Three Dead- Dozen wounded in 24 Hrs

“In an of itself, I believe the comment will provoke little or no action on the part of Iraqi guerillas. So much for naïveté.

My point is that it is yet another comment in a long series which demonstrates that Bush's temperament is ill-suited to the office.”

“Oh boy, here we go again with the tunnel vision.

"Bush Lied!" = "Clinton Lied!" = "Who Cares!"

Forget about looking to the leadership for the truth and look to the media instead. You'll find it's a little bit bigger than NBCs and Immediate Threat.”

“What dose of my own medicine? You called me “too partisan” when I, myself, criticized Bush for his swinging every which way to get permission to go in. I have said on many threads that we should have started with the “Saddam is an evil #&%!$ that has murdered hundreds of thousands and we need to take him out of power” spiel rather than playing the WMD card, then the nukes card and finally the freedom card. Freedom in it’s self is worth it.

But you never even stopped to consider this and resorted to calling me (us) traitors and claims of heightened enlightenment that I may not possess because I’m blinded by partisanism. This type of behavior is very typical of you Phade…everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a sheep to the system while you bask in your enlightenment.


I have no problem stating that I'm biased because I know this simple fact doesn't make me blind to the world around me. Face it due…you are about as unbiased as Shaquile O’Niel is Irish.”

“Nigal's argument doesn't hold water on two counts-

1)Bush* and his cronies claimed time and time agains that they had irrefutable evidence that there were WMD in Iraq; Rummy duringf the war even gave specific locations. The MET teams afterward examined over 250 sites and came up with zip.

2) Nigal's implication that they should be given more time fly's in the faces of Bush's* denial for that same kind of time for the UN Inspection teams.”

“I heard Condoleeza(cool name) say this morning that,
"...at least now Hussein can no longer threaten the world with his terror and WMD..."

Its just more bullschott "justification" for a war that cannot be justified.”

“Yeah Zen, if the UN teams had been given more time, they would have found nothing and........no war.....no contracts.....War Is A Racket.”

““1)Bush* and his cronies claimed time and time agains that they had irrefutable evidence that there were WMD in Iraq;”

Your choice of words…“cronies” belies your contempt and biased ness. Very Phaderus of you. But thanks for remaining so transparent. But they never claimed irrefutable evidence as to the exact locations…only a list of possible sites. We must not rule out the possibility that some of it could have been moved out of country either. I’m stating that as FACT, just a possibility. They had plenty of time while the Frogs, Chinese and Russians held us up in the UN.

“2) Nigal's implication that they should be given more time fly's in the faces of Bush's* denial for that same kind of time for the UN Inspection teams."

There is a big difference in this because to have control of the country during the search is better than the UN being given tours of sterile sites. The tactics of the nay sayers stands in clear contrast because they are demanding instant results when they demanded the UN be given more time after 12 years of shoty work.”

“WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- The Bush administration has conceded a blunder in statements about Iraq's nuclear aims, a report said Tuesday.

The statement acknowledged for the first time President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.



http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030708-084343-3050r.htm”

“Nigal, you are defending Bush in a most partisan manner.

Why not just look for the truth?

The truth will set you free!

Shoddy”

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

“Did I not just say that I questioned Bush for his waffling on the reasons for go in? I’m not so much defending the Bush admin as I am questioning the left’s alternatives to going in.

I’ll step out of your little battle for now as the draconian format of this board forces me to click about 100 times in order to respond to anything. I’ll stop back in when it dips below 50 and is easier to access.

Smell ya later.”

“Here is a specific, unambiguous, clear statement from Rummy the Dummy in plain english saying he knew where the WMD were during the war- and of course they didn't find squat.

"We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

Or how about this whopper from Bush*-

"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."

President Bush, Oct. 7.

I must have missed the story where the US found a 'Fleet' of drones capable of reaching the US.

Christ, these are just two quick examples of some of the crzy talk coming out of this adminstration.”

“The truly sad part of all this is that in ten years, the entire situation will be just like it was two years ago.

We keep throwing lives away for a cause that we really cannot control. While we can, and have, forcibly removed the government that we did not like, we will never change the minds and way of life of the people in Iraq.

