# Third Anniversary of Iraq War -



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Your assessment?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

It's an incredible mess.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Pathetic botch mishandled from the start. People who should have known better only now starting to admit it openly (e.g. Fukuyama at the NYT).

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

After Neoconservatism

By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA (NYT) 4646 words
Published: February 19, 2006

As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of creating a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. There are clear benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria. But it is very hard to see how these developments in themselves justify the blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the project to this point. ...

More in today's Magazine section.

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Mistake for sure, but the administrations cannot admit to mistakes. Look how long it took us to get out of Vietnam. And now Bush is looking at Iran....we need to get this guy out of office, but we need him to take his Dick with him.

guit


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

It could not have gone much worse. The number of failures of of planning and execution, and the amount of BS spouted by the administration are astonishing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We're waist deep in the big sandy, the big fool says to push on.- apologies to Pete Seeger


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Gong Tao Jai_
> 
> It could not have gone much worse. The number of failures of of planning and execution, and the amount of BS spouted by the administration are astonishing.


Such as?

Do any of you guys ever read the facts? Or just get your info from CNN. Ask someone like Tiger02 who's actually there. He's not a Bush lover or conservative, by any accounts. But his viewpoint from "on the ground" is NOTHING like that which is portrayed by the journalists staying at the Baghdad Sheraton. I'm not going to waste my energy arguing any more. But I think we should all sit back and acknowledge, "Maybe it was wrong. Maybe it was right, given the information they thot they had. Nevertheless, here we are. What good are our fine young men and women doing there? What areas need improvement, and how can we help?"

Otherwise, all the naysaying is just monday-morning quarterbacking. Do we always have to be so harsh? Would any of you want the responsibility of protecting 300 million people in the face of a radical sect of lunatics who have proclaimed loudly and clearly that they want to see the Death of America??? If all your analysts and advisors reported to you that, "yes, it looks pretty grim. By all accounts - theirs and ours and everyone else in the world's - that they have WMD and want to use them...." then what would YOU do? Seriously. Please think before responding. Even if there were a chance that you would be wrong, wouldn't you err on the side of protecting your family (eg country). If every bit of credible info said, "We're not sure... but they certainly are NOT cooperating! After all, they've violated 15 UN resolutions so far, with no sign of remorse..." what would you think? Please. Try to put aside your political persuasion. Put aside all the party talking points from the last 2 years.

I didn't say 3 years, because 3 years ago, darned near EVERYONE agreed that Iraq was a HUGE security risk. Everyone, including Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Chiraq, etc, etc, etc.

Have things gone swimmingly? Clearly not. The initial military effort was impressive. Did we anticipate the insurgency? Certainly not one of this intensity and perserverance.

But before we all get high and mighty and smarter than everyone who actually has the REAL responsibility of making these decisions, can we all just agree that they aren't easy decisions? Can't we all agree that just "letting them be" isn't always the best approach either? It's a measured risk. Given the information we (the govt) had, it was apparently a risk great enough that they weren't willing to take.

Please be fair, guys. Issues aren't always simple, black and white.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

"Otherwise, all the naysaying is just monday-morning quarterbacking. Do we always have to be so harsh? Would any of you want the responsibility of protecting 300 million people *in the face of a radical sect of lunatics who have proclaimed loudly and clearly that they want to see the Death of America*???"

You need to remember that these people (radical sect of lunatics) were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. The religious extremists did not like Saddam in any way, shape or form, and he would not allow them in his country as they would have posed a threat to his dictatorship.

There are absolutely NO confirmed data showing that Iraq had ANYTHING at all to do with 9-11 but our fearless leaders (although they look pretty scared sometimes) continue to insinuate that attacking Iraq was done to protect America from terrorists (latest State of the Union address is a good example).

Who knows why he attacked Iraq. In my meaningless opinion, we had real justification to go into Afghanistan as they harbored and supported the people attacking us, but Iraq, what threat did they pose to us?

In the meantime, we put our resources into Iraq and allow things in Afghanistan to start to deteriorate witht the Taliban getting stronger and more bold.

