And what about all the raping and killing going on in other countries like Sudan right now?

Oh yeah there's no oil there for us to "liberate".

Actually there are large quantities of oil in the Sudan largely controlled be the canadians and now china who choose to turn a blind eye to the abuses as does the U.N.
[Link: hrw.org]

This message was edited by dpva59 on 11/08/04 08:04 ET.

I know there is oil there. What I said was there is none for us to liberate from the leaders of that country.

Do you think if China and Canada controlled the oil in Iraq we would be fighting this war?

Does anyone realize the election is over, and we have to deal the hand we've been dealt REGARDLESS which side we were for?

It IS the first time in a long time that one candidate has won not only the Electroral but ALSO the popular vote!

I understand everyone's passion for this topic, but this thread actually helps to exemplify some of the problems in our country today...

If both sides, ESPECIALLY the extreme wings, were to pool more of their resources and energey for arguaing and disagreeing, and attempt to agree a little more, we'd sure get a lot more accomplished as a whole!

You want the solution to this whole mess? Let's unite behind the current administration (like OR dislike) because it's what the MAJORITY wanted, and show the world a nation united, instead of a nation bitterly divided, that might stall in it's tracks if we all can't get along!

|

You guys need to quit being so hung up on WMD, it was only one of many reasons we went into Iraq. The invasion was approved by an overwhelming majority of BOTH Republicans and Democrats, and everyone I've seen on Meet the Press that was asked if they would vote the same way now, said yes. Regardless of WMD this war has removed several tyrants, kept terrorist activity at bay, served notice to other would be threats in the Middle East, and given freedom to millions of truly peaceful, innocent people. And has the majority support of the American people. You need to get over WMD, it's no longer relevant.

You do love to bomb and kill. If the removal tyranny and tyrants were a logical foreign policy aim the list of countries we could invade would be humungous. Are not the Chinese suffering under the yoke of a totalitarian regime so are they on the short list to be nuked? North Korea, Yemen, and most of the Middle East, with the sole exception of Israel. So what makes Iraq so spcial.

The argument for the existance of WMD was a major reason support for this war was initially bipartisan. I, too, believed Powell's presentation before the UN so the absence of WMD is not some insignificant detail, like misspelling a word or failing to use the subjucntive tense.

Afghanastan gave aid and comfort to those who attacked us. No one, save for a few lunatics hostile to all wars, did not support that foreign polacy. No one believes that Saddam was a virtuous man. But Iran and Syria are far more involved with support of terrorists so again why single out Iraq?

You chafe when hyperbole is directed at you but you are hardly blaimless in your failure to control your own rhetorical excesses. And your failure to put together a sensible sentance is harldy tesomony to the Colorado school system. WMD matters with respect to the Iraq invasion as it was the fundemental reason the Bush administration put forth for that foreign policy. There are and will always be bad men ( or women ) leading nations and freedom alone is not justification to go to war.

AVDUDE wrote:
You want the solution to this whole mess? Let's unite behind the current administration (like OR dislike) because it's what the MAJORITY wanted, and show the world a nation united, instead of a nation bitterly divided, that might stall in it's tracks if we all can't get along!

At this point we are stuck with this President and his administration. Like others, I can only pray that he either changes the foolish economic policies of his past administration or that they finally kick in and the economy imporves---at least until Mr. Peterson's money supply crash landing occurs. Even the worst sinner can see the error of his ways and repent. So I do have hope for some one as intellectually challanged as your buddy THON but I doubt he will ever put in the work that a mind needs if it is to expand--but I do believe it is possible for characterlocial change only that it is unusual. But if that political reality includes legislation antithetical to freedom or continued foreign adventues, or economic policies designed to destroy the middle class then, no, I shall hardly support this or any other administration.

Am I hopeful? Have I a choice at this point? My religion teaches that even he who lacks the capacity to reason should still receive instruction so I shall continue to try to shine light where darkness or dusk exist. Until the OEX's of the world can see that the policies of the Party they support are inimical to their interests there is little hope that the sea of red in the middle and southern regions of this nation will change. Evangelicals will always support the party of intollerance. And THON is a nilihist so supporting life or anything life affirming is beyond his perview. Can you believe a mind so closed that it cannot embrace the scientific method. There are some who cannot be reached and I do not believe in miracles. He must be a joy to work with.

[ hopefully the last spelling error has been fixed ]
Alan

This message was edited by Audible Solutionns on 11/08/04 11:49 ET.

well WMDs was the primary reason and the one given until they new they would not find any it was the reason that the US went with when it went in front of the US


what several tyrants it removed one guy and do we know what will be in place in the short or long term? the answer is no because there was no plan for the aftermath. It was about removing someone that was unliked and not about building something good that will last.


