4,000 dead Americans

[EricMM 0]

Have you ever considered that it may be out of the power of America to stop this violence?

 

That there may be NOTHING we can do?

[snuffbox 0]

That is becoming painfully obvious to everyone but our leadership.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

One solution I recall hearing mentioned last week (sorry, I don't remember who suggested it), would be for the American troops to pull out of major areas like Baghdad, but not leave Iraq completely. Basically it would amount to US troops being stationed at their own bases to keep the threat of Iran at bay, but running the country and controlling the violence would be left to the Iraqi troops. I don't know if it would work, but it seems better to me than leaving our troops to be shot at and blown up in cities filled with people they can't trust.

 

Let's face it, at some point the Iraqis are either going to collectively pull themselves up and say "We want an end to violence and a free democracy" or they won't. There isn't a free nation on earth that was totally set that way by a foreign power. At some point people in every modern democracy grew tired of being ruled by a foreign power, or a despot, and made themselves free. Iraq will have to do the same at some point.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

One solution I recall hearing mentioned last week (sorry, I don't remember who suggested it), would be for the American troops to pull out of major areas like Baghdad, but not leave Iraq completely. Basically it would amount to US troops being stationed at their own bases to keep the threat of Iran at bay, but running the country and controlling the violence would be left to the Iraqi troops. I don't know if it would work, but it seems better to me than leaving our troops to be shot at and blown up in cities filled with people they can't trust.

 

Let's face it, at some point the Iraqis are either going to collectively pull themselves up and say "We want an end to violence and a free democracy" or they won't. There isn't a free nation on earth that was totally set that way by a foreign power. At some point people in every modern democracy grew tired of being ruled by a foreign power, or a despot, and made themselves free. Iraq will have to do the same at some point.

 

 

You make it sound like the US and Britain went in there as peace keeping forces after the violence had already started. We got them in this mess in the first place, don't forget.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Absolutely wrong. Unequivocally incorrect. We freed the Iraqis. Nobody forced any of the Iraqi people to become terrorists. The ones engaging in the violence don't want a free country. The entire issue is making sure that the ones who do are able enough to put down the terrorist attacks. Free will exists, don't forget.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Absolutely wrong. Unequivocally incorrect. We freed the Iraqis. Nobody forced any of the Iraqi people to become terrorists. The ones engaging in the violence don't want a free country. The entire issue is making sure that the ones who do are able enough to put down the terrorist attacks. Free will exists, don't forget.

 

 

So we invade a country that posed no immediate threat, destroyed it, created civil war, caused half a million deaths and it's nothing to do with us?

[snuffbox 0]

I think he's just joking again.

[snuffbox 0]

Goodbye, "Stay the Course"

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aZ.AnI0sputc

[Art Sandusky 0]

There isn't a free nation on earth that was totally set that way by a foreign power.

So what continues to make policymakers believe otherwise? We're being told 2010 as a withdrawl date, with, of course, the "this is all subject to change" disclaimer. That would be SEVEN YEARS after our leader and face for the world stood before a banner proclaiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." I know it's been brought up before, but at this stage you really have to wonder if there are criminal implications for something like this.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

There isn't a free nation on earth that was totally set that way by a foreign power.

So what continues to make policymakers believe otherwise? We're being told 2010 as a withdrawl date, with, of course, the "this is all subject to change" disclaimer. That would be SEVEN YEARS after our leader and face for the world stood before a banner proclaiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." I know it's been brought up before, but at this stage you really have to wonder if there are criminal implications for something like this.

 

I doubt Bush or Blair would ever be tried as war criminals. There might be a good case for it, but it'll never happen.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I don't mean as war criminals. There seems to have been a lot of impropriety involved long before the first shot was fired. Blair's in the clear anyway, since he hasn't committed 135,000 Britons to this.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Well, we just had one real similarity to Vietnam... using the success, or lack thereof, of the war to determine whether it was justified or not. You're nuts.

[Art Sandusky 0]

It wasn't justified in the first place. I don't follow what you mean. Who genuinely expected this to not turn into what it has?

[snuffbox 0]

Dick Cheney was (and may still be) under the impression that War is lollipops & fairytales. A bunch of people believe(d) him, sadly.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I think he might be refering to the idea that "everybody loves a winner" and if Bush pulled it off no one would have given him any grief about WHY.

 

Think if this whole Iraq thing had gone off without a hitch would it have mattered that there were no WMDs? I'm thinking it wouldn't have.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Here is a first, or maybe a second, I actually agree with Cheese.

 

But... again with the WMD's, I still don't understand why people see that as the only justification given, when in reality there were four solid justifications, three of which were true on day one and are still true today. The press, and this includes Fox, went nuts over WMD's because it made the most sensational story. But, all four justifications have simultaneously been in the president's speeches since day one.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Here are the reasons we went to war, as I understood them.

