gunga, if your country is invaded you clearly have no choice but to go to war. If, on the other hand, you invade a country halfway across the globe, who's military and infrastructure have been weakened by years of economic sanctions, it is clearly your choice.
Whatever bad deeds and bad plans Saddam might have had, there was no 'imminent' danger to befall us if we did not invade. Further, many would speculate that we actually controlled more of the country before the invasion.
It was a bad idea, and a poorly executed one at that. There were more reasons not to go than there were to go. People believe what they want to believe about whether it makes us safer -- that's hard to ascertain, but there's no denying that it was a war of choice.
And I agree with p, on the value of your big chicken and references to France.
panzade wrote:Gunga, one of your most distasteful posts of which there are a number...
The thing about the "war of choice"?? Come on now, where's your sense of humor?
FreeDuck wrote:gunga, if your country is invaded you clearly have no choice but to go to war. If, on the other hand, you invade a country halfway across the globe, who's military and infrastructure have been weakened by years of economic sanctions, it is clearly your choice.
Whatever bad deeds and bad plans Saddam might have had, there was no 'imminent' danger to befall us if we did not invade....
No sale. That to me is just nonsensical.
Assuming Saddam was at minimum complicit in 9/11 itself and either complicit or entirely to blame for the anthrax attacks, the idea of simply waiting to see what he had planned for us next strikes me as idiotic.
gungasnake wrote:No sale. That to me is just nonsensical.
Assuming Saddam was at minimum complicit in 9/11 itself and either complicit or entirely to blame for the anthrax attacks, the idea of simply waiting to see what he had planned for us next strikes me as idiotic.
Oh boy. And here I see where you and I have a complete disconnect. I completely missed where these were reasons given to invade Iraq. In fact, I completely missed where there was any credible evidence of either of the things you mention.
Talk about no sale.
Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:Do you think Bush should be voted out of office because the US was attacked on 9/11? (Related: Should Clinton have been voted out in 1996 because the WTC was bombed in 1993? And what blame does Clinton bear because he allowed the strike on the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia in 1996? Or because our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in 1998? Or because the USS Cole was attacked in 2000?)
Everyone should be able to admit that mistakes were made pre-9/11. The question should be what should be the approach of the US in combating terrorism as we go forward. I do not believe the answer to that question is "we do what we were doing before: treat terrorism as a criminal act." That APPEARS* to be what Kerry will do. Under that approach, we stop at the border of every country that wants to support and harbor terrorists bent on attacking the US. Would you really feel safer under that scenario, where we sit back and wait to be attacked here at home, then respond by trying to find the attackers to arrest them? Or hope we are given permission by the UN to act to defend our country? We showed that weak response through the '90s, and I'm convinced the effect of Clinton's responses to the many acts of terrorism on US soil, combined with his weak response to the Mogadishu fiasco, only emboldened the terrorists who seek to destroy the US.
(*This, of course, is a moving target.
)
Now, under the Bush Doctrine, the terrorists understand we will seek them out, we will hunt them down to the holes they are hiding in. We have put every country in the world on notice that you better not harbor terrorists, and we have demonstrated a willingness to take action to protect the US interests.
You may feel safer giving the terrorists the freedom to operate at will in the world, and only respond to individual acts of terrorism, but I, for one, am comforted by the fact that the war on terrorism is taking place on the battlefields in Iraq, and not the streets of New York.
Quote:
Bush Failed to Stop al Qaeda During Clinton Years
(2004-04-11) -- A presidential briefing, dated August 6, 2001, and released by the White House yesterday, shows that in 1998 George W. Bush did nothing to respond to the threat of terror attacks from Usama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
In fact, when correlated with last week's testimony before the 9/11 Commission by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, it seems clear that the Bush administration had virtually no plan to act on top-secret intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration until after George W. Bush took office in 2001.
"The August 6 PDB (President's Daily Brief) clearly shows that the White House knew of potential al Qaeda threats within the United States in 1998," said an unnamed source from an unnamed, non-partisan Washington think tank, "and yet Texas Governor George W. Bush didn't do anything about these threats until after he became president."
A former senior official in the Clinton administration, who requested anonymity, said that former President Bill Clinton was "aghast at the lethargic response of Governor Bush to the clear and present danger al Qaeda posed to our homeland in the 1990s."