I have maintained a position that I did not see enough proof to justify an invasion. I still haven't. Where do we stop if our "justification" is to remove potentially dangerous governments? Do we move on to Liberia? South America? North Korea? By the time we get through with those police actions, we will need to revisit Iraq again.

It is a fantasy to believe we can stop terrorism and war by being the world cops. If a country or group attacks the United States, then we need to use whatever force is necessary to retaliate. I find it interesting that no one even mentions Afghanistan anymore. We became so frustrated that we couldn't run up a body count on the Taliban, that we looked somewhere else for more measurable results.

It is easy to wave the flag for more action until you have to make arrangements to bury one of the soldiers who were killed.

Ask yourselves this. How many of the KIA families believe the action is justified at this point. And of the few who do, how many will feel that way when things revert to the way they were?”

“Nigal,

You espoused using the sedition act against war protestors. That may be the single most PARTISAN act I have ever seen on this board by anyone other than bacpac, stratdewd or alaska. Thus, given your view of those against the war as traiterous, one would think that YOU had some insight the rest of us didn't share.

You can consider it "the pot calling the kettle black", if you want, but the fact remains that in this case, you're refusing to admit what has become obvious fact: the Bush administration lied to the American people and congress about 1. Its reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, and 2. Its intelligence regarding the danger to the US. Partisan.”

“Good we are down to just two pages of bullcrap.

“You espoused using the sedition act against war protestors.”

Um, hello? I stated my views on the sedition act and someone corrected me on it’s application and that it was no longer valid. I changed my stance on the issue. See THAT is because I actually listen to other’s. I have been corrected and stated I was wrong many times on this form and it was done by some here I have zero respect for. And as I have said, my point wasn’t that I wasn’t partisan (I stated for the record that I am INDEED biased just a few posts up). It was your denial that YOU are biased that I was pointing out.

Keep your facts straight, it just makes you look silly.”

“Oh, okay! Because the sedition act isn't enforced in the manner you would have used it, you are absolved of any intent to misuse it!

The fact remains that you were all in favor of shutting up those that had differing opinions.

Am I biased? Is that your question? Sure I'll admit to bias as well. What I WON'T do - now or in the future - is close my eyes to the obvious corruption of any leader based on his political affiliation. This seems to be what you are doing, and that is the point I am making.”

“"Oh, okay! Because the sedition act isn't enforced in the manner you would have used it, you are absolved of any intent to misuse it!”

No silly man. When I first stated my opinions I was not fully informed. I learned through discussion with others that I was wrong and I said so. I wasn’t trying to twist something to my own devices.

“The fact remains that you were all in favor of shutting up those that had differing opinions.”

Again, you show that you know next to nothing about my position. I was against the obstruction that some protesters were creating. I stated time and again that I am 100% FOR free speech as long as it doesn’t trump someone’s rights, such as blocking the docks in Cali, laying down in traffic and other stupid acts like this.

“What I WON'T do - now or in the future - is close my eyes to the obvious corruption of any leader based on his political affiliation. This seems to be what you are doing, and that is the point I am making."

Why do I not see you admitting to Clinton’s misdeeds on the other threads? You make no point as I have stated yet again that I was not for the reasons Bush pushed. I am a conservative, not a republican. I won’t close my eyes any more than you will but this doesn’t mean that I will lift up any old wild goose chase as fact either simply because of the president’s affiliation. Were the reasons unclear as to why we went in? Yes. Was the intell we had 100% airtight? No. It never is.

Have you properly stated your view now? Because I find myself having to repeat myself with you.”

“Why do I not see you admitting to Clinton’s misdeeds on the other threads?

Because you're not paying attention? I railed clinton for leaving the INC and Kurds twisting in the wind in '96. I have criticized his many half-measures in foriegn affairs and granted that he left a foriegn affairs mess for Bush. Go back and read the threads. The one thing I'm not pissed off about is monica lewinski. That was a ridiculous chapter in American politics.

You make no point as I have stated yet again that I was not for the reasons Bush pushed.

Oh! My apologies. Why then, were you so in favor of invasion?

I am a conservative, not a republican. I won’t close my eyes any more than you will but this doesn’t mean that I will lift up any old wild goose chase as fact either simply because of the president’s affiliation.

Pfft.

