..
I don't know.
But, I DO know that when a Captain or Sargeant or Specialist that has served in that battle zone leaves the military... he takes leadership and battlefield experience with him. Those are intangibles that cannot be immediaely replaced.
And I don't blame them for leaving. I cannot imagine being away from family and friends... in a hostile environment... and placing the stress of my welfare on my loved ones at home every day I'm gone. I do not expect them to continue to make sacrifices when the rest of us are just sitting on our asses at... in the comfort of our own living rooms.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
You know we're talking about the United states and the Iraq on this planet, right?
IF there were truckloads of secret goods that poured into Syria... that EVERYONE knew or knows about... it isn't so secret, is it? And I didn't know about these... and why hasn't the White House brought this iformation forward to solidify their case? And if they DID know about these shipments... WHY wasn't anything done to stop them or AT LEAST... TRACK them when they reached their destination to VERIFY their claims??? You are basically making the claim that our military and intelligence agencies are a bunch of idiots that were out smarted by the buffons that lead the Iraqi military. I just don't see it that way.
Here is a copy/paste of the washington times article. Viewing the archives at that site requires an account, so I can provide a copy/paste
Photos point to removal of weapons
Show truck convoys in Iraq before U.S. invasion
Author: Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Section: PAGE ONE
Page: A01
Article Text:
U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday.
The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, "documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border."
The official said the convoys are believed to include shipments of sensitive armaments, including equipment used in making plastic explosives and nuclear weapons.
About 380 tons of RDX and HMX, used in making such arms, were reported missing from the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility, though the Pentagon and an embedded NBC News correspondent said the facility appeared to have been emptied by the time U.S. forces got there.
The photographs bolster the claims of Pentagon official John A. Shaw, who told The Washington Times on Wednesday that recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq.
In Moscow, the Russian government denied that its forces were involved in removing weapons from Iraq, dismissing the claims as "far-fetched and ridiculous."
"I can state officially that the Russian Defense Ministry and its structural divisions could not have been involved in the disappearance of the explosives, because Russian servicemen were not in Iraq long before the beginning of the American-British operation in that country," Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Vyacheslav Sedov told Interfax news agency.
Bush administration officials reacted cautiously to information provided by Mr. Shaw, who said details of the Russian "spetsnaz" forces' involvement in a program of document-shredding and weapons dispersal came from two European intelligence services.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was unaware of the information in The Times report.
"I know that there is some new information that has come to light in the last couple of days," Mr. McClellan said, noting that another news report said the amount of high-explosive materials may have been less than 377 tons, as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claims.
Asked about foreign intelligence reports of Russian troops moving Iraq's weapons to Syria, Mr. McClellan said, "I have no information that points in that direction."
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in a interview on the Laura Ingraham radio show that she also was not aware of the information about Russian troops relocating Saddam's weapons to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran.
Defense officials said the information has been closely held within the Pentagon because Mr. Shaw, a deputy undersecretary of defense of international technology security, has been working with the Pentagon inspector general in investigating the Russian role in the weapons transfers.
Information in the inspector general office is not widely shared within the policy and intelligence communities.
The Pentagon is still investigating the fate of the explosives and possible Russian involvement.
Officials said numerous intelligence reports in the past two years indicate Saddam used trucks and aircraft to withdraw weapons from Iraq before March 2003. However, the new information indicates that Russian troops were directly involved in assisting the Iraqi military and intelligence services to secure and move the arms.
Documents reviewed by one defense official include specific Russian military unit itineraries for the truck convoys.
The arms that were taken out of the country included missile parts, nuclear-related equipment, tank and aircraft parts, and chemicals used in making poison gas weapons, the official said.
Regarding the satellite photographs, defense officials said the photographs bolster the information obtained from the European intelligence services on the Russian arms-removal program.
The Russian special forces troops were housed at a computer center near the Russian Embassy in Baghdad and left the country shortly before the U.S. invasion was launched March 20, 2003.
Harold Hough, a satellite photographic specialist, said commercial satellite images taken shortly before U.S. forces reached Baghdad revealed Russian transport aircraft at Baghdad's international airport near a warehouse.
"My thought was that the Russians were eager to get something out of Iraq quickly," Mr. Hough said. "But it is quite possible that the aircraft was used to transport the Russian forces."
Also yesterday, the IAEA said it warned the United States about the vulnerability of explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa after Iraq's Tuwaitha nuclear complex was looted.
"After we heard reports of looting at the Tuwaitha site in April 2003, the agency's chief Iraq inspectors alerted American officials that we were concerned about the security of the high explosives stored at Al-Qaqaa," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told the Associated Press.
She did not say which officials were notified or exactly when.
As for Weapons Of Mass Destruction... yeah, we knew he had them because:
A. We sold them to him... and
B. We destroyed them from 1991 to 1994.
W.M.D.s may not have been the base agenda, but they were surely sold to the American people as the justification.
except for B, I have not said anything in disagreement with that.
...
Regarding Gore... I believe he would have gone after Bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan... that was a no-brainer. Hell... even President Vedder probably would have done that. It was the detour into Iraq that has screwed us up. Gore would have had no reason to go for Iraq, with Afghanistan as a work in progress. And IF Gore would have won the 2000 election and the same thing that have happened... happened on his watch... would you be defending President Gore from my attacks on him? Because I would certainly still be unleashing my rage against any President that took my country down this road.
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
It just goes to show that the lust for war crosses all political boundaries. Would I be defending Gore? That question is only appropriate if I was defending Bush. I'm not defending Bush. I'm only saying that is he being unfairly singled out when he is just another politician.
...
And I cannot speak for the rest of America, but me... personally. I was against this war from the beginning. I wanted us to 'Stay The Course'... in Afghanistan. To 'Finish The Job' that was there... to bring Usama Bin Laden to justice or give him a ride on a 2,000 lb. bomb to afterlife. I didn't want another Viet Nam/politician managed war for my country.
Oh... and I can tell the difference between a Secular Dictator and a Shi'ite Religious Fanatic. The secular Dictator kept the flow of Iran from it's borders... the Shi'ite Religious Fanatic who holds Ayatollah Khomeini as it's Patron Saint opens the flood gates.
You say you were against the war from the beginning....well that just goes to show that it was possible to see through the bullshit....it's just that most people did not want to see through the bullshit. And that is why Bush's "lies" are not to blame as much as America's eagerness to wage war and live in fear.
And what kind of President allows his Vice President to call the shots for him?
Answer: A weak President. And one who should not be Commander In Chief of our military.
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I didn't say he was a strong president.
..
Finally, the American people did not make those inferences by themselves. We were sold this action with speeches of 'Mushroom Clouds' (by the way, made by the President in an address to the Nation, not Vice president Cheney) and constant reminders of September 11th when speaking of Iraq and Hussein. Don't place the blame of this action on the people of this nation... we were sold a bill of goods based on slanted information and half-truth and blatant lies. That is saying the person who is lied to is at fault... not the person who told the lie.
I disagree with you in your assumption that "Any other President" would have taken this route. Maybe a President Cheney... or a President Rumsfeld or a President Wolfowitz... But, most other possible presidents would have more than likely kept the heat on the Taliban and their co-horts, al Qaeda and Pakistan... and kept the sanctions and no-fly zones with deadly response authorized in place over the contained Iraq... because they were working. I will even go so far as to say that President George H.W. Bush would have not gone this route. He would have used his previous successful model and applied it here.
...
I don't know where you get the information to base you opinions on... but, you might want to go back and re-validate your sources.
When you refer to the less-severe actions by former presidents, you refer to presidents who acted under different circumstances. None of those presidents had the opportunity to address a nation that had just been attacked on its own soil, thus being under an elevated level of fear.
Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq and Eastern Europe just to draw attention away from his own domestic political scandals. Imagine what he could've gotten away with if all he had to do was put the words 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence?
Why am I having to explain obvious points to people? I think the answer is that people have such a raging hard-on to slag bush and blame him for everything that has gone wrong, that they think anyone else who isn't doing the exact same thing must be defending him. Defending him is not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that the anti-Bush rhetoric has a tendency to be just a tad be partisan and one-sided.
Valerie Plame's husband was sent to Africa, as our US Ambassador, to see if Saddam had, in fact, been purchasing uraniam there.
Valerie's husband realized the answer was no.
Valerie's husband then turned around and tried to say so, to anyone who would listen.
Valerie Plame, herself, then, was outed.
Oh, and I guess that means Saddam definitely did not have WMDs. If you read my post carefully, you see that I saying it's impossible to say whether he did or didn't, but that circumtanstial evidence would say that it's probable that he did. I am well aware of what happened with Plame, but proving that he didn't purchase a certain thing from a certain country doesn't mean he doesn't have anything at all.
