Algore would have invaded Iraq

[Gord]

I love the way Al Gore's name was merged into one (Algore)...Sounds like Eegore. I'm not a huge Limbaugh fan, but I do think it was he, who started that.

Yes...

 

[Amanda]

Maybe you missed my long post at the bottom of the first page.

Why Gore? Because he could have potentially been the one making the decision.

I don't generally read super long posts.

But why Gore? He wasn't the one making the decision.

Why not Bill Bradley or Paul Wellstone? Why not Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, Dan Quayle, Robert C. Smith, Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, or Orrin Hatch?

 

[Gord]

I don't generally read super long posts.

But why Gore? He wasn't the one making the decision.

Why not Bill Bradley or Paul Wellstone? Why not Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, Dan Quayle, Robert C. Smith, Pat Buchanan, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, or Orrin Hatch?

I don't generally answer the same question twice...

 

[Amanda]

I don't generally answer the same question twice...

Oh well. I find every time I read one of those long rambling posts I kick myself for wasting the time. The modern world moves too fast to spend a lot of time reading what could be be put succinctly.

 

[Gord]

Oh well. I find every time I read one of those long rambling posts I kick myself for wasting the time. The modern world moves too fast to spend a lot of time reading what could be be put succinctly.

Oh well. I find every time I answer someone who isn't intellectually curious enough to read what I'm talking about before asking questions I've already answered I kick myself for wasting the time...

 

[Amanda]

Oh well. I find every time I answer someone who isn't intellectually curious enough to read what I'm talking about before asking questions I've already answered I kick myself for wasting the time...

If the best you can come up with is to mock me then I feel pretty confident I made the right decision.

Gonna unsub the thread now, bye!

 

[Truthmatters]

Its partisan pablum, why would anyone read such clap trap as this clown would write.

He altered AP stories and admitted it.

 

[Gord]

If the best you can come up with is to mock me then I feel pretty confident I made the right decision.

Gonna unsub the thread now, bye!

Actually the best I came up with was the post you refuse to read - but mocking you was fun.

Bye...

 

[Gord]

Its partisan pablum, why would anyone read such clap trap as this clown would write.

He altered AP stories and admitted it.

Who are you talking about:

Frank Harvey - the study author

Kelly McParland - the article author

Or me - the thread starter

 

[Truthmatters]

Kelly McParland - the article author

He admitted to chaging words in AP articles and then pretending they were intact.

Hes a partisan hack.

 

[Truthmatters]

National Post gives stupidity a bad name


A week after CBC broke the story, McParland, foreign editor of the National Post, wrote a column in which he not only admitted to being the one who doctored the Reuters copy, but defended his action.† He said he did so because he wanted to convey to readers the real nature of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade: “[It] is dedicated to destroying Israel, and aims to achieve that goal through a campaign of violence. Though it originally targeted members of the Israeli military, two years ago it began killing civilians as well.”

 

[Gord]

National Post gives stupidity a bad name


A week after CBC broke the story, McParland, foreign editor of the National Post, wrote a column in which he not only admitted to being the one who doctored the Reuters copy, but defended his action.† He said he did so because he wanted to convey to readers the real nature of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade: “[It] is dedicated to destroying Israel, and aims to achieve that goal through a campaign of violence. Though it originally targeted members of the Israeli military, two years ago it began killing civilians as well.”

Doesn't seem like much of an infraction to me.

Anyways, in this column he basically reports about a study. Unless you can show where he made things up about the study I don't see any reason to discount the conclusions of the study.

 

[Tuatara]

Actually the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, regardless of who became president.

Would you be willing to speculate that theory, even if Nader or Kucunich had been President? Since you've thrown the Gore argument out the window, your current one has become that there was no other choice but to invade. I shall look at every argument you present and counter every one but not now as I am too sick.

 

[Truthmatters]

Doesn't seem like much of an infraction to me.

Anyways, in this column he basically reports about a study. Unless you can show where he made things up about the study I don't see any reason to discount the conclusions of the study.

Its called lying.


