quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Since America has taken over Iraq I'd venture to say the "murder rate" is about the same, the country is unstable and the people are at americans instead of an ass hole named Saddam.

Before a debate ensue's bill, let me say this--- We shouldn't be there.

Sadam has killed , and SHOULD be punished.
On the flip side of that, America has also killed innocents, and those responcible should also be punished.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: You get the point though I assume? Iraq was no threat to us, and look where it got us. Hell even President Ford knew we shouldn't be parading around the world overthrowing dictators unless it directly affected our national security.

Ford's comments would have had some validity IF he hadn't said he would have done sanctions, sanctions, and more sanctions to address the situation. That wasn't accomplishing the goal. Good. Do more of something that wasn't working.

In retrospect, it may be that Iraq was no imminent threat to the U.S. But is STILL could have accomplished something worthwhile to go into Iraq by showing terrorists around the world that the U.S. wasn't a paper tiger anymore, now that Clinton was out of office. However, since the way it was done was poor, with many mistakes, unpreparedness, and squandered opportunities, now it will actually be a huge negative and just reinforce the idea to the world that all you have to do is drag things out long enough and cause enough deaths, and eventually they will lose attention and go home.

It also demonstrated to the world that half the country has the will to do something no matter how tough or costly, and the other half will actively undermine the situation and the terrorists just have to keep playing to them and wait until THEY undermine any initiative.

I DO NOT want this to be an anti-democrat rant, because I don't mean it personally that way. But the reality is that even with Bush making a decision that was not a good choice, a united United States still could have accomplished something meaningful and beneficial. It would have cost more in money, lives, and time than it had to because of the way it was run, but it still could have accomplished a positive result. It will now ultimately likely be an abject failure AND a further negative reinforcement to the world.

Nice job on both sides of the political spectrum.

quote Ford's comments would have had some validity IF he hadn't said he would have done sanctions, sanctions, and more sanctions to address the situation. That wasn't accomplishing the goal. Good. Do more of something that wasn't working.

It always amazes me how quickly conservatives throw away people they disagree with, just to protect their own skin. Gerald Ford was a very smart man. Much smarter than GWB, and if you still can't recognize the error that was the "Iraq war" even after people like Gerald Ford, Colin Powell, and James Baker spell it our for you then you NEVER will.

quote In retrospect, it may be that Iraq was no imminent threat to the U.S. But is STILL could have accomplished something worthwhile to go into Iraq by showing terrorists around the world that the U.S. wasn't a paper tiger anymore, now that Clinton was out of office.

We already did that, it was called AFGHANISTAN. And because of GWB and his neo conservatives crowd we are screwing that up too. We had Afghanistan under control and the people on our side, but now the Taliban is resurging and we don't have the resources to fight them back, because we are fighting on TWO fronts instead of one. Didn't your father ever tell you to finish the job you started BEFORE moving on to the next?

quote However, since the way it was done was poor, with many mistakes, unpreparedness, and squandered opportunities, now it will actually be a huge negative and just reinforce the idea to the world that all you have to do is drag things out long enough and cause enough deaths, and eventually they will lose attention and go home.

The war in Iraq wasn't simply executed poorly, it was a BAD IDEA to start with. History will not allow you to rewrite this folly. It will stand as the first great blunder of American foreign policy in the new century.

Iraq was a manufactured mess, we didn't just fall into it by accident. These fools in the white house figured they could start new jobs before ending current ones, and they though t they could do it on the cheap. They didn't plan, they didn't think through the consequences of removing the iron fist of Saddam, and they didn't even tell their own country the honest truth. They probably figured that if all went according to their rose colored "plan" (if you can even call it that) that history would forgive them before the American people ever knew what they had really done. History doesn't just happen,it's made. That's what they thought anyway.

quote It also demonstrated to the world that half the country has the will to do something no matter how tough or costly,

Oh how brave of you to committ other people's lives no matte rthe cost. You certainly are tough aren't you. If only te other half of the country wouldn't stand in your way everything we would have turned out just great. I guess it doesn't matter that regardless of what 70% of the country thinks, Bush executed this war exactly as he wanted. It doesn't matter to you that no Iraq war critics ever actually prevented GWB from doing anything.