It is interesting that we will spend $50 million dollars for an investigation of the supposed Whitewater "scandal" without really finding anything, adn we impeach a sitting president for lying about his relationship with his intern. Aint politics great!

MichaelS

Michael


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Last week in the news there was information saying that almost every GI in Iraq wanted to either be home very soon or wanted to be home now..the GI's in Iraq do not think this is a good war, or a war we can win..whoever Tiger02 I don't know, but one person thinking we should be there make it right...if you read the papers, the times and others, not CNN listening, you will read that this war is very unpopular and that most experts feel it is a wrong place for us to be. Neocons are the only ones pushng that we need to be there to defend against TERROR...it is more than liberals who are against this war, it is most of us.

guit


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

No, I agree: Issues aren't always simple, but the administration sure has worked hard to make it seem black and white, us and them, good vs. evil, painting with a broad brush. No wonder so many Americans blanched when the issue of the Dubai ports deal came up unexpectedly.

And CNN is hardly the only source of information now expressing concern and doubt about the botched military strategy in Iraq. I provided one neocon example above, but you can also find many other non-CNN (is that the media bogeyman, by the way?) examples. Foreign Affairs has written soberly about the challenges in Iraq, and even The Economist (no Bush hater, to say the least) has pitched in.

Many more too, but not for me to innumerate what you can easily find yourself.

The emperor has no clothes, and no real strategy. Even military leaders have grumbled and gone on the record excoriating Rumsfeld for being woefully inept.

Yes, the Iraqis are better off without Saddam. I don't know anyone who doubts that. But are we? And at what cost this mess?

Right now, it looks like Iran is the big winner. Hey, they've been trying for years to remove Saddam. The U.S. did the job for them.



> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

I would say that you Americans have simply slaughtered the wrong pig. You should have taken care of the areas governed by radical clerics in the region first (e.g. Iran). This would have, by the way, led to a more peaceful potential post-war Iraq as well (no state-sponsored terrorism / insurgency from Iran-backed mullahs).


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> I would say that you Americans have simply slaughtered the wrong pig. You should have taken care of the areas governed by radical clerics in the region first (e.g. Iran). This would have, by the way, led to a more peaceful potential post-war Iraq as well (no state-sponsored terrorism / insurgency from Iran-backed mullahs).


 Yes, but didn't the UK have a bit to do with it too?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Here's how a friend of mine, a reporter in Pittsburgh, sums it up:

_The country is apparently asleep over the war, or
fatally resigned to its disastrous consequences.
Nonetheless, some things that need to be said, in my
opinion, in this little summary I have made up on the
third anniversary of the U.S. decision to start a war:
1.The cause for the war was false if not deliberately
faked.
2. Locus of terrorist activity moved from caves in
out-of-the-way Afghanistan to urban country in the
heart of the oil patch.
3. Secular Arab state transformed into hotbed of
Islamic fundamentalism.
4. Iranian influence expanded.
5. U.S. influence reduced.
6. Tens of thousands of new militants recruited and
trained for jihad.
7. Iraqi oil production cut.
8. $200 billion spent on a counterproductive effort
while U.S. health care, education and economic
competitiveness continue to wither.
9. 2,300 U.S. soldiers dead, 17,000 injured.
10. At least 30,000 Iraqis killed.
It is a miracle and a shame that Bush and his boss
have not long since been run out of town. _

I'm not necessarily in agreement but I think this is a fairly representative group of sentiments.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure.

Sorry to ask a bit bluntly - what's your point?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Albert_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Before Bush and Blair sent their legions into Mesopotamia, would you have supported a full-scale invasion and conquest of Iran?


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I am in total agreement with this.

Thanks for posting.



> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> Here's how a friend of mine, a reporter in Pittsburgh, sums it up:
> 
> ...


guit


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly - especially as Afghanistan would have been a good operating shelf for an invasion together with the bases in the GCC.

Nobody ever doubted that the Angloamerican forces would be able to conquer a country like Iraq, significantly weakened by ten years of embargo. Blowing off the mullahs in Iran, however, would have been a strong signal to the Middle East and all state sponsors of terrorism and injustice; the ultimate struggle between good and evil, if you want so.