While it is accepted these days to blame the death and destruction in Iraq on the Americans and especially BushCo, isn't there a case to be made that Saddam is the one who is responsible? And at the very least, isn't this worth talking about? I never hear anything about this in political discourse.
- It's pretty clear that Saddam was condemed by the UN and nearly every major country on Earth.
- Saddam refused to come clean about his weapons programs; stalling, lying and playing games with inspectors and the international community for over 15 years.
- Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was cleary stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.
Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...
I bet you remember when Saddam was democratically elected back in the day, eh?
Funny how long the line of bullshit is, it always seems to come back to that one country who needs to have it all.
They knew very well what would happen. They've had their hands in this for years. Watch the clip Roland posted.
Funny, the same could be said for Saddam and his cronies. I just think that when the writing was on the wall that the US was gonna invade, Saddam should have realized that his time was up, his days were over as president of Iraq. He should have stepped down and sought asylum in Cuba or some other country that would have him. He had the money and the resources to just leave. Instead, he called on his country to fight the Americans. Eventually he was caught in hole not too far away from Baghdad and hung for war crimes, while his two kids didn't last but a few months before they were cornered in a house and killed. No doubt Bush made a mistake or two in this war, but it was Saddam that made the biggest mistake of all, and it was his mistake that has lead to so much bloodshed.
Funny, the same could be said for Saddam and his cronies. I just think that when the writing was on the wall that the US was gonna invade, Saddam should have realized that his time was up, his days were over as president of Iraq. He should have stepped down and sought asylum in Cuba or some other country that would have him. He had the money and the resources to just leave. Instead, he called on his country to fight the Americans. Eventually he was caught in hole not too far away from Baghdad and hung for war crimes, while his two kids didn't last but a few months before they were cornered in a house and killed. No doubt Bush made a mistake or two in this war, but it was Saddam that made the biggest mistake of all, and it was his mistake that has lead to so much bloodshed.
You could say that Ronald Reagan made the biggest mistake of all when he empowered Saddam as a means of keeping down Islamic Fundamentalism.
Unless your goal is to keep Islamic Fundamentalism down (and, boy, if there's anything you get all frothy about, it's keeping Islamic Fundamentalism down), then he did a good thing and the Bushes made the biggest mistake of all when they made Saddam our enemy.
Throughout all of this, though, Saddam has always been Saddam. You go on and on about how Islamic Fundamentalists need to be wiped out. That Sharia law is the greatest enemy the west has ever known. You know who was great at keeping fundamentalism suppressed? You know who was absolutely fan-fucking-tastic at keeping Sharia law out of his country? Saddam.
It's obviously stupid to think that Saddam had WMD's, but it's equally stupid to think that he didn't. There's just no way of knowing, and it's hard not to say that the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong. And regardless of how he may have gotten the means and the materials, he had a history of non-compliance and he had proven his willingness to use them.
Everyone knows about the truckloads of secret goods that went streaming up to Syria just before the 2003 invasion. How can anyone say for sure that those weren't his WMD's being shipped north for safe keeping?
And who is to say that they aren't buried somewhere in the middle of the desert somewhere? Anything is possible. Of any country in the middle east, Iraq is obviously the most likely to have possessed WMD's at that time no matter what inspectors or the White House Enquirer has to say.
Of course, whether he did or didn't have WMD's really doesn't matter when considering that removal of those WMDs was never really the true agenda of the Bush administration to begin with.
But that isn't to say that a Gore administration would have done any different. Other than the oil that lay beneath Iraq, I have no doubt there was another motive behind the invasion, and I believe that motive was the immortality that comes with being a war president.
After all, it was what the country wanted at that time, and approval ratings are music to any politician's ears. To this day, I think most people in the US still cannot differentiate between a fanatical shiite fascist and a secular dictator.
And let's face it....Bush never implicated Saddam in 9/11. He never implied that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda. He never even suggested that Saddam was linked to terrorism. It was Cheney who made those misleading connections, and his choice of words when making those statements were vague and indirect.
People in the US made that inference on their own. They dreamed up the Saddam 9/11 connection, and Bush merely capitalized on it to expand the fossil fuel empire and to transform himself from a Vietnam draft dodger to the emperor of a victorious army. I have no reason to believe Gore or any other president wouldn't have done the same. Well, maybe Nader wouldn't, but that's because Nader is a hippie.
And why do you think ppl linked Iraq to 9/11? Do you even remember half the sh*t this administration said prior to invading Iraq?
"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. "
Bush never said Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda????????????????????????
Bush never said Saddam was linked to Terrorism????????????????????????
Funny, the same could be said for Saddam and his cronies. I just think that when the writing was on the wall that the US was gonna invade, Saddam should have realized that his time was up, his days were over as president of Iraq. He should have stepped down and sought asylum in Cuba or some other country that would have him. He had the money and the resources to just leave. Instead, he called on his country to fight the Americans. Eventually he was caught in hole not too far away from Baghdad and hung for war crimes, while his two kids didn't last but a few months before they were cornered in a house and killed. No doubt Bush made a mistake or two in this war, but it was Saddam that made the biggest mistake of all, and it was his mistake that has lead to so much bloodshed.
War was happening either way. The Bush administration wanted war both logistically and politically. Giving some phone ultamatum wasn't going to change anything.
The bigger mistake was kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq in 2002/03. Of course they hasdn't found shit. That was going to be a problem since WMD was the only logical war rationale that would simultaneously scare the shit out of idiot America and provide political cover at the UN and Congress.
"Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago"- Stephen Colbert
War was happening either way. The Bush administration wanted war both logistically and politically. Giving some phone ultamatum wasn't going to change anything.
The bigger mistake was kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq in 2002/03. Of course they hasdn't found shit. That was going to be a problem since WMD was the only logical war rationale that would simultaneously scare the shit out of idiot America and provide political cover at the UN and Congress.
That didn't work well though. If I remember well, the "irrefutable proofs" that Powell presented at the UN were laughed at by all the other countries as they completely lacked true intelligence and left so much room for interpretation each country was free to see them as they wished. That's the problem with Irak, communication around the war was done in such an unintelligent manner that everyone can see "irrefutable truths" where the want.
Going to war with interpretation but no intelligence was the biggest mistake in all of this. Because Bush did not wait a little to have a clear strategy most of the blame is on him.
Defending him is not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that the anti-Bush rhetoric has a tendency to be just a tad be partisan and one-sided.
think its beyond partisan and one-sided....it was so very clear for a very large percentage of Americans that we should not have gone into Iraq and knew it would be the worst move in a long time for this great country. When I critisize Bush and his henchmen......I frequently include all those that voted for him and those that in anyway support this guy now. He isn't an ordinary politition...not even an ordinary president...as you say...he's not very intelligent, surrounded himself with the worst people....and needs to be called out...along with all those that got suckered.....maybe in 12 years when another douchbag uses god, fays and abortion to get into power the simpleminded ones that support that doctrine will remember how they were suckered in the past.
It just goes to show that the lust for war crosses all political boundaries. Would I be defending Gore? That question is only appropriate if I was defending Bush. I'm not defending Bush. I'm only saying that is he being unfairly singled out when he is just another politician.
You say you were against the war from the beginning....well that just goes to show that it was possible to see through the bullshit....it's just that most people did not want to see through the bullshit. And that is why Bush's "lies" are not to blame as much as America's eagerness to wage war and live in fear.
When you refer to the less-severe actions by former presidents, you refer to presidents who acted under different circumstances. None of those presidents had the opportunity to address a nation that had just been attacked on its own soil, thus being under an elevated level of fear.
Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq and Eastern Europe just to draw attention away from his own domestic political scandals. Imagine what he could've gotten away with if all he had to do was put the words 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence?
Why am I having to explain obvious points to people? I think the answer is that people have such a raging hard-on to slag bush and blame him for everything that has gone wrong, that they think anyone else who isn't doing the exact same thing must be defending him. Defending him is not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that the anti-Bush rhetoric has a tendency to be just a tad be partisan and one-sided.
...
I see where you are coming from... that Bush alone was not the only one that is said to have believed in Iraq's Weapons Of Mass destruction. Sort of like Barry Bonds is being singled out for steroids when McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Giambi, and just about every power player in baseball used them. Bonds is magnified because of the Home Run record and Bush because of the September 11th Attacks. I'm not denying that... neither am I denying the existance of the W.M.D.s. We know he had them... we supplied him in the 1980s. We also destroyed the bulk of his weapons and denied his deployment of them by dismantling his delivery systems as well as restricting his development and manufacturing capabilities.
I am saying that this IRAQ WAR IS BUSH'S WAR. The War against Terrorists and Terrorism in general is all of our wars. Bush has side-tracked our goals on crushing terrorists by taking us into Iraq. In order to take us into Iraq, he USED the political rhetoric about Hussein and W.M.D.s and twisted it into fear that was ultimately used to sell it to the American people. If you bought it, that's your gig... I never did. I do not believe any other President would have gotten us into Iraq... especially in the manner in which he used. We would be in Afghanistan... YES. That is a no-brainer. It was Bush's decision to go into Iraq. I believe he should hold himself responsible for his decision. To blame the American people based upon messages told to them by Bush... Isn't that Defending Bush?
