Why we won't win.

[Said1]

No, the dates ranged from the late 90's to 2003. I think Bush was elected in 2000.

I'm not a fan/supporter of Clinton either. Both him and Bush were morons.

Yes I know,I'm refering to a large portion of the info in the sources.

 

[sitarro]

No, the dates ranged from the late 90's to 2003. I think Bush was elected in 2000.

I'm not a fan/supporter of Clinton either. Both him and Bush were morons.

I'm curious Charleston, is there anyone on the planet besides yourself that isn't a moron?

 

[CharlestonChad]

The fact that 12 years of attempts to keep them in check was a miserable failure, and solid proof that Saddam and Iraq had no intention of cooperating. They were warned that military intervention could occur if they refused to cooperate, which they continued to do. Regardless of cost, this man and his government needed to be stopped and/or kept in check to ensure that he didn't try to annihilate his neighbors, or worse.

The cost of war is high and always was, and always will be. It's not only gauged in dollars but also in soldiers lives. That's why we have a military, and one filled with so many brave soldiers dedicated to our country. We know this going in and shouldn't act surprised when life is lost. It sucks, but is an unfortunate, and mostly unavoidable, consequence of being involved in war. Our soldiers are hero's and don't think for a moment that most don't realize they are putting their lives on the line for our country when they enlist.

Now, can you please post proof of these lies? Not bad intel, but proof to backup your claims. But regardless of your idea of a lie, this war was easily justified by simply looking at the resolutions they breached. Or are you saying they are useless and shouldn't be enforced?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EITCIgia5c[/ame]

We should have only gone to war with Iraq b/c they posed a threat to the US and/or ally countries. There are worse atrocities happing in the world than Suddam lying to UN inspectors and some mass killings. If we were all about "freeing" the people, then by that ideology, we would have invaded many Western and Central African countries who are at war with themselves and each other.

 

[jimnyc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EITCIgia5c

We should have only gone to war with Iraq b/c they posed a threat to the US and/or ally countries. There are worse atrocities happing in the world than Suddam lying to UN inspectors and some mass killings. If we were all about "freeing" the people, then by that ideology, we would have invaded many Western and Central African countries who are at war with themselves and each other.

That video shows me nothing. Rumsfeld was if anything, overconfident in the intelligence. Considering you're dealing with a country who refuses to cooperate, and makes threats, the best we have to go on is from the intelligence, and intelligence from the world community. Even if this is your claim of a lie, the only lie he makes is that he never said that. That does nothing to prove in any way that there was a problem with the intelligence at the time.

They WERE a threat to our allies in the region had they had WMD's, which is what the inspections were there to determine. Iraq wouldn't allow them and when they did they restricted the searches and couldn't account for everything as demanded. We did what was necessary under the circumstances that the threat didn't grow.

Not sure what the other countries you mention have to do with the Iraq issue, but none of their circumstances change Iraq's arrogance and refusal to cooperate under international pressure for so many years. The invasion was justified.

 

[CharlestonChad]

That video shows me nothing. Rumsfeld was if anything, overconfident in the intelligence. Considering you're dealing with a country who refuses to cooperate, and makes threats, the best we have to go on is from the intelligence, and intelligence from the world community. Even if this is your claim of a lie, the only lie he makes is that he never said that. That does nothing to prove in any way that there was a problem with the intelligence at the time.

You cannot water down this issue. Looking beyond the surface, Rumsfeld lied about knowing where the WMD's were, then he tried to lie to cover up his previous lie. War is a very serious thing, and for someone to be "confident" in wrong intelligence results in a loss of American lies. That is completely unacceptable and the Bush admin should be punished. What happens when a Doctor is overconfident in a diagnosis and the patient dies b/c they are wrong? The doctor is punished with a lawsuit and/or his residency/fellowship/or surgical priviliages. If we hold doctors accountable for their actions, why not the White House?
To add to that analogy, what if a doctor makes a diagnosis based on what an intern tells hims about the patient. Then the patient dies. That doctor could be stripped his liscensing to practice. Why not the White House?

Sorry all the doctor analogies, I'm a soon to be med student, so I'm kinda obsessed w/ medicine

QUOTE

They WERE a threat to our allies in the region had they had WMD's, which is what the inspections were there to determine. Iraq wouldn't allow them and when they did they restricted the searches and couldn't account for everything as demanded. We did what was necessary under the circumstances that the threat didn't grow.

