This is interesting, yeah thats it, "Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war"

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I like reading Dari's posts. They give me insight into the rationalization process used in the White House that I'd other wise not understand.

You're gonna love this:

"My point is, like other citizenry, Americans tend to believe their leaders? Why, it's because they are their leaders and were duly elected. The second point is, the accusations against Hussein's Iraq were not begotten out of thin air. They are the product of 12 years of history that spans three U.S. Administrations. Why is this war even partisan? Clinton supported it. Albright supported it. George H. W. Bush supported it. Our friends and allies around the globe supported it. Fact is, before the first shots were fired, no one disputed that Iraq may have had WMDs. No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms. No one disputed the fact that the marriage of terror cells and terror-states was bad for civilization. No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes. No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight. No one disputed these. Then why the phuck do we continue to debate the legitimacy of the war?"

at Moonbeam. (I sometimes think it's a statement of my intelligence when the less you say the more I understand your posts. )



Dari, are you sure about the following statements?
<<No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms.>>

<<No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes.>>

<<No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight.>>

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Dari

My point is, like other citizenry, Americans tend to believe their leaders? Why, it's because they are their leaders and were duly elected. The second point is, the accusations against Hussein's Iraq were not begotten out of thin air. They are the product of 12 years of history that spans three U.S. Administrations. Why is this war even partisan? Clinton supported it. Albright supported it. George H. W. Bush supported it. Our friends and allies around the globe supported it. Fact is, before the first shots were fired, no one disputed that Iraq may have had WMDs. No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms. No one disputed the fact that the marriage of terror cells and terror-states was bad for civilization. No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes. No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight. No one disputed these. Then why the phuck do we continue to debate the legitimacy of the war?

OMG. Dari isn't delusional. He's completely lost him mind. Unless this is meant to be sarcasm. Because no one in their right mind could believe it.

Little wonder the Bush administration can get away with the crimes they get away with when this is what they're teaching our kids in school.

We debate the legitimacy of the war because the Bush administration lied and continues to lie to get the American people to support the war and now the effort to rebuild what Bush unnecessarily destroyed in Iraq.

Dari, by the time you wake up and realize what's happened it will all be over. And that's exactly what they count on.

Good job.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I like reading Dari's posts. They give me insight into the rationalization process used in the White House that I'd other wise not understand.

You're gonna love this:

"My point is, like other citizenry, Americans tend to believe their leaders? Why, it's because they are their leaders and were duly elected. The second point is, the accusations against Hussein's Iraq were not begotten out of thin air. They are the product of 12 years of history that spans three U.S. Administrations. Why is this war even partisan? Clinton supported it. Albright supported it. George H. W. Bush supported it. Our friends and allies around the globe supported it. Fact is, before the first shots were fired, no one disputed that Iraq may have had WMDs. No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms. No one disputed the fact that the marriage of terror cells and terror-states was bad for civilization. No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes. No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight. No one disputed these. Then why the phuck do we continue to debate the legitimacy of the war?"

See. This is my point exactly. Without this bit of commentary I'd go about wondering what it is that resides in the minds of the Neo-anderthal resident in the seat of power. These folks think this way. It is a genetic pre-disposition to rationalize in a manner inconsistent with my thinking process. I'd have classified their methodology for assessing the reality about them as neurotic or maybe even sociopathic. I am now able to discern what may come next with some confidence and not assume it to be an impossibility based on some random affect of their meds.

I also believed that Saddam had WMD (Where's My Daddy ) and were prepared to use them against us, their neighbors and Israel. I also believed in the red line of death that our generals so bravely marched past. At this point I began to wonder why they would just zoom past the line of life and death with out too much interest in the Bio and Chem that would be released upon the troops. Did they know something that allowed them to put in harms way so many, including the civilian population. You see that is what I was told but not what I concluded when the bits and pieces made their transit to the light of day.

edit: In Context, I use the terms as follows; Neurotic = Irrational Fear, Sociopathic = anti social behavior.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I like reading Dari's posts. They give me insight into the rationalization process used in the White House that I'd other wise not understand.

You're gonna love this:

"My point is, like other citizenry, Americans tend to believe their leaders? Why, it's because they are their leaders and were duly elected. The second point is, the accusations against Hussein's Iraq were not begotten out of thin air. They are the product of 12 years of history that spans three U.S. Administrations. Why is this war even partisan? Clinton supported it. Albright supported it. George H. W. Bush supported it. Our friends and allies around the globe supported it. Fact is, before the first shots were fired, no one disputed that Iraq may have had WMDs. No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms. No one disputed the fact that the marriage of terror cells and terror-states was bad for civilization. No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes. No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight. No one disputed these. Then why the phuck do we continue to debate the legitimacy of the war?"