Were the reasons unclear as to why we went in? Yes. Was the intell we had 100% airtight? No. It never is.

So unclear reasons and shoddy intel are allowable reasons for pre-emptive invasion of a country for the purpose of regime change? Where's the open-eyed logic in that?”

““Because you're not paying attention? I railed clinton for leaving the INC and Kurds twisting in the wind in '96.”

No, because I was trying to make a point. Isn’t very fair is it? Now you know what you have been doing to me this entire thread. Glad to see ya made the connection.

“Oh! My apologies. Why then, were you so in favor of invasion?”

Good gawd man! READ! I said above that we should have gone in for the reason of ridding the region of a mass murder and that freedom of the country was enough for me.

“Pfft.”

Very poignant. I do take it as humor though.

“So unclear reasons and shoddy intel are allowable reasons for pre-emptive invasion of a country for the purpose of regime change? Where's the open-eyed logic in that?"

His record speaks for itself which is why the above are my reasoning for going in.

Done yet?”

“I agree the case for invasion could have been made on a humanitarian basis. Why did, in your opinion, the bush administration feel the need to lie about the WMD, that being the case? And why Iraq first?

After all, as we're discussing on another thread, Liberia was and still is the bigger humanitarian crisis. North Korea is certainly the more dangerous military threat.

Why choose Iraq, when it would obviously allow for the perception that this administration came into power with the agenda of invading Iraq already on the table? Why would they do that, when we were just in the business of freeing the Iraqi people?

Please.”

“World opinion (including the U.S.) would never have allowed the U.S. to go into Iraq if it was for humanitarian reasons. We were told it was for self protection, we rallied around that.”

“Statement by American Justice Jackson at Nuremburg War Criminal Trials... August 12, 1945

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm”

“The neocons now argue that they are being pro-active and insightful, Zen. They argue that this IS a defensive policy, given terrorism and islamist fundamentalism.”

“Their bellicose words (Wolfowitz, Perle, etc) in light of their complete lack of a service record kills their credibility as far as I'm concerned.”

“Interestingly enough, that part doesn't bother me a bit. The military record of the commander-in-chief and his cohorts is not something that keeps them from having opinions on foreign relations that are entirely valid. These same folks were absolutely right about the USSR during the cold war. That said, I disagree with them on this action - and not for reasons of personal experience. It seems like Perl and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have become blinded by their own dogma, and overlooked the fact (or purposely ignored it) that they had little”

“little evidence to support their claims. Tey were acting on a hunch, and it's a gamble that will have consequences when they're determined to have been wrong.”

“If you'll remember at the beginning of Bush's* fiasco, the most cautious voices were former military commanders (Powell, Scwatrzkopf, Scowcroft). The had a better understanding of the unpredicatble nature of warfare; particularly in desired outcomes. The most bellicose warmongers in this never saw a day in uniform.b

The analysts I talked to were constantly on guard against 'projecting' their preconceptions onto Intelligence data- with that in mind read the following peice that came out today:

White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukestelligence

An consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.

"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2518.shtml”

“Saw combat in Korea- former Bush Official”

“Interesting link. I'd like to see the mainstream media pick that up, if it's been verified.”

“Slain Marine's father says he lost job for speaking against Iraq war


The father of a 20-year-old Marine killed in Iraq in March said he lost his job at an Escondido printer last week allegedly because of his anti-war activities.

Fernando Suarez del Solar said one of the owners of Mi California told him he was spending too much time speaking out against the war with Iraq and that his views threatened to cost the company business from people who didn't agree with him.

Full story at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20030708-9999_1m8father.html”

“give it time...”

“To be fair, my recollection is that Nigal wanted the sedition act applied against disruptive protesters, not vocal opponents.

You have to remember Phaedrus, that while the left wanted an open, reasoned dialogue on this, it is a very emotional issue for the hard right (or wrong as the case may be). They don’t really respond well to critical thought but are more driven by emotion. Try to be more understanding.”

“"Why did, in your opinion, the bush administration feel the need to lie about the WMD, that being the case?”

You are making the assumption that the Bush admin knew the intell was bad. Not very objective imho.

“ And why Iraq first?”

