Maybe some pictures and some images and videos will help put things into perspective: http://www.frogengine.net/iran/ http://bareknucklepolitics.com/?p=217 Regardless what the facts were, shouldn't the issue be whether the war is a good thing or a bad thing?
He did dupe us by embeleshing the facts, remember aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs and unmanned arial vehicles ready to attack us? According to Bush they were being shipped in parts to the US right before the war, where did those go? Almost every expert including those in the US, the UN and worldwide stated the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons but that sure did not stop Bush from spouting the lie did it?
They approved to give the president the power for the 'last resort, if inspections failed. Yes it is congresses fault that Bush decided to pull the inspectors out and invade and not make good on his original promise of using it at last resort, they should have had a back bone. How convenient though that Bush could rattle the words 'terror' and anyone who did not bow and do as he said at that time was labeled a terrorist supporter or unpatriotic. If you want to try and claim congress actually approved the war please look at the facts, yes they did it however was on the terms of a 'last resort' to give the president teeth to make Saddam comply, of which Saddam was complying with inspections at the end before the war was he not?
I'm curious, who defined last resort? I remember Kerry saying the danger was immediate, and even put his election on line by saying if you don't believe in the danger, don't vote for him. I'm guessing who had the call when was it time for the last resort? tom
I HOPE that is the case, it however could be the exact opposite being actually worse for those in Iraq. Sadly only time will tell.
I think if we as a nation or a world were to decide to do what we can to support the troops and make the best out of this rather than bickering whether Bush told the truth or not, things would get accomplished a whole lot faster and far more efficient.
Well of course the president. Immediate danger though, even though Iraq's border has a huge portion of the US military gathering, we had spy planes over Iraq with permission from Saddam himself, we had inspectors in Iraq able to go ANYWHERE they pleased. hmm yep sounds so dangerous, real last resort type of issue, how exactly? Who cares what the Idiot Kerry said? How does that exactly take away from what was done by the administration. Kerry could have completely agreed with Bush or disagreed how does that change the facts exactly?
Theoretically that could happen, or it could pretty much go to crap, the us army could be there for years, costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. It could turn into civil war, it already on the verge of it, it could become another backwards islamic state, where woman still wear burkas and law is based on Islamic code. Its already rife with corruption, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4329686.stm Is it really the presidents place to take gambles like that, with billions of dollars and thousands of peoples lives, ecspecially since if the country was told the truth nobody would have supported it.
All this "we should have", "web shouldn't have" etc. is not doing us any good. The key is to fight a good and honorable war and make positive changes to a society that doesn't know freedom or justice.
Mike .... sorry but I have to say this , but thats the type of attitude that makes facist states possible, We should just not worry about the truth? Just keep supporting the liars and it will all work out? Does that sound like a good stradegy?
You don't see any danger in not questioning our president from taking us to war under false accusations, embelished truths, and using 'terror' and tragedy to get us into war? If he is not questioned about it now by the populace and politician alike what will stop the next president from doing the same thing?
Please back this up with something more than "I recalled reading somewhere." The UN already made a report that wmd were moved out of Iraq just before and right after the invasion. The NYTimes also noted similar looting, which I've covered in another thread. And the best anyone has done is try to make light of either. How does one find something that was looted? Of which always sequesters the irrational other side of the argument, that Bush failed to secure them. It can't be both ways. Reports exist that show wmd were looted/moved out of Iraq by the very people monitoring them. The "under seal" argument doesn't work. They either had them, or they didn't. Lest we forget all the others who said they existed: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 In the same thread, very first page, I presented many of these current issues which no one has refuted. A few have tried, unsuccessfully. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=25263 I'm starting to see more and more, each day, what you argue and what you don't.
Which part don't you believe or are you disputing? Please give a link if possible so I can see if it's a report I've read WMD were not looted, parts of it and items known by the UN, inspected by the UN, under seal by the UN, this is a key difference form actual WMD. If the UN itself knew these sites had the WMD as that is what they are basing it off of, satellite images of known sites showing stockpiles being removed why do they not come out and state yes it was WMD? Yes it can be played both wasy very easily. The pro Bush side is there were WMD's there, we knew it and it was looted. Well then why were they not guarded? The realistic side of things is that we knew what was there, the UN knew what was there. It was some nasty stuff, but not actual WMD's, it was made inoperable, inspected and or under seal by the UN a HUGE difference. I didn't doubt some existed, I actually thought some did exist and hope some are found. My wife whom thought none existed, to this day makes fun of me for thinking at least some would be found What parts of this do you still back up, please repost on the page and I'll be glad to dispute them if I believe they are false.
I thought you might try to sneak out of it. Back up the quote above. I'll answer your questions, again, later. I want to see what, if any, sources you have to make those claims, or it's more of the "I recall reading somewhere, but I don't have a source right now, but I could probably find one somewhere" kind of post.
I'm not backing out of anything. Do you dispute he made claims of aluminum tubes, yellow cake, unmanned arial vehicles or what exactly? You forget I actually watched the pre war build up, the build up, and beyond. Of which you've already stated you did not watch the build up, so of course certain items you probally are not going to remember.
Again, I quoted your post and I asked you to back it up. I'll take on your questions later. I do not require questions from you at this point.
So then you're not sure what you dispute of the above? You're not sure if Bush made claims of yellow cake, mobile labs, unmanned arial vehicles, or aluminum tubes? Sorry but nobody can be that out of the loop to actually dispute all of that, tell me what you exactly dispute and I'll be glad to. Otherwise it's obvious it's a ploy and nothing more.
I disputed your post. You made three sentences. I'm asking you to back up each of those. No ploy, no plot. Just back it up. That post was just one of a few I read that I dispute. I figured it would be easier for you to focus in on three sentences. Perhaps I was wrong? I suspect after three times now, you are not going to back it up. So I'll note it as speculative suggestion that has no basis. If you decide to back it up, let me know.
Sigh, if you can't even tell me what to dispute I must guess you don't dispute it. Tell me specifically what you dispute, I am not running from anything, you on the other hand can not even tell me what you exactly dispute. ---edit if you figure out what you actually dispute let me know, I'm going to have a few beers now as it's Friday night