Iraq War vs. Vietnam War

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Tommy? world politics and relations is not some fight between you and your brother where you can point a finger and say ?he started it.?

Cute example, but life in the grown-up world is more complex than a simple, black and white homily. In the grown-up world, accountability is critical. That's why we try and punish people who break the law rather than dismissing it with a flip "what's done is done, we need to move on."

Actions, or inactions, have LONG term consequences.

Track the history or Islamic or Middle East terrorism back to the 60s and you will see that the only thing they understand is brute force.

Seems a trait they share with the war-monger in chief and his flock.

Every time we have been weak or retreated we have paid the price.

You mean like when Bush capitulated to bin Laden and cut and run from Saudi Arabia? Funny that you Bush faithful always ignore that single most glaring example of caving to terrorists' demands. I guess it's only "cut and run" when a Democrat suggests it, huh?

But when countries are strong and stand up and fight back against these people things turn out different.

Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli athletes in Munich, Israel responds by tracking down and killing Palestinian terrorists and sympathizers throughout Europe. Net result= not another terrorist against Israeli interests outside of Israel.

Israel, what a bunch of wusses. They should have invaded Chile.

Libya supports terrorists and assists in the downing of a PanAm flight and some disco bombings that kill American soldiers stationed in Europe. The US responds with an air raid that nearly kills the Libyan leader. Net result= Libya gets out of the terrorist game.

And then we invaded, right? We didn't? Boy, Ronald Reagan was sure soft on terror.

Terrorists kill one and kidnap five Soviet diplomats in Lebanon. The KGB tracks down and kills a member of the terrorist?s family. Net result= not another terrorists action against the Soviets in the Middle East.

Rather telling that you qualify this example with "in the Middle East", since the fact of the matter is there have been many terrorist attacks against the Soviets/Russia since.

Every time you show weakness though the net result is another attack against you. I can write a LONG list of attacks against US interests that have had no meaningful response. Instead of fearing and respecting us for our military and our capabilities they ridicule and mock us and plan their next attack.

Any chance you picked up the common theme of your examples from my responses? The countries involved did NOT launch misdirected invasions in response to terrorism. They went after the perpetrators and those directly connected to them. See the difference? The 'war" on terror is a farce, a slogan designed to rally the sheep. The most effective and reasoned response to terrorism is a focused, law enforcement-style effort to get the people responsible. In many cases, our military forces should be an integral part of our response, but through a narrow application of specialized forces, not a friggn' wholesale invasion (of a country that had little connection with terrorism, no less). According to our own intelligence agencies, Bush's self-proclaimed "War on Terror" is a failure, making us less safe.

Cutting and running again, PJ?

 

[ProfJohn]

Bowfiner, the worthlessness of your post makes it not worth the effort of a response.
Here is exactly what I speak of?

Israel, what a bunch of wusses. They should have invaded Chile.

Seems a trait they share with the war-monger in chief and his flock.

You mean like when Bush capitulated to bin Laden and cut and run from Saudi Arabia?

We didn't 'cut and run' from Saudia Arabia, with Saddam gone there was no longer any reason for us to be there.

 

[Jaha]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Jaha
I'm glad you spent all that time quoting pieces of an article and pundits interpretations of it. Your own quotes even say there's differing conclusions.

I guess it takes more than just google and hate to understand it.

Seems like you're the one who's eager to ignore what the "most advanced intelligence agency in the world is telling you". (Just like Bush. Coincidence?) Some of the articles I link include verbatim quotes from the actual NIE report; I even include a couple of them above. Yet you dismiss them as "pundits interpretations." ROFL. Here's my interpretation: You're just another hypocritical Bush drone, unwilling to even consider anything that contradicts your faith.

So be it. You're dismissed.

So you admit that you're just taking quotes "verbatim" (lol, like that means anything) out from the research and the pundit's interpretation of it....without any comprehensive understanding. In YOUR own quotes, it says there are multiple conclusions from the research....but it's no coincidence that you only provide those "verbatim quotes" on the only conclusion that YOU wish to accept.

So here's my interpretation of you....you are the very thing that you chastise others for being. I'm a long ways away from school, internet professor.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Some how we survived the Vietnam War and are in pretty good shape now. I get the feeling that we will survive this war as well.

Do you somehow think that justifies Bush's war of LIES? :shocked:

Harvey do you think the removal of Saddam was a good thing?
Or should we have put him back in power the second we learned that there weren?t big piles of WMD laying around?