Not sure what the other countries you mention have to do with the Iraq issue, but none of their circumstances change Iraq's arrogance and refusal to cooperate under international pressure for so many years. The invasion was justified

I was just using the other countries as a reason to why the "liberation" argument that some make about this war is total BS.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I feel like I've been in this thread before.

Ah. I have been in this thread before. At least once every couple of months for the last three years.

Wow. What a waste of time. Well, not a total waste. I get to see the banana dance.

 

[sitarro]

You cannot water down this issue. Looking beyond the surface, Rumsfeld lied about knowing where the WMD's were, then he tried to lie to cover up his previous lie. War is a very serious thing, and for someone to be "confident" in wrong intelligence results in a loss of American lies. That is completely unacceptable and the Bush admin should be punished. What happens when a Doctor is overconfident in a diagnosis and the patient dies b/c they are wrong? The doctor is punished with a lawsuit and/or his residency/fellowship/or surgical priviliages. If we hold doctors accountable for their actions, why not the White House?
To add to that analogy, what if a doctor makes a diagnosis based on what an intern tells hims about the patient. Then the patient dies. That doctor could be stripped his liscensing to practice. Why not the White House?

Sorry all the doctor analogies, I'm a soon to be med student, so I'm kinda obsessed w/ medicine

I remember when I was in college and felt like I knew everything too, everyone was a moron ...... in reality I didn't have a clue about the real world or what I would face as soon as got an actual job. It really opens your eyes to see such a huge chunk of your money get taken from you for taxes. If you are planning on being a doctor get ready, you will be a target for the Democrats when they refer to tax cuts for the rich. It is amazing how it will come full circle and some smart ass college twat will be lecturing you on how the world really is....gotta love life's perspective.

You will also look back at all of those scholarly professors and realize that most were just bitter old losers that couldn't make it in the real world (sure you will be able to count the real teachers on a single hand, remember their advice, it actually means something).

Good luck with the smells in the cadaver room.

 

[jimnyc]

You cannot water down this issue. Looking beyond the surface, Rumsfeld lied about knowing where the WMD's were,

This is where we disagree as I've seen no such evidence to prove this.

then he tried to lie to cover up his previous lie.

I think he was cornered and fucked up. I'll admit he looked pretty damn stupid for stumbling on his words and he should have stuck to his guns throughout instead of trying to pry his way out of his assertions. I also don't think this changes a single thing about the intelligence at the time or the decisions that were made as a result of said intelligence.

War is a very serious thing, and for someone to be "confident" in wrong intelligence results in a loss of American lies.

Which is why we wanted complete and unfettered access to sites for inspections, which Iraq denied. Therefore, we had no choice but to rely on the worlds intel and do the best we could. We MUST have confidence in our intel agencies, and work harder when mistakes appear to ensure no repeats.

Nonetheless, Iraq was still in material breach of resolutions for 12 years. WMD's completely aside, the invasion was still easily justified.

That is completely unacceptable and the Bush admin should be punished. What happens when a Doctor is overconfident in a diagnosis and the patient dies b/c they are wrong? The doctor is punished with a lawsuit and/or his residency/fellowship/or surgical priviliages. If we hold doctors accountable for their actions, why not the White House?

First off, it was not the Bush administration that made the intelligence, it was the FBI, CIA and other international intelligence agencies. Secondly, those who made mistakes ARE being held accountable. The FBI and CIA are doing serious background into what happened and trying to alleviate any issues that hindered them previously. Would you like them to face the firing squad for gathering evidence, and not being able to completely back it up due to Saddam's lack of cooperation?

To add to that analogy, what if a doctor makes a diagnosis based on what an intern tells hims about the patient. Then the patient dies. That doctor could be stripped his liscensing to practice. Why not the White House?

Are you seriously considering a doctors intern to be similar enough for an analogy to our intel agencies? In your scenario, the info the intern produced would be fully investigated. The doctor is certified to be making a proper diagnosis - not an intern. In this topic, those intel agencies are the ones certified to analyze and read intel gatherings. I just honestly don't see this as a reasonable comparison.