And as for that Washington Times report... if it was true... why was NOTHING done about it? Why IS nothing being done to locate them? Isn't kind of important to the 'War on Terror'? W.M.D.s in Syria? Isn't that something to be worried about?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I see where you are coming from... that Bush alone was not the only one that is said to have believed in Iraq's Weapons Of Mass destruction. Sort of like Barry Bonds is being singled out for steroids when McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Giambi, and just about every power player in baseball used them. Bonds is magnified because of the Home Run record and Bush because of the September 11th Attacks. I'm not denying that... neither am I denying the existance of the W.M.D.s. We know he had them... we supplied him in the 1980s. We also destroyed the bulk of his weapons and denied his deployment of them by dismantling his delivery systems as well as restricting his development and manufacturing capabilities.
I am saying that this IRAQ WAR IS BUSH'S WAR. The War against Terrorists and Terrorism in general is all of our wars. Bush has side-tracked our goals on crushing terrorists by taking us into Iraq. In order to take us into Iraq, he USED the political rhetoric about Hussein and W.M.D.s and twisted it into fear that was ultimately used to sell it to the American people. If you bought it, that's your gig... I never did. I do not believe any other President would have gotten us into Iraq... especially in the manner in which he used. We would be in Afghanistan... YES. That is a no-brainer. It was Bush's decision to go into Iraq. I believe he should hold himself responsible for his decision. To blame the American people based upon messages told to them by Bush... Isn't that Defending Bush?
And as for that Washington Times report... if it was true... why was NOTHING done about it? Why IS nothing being done to locate them? Isn't kind of important to the 'War on Terror'? W.M.D.s in Syria? Isn't that something to be worried about?
It was never verified that the trucks headed toward Syria actually contained WMDs. You wonder why "nothing was done", but I'm assuming it's because it wouldn't be prudent to bomb an entire convoy of trucks without having at least some intelligence as to their contents.
Also, Syria is ostensibly a US "ally". Blasting commercial trucks headed towards Syria or "shaking down" Syrian officials about the whereabouts/contents of the trucks would be bad press. When considering that the US has done little about Syria's known involvement with the insurgency in Iraq, I don't deem the situation with the trucks to be all that shocking.
So, in regards to that, all I'm saying is that it's not impossible that Iraq had WMDs. What I'm also saying is that it doesn't really matter if it did or didn't. Some people go on and on about how Iraq didn't actually have WMDs, but I think that even if it's proven that none were there, those people are still missing the point. And that point is that Saddam's possession of WMDs was never really a true concern of world peace to begin with.
What I'm saying is that opposition to the war should not be predicated on the premise that Saddam never actually had WMDs.
So, that leads me back to the supposed connections that Saddam had to terror networks and the 9/11 planners. Earlier I said that Bush made no direct connection, but I was schooled on that and so I retract. I was not aware of those statements that he made regarding Saddam and terrorism.
But, that isn't to say that most of those statements weren't true. With exception to Saddam being linked to 9/11, the statements connecting Saddam to terror networks are in fact true to some extent.
He did, after all, harbor Zarqawi. Even the 9/11 commission reports cites the existence of fundamentalist camps located in Iraq.
But, my point is that Americans allowed his vague and unspecific references to Saddam and terrorism to convince them that war was necessary. I personally did not believe Saddam was linked to 9/11. I didn't think Saddam was even linked to any real terror networks. As far as I knew, Yemen and Syria represented the biggest terrorist-harboring/supporting countries in the region.
And so that's why I say Americans made their own inference in regards to Saddam's potential for masterminding international terrorism. If I wasn't convinced, why would anyone else be convinced? Personally, I expect names, dates, and supporting details when I hear why a person is suspected of a certain thing. I did not hear that from Bush in regards to Saddam.
But, by saying that Americans are responsible for buying into Bush's rhetoric, I don't believe I am defending Bush. Instead, what I think I'm doing is holding America accountable for naively allowing a single man to take the helm and make their decisions for them without first providing enough convincing evidence.
Americans are like women sometimes. Women like to be lied to by "slick", "smooth-talking" men. They like to play the drunk girl who wakes up the next morning disappointed that she wasn't taken advantage of in her most vulnerable state.
Americans don't want to think for themselves. They want a superhero president who is going to make everything all better. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the idolization of historical figures like George Washington, FDR, and JFK.
It gets to the point where people think the presidency is more than just an administrative position. It becomes a position of ideological standard setting. That is, not only do Americans want their president to lead, but they also want their president to be a role model for how they conduct themselves on a personal -and even spiritual- level.
And that's why Bush was so easily able to swindle americans into supporting the invasion. People don't want to ask too many questions of a person who they want to believe is nearly god-like. They want their president to be a walking, talking, ultimate appeal to authority.
So, again, I'm not defending Bush. I'm holding americans responsible for not knowing better. You and I knew better, so why couldn't the rest of America?
Didn't the U.S. make it possible for Saddam to run Iraq to begin with?
Didn't the U.S. provide Saddam with the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?
Let's see, the U.S. gave dictorial power to Saddam, and provided him with weapons to kill Kurds, then condemned the act and Saddam stopped killing people, right?
So years later the U.S. decides its time to go back and clean up the mess they caused?
Something is missing from this equation, could it be Oil or permanent military control of the middle east?
Cui Bono?
Game set and match. We have a winner. Thank you for playing people.
SOME Americans are like SOME women sometimes. SOME Women like to be lied to by "slick", "smooth-talking" men. They like to play the drunk girl who wakes up the next morning disappointed that she wasn't taken advantage of in her most vulnerable state.
It was never verified that the trucks headed toward Syria actually contained WMDs. You wonder why "nothing was done", but I'm assuming it's because it wouldn't be prudent to bomb an entire convoy of trucks without having at least some intelligence as to their contents.
Also, Syria is ostensibly a US "ally". Blasting commercial trucks headed towards Syria or "shaking down" Syrian officials about the whereabouts/contents of the trucks would be bad press. When considering that the US has done little about Syria's known involvement with the insurgency in Iraq, I don't deem the situation with the trucks to be all that shocking.
So, in regards to that, all I'm saying is that it's not impossible that Iraq had WMDs. What I'm also saying is that it doesn't really matter if it did or didn't. Some people go on and on about how Iraq didn't actually have WMDs, but I think that even if it's proven that none were there, those people are still missing the point. And that point is that Saddam's possession of WMDs was never really a true concern of world peace to begin with.
What I'm saying is that opposition to the war should not be predicated on the premise that Saddam never actually had WMDs.
So, that leads me back to the supposed connections that Saddam had to terror networks and the 9/11 planners. Earlier I said that Bush made no direct connection, but I was schooled on that and so I retract. I was not aware of those statements that he made regarding Saddam and terrorism.
But, that isn't to say that most of those statements weren't true. With exception to Saddam being linked to 9/11, the statements connecting Saddam to terror networks are in fact true to some extent.
He did, after all, harbor Zarqawi. Even the 9/11 commission reports cites the existence of fundamentalist camps located in Iraq.
But, my point is that Americans allowed his vague and unspecific references to Saddam and terrorism to convince them that war was necessary. I personally did not believe Saddam was linked to 9/11. I didn't think Saddam was even linked to any real terror networks. As far as I knew, Yemen and Syria represented the biggest terrorist-harboring/supporting countries in the region.
And so that's why I say Americans made their own inference in regards to Saddam's potential for masterminding international terrorism. If I wasn't convinced, why would anyone else be convinced? Personally, I expect names, dates, and supporting details when I hear why a person is suspected of a certain thing. I did not hear that from Bush in regards to Saddam.
But, by saying that Americans are responsible for buying into Bush's rhetoric, I don't believe I am defending Bush. Instead, what I think I'm doing is holding America accountable for naively allowing a single man to take the helm and make their decisions for them without first providing enough convincing evidence.
Americans are like women sometimes. Women like to be lied to by "slick", "smooth-talking" men. They like to play the drunk girl who wakes up the next morning disappointed that she wasn't taken advantage of in her most vulnerable state.
Americans don't want to think for themselves. They want a superhero president who is going to make everything all better. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the idolization of historical figures like George Washington, FDR, and JFK.
It gets to the point where people think the presidency is more than just an administrative position. It becomes a position of ideological standard setting. That is, not only do Americans want their president to lead, but they also want their president to be a role model for how they conduct themselves on a personal -and even spiritual- level.
And that's why Bush was so easily able to swindle americans into supporting the invasion. People don't want to ask too many questions of a person who they want to believe is nearly god-like. They want their president to be a walking, talking, ultimate appeal to authority.
