IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Better safe than sorry.
Betttet safe thjan sorry works in the environment but not in world politics I guess. What is the harm. Saddam is gone his sons are gone. The recent polls show huge support to vote. So whats the problem. Your side didn;t think of it?

0 Replies

part time,

no harm at all unless you consider that we have destabilized an already precarious area. no harm unless you consider that we have all but given the iranians the iraqi oil fields. no9 harm unless you consider the deaths of over 1000 american soldiers just another days work. no harm unless you consider the rape of the american treasury and the building of deficits out of a surplus just a cost of doing business.

yup, saddam is gone and so are about 100,000 iraqis, but it's okay cause they were lesser human beings than we are and there is always a price for freedom.

0 Replies

Whats really great about this administration is that someone else besides them is paying that price for freedom. And they and thier friends are makeing money by the billions from this stupid war.

0 Replies

First of all, freedom of the press is in real trouble. The CBS firing of the Evening News staff for telling the already known truth about bush's tenure in the Texas Air Nat'l Guard illustrates that better than anything.

Secondly, the gov't does not invite foreign workers in because American women are having fewer children. In the greater Boston area, a "middle income" couple earn $100,000/annum and are virtually closed out of the housing market. Just as we did in the late 1920s, we have allowed the gap between the highest wage earners and the lowest wage earners to grow too large, making it impossible for Americans to take ordinary jobs while financial advisors spent the 1980s and 1990s talking up a service economy, i.e., a market in which wages are low. DUH!!!

Third, everyone, but especially Gungasnake, needs to read Jared Diamond's latest book. Of course, the snake will not understand it, but, if he keeps trying, he make some head way!

0 Replies

When did being wrong equate to lying?

I was wondering about this last night and didn't feel like signing in to discuss it.

The Bush administration has been found to have been wrong about the WMD's in Iraq and the immediacy of the threat posed by Saddam. Does that mean they lied, or just that they were wrong?

I know the liberals like to believe that Bush is Satan incarnate and that if he opens his mouth he is lying, but sometimes you have to understand the difference between being wrong and lying.

0 Replies

McG, I think that most people who believe that they lied base that on the fact that it was said leading up to the invasions that "we know he has them and we know where they are". Given that the weapons weren't there, it's safe to say that they didn't know if he had them and they certainly didn't know where they were. But that's kind of nit-picking and it's certainly subject to interpretation. There's also the reports that intelligence was molded to fit the admin's claims.

In general it comes down to personal opinion, I think. Personally, I try not to throw out accusations that they lied because it's very hard to prove. I believe in my heart they lied, but that's based on nothing more than the fact that the words rang false to my ears from the very first utterance.

Maybe they were wrong or maybe they lied. It doesn't really matter which, I think.

0 Replies

I think it is an extremely important point.

Too many people want them to fail and therefore believe them to have lied. I think a lot of people are led by there prejudices instead of by their brains.

I believe they were simply wrong, or that the intelligence they based their facts on was outdated or changed as time progressed.

If your neighbor didn't like you much and was trying to pin you for growing marijuana and he went to the cops and they came and looked around your garage and found nothing but your neighbor persisted and took photos of where you grew your weed and then went on TV and showed everyone where you grew your weed and then the cops decided they'd better investigate further, would you keep your weed where the photos showed it to be or would you move it and try to hide it from the cops?

(Damn that's a long run-on sentence!)

0 Replies

I get your point, McG. I guess I just feel that when the consequences of being wrong are so dire that extra effort should be made to make sure that you are right. I don't feel that was done in this case.

You make a valid point that it's likely he would move it if the photos showed where the stuff actually was. But the latest reports have pretty much put that to bed. That stuff would have been awfully hard to move without us knowing where it was going.

But in your example, if the neighbor goes to all of that trouble and he's still wrong, isn't he responsible for his error?

0 Replies

Quote:

Does that mean they lied, or just that they were wrong?

Not wrong. It means they lied, AND THEY KNEW THEY LIED.

None of the 'evidence' was strong enough for a case so they (Bush & Co) just starting inventing it and coming up with new reasons to invade.

There's more than a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and another 30 dead US soldiers as of this morning AND now the committment of $US80billion and two more years of occupation. Those guys had NO idea of what to do, or how to do it and obviously just made it all up on the spur of the moment.

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater wrote:

Quote:
Does that mean they lied, or just that they were wrong?

Not wrong. It means they lied, AND THEY KNEW THEY LIED.

None of the 'evidence' was strong enough for a case so they (Bush & Co) just starting inventing it and coming up with new reasons to invade.

There's more than a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and another 30 dead US soldiers as of this morning AND now the committment of $US80billion and two more years of occupation. Those guys had NO idea of what to do, or how to do it and obviously just made it all up on the spur of the moment.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go?

0 Replies

cjhsa:

So I guess we should invade Syria, only to find out that they're not there either.

That would seem to be the Bush pattern here...

0 Replies

Quote:

When did being wrong equate to lying?

When you don't admit that you're wrong.

I'm more curious as to how being wrong and miserably failing in planning and intelligence for this fake war can be rewarded with the Presidential Freedom of Honor?

Now THERE'S something that doesn't add up.

0 Replies

McG,

it doesn't matter after the fact whether they ;ied or were just terribly studid or misinformed. what matters is that they acted irrationally. they went ahead on the thinest of concrete evidence and at a time when the weapons inspectors were already saying that there were no wmd.

they acted with the rational of a teenager in heat and pushed forward the last resort before they exhausted all other options. this was a two-fold war foe W. it was payback for the assassination attempt on his father and it was payback to the oil interests that got him elected.

it becomes more like the war that Joe Nation and I spent four years in; Vietnam. death tolls read on the nightly news every night that are higher than the day before, locals being intimidated by unseen forces that came and went as they pleased, the american forces cramped into enclaves for safe keeping against an enemy that they couldn't see and couldn't identify even if they could see them.

those of us who remember vietnam remember the utter frustration at a war we knew intuitively we couldn't win.