Sorry all the doctor analogies, I'm a soon to be med student, so I'm kinda obsessed w/ medicine

Let me know when you can get your hands on some heavy narcotics.

I was just using the other countries as a reason to why the "liberation" argument that some make about this war is total BS.

One is not the other. We cannot solve ALL the worlds woes in one swing of the bat. Not that other countries don't deserve to be "righted", but it would be nice if a few other countries would have the balls to take the lead for once instead of always relying on the USA. We've done MORE than enough to assist other countries both in a humanitarian fashion, and help with our military as well. To expect us to simply go into other countries because we did so in Iraq is not a decent argument. Although I agree we could make a compelling argument.

 

[KarlMarx]

First, it wasn't Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bush who lied about WMDs. Get that through your thick leftist skulls. FACT --- intelligence agencies from all over the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. Clinton made a speech in 1998 in which he made clear, in no uncertain terms, that Saddam as of that date, was still in possession of WMDs. FACT --- recently declassified documents show that at least 500 chemical warheads were found after the 2003 invasion. FACT ---- because of Clinton Administration policy regarding gathering intelligence, we did not have reliable human resources (i.e. spies) in Iraq for several years.

Second, if you're going to start about Haliburton, then spare us. FACT--- it has been government policy to award a single company no bid contracts for decades. This is not because of a sinister plot, it is a cost saving measure. Periodically, the government will issue requests for proposals to companies to support logistical jobs for the DoD. The company that wins this round of bidding then gets no bid contracts for a specified time period. The company that won the last round was Haliburton. FACT ---- the Clinton Administration had Haliburton supporting the war in the Balkans in much the same way.

Third, if you are going to start accusing Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al about leading us to war for personal financial gain, let me ask you about the oil for food program. FACT --- the United Nations was supposed to be overseeing the oil for food program, instead Saddam diverted over $20 billion, not only into his pocket, but to bribe people. FACT ----the people that have taken bribes from Sadddam include UN officials, government officials of France, Germany and Russia, reporters and so forth. In fact, these people were profiting from Saddam's repeated violations of United Nations resolutions. FACT --- China and Russia were lobbying the United Nations to LIFT sanctions against Iraq. Once those sanctions were lifted, Saddam would again have been free to pursue development of WMDs. FACT --- one of the members of the UN Security Council, I believe France, made it clear that they would not support ANY resolution to invade Iraq UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Thus, no matter what happened, the United Nations would not act to enforce its own resolutions because France, and other countries, were profiting from Saddam's wilful violations of UN resolutions. France also had billions of dollars invested in the Saddam regime. France in other words had a large financial stake in preserving the status quo, otherwise, they stood to lose billions. If anyone was involved in corruption it was officials in the United Nations (including Secretary General Kofi Annan's own son), government officials from France and other countries.

 

[trobinett]

Now by God, THERE are some freaking FACTS.

 

[CharlestonChad]

So many people on this board think that Bush and friends can do no harm, then they turn around and preach about how the Liberals are the ones living in an overly optimistic fantasy world.

Bush and his cronies lied

Clinton was the cause for all of our troubles

 

[KarlMarx]

So many people on this board think that Bush and friends can do no harm, then they turn around and preach about how the Liberals are the ones living in an overly optimistic fantasy world.

Actually, no, many of us do not think that at all, but that's beside the point. It seems to me that many liberals think that the UN can do no wrong, even after it was caught with its hand in the cookie jar, pants down and red handed. Frankly, I'd rather have faith in a government that I can vote out of office rather than trusting our national interest to a body of unelected officials who are accountable to no one (as in the UN)

Bush and his cronies lied

prove it, i.e, put up or shut up

I'd also like to know the connection between Bush lying and how he got all those intelligence agencies from other countries to go along with him.

I'd like to know, if this war was for oil, why we are paying more for it, rather than less

I'd like to know if Bush wanted this war for personal gain, why are his poll numbers so low? Oh, yes, I think I can anticipate your answer... Bush is an idiot... but then, he's this Svengali that can somehow dupe the entire nation, so which is it? Evil master mind or an idiot?

Clinton was the cause for all of our troubles

No, that's not necessarily true. However, Clinton didn't show much backbone when it came to dealing with this mess.