Furthermore, all you ever do is rehash the old ?war of lies? arguments.
When ever some trots out the ?but Clinton did it too? argument you attack them for living in the past, but that is all you do.

Whether the war was justified or not does not matter anymore. We are there now and must live with the here and now. To say ?the war wasn?t justified therefore we must leave? completely ignores the consequences of leaving.

Finally, we all understand that you think Bush is a traitor, murderer and war criminal, you?ve told us that a million times.
Now why don?t you try contributing something new to the arguments and discussions.

"Whether the war was justified or not does not matter anymore."

Wrong, it is still and always will be VERY IMPORTANT for the public to know that they were and continue to be lied to.

Otherwise, why should politicians EVER tell the truth? They can just manipulate at will, and then come back and say, "well, it is too late now to change it, so let's just focus on the future!"

And believe it or not, history keeps repeating itself in this country... in order for people to learn from their mistakes, we must know and understand the mistakes... not sweep them under the rug.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Some how we survived the Vietnam War and are in pretty good shape now. I get the feeling that we will survive this war as well.

Do you somehow think that justifies Bush's war of LIES? :shocked:

George W. Bush and his cabal of murders and traitors are directly responsible for the deaths of more Americans than died from the attacks of 9-11.

Fatalities

There were 2,974 fatalities, not including the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority Police Department officers.] Lieutenant General Timothy Maude was the highest ranking person killed at the Pentagon and John P. O'Neill was a former assistant director of the FBI who assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef and was the head of security at the World Trade Center when he was killed trying to rescue people from 2 WTC. An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.

Total dead from the attacks of 9-11: 2,974

American deaths in Iraq as of today: 3,455 (and rising)

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie!

🙁

PrevaricatorJohn -- You have no honor. You know no shame. You are one of the traitors. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

JHC are you capable of posting anything other than this crap? We got it, your nutso and you hate GWB and blame him for all of the ills in the world. You have turned into a bigger troll than Dave.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bowfiner, the worthlessness of your post makes it not worth the effort of a response.

In other words, you've been backed into a corner -- again -- and you're running away -- again.

Here is exactly what I speak of?

Israel, what a bunch of wusses. They should have invaded Chile.

It's called sarcasm, look it up. :roll:

The point is that unlike GWB, Israel chose an intelligent and effective response to that terrorist attack. They didn't invade some random country unrelated to the attack.

Get it now?

Seems a trait they share with the war-monger in chief and his flock.

Truth hurts? The Bush administration denigrates diplomacy and flouts international law.

You mean like when Bush capitulated to bin Laden and cut and run from Saudi Arabia?

We didn't 'cut and run' from Saudia Arabia, with Saddam gone there was no longer any reason for us to be there.

That's a nice rationalization, but it naturally misses the point again. When BushCo does what the terrorists want, you accept it without thought. When Bush opposition suggests something that can be twisted into what "terrorists" want, even if there are sound reasons for it, you use it as a springboard for another round of partisan propaganda. In short, you behave hypocritically.

I note that you once again dodged my main point, that none of your examples of countries that are "strong and stand up and fight back" involves invading another country. Instead they show intelligent, focused use of force directly against the perpetrators. In short, you've provided excellent examples of why BushCo's "War on Terror" is a failure and a farce. You don't reduce terrorism by inflaming hatred and delivering unlimited recruiting material.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jaha

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Jaha
I'm glad you spent all that time quoting pieces of an article and pundits interpretations of it. Your own quotes even say there's differing conclusions.

I guess it takes more than just google and hate to understand it.

Seems like you're the one who's eager to ignore what the "most advanced intelligence agency in the world is telling you". (Just like Bush. Coincidence?) Some of the articles I link include verbatim quotes from the actual NIE report; I even include a couple of them above. Yet you dismiss them as "pundits interpretations." ROFL. Here's my interpretation: You're just another hypocritical Bush drone, unwilling to even consider anything that contradicts your faith.

So be it. You're dismissed.

So you admit that you're just taking quotes "verbatim" (lol, like that means anything) out from the research and the pundit's interpretation of it....without any comprehensive understanding. In YOUR own quotes, it says there are multiple conclusions from the research....but it's no coincidence that you only provide those "verbatim quotes" on the only conclusion that YOU wish to accept.