So, again, I'm not defending Bush. I'm holding americans responsible for not knowing better. You and I knew better, so why couldn't the rest of America?
...
If the convoys were suspected to be carrying Weapons and/or weapons making materials... and Syria is ostensibly a US "ally"... why weren't these convoys at least tracked to a destination? And a Syrian official who is hiding Iraqi weapons and aiding insurgents killing our troops in Iraq is not who I would consider an ally. The whole thing sounds too much like Hussein and his military people are brilliant and ours are imbiciles.
So, I'm tossing this whole "Secret Known Convoys across the desert carrying Iraqi weapons to parts unknown" in with the Bush orchestrated the September 11th Attacks conspiracy barrel.
...
And while you may hold the American people for believeing in their leaders... I don't. It was our President who made the inferences and speeches... and people in his administration that made the case for war and sold it to Americans. They are the one who are supposed to have all of the intelligence reports and the information, not us. You are deeply discounting the American people as mindless idiots, here. There's a reason why we call them our LEADERS, not Saviours... we want them to lead us, not save us. Blaming the person that is being lied to... for what... believing? That's the same thing as blaming your child and calling him an idiot for believing the Santa Claus stories you told him. I don't blame the American people for being scared... Mushroom Clouds over America are scary.
And I will firmly stand on my belief that NO OTHER PRESIDENT would have taken us into Iraq in the manner in which President Bush did. Most other Presidents would have looked at the current containment plan in Iraq and deemed is as okay... maybe increase surveillence on Iraq and Iraqi interstate traffic. But, a normal president would have stayed on Usama Bin Laden's ass and leveled all of America's military resources towards that goal.
This one is on Bush... Iraq is his war.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
no matter how you try to justify it..this war was a mistake....and it was a mistake to vote for Bush...and the second time even worse. Yea Sadaam was horrible..no doubt....problem is we invaded that fked up country...and that blood is on the hands of all those that voted for Bush and his henchmen.
Its only a matter of time before this hotbed region would flame up. Its better that Saddam is out so he cant get together with the likes of Iran and Syria and cause even bigger problems. The world will be better for it.
Its only a matter of time before this hotbed region would flame up. Its better that Saddam is out so he cant get together with the likes of Iran and Syria and cause even bigger problems. The world will be better for it.
Honestly - do you know anything about Iraq under Hussein vis a vis Iran et al? Saddam was the best thing we could have had in terms of tempering Iran.
They were beyond sworn enemies. They fought one of the most disgusting brutal wars ever in the 1980's (yes we know the US role in it).
Hussein and the Baath Patry were Sunni. He considered his Persian neighbors to be dogs.
There would be no partnership b/w Iran and Iraq. Just as there would be no partnership b/w Iraq and Al Qaeda/Osama.
Lumping the whole region together smacks of Bush's approach: Shortcuts to thinking. They are all arabs so they are all alike....
"Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago"- Stephen Colbert
Its only a matter of time before this hotbed region would flame up. Its better that Saddam is out so he cant get together with the likes of Iran and Syria and cause even bigger problems. The world will be better for it.
...
It is more than likely now... that Iran will flow into Iraq. Saddam was a stop gap between the Shi'ite state of Iran and the secular Iraq.
...
Who is better... Saddam Hussein or Ahamenedinajadad?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
It is more than likely now... that Iran will flow into Iraq. Saddam was a stop gap between the Shi'ite state of Iran and the secular Iraq.
...
Who is better... Saddam Hussein or Ahamenedinajadad?
Saddam is/was worse for killing tens of thousands of his own people, the other dictator isnt too far behind, claiming he will wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. He will get his due in the near future.
Saddam is/was worse for killing tens of thousands of his own people, the other dictator isnt too far behind, claiming he will wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. He will get his due in the near future.
Well the US has funded and aided both Iran and Iraq when it suited us. Putting money and power over human life is the problem here. Pointing the finger and disregarding the past is only going to lead to more bloodshed... thousands of more dead people to put up on the score board. You live by example...you don't cry out how wrong someone is for killing by killing just as many.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Saddam is/was worse for killing tens of thousands of his own people, the other dictator isnt too far behind, claiming he will wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. He will get his due in the near future.
...
Things aren't as black and white as you percieve them to be. Hussein killed 'rebels' looking to overthrow his government. Many of those people he killed were killed with weapons supplied by the U.S. government. Remember, we sided with Iraq against Iran in the 1980s... we gave Hussein chemical weapons that he used against the Iranians.
You cannot condemn Hussein for killing people when you were the one who supplied him and cheered his use of those very weapons on them.
...
And the Ahmeniginadad is going to 'get his due'... by who? You? You need to quit having our Army carry out your bullshit rhetoric empty lip service cheerleading.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
If the convoys were suspected to be carrying Weapons and/or weapons making materials... and Syria is ostensibly a US "ally"... why weren't these convoys at least tracked to a destination? And a Syrian official who is hiding Iraqi weapons and aiding insurgents killing our troops in Iraq is not who I would consider an ally. The whole thing sounds too much like Hussein and his military people are brilliant and ours are imbiciles.
So, I'm tossing this whole "Secret Known Convoys across the desert carrying Iraqi weapons to parts unknown" in with the Bush orchestrated the September 11th Attacks conspiracy barrel.
...
Your logic of disregarding this information is based on the assumption that the US military must be "idiots" by letting this convoy go through without further investigation.
You might want to consider that it was a pre-war occurrence. This means the US military was probably not exactly ready to jump on anything that came up as suspicious on satellite surveillance.
The pre-war nature also means that Syria wasn't hiding weapons and aiding insurgents yet. So you can toss out the "...not what I would consider an ally" critieria.
Also, what is so brilliant about putting some weapons onto trucks and shipping them to a different country?
So, to better understand the scenario at hand, it might help you to put it into the right time-frame and to also redefine your definition of "brilliant" and "idiot" to better suit real-world factors. After all, when pizza drivers can deliver 2 Large pizzas faster than an ambulance can get an emergency scene, one should not be surprised at government inefficiency.
And while you may hold the American people for believeing in their leaders... I don't. It was our President who made the inferences and speeches... and people in his administration that made the case for war and sold it to Americans. They are the one who are supposed to have all of the intelligence reports and the information, not us. You are deeply discounting the American people as mindless idiots, here.
Again, his speeches weren't all too far off. I already went over that in my last post. Saddam was linked to terrorism on very minute levels, and that pretty much goes along with the vagueness of Bush's speeches.
You might want to remember that Americans wanted to squash anything having to do with terrorism at that time. What they overlooked was that while Saddam may have known a terrorist or two, there were plenty of other countries in that region who were far more involved.
Again, you and I knew it. Does that make us geniuses? If not, then you could probably say that americans are idiots. But, I don't think they are. I think they just had a long-standing disdain for Saddam that had been ingrained into them since 1991.
It was during the late 90's that Bush Sr. had to give an interview to Barbara Walters explaining why he hadn't pushed all the way into Baghdad in 1991. So even years later, the American people still wanted a piece of Saddam.
That's why Clinton got away with bombing him in 1998, and that's why Americans asked too few questions in the days leading up to the most recent invasion. It was a seed that had already been planted in the minds of Americans, and all Bush did was add a little miracle-grow. The result was enormous popularity.
It was shortly after 9/11, and America's #2 favorite bad-guy was being difficult with the inspections. If you want to think Gore is above that, then all power to you.
Also remember that just about everything one else in congress wanted that war, and they were no less informed than was Bush during that time.
There's a reason why we call them our LEADERS, not Saviours... we want them to lead us, not save us. Blaming the person that is being lied to... for what... believing? That's the same thing as blaming your child and calling him an idiot for believing the Santa Claus stories you told him. I don't blame the American people for being scared... Mushroom Clouds over America are scary.
You hold the competence of the American people in high regard, but you support that with an child/Santa Claus analogy. I guess if you want to think of Americans as children, it's hard to blame them. I was always under the impression that they were adults.
And I will firmly stand on my belief that NO OTHER PRESIDENT would have taken us into Iraq in the manner in which President Bush did.
Yes I know you think this, but you've provided little to support that opinion with anything valid.
Most other Presidents would have looked at the current containment plan in Iraq and deemed is as okay... maybe increase surveillence on Iraq and Iraqi interstate traffic. But, a normal president would have stayed on Usama Bin Laden's ass and leveled all of America's military resources towards that goal.
This one is on Bush... Iraq is his war.
A normal president.....just like all the ones before Bush Jr. and all the potential presidents who sat in congress on the day the war was voted into action based on information so vague that neither you nor I bought into it.
Honestly, after reading your posts in this thread, I'm wondering why you didn't buy into Bush's agenda. Is it really because you knew better?
