That would be clever if it wasn't stupid. I was against the war before the war. Do you know what "before" means? I think it was the war that led to the great exodus of conservatives. Cuz man, they were all pumped up and full of themselves and telling us we were a bunch of stupid naive peaceniks, and when we found all the nukes and biological weapons factories they were gonna rub it in our face, and so on and so on. And their vicarious triumphalism after the Mission Accomplished speech was pretty annoying, too. But they. Were. Wrong. Rather than sack up and see how they were wrong and we were right, rather than reassess, they went to Archer's House of Whorrers or stopped posting here. Coach, do you have any thoughts on why we were right that Saddam was no threat? Please, tell us. We wanna know how you f'ed up. Then, tell us what you've learned about government and politics and the Bush administration and about yourself. TIA.
Didn't we owe the Iraqi people the favor of removing Douchebag Hussein after we totally dicked them over after the 1st gulf war. You remember, we said "we got your back" and thousands got slaughtered. Isn't it important to clean up the messes that we create?
There are alot of messes in the world, Matt. And, frankly, bang-for-the-buckwise, Iraq wasn't at the top of the list. I still wanna know why we don't intervene in the Sudan.
1) We didn't create the problems in the Sudan 2) They have nohting there that is necessary to the maintainence of our standard of living
Yes. That said, I think dave's saying he's not stupid enough to clean up wet dogshit with an industrial strength leafblower, use kitchen utensils to pry out stuck toast, or stomp on small flaming bags outside his front door...
I don't want to threadjack, but the situation in the Sudan is much like the situation in the former Yugoslavia, except without the threat of destabilizing Europe. OTOH, given the kinds of weapons in use, my understanding is that a very small US force would be able to protect the Christians from the Muslims, and force the Muslims to stop raping and murdering the Christians.
What, a pile of dogshit on my porch? Well, if it was winter, I'd close the door, watch some soccer on tv or porn on the internet, and let that turd freeze. That's kinda what we did, innit? Then I would pick up the pieces cleanly and safely with some papertowels and a baggie, not rush outside madly screaming its on fire (when it ain't), stomp on it, and ruin the porch, injure myself, and now cost me a buttload to replace the porch. (I'm not sure we want to take this metaphor further)
1) A duty argument could have been made. But it wasn't. Viable alternatives to full-fledged war existed, but we never even bothered to discuss them. So forgive me for calling bull****. 2) At least this is honest. However, our response has not delivered on that promise.
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog. We all know this was from the leaked Rumsfeld memo of Oct. 2003. But was that the picture they painted for the US public prior to the war?-it certainly doesn't square with the the more optimistic views from the Bush camp- "support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder"-thank you, Richard Perle. And I don't think this just dawned on Rummy post-invasion. And having recently read some of the Meet The Press Transcripts from 2002-2003...well, Cheney did mention that there would be costs, cause well, freedom aint free, ya know? But I don't think he was pitching the sequel to Desert Storm, as "The Long, Hard, Slog." Lastly, all anyone has to do is go back to the threads in 2003 to see Dave's point: I was actually willing to accept that there was a case to be made for war, but I just couldn't sign on to the Bush plan-it smelled of incompetence and poor planning from day one. In fact, the debate surrounding Kenneth Pollack's book got a fair sounding out from both sides on these boards if I remember right. IMO there really isn't much to the Monday Morning QB charge against those anti-war.
Because we're racist bastards, of course. And it just wasn't the good ol' US of A that was sounding the "Saddam's Back in the WMD Business" alarm. I believe the German intelligence said pretty much the same thing (I've got no link for that right now, but I'll find one. I know somebody has posted it here before). I don't doubt you were against the war, but making the claim that you "knew" that there was absolutely no WMD's in Iraq is stretching it. It would put you in a very small minority seeing as how we have the following quotes: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 And, of course, our good friends the French didn't agree with you either, dave: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 You might have had a "feeling" that Iraq had no WMD's, but to say that you "knew", when our elected officials (on both sides of the political aisle), with access to far more information than you or I could lay our hands on, were of the opinion that Iraq did, in fact, pose a threat. Prior to the war I firmly believed that Iraq did have WMD's, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I "knew" Iraq had them. I could only go with the information provided, and it was being provided by quite a few people, but I couldn't say that I "knew". If you had concrete information prior to the war, you were in a very small minority, apparently, with better information than the CIA, the US Army, and the intelligence communities of several other foreign nations. My point is, dave, that you didn't "know". Nobody "knew", for sure, and I think the public statements provided above show that.
We couldn't unring the bell. I question whether the incoming Shiite theocracy will be less oppressive than Saddam.
I didn't know in fall 2002, when the war resolution was being debated and voted on. But I knew in March 2003, when Bush ordered the invasion to begin.
They will still have to work in coalition with the Sunnis and the Kurds. That's how the rules were written. So yes
The Bush administration, sadly, said they did know for sure. It really shouldn't take Phase II of the Congressional investigation to prove this - there are plenty of public statements that say as much, from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Fleischer, Perle, and many many many others. But, if the White House wants to keep delaying Phase II until the Democrats take over Congress, that's their prerogative. Still, while it's adorable and precious for little children to say they believe in Santa Claus and mitochlorians, for adults to say that Bush didn't lie is considerably less charming. In my opinion, back when Clinton was lying, it was much more refreshing to hear my side say "Yes, but, who cares?"
If I were a parent, and I thought my kid was getting drunk and high at high school/college with the tuition I was partly paying for....(remember, I don't "know" for sure) - I might.... a) make a real effort to try to contact the teachers/professors/dean b) ground the kid / take back my car c) stop paying for the education d) rabbit punch the little bitch and beat him to within an inch of his life in front of his friends. e) wait for a report card and re-evaluate the situation. Do any of those options seem a bit, oh, hasty, unnecessary, or might potentially have some really adverse longterm effects?
No, we owed it to them to ensure that the slaughter wouldn't happen anymore, which was the precise position Saddam was in with UN inspectors in the country. Instead, we replaced one slaughter with another in that country.
So permanant stalemate would have been fine with you. No hope for change for the Iraqi people is okay after we promised that we would assist them in overthrowing their government? Sounds like a half assed answer. Not only that, but in order to maintain the southern no fly zone, we would have to maintain a heavy force in Saudi Arabia. Remember, this was one of the key reasons Bin Laden listed for why we don't have any World Trade Center anymore. So for our security we had to eliminate the root problem, Saddam Hussein.
I knew, and millions of us who don't consider the mainstream of the democratic party as representative of our views knew because the United Nations inspectors with first hand knowledge were saying so and that Bush had a motive to lie about it. Plenty of politicians of every stripe had plenty of reasons to go along with this debacle at the beginning. The fact that the Republican party and their milquetoast co-sonspirator democrats went along with this at the beginning doesn't undermine that it was obvious from the beginning that IRaq had no WMDs that could be deployed to Western Europe in 45 minutes. t's called reading between the lines.
A stalemate for the time being was certainly a better solution than this. The Iraqi people wanted to be safe from Saddam's torture chambers, and were safe from them as long as the world scrutinized him and punished him for his misdeeds. There's plenty of ways to skin a cat (see south Africa, for one example), you don't have to blow a country to smithereens to effect change. And by the way, what were you doing and saying about Iraq in 1989? Voting for the party that gave him the means to build chemical weapons, I'm guessing. Me, I was protesting that.