Sorry son, but the fact that the Bush administration tried to deflect an unfavorable conclusion, a consensus of 16 intel agencies, is neither surprising nor a legitimate example of differing conclusions. One would have to be either painfully naive or a blind partisan to think BushCO would stand up and say, "Yes, our intelligence professionals are correct. Our War on Terror has failed. America is less safe." The plain and simple fact, supported by the articles and quotes provided, is that America is now less safe. Sad, but true, no matter how desperately you don't want to accept it.

So here's my interpretation of you....you are the very thing that you chastise others for being. I'm a long ways away from school, internet professor.

No problem. You'll get there.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Pokerguy, have you missed the stories coming out of Anbar?

Six months ago Anbar was ?unwinnable? AQ had set up its like ?Islamic State of Iraq? and everyone was crying about how we would never be able to uproot them.
Today the story has 100% turned around. AQ is on the run in Anbar and the people who supported them six months ago are fighting against them today.

There are signs of this happening in other parts of Iraq as well.

The situation in Iraq is very fluid. Track down and read some of things being written by people who are actually there on the ground. Especially the people who venture out of green zone and actually see what life is like for the average Iraqi. You get a different picture than the one presented on our nightly news casts.
A car bombing that kills 100 or 20 bodies being found in the street makes a great news story, seven million people going about their daily lives in Baghdad doesn?t.

You won't believe it, but actually the US media is doing a tremendous effort to hide the true cost of this war. Everybody knows the number of dead... how about injured? How about the maimed, burnt and limbless? You know.. those pictures and number you never see:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/03/08/night_flights/index.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery2.htm

Have a look at those numbers, and what will be the cost of having so many permanently incapacitated (young) people. And this of course is just the economic cost, no consideration for the emotional costs this terrible injuries have on these guys. Economics Nobel prize winner Joseph Stieglitz took some of his time to calculate it:

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/js...load/2006_Cost_of_War_in_Iraq_NBER.pdf

If you live near NYC you are also invited to come with me and meet a guy who returned from Iraq last year. He's 24, without both legs and horribly burnt on most of his body and his face. He buys his newspaper in the same Deli where I go every morning, on Columbus avenue and 72nd street. He his so devastated in his face his wife was not able to recognize him and they eventually separated.

You know, I might be idealistic... and he is just one person. Of course the life of a single person is of little importance in the big schemes of international politics. But after just a few minutes imagining the life of this young man in his condition (for the rest of his life) I would not be able to say this war is cheap. He didn't pay it cheap.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Harvey do you think the removal of Saddam was a good thing?

Relative to the cost of almost 3,500 American lives (more than died in the attacks of 9-11 and rising) and over a trillion dollars in debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we've left this planet, it was more useless than tits on a boar. Saddam was nobody's nice guy, but he was in a box, and he wasn't going anywhere. Removing him hasn't stopped the death count of Iraqi's, either.

There was absolutely no reason to change the status quo. Furthermore, the Bushwhackos had real intelligence beforfe they lauched their war of LIES that predicted exactly what has happened.

Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed
Senate Panel Releases Assessments From 2003

By Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 26, 2007; Page A01

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.

The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.

More than four years after the March 2003 invasion, with Iraq still mired in violence and 150,000 U.S. troops there under continued attack from al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, the intelligence warnings seem prophetic. Other predictions, however, were less than accurate. Intelligence analysts assessed that any postwar increase in terrorism would slowly subside in three to five years, and that Iraq's vast oil reserves would quickly facilitate economic reconstruction.

The report is the latest release in the Senate committee's ongoing study of prewar intelligence. A July 2004 report identified intelligence-gathering and analysis failures related to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Still pending is a study of how the administration used intelligence on Iraq in the run-up to the war.

The report was released the same day President Bush signed a $120 billion war funding bill from Congress that includes benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

In a statement attached to yesterday's 229-page report, the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), and three other Democratic panel members said: "The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al Qaeda terrorists."

In addition to portraying a terrorist nexus between Iraq and al-Qaeda that did not exist, the Democrats said, the Bush administration "also kept from the American people . . . the sobering intelligence assessments it received at the time" -- that an Iraq war could allow al-Qaeda "to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at Americans it did not have prior to the invasion."