Tell me, how did the other halfs opinion affect the fact that GWB only sent 150,000 troops without international support into a country the experts said needed 500,000 to secure? What change did John Kerry affect on the Iraq war? Nice try for a cop out on responsibility.

quote and the other half will actively undermine the situation and the terrorists just have to keep playing to them and wait until THEY undermine any initiative.

Undermine it? You think the troops in Iraq are so poorly trained that they can't fight Iraqis properly because Jack Murtha wants them to come home? You think it was the Iraqis that "played" and "undermined" our troops? Because it's the troops fighting at the orders of the president, the public has no ability to control troops or the president.

Your argument is weak, it reeks of desperation and of attempts to shrug off responsibility.

quote But the reality is that even with Bush making a decision that was not a good choice, a united United States still could have accomplished something meaningful and beneficial.

No that's the whole point. Bush is responsible for taking us there. 80% of the country went along for the ride thanks to the lying and the nationalistic mood after 911 and the war in Afghanistan. But nothing could have changed the outcome short of a larger number of troops and well thought out contingency plans.

quote It would have cost more in money, lives, and time than it had to because of the way it was run, but it still could have accomplished a positive result.

What are you talking about. We have been trying this for years. GWB is going to send another 40,000 troops after the holiday, and you act like it's all over already. Well it's not. You ARE getting your way, and it's NOT ****ING HELPING. Don't you get it. YoU ARE WRONG.

quote It will now ultimately likely be an abject failure AND a further negative reinforcement to the world.

Which is why it never should have happened. This country was lied to, and now we will suffer from our leaders' mistakes.

quote Nice job on both sides of the political spectrum.

No my friend, this is a Republican failure. If the Democrats had their way we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Your people controlled EVERYTHING. Your mess.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: America has also killed innocents, and those responcible should also be punished.

Won't ever happen. Well maybe a sacreficial lamb here or there just to appease the lust for blood of the masses but other than that the wholesale slaughter continues. However YOU and I are the "Saddam" because of our out of control government.

The government wont pay for these "crimes" WE WILL!

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Won't ever happen. Well maybe a sacreficial lamb here or there just to appease the lust for blood of the masses but other than that the wholesale slaughter continues. However YOU and I are the "Saddam" because of our out of control government. The government wont pay for these "crimes" WE WILL!

I am no Sadam sir, speak for yourself. The last time GWB called my house I urged him to stay out of it.

As far as Who America has offe'd, I said "Should" , and I know this will never happen.

[This message has been edited by intlcutlass (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: I am no Sadam sir, speak for yourself. The last time GWB called my house I urged him to stay out of it.

Ever hear of guilt by reason of association?
Well guess what... you are just as guilty as the people who represent you. Those being your government, the ones trapesing all over the planet with super weapons and standing armys. You me and every American are guilty!

quote As far as Who America has offe'd, I said "Should" , and I know this will never happen.

I don't like it either but when handed a pile of lemons I say screw lemonaide, get a bottle of Gin and invite the friends over. It may not wash Saddams blood off our hands but screw it man... not like I sat back and drank in celebration like some other damn fools will do.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 12-29-2006).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: reinforce the idea to the world that all you have to do is drag things out long enough and cause enough deaths, and eventually they will lose attention and go home.

actually, thus was demonstrated by the north koreans in 1951-53, and amply reinforced by the north vietnamese in 61-75. unfortunately, some americans dont seem to have figured it out.

where's that picture of the dog covered in porcupine quills?

i see the merits of the War Powers Act, which authorizes the president to deploy troops, but believe the Act is far too sweeping, permitting one man to commit the resources of the United States to ill-considered folly, again. our executive branch is out of control, and i hope, though without confidence that the legislature can reel the executive in before it's too late.

