Is there a legitimate case that the blood is on Saddam's hands?

stupidcorporatewhore

Bu2 wrote:

the draft, luv.

Or, do you want to wait that long?

I agree. it would end the war.

Georgie knows it. that's why he never did it.

sure put an end to viet nam.

Coming back to life

The golden rule of being to blame is: you have to be white.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

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?

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
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?

Anon

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

sponger - but the words 'SOME' added by pj_gurl wrote:

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.

Fixed.


Peace.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

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.

SpreadtheJAM

callen wrote:

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.

FredFlintstone

SpreadtheJAM wrote:

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....

Cosmo

SpreadtheJAM wrote:

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?

SpreadtheJAM

Cosmo wrote:

...
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.

Abookamongstthemany

SpreadtheJAM wrote:

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.

Cosmo

SpreadtheJAM wrote:

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.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
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?

ArmsinaV

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.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

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.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
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.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

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.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
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."

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

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.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
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.

Define "like a dick".