[Discodancingrover]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Hahah, once again, all I do is post a new article and someone's gonna say I'm providing inaccurate information again. This wasn't taken out of context, nor was it fabricated out of thing air. This is a news article published, so unless they're lying, I'm not sure what kind of record needs to be set straight here.

First off I would have a lot of trouble really believing the New York Times and their reporting, they are ridiculously slanted. If the whole document was published and what the NYT said was accurate then I would believe them, but in that whole article there is only one quote from this document. One would think that if they wanted to be more accurate they would have more quotes from the document.

And xit2050 can you give us examples of some of these reasonings that make us look stupid to Europeans? And honestly I don't think many people really care what the hell Europeans think of Americans, I honestly don't.

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by Discodancingrover

First off I would have a lot of trouble really believing the New York Times and their reporting, they are ridiculously slanted. If the whole document was published and what the NYT said was accurate then I would believe them, but in that whole article there is only one quote from this document. One would think that if they wanted to be more accurate they would have more quotes from the document.

And xit2050 can you give us examples of some of these reasonings that make us look stupid to Europeans? And honestly I don't think many people really care what the hell Europeans think of Americans, I honestly don't.

BRILLIANT! You can count me as one of those that couldn't give a rats ass for what europeans think. And yes, xit2050, could you elaborate??

Where have all the conservatives been?? Last time I was trampled by the crazed liberal brigade!

[BellasBmw]

Originally Posted by docbolo

Youre hot so I forgive you. Maybe you and the kitty with the lime helmet should go there and sing for the troops, that would certainly help our troops

You know the kitty lime helmet i think would def improve their spirits too! I wont sing though, i think they rather hear shotgun blasts. But nevertheless, good idea!

[e90rocks]

Originally Posted by Discodancingrover

First off I would have a lot of trouble really believing the New York Times and their reporting, they are ridiculously slanted. If the whole document was published and what the NYT said was accurate then I would believe them, but in that whole article there is only one quote from this document. One would think that if they wanted to be more accurate they would have more quotes from the document.

And xit2050 can you give us examples of some of these reasonings that make us look stupid to Europeans? And honestly I don't think many people really care what the hell Europeans think of Americans, I honestly don't.

I think that if W looks stupid to the Europeans then we look stupid.(Sigh). Frankly I'm irritated that such sensitive documents could be leaked in such a fashion. What do you think documents from JFK would have said in 1962?
That being said, the point is not whether Bush would go if there were no WMD, but whether he would go if the inspectors failed to detect WMD. When analyzing actions you cannot use hindsight as though things are 100%. Instead, one has to make judgements based on probabilities. Would you go to Iraq if you thought there was 80% chance of discovering chemical/biological/mass destruction weapons? How about 50%? 30%? I was convinced by Colin Powell's "evidence" that there were WMD. I was wrong, but I feel there was sufficient justification for intervention.

Remember that Saddam had made it clear that he would 1. Use chemical weapons (ask the Kurds and Iranians) and 2. Supports terrorism (see his rewards for American deaths offers).

As far as the UN goes, I'm OK with going in without their sanction. It would be preferable, but that's not the solution for everything.

As far as futility of our mission and wasting our troops, I believe that our troops are doing the right thing. We are trying to help Iraq erect a stable government, and I support that as well. My cousin is in Iraq right now trying to take out IED makers, beheader/rapists and even rescuing captured peacenicks and journalists. Sure, his wife wants him back, but if we always just kept our sons and daughters out of harm's way, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would still be in Afghanistan, there would be no Kuwait, and no Israel. (Or Israel would have used nuclear weapons in self-defense). On the positive side, the Arizona Cardinals would still have Tillman.

[timzerofive]

Let's not start another debate on whether we should've or shouldn't have invaded Iraq. In reality, the article is not about if we should've, it's more about how a president blatanly lied to the entire nation at a time of crisis. Was it the first time a president lied? No. However, do most people feels more screwed over and deceived by this guy? Yes. Just read the article and get what you want out of it. If you think they're lying and simply pulling information out of their asses, then you go right ahead and stuff your head right back into the hole. For the rest of us, we'll just take the article as what it is - just another fact to further confirm that the last six years were not the best for us Americans. Say what you like about how EVERYTHING he done was necessary and the right thing to do, but the fact is, deep down we all know it was not.

Here's another article today -
Card Resigns as Bush's Chief of Staff
Honestly, smart people does not want to work for this guy. Look at the trend...