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), vice chairman of the panel, and three other Republican members said the assessments were "not a crystal ball" and that the warnings emphasized in the committee report "lacked detail or specificity that would have guided military planners." Overall, the Republicans said the report "exaggerates the significance of the prewar assessments" and that the inquiry itself "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship."

Most of the information in the report was drawn from two lengthy assessments issued by the National Intelligence Council in January 2003, titled "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq" and "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," both of which the Senate report reprints with only minor redactions. The assessments were requested by Richard N. Haass, then director of policy planning at the State Department, and were written by Paul R. Pillar, the national intelligence officer for the Near East, as a synthesis of views across the 16-agency intelligence community.

The report includes lists indicating that the analyses, which were reported by The Washington Post last week, were distributed at senior levels of the White House and the State and Defense departments and to the congressional armed services and appropriations committees. At the time, the White House and the Pentagon were saying that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators, democracy would be quickly established and Iraq would become a model for the Middle East. Initial post-invasion plans called for U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in summer 2003.

The classified reports, however, predicted that establishing a stable democratic government would be a long challenge because Iraq's political culture did "not foster liberalism or democracy" and there was "no concept of loyal opposition and no history of alternation of power."

They also said that competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurd factions would "encourage terrorist groups to take advantage of a volatile security environment to launch attacks within Iraq." Because of the divided Iraqi society, there was "a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so."

While predicting that terrorist threats heightened by the invasion would probably decline within five years, the assessments said that lines between al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world "could become blurred." U.S. occupation of Iraq "probably would boost proponents of political Islam" throughout the Muslim world and "funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over U.S. actions."

In the economic arena, the analysts predicted that oil revenue would greatly ease the rebuilding of Iraq's economy, provided that oil fields and infrastructure were not severely damaged. But, they said, "cuts in electricity or looting of distribution networks would have a cascading disastrous impact" and that large amounts of outside assistance would still be needed to provide services such as water and sanitation.

The assessments, like the Bush administration's public statements, inaccurately predicted that Iraq's oil production could be quickly increased, forecasting that production could rise to 3.1 million barrels a day "within several months of the end of hostilities." The analysts did not foresee that sabotage, theft and continued fighting would leave Iraq with oil production at less than 2.4 million barrels per day.

The Senate panel said it focused on the two NIC assessments because they were the only prewar analyses representing the consensus views of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and other agencies. The committee also published excerpts from other prewar reports and assessments from individual agencies.

I don't care how you try to minimize this, the Bushwhacko cabal of traitors simply ignored this and other information and stovepiped and cherry picked isolated items to support thier lies to Congress and the American people.

It's fitting that this information should come to light around Memorial Day. This criminal adminstration must love this holiday. Maybe that's why they contrbute so many newly dead American troops to celebrate.

🙁

Are you proud of that? :shocked:

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Or should we have put him back in power the second we learned that there weren?t big piles of WMD laying around?

If you could do that, now, you might almost convince me that some ooga booga deity exists. Barring that, your question is simply superflous trolling.

Furthermore, all you ever do is rehash the old ?war of lies? arguments.

That's because, for all of YOUR lies, neither you nor any of the Bushwhacko murders has ever been able to prove they DIDN'T lie about every ever-changing, ever false excuse they've offered as attempts to justify starting their elective war of LIES.

I'll stop talking about it when you can prove they didn't lie. Until then, I have no reason to stop stating the obvious, that you're just another lying apologist for a bunch of lying murderers and traitors.

When ever some trots out the ?but Clinton did it too? argument you attack them for living in the past, but that is all you do.

It doesn't matter how many stains you find on Monica's dress or anything else Clinton did while in office, NOTHING he did relates to the tragic costs in American lives, American money, American credibility in the world and more resulting from the Bushwackos' war of LIES in Iraq.

GET OVER IT! Clinton is irrelevant to the discussion... PERIOD! Continuing to raise Clinton's name just confirms that you're the same liar you've always been.

Whether the war was justified or not does not matter anymore. We are there now and must live with the here and now. To say ?the war wasn?t justified therefore we must leave? completely ignores the consequences of leaving.

Yes, we are there, and we're stuck with the situation and the costs of dealing with it, but your statement still doesn't address one issue -- Dealing with the murderers and traitors who caused it, specifically by indicting, trying and convicting them for their crimes against the United States and under International law.

Finally, we all understand that you think Bush is a traitor, murderer and war criminal, you?ve told us that a million times.
Now why don?t you try contributing something new to the arguments and discussions.