You dont change someone elses writting and then not tell anyone.

How about we just change every referance in any article about Republicans to criminals instead?

Its illegal and its biased propaganda you fool.

 

[Truthmatters]

I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.

Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.

 

[Gord]

Would you be willing to speculate that theory, even if Nader or Kucunich had been President? Since you've thrown the Gore argument out the window, your current one has become that there was no other choice but to invade. I shall look at every argument you present and counter every one but not now as I am too sick.

I didn't throw the Algore argument out the window - I just added to it. The Algore argument isn't my argument however, but that of the study's author.

No I asked what choice you would make if you were to have recommended no invasion to president Bush. I gave you two choices - care to make one?

 

[Truthmatters]

There was no reason TO invade Iraq.

 

[Gord]

I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.

Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.

Richard Clarke didn't come out of all that with much integrity, so I don't buy that. But as I said above Algore isn't my argument, but that of the author of the study.

Anyway, would you care to address the choice I gave as to your recommendation to president Bush?

 

[DiveCon]

I submitt if Gore had been elected then 911 would have been prevented.

Go ask Richard Clarke about how Bushy and team refused to listen to any counter terrorism concerns.

Clarke was a LIAR

he contradicted himself several times over

 

[Gord]

There was no reason TO invade Iraq.

So what would your recommendation to Bush have been? Here I'll post them again:

Here are your alternatives of going to war:


1. Continue with the status quo. Ignore that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, thus proving both the UN and the U.S.A. impotent. Ignore that the UN Oil for Food Program had been completely corrupted, and keep the sanctions in place thus allowing the additional deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of medicine as a result of Saddam diverting the Oil for Food Program money to building his palaces and his military, and buying off international players to get around the sanctions. With no international presence Saddam would be free to do as he pleased within Iraq, including further rebuilding his military capabilities, developing new WMDs, training new terrorism recruits, financing international terrorism, advising terrorist organizations on the development and use of WMDs, and continue to mass murder and starve the Iraqi people. Other rogue nations and terrorist groups would certainly see this as a sign of weakness in the West and a signal to accelerate their aggression.


2. Lift the UN sanctions against Iraq and allow Saddam to freely participate in worldwide trade and commerce. This might eventually save hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from certain death brought on by starvation and lack of medicine, depending on whether Saddam diverted money to these problems. But it would not necessarily halt Saddam's mass murdering. It would also allow Saddam to develop his oil fields, bringing in huge profits to be spent as he pleased. Of course this would include building his military, developing his WMD programs, including reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, and resuming his harboring, training and funding of international terrorism. This would most certainly have been seen by other rogue countries and terrorist groups as a complete capitulation by the West, and that America and the West could be defeated.


So now what is your choice? The cost of the war has undoubtedly been high for America in terms of casualties, money and reputation. But what of the costs of the alternatives? Would either alternative have saved casualties, money or America's reputation? 9/11 alone cost America over 3,000 of her citizens and almost two trillion dollars in the financial markets (*11). Would have being branded as paper tigers reduced the likelihood of further terrorist attacks on American soil and throughout the world? Or would it have encouraged even more terrorism, especially with an emboldened Saddam Hussein harboring, training and financing further terrorism, and potentially supplying terrorist groups with WMDs? And what of Iraq's innocent citizens? After the fiasco of the hundreds of thousands mass murdered in Rwanda (*12), and the hundreds of thousands of already needless deaths in Iraq, would you have been willing to turn your back on hundreds of thousands more in Iraq? These were your choices: Invasion with thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and a suffering of America's reputation. Or a retreating America seen as ripe for defeat by emboldened rogue nations and terror groups, likely resulting in increased worldwide terrorism, maybe eventually with Saddam supplied WMDs. No doubt that WMD terror attacks would have spawned new wars and destroyed the worldwide economy if the response to 9/11 is any indication. And would Libya and North Korea have voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons programs? Not likely. Can anyone reasonably argue that the world would be safer and more stable if Saddam had been allowed to continue as ruler of Iraq? (*13)