0 Replies

Cavolina,

Im not diminshing the deaths of anyone. Destabalize? I guess rape and torture rooms are part of a stable government? Don't worry about Iran that will have issues of its own soon enough. If people die defending their contry to save millions over the next decade I would say its worth it. There are huge numbers in the Iraqi security force risking their own lives everyday, Same as here voluntary.

0 Replies

cavolina wrote:

McG,

it doesn't matter after the fact whether they ;ied or were just terribly studid or misinformed. what matters is that they acted irrationally. they went ahead on the thinest of concrete evidence and at a time when the weapons inspectors were already saying that there were no wmd.

they acted with the rational of a teenager in heat and pushed forward the last resort before they exhausted all other options. this was a two-fold war foe W. it was payback for the assassination attempt on his father and it was payback to the oil interests that got him elected.

it becomes more like the war that Joe Nation and I spent four years in; Vietnam. death tolls read on the nightly news every night that are higher than the day before, locals being intimidated by unseen forces that came and went as they pleased, the american forces cramped into enclaves for safe keeping against an enemy that they couldn't see and couldn't identify even if they could see them.

those of us who remember vietnam remember the utter frustration at a war we knew intuitively we couldn't win.

It matters a great deal I think.

There is a great difference between lying and being wrong. One is a willful act, the other a mistake. If the administration KNEW there were no WMD's, yet proceeded as they did, I think you would see far more people upset about the administration. However, being cautious over the welfare of an entire nation and believing that it was in our best interests to act as they did and then find out they were wrong shows that they are trying to keep the country safe.

I do not believe in comparisons between this war and vietnam anymore than I believe in the comparisons of this war and any other war. This is a unique war, just as every other war has been. There are comparisons that can be made and differences too. I don't think automatically condemning this into a war like Vietnam does our military the justice it deserves. I believe they are better equiped, better informed and better trained than the military we had in Vietnam. I am sure the leadership, most of which also served in Vietnam, is quite aware of the situation and are doing what's best to keep our soldiers out of harms way. However, it is a war and soldiers die.

I also do not think your rational of oil and revenge have ANY bearing on our actions in Iraq. I think you are falling for propaganda of the worst kind.

0 Replies

Too anyone who lived during the Vietmaum war the parallels between it and Iraq cant be argued. Undermaned army, inability to tell friend from foe, an active popular insurgancy, and an administration that refuses to tell the public the truth.

0 Replies

McG

again we disagree. when the world's only super power flexes its military muscle against an opponent it had better be right.

whether they lied or were just misinformed is a luxury they are not allowed. putting people into graves is for a mistake is very vietnam.

incidentally, the link between oil and this war are valid just as they were during vietnam. hod on to your hat you are about to learn something you didn't know. reference the january 1972 issue of the readers' digest and you will find an article pointing to the vast amount of oil under the south china sea, the body of water of the vietnamese coast and how we were not going to allow the communists to control this oil as a reason for our presence in vietnam.

ask this question; if there was no oil in iraq, would we be there?

0 Replies

cavolina, let me ask you a question; if there was no 9/11 would we be there?

If our main interests in Iraq was oil, you'd think they would spend more time and money protecting the pipelines and exports instead of shoring up the infrastructure and having elections. Our troops risking their lives patroling Baghdad does little to insure a stable oil flow into the US.

0 Replies

I think if there was no 9/11 we might have been there a lot sooner. While the event of 9/11 certainly lubricated their argument for war, 9/11 forced them to go to Afghanistan first. They clearly wanted to go to Iraq first. I think that's well documented, if nowhere else, in Woodward's Bush at War book.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Too anyone who lived during the Vietmaum war the parallels between it and Iraq cant be argued. Undermaned army, inability to tell friend from foe, an active popular insurgancy, and an administration that refuses to tell the public the truth.

I was in my teens and early twenties during the Vietnam war and I don't see any comparison at all.

In Nam there was no cause for war. Saddam Hussein on the other hand poisoned the US senate office building with anthrax, amongst other things.

In Nam there was no popular government on our side; in Iraq one is being created and all but a tiny handful of diehard baathists want in on it.

In Nam, there actually was an "insurgency"; calling the handful of losers trying to stop the march of progress in Iraq an insurgency is basically lying. Those guys amount to a collection of diehard fedayeen-saddam types with no future in Iraq or anywhere else and nothing to lose, whose only choices are death or the re-subjugation of the land they brutalized for the past three decades prior to 03, and a handful of foreign jihadis backed by loser organizations and outlaw regimes in Syria and Iraq. The diehards will be killed, and the outlaw regimes will get taken down, and it won't take the rest of this new year to happen.

Other than that, I can't see where anybody gets off calling Condi Rice a liar.

I mean, from a purely tactical vantage point, I could understand Boxer and the other democrat superlosers conducting their little show IF they thought they had all 45 dem senators with them.

Things being what they are and Dr. Rice being confirmed by something like an 85/13 vote, I can't see what they think they're doing. I mean, if there's a better way under the sun to exose themselves to the whole world as hate-driven, simpleminded and bigoted idiots than what Boxer and the shit4brains dozen or whatever they call themselves have done, I couldn't imagine what it would be.

0 Replies

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know