Unpopular War? What's Unusual About That

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Hanson, conclusion:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjc3YzAzZmE2MDc4NDAwYTExNmY5NzQ4MmI5ZjUwMDU=

...

Optional conflicts like the Mexican War, the Philippines Insurrection, Korea and Vietnam all cost more lives than Iraq. Even our most successful wars witnessed far more lethal stupidity than anything seen in Baghdad. Thousands of American dead resulted from lapses like the Confederate surprise at Shiloh, Japanese surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, and the German surprise attacks in the Ardennes.

There have also been plenty of major policy failures in our history — a failed invasion of Canada during the War of 1812, a failed 12-year reconstruction of the south, a failed effort to help Chiang Kai-shek stop Chinese Communists under Mao, a failed effort at the Bay of Pigs to remove Fidel Castro, and a failed effort to stop communism in Southeast Asia, to name a few.

Since World War II, our intelligence agencies failed to foresee the Chinese invasion of Korea, the Yom Kippur War, the fall of the Shah of Iran, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the sudden spread of Islamic fundamentalism, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Cambodian and Rwandan holocausts, and the acquisition of the bomb by Pakistan and North Korea.

Nor have past wars been any easier on other presidents than Iraq has been on President Bush. Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon left office despised. Exhausted wartime presidents Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were either assassinated or died in office. The controversial aftermath of World War I was a likely cause of Woodrow Wilson’s stroke.

The high-stakes war to stabilize the fragile democracy in Iraq is a serious, costly and controversial business. But so have been most conflicts in American history. We need a little more humility and knowledge of our past — and a lot less hysteria, name-calling and obsession with our present selves.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
The invasion of Iraq was not a result of failed intelligence. It was the result of cooked, stove-piped intelligence. Intelligence cherry-picked and spun to fit the Bush administration policy of invading Iraq, a complete over-turning of the normal intelligence process where policy is formed on the basis of solid intel.

Dear lady, you really need to stop drinking the kool-aid, you're smarter than that.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The invasion of Iraq was not a result of failed intelligence. It was the result of cooked, stove-piped intelligence. Intelligence cherry-picked and spun to fit the Bush administration policy of invading Iraq, a complete over-turning of the normal intelligence process where policy is formed on the basis of solid intel.

Dear lady, you really need to stop drinking the kool-aid, you're smarter than that.

Cherry picked intel? Seems the Dems were saying the same thing about Saddam and his WMD's as pres Bush

To libs Dems were mistaken while Pres Bush lied
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
The invasion of Iraq was not a result of failed intelligence. It was the result of cooked, stove-piped intelligence. Intelligence cherry-picked and spun to fit the Bush administration policy of invading Iraq, a complete over-turning of the normal intelligence process where policy is formed on the basis of solid intel.

Dear lady, you really need to stop drinking the kool-aid, you're smarter than that.
Is that all you have? Deny all the points, give the same talking points you've been giving for years without anythng to back it up, and accuse kathianne of not thinking?

If you are worried about kool-aid drinking, you really need to look in the mirror bro.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Cherry picked intel? Seems the Dems were saying the same thing about Saddam and his WMD's as pres Bush

To libs Dems were mistaken while Pres Bush lied
Why would democrats be any more honest or less imperialistic than republicans? The democrats just sell it better.
 

gabosaurus

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Location
San Francisco
Seems the Dems were saying the same thing about Saddam and his WMD's as pres Bush

This is because Bush flat out LIED about Saddam and his alleged WMDs. It is difficult to form an intelligent opinion if someone totally LIES to you.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Do you think the interests served by US expansionism are really only a Republican ideal? The democrats have the same long term strategies and the same view of America as above the legal constraints the rest of the world are expected to obey. Two halves of the same party... they only switch it up every few elections so people feel like they have a say.

Yo uguys need some more political parties, with more room for ideas... maybe voter turnout would increase if voting actually meant something.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
Do you think the interests served by US expansionism are really only a Republican ideal? The democrats have the same long term strategies and the same view of America as above the legal constraints the rest of the world are expected to obey. Two halves of the same party... they only switch it up every few elections so people feel like they have a say.