1) there is no proof that terrorists were linked to Sadam or Iraq
2) there is no proof that terrorists would have tried something during that period but got scared
3) there is no proof that other initiatives did not curb terrorism

I can just as easily say that typing on this keyboard is making me invulnerable because I have not needed to go to the hospital since I started using it and before that I had been to the hospital several times. Why don't you buy some lucky underwear and it will stop terrorism all together.


so in other words you think we should bomb countries as examples so that other countries will be scared? We could apply that same logic in house. Send police to a neighbourhood pick a person that is not well liked by some, shout him execution stile and then say until there is no more crime we will do this every so often


and killed thousands of truly peaceful, innocent people and left the ones that are there on forced total chaos which is worst

also there are other ways to get a change in the regime that do not invlve an invading army

This message was edited by Anthony on 11/08/04 15:06 ET.

I always find the willingness of human beings to purposely delude themselves remarkable. That applies to everyone myself included. In this instance I think I am not. In this instance we have George Bush inventing a new American policy of "pre-emptive" war, which is bascially marketing spin for attacking a foreign country without provocation. The fact that he has been able to get people to buy into this is to me nothing short of amazing and I have no doubt if it was Clinton in office half of the people decrying the war would be supporting it and half of the Republican's supportinh it would be outraged.

It is worth noting that this is NOT a liberal versus conservative issue, even though it has been managed to be framed that way. There are Many conservatives that opposed this war as well as many in the army.

Anyhow, using the reasoning of this war, there was NEVER a country we would have been better served to attack than the Soviet Union. After all, they were a huge threat to us and were bent on spreading communism around the world. Surely we should have "pre-emptively" started WW III to "protect" ourselves and "liberate" the Soviet people. And we all know how many people were executed and in Gulag's there.

I think the biggest issue here is that those of us that oppose the war have a hard time not laughing when the supporters try to convince us of what a threat Iraq was to us. This is where I really think people are buying into spin and the entire reason the adminsitration knowingly tried to falsely convince people Iraq was tied to 9-11. In fact, they were much less of a threat than many other countries, and in some sad ways Saddam was one of the "safer" Middle East leaders (speaking from a selfish US standoint) because he had no love for the extremist Muslims who are actually our greatest threat - i.e. he crushed them with typical ruthlessness in his own country.

This message was edited by QQQ on 11/08/04 17:59 ET.

THERE WAS NO SUCH PROOF

The proof is there, you libs just refuse to see it!

like what? you have said it many times, but not one piece of proof. And when we ask you just say that a few centuries ago somone saw a catapult. Show me the proof and I will say OK there is proof but you just saying there is proof does not prove anything.

This message was edited by Anthony on 11/08/04 22:13 ET.

First of all. Anyone that actually believes we went into iraq to stop the mass graves and social atrocities there , I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. America facilitated sadams prominence and power in that region. It was done because he was needed as a surrogate force when we were at odds with iran. Remember? No doubt about it, he was a bad guy, right up there with the worst of them. But we were totally aware of all of his atrocities including his treatment of the Kurds and actual gassing of them twice while we ignored it. We got bent out of shape when he threatened oil interests strategically by attempting to annex Kuwait. Then to make a long story short, sadam dissed America by refusing to recognize our superior power and world influence. That was his fatal mistake. When 911 happened, I believe a decision was made to make an unmistakable show of resolve and force by deploying a massive invasion force in the middle east. it had nothing to do with freeing the poor iraqi's, or stopping mass graves and rapings.

Two types voted for Kerry.
1. didn't have enough information(they beleived his twisted rehtoric)
2. They didn't like Bush.
If somebody blows up my country,I get alittle upset. If you think its OK ,LEAVE!

I think everyone needs to turn off their dog and pony show TV, go to their local law library, File a few F.O.I.A requests and actually read about what is going on. You might actually learn that Kerry was dishonorably discharged from the military but was rescued mysteriously by bill Clinton via presidential pardon at the end of his term. Osama was actually political science major. The World Bank and the Federal Reserve System are one in the same. The IRS is the collection arm of the United Nations operating under a carter agreement between the United Nations and the treasury department, that’s why the IRS emblem has to halves. One half is from the treasury department; the other half is the United Nations wreath. Ho hum, nobody cares about the why and how we got here or where we are going, they only care about what actors say and do.


You get the kind of goverment you deserve!

You forgot to mention that the Queen of England and the Jews are actually controlling the US and that we never really landed on the moon < sarcasm

This message was edited by QQQ on 11/09/04 06:14 ET.

It amazes me how all of a sudden when you question our government post 9/11 you are labled as a traitor or Bush hater. In this country you are required to question everything. It is part of keeping these men in check. If nobody ever questions the government they do what they please. You know like in Iraq under Saddam.