The decision to go into Iraq was based on a complete misunderstanding of the Middle East and the culture of the people we were trying to liberate. Hussein was a maniac and a mass murderer. But that in and of itself had little to do with why people were in favor of the war. It was sold based on the idea that Hussein had the ability to help terrorists hurt the US.
Personally, I don't think it's impossible that such a connection could have developed more,(Saddam hated the US and did support radical groups) but that's not really the point. The point is, the Saudis, Pakistan, and Iran all support the people who are trying to and are killing Americans.
The awful aspect of all this is that no matter how we leave Iraq, a sizable part of the Arab world will see it as a puppet American government. Iran, Al-Qaeda, and other Radical Islamists will use it as a scapegoat and a target thereafter. This will provide a distraction from the tyranny those kind of groups are in favor of and unify Arabs, once again, against the West. It's not impossible for a US implemented government to work, but it's a long process. Much longer than Bush, et al, ever thought or ever communicated to the American public.
Bush thinks that the instability of the region can be quelled with western democracy and freedom. But the region is dying - literally - to have an identity of its own, based on Arab history and culture. That's why bid Laden is so popular. He's an Arab who utilizes and manipulates the history that so many appreciate. We have got to understand that before we expect a country like Iraq - which is steeped in Arab/Islamic history - to adopt a government from the west. Or before we can confront the threat of Radical Islamists, which is the largest issue we face today.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
Your logic of disregarding this information is based on the assumption that the US military must be "idiots" by letting this convoy go through without further investigation.
You might want to consider that it was a pre-war occurrence. This means the US military was probably not exactly ready to jump on anything that came up as suspicious on satellite surveillance.
The pre-war nature also means that Syria wasn't hiding weapons and aiding insurgents yet. So you can toss out the "...not what I would consider an ally" critieria.
Also, what is so brilliant about putting some weapons onto trucks and shipping them to a different country?
So, to better understand the scenario at hand, it might help you to put it into the right time-frame and to also redefine your definition of "brilliant" and "idiot" to better suit real-world factors. After all, when pizza drivers can deliver 2 Large pizzas faster than an ambulance can get an emergency scene, one should not be surprised at government inefficiency.
Again, his speeches weren't all too far off. I already went over that in my last post. Saddam was linked to terrorism on very minute levels, and that pretty much goes along with the vagueness of Bush's speeches.
You might want to remember that Americans wanted to squash anything having to do with terrorism at that time. What they overlooked was that while Saddam may have known a terrorist or two, there were plenty of other countries in that region who were far more involved.
Again, you and I knew it. Does that make us geniuses? If not, then you could probably say that americans are idiots. But, I don't think they are. I think they just had a long-standing disdain for Saddam that had been ingrained into them since 1991.
It was during the late 90's that Bush Sr. had to give an interview to Barbara Walters explaining why he hadn't pushed all the way into Baghdad in 1991. So even years later, the American people still wanted a piece of Saddam.
That's why Clinton got away with bombing him in 1998, and that's why Americans asked too few questions in the days leading up to the most recent invasion. It was a seed that had already been planted in the minds of Americans, and all Bush did was add a little miracle-grow. The result was enormous popularity.
It was shortly after 9/11, and America's #2 favorite bad-guy was being difficult with the inspections. If you want to think Gore is above that, then all power to you.
Also remember that just about everything one else in congress wanted that war, and they were no less informed than was Bush during that time.
You hold the competence of the American people in high regard, but you support that with an child/Santa Claus analogy. I guess if you want to think of Americans as children, it's hard to blame them. I was always under the impression that they were adults.
Yes I know you think this, but you've provided little to support that opinion with anything valid.
A normal president.....just like all the ones before Bush Jr. and all the potential presidents who sat in congress on the day the war was voted into action based on information so vague that neither you nor I bought into it.
Honestly, after reading your posts in this thread, I'm wondering why you didn't buy into Bush's agenda. Is it really because you knew better?
...
These 'Secret Convoys' of significant weapons stores to Syria hold as much water as a bowl made of fishnets. It's more a 'Conspiracy Theory' than a factual event. And yeah, I do NOT believe that the Iraqi Military can outsmart our military... regardless of how stupid you believe the Americans to be. We had satellite surveilence, aerial tracking and personel on the ground... we ALWAYS position forward recon on the ground... especially prior to major military actions. One of the main factors is mobility and movement... you want to track ground movement... especially weapons transport.
And Syria, what are you saying... were they an ally? Are they an ally? Before? After? What? If they WERE an ally before the start of the war... why were they taking shipments and why are we allowing them to? If they weren't, why wasn't more attention paid to them as this imaginary fleet of trucks carrying nuclear or chemical/biological weapons headed towards their borders? Isn't Syria just as capable as Iraq to sell these weapons to al Qaeda?
And putting a couple of bombs on a truck does not mean that there were massive stockpiles of W.M.D.s that could possibly have threatened the United States. The W.M.D. thing was exaggerated... two atrillery shells in the bed of a pick-up truck does not mean Hussein had nuclear capability.
...
As for your view of the American people... you are the one that believes they are children. I believe they are people who got scared by their leaders who exaggerated and/or manufactured a threat from Iraq. Check out the pre-War speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. Hussein was mentioned everytime the term 'Terrorism' and 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' was used. The reason why the American people linked Hussein with terrorists and W.M.D.s was because the Bush Administration created those links. Maybe you think the Americans are stupid because 20% can't find Iraq on the map... well, doesn't that means 80% of us can?
And yeah... we place some faith in our leaders... we want them to protect us... we want them to lead us. We believe they know more of the acts than we do and we expect them to act responsibly. Scaring us with talks of 'Mushroom Clouds' and nuclear bombs in the hands of Usama Bin Laden is fucking scary... only if those words are real. If anything... the American people should be blamed for believing our leaders are trustworthy. They shouldn't be held responsible for irresponsible actions of our leaders.
I just don't understand how you can discount Bush's responsibility in all of this. It has become clear that he wanted this war. Yeah, other politicians believed Hussein wanted to acquire W.M.D.s... but, Bush is the one who took us to war. Congressmen and Senators are political pussies that just want to keep their jobs. After September 11th, they all became 'Yes-men' to the President... not out of conviction... out of political survival. I am not making excuses for them... they are also partly reponsible for this... mainly, for being political pussies. You seem to be blaming everyone for this war... Hussein, the American people, politicians... everyone except for President Bush. This is his war... a war of choice... his choice. If you aren't defending Prsident Bush... you are doing a really, really bad job of holding him responsible.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
These 'Secret Convoys' of significant weapons stores to Syria hold as much water as a bowl made of fishnets. It's more a 'Conspiracy Theory' than a factual event. And yeah, I do NOT believe that the Iraqi Military can outsmart our military... regardless of how stupid you believe the Americans to be. We had satellite surveilence, aerial tracking and personel on the ground... we ALWAYS position forward recon on the ground... especially prior to major military actions. One of the main factors is mobility and movement... you want to track ground movement... especially weapons transport.
You again overlook the fact that they were commercial trucks, and I think you overestimate the ability of US forces to instantly react to trucks that appear on satellite trackings. If you want to believe that only a "stupid" military would allow a convoy of commercial vehicles pass into another country, then I guess that's the thin strand of logic by which you choose to hang. And you act as though our military has never been "outsmarted." Do you honestly believe that?
And Syria, what are you saying... were they an ally? Are they an ally? Before? After? What? If they WERE an ally before the start of the war... why were they taking shipments and why are we allowing them to? If they weren't, why wasn't more attention paid to them as this imaginary fleet of trucks carrying nuclear or chemical/biological weapons headed towards their borders? Isn't Syria just as capable as Iraq to sell these weapons to al Qaeda?
Again, I said they were "ostensibly" our ally. This means for the sake of appearances, the US makes an effort to remain "diplomatic" with them. I didn't literally call them our allies. I have to repeat this to you like you have your fingers stuck in your ears.
And putting a couple of bombs on a truck does not mean that there were massive stockpiles of W.M.D.s that could possibly have threatened the United States. The W.M.D. thing was exaggerated... two atrillery shells in the bed of a pick-up truck does not mean Hussein had nuclear capability.
I see, so a convoy of trucks is now a pick up truck....again..fingers in your ears.
...
As for your view of the American people... you are the one that believes they are children. I believe they are people who got scared by their leaders who exaggerated and/or manufactured a threat from Iraq. Check out the pre-War speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. Hussein was mentioned everytime the term 'Terrorism' and 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' was used. The reason why the American people linked Hussein with terrorists and W.M.D.s was because the Bush Administration created those links. Maybe you think the Americans are stupid because 20% can't find Iraq on the map... well, doesn't that means 80% of us can?
You were the one comparing Americans to children by using the child/santa claus analogy. And now you want to say that 80% of Americans are adquately informed on middle eastern matters because they know where Iraq is on a map? That's some logic there.