Finally, we all understand that you don't have the balls to stand up and admit Bush is a liar, traitor, murderer and war criminal, despite all the hard evidence that it's so. You?ve told us that a million times.

Now why don?t you try contributing something true to the arguments and discussions. :roll:

Originally posted by: JD50
JHC are you capable of posting anything other than this crap? We got it, your nutso and you hate GWB and blame him for all of the ills in the world. You have turned into a bigger troll than Dave.

Ah... I see. Standing up and confronting lying sycophants like you and PrevaricatorJohn makes me "nutso" and "a bigger troll than Dave," but standing down and allowing you morons to continue posting your lies unchallenged would make somehow magically make all the Bushwhackos' lies become true and solve the world's problems. My compliments to your crack dealer on the potency of what he's selling you. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

When it comes to truth and reality, I'll stick with Dave. :thumbsup: 😎 :thumbsup:

 

[Jaha]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Harvey do you think the removal of Saddam was a good thing?

Relative to the cost of almost 3,500 American lives (more than died in the attacks of 9-11 and rising) and over a trillion dollars in debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we've left this planet, it was more useless than tits on a boar. Saddam was nobody's nice guy, but he was in a box, and he wasn't going anywhere. Removing him hasn't stopped the death count of Iraqi's, either.

There was absolutely no reason to change the status quo. Furthermore, the Bushwhackos had real intelligence beforfe they lauched their war of LIES that predicted exactly what has happened.

Analysts' Warnings of Iraq Chaos Detailed
Senate Panel Releases Assessments From 2003

By Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 26, 2007; Page A01

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world.

The intelligence assessments, made in January 2003 and widely circulated within the Bush administration before the war, said that establishing democracy in Iraq would be "a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge." The assessments noted that Iraqi political culture was "largely bereft of the social underpinnings" to support democratic development.

More than four years after the March 2003 invasion, with Iraq still mired in violence and 150,000 U.S. troops there under continued attack from al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, the intelligence warnings seem prophetic. Other predictions, however, were less than accurate. Intelligence analysts assessed that any postwar increase in terrorism would slowly subside in three to five years, and that Iraq's vast oil reserves would quickly facilitate economic reconstruction.

The report is the latest release in the Senate committee's ongoing study of prewar intelligence. A July 2004 report identified intelligence-gathering and analysis failures related to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Still pending is a study of how the administration used intelligence on Iraq in the run-up to the war.

The report was released the same day President Bush signed a $120 billion war funding bill from Congress that includes benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

In a statement attached to yesterday's 229-page report, the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), and three other Democratic panel members said: "The most chilling and prescient warning from the intelligence community prior to the war was that the American invasion would bring about instability in Iraq that would be exploited by Iran and al Qaeda terrorists."

In addition to portraying a terrorist nexus between Iraq and al-Qaeda that did not exist, the Democrats said, the Bush administration "also kept from the American people . . . the sobering intelligence assessments it received at the time" -- that an Iraq war could allow al-Qaeda "to establish the presence in Iraq and opportunity to strike at Americans it did not have prior to the invasion."

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), vice chairman of the panel, and three other Republican members said the assessments were "not a crystal ball" and that the warnings emphasized in the committee report "lacked detail or specificity that would have guided military planners." Overall, the Republicans said the report "exaggerates the significance of the prewar assessments" and that the inquiry itself "has become too embroiled in politics and partisanship."

Most of the information in the report was drawn from two lengthy assessments issued by the National Intelligence Council in January 2003, titled "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq" and "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," both of which the Senate report reprints with only minor redactions. The assessments were requested by Richard N. Haass, then director of policy planning at the State Department, and were written by Paul R. Pillar, the national intelligence officer for the Near East, as a synthesis of views across the 16-agency intelligence community.

The report includes lists indicating that the analyses, which were reported by The Washington Post last week, were distributed at senior levels of the White House and the State and Defense departments and to the congressional armed services and appropriations committees. At the time, the White House and the Pentagon were saying that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators, democracy would be quickly established and Iraq would become a model for the Middle East. Initial post-invasion plans called for U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in summer 2003.

The classified reports, however, predicted that establishing a stable democratic government would be a long challenge because Iraq's political culture did "not foster liberalism or democracy" and there was "no concept of loyal opposition and no history of alternation of power."