[e90rocks]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Let's not start another debate on whether we should've or shouldn't have invaded Iraq

Post 27 is a little late for that.

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Say what you like about how EVERYTHING he done was necessary and the right thing to do, but the fact is, deep down we all know it was not.

Deep down, do you feel that we would have been better off with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein still in control in Iraq?

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by e90rocks

Deep down, do you feel that we would have been better off with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein still in control in Iraq?

You rock e90rocks. :rocks:

Yes Tim, lets hear your grand plan. Lets hear how isolationism serves the greater good.

Instead of listening to the slanted media, wouldn't it be awesome if someone was actually IN Iraq and could tell us what is going on and why we are there? Oh wait. We have that. JB 330ci is an intelligence officer in Iraq and gave us 100 lucid posts on what we are doing there and why it is good for the world. But no, in Yahoo News we trust

[BellasBmw]

I officially resigned from posting in political discussions for the following reasons: 1- i dont know enough to make an opinion (From what ive been told). 2- People will always disagree and nothing will ever be solved.. and finally 3-

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by BellasBmw

I officially resigned from posting in political discussions for the following reasons: 1- i dont know enough to make an opinion (From what ive been told). 2- People will always disagree and nothing will ever be solved.. and finally 3-

LOL!! awww. we'll miss you. Does that mean the conservatives win this time?

-Happy retard

[Matbrach]

"During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons"

He also stated that he was ready to attack Iraq even without a UN mandate this in his State of the Union Message 3 days earlier.

The memo states he was determined to invade even if international inspectors did not find conventional weapons - the does not indicate that he felt the weapons did not exist, only that he questioned the ability of international inspectors to find weapons in a country who was deliberately obscuring their actions.

Also remember that by January the United States had spent significant amounts of time and money to position troops for the potential invasion of Iraq. It can be argued that it was this positioning of troops that coerced Saddam to re-allow inspectors into the country. Planners knew that their window of attack was March/April or they would have to wait another year - or withdraw the troops back home. Neither option was palatable - waiting would anger the families back home - and withdrawing would remove the "stick" that was coercing Saddam. So speak - (most likely extemporaneously) - about provocation for war is not abnormal.

We know now that Bush (and others) were wrong about the length of time required for reconstruction and the internecine conflicts that would erupt - but hindsight is always 20/20.

[BellasBmw]

Originally Posted by [QUOTE

docbolo Does that mean the conservatives win this time?

-Happy retard

[/QUOTE]


Never!!!!! haha.. Have fun tryin to win that race

ciao

[Discodancingrover]

Tim, I'm going to crawl back into my hole. Actually it's a pretty nice hole. I've got a desk, kitchen, and wireless Internet. I would be envious if I were you. . . And I don't know if you were talking about me thinking they pulled the information out of their asses, I didn't say that. I just said the NYT is known as a liberal newspaper and when reporting on something like this I would want hard facts, not what their writers got out of it. When I get a writers summary of bits and pieces who works for a liberal newspaper I'm going to wonder.
Doc, I don't think the conservatives can ever really win in society. If we have a valid point and liberals have no rebuttal they seem to go straight into personal attacks. Like I believe the minority leader recently referred to President Bush as a "Loser". Then again political figures who are liberals can seem to do what they want in our society (cough, Ted Kennedy, cough).

[timzerofive]

I think we all lost

I have no plan for isolationism, but how about let's hear YOUR grand plan for colonialism.

Again, read the article, and get what you want out of it. No one is providing any new interesting information for us to discuss over. Everything being said here has been said in the previous thread before. I would like to get more information from that one guy who actually works in Iraq, he has interesting things to say.

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

I have no plan for isolationism, but how about let's hear YOUR grand plan for colonialism.

Ok, heres my plan. And boy is it extreme. And its also why I am not president

Plan A: Move the jews to Rhode Island for 1 year. Turn the middle east to glass and wait until radiation dissapates. Then move jews back to Israel.

Plan B: Systematically kill the leaders of all muslim countries and slowly convert them all to christianity. Those countries that resist are wiped off the planet. I'm not a religious dude, but if you have to worship something atleast let it be a religion that doesn't teach you to resist science/advancement, repress women, and blow yourself up.

I think the course we are following now is closer to plan B, spreading democracy. Although deep in my heart, I favor plan A.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by docbolo

Where the hell is JB 330ci when we need him?

Can you please set the record straight for these people?

I'm here...people tend to believe what they want to believe. Read some of my other posts on this topic.