Bush may have over-emphasized connections between Saddam and terrorism, but you still haven't explained why you weren't fooled by those connections. Or maybe you were and just won't admit it? Why hold yourself to higher standards than your fellow Americans? Maybe you're the one who has gotten accustomed to thinking that Americans are idiots, and so you naturally expect them to be less capable of making decisions? I, on the other hand, expect no less of my fellow americans than I do of myself.
And yeah... we place some faith in our leaders... we want them to protect us... we want them to lead us. We believe they know more of the acts than we do and we expect them to act responsibly. Scaring us with talks of 'Mushroom Clouds' and nuclear bombs in the hands of Usama Bin Laden is fucking scary... only if those words are real. If anything... the American people should be blamed for believing our leaders are trustworthy. They shouldn't be held responsible for irresponsible actions of our leaders.
I just don't understand how you can discount Bush's responsibility in all of this. It has become clear that he wanted this war. Yeah, other politicians believed Hussein wanted to acquire W.M.D.s... but, Bush is the one who took us to war. Congressmen and Senators are political pussies that just want to keep their jobs. After September 11th, they all became 'Yes-men' to the President... not out of conviction... out of political survival. I am not making excuses for them... they are also partly reponsible for this... mainly, for being political pussies. You seem to be blaming everyone for this war... Hussein, the American people, politicians... everyone except for President Bush. This is his war... a war of choice... his choice. If you aren't defending Prsident Bush... you are doing a really, really bad job of holding him responsible.
What people need to realize is that politcians are people just like anyone else, except probably a little worse because they're drunk with power and are masters of deceiving the general public. That is, after all, how they get elected.
Until people start becoming aware of their own responsibility to get informed, things will never change. It's that "No other president would have done the same" mentality that allows history to repeat itself.....just as I have to repeat myself to you.
In some threads, you are well-informed and ready to tackle the arguments. This is not one of those threads.
You again overlook the fact that they were commercial trucks, and I think you overestimate the ability of US forces to instantly react to trucks that appear on satellite trackings. If you want to believe that only a "stupid" military would allow a convoy of commercial vehicles pass into another country, then I guess that's the thin strand of logic by which you choose to hang. And you act as though our military has never been "outsmarted." Do you honestly believe that?
Again, I said they were "ostensibly" our ally. This means for the sake of appearances, the US makes an effort to remain "diplomatic" with them. I didn't literally call them our allies. I have to repeat this to you like you have your fingers stuck in your ears.
I see, so a convoy of trucks is now a pick up truck....again..fingers in your ears.
...
You were the one comparing Americans to children by using the child/santa claus analogy. And now you want to say that 80% of Americans are adquately informed on middle eastern matters because they know where Iraq is on a map? That's some logic there.
Bush may have over-emphasized connections between Saddam and terrorism, but you still haven't explained why you weren't fooled by those connections. Or maybe you were and just won't admit it? Why hold yourself to higher standards than your fellow Americans? Maybe you're the one who has gotten accustomed to thinking that Americans are idiots, and so you naturally expect them to be less capable of making decisions? I, on the other hand, expect no less of my fellow americans than I do of myself.
What people need to realize is that politcians are people just like anyone else, except probably a little worse because they're drunk with power and are masters of deceiving the general public. That is, after all, how they get elected.
Until people start becoming aware of their own responsibility to get informed, things will never change. It's that "No other president would have done the same" mentality that allows history to repeat itself.....just as I have to repeat myself to you.
In some threads, you are well-informed and ready to tackle the arguments. This is not one of those threads.
...
I get it... you hold many people... The American people, Hussein, Europeans, hippies, pirates, Raiders Fans... responsible for this war. I don't. You don't have to be a dick about it... unless you just can't help it.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I get it... you hold many people... The American people, Hussein, Europeans, hippies, pirates, Raiders Fans... responsible for this war. I don't. You don't have to be a dick about it... unless you just can't help it.
You think I'm being "a dick about it" because it's an opinion that is different from yours. It's sort of like, "Oh yeah, well you're a dick."
You think I'm being "a dick about it" because it's an opinion that is different from yours. It's sort of like, "Oh yeah, well you're a dick."
...
No... it's because of how you are saying it. I don't know... are you actually a dick... or do you just act like one?
I am not buying your bullshit 'Secret Convoys of Weapons' conspiracy theory because I don't see who benefits from it... and you pop off like a dick.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
No... it's because of how you are saying it. I don't know... are you actually a dick... or do you just act like one?
I am not buying your bullshit 'Secret Convoys of Weapons' conspiracy theory because I don't see who benefits from it... and you pop off like a dick.
Comments
I don't know.
But, I DO know that when a Captain or Sargeant or Specialist that has served in that battle zone leaves the military... he takes leadership and battlefield experience with him. Those are intangibles that cannot be immediaely replaced.
And I don't blame them for leaving. I cannot imagine being away from family and friends... in a hostile environment... and placing the stress of my welfare on my loved ones at home every day I'm gone. I do not expect them to continue to make sacrifices when the rest of us are just sitting on our asses at... in the comfort of our own living rooms.
Hail, Hail!!!
Here is a copy/paste of the washington times article. Viewing the archives at that site requires an account, so I can provide a copy/paste
also, there's this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
...
except for B, I have not said anything in disagreement with that.
...
Here is a quote from Clinton in 1998:
It just goes to show that the lust for war crosses all political boundaries. Would I be defending Gore? That question is only appropriate if I was defending Bush. I'm not defending Bush. I'm only saying that is he being unfairly singled out when he is just another politician.
...
You say you were against the war from the beginning....well that just goes to show that it was possible to see through the bullshit....it's just that most people did not want to see through the bullshit. And that is why Bush's "lies" are not to blame as much as America's eagerness to wage war and live in fear.
That has nothing to do with what I posted. I didn't say he was a strong president.
..
When you refer to the less-severe actions by former presidents, you refer to presidents who acted under different circumstances. None of those presidents had the opportunity to address a nation that had just been attacked on its own soil, thus being under an elevated level of fear.
Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq and Eastern Europe just to draw attention away from his own domestic political scandals. Imagine what he could've gotten away with if all he had to do was put the words 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence?
Why am I having to explain obvious points to people? I think the answer is that people have such a raging hard-on to slag bush and blame him for everything that has gone wrong, that they think anyone else who isn't doing the exact same thing must be defending him. Defending him is not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that the anti-Bush rhetoric has a tendency to be just a tad be partisan and one-sided.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Oh, and I guess that means Saddam definitely did not have WMDs. If you read my post carefully, you see that I saying it's impossible to say whether he did or didn't, but that circumtanstial evidence would say that it's probable that he did. I am well aware of what happened with Plame, but proving that he didn't purchase a certain thing from a certain country doesn't mean he doesn't have anything at all.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I bet you remember when Saddam was democratically elected back in the day, eh?
Funny how long the line of bullshit is, it always seems to come back to that one country who needs to have it all.
Funny, the same could be said for Saddam and his cronies. I just think that when the writing was on the wall that the US was gonna invade, Saddam should have realized that his time was up, his days were over as president of Iraq. He should have stepped down and sought asylum in Cuba or some other country that would have him. He had the money and the resources to just leave. Instead, he called on his country to fight the Americans. Eventually he was caught in hole not too far away from Baghdad and hung for war crimes, while his two kids didn't last but a few months before they were cornered in a house and killed. No doubt Bush made a mistake or two in this war, but it was Saddam that made the biggest mistake of all, and it was his mistake that has lead to so much bloodshed.
Unless your goal is to keep Islamic Fundamentalism down (and, boy, if there's anything you get all frothy about, it's keeping Islamic Fundamentalism down), then he did a good thing and the Bushes made the biggest mistake of all when they made Saddam our enemy.
Throughout all of this, though, Saddam has always been Saddam. You go on and on about how Islamic Fundamentalists need to be wiped out. That Sharia law is the greatest enemy the west has ever known. You know who was great at keeping fundamentalism suppressed? You know who was absolutely fan-fucking-tastic at keeping Sharia law out of his country? Saddam.
And why do you think ppl linked Iraq to 9/11? Do you even remember half the sh*t this administration said prior to invading Iraq?
"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. "
Bush never said Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda????????????????????????
Bush never said Saddam was linked to Terrorism????????????????????????
I mean come on - just read these quotes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293
Al Gore was against the war and spoke out about it BEFORE Bush launched an invasion.
Dont play loosely with the facts. This revisionist history is pure crap.
War was happening either way. The Bush administration wanted war both logistically and politically. Giving some phone ultamatum wasn't going to change anything.
The bigger mistake was kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq in 2002/03. Of course they hasdn't found shit. That was going to be a problem since WMD was the only logical war rationale that would simultaneously scare the shit out of idiot America and provide political cover at the UN and Congress.