They also said that competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurd factions would "encourage terrorist groups to take advantage of a volatile security environment to launch attacks within Iraq." Because of the divided Iraqi society, there was "a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so."

While predicting that terrorist threats heightened by the invasion would probably decline within five years, the assessments said that lines between al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world "could become blurred." U.S. occupation of Iraq "probably would boost proponents of political Islam" throughout the Muslim world and "funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over U.S. actions."

In the economic arena, the analysts predicted that oil revenue would greatly ease the rebuilding of Iraq's economy, provided that oil fields and infrastructure were not severely damaged. But, they said, "cuts in electricity or looting of distribution networks would have a cascading disastrous impact" and that large amounts of outside assistance would still be needed to provide services such as water and sanitation.

The assessments, like the Bush administration's public statements, inaccurately predicted that Iraq's oil production could be quickly increased, forecasting that production could rise to 3.1 million barrels a day "within several months of the end of hostilities." The analysts did not foresee that sabotage, theft and continued fighting would leave Iraq with oil production at less than 2.4 million barrels per day.

The Senate panel said it focused on the two NIC assessments because they were the only prewar analyses representing the consensus views of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and other agencies. The committee also published excerpts from other prewar reports and assessments from individual agencies.

I don't care how you try to minimize this, the Bushwhacko cabal of traitors simply ignored this and other information and stovepiped and cherry picked isolated items to support thier lies to Congress and the American people.

It's fitting that this information should come to light around Memorial Day. This criminal adminstration must love this holiday. Maybe that's why they contrbute so many newly dead American troops to celebrate.

🙁

Are you proud of that? :shocked:

Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Or should we have put him back in power the second we learned that there weren?t big piles of WMD laying around?

If you could do that, now, you might almost convince me that some ooga booga deity exists. Barring that, your question is simply superflous trolling.

Furthermore, all you ever do is rehash the old ?war of lies? arguments.

That's because, for all of YOUR lies, neither you nor any of the Bushwhacko murders has ever been able to prove they DIDN'T lie about every ever-changing, ever false excuse they've offered as attempts to justify starting their elective war of LIES.

I'll stop talking about it when you can prove they didn't lie. Until then, I have no reason to stop stating the obvious, that you're just another lying apologist for a bunch of lying murderers and traitors.

When ever some trots out the ?but Clinton did it too? argument you attack them for living in the past, but that is all you do.

It doesn't matter how many stains you find on Monica's dress or anything else Clinton did while in office, NOTHING he did relates to the tragic costs in American lives, American money, American credibility in the world and more resulting from the Bushwackos' war of LIES in Iraq.

GET OVER IT! Clinton is irrelevant to the discussion... PERIOD! Continuing to raise Clinton's name just confirms that you're the same liar you've always been.

Whether the war was justified or not does not matter anymore. We are there now and must live with the here and now. To say ?the war wasn?t justified therefore we must leave? completely ignores the consequences of leaving.

Yes, we are there, and we're stuck with the situation and the costs of dealing with it, but your statement still doesn't address one issue -- Dealing with the murderers and traitors who caused it, specifically by indicting, trying and convicting them for their crimes against the United States and under International law.

Finally, we all understand that you think Bush is a traitor, murderer and war criminal, you?ve told us that a million times.
Now why don?t you try contributing something new to the arguments and discussions.

Finally, we all understand that you don't have the balls to stand up and admit Bush is a liar, traitor, murderer and war criminal, despite all the hard evidence that it's so. You?ve told us that a million times.

Now why don?t you try contributing something true to the arguments and discussions. :roll:

War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaha
War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

The Bushwhackos have violated international laws against torture under the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory. That makes their actions crimes under U.S. law, as well.

No amount of therapy will change that. Your reality check just bounced. :roll:

 

[Jaha]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Jaha
War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

The Bushwhackos have violated international laws against torture under the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory. That makes their actions crimes under U.S. law, as well.

No amount of therapy will change that. Your reality check just bounced. :roll:

Geneva Conventions don't apply to enemy combatants. Also, show me proof, not evidence, that torture occurred and that Bush knew or was responsible for it happening.

Seek therapy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaha
Geneva Conventions don't apply to enemy combatants. Also, show me proof, not evidence, that torture occurred and that Bush knew or was responsible for it happening.

