First, thanks for actually responding to some of the points I raised. It makes for a much more informative discussion when we talk about the issues. Having said that ...
Originally posted by: Daxxax
First, You say that the pro-war people are the ones who stick their fingers in their ears but from my point of view it's YOU who does not want to believe what seems to be so black and white to the rest of us. You say that we are brainwashed?? I say that YOU are brainwashed. Nothing you mentioned in your post stands on solid ground, nothing. Aluminum tubes?? Who gives a crap about Aluminum tubes!!! The Uranium issue?? Lots of information that at one time is thought to be true can easily change over time. It doesn't mean that they were a deliberate fabrication made up by the Bush administration all it means is that the intelligence was bad. I don't really know the specifics and neither do you. But it really doesn't matter because we had more then enough information that was FACTUAL about Iraq and their blatant disreguard of the U.N. resolutions.
You should give a crap about aluiminum tubes if you want to understand how this war was sold by Bush & Co. The fact is that the aluminum tubes and the alleged uranium purchase were
the two key pieces of evidence Bush presented to get Congress to give him war powers and to get the U.N. to pass 1441. Several Congressmen were late quoted as saying they would NOT have granted this had they known the evidence was false.
Also, be very clear that the alleged uranium purchase was NOT bad intelligence - it was a
forged document, a fabrication, an indictable offense were it offered as evidence in a criminal trial. In short, the Bush administration lied to try to gain support for its attack on Iraq. The baloney re. aluminum tubes was only slightly less outrageous - nobody outside the Bush administration supported the suggestion that these tubes were useful for WMD production.
Finally, you say that "we had more than enough information that was factual about Iraq ..." What information, please? I mean this sincerely. We know they had their al Samoud missles that slightly exceeded the U.N. range restriction. We know that ONE Iraqi defector described the WMD capabilites Iraq once had (past tense), but we also found out later that he said he had personal knowledge that they had since been destroyed. We know Iraq wasn't cooperating
enthusiastically with the inspectors, but the head inspector - the man with the first-hand information - allowed that their cooperation was adequate and improving. What other specific information did we see that justified this war? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember it. If you have references, I'd truly like to see them.
Second I don't think Bush or his administration ever called anti-war peeps Unamerican, or supporters of terrorism, or supporters of Saddam. A few people like me might of called you that but not Bush, LOL. In fact I believe Bush said that he welcomed demonstrations and he respected other peoples point of view, although he didn't agree with them.
Sure they did, just like you do in the first sentence below. Remember the "you're with us or you support terrorism" speech? Bush & Co, constantly referred to opponents of the war as Saddam supporters or as people/countries supporting terrorism. It was casually thrown into almost every administration communications about the coming war. Many war supporters either cannot or will not acknowledge that there is a whole spectrum of positions between "we're behind you 1000% Mr. President" and "we love Saddam and terrorists, and hate the U.S.A." It was an extremely divisive and dishonest tactic, but it intimidated a lot of people into keeping their mouths shut. Nobody likes to be called unpatriotic.
Third, Why would you not want a POS like Saddam out of power?? The WMD was a major part of my belief in war but I also wanted him out for other reasons. He was a threat to his direct neigbors, He oppressed millions of his own people, His regime was responsible of the murder of thousands of Kurds. Give me one reason why you would want to keep him in power??
You're being dishonest - I never suggested for a minute that I wanted to keep Saddam in power. As to why the war itself is wrong in spite of the goods things it achieved, it's been addressed many times in this and other threads. I won't repeat myself, but if you really care, just look at my first two or three posts in this thread.
Fourth, I know you probably think that your on a higher intellectual level then the rest of us, (Most Liberals do) and you probably assume that I am just a right-wing, brainwashed sheep who only repeats what he's heard on Foxnews, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity or whoever. Your wrong again, I am a very independant thinker. Although there are a lot of conservatives and liberals who are programmed by the media(well, mostly liberals) I'm not one of them. For example I have a problem with some people in the religous right. So don't paint me that way please..Thank-you.
I don't really know who you are or what you believe. All I know is that based on your posts here, you
appear to have uncritically accepted every claim from the Bush administration without examing the great mounds of conflicting evidence. You may have put a great deal of thought into the war, carefully weighed all of the pros and cons, and reached a well-reasoned conclusion that this war was justified. None of us can tell that, however, when you limit your responses to digs and misinformation instead of responding to the issues. I'm not at a higher intellectual level, but I have done my homework about the war and the (IMO) excuses used to justify it.
I need to get back to work now. Since I don't believe you and I will ever agree on these issues. I will probably not post in this thread again until the WMD are found and you are proven wrong. Should be sometime in the next few months. I'll be a expecting a "I'm sorry you were right" response from ya. So be sure to check back when that happens. I'll be waiting.
🙂
And finally, this has also been discussed in other threads, but I don't believe finding or not finding WMDs is relevant to the justification for the war. We already had a process in place to find any WMDs. The inspectors said they needed more time, and the United Nations - the body that passed 1441 in the first place - wanted to allow this process to proceed. The U.S. had NO justification for short-circuiting this process, taking the law into our own hands, and unilaterally attacking Iraq. If there are no WMDs found, it confirms that Bush is a dishonest boob, but it doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of the war. In my opinion, of course.
Anyway, best wishes.