See. This is my point exactly. Without this bit of commentary I'd go about wondering what it is that resides in the minds of the Neo-anderthal resident in the seat of power. These folks think this way. It is a genetic pre-disposition to rationalize in a manner inconsistent with my thinking process. I'd have classified their methodology for assessing the reality about them as neurotic or maybe even sociopathic. I am now able to discern what may come next with some confidence and not assume it to be an impossibility based on some random affect of their meds.

I also believed that Saddam had WMD (Where's My Daddy ) and were prepared to use them against us, their neighbors and Israel. I also believed in the red line of death that our generals so bravely marched past. At this point I began to wonder why they would just zoom past the line of life and death with out too much interest in the Bio and Chem that would be released upon the troops. Did they know something that allowed them to put in harms way so many, including the civilian population. You see that is what I was told but not what I concluded when the bits and pieces made their transit to the light of day.

edit: In Context, I use the terms as follows; Neurotic = Irrational Fear, Sociopathic = anti social behavior.

I love a man who nose the truth.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Little wonder the Bush administration can get away with the crimes they get away with when this is what they're teaching our kids in school.

We debate the legitimacy of the war because the Bush administration lied and continues to lie to get the American people to support the war and now the effort to rebuild what Bush unnecessarily destroyed in Iraq.

Dari, by the time you wake up and realize what's happened it will all be over. And that's exactly what they count on.

Good job.

Since when have they been teaching this stuff in school? All of the schools I've attended have been strictly liberal. The never supported the Bush administration, much less the war in Iraq.

Tell me, BOBDN, why is it that you continue to call the Bush administration liars, criminals, and destroyers... and yet you won't say anything bad about Saddam Hussein? Do you honestly believe that Bush is worse than Saddam? If so, that is not only pathetic, but sad.

 

[LunarRay]

We probably feel the same about Saddam as many in that part of the world feel about Bush. The problem begins when we agree with each other.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Little wonder the Bush administration can get away with the crimes they get away with when this is what they're teaching our kids in school.

We debate the legitimacy of the war because the Bush administration lied and continues to lie to get the American people to support the war and now the effort to rebuild what Bush unnecessarily destroyed in Iraq.

Dari, by the time you wake up and realize what's happened it will all be over. And that's exactly what they count on.

Good job.

Since when have they been teaching this stuff in school? All of the schools I've attended have been strictly liberal. The never supported the Bush administration, much less the war in Iraq.

Tell me, BOBDN, why is it that you continue to call the Bush administration liars, criminals, and destroyers... and yet you won't say anything bad about Saddam Hussein? Do you honestly believe that Bush is worse than Saddam? If so, that is not only pathetic, but sad.

Saddam never invaded another nation on false pretenses killing thousands of innocent civilians, destroying an entire nation and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in my name and with my tax dollars.

I don't agree with any tyrants. Saddam or otherwise.

But the tyrant who claims to act in the name of my country is much the worse tyrant to me.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Little wonder the Bush administration can get away with the crimes they get away with when this is what they're teaching our kids in school.

We debate the legitimacy of the war because the Bush administration lied and continues to lie to get the American people to support the war and now the effort to rebuild what Bush unnecessarily destroyed in Iraq.

Dari, by the time you wake up and realize what's happened it will all be over. And that's exactly what they count on.

Good job.

Since when have they been teaching this stuff in school? All of the schools I've attended have been strictly liberal. The never supported the Bush administration, much less the war in Iraq.

Tell me, BOBDN, why is it that you continue to call the Bush administration liars, criminals, and destroyers... and yet you won't say anything bad about Saddam Hussein? Do you honestly believe that Bush is worse than Saddam? If so, that is not only pathetic, but sad.

Saddam never invaded another nation on false pretenses killing thousands of innocent civilians, destroying an entire nation and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in my name and with my tax dollars.

I don't agree with any tyrants. Saddam or otherwise.

But the tyrant who claims to act in the name of my country is much the worse tyrant to me.

So, you believe that Bush is a tyrant, and the only think that separates him from Saddam is that Bush is representing your country.

Interesting...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: chess9
Complete idiots are everywhere, or, as one wag noted: "You don't know what you don't know."

Anyway, Dari, what's your point? The American people are woefully misinformed and uninformed on a wide variety of issues. Don't even mention a simple topic in biology to your average Yale Law graduate because his eyes will glaze over and he might say something like: "Well, the jury's out whether evolution or creation is true." (Yes, GW). Most Americans don't have a clue where Iraq is, let alone whether we should be there. Fear of the stupidity of the common man (probably owns a Mac) is one of the reasons why our republican form of democracy was chosen by our founding fathers, Larry, Curley, and Moe. ,

Oh, and Red is such a closet liberal! , Bwuahahahaha!!

-Robert

My point is, like other citizenry, Americans tend to believe their leaders? Why, it's because they are their leaders and were duly elected. The second point is, the accusations against Hussein's Iraq were not begotten out of thin air. They are the product of 12 years of history that spans three U.S. Administrations. Why is this war even partisan? Clinton supported it. Albright supported it. George H. W. Bush supported it. Our friends and allies around the globe supported it. Fact is, before the first shots were fired, no one disputed that Iraq may have had WMDs. No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms. No one disputed the fact that the marriage of terror cells and terror-states was bad for civilization. No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes. No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight. No one disputed these. Then why the phuck do we continue to debate the legitimacy of the war?

Why the war was not partisan? Because our president, whom we suppose to trust, stood in front of entire nation in the STOU address, tell us how an incredible threat Iraq was to our national security. He cited lies or exagerated intelligence and present them to us as undisputed facts, and used our fear of another 911 to get the support from the nation.

We dispute the legitimacy of the war because now we have more information, we know the extend this administration went to scared us into this war. It is pathetic that you people, even with truth unfold before your eyes, still support this joke of president because of you partisanship.

And who are you trying to kid? Our friends and allies around the globe surpproted this war? If that was the case, would Bush need to go to UN to ask for money and military support? Would he be getting 1 or 2 billion instead of 20~40 billions needed from our allies and friends for rebuilding Iraq? Would we have to foot most of the bill for this war?

It's sickening to see some republican refuse to accept the facts because of their partisanship. This war was not justified from the beginning and we are paying dearly for this war that we did not have to be in. We have to pay billions of dollar for rebuilding a country thousands of miles away from us when our economy is still recovering from a recession. We lost of any credibility we had in international community with the false claim of WMD. We lost many of our allies because of this unilateral action. We killed thousands of Iraqis and put a nation into chaos and our troops are still facing daily attack from hostile people.

What did the high prices get us? Are we more secure then before? Is middle east more peaceful then before? Have we rid of threats from Al-Qaeda? Does Middle East and Muslim feel we are doing more to help and understand them? So you think Iraq will be a better place? Don't forget that Saddam was the leader we supported 15 years ago. Who know in another 15 year, people like Chalab or whoever we favor now won't turn into another Saddam. Or do you propose we stay in Iraq for another 15 years to make sure Iraqi will be ok? How do you make sure Iraq won't turn into a secular government like Iran with their large Shia population and their Muslim leader's political inspiration now that Saddam is gone? How to do safeguard Iraqi people from ethnic and religious conflicts now that the check and balances created by Saddam's government is gone? Simply minded people think we liberated Iraqi people and gave them democracy, simple minded people do not know there are much more complex issues Iraq now must face that foreign invaders from thousands miles away, who doesn't understand their culture nor history, will sure have tough time to deal with.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: chess9
Complete idiots are everywhere, or, as one wag noted: "You don't know what you don't know."

Anyway, Dari, what's your point? The American people are woefully misinformed and uninformed on a wide variety of issues. Don't even mention a simple topic in biology to your average Yale Law graduate because his eyes will glaze over and he might say something like: "Well, the jury's out whether evolution or creation is true." (Yes, GW). Most Americans don't have a clue where Iraq is, let alone whether we should be there. Fear of the stupidity of the common man (probably owns a Mac) is one of the reasons why our republican form of democracy was chosen by our founding fathers, Larry, Curley, and Moe. ,

Oh, and Red is such a closet liberal! , Bwuahahahaha!!

-Robert

My point is, like other citizenry, Americans tend to believe their leaders? Why, it's because they are their leaders and were duly elected. The second point is, the accusations against Hussein's Iraq were not begotten out of thin air. They are the product of 12 years of history that spans three U.S. Administrations. Why is this war even partisan? Clinton supported it. Albright supported it. George H. W. Bush supported it. Our friends and allies around the globe supported it. Fact is, before the first shots were fired, no one disputed that Iraq may have had WMDs. No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms. No one disputed the fact that the marriage of terror cells and terror-states was bad for civilization. No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes. No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight. No one disputed these. Then why the phuck do we continue to debate the legitimacy of the war?

Why the war was not partisan? Because our president, whom we suppose to trust, stood in front of entire nation in the STOU address, tell us how an incredible threat Iraq was to our national security. He cited lies or exagerated intelligence and present them to us as undisputed facts, and used our fear of another 911 to get the support from the nation.

The war was bi-partisan. Almost everyone in the House and Senate voted for it. BTW, what did Bush say in the STOU and Powell at the UN that was so different from what the UN and previous US Administrations were saying about Iraq? What was the difference?

We dispute the legitimacy of the war because now we have more information, we know the extend this administration went to scared us into this war. It is pathetic that you people, even with truth unfold before your eyes, still support this joke of president because of you partisanship.

We have more information because we have 180,000 "inspectors" there to make sure the truth comes to light. But don't forget that this isn't the end of it. There are reports that Hussein transferred some of his WMDs to Syria and Iran for destruction

And who are you trying to kid? Our friends and allies around the globe surpproted this war? If that was the case, would Bush need to go to UN to ask for money and military support? Would he be getting 1 or 2 billion instead of 20~40 billions needed from our allies and friends for rebuilding Iraq? Would we have to foot most of the bill for this war?

I'm not trying to kid anyone. Most of our allies supported us but were hesitant because of Muslim sensitivities. Bush went to the UN to present the case for other nations to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. In case you didn't know this, whether via the UN or otherwise, the US always foots most of the bill. We give more money (25% of its budget) than any other country. We went to ask for more troops in Iraq because there are other areas around the globe that may need us. We're not passing the buck. As always, the US always has to be at the forefront when there is a major security breakdown anywhere in the world

It's sickening to see some republican refuse to accept the facts because of their partisanship. This war was not justified from the beginning and we are paying dearly for this war that we did not have to be in. We have to pay billions of dollar for rebuilding a country thousands of miles away from us when our economy is still recovering from a recession. We lost of any credibility we had in international community with the false claim of WMD. We lost many of our allies because of this unilateral action. We killed thousands of Iraqis and put a nation into chaos and our troops are still facing daily attack from hostile people.

Seriously, how would you rather pay, via the fighting and reconstruction of a foreign country or the fighting and reconstruction of your own country? And where were you when Iraq was constantly breaking Article 7 UN resolutions? Do you even know what an article 7 UN resolution is? And which allies did we lose? Please answer that. What credibility did we lose, for finally pushing the UN to do its own dirty work? I guess, in your opinion, unless we're directly attacked, we have no business reducing threats anywhere else, right?

What did the high prices get us? Are we more secure then before? Is middle east more peaceful then before? Have we rid of threats from Al-Qaeda? Does Middle East and Muslim feel we are doing more to help and understand them? So you think Iraq will be a better place? Don't forget that Saddam was the leader we supported 15 years ago. Who know in another 15 year, people like Chalab or whoever we favor now won't turn into another Saddam. Or do you propose we stay in Iraq for another 15 years to make sure Iraqi will be ok? How do you make sure Iraq won't turn into a secular government like Iran with their large Shia population and their Muslim leader's political inspiration now that Saddam is gone? How to do safeguard Iraqi people from ethnic and religious conflicts now that the check and balances created by Saddam's government is gone? Simply minded people think we liberated Iraqi people and gave them democracy, simple minded people do not know there are much more complex issues Iraq now must face that foreign invaders from thousands miles away, who doesn't understand their culture nor history, will sure have tough time to deal with.

Are we more secure? Well, the lack of terrorism in this country would be a healthy barometer. You tell me.
Is the Middle East more peaceful? Was it more peaceful when Hussein was attacking his neighbors?
The Bush Administration never said it would get rid of Al Qaeda. It can't. Al Qaeda is a protean enemy that functions more as a nexus than an organized entity with different levels of hiearchies. The best we can do is destroy the cells and lower the enthuism for such an entity.
Yes, we are trying to make Iraq and the whole ME a better place. If anything, 9-11 will bring the two cultures closer together. As the Economist stated in their last survey, Islam is more than a movement. It encompasses all walks of life. By making Iraq more secure, we hope to bring the grunt of Islam to a better understanding of the US.
We will safeguard Iraq's future via the democratic process, to prevent future dictators from coming to power. Although a scenerio not unlike Hugo's Venezuela could happen, the democratic process is supposed to prevent that.

 

[Gaard]

Dari, you've asked rchiu a ton of questions. Kind of interesting when you refuse to answer a few yourself? All that's needed is a "Yes, I'm sure" or "No, now that I think about it, those statements I made might be wrong."



Dari, are you sure about the following statements?
<<No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms.>>

<<No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes.>>

<<No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight.>>

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari, you've asked rchiu a ton of questions. Kind of interesting when you refuse to answer a few yourself? All that's needed is a "Yes, I'm sure" or "No, now that I think about it, those statements I made might be wrong."



Dari, are you sure about the following statements?
<<No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms.>>

<<No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes.>>

<<No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight.>>

We consume 25% of the world's energy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, we acted. Iraq defied 17 Article 7 UN resolutions. She was a risk to our energy security. She was also a risk to our friends and allies in the region.

Bush threatened the UN with irrelevance if it did not act on its own resolutions. They blinked and finally took action. If Bush had not prodded the UN, it would've risked irrelevance in front of the US. Not only that, terror-sponsoring nations would've taken a lession if we let Iraq get away that anything goes at the UN. They would've believed that UN resolutions were not to be respected, especially those under Article VII.

Bush went to war with Iraq to uphold the UN legitimacy. Despite all the sabre-rattling, he did it to keep her from becoming irrelevant.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari, you've asked rchiu a ton of questions. Kind of interesting when you refuse to answer a few yourself? All that's needed is a "Yes, I'm sure" or "No, now that I think about it, those statements I made might be wrong."



Dari, are you sure about the following statements?
<<No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms.>>

<<No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes.>>

<<No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight.>>

We consume 25% of the world's energy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, we acted. Iraq defied 17 Article 7 UN resolutions. She was a risk to our energy security. She was also a risk to our friends and allies in the region.

Bush threatened the UN with irrelevance if it did not act on its own resolutions. They blinked and finally took action. If Bush had not prodded the UN, it would've risked irrelevance in front of the US. Not only that, terror-sponsoring nations would've taken a lession if we let Iraq get away that anything goes at the UN. They would've believed that UN resolutions were not to be respected, especially those under Article VII.

Bush went to war with Iraq to uphold the UN legitimacy. Despite all the sabre-rattling, he did it to keep her from becoming irrelevant.

That's all nice and everything, but you claim that no one disputed those points...like the world was in agreement on those points. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was plenty of debate/argument going on about the points you've raised.

Again, the point I was trying to make wasn't whether the facts(?) you made are true or not. The point was that you were misleading (again?) when you said that no one disputed those facts(?).

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari, you've asked rchiu a ton of questions. Kind of interesting when you refuse to answer a few yourself? All that's needed is a "Yes, I'm sure" or "No, now that I think about it, those statements I made might be wrong."



Dari, are you sure about the following statements?
<<No one disputed the fact that Iraq was a threat to her neighbors and our security, which comes in various forms.>>

<<No one disputed the fact that the United Nations dragged its feet for far too long and she was in need of some correction for legitimacy purposes.>>

<<No one disputed the facts that Hussein's Iraq would've slithered away from sanctions had it not been for Bush to stand up and fight the good fight.>>

We consume 25% of the world's energy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, we acted. Iraq defied 17 Article 7 UN resolutions. She was a risk to our energy security. She was also a risk to our friends and allies in the region.

Bush threatened the UN with irrelevance if it did not act on its own resolutions. They blinked and finally took action. If Bush had not prodded the UN, it would've risked irrelevance in front of the US. Not only that, terror-sponsoring nations would've taken a lession if we let Iraq get away that anything goes at the UN. They would've believed that UN resolutions were not to be respected, especially those under Article VII.

Bush went to war with Iraq to uphold the UN legitimacy. Despite all the sabre-rattling, he did it to keep her from becoming irrelevant.

That's all nice and everything, but you claim that no one disputed those points...like the world was in agreement on those points. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was plenty of debate/argument going on about the points you've raised.

Again, the point I was trying to make wasn't whether the facts(?) you made are true or not. The point was that you were misleading (again?) when you said that no one disputed those facts(?).

find me an article where people disputed those exact points I made. If so, I'll recant. But be exact.