Based on the intell we had and the fact that Iraq HAS sponsored terrorism (mainly Hasbala and Arafart’s Alaxa brigade) they may have looked to pose the biggest threat terrorist wise.

“North Korea is certainly the more dangerous military threat.”

Big difference there between Korea and Iraq. We can’t apply the same circumstances to every country, no?

“Why choose Iraq, when it would obviously allow for the perception that this administration came into power with the agenda of invading Iraq already on the table?”

Um, did we forget about Afghanistan? The Iraq issue has been on the table of every president coming in (or staying in office in Clinton’s case) for nearly 20 years. We should have mopped up that mess years ago. I personally feel it was a strategic move also. Pick your fights carefully. While many feel that kicking the shat out of Iraq will just cause more anti-American sentiments (yeah, like it wouldn’t be there anyway) I feel that we have put the mideast on notice as well as the rest of the world’s dictators.


Just my veiw though. Take it for what you will.”

“Invading Iraq was a strategic move?
More like a boneheaded move.

Did "securing" Iraq make any difference in terrorist attacks in Israel?
NO!

Hussein may have payed money to families of "martyrs".
I think that was more a poke in the eye at Israel and the U.S.
Hussein did not plan or instigate terrorist bombings in Israel.
Those nuts didn't need Hussein's blessing.

Invading Iraq was a bad idea.
But for those who worship Bush, he craps solid gold.”

“A few snippets from A nation of scared sheep (Salon):


When we're stressed, we also block out more complex thoughts and instead focus on easily assimilated information. It's as though our cognitive reasoning abilities fall asleep and our emotions take over. "Studies show that during those times they are more likely to process information that they have received on a very superficial level," Keating says. Not only are we more apt to support our leaders, then, but we're also not really discerning what we're being told.


"If we supported the war initially, then we are invested in that decision," Raybeck says. "If you encounter information showing that the reasons for the war were not well founded, or were exaggerated, you have two choices: the war was indeed worthwhile, or we were took. We either acted wisely or were damned fools." And few, understandably, want to think of themselves as fools.


Did the Bush administration intentionally use our evolutionary weakness against us? Did it use orange alerts, duct tape and scary tales of WMDs to create an atmosphere in which Americans would be so frightened and feel so vulnerable that they would believe almost anything they were told and ignore all conflicting evidence? ”

“Uh, yes and yes.....”

“You are making the assumption that the Bush admin knew the intell was bad. Not very objective imho.

Have you read ANYthing about this mess other than what's posted here? Take one example, and look at it: the forged uranium documents.

It remains unclear why senior administration officials did not know about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's conclusions that were given to the CIA.

U.S. officials said a report citing Wilson's information was given to the White House and other agencies nearly a year before the State of the Union address.

The officials said the report said Nigerian officials denied the suggestion Iraq had tried to buy the uranium, and that given the entities controlling the mines, it was illogical there could have been such a contract with Niger

Am I being partisan or are you being naive?

Terrorism: Saudi Arabia poses a bigger threat.

Humanitarian cause: Liberia is a bigger crisis.

Military threat: North Korea is a bigger threat.

What about afghanistan, Nigal? What point are you trying to make with that reference?

As for putting the ME on notice:

Have YOU noticed? Our people are dying by terrorist/guerrilla attacks. That's going to magically stop once halliburton gets the power gonig right?

PLEASE!”

“Bush doesn't care, just as long as his pals get fat contracts.

Its a racket.”

“No one seemed too concerned about Halliburton during the last administration, why the outcry now, considering the current contract was signed way before the war?”

“Whhhhaaaat? SMW, would you like to use a lifeline? Is that yor final answer?”

“The uranium documents are a non sequester because that was not one of the lynch pin reasons for us going in. ***Bush also said that his predecessor, President Clinton, raided Iraq in 1998 "based upon the very same intelligence."***

“What about afghanistan, Nigal? What point are you trying to make with that reference?”

You were wondering why we jumped Iraq first and I was pointing out we went into ‘ghanistan first.

“Terrorism: Saudi Arabia poses a bigger threat.”

Hell yes they are but as I stated you have to pick your fights CAREFULLY. You kick the shat out of the school yard bully to put the other bullies on notice…especially the ones that we have an economic interest in like Saudi.

“Military threat: North Korea is a bigger threat.”