 

Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (wrong)

 

Iraq shut out weapons inspectors (right)

 

Saddam was a despot (right)

 

Saddam absolutely had to be taken out as soon as possible (wrong)

 

Iraq had a role in 9/11 (wrong, and before anyone says that wasn't given as a reason go ahead and check poll numbers at the time)

 

Iraq was a terrorist state (wrong)

 

Iraq supported terrorism (right)

 

It wouldn't be difficult (wrong)

 

And indirectly:

 

Afghanistan was wrapped up (wrong)

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

You're saying check a poll on what Americans think as if that's evidence for what the Bush administration said... that's a gigantic reach.

 

WMD's, War on Terror, Humanitarian, Defiance of UN... those were the four main justifications. Three of those are still true.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What about the fact that the President simply hasn't done a good job running the war in Iraq? Where's the accountability? Hey, maybe it was a good idea to remove Saddam either way, but we're still bogged down there, while US advances in Afghanistan seem to be slipping away, and we're unable to respond in meaningful ways to threats from North Korea and Iran. Plus, we have fewer allies than before. But hey, the President had good intentions, so I guess we just let him get away with it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

You're saying check a poll on what Americans think as if that's evidence for what the Bush administration said... that's a gigantic reach.

You apparently can't make a connection between perception and how it affects public support.

 

"The problem is that al-Queda has become an extension of Saddam's madness. He's made it very clear he hates the United States." -- our President, before the war.

 

Yeah, the American people just fabricated that supposed link in their minds. Leading up the conflict, the line between al-Queda and Iraq was increasingly blurred. That's misleading the public.

[SuperJerk 0]

You're saying check a poll on what Americans think as if that's evidence for what the Bush administration said... that's a gigantic reach.

 

WMD's, War on Terror, Humanitarian, Defiance of UN... those were the four main justifications. Three of those are still true.

The reason people obsess over the WMDs is because that was the reason that all the other reasons except humanitarian justifications were based on. We were afraid Saddam would give WMDs to terrorists, and he was defying the UN on WMD inspections.

 

And seriously..."Defiance of the UN" as its own reason? Yeah, I'm sure the Bush Administration was really torn up about THAT one.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

You're saying check a poll on what Americans think as if that's evidence for what the Bush administration said... that's a gigantic reach.

You apparently can't make a connection between perception and how it affects public support.

 

"The problem is that al-Queda has become an extension of Saddam's madness. He's made it very clear he hates the United States." -- our President, before the war.

 

Yeah, the American people just fabricated that supposed link in their minds. Leading up the conflict, the line between al-Queda and Iraq was increasingly blurred. That's misleading the public.

Talk about using perception to mislead. I love your use of that quotation. I would call you a liar, but technically the lie is in your implication.

[cbacon 0]

Defiance of UN

 

 

hay guys whats new

[Art Sandusky 0]

As far as that goes, the same people who want the UN disbanded or at least removed from New York usually use "Iraq defied the United Nations" as just cause for the invasion.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Yes, that's true of me as well. The reason? People like you feel the UN is legitimate, so it's all the more effective if I can demonstrate justification on your terms.

 

Oh, you forgot to address your lie.

[Art Sandusky 0]

What lie? I feel like I'm talking to Rush or Sean themselves. The "lie" that the administration tried to link 9/11 and Iraq in our minds? I doubt anything I could produce would change your mind, but I'll go searchin' anyway.

[EricMM 0]

It wasn't directly said, ever, it was indirectly implied, and thats the thing.

 

Of course we can never prove that they said that they were working together because they never ever said it. But you ask any staunch bush voter why this war is good and justified and they will say, "It's better to fight them over there than over here! After 9/11, you just let them off?"

 

I have, and thats what they said. The connection was made implicitly and not directly. Thus the handwashing now. It's bullshit, it's politics.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/984758/posts

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

 

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=544

 

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0916-02.htm

[snuffbox 0]

It was implied so blatantly that it was accepted as Fact among the more gullible bloc of Americans. "Fight them there/not here," while also being a chilling reminder of Vietnam, also clearly implicates Iraq in 9-11. 'Them' are the terrorists/evildoers that attacked us once 'here' and 'there' was the place whose case was made by this Administration, Iraq.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

What lie? I feel like I'm talking to Rush or Sean themselves. The "lie" that the administration tried to link 9/11 and Iraq in our minds? I doubt anything I could produce would change your mind, but I'll go searchin' anyway.

Have you heard of context? The quote, in full:

Q: Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?

 

"PRESIDENT BUSH: That's a — that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. (Laughter.) But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

 

"Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is — I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.

The Lie is that the quote you posted was not at all meant to demonstrate a literal working relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda.