i've got native americans,mexicans, japanese, koreans, vietnamese, cambodians, laotians, chileans, hondurans, nicaraguans, el salvadorians, and countless others jamming the other line. conference call?
??? It appears you've been busy with some serious misinterpretation. I can't think of a single person in this forum who believes WMDs were the real issue in Iraq.
So would we have gone to war without the "gathering threat" of WMD in the hands of a tyrant with 'terrorist connections'?
That's a good question. Like I said, WMD was the justification, but I don't think it was the motive. I think 9/11 really made Bush change his fundamental approach to the Middle East. He was going to be proactive. After Afghanistan, the next logical step was going to be Iraq. How it would have played out without the issue of WMD is anybody's guess. I think the U.S. was going to push Sadam on any issue it needed to the point where he felt he had to "stand up" against us or look weak in the eyes of his own supporters, so a confrontation was inevitable.
So then what the hell is all of this complaining that the Admistration "lied" to us about WMD? If everyone knows the war was about more than WMD, then why is the supposed "lie" such a big issue? And what was the point of the title of the thread?
The U.S. public backed the war becaue they were told 1) Saddam had WMDs and 2) Saddam was linked to 9/11. The U.S. public would never have backed a war for the "real" reasons. Anyone who cannot see the "big deal" is guilty of the worst form of moral idiocy as regards a democracy: namely, that the ends justify means.
So what your saying is you and the rest of the people who post here knew the truth, and you know for a fact that the american people are morons and didn't know what you knew? Isn't it possible that the American people also realized that the war was about more than WMD, and that is why they supported it in spite of people like you who are trying to spin this issue to somehow discredit the administration? And what means are you talking about? fighting a war against a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, in a manner that attemts to limit civilian caualties to the greatest extent possible? What means would you have prefered? And you didn't answer the question, what was the reason for the title of this thread? Were you implying that the administration was going to use WMD as justification for invading Iran? Or did you just think the title somehow made the administration look bad, so it was a good title?
It's possible, but considering the majority of Americans think Saddam was behind the 9/11, it's highly improbable. Are you with the majority who think Saddam toppled the WTC, or are you just being deliberately dense? Honesty on the part of the Bushies, at which point the American Public would have said "no thanks." Yes- at some point in the future if and when Bush wins reelection.
In other news, the EU makes a threat to Iran over WMD. "The Iranian nuclear program remains a matter of grave concern for the EU". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3149174.stm Where's the evidence I'd say???
You honestly believe the american people are complete morons don't you. No wonder Americans hate soccer fans. Are you with the majority who think Saddam toppled the WTC, or are you just being deliberately dense?[/QUOTE] It is nice to see a moderator using this type of tactics. Honesty on the part of the Bushies, at which point the American Public would have said "no thanks."[/QUOTE] You have yet to show that Bush said anything dishonest. Did you re-read his speach to the U.N.? I think that speach is an honest representation of the administrations feelings towards Iraq. Yes- at some point in the future if and when Bush wins reelection. [/QUOTE] So you don't think they want to do it now. So why is the issue coming up now and being pushed by the EU? You said "Here we go again" do you really think the situation in Iran is similar to the situation in Iraq?
My recollection is that anti-war opinion ran the gamut from something like what you listed above to more of a Cost-Benefit position where their were doubts about the existence of WMD's and threat Iraq posed vs the possible (and as turns out realistic) negative consequences of war (either unilateral or under a UN mandate). It's possible but that's not my read of the domestic situation prior to the war. The admin pushed the thread of terrorists w/Iraqi WMD's pretty hard to get the "declaration of war" from Congress well before he went to the UN. My recollection is that the humantiarian justification didn't get it's roll out until later on as window dressing for the efforts to get a UN mandate and prop up falling domestic levels of support. Means: lying about or misrepresenting the threat Iraqi WMD's posed to the United States in order to get the "Declaration of War" and public support necessary for... Ends: Conquering (or "liberating") Iraq for other true reasons (be they oil, humanitarian, geopolitical etc...). Now is this some sort of sinister plot by the White House? Depends on how much faith you have in them following through on their promises to set up a viable democracy in Iraq after we pull out. Personally I look at our history of interventions and my judgement of the character and morals of the current administration and have little to no faith in their desire or ability to accomplish their stated ends.
No, I believe in the collective genius of the American people. But even Einstein couldn't comb his hair. Let me guess- you support the Dutch national team. They're completely different. After all, Iran harbors terrorists and has a WMD program.
That is not my recollection at all. I think there is a pretty deep anti-Sadam feeling in this country, and most people thought it was a mistake not to take him out in Gulf war one. The "Declaration of War" from congress was pretty much a slam dunk as I recall. It wasn't until the French and the Germans starting making noise that the ant-war position started to grow. Isn't that why some of the Democratic Candidates for Pres, are in the uncomfortable position of having backed the President in the congressional vote?
I agree there is/was a pretty strong anti-Saddam feeling. Even some of us who opposed the war thought Bush I made a mistake in not finishing the job the first time. That doesn't mean people would've said let's go to war to free the poor Iraqi's, they wanted/needed a further reason and Bush II gave it to them in the threat of WMD's. I agree on the slam dunk part. The problem to my mind is that it was a slam dunk as direct result of the hyped WMD threat. Dems (and some moderate Reps) I think voted the way they did almost entirely based on the very questionable NIE that the CIA produced where all of the doubts and questions that they had were stripped out (most likely at administration insistence) leaving only a series of worst case estimates and scenarios. Even then most of them took the CYA position of saying they did it "to back the President when he went to the UN" so they could try to later say they opposed the war. You're absolutely right it is coming back to bite some of them in the ass, and rightly so. Much as I disagree w/Lieberman policy wise he has been admirably consistent in his position despite the toll it may be taking on his campaign. As for the anti-war protests getting started after the vote I agree. However I think that is a result of them rushing through the vote in Congress pretty quickly that summer coupled with the problems at the UN which gave some encouragement (for lack of a better word) to protesters who realized that it may not have been too late afterall.
And I have respect for the people who were anti-war from the start. But I don't buy all of this "we were fooled by the lying Bush into supporting the war" The type I am talking about is the type who would be gung ho behind this war if it had been done by Clinton, instead of Bush, and that probably includes every one of the major democratic candidates right now. (Not to say there wouldn't be a bunch of Republicans complaining about the war if it had been run by Clinton)
Well I might fall into the type that would, if not be gung-ho at least be more supportive of the war if it was Clinton (or Gore) instead of Bush. But that makes us ask a whole lot of "what if's" about each step of the process and probably won't get us anywhere. I will say that if it was a Democrat pushing the humanitarian angle I'd be much more likely to believe it, but this administration has burned through it supply of "benefit of the doubt" with me and most Democrats I know. I just don't trust anything they say at this point. Based on their actions during the Clinton administration I assume the converse would've been true for Republicans as you pointed out.
There is an old saying. How can you tell when a politician is Lying? When their lips are moving. I don't trust any politician to be completely honest, but it is probably our own fault, because anybody who was completely honest and got into politics, could never be elected. I can't really understand why some Dem's hate Bush with such a passion, and I couldn't understand why some Republican hated Clinton so much. In my mind they are both pretty close to the center, and neither did anything very drastic. My guess is that just like the Republicans with Clinton, the Democrats are going to over play the bashing and it will backfire with the general public.