I think people are taking this way out of context. The US went before the UN for the resolution against Iraq. No matter how the resolution turns out in Iraq, the US had already made up its mind Iraq had to go.

People fail to understand that previous UN resolutions always gave the world body the right to interfere with Iraq. Saddam violated resolution after resolution without serious consequences.

Despite what the UN said, Bush wanted to take out Saddam and viewed him as a threat to the US. We know Saddam's history and know most of his motives. Recently declassified data from Saddam's regime indicates this.

Ask your questions and I shall respond to clear up some concerns. Remember today's journalism today is combined with facts and editorial analysis...It is sometimes difficult to separate the two in order to look at the pure facts and not speculation or editorial/perspective bias.


EDIT: What I have noticed people tend to go with the flow without any logical reasons to back up their positions. That is similar to saying all Europeans are racist against Muslims without backing up my statement. Why? Just because everyone else is doing it.

[mtnyeti12]

Originally Posted by BellasBmw

I officially resigned from posting in political discussions for the following reasons: 1- i dont know enough to make an opinion (From what ive been told). 2- People will always disagree and nothing will ever be solved.. and finally 3-

First of all ... this is the funniest f*&^#k'ing thing I've seen in these post's (other than the 'retarded' exhaust from that one dude).

Second... there are issues (putting it lightly... haha) here in Iraq but to think that you can take over a country and expect the local populace to completely change the way they've lived for the past 30-40 years in a matter of 1-2 years is insane. I've been in and out of this shit hole for that past 3 years and I can tell you some things have improved and others have deteriorated. What’s important is were here now and if we pull out it's a win for Al Queada and every other anti-west freak with a gun not to mention a HUGE blow to the US. Besides the country would fall into complete chaos. To solve the whole debate - it's now a test of will's between the US/coalition and the insurgents/terrorist's. It's a battle of who can outlast who and they (bad guys...) are barely hanging on. "Who dares wins!"

Third: Bella does need to come out here.. if the Iraqi's see her they'll know what were fighting for and join us in the pursuit of happiness... But you'll need to wear the lime helmet Bella!!

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by mtnyeti12

Second... there are issues (putting it lightly... haha) here in Iraq but to think that you can take over a country and expect the local populace to completely change the way they've lived for the past 30-40 years in a matter of 1-2 years is insane. I've been in and out of this shit hole for that past 3 years and I can tell you some things have improved and others have deteriorated. What’s important is were here now and if we pull out it's a win for Al Queada and every other anti-west freak with a gun not to mention a HUGE blow to the US. Besides the country would fall into complete chaos. To solve the whole debate - it's now a test of will's between the US/coalition and the insurgents/terrorist's. It's a battle of who can outlast who and they (bad guys...) are barely hanging on. "Who dares wins!"

This is how it is. The Iraq War is the central front on the GWOT. A retreat would signal defeat for the West. Don't forget you have people inside the Bush administration and other groups within the US who are trying to sabotage and make sure we fail in this goal.

Prime example on why certain Intelligence agencies collected information on US organizations and people for use in the GWOT. I have no problem with Anti-War protestors, but when they actively fund terrorism and insurgents in Iraq is when they cross the line from protestor to enemy.

[deutschmann59]

Originally Posted by JB 330ci

I'm here...people tend to believe what they want to believe. Read some of my other posts on this topic.

I think people are taking this way out of context. The US went before the UN for the resolution against Iraq. No matter how the resolution turns out in Iraq, the US had already made up its mind Iraq had to go.

People fail to understand that previous UN resolutions always gave the world body the right to interfere with Iraq. Saddam violated resolution after resolution without serious consequences.

Despite what the UN said, Bush wanted to take out Saddam and viewed him as a threat to the US. We know Saddam's history and know most of his motives. Recently declassified data from Saddam's regime indicates this.

Ask your questions and I shall respond to clear up some concerns. Remember today's journalism today is combined with facts and editorial analysis...It is sometimes difficult to separate the two in order to look at the pure facts and not speculation or editorial/perspective bias.


EDIT: What I have noticed people tend to go with the flow without any logical reasons to back up their positions. That is similar to saying all Europeans are racist against Muslims without backing up my statement. Why? Just because everyone else is doing it.

Well, the question I have is ok, if Saddam violated all these UN resolutions, then what about other countries doing the same thing...like North Korea and Iran? Why, out of all the places that are hostile against the US, did we choose Iraq?