The american people being what we are, we are very reluctant to back away from a fight once started, which means any president can reasonably expect public backing for a couple of years, but as the costs in lives and economic factors mount we look at what we're expecting to gain and the probabilities of success. when the chances look grim, we want to cut our losses and invest our resources elsewhere. all perfectly reasonable, and good economy.

when our leaders (on either side of the aisle) lie to us to support some foreign adventure, it does immense damage to our national virtues, among them our liberties, the desire to live and let live, and respect for others' right to do the same. and it does our reputation among neighbor nations no good. we used to be viewed as bringers of liberty, but now we're seen as aggressors and invaders.

when some despot launches an attack on US soil, whether we "invite" them to or not, the american people respond with remarkable unanimity and resolve. but when you use lies to divert that enthusiasm into barely-related adventurism, personal vendetta and the opportunity to profit by the death of american citizens, dont be surprised if, when we wake up to the reality of the situation, we turn and bite you.

quote Originally posted by lurker: i see the merits of the War Powers Act, which authorizes the president to deploy troops, but believe the Act is far too sweeping, permitting one man to commit the resources of the United States to ill-considered folly, again. our executive branch is out of control, and i hope, though without confidence that the legislature can reel the executive in before it's too late.

Unfortunatly this will not happen because the Presidental term is 4 to 8 years where as our representitives are life provided re-election. What that means is if a representitve can pass the buck or "responsibility" to the president and lay blame on him for being a total baffon and screwing up America it means our representitives will have a better chance at maintaining their positions in the Kings court while the king losses his head.

They don't want to reel in the executive branch, they want to give them more rope and at the same time imperil the Citizeny with their lay z fare "it wasnt my fault tell it to the king" attitude.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I don't like it either but when handed a pile of lemons I say screw lemonaide, get a bottle of Gin and invite the friends over. It may not wash Saddams blood off our hands but screw it man... not like I sat back and drank in celebration like some other damn fools will do.

I have Never belived in guilt by association. We are all responcible for our own acts. My ignorance of his intent seperates me (and you) from our government.(I say ignorent, becuase he never divulged certain information which in all likelyhood, would have kept us from going over there).
Do you blame EVERY German for Hitlers action? I don't. (Yes I am comparing George to Adolf, AND Sadam). They are ALL nocuous.

Abraham Lincoln- "if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

John Adams once said "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."

Hitler once said "What luck for rulers that men do not think."

I say the guilt falls on Bush. Had I ever supported Bush, I would say your right, and would admit my percentile of responcibility. But he lied to the public from the very start. His Iniquities may put all of the USA in a bad spot.
If ANYBODY in the US lies about a person or situation, they can be held accountable in a court of law.... But not the Pres....No, no, no.... He can pretty much say whatever he wants, and we the people have to wait for him to get kicked out, or wait till his term is up, and by THAT time, it's already blown over so nobody gives 2 sh1ts.
I think he "should be" MORE accountable than anyone else, right then and there...

NOT UNLIKE WHATS HAPPENING TO SADAM.

Well, once again, it is obvious that there is no point in having a reasoned discussion with someone so much on emotional over-drive. But that isn't a criticism. Nothing wrong with being so emotional over something so important.

I will respond to a couple of things, though.

I didn't throw Gerald Ford away. I didn't say he wasn't a very smart man. But I did catch the clip of him and opposition to the Iraq war. And him saying he would have done whatever sanctions necessary. Well, smart people can say stupid things, and that was stupid. But I guess because he is a conservative and I am, I am supposed to stand up for him even if he says something stupid. And if I don't, I'm throwing him away and protecting my own skin.

I wasn't for Ford pardoning Nixon, either. But I shouldn't bring that up, because he is so smart, plus he is a conservative. Because I have to stand up for all conservatives and agree with them if they are smart.