 

[Gaard]

Dari - <<find me an article where people disputed those exact points I made. If so, I'll recant. But be exact.>>

Are you serious? You need to read an article to know that the points you made were disputed around the world...and in this very country? Nevermind then. You're right. The world was in complete agreement.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Dari

The war was bi-partisan. Almost everyone in the House and Senate voted for it. BTW, what did Bush say in the STOU and Powell at the UN that was so different from what the UN and previous US Administrations were saying about Iraq? What was the difference?
UN never said Iraq violated 1441, UN never said for a fact they know Iraq had WMD, UN was still in the process of inspection right up to the war was started. How is that different from Bush and Powell's stand? You tell me.

We have more information because we have 180,000 "inspectors" there to make sure the truth comes to light. But don't forget that this isn't the end of it. There are reports that Hussein transferred some of his WMDs to Syria and Iran for destruction.

The reports that Hussein trasferred...., do you know that for a fact or are those suspicion, just like the WMD claim Bush make in STOU and his people make in many other occasions? Are those suspcisions enough to wage a war on a soverign country? Are we going from a country waging a war only when attacked, to a country waging a war when threatened, to a country waging a war when MAYBE/SUSPECTED to be threatened?


I'm not trying to kid anyone. Most of our allies supported us but were hesitant because of Muslim sensitivities. Bush went to the UN to present the case for other nations to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. In case you didn't know this, whether via the UN or otherwise, the US always foots most of the bill. We give more money (25% of its budget) than any other country. We went to ask for more troops in Iraq because there are other areas around the globe that may need us. We're not passing the buck. As always, the US always has to be at the forefront when there is a major security breakdown anywhere in the world
are we paying 25% of this war? Are our allies hesitant becaus of Muslim sensitivities or their civilian sensitivies? Last time I checked, most of foreign people, including Bristish are against the war. get a grip on reality, what major security breakdown was in Iraq? Did they threaten anyone, any invasion in the past few years?

Seriously, how would you rather pay, via the fighting and reconstruction of a foreign country or the fighting and reconstruction of your own country? And where were you when Iraq was constantly breaking Article 7 UN resolutions? Do you even know what an article 7 UN resolution is? And which allies did we lose? Please answer that. What credibility did we lose, for finally pushing the UN to do its own dirty work? I guess, in your opinion, unless we're directly attacked, we have no business reducing threats anywhere else, right?
Again, how is Iraq threatening us, why would we have to fight and reconstruct our own country if Iraq was not invaded? Who declared Iraq broke the resolution 1441 which was the latest resolution that superceeded all prior resolutions? Was France not our ally, Germany? We didn't loose credibility for declaring war based on WMD that we couldn't find? Yes, in my opinion, unless we are directly attacked we have no business ATTACKING OTHERS. There are other tools to reduce threats anywhere else, force is the last option.

Are we more secure? Well, the lack of terrorism in this country would be a healthy barometer. You tell me.
Is the Middle East more peaceful? Was it more peaceful when Hussein was attacking his neighbors?
The Bush Administration never said it would get rid of Al Qaeda. It can't. Al Qaeda is a protean enemy that functions more as a nexus than an organized entity with different levels of hiearchies. The best we can do is destroy the cells and lower the enthuism for such an entity.
Yes, we are trying to make Iraq and the whole ME a better place. If anything, 9-11 will bring the two cultures closer together. As the Economist stated in their last survey, Islam is more than a movement. It encompasses all walks of life. By making Iraq more secure, we hope to bring the grunt of Islam to a better understanding of the US.
We will safeguard Iraq's future via the democratic process, to prevent future dictators from coming to power. Although a scenerio not unlike Hugo's Venezuela could happen, the democratic process is supposed to prevent that.
Terrorism was not really a problem in this country other than the first WTC bombing and 911, so that lack of terrorism up to now does not really mean a thing. We are still facing threats outside of US. Bombing in Riyadh and Indonesia targeting US citizens and westerners for example.
Hussein has not attacked his neighbor since Gulf War I and his pathetic excuse of army was not a threat to anyone, especially with UN keeping an watchful eyes. Getting rid of him with all the price we've paid didn't make a difference.
Just answer a couple of simple question, is our presence in Iraq viewed as pro Muslim or anti Muslim by ME people? Are we viewed as liberator or occupiers in Iraq and around ME? How is our action bring more understading between ME and US?
Finally, how to you propose to bring democratic process? educate everyone in Iraq on how democracy works? teach them that religion doesn't dicate their political lives? Talk is cheap, tell people how what action you can take to make democracy take root in a country where democracy never existed and religion is big part of their daily life.

 

[chess9]

Passing without further comment the issue of your parsing Fox News-specifically O'Reilly, I think your points are interesting, but over-torqued or you fail to emphasize the important issues. When the U.S. went into Afghanistan, we had the support of the world because we had been the victim of a heinous crime. We went into Iraq AGAINST the wishes of the U.N. Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face that the U.N. was dragging its heels, but that doesn't change this very important, and usually under-empasized, salient point. World support for military action should be a PREREQUISITE, unless we are imminent danger, as in Afghanistan (and, even there, the opponents of invasion had a few decent arguments). This doctrine of pre-emption is morally bankrupt and WILL bankrupt our nation at this rate. Californians are complaining about their modest financial woes (they should be starving Biafrans!) but barely blink an eye at the, what, $200 billion Iraq will eat our of our budget? How can you neo-cons be so brain dead? Are all your credit cards maxed? You make $200 a week and drive a Porsche? That's what the neo-cons sound like. They complain about welfare mothers sucking us dry but they spend on defense like drunken sailors. Excuse me, but I'd suggest the Bush administration needs some serious psychotropic drugs to manage this delusion. Give me a welfare mother any day....
-Robert

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: chess9
Passing without further comment the issue of your parsing Fox News-specifically O'Reilly, I think your points are interesting, but over-torqued or you fail to emphasize the important issues. When the U.S. went into Afghanistan, we had the support of the world because we had been the victim of a heinous crime. We went into Iraq AGAINST the wishes of the U.N. Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face that the U.N. was dragging its heels, but that doesn't change this very important, and usually under-empasized, salient point. World support for military action should be a PREREQUISITE, unless we are imminent danger, as in Afghanistan (and, even there, the opponents of invasion had a few decent arguments). This doctrine of pre-emption is morally bankrupt and WILL bankrupt our nation at this rate. Californians are complaining about their modest financial woes (they should be starving Biafrans!) but barely blink an eye at the, what, $200 billion Iraq will eat our of our budget? How can you neo-cons be so brain dead? Are all your credit cards maxed? You make $200 a week and drive a Porsche? That's what the neo-cons sound like. They complain about welfare mothers sucking us dry but they spend on defense like drunken sailors. Excuse me, but I'd suggest the Bush administration needs some serious psychotropic drugs to manage this delusion. Give me a welfare mother any day....
-Robert

Pre-emptive action is morally bankrupt? Tell that to the victims of 9/11, asshole.

EDIT: And the day when America needs world approval to attack her enemies is the day I committ suicide. It'll also be the day that Israel lays down her arms and let the arabs take Jerusalem uncontested. Which will also be the day green men from mars invade my apartment.

 

[phillyTIM]

You can't fight unconventional terror with conventional military forces.

Chess9's argument is QUITE valid.

The only time we've taken formally "pre-emptive action" is with Iraq, which it turns out was no threat to us at all.

So yes, Bush's doctrine on this is morally bankrupt.

Fittingly odd, isn't it?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
You can't fight unconventional terror with conventional military forces.

Chess9's argument is QUITE valid.

The only time we've taken formally "pre-emptive action" is with Iraq, which it turns out was no threat to us at all.

So yes, Bush's doctrine on this is morally bankrupt.

Fittingly odd, isn't it?

Well, seeing that you agree with him, and knowing your history of making incredibly stupid and outrageously invalid statements, my statement seems all the more valid.

By the way, this action just became a doctrine. We've used it on a number of occasions in the past. American action in Chile, Grenada, Vietnam, El Salvador, and Nicaragua are some examples. Again, I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about. BTW, I see you have no gumption about fixing problems before they arise. And the iraqi problem involved more than WMD. Read up more on it, then come back and we can have a debate.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
You can't fight unconventional terror with conventional military forces.

Chess9's argument is QUITE valid.

The only time we've taken formally "pre-emptive action" is with Iraq, which it turns out was no threat to us at all.

So yes, Bush's doctrine on this is morally bankrupt.

Fittingly odd, isn't it?

Well, seeing that you agree with him, and knowing your history of making incredibly stupid and outrageously invalid statements, my statement seems all the more valid.

By the way, this action just became a doctrine. We've used it on a number of occasions in the past. American action in Chile, Grenada, Vietnam, El Salvador, and Nicaragua are some examples. Again, I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about. BTW, I see you have no gumption about fixing problems before they arise. And the iraqi problem involved more than WMD. Read up more on it, then come back and we can have a debate.

You are the one who does not know what the heck you are talking about. Every example you cited did not involve an outright invasion of a country. We were there to assist an established regime, not to remove one or replace one like what we are doing in Iraq. What we did in Iraq is produce this total power vacuum that we have to replace and that make us an invader and occupier.

And you may think iraqi problem involved more than WMD, but that was not what the president said in the STOU and those reason were not the ones communicated to American nor what American agreed upon. Last time I check, you were not the president nor you represented American people, so what you think are the reasons for invading Iraq doesn't mean jack. We as American were told that Iraq had WMD and was an immediate threat to us and that was the reason communicated to us and the reason we agreed upon for this invasion. But now we know those "facts" were either just suspicion or bad intelligence, and this war was started with false claims.

 

[phillyTIM]

^
|
|
Whut he said!

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Dari
Well, seeing that you agree with him, and knowing your history of making incredibly stupid and outrageously invalid statements, my statement seems all the more valid.

Actually its only according to YOU and your opinion that I have a "history of making incredibly stupid and outrageous invalid statements" only because YOU don't agree with me. That by no means gives me a history of this. Remember that.

BTW, I see you have no gumption about fixing problems before they arise. And the iraqi problem involved more than WMD. Read up more on it, then come back and we can have a debate.

You must be suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, Dari.

THE STATED RATIONALE FOR GOING INTO IRAQ WAS BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNTS OF WMD'S THAT HUSSEIN HAD STOCKPILED.

That is what Bush said each and every time he tried to sell us this bridge, and that's what this sham was for and based upon.

YOU REMEMBER THAT.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Dari
Well, seeing that you agree with him, and knowing your history of making incredibly stupid and outrageously invalid statements, my statement seems all the more valid.

Actually its only according to YOU and your opinion that I have a "history of making incredibly stupid and outrageous invalid statements" only because YOU don't agree with me. That by no means gives me a history of this. Remember that.

BTW, I see you have no gumption about fixing problems before they arise. And the iraqi problem involved more than WMD. Read up more on it, then come back and we can have a debate.

You must be suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, Dari.

THE STATED RATIONALE FOR GOING INTO IRAQ WAS BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNTS OF WMD'S THAT HUSSEIN HAD STOCKPILED.

That is what Bush said each and every time he tried to sell us this bridge, and that's what this sham was for and based upon.

YOU REMEMBER THAT.

Anyone can have WMDs, but when that country is ran by an unstable lunatic like Hussein, he has to be rein in. When you have a country like Hussein's iraq, which ran around invading her neighbors, supported terrorism, and flaunting Article VII UN resolutions, it's a time for concern and a time for action.

And, PhyllisTim, you are the vilest person on this board.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Dari
Well, seeing that you agree with him, and knowing your history of making incredibly stupid and outrageously invalid statements, my statement seems all the more valid.

Actually its only according to YOU and your opinion that I have a "history of making incredibly stupid and outrageous invalid statements" only because YOU don't agree with me. That by no means gives me a history of this. Remember that.

BTW, I see you have no gumption about fixing problems before they arise. And the iraqi problem involved more than WMD. Read up more on it, then come back and we can have a debate.

You must be suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, Dari.

THE STATED RATIONALE FOR GOING INTO IRAQ WAS BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNTS OF WMD'S THAT HUSSEIN HAD STOCKPILED.

That is what Bush said each and every time he tried to sell us this bridge, and that's what this sham was for and based upon.

YOU REMEMBER THAT.

Anyone can have WMDs, but when that country is ran by an unstable lunatic like Hussein, he has to be rein in. When you have a country like Hussein's iraq, which ran around invading her neighbors, supported terrorism, and flaunting Article VII UN resolutions, it's a time for concern and a time for action.

And, PhyllisTim, you are the vilest person on this board.

Your erroneous charge of Iraq's support of terrorism WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DENIED BY BUSH HIMSELF AFTER HE TOLD AMERICANS FOR OVER A YEAR THAT IRAQ WAS CONNECTED TO TERRORISTS AND 9/11 is a prime example of the damage the Bush administration has done in spreading this and other lies such as the one you parroted about WMD which doesn't exist.

But still you and people like you keep repeating the lies.

You have one hell of a nerve calling anyone vile. You support the vilest administration ever to lead America.

Wake up.

Iraq was not involved in terror.

Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

Iraq had no WMD.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US.

Iraq purchased NO nuclear material in Africa.

Iraq had NO drones ready to attack the US with chem/bio.

You are like a cult follower whose brainwashing hasn't been treated.