American History Rewritten

I have been reading a WWII book about the factions in Yugoslavia, etc., wherein Churchill had a tough time determining which faction to support with supplies and arms to fight the Germans. The British did support a couple of factions to one degree or another at different points, that were bitter enemies of each other, but both also opposed the Germans. That was a good reminder that history makes strange bedfellows from time to time, it is just unavoidable. We cannot always mold our friends, we are given a hand that is dealt us, and thus those are the cards that we have to play, and often they are not always to our liking.

So anyone that brings up the fact that we at one time supported Hussein, it is a good point of argument, but it ignores the whole picture of all of the factors that we have to deal with as time goes on. It is rather to our credit that we did conclude at some point that Hussein was truly a tyrant, but it does not take away the fact that other people he opposed, that we also opposed, were not good people either.

Funny, how you bring up time frame when discussing Iraq's relations with the US but then ignore time frame when discussing Iraq's nuclear and WMD programs which is where this digression started.

The whole point is that we make decisions based upon what we know at any particular point in history. What we know does not have the benefit of future knowledge, nor is it even possible to know everything that could possibly be known at any particular point if every tool at our disposal was at its maximum efficiency. For example, the CIA, I think it is a failed bureaucracy in many ways, and was at the time we went to war, but that is what Bush had at his disposal, it was not possible to remake the CIA into a perfectly well oiled machine that it should be. The fact is and will remain so, that most people thought Hussein had WMD, including the CIA, not all factions, not all people, but the bulk of the evidence and advice pointed in that direction. I realize the Democrats and Bush opponents have had a field day collecting opposing evidence and 20/20 hindsight in order to undermine the war and the Bush presidency, but sorry Parados, not all of us are sucker for the political games that are played.

I'm dumbfounded by how much you miss, how stupefyingly ignorant you are and you still parade that you have a higher than average level of intelligence. It's clearly not all it's cracked up to be.

You are describing, accurately, the USA as a terrorist state. That is something that should be obvious to you.

Yes we do make decisions based on what we know at a particular time in history. So why are you confusing different times in history when talking about the decisions?

When it comes to Iraq, the question of WMD in Iraq was very much a question. The inspectors said there were none. The CIA said it was questionable. The evidence presented by the administration AT THE TIME was almost non existent. It was based on information from NOT at that time, much of it being from 2001. Sure, a lot of people bought the "evidence" at that time but it doesn't make the evidence any stronger because some people bought into it. It only shows that a lot of people are gullible.

my thoughts exactly

REGARDLESS of how dumb u are found to be,
even if the US really WERE "a terrorist state" as u put it,
its right of self-defense from a nuclear Pearl Harbor
from Saddam remains intact.





David

Yes, many are gullible but the willfully gullible who provide cover for their own, be it kin or country describe a truly sorry piece of humanity.

I remain dumbfounded by how much you miss, how stupefyingly ignorant you
are, David.

OK; u can remain as dumbfounded as u wish.
I guess u will.

He's American: that explains it.