[e90rocks]

Originally Posted by sharp1183

Well, the question I have is ok, if Saddam violated all these UN resolutions, then what about other countries doing the same thing...like North Korea and Iran? Why, out of all the places that are hostile against the US, did we choose Iraq?

As far as we know, NKorea is not and has no plans to fund or supply terrorists or terrorist organizations which have already struck on domestic soil. We also love Israel more than South Korea, though for the record we have been at war with North Korea. Then there's the strategic and economic importance of petroleum (I'm sure y'all were waiting for me to say that). As far as Iran, unfortunately, I don't think they're completely ruled out. Honestly, I think that our action in Iraq is also supposed to serve as warning for other countries including North Korea, although personally I think Kim's brain doesn't work that way. North Korea is also next door to China, so there is that factor.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by sharp1183

Well, the question I have is ok, if Saddam violated all these UN resolutions, then what about other countries doing the same thing...like North Korea and Iran? Why, out of all the places that are hostile against the US, did we choose Iraq?

Here is most of it.
Saddam had violated sanctions and supported terrorism in the past.
- He also pursued WMD and had an active WMD program (Evidence was found in Iraq, just not the stockpiles that people though Iraq had)
- Iraq used dual purpose laboratories and factories to cover up Iraq's access to WMD. Strains of biological and nerve agents were found (samples) but that is all you need to restart your WMD program.
- Saddam was in violation of UN sanctions again and again...The UN did nothing...similar to North Korea and now Iran (not sanctions but IAEA inspections...see a pattern here forming with Iran?) and let's see Rwanda, Sudan (Darfur) Somalia, and a dozen or so other African countries...granted they are good on humanitarian aid however they suck at any type of armed intervention...France is stretched thin by deployments in Chad, Ivory Coast, and some other African countries plus Afghanistan. Where is the call for Russian, China, Indian, Brazilian, intervention in these failed or corrupt countries. No one will step up to the plate?
- US security interests...like it or now the world's economy is driven by oil. Iraq is one of our most important trading partners under OFF and now after OIF. (excluding Saudi Arabia and Kuwait)
- Use of chemical weapons, threat to Kuwait. Ecological damage/ War crimes/ oppression of Shia/Kurd’s
- Arabization of Kirkuk.

The ones used and reported to the press are the WMD and UN resolutions in which Saddam violated. Saddam had ample time to comply with the resolutions in order to put the US in a difficult position to launch an invasion by complying with the UN.

I'm trying to avoid potential outcomes like
- Iraq as a stable beacon for democracy
- To deny a terrorist safe haven
- We may have to go into Iraq again if we didn't go now
- Saddam was a destabilizing factor in the Middle East.
- Even without 9/11 we would possibly have gone into Iraq anyway and not Afghanistan.

People always say what about North Korea and Iran.
-Iran
-What sanctions did Iran violate?
-Iran is 3 times bigger than Iraq and has a more capable ground force compared to Iraq at the time.
-Iran supports Terrorism as well but the case against Iran would not be strong…what has Iran done in the past 20 years compared to Iraq?
-Give Iran a couple more years of back and forth with the UN, EU and other countries...than the US will step in with force. (for sanctions)

-North Korea
-North Korea is just an isolated backward country
-NK doesn’t really constitute a threat to the US per se…only the nuclear weapons issue does.
-NK doesn’t have any oil and is mostly dealt with by SK and China
-NK may have a large Army and a large artillery force aimed at Seoul, however their forces are not modernized and subject to a multitude of problems, lack of fuel, supplies, training, morale, etc…
- The loss of civilian casualties in any war against NK would be high at first due to the proximity of cities to the border...SK does not want a war with NK unless NK attacks first or crosses a SK "red line"
-And who really cares about NK? They have not exported terrorism since the 1980’s.

- The US maybe the world’s policeman and rightfully so since most all countries are out for their own self-interests…including the US. We pick our battles in the name of freedom and democracy since this is what we are known for. However that does not stop the fact the US is also interested in securing our national security interests as well.
This includes oil, anything happening in Mexico and Canada and for the most part across the world since US companies are located mostly everywhere. So the US extends everywhere and must defend our interests everywhere to a lesser extent. If China has the same influence and reach of the US, the same would be said of China.

-People tend to have rosy color views or the world…please wake up and face reality here.

[ska///235i]

Bush can suck Bin ladin's 8=====D

[docbolo]

JB 330ci - YOU RULE. thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to enlighten all of us, liberal and conservative.