He we go with trying to see how many times and ways I can explain my view about something. Read the above post.

As for putting the ME on notice:

“Have YOU noticed? Our people are dying by terrorist/guerrilla attacks. That's going to magically stop once halliburton gets the power gonig right?”

Have YOU noticed we have yet to have another 911 and that terrorism as a whole has dropped? We could go in there and take an ass like Saddam, end hunger and pave the streets with gold as well as get them all cable tv and they will STILL hate us and shoot at us. No, I’m not naïve.”

“IM just way too drunk to jump in here..so cary on :)~”

“"No one seemed too concerned about Halliburton during the last administration, why the outcry now, considering the current contract was signed way before the war?"

Chaney released 39,000 pages of documentation as ordered by the court, and they have found nothing, zero, zip, zilch and are AGAIN going back and crying to the courts saying they want more. It’s as sorry as Ken Star looking’ cum stains….”We’re gonna keep looking until we find something…anything!”. All on our dime.

Yes, we’d be way better off getting a company like, “Fred’s Oil” to do the job rather than the Halliburten.”

“What about the terrorism against G.I.'s in Iraq?


And the war was decided on before Sept, 11 '01.”

“"What about the terrorism against G.I.'s in Iraq?"

For christ's sake, READ...
"We could go in there and take an ass like Saddam, end hunger and pave the streets with gold as well as get them all cable tv and they will STILL hate us and shoot at us."


"And the war was decided on before Sept, 11 '01."

Proof? Any sources? Alrighty then...”

“terrorist attacks happen when you least expect them. Of course there have not been any recent attacks, how long was it between the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut and the Achille Lauro, or the USS Cole and 9/11. It takes a little while to plan it, plus they have to wait for an opening. The Iraq invasion has little or nothing to do with terrorism other than pissing off more psycho Wahabs”

“The uranium documents are a non sequester because that was not one of the lynch pin reasons for us going in.

According to the president, it was. He used that evidence in his state of the union address, and follwed it up with a comment about a day of terror like we've never known. If he wasn't referring to Iraq in the same breath as nuclear terror, you tell me what he was trying to get across.

You were wondering why we jumped Iraq first and I was pointing out we went into ‘ghanistan first.

NO. I was asking why Iraq was first among the countries I listed. Mutt has the answer. Ask him.

“Terrorism: Saudi Arabia poses a bigger threat.”

Hell yes they are but as I stated you have to pick your fights CAREFULLY. You kick the shat out of the school yard bully to put the other bullies on notice…especially the ones that we have an economic interest in like Saudi.

I'll buy that this is a possible benefit of invading Iraq. It has little to do with justification of it, though. Countries cannot justify invasion of other countries solely by the benefit it will bring them. See international law and the Nurmberg trials.

“Military threat: North Korea is a bigger threat.”

He we go with trying to see how many times and ways I can explain my view about something. Read the above post.

I read it. You missed my point about Iraq being the first of these countries we invaded.


Have YOU noticed we have yet to have another 911 and that terrorism as a whole has dropped?

1. Are you saying that our invasion of Iraq is what saved us from a repeat of 9/11? Do you have some bit of intelligence that the rest of the country is not aware of? The new security laws pertaining to air travel were just for show and the real problem was taken care of by invading Iraq? My point here is that Iraq and 9/11 are separate issues.

2. Terrorism as a whole is down on what planet?

We could go in there and take an ass like Saddam, end hunger and pave the streets with gold as well as get them all cable tv and they will STILL hate us and shoot at us. No, I’m not naïve.

Then, BY ALL MEANS, Let's put our soldiers there. Great thinking! After we're done, we can all go stick our fingers in light sockets under the justification that we're protecting our children from electrocution. "Well, THESE electrons won't be hurting anyone else, I can promise you THAT"!”

“#&%!$!!!!”

“And the war was decided on before Sept, 11 '01."

Proof? Any sources? Alrighty then..."
Nigal
03:09:08, PM
07/09/03

Nigal, have you read the papers signed by wolfowitz, perle, and company on iraq?

I'll see if I can find a link, but in the meantime, you can be thnking about why it was okay to enter office with the agenda of invading Iraq already on the table and then justify it by way of a national tragedy.”