Oh.. speaking of President Clinton. Why is it that Clinton ignored the UN Security Council veto to do something in the Balkans? Do you realize that Clinton just went ahead and ignored the UN when he got us involved there? Do you further realized that, when he committed American troops in 1994, he said that our troops would be there A YEAR? It's now 2006, over twelve years later, and they're still there. How come that was different? How come it wasn't "Clinton lied and people died"? How come no calls from the Left on an exit strategy from the Balkans? How come that isn't an illegal war? Why is it that we got committed in the Balkans to prevent genocide and that's OK, but when we do the same things in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's a non-sequitur?

And oh, what's this with the argument that you libs give against the war....the Iraqis aren't "ready for democracy"? How racist is that? Yep, I guess you libs must think those third world brown types can't deal with the modern concept of democracy! And you liberal folks must think white women deserve the vote but Iraqi women don't!

 

[CharlestonChad]

I don't have time to answer all of your questions. The post was sarcastic, and the pictures explained what a conservative does when a moderate or liberal tells hims those things.

 

[KarlMarx]

I don't have time to answer all of your questions. The post was sarcastic, and the pictures explained what a conservative does when a moderate or liberal tells hims those things.

that figures....

 

[sitarro]

I don't have time to answer all of your questions. The post was sarcastic, and the pictures explained what a conservative does when a moderate or liberal tells hims those things.

Yea right kid,
Rush off to school with these questions to try and get some answers from your summer school professors. You better because you are so severly outclassed trying to argue with Karl that you literally don't have the chance of a snowball in Iraq of surviving a toe to toe battle with him. Give up now and come over to where the thinking is logical, if you grow into any common sense you will eventually anyway.

Unlike the liberal side we will welcome you to the fold and help you navigate through a world of bull shit put out by the left. But don't bother if you plan to have a lazy mind that isn't interested in truth, that doesn't want to watch the actions of our elected officials like hawks and form your own opinions from a platform of knowledge rather than sound bites.

Karl.....
Once again your arguments are extremely well thought out and presented with patience that I wish that I possessed. I don't think I will be allowed to rep you again for at least a month but I owe you.

 

[jimnyc]

So many people on this board think that Bush and friends can do no harm, then they turn around and preach about how the Liberals are the ones living in an overly optimistic fantasy world.

Bush and his cronies lied

Clinton was the cause for all of our troubles

I hope you aren't attributing quotes to me that I never even came close to saying.

Maybe they sometimes get upset at hearing others make so many outlandish claims, then completely back off when called on for proof. You know, like when I asked you 3 times in the other thread to cite references for your assertions, and you never answered.

This is just my opinion but it seems that many liberals live off of their gut feelings, intuition, conspiracy theories... and it seems that so many will still argue even when presented with facts, and after their refusals to supply references/facts to backup their own claims.

The bottom line in this thread is that some may think the war wasn't justified while others believe it was. I tend to lean towards the FACTS about the prior resolutions and acts through congress. The war was justified, even by the same retarded dems that now claim it's the wrong war. Nothing can be said, not even missing WMD's, that will change the fact that they were in material breach of resolutions that called for possible military intervention if they should not cooperate. They didn't cooperate and were in breach. We chose to hold up our end of the UN resolutions. Saddam called our bluff. He lost.

 

[Gunny]

I hope you aren't attributing quotes to me that I never even came close to saying.

Think you get special treatment from the libs just cuz you own the board?:rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

Think you get special treatment from the libs just cuz you own the board?:rotflmao:

Or that we did find the WMD? Now perhaps mobile labs were for bio/chem?

 

[Gunny]

Or that we did find the WMD? Now perhaps mobile labs were for bio/chem?

Of course they were. Only libs and knuckleheads ever believed they were "making fertilizer."

Now why in Hell would anyone need a mobile fertilizer lab; especially, when they have the MSM spreading plenty enough to go around and then some.

 

[Annie]

Of course they were. Only libs and knuckleheads ever believed they were "making fertilizer."

Now why in Hell would anyone need a mobile fertilizer lab; especially, when they have the MSM spreading plenty enough to go around and then some.

Yah, but now perhaps some proof, thanks to a doctoral type guy in chemical engineering, with military background too! Did you see that post?