Yo uguys need some more political parties, with more room for ideas... maybe voter turnout would increase if voting actually meant something.
This post "smells" like an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions right?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Seems the Dems were saying the same thing about Saddam and his WMD's as pres Bush

This is because Bush flat out LIED about Saddam and his alleged WMDs. It is difficult to form an intelligent opinion if someone totally LIES to you.
Dems were saying the same thing about Saddam and his WMD's BEFORE Pres Bush took offfice

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
 

gabosaurus

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Location
San Francisco
It is not a matter of the Iraq war being unpopular. It is a matter of the Iraq war being illegal, immoral and bred of lies and deceit. It is the product of one man's arrogance and disdain for proper proceedure.
You threatened my daddy, so I am invading your country.
Too bad the same court that tried Saddam for being a war criminal can't try Bush for same.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
It is not a matter of the Iraq war being unpopular. It is a matter of the Iraq war being illegal, immoral and bred of lies and deceit. It is the product of one man's arrogance and disdain for proper proceedure.
You threatened my daddy, so I am invading your country.
Too bad the same court that tried Saddam for being a war criminal can't try Bush for same.
Actually, I'm sure President Bush, and his family would WELCOME such a review by an international court.

Of course, AFTER he was found innocent of ALL charges, the liberal media, and the lap dogs of the left would have to conjure up some other anti-administration demons.
 

gabosaurus

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
5
Points
6
Location
San Francisco
Bush is as innocent as Saddam was. At least when Saddam did his mass murder, he used poison gas bought from Dow Chemical.
Bush is a war criminal. He invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. Since then, Bush has presided over the senseless slaughter of thousands (American and Iraqis). It's genocide on a large scale.
This makes GW Bush an accessory to mass murder.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Bush is as innocent as Saddam was. At least when Saddam did his mass murder, he used poison gas bought from Dow Chemical.
Bush is a war criminal. He invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. Since then, Bush has presided over the senseless slaughter of thousands (American and Iraqis). It's genocide on a large scale.
This makes GW Bush an accessory to mass murder.
Bullpuckey! Your saying it doesn't make it so. We have been over this a million times on this board, but you would rather ignore the evidence and spout the rhetoric anyway.

I could go on and on about your treasonous rhetoric, do you think that makes you a traitor? Maybe if I say it often enough it will stick. Seems to be the way libs do things.
 

JeffWartman

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,309
Reaction score
102
Points
48
Location
Suburban Chicago
I find the whole "Bush lied!" vs. "Saddam was an Al-Qaeda member" debate tiring and leading nowhere.

Until people on the left realize that Bush did not purposely lie about Iraq, and until Republicans understand how much of a miserable failure Iraq has been in the last year, we will never come together to really solve the issue.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Actually, I'm sure President Bush, and his family would WELCOME such a review by an international court.

Of course, AFTER he was found innocent of ALL charges, the liberal media, and the lap dogs of the left would have to conjure up some other anti-administration demons.
I'm sure Bush would welcome it too...lol. Except that he is opposed to any enforcement of international law, especially for Americans.
Why would he be innocent of all charges? Isn't using chemical weapons on civillians illegal? How about rewriting a nation's laws and changing the government... legal? Hmmm, NPT isn't a legally binding international agreement either... Iran should overthrow US government for breaking NPT. That would be almost as hilarious.
 

Gurdari

Egaliterra
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
40
Points
36
Location
the West
Bullpuckey! Your saying it doesn't make it so. We have been over this a million times on this board, but you would rather ignore the evidence and spout the rhetoric anyway.

I could go on and on about your treasonous rhetoric, do you think that makes you a traitor? Maybe if I say it often enough it will stick. Seems to be the way libs do things.
YOU were criticizing GABOSUARUS for spouting rhetoric?
Treason... nice one.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top