"Enemy combatants" is a bullsh8 parsing of a term invented by the Bushwhackos in their never ending attempts to justify their crimes.

Seek therapy.

Sorry if you can't deal with the truth. Prove otherwise, or FOAD! :laugh:

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Jaha

War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

Nuremberg Principles

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).


Bush is a war criminal under the Nuremberg Principles.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jaha

War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

Nuremberg Principles

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).


Bush is a war criminal under the Nuremberg Principles.

QFT. Bush's invasion of Iraq was clearly an act of agression.

 

[Engineer]

Still seaking some sort of justification for the lie of a war that's over 4 years old now?

Shakes head.....

 

[Jaha]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jaha

War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

Nuremberg Principles

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).


Bush is a war criminal under the Nuremberg Principles.

What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Jaha

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jaha

War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

Nuremberg Principles

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).


Bush is a war criminal under the Nuremberg Principles.

What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

They were peaceful to us.

 

[Jaha]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaha

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Jaha

War criminal? Funny how the people who have the most to gain and would want Bush and Company out the most don't utter this nonsense.....

You should seek therapy, seriously.

Nuremberg Principles

Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).


Bush is a war criminal under the Nuremberg Principles.

What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

They were peaceful to us.

Were they? Do peaceful people kill our allies and fund it?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaha
What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

They were peaceful to us.

Not only that, but Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to kill "Iraqi's" [sic] or anyone else. It's another dishonest BushCo propaganda point, obediently parroted by what appears to be just another ignorant Bush drone. Ironic that he calls us tools.

 

[Jaha]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaha
What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

They were peaceful to us.

Not only that, but Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to kill "Iraqi's" [sic] or anyone else. It's another dishonest BushCo propaganda point, obediently parroted by what appears to be just another ignorant Bush drone. Ironic that he calls us tools.

I've had a few to drink and meant to type "paid suicide bombers to kill Israelis". Either way though, you don't believe Saddam committed genocide on his own people?

What do you think Saddam was hanged for?

Regarding paying suicide bombers to kill Israelis:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562619.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

And look! My sources aren't FOX News!

I believe the official term for your problem is "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Seek help.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jaha

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaha
What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

They were peaceful to us.

Not only that, but Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to kill "Iraqi's" [sic] or anyone else. It's another dishonest BushCo propaganda point, obediently parroted by what appears to be just another ignorant Bush drone. Ironic that he calls us tools.

I've had a few to drink and meant to type "paid suicide bombers to kill Israelis". Either way though, you don't believe Saddam committed genocide on his own people?

What do you think Saddam was hanged for?

That's a nice diversion, but it has nothing to do with Bush's invasion of Iraq being an act of aggression.

Regarding paying suicide bombers to kill Israelis:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562619.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

And look! My sources aren't FOX News!

I'm quite familiar with the talking point. I've helped refute it several times. Yes, the Iraqi government paid a death benefit of sorts to the families of suicide bombers, and I agree that was wrong. That's not what you claimed, however. Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to attack Israel. That's another BushCo distortion, used to sell his invasion.

Seems a bit hypocritical given your complaint about "spewing half truths" earlier in this thread. Similarly, you first attacked others for ignoring the "most advanced intelligence agency in the world", then ignored that very agency (and 15 others) when their conclusions contradict your partisan dogma. Equally hypocritical.

I believe the official term for your problem is "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Seek help.

That's rich. I believe the official name for your problem is Cognitive Dissonance; you're so invested in your Bush worship you are mentally incapable of processing anything that challenges it, no matter how blatant or well-documented. You could consider professional help, but even turning off Rush would be a good first step. Get well soon.

 

[Jaha]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Jaha

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaha
What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

They were peaceful to us.

Not only that, but Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to kill "Iraqi's" [sic] or anyone else. It's another dishonest BushCo propaganda point, obediently parroted by what appears to be just another ignorant Bush drone. Ironic that he calls us tools.

I've had a few to drink and meant to type "paid suicide bombers to kill Israelis". Either way though, you don't believe Saddam committed genocide on his own people?

What do you think Saddam was hanged for?

That's a nice diversion, but it has nothing to do with Bush's invasion of Iraq being an act of aggression.

Regarding paying suicide bombers to kill Israelis:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562619.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

And look! My sources aren't FOX News!

I'm quite familiar with the talking point. I've helped refute it several times. Yes, the Iraqi government paid a death benefit of sorts to the families of suicide bombers, and I agree that was wrong. That's not what you claimed, however. Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to attack Israel. That's another BushCo distortion, used to sell his invasion.