That didn't work well though. If I remember well, the "irrefutable proofs" that Powell presented at the UN were laughed at by all the other countries as they completely lacked true intelligence and left so much room for interpretation each country was free to see them as they wished. That's the problem with Irak, communication around the war was done in such an unintelligent manner that everyone can see "irrefutable truths" where the want.
Going to war with interpretation but no intelligence was the biggest mistake in all of this. Because Bush did not wait a little to have a clear strategy most of the blame is on him.
think its beyond partisan and one-sided....it was so very clear for a very large percentage of Americans that we should not have gone into Iraq and knew it would be the worst move in a long time for this great country. When I critisize Bush and his henchmen......I frequently include all those that voted for him and those that in anyway support this guy now. He isn't an ordinary politition...not even an ordinary president...as you say...he's not very intelligent, surrounded himself with the worst people....and needs to be called out...along with all those that got suckered.....maybe in 12 years when another douchbag uses god, fays and abortion to get into power the simpleminded ones that support that doctrine will remember how they were suckered in the past.
I agree. it would end the war.
Georgie knows it. that's why he never did it.
sure put an end to viet nam.
I see where you are coming from... that Bush alone was not the only one that is said to have believed in Iraq's Weapons Of Mass destruction. Sort of like Barry Bonds is being singled out for steroids when McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Giambi, and just about every power player in baseball used them. Bonds is magnified because of the Home Run record and Bush because of the September 11th Attacks. I'm not denying that... neither am I denying the existance of the W.M.D.s. We know he had them... we supplied him in the 1980s. We also destroyed the bulk of his weapons and denied his deployment of them by dismantling his delivery systems as well as restricting his development and manufacturing capabilities.
I am saying that this IRAQ WAR IS BUSH'S WAR. The War against Terrorists and Terrorism in general is all of our wars. Bush has side-tracked our goals on crushing terrorists by taking us into Iraq. In order to take us into Iraq, he USED the political rhetoric about Hussein and W.M.D.s and twisted it into fear that was ultimately used to sell it to the American people. If you bought it, that's your gig... I never did. I do not believe any other President would have gotten us into Iraq... especially in the manner in which he used. We would be in Afghanistan... YES. That is a no-brainer. It was Bush's decision to go into Iraq. I believe he should hold himself responsible for his decision. To blame the American people based upon messages told to them by Bush... Isn't that Defending Bush?
And as for that Washington Times report... if it was true... why was NOTHING done about it? Why IS nothing being done to locate them? Isn't kind of important to the 'War on Terror'? W.M.D.s in Syria? Isn't that something to be worried about?
Hail, Hail!!!
It was never verified that the trucks headed toward Syria actually contained WMDs. You wonder why "nothing was done", but I'm assuming it's because it wouldn't be prudent to bomb an entire convoy of trucks without having at least some intelligence as to their contents.
Also, Syria is ostensibly a US "ally". Blasting commercial trucks headed towards Syria or "shaking down" Syrian officials about the whereabouts/contents of the trucks would be bad press. When considering that the US has done little about Syria's known involvement with the insurgency in Iraq, I don't deem the situation with the trucks to be all that shocking.
So, in regards to that, all I'm saying is that it's not impossible that Iraq had WMDs. What I'm also saying is that it doesn't really matter if it did or didn't. Some people go on and on about how Iraq didn't actually have WMDs, but I think that even if it's proven that none were there, those people are still missing the point. And that point is that Saddam's possession of WMDs was never really a true concern of world peace to begin with.
What I'm saying is that opposition to the war should not be predicated on the premise that Saddam never actually had WMDs.
So, that leads me back to the supposed connections that Saddam had to terror networks and the 9/11 planners. Earlier I said that Bush made no direct connection, but I was schooled on that and so I retract. I was not aware of those statements that he made regarding Saddam and terrorism.
But, that isn't to say that most of those statements weren't true. With exception to Saddam being linked to 9/11, the statements connecting Saddam to terror networks are in fact true to some extent.
He did, after all, harbor Zarqawi. Even the 9/11 commission reports cites the existence of fundamentalist camps located in Iraq.
But, my point is that Americans allowed his vague and unspecific references to Saddam and terrorism to convince them that war was necessary. I personally did not believe Saddam was linked to 9/11. I didn't think Saddam was even linked to any real terror networks. As far as I knew, Yemen and Syria represented the biggest terrorist-harboring/supporting countries in the region.
And so that's why I say Americans made their own inference in regards to Saddam's potential for masterminding international terrorism. If I wasn't convinced, why would anyone else be convinced? Personally, I expect names, dates, and supporting details when I hear why a person is suspected of a certain thing. I did not hear that from Bush in regards to Saddam.
But, by saying that Americans are responsible for buying into Bush's rhetoric, I don't believe I am defending Bush. Instead, what I think I'm doing is holding America accountable for naively allowing a single man to take the helm and make their decisions for them without first providing enough convincing evidence.
Americans are like women sometimes. Women like to be lied to by "slick", "smooth-talking" men. They like to play the drunk girl who wakes up the next morning disappointed that she wasn't taken advantage of in her most vulnerable state.
Americans don't want to think for themselves. They want a superhero president who is going to make everything all better. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with the idolization of historical figures like George Washington, FDR, and JFK.
It gets to the point where people think the presidency is more than just an administrative position. It becomes a position of ideological standard setting. That is, not only do Americans want their president to lead, but they also want their president to be a role model for how they conduct themselves on a personal -and even spiritual- level.
And that's why Bush was so easily able to swindle americans into supporting the invasion. People don't want to ask too many questions of a person who they want to believe is nearly god-like. They want their president to be a walking, talking, ultimate appeal to authority.
So, again, I'm not defending Bush. I'm holding americans responsible for not knowing better. You and I knew better, so why couldn't the rest of America?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Game set and match. We have a winner. Thank you for playing people.
Fixed.
Peace.
If the convoys were suspected to be carrying Weapons and/or weapons making materials... and Syria is ostensibly a US "ally"... why weren't these convoys at least tracked to a destination? And a Syrian official who is hiding Iraqi weapons and aiding insurgents killing our troops in Iraq is not who I would consider an ally. The whole thing sounds too much like Hussein and his military people are brilliant and ours are imbiciles.
So, I'm tossing this whole "Secret Known Convoys across the desert carrying Iraqi weapons to parts unknown" in with the Bush orchestrated the September 11th Attacks conspiracy barrel.
...
And while you may hold the American people for believeing in their leaders... I don't. It was our President who made the inferences and speeches... and people in his administration that made the case for war and sold it to Americans. They are the one who are supposed to have all of the intelligence reports and the information, not us. You are deeply discounting the American people as mindless idiots, here. There's a reason why we call them our LEADERS, not Saviours... we want them to lead us, not save us. Blaming the person that is being lied to... for what... believing? That's the same thing as blaming your child and calling him an idiot for believing the Santa Claus stories you told him. I don't blame the American people for being scared... Mushroom Clouds over America are scary.
And I will firmly stand on my belief that NO OTHER PRESIDENT would have taken us into Iraq in the manner in which President Bush did. Most other Presidents would have looked at the current containment plan in Iraq and deemed is as okay... maybe increase surveillence on Iraq and Iraqi interstate traffic. But, a normal president would have stayed on Usama Bin Laden's ass and leveled all of America's military resources towards that goal.
This one is on Bush... Iraq is his war.
Hail, Hail!!!
Its only a matter of time before this hotbed region would flame up. Its better that Saddam is out so he cant get together with the likes of Iran and Syria and cause even bigger problems. The world will be better for it.
Honestly - do you know anything about Iraq under Hussein vis a vis Iran et al? Saddam was the best thing we could have had in terms of tempering Iran.
They were beyond sworn enemies. They fought one of the most disgusting brutal wars ever in the 1980's (yes we know the US role in it).
Hussein and the Baath Patry were Sunni. He considered his Persian neighbors to be dogs.
There would be no partnership b/w Iran and Iraq. Just as there would be no partnership b/w Iraq and Al Qaeda/Osama.
Lumping the whole region together smacks of Bush's approach: Shortcuts to thinking. They are all arabs so they are all alike....
It is more than likely now... that Iran will flow into Iraq. Saddam was a stop gap between the Shi'ite state of Iran and the secular Iraq.
...
Who is better... Saddam Hussein or Ahamenedinajadad?
Hail, Hail!!!
Well the US has funded and aided both Iran and Iraq when it suited us. Putting money and power over human life is the problem here. Pointing the finger and disregarding the past is only going to lead to more bloodshed... thousands of more dead people to put up on the score board. You live by example...you don't cry out how wrong someone is for killing by killing just as many.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Things aren't as black and white as you percieve them to be. Hussein killed 'rebels' looking to overthrow his government. Many of those people he killed were killed with weapons supplied by the U.S. government. Remember, we sided with Iraq against Iran in the 1980s... we gave Hussein chemical weapons that he used against the Iranians.