Colin Powell had been against taking out Hussein since 1991. He had outlined his reasons way back then. So I didn't need anything spelled out. Had already had it spelled out a decade before.


So it is hard for me to listen to you say they didn't think through the consequences of removing the iron fist of Saddam. I would agree that the plan was wholly poorly prepared and inadequate. I would go further to say that they should have KNOWN it was going to be, too. Although I am really not supposed to say that, because I am a conservative and so I am not supposed to "throw away" people I disagree with in some areas.


Regarding me being tough, well, yeah, probably. But not based on this one issue. And not in a Rambo sense. And not in a disregard for other people's lives sense. And, no, I never said it would have turned out GREAT. It wasn't run well so it wouldn't have been GREAT. But it still could have been good, and an over-all positive outcome. It will not be, now. It will be a reinforcement to other countries to just drag things out.


I am NOT putting the responsibility on the democrats. This is George Bush and Rumsfeld and others who led this--it is THEIR failure. So it wasn't a cop out on responsibility. But to answer your question about the other half and how did it affect GWB sending only 150,000 troops. And what change did John Kerry affect? Here is the answer. I realize it would have been a very difficult thing for democrats to do. But if they really cared about the U.S., AND they were so smart to know that 500,000 troops were needed, and they resisted Bush's attempts to invade Iraq but weren't able to accomplish it and so there we were: where was the clamor by the democrats to get more troops over there? Because I don't remember anything from democrats over the Iraq war about saying, well, we are against being there but since we are, get your behind in gear and get the troops over there and get the job done. All I remember is criticizing and complaining about being lied to and why are we there, etc., etc.

AGAIN, I am not saying they should have even HAD to do that. But if they loved the U.S. enough to want success, that is the hard thing democrats would have done. Instead, they just kept publicly criticizing instead of trying to be a help, and just further emboldened terrorists to just hang in there. And, no, 80% of the people did NOT just go along for the ride. That was the percent that was being dragged along as it was being mis-managed, NOT at the beginning.

Then you say I am getting my way by GWB sending 40,000 troops and it isn't helping. Well, duh. I thought you said we needed 500,000 troops over there. I don't know how many we have, but if 40,000 more doesn't get us close to the number you said we needed, no wonder it isn't helping.

And you say because it is an abject failure is why it never should have happened. Well, it didn't have to be going in to it. But you can't even keep the points clear. "This country was lied to, and now we will suffer from our leaders' mistakes." Yes, we will suffer from our leader's mistakes. THAT is why we will suffer. Even if we were lied to, which you state as fact which is nice from the arm-chair quarterback retrospective view that you relish, we STILL wouldn't have had to "suffer" if major leadership mistakes weren't made.

So my "nice job on both sides of the political spectrum" statement stands and is accurate. I never said it was EQUAL responsiblity for the failure. The vast majority belongs to Bush. If that makes you feel better. But the democrats didn't even FIGHT to TRY to make their country STILL come out good in spite of Bush. So THAT doesn't make me feel any better if democrats are in power.

I HAVE learned a very important lesson in this. Before I will support ANY foreign initiative, it will need to have these questions answered:

1. Can the ENTIRE process be accomplished within 3 years? Because this country will not tolerate anything longer than that.
2. Can the ENTIRE process be accomplished with the other party making 100% effort to try to make the process fail.

Having lived through that, I would not have supported GWB taking Hussein out even if there was total 100% verification of weapons of mass destruction.


And the line: "when you use lies to divert that enthusiasm into barely-related adventurism, personal vendetta and the opportunity to profit by the death of american citizens, dont be surprised if, when we wake up to the reality of the situation, we turn and bite you." How do you even intelligently respond to something like that? Adventurism, personal vendetta, and opportunity to profit by the death of american citizens. Those are accusations of a magnitude that are absolutely stunning.

Regardless of how you feel about the presentation by Bush and whether they were lies, or whether they were information that they selectively presented to best support their desired intent, to say those were the motivations is a leap that requires ignoring obvious fact and flies into emotionally charged fantasy speculation.