...Where to start? Did you read "100 Facts?" and the supporting links? All of it?
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts
And you still support him?
Cinnesthesia wrote:
...Where to start? Did you read "100 Facts?"
Not really. After the first "fact" turned out to be flagrant BS, it simply wasn't obvious that the other 99 would be any better and I sort of stopped reading at that point.
Obviously you are afraid of the truth and have no interest in obtaining knowledge that might help you make an informed decision.
I must say I'm disappointed Tico...
panzade wrote:I must say I'm disappointed Tico...
It's too much to expect me to take seriously an article that claims it's "The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration", and the first "fact" it presents claims the Iraq War was "a war of choice." That's clearly debatable; it's certainly not "non-arguable." I decline the invitation to read another tome of clearly partisan proselytizing. If these were actual "facts," that would be an entirely different story.
gungasnake wrote:Cinnesthesia wrote:
...Where to start? Did you read "100 Facts?"
Not really. After the first "fact" turned out to be flagrant BS, it simply wasn't obvious that the other 99 would be any better and I sort of stopped reading at that point.
As I mentioned earlier, this is your first flagrant BS fact gungasnake
1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.
Source: American Progress
Acquiunk wrote:gungasnake wrote:Cinnesthesia wrote:
...Where to start? Did you read "100 Facts?"
Not really. After the first "fact" turned out to be flagrant BS, it simply wasn't obvious that the other 99 would be any better and I sort of stopped reading at that point.
As I mentioned earlier, this is your first flagrant BS fact gungasnake
1. The Bush Administration has spent more than $140 billion on a war of choice in Iraq.
Source: American Progress
Oh, "American Progress" said so. Well, why didn't you say so? Then it must be true.
Quote:Not really. After the first "fact" turned out to be flagrant BS, it simply wasn't obvious that the other 99 would be any better and I sort of stopped reading at that point.
How is that BS? You didn't answer yet. Every preemptive war is a war of choice. Then the number is correct too
Quote:It IS a "fact" that Bush 41 did not take out Saddam last time. Didn't even try. Didn't overstep the boundaries of the UN Resolution authorizing the action. Only kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. Did not try to advance to Baghdad. Easily could have.
He didn't even try because he knew better than his son, what a mess this would be.
Quote:He had the calzones to blame Bush 41 for the thousands upon thousands of killings Saddam's regime was responsible for that we recently discovered in the Iraq killing fields - the mass burial pits. He said the blood of those victims was on Bush 41 for not going in and taking out Saddam in 1991.
This is ONLY PARTLY correct. Bush 41 promised help, they started to revolt (hoping for help/weapons), Bush stayed away, Saddam suppressed this internal affair by killing thousands.
That's one of the reasons why USA was not welcomed as a liberator.
Quote:Have you read "Bush on the Couch" by Justin Frank? It gives some astounding insight into the upbringing and the mindset of the current president.
Give me a break. Some Psycho Scum Bags try to proof that they are correct by writing a book. If they are correct, they should PREDICT some of his actions.
Quote:The fact that Dubya tried to vindicate his father who needed no vindication
Even if. So? You can always try to "reason" some actions by tracking them back to fathers, mothers or prostate cancer. Just cheap psycho tricks.
Bush is changing the shape of the world while these "psycho-anal-ists" sit in their chair and fart around.
Re: 100 FACTS AND 1 OPINION
gungasnake wrote:The French, who would elect Kerry in a heartbeat
As would the rest of the world, except Islamic Nigeria and Islamic Iran.
http://timesnewroman.inknoise.com/tnro/2004/09/08/0001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1339149,00.html
The US is pretty isolated.
gungasnake wrote:Assuming Saddam was at minimum complicit in 9/11 itself and either complicit or entirely to blame for the anthrax attacks, the idea of simply waiting to see what he had planned for us next strikes me as idiotic.
Why do you assume that? The 9/11 commission stated clearly that Saddam even REFUSED to work with Al-Qaeda,
Actually there are more links to 9/11 and Pakistan than 9/11 and Saddam.
The Iraq war was a war of choice. No one invaded the US. The WMDs were just an assumption.
How f*cking incredibly ignorant to call it defense.
North Korea HAS weapons and HAS threatened to use them. Bush ignores the situation. One hell of a leader, isn't he? If the Iraq war was choice, I guess we'll be attacking North Korea next.