Seems a bit hypocritical given your complaint about "spewing half truths" earlier in this thread. Similarly, you first attacked others for ignoring the "most advanced intelligence agency in the world", then ignored that very agency and 15 others when their conclusions contradict your partisan dogma. Equally hypocritical.

I believe the official term for your problem is "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Seek help.

That's rich. I believe the official name for your problem is Cognitive Dissonance; you're so invested in your Bush worship you are mentally incapable of processing anything that challenges it, no matter how blatant or well-documented. You could consider professional help, but even turning off Rush would be a good first step. Get well soon.

How stereotypical of you. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.

Nice job addressing the links. I already know what you're going to say anyhow and it's useless even trying to have an adult conversation with you.

Seek help

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Jaha

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Jaha

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaha
What a tool...as well as Bowfinger. For (i) to be valid, it must coincide with (a). It was not a "crime against peace", unless you consider Saddam and Iraq pre-war to be a peaceful nation paying suicide bombers to kill Iraqi's.

They were peaceful to us.

Not only that, but Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to kill "Iraqi's" [sic] or anyone else. It's another dishonest BushCo propaganda point, obediently parroted by what appears to be just another ignorant Bush drone. Ironic that he calls us tools.

I've had a few to drink and meant to type "paid suicide bombers to kill Israelis". Either way though, you don't believe Saddam committed genocide on his own people?

What do you think Saddam was hanged for?

That's a nice diversion, but it has nothing to do with Bush's invasion of Iraq being an act of aggression.

Regarding paying suicide bombers to kill Israelis:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562619.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

And look! My sources aren't FOX News!

I'm quite familiar with the talking point. I've helped refute it several times. Yes, the Iraqi government paid a death benefit of sorts to the families of suicide bombers, and I agree that was wrong. That's not what you claimed, however. Iraq was NOT paying suicide bombers to attack Israel. That's another BushCo distortion, used to sell his invasion.

Seems a bit hypocritical given your complaint about "spewing half truths" earlier in this thread. Similarly, you first attacked others for ignoring the "most advanced intelligence agency in the world", then ignored that very agency and 15 others when their conclusions contradict your partisan dogma. Equally hypocritical.

I believe the official term for your problem is "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Seek help.

That's rich. I believe the official name for your problem is Cognitive Dissonance; you're so invested in your Bush worship you are mentally incapable of processing anything that challenges it, no matter how blatant or well-documented. You could consider professional help, but even turning off Rush would be a good first step. Get well soon.

How stereotypical of you. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh.

Nice job addressing the links. I already know what you're going to say anyhow and it's useless even trying to have an adult conversation with you.

Seek help

I don't think you even tried.

 

[Thump553]

Having lived through both wars, PJ's arguments that Iraq is not as bad as Vietnam (yet) is totally unpersuasive to me. Some significant points to remember:

-defense spending figures are wholely illusory. Like Iraq, Vietnam was mostly funded by borrowing-spending our childrens' money. The big defense spending in the sixties was caused by the Cold War and big ticket nuclear weapon programs.

-medical advances and military technology advances have been huge in the last couple of decades. Not only is it harder to now kill an American soldier, many of those who once would have died in Iraq now survive as horribly crippled persons. These don't count in PJ's stats. Disregarding the human cost of these substantially ruined lives, our society will have to bear the burden of the expense of the much larger (and more severely) wounded Iraq Vets for years to come-unless the government ditches it's responsibility.

-Neither war has an acheivable goal. In Iraq it's especially gauling because the Administration's stated goals are both vague and constantly varying (rid Iraq of WMD, bring democracy to the Arab Middle East, bring stability to the Middle East, etc.). Iraq is a classic example of a d*mn fool kicking a hornet's nest without the slightest thought in advance to the consequences.

-Vietnam had the draft-which caused a huge divide between the attitudes of the young draft age people and their parents (WWII generation). It wasn't until 1970 or so-when it became clear to our parents that Vietnam was a blackhole soaking up the lives of their kids (or their friends kids) did the older generation become solidly opposed to the war. Iraq's opposition is more diffuse and perhaps more along idealogical grounds than the type of class warfare we had back home during Vietnam.

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is like comparing a stroke to a heart attack-neither is beneficial.