Iraq War

[Downthestretch55]

Have at it...you probably already know my thoughts.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Have at it...you probably already know my thoughts.

Dixie International supports the war in Iraq. Furthermore, we support the use of nuclear, chemical and all biological warfare.

First we're going to go to iraq. Then we are going to go to iran. And then we are going to go to syria and lebanon. And then we are going to take the whole middle east...

Byahhhhh!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Dixie International supports the war in Iraq. Furthermore, we support the use of nuclear, chemical and all biological warfare.

First we're going to go to iraq. Then we are going to go to iran. And then we are going to go to syria and lebanon. And then we are going to take the whole middle east...

Byahhhhh!

Wow! That sounds very ambitious.
After all those "Arab folks" are gone, are there plans to turn the region into the world's largest golf course?
You might find this article of interest:http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45707/

[Downthestretch55]

Danzig,
If you don't mind, I'll answer you over here.
You said:

"bush isn't the only one responsible for the war being put into action. what about congress? last time i checked, we had a three-pronged approach to governing this country. bush is only one branch of the three comprising the federal govt.

besides dts, you said yourself you agree with no war. so it wouldn't matter what it was about, any executive in your mind would be wrong, any reason for any war would be. bush one, reagan, fdr, equally as evil as bush? lincoln, washington, that's a hell of a list.


a country that posed 'no threat'?? you feel iraq, who went to war with one neighbor, bombed a second and invaded a third, while sending money to suicide bombers was no threat?"

1) Both Legislative branches were controlled by Bush's party at the time of the invasion. Yes, many members of the other party went along with authorizing sweeping power to wage war in 2002 by the Commander-in-chief.
Some have since claimed they were given "faulty intelligence".
Who made the decision to invade? That's obvious.
2) The invasion was a "war of choice". UN sanctons were in place and inspectors were on the ground. Saddam was contained. Bush delivered the "ultimatum" to vacate Baghdad within 48 hours, remember?
3) As I have previously stated, war should be the last option, and only when invasions or realistic threat of same exists. The Iraq debacle wasn't a "defensive war".

I could go on about the rewriting of the Constitution, lack of judicial oversight, and many other consequences of the action initiated by the present administration. The consequences will be very real, and long lasting, but I'll discuss these at a later time.
Have a nice holiday.
Peace.
DTS

[Danzig]

do you feel at this point that posts like these, threads like these, are redundant?
we can't change why we're there at this point. we can't change what has happened. but i think most everyone agrees that we need to finish the job as well as we can. certainly constant rehashing about the evil bush and his evil henchmen won't change a thing!
as for faulty intelligence, i think that's crap. dems voted as they did. had the war gone swimmingly, we wouldn't be writing any of this right now. because it's not easy, it was wrong? a mistake? i wish i could retroactively make all my life-altering decisions! doesn't work that way tho, does it? dems, congress, the u.n., the executive, are ALL responsible for this mess. one no more than any other. no third of the federal govt has more power than the others.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

do you feel at this point that posts like these, threads like these, are redundant?
we can't change why we're there at this point. we can't change what has happened. but i think most everyone agrees that we need to finish the job as well as we can. certainly constant rehashing about the evil bush and his evil henchmen won't change a thing!
as for faulty intelligence, i think that's crap. dems voted as they did. had the war gone swimmingly, we wouldn't be writing any of this right now. because it's not easy, it was wrong? a mistake? i wish i could retroactively make all my life-altering decisions! doesn't work that way tho, does it? dems, congress, the u.n., the executive, are ALL responsible for this mess. one no more than any other. no third of the federal govt has more power than the others.

I agree with a lot of what you have said here. You are right- we cant undo the damage that has been done by one of the worst administrations in the history of this great country.

But...I do have issue with the last sentence of your post. Do you really believe this to be true in regards to the last 6 years? Remember, after 9-11, the country rallied around Bush. Any dissension from congress was labeled as "unpatriotic" and close to being treasonous. the power that was granted to this administration has not been seen since WW2. Sorry, Danzig, but the blame rests almost entirely on the Bush administration in this case.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I agree with a lot of what you have said here. You are right- we cant undo the damage that has been done by one of the worst administrations in the history of this great country.

But...I do have issue with the last sentence of your post. Do you really believe this to be true in regards to the last 6 years? Remember, after 9-11, the country rallied around Bush. Any dissension from congress was labeled as "unpatriotic" and close to being treasonous. the power that was granted to this administration has not been seen since WW2. Sorry, Danzig, but the blame rests almost entirely on the Bush administration in this case.