You cannot condemn Hussein for killing people when you were the one who supplied him and cheered his use of those very weapons on them.
...
And the Ahmeniginadad is going to 'get his due'... by who? You? You need to quit having our Army carry out your bullshit rhetoric empty lip service cheerleading.
Hail, Hail!!!
Your logic of disregarding this information is based on the assumption that the US military must be "idiots" by letting this convoy go through without further investigation.
You might want to consider that it was a pre-war occurrence. This means the US military was probably not exactly ready to jump on anything that came up as suspicious on satellite surveillance.
The pre-war nature also means that Syria wasn't hiding weapons and aiding insurgents yet. So you can toss out the "...not what I would consider an ally" critieria.
Also, what is so brilliant about putting some weapons onto trucks and shipping them to a different country?
So, to better understand the scenario at hand, it might help you to put it into the right time-frame and to also redefine your definition of "brilliant" and "idiot" to better suit real-world factors. After all, when pizza drivers can deliver 2 Large pizzas faster than an ambulance can get an emergency scene, one should not be surprised at government inefficiency.
Again, his speeches weren't all too far off. I already went over that in my last post. Saddam was linked to terrorism on very minute levels, and that pretty much goes along with the vagueness of Bush's speeches.
You might want to remember that Americans wanted to squash anything having to do with terrorism at that time. What they overlooked was that while Saddam may have known a terrorist or two, there were plenty of other countries in that region who were far more involved.
Again, you and I knew it. Does that make us geniuses? If not, then you could probably say that americans are idiots. But, I don't think they are. I think they just had a long-standing disdain for Saddam that had been ingrained into them since 1991.
It was during the late 90's that Bush Sr. had to give an interview to Barbara Walters explaining why he hadn't pushed all the way into Baghdad in 1991. So even years later, the American people still wanted a piece of Saddam.
That's why Clinton got away with bombing him in 1998, and that's why Americans asked too few questions in the days leading up to the most recent invasion. It was a seed that had already been planted in the minds of Americans, and all Bush did was add a little miracle-grow. The result was enormous popularity.
It was shortly after 9/11, and America's #2 favorite bad-guy was being difficult with the inspections. If you want to think Gore is above that, then all power to you.
Also remember that just about everything one else in congress wanted that war, and they were no less informed than was Bush during that time.
You hold the competence of the American people in high regard, but you support that with an child/Santa Claus analogy. I guess if you want to think of Americans as children, it's hard to blame them. I was always under the impression that they were adults.
Yes I know you think this, but you've provided little to support that opinion with anything valid.
A normal president.....just like all the ones before Bush Jr. and all the potential presidents who sat in congress on the day the war was voted into action based on information so vague that neither you nor I bought into it.
Honestly, after reading your posts in this thread, I'm wondering why you didn't buy into Bush's agenda. Is it really because you knew better?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Personally, I don't think it's impossible that such a connection could have developed more,(Saddam hated the US and did support radical groups) but that's not really the point. The point is, the Saudis, Pakistan, and Iran all support the people who are trying to and are killing Americans.
The awful aspect of all this is that no matter how we leave Iraq, a sizable part of the Arab world will see it as a puppet American government. Iran, Al-Qaeda, and other Radical Islamists will use it as a scapegoat and a target thereafter. This will provide a distraction from the tyranny those kind of groups are in favor of and unify Arabs, once again, against the West. It's not impossible for a US implemented government to work, but it's a long process. Much longer than Bush, et al, ever thought or ever communicated to the American public.
Bush thinks that the instability of the region can be quelled with western democracy and freedom. But the region is dying - literally - to have an identity of its own, based on Arab history and culture. That's why bid Laden is so popular. He's an Arab who utilizes and manipulates the history that so many appreciate. We have got to understand that before we expect a country like Iraq - which is steeped in Arab/Islamic history - to adopt a government from the west. Or before we can confront the threat of Radical Islamists, which is the largest issue we face today.
These 'Secret Convoys' of significant weapons stores to Syria hold as much water as a bowl made of fishnets. It's more a 'Conspiracy Theory' than a factual event. And yeah, I do NOT believe that the Iraqi Military can outsmart our military... regardless of how stupid you believe the Americans to be. We had satellite surveilence, aerial tracking and personel on the ground... we ALWAYS position forward recon on the ground... especially prior to major military actions. One of the main factors is mobility and movement... you want to track ground movement... especially weapons transport.
And Syria, what are you saying... were they an ally? Are they an ally? Before? After? What? If they WERE an ally before the start of the war... why were they taking shipments and why are we allowing them to? If they weren't, why wasn't more attention paid to them as this imaginary fleet of trucks carrying nuclear or chemical/biological weapons headed towards their borders? Isn't Syria just as capable as Iraq to sell these weapons to al Qaeda?
And putting a couple of bombs on a truck does not mean that there were massive stockpiles of W.M.D.s that could possibly have threatened the United States. The W.M.D. thing was exaggerated... two atrillery shells in the bed of a pick-up truck does not mean Hussein had nuclear capability.
...
As for your view of the American people... you are the one that believes they are children. I believe they are people who got scared by their leaders who exaggerated and/or manufactured a threat from Iraq. Check out the pre-War speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. Hussein was mentioned everytime the term 'Terrorism' and 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' was used. The reason why the American people linked Hussein with terrorists and W.M.D.s was because the Bush Administration created those links. Maybe you think the Americans are stupid because 20% can't find Iraq on the map... well, doesn't that means 80% of us can?
And yeah... we place some faith in our leaders... we want them to protect us... we want them to lead us. We believe they know more of the acts than we do and we expect them to act responsibly. Scaring us with talks of 'Mushroom Clouds' and nuclear bombs in the hands of Usama Bin Laden is fucking scary... only if those words are real. If anything... the American people should be blamed for believing our leaders are trustworthy. They shouldn't be held responsible for irresponsible actions of our leaders.
I just don't understand how you can discount Bush's responsibility in all of this. It has become clear that he wanted this war. Yeah, other politicians believed Hussein wanted to acquire W.M.D.s... but, Bush is the one who took us to war. Congressmen and Senators are political pussies that just want to keep their jobs. After September 11th, they all became 'Yes-men' to the President... not out of conviction... out of political survival. I am not making excuses for them... they are also partly reponsible for this... mainly, for being political pussies. You seem to be blaming everyone for this war... Hussein, the American people, politicians... everyone except for President Bush. This is his war... a war of choice... his choice. If you aren't defending Prsident Bush... you are doing a really, really bad job of holding him responsible.
Hail, Hail!!!
You again overlook the fact that they were commercial trucks, and I think you overestimate the ability of US forces to instantly react to trucks that appear on satellite trackings. If you want to believe that only a "stupid" military would allow a convoy of commercial vehicles pass into another country, then I guess that's the thin strand of logic by which you choose to hang. And you act as though our military has never been "outsmarted." Do you honestly believe that?
Again, I said they were "ostensibly" our ally. This means for the sake of appearances, the US makes an effort to remain "diplomatic" with them. I didn't literally call them our allies. I have to repeat this to you like you have your fingers stuck in your ears.
I see, so a convoy of trucks is now a pick up truck....again..fingers in your ears.
...
You were the one comparing Americans to children by using the child/santa claus analogy. And now you want to say that 80% of Americans are adquately informed on middle eastern matters because they know where Iraq is on a map? That's some logic there.
Bush may have over-emphasized connections between Saddam and terrorism, but you still haven't explained why you weren't fooled by those connections. Or maybe you were and just won't admit it? Why hold yourself to higher standards than your fellow Americans? Maybe you're the one who has gotten accustomed to thinking that Americans are idiots, and so you naturally expect them to be less capable of making decisions? I, on the other hand, expect no less of my fellow americans than I do of myself.
What people need to realize is that politcians are people just like anyone else, except probably a little worse because they're drunk with power and are masters of deceiving the general public. That is, after all, how they get elected.
Until people start becoming aware of their own responsibility to get informed, things will never change. It's that "No other president would have done the same" mentality that allows history to repeat itself.....just as I have to repeat myself to you.
In some threads, you are well-informed and ready to tackle the arguments. This is not one of those threads.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I get it... you hold many people... The American people, Hussein, Europeans, hippies, pirates, Raiders Fans... responsible for this war. I don't. You don't have to be a dick about it... unless you just can't help it.
Hail, Hail!!!
You think I'm being "a dick about it" because it's an opinion that is different from yours. It's sort of like, "Oh yeah, well you're a dick."
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
No... it's because of how you are saying it. I don't know... are you actually a dick... or do you just act like one?
I am not buying your bullshit 'Secret Convoys of Weapons' conspiracy theory because I don't see who benefits from it... and you pop off like a dick.
Hail, Hail!!!
Define "like a dick".
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825