginally effective battlefield weapons under the right conditions. But they can hardly be considered an effective terrorist weapon against the United States. Particularly when it was pretty clear that the secular dictator saddam was unlikely to give his deadliest weapons to islamic jihaddists who hated the socialist Bathh regime almost as much as they hated the United States.

 

[dilloduck]

and yet troops are still there and men and women are still dying.... hmmmm that's some liberation we worked out for them isn't it?!

people die everwhere everyday in every country----you cant' stand that things have calmed down can ya ! People like you who hate when America wins are really pretty sad.

 

[dilloduck]

That almost looks like former dickeater.