from what i've read, the dems basically conceded any and all foreign policy regarding terror--they didn't want to be viewed as 'soft on terror' in the elections after 9-11. if bush suddenly had more power than he should have, i'd say more was given than taken! the blame can't rest almost entirely on bush, as the federal govt is not almost entirely vested in that branch of the fed govt. congress voted for the war, including sen kerry, yet now they 'see the light'. in other words, as polls and the wind blows...
so, if this all turns out right in the end....was all this b.s., because change wasn't affected over night, because it got difficult and sometimes ugly, suddenly unnecessary? would bush no longe be subject to calls for impeachment? if he deserves to be impeached, then so does every member of congress who voted for this. wouldn't break my heart to see that happen, cut corruption out from the core!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

from what i've read, the dems basically conceded any and all foreign policy regarding terror--they didn't want to be viewed as 'soft on terror' in the elections after 9-11. if bush suddenly had more power than he should have, i'd say more was given than taken! the blame can't rest almost entirely on bush, as the federal govt is not almost entirely vested in that branch of the fed govt. congress voted for the war, including sen kerry, yet now they 'see the light'. in other words, as polls and the wind blows...
so, if this all turns out right in the end....was all this b.s., because change wasn't affected over night, because it got difficult and sometimes ugly, suddenly unnecessary? would bush no longe be subject to calls for impeachment? if he deserves to be impeached, then so does every member of congress who voted for this. wouldn't break my heart to see that happen, cut corruption out from the core!

If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.

The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?

Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.

[sham]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

Dixie International supports the war in Iraq. Furthermore, we support the use of nuclear, chemical and all biological warfare.

First we're going to go to iraq. Then we are going to go to iran. And then we are going to go to syria and lebanon. And then we are going to take the whole middle east...

Byahhhhh!

That's funny...and you even managed to spell the "Dean" screech.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.

The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?

Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.

i read that congress knew exactly what the intelligence really was--it wasn't faulty, they were told the same things as the prez. but the members felt they were between a rock and a hard place--dems especially thought that a no vote on the war would cost them the elections in '02--so they voted for the war, so they wouldn't be viewed as being soft on terror. the cia is their fall guy.
if the cia lied, don't you think their would have been investigations that would make the iran contra hearings look like a pta meeting???
and as for wmd's...how did we have such a good idea that saddam had these weapons? because we provided a lot of them! remember the iran/iraq war? (for some reason for many years we based our entire foreign policy on the 'enemy of my enemy is friend' system. incredibly flawed system!! it gained us afganistan and iraq.) remember the gassing of the kurds? gas is a wmd....

all the truths behind all this may never come out. what about oil for food? what about kofi annan and his son? the u.n. mess? what about russia and france worrying more about $ than doing what's right?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i read that congress knew exactly what the intelligence really was--it wasn't faulty, they were told the same things as the prez. but the members felt they were between a rock and a hard place--dems especially thought that a no vote on the war would cost them the elections in '02--so they voted for the war, so they wouldn't be viewed as being soft on terror. the cia is their fall guy.
if the cia lied, don't you think their would have been investigations that would make the iran contra hearings look like a pta meeting???
and as for wmd's...how did we have such a good idea that saddam had these weapons? because we provided a lot of them! remember the iran/iraq war? (for some reason for many years we based our entire foreign policy on the 'enemy of my enemy is friend' system. incredibly flawed system!! it gained us afganistan and iraq.) remember the gassing of the kurds? gas is a wmd....

all the truths behind all this may never come out. what about oil for food? what about kofi annan and his son? the u.n. mess? what about russia and france worrying more about $ than doing what's right?

Danzig,
Here is what Congress was told, as quoted from G W Bush's State of the Union Address, 2003:
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

In his previous State of the Union, he stated that there were three mobile weapons labs, numerous references to 9-11 and Iraq's complicity, anthrax...on and on.
You are certainly entitled to believe as you wish.
So am I.

[Downthestretch55]

Danzig,
Here's a list of the top 40 lies:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm

[Downthestretch55]

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/520/81/

[skippy3481]

Dts, is there a quote from bush saying he was 100% sure they had wmd's or that he simply thought they had them/was building them?

[Downthestretch55]

Skippy,
Read the commondreams link. The footnotes can be reached at the bottom of the article. It's two posts up.^

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

Dts, is there a quote from bush saying he was 100% sure they had wmd's or that he simply thought they had them/was building them?

Skippy,
I found this...

The following transcribed exchange took place on August 21, 2006, between President George W. Bush and members of the press.

* * * * * * * * * *

Q: Alot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

GWB: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zawqawi.

Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the middle east.

Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was - the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq. And I also saw the need to advance a freedom agenda. And my answer to your question is that - Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed three thousand of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, you know, the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed three thousand of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the middle east. They were....

Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?

GWB: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.
GWB: Nothing! Except for it's part of - and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a - Iraq - the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill, to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that - you know, defeat resentment - is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

Now I said, going into Iraq, "We've got to take these threats seriously before they full materialize". I saw a threat.

I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now the question is: How do we succeed in Iraq?

And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

I need not comment further...DTS

[Downthestretch55]

I apologize that I didn't include Dubya as one of my favorite comedians over in "esoteric". Thsi one is pretty funny...if it's at Chuckie Cheese, I'm going!
Victory party!!! PARTY!!!!

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/11464/42/