ExpertNovice, tha is perhaps the worst post I've seen this year
The infamous "main stream media" is to blame for people thinking that WMD's were the primary reason for going to Iraq? Please..Read some of what was said to the American people by various people in this administration.
That part, however, is pulitzer prize winning stuff compared to this gem: "#2. Use a bit of logic. Here is a bit of help.
Most intelligence commnuites claimed before and after we went to war to fulfill President Clinton's policy to depose Saddam Hussein, that Iraq had WMD's. This includes Russia and France.
Saddam Hussein claimed that he had WMD's.
If you were a drug pusher. You are providing drugs to certain politicians. Those politicians tell you that you are going to be raided but they will stall the police. Those politicians do everything they can to prevent and stall the raid. Do you?
1. Do nothing and assume you will not be raided.
2. Move the drugs.
Finally, do you believe that Saddam Hussein was more stupid than a drug pusher? "
Wow, that is so broken I don't even know what to say - at best, it would appear you are saying that Saddam moved his oil before we invaded....
I'll say this - yes, there were voices on BOTH sides of the political spectrum here that said Saddam had WMD's. However, that does not excuse this administration from clearly trumping up certain reports that were in fact in question as to their authenticity - the Uranium/Niger crap, the aluminum tubes story, those ridiculous audio tapes played by Powell in front of the UN ( he may as well have done a finger puppet show depicting two 'guards' talking to each other) - add to that the conceit from Rummy - "we know he has them, we know where they are" - but we aren't going to have the inspectors go there? What about all the 'interecepted radio communications' that the Iraqi military had been given clearance to fire their chemical weapons at incoming troops? CoughBULLCRAP#$#Cough. I suppose they managed to bury them so well that we can't find them to this day?
At the end of the day, is Iraq better off? Probably. Saddam was garbage, and pretty much treated his people like garbage.
Is the US safer? Difficult to say - we haven't been attacked since 9/11 on our own soil, but then again nearly 8 years passed between the first and the last attacks on the WTC's.
Bottom line for me is that I don't think it was worth it - 1700+ US soldiers killed, 10,000+ seriously wounded, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, still no real end in sight, global opinions of the US at lowpoint for the last 100 years...no WMD's.
I wish there was a poll taken before we invaded Iraq that said "hypothetically, if we go in, don't find any WMD's after 2 years, lose 1700 men, 10k+ badly injured, insurgency attacks every day, etc, etc, etc...basically if we had spelled out what has happend up to this day, how many people would still have been in favor of going in - I bet hardly anyone would have said yes, we should still go in, but they will put reasons out of their A now to defend it...."but look we've rebuilt schools" - who gives a rat's ass? I live in a city with the worst public school system in the nation - how about fixing that before you rebuild schools in Iraq?
I commend, respect, and support the troops who have been there and/or are there now, I just think they were put in a situation they shouldn't have been in, period.
The infamous "main stream media" is to blame for people thinking that WMD's were the primary reason for going to Iraq? Please..Read some of what was said to the American people by various people in this administration.
That part, however, is pulitzer prize winning stuff compared to this gem: "#2. Use a bit of logic. Here is a bit of help.
Most intelligence commnuites claimed before and after we went to war to fulfill President Clinton's policy to depose Saddam Hussein, that Iraq had WMD's. This includes Russia and France.
Saddam Hussein claimed that he had WMD's.
If you were a drug pusher. You are providing drugs to certain politicians. Those politicians tell you that you are going to be raided but they will stall the police. Those politicians do everything they can to prevent and stall the raid. Do you?
1. Do nothing and assume you will not be raided.
2. Move the drugs.
Finally, do you believe that Saddam Hussein was more stupid than a drug pusher? "
Wow, that is so broken I don't even know what to say - at best, it would appear you are saying that Saddam moved his oil before we invaded....
I'll say this - yes, there were voices on BOTH sides of the political spectrum here that said Saddam had WMD's. However, that does not excuse this administration from clearly trumping up certain reports that were in fact in question as to their authenticity - the Uranium/Niger crap, the aluminum tubes story, those ridiculous audio tapes played by Powell in front of the UN ( he may as well have done a finger puppet show depicting two 'guards' talking to each other) - add to that the conceit from Rummy - "we know he has them, we know where they are" - but we aren't going to have the inspectors go there? What about all the 'interecepted radio communications' that the Iraqi military had been given clearance to fire their chemical weapons at incoming troops? CoughBULLCRAP#$#Cough. I suppose they managed to bury them so well that we can't find them to this day?
At the end of the day, is Iraq better off? Probably. Saddam was garbage, and pretty much treated his people like garbage.
Is the US safer? Difficult to say - we haven't been attacked since 9/11 on our own soil, but then again nearly 8 years passed between the first and the last attacks on the WTC's.
Bottom line for me is that I don't think it was worth it - 1700+ US soldiers killed, 10,000+ seriously wounded, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, still no real end in sight, global opinions of the US at lowpoint for the last 100 years...no WMD's.
I wish there was a poll taken before we invaded Iraq that said "hypothetically, if we go in, don't find any WMD's after 2 years, lose 1700 men, 10k+ badly injured, insurgency attacks every day, etc, etc, etc...basically if we had spelled out what has happend up to this day, how many people would still have been in favor of going in - I bet hardly anyone would have said yes, we should still go in, but they will put reasons out of their A now to defend it...."but look we've rebuilt schools" - who gives a rat's ass? I live in a city with the worst public school system in the nation - how about fixing that before you rebuild schools in Iraq?
I commend, respect, and support the troops who have been there and/or are there now, I just think they were put in a situation they shouldn't have been in, period.
Facebook
Twitter