Yeah, I don't think having the 9-11 attack had any thing to do with the decision making. And the atmosphere of trying to do everything possible to stabilize a region and remove breeding grounds for terrorism. And yes, I know, Iraq wasn't a terrorist hot bed. And we should have done something about Saudi Arabia. Even conceding those points and saying Bush made terrible decisions, to say the motivation was to have certain of his friends profit. To say it was because he had a personal vendetta against Hussein. To say it was his adventurism. That is beyond fantasy and into despicable. You have to completely ignore Bush's repetitive, compassionate acknowledgements of personal sacrifice and cost to individual families, and believe that he was able to be that great of an actor for the whole span of the war. So is that what you are saying?

Just a couple more hours now...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Saddam_Hussein

quote Originally posted by Cheever3000: Just a couple more hours now... http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Saddam_Hussein

we should let him go, i mean its like if the teenage muntant ninja turtles cought shredder, what is there left to do?

we got him. lets let him go again. and catch him again for future generations to enjoy

quote Originally posted by 84fierotrevor: we should let him go, i mean its like if the teenage muntant ninja turtles cought shredder, what is there left to do? we got him. lets let him go again. and catch him again for future generations to enjoy

LOL

quote Originally posted by intlcutlass: I have Never belived in guilt by association.

Welp... all I can say about that is there are quite a few people in jail because of their association with... So belief and reality are two entirely different things.

How fast will his hanging video be up on YouTube?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Those are accusations of a magnitude that are absolutely stunning.

i agree. it would be absolutely stunning even if only one of them is true.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: requires ignoring obvious fact and flies into emotionally charged fantasy speculation.

ok, let's ignore some facts while i get fantastically emotional about this. (wipes a tear)
GWB has close personal, family and professional ties to the oil industry. nooo, that couldnt be relevant.
GWB's coterie has close ties to a major supplier of war materiels and support services, who have made plenty of money from the war. they wouldn't be motivated to promote war, would they?
GWB has a strong desire to emulate and exceed his father, who some think stopped short of the goal line, and saddam allegedly threatened to assassinate.

while i don't have personal access to haliburton's books or GWB's psychology, there's sufficient reason to be skeptical. now that it's unavoidably obvious the electorate has some ugly questions, GWB suddenly finds it useful to seek advice and other opinions. doesn't God personally whisper in his ear anymore? but that's ok. despite the lip service, he's going to stay the course. he's going to try a nixon, by "temporarily" escalating, hoping to beat the iraqi militias into submission, while promising us peace and victory down the line. but as with nixon, he's only going to get more people killed.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: to say the motivation was to have certain of his friends profit. To say it was because he had a personal vendetta against Hussein. To say it was his adventurism. That is beyond fantasy and into despicable.

despicable? thanks, i appreciate a good polite discussion.
yes, i think it would be despicable to prosecute a war on those terms.
i dont know what motivates GWB or his handlers. maybe he sincerely (and IMO mistakenly) believes he's doing the best thing for the country. that would explain the stubbornness with which he's pursued his policy. but that doesn't explain the repeated duplicity he's perpetrated on the american people, or the fact that the people who guide him were positioned from the very beginning to profit from the war, win or lose.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: believe that he was able to be that great of an actor for the whole span of the war. So is that what you are saying?

no, GWB is not a great actor. he's not a great anything. he's just not that bright. on his own he's remarkably average. the bright people are behind the scenes pulling the strings, writing his speeches and holding the cue cards. cheney is smart, rumsfeld is smart, rove is smart. GWB is proof that in the American system, mediocrity, if sufficiently backed by family name, money, and interest groups, can rise to the very top.

Reported..........DEAD

quote Originally posted by aceman: Reported..........DEAD

waiting for the video on youtube.


carzy how fast his death went down.

wonder if he had tears in his eyes or died like a man.