By the way, I guarantee you that there would have been not remotely the same level of post-war terrorism as in Iraq, for it is sponsored by the very _Iranian_ leadership itself.


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

Farewell to a name and a number
Recalled again
To darkness and silence and slumber
In blood and pain.

So ceases and turns to the thing
He was born to be
A soldier cheap to the King
And dear to me;

So smothers in blood the burning
And flaming flight
Of valour and truth returning
To dust and night.

A. E. Housman, _More Poems_


----------



## msh14 (Nov 11, 2005)

Mess O' Potamia


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

I am by no means an expert in this subject matter. Perhaps someone could please explain the following to me:

1. Why is it that people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (whatever happened to that clown?) who never served a day in the military came make such decisions like going to war. Should we be shocked that this is turning into a disaster due to poor planning?
Should we have had Allied Support like Desert Storm? You think Bush & Cheney and Rumsfeld were basically settling old scores because Saddam took a contract out on Bush Sr several years ago when Sr. was visiting the Middle East.

2. Why didn't Bush listen to Colin Powell when Powell told him to go in with an overwhelming force. This is a strategy that Powell lives by and has stated in his book My American Journey. Why didn't we secure the borders of Iraq? These weapons are coming from somewhere. 

3. Does anyone find it strange that Bush let Bin Laden's family escape via private jet during 9/11 attack on WTC? Now he tried to slip/sneak the Dubai deal under the table by the American people.

4. In response to criticism about sending our fine troops to war without the proper armour or tools to get the job done....Rumsfeld stated "We can't go to war with the Army we want, we have to go to war with the army we have". So why send our troops to invade a foreign country to fight when we were not attacked?

There are some very very sharp people on this board.
I look forward to reading your opinions.

Cheers
TheSaint

I pray everyday that my friends come home from Iraq safe both physically and mentally intact.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Ever since I eschewed my youthful flirtation with radicalism at age 19, I was always a staunch Republican. Never woulda thunk that in only a few years a GOP adminstration would have made me nostalgic for ol' Slick Willie!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by TheSaint_
> 
> Wolfowitz (whatever happened to that clown?)


 Believe it or not, President of the World Bank. [B)]


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

TheSaint,

Do you think we live in Sparta? Only those who served in the military can make military decisions? If so, fair enough, but President Clinton who never served deployed troops into hostile theatres many times during his administration. If you admire the Spartan model just be consistent.

Karl

P.S. Btw - and you can dismiss it all you want - but President Bush did serve in the Air National Guard (whether he served admirably or whether or not family connections kept him out of Vietnam is entirely another matter) but to say that he has no military experience or service would be wrong.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

True enough. And he ran a baseball team, and some oil companies for a time too...





> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> TheSaint,
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Karl, Just for S&G what is your service background? All I know is most of last year I was both unemployed and several medical problems service connected became nearly debilitatiing. After finding out my medical records were AGAIN lost ( a discharged G.I. today still has to secure a PAPER trail of his service. Nothing is computerised or linked between the branches and the V.A.) I was reevaluated and given medical priority over non combat WW1 veterans in some points system from a Samuel Beckett play.I then had to again 'prove' the shrapnel and tiny fragment from a AK round were service related, along with the leg burns from an exploding drug boat. I shouldn't complain, the nuts and bolts staff at V.A. hospitals are true heroes. It was a bit disconcerting to see a reservist denied immediate medical help for a combat injury because of his duty status. And the old farts I should call my peers wining about having to wait so long never seem to look at Shrub's beautific portrait while vociferously complaining. At least not until this kid rolls in , conrolling his wheelchair with a joystick in his mouth. If you think this crusade so bloody noble do that kid a favour, See that the veterans coming home don't get the shaft like their predecessors. I almost feel like faking my death so I can be assured of that flag for my funeral. I just hope it's made in American and not the PRC and donated by our good friends at Walley World. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BRING THEM HOME!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BRING THEM HOME!


 Well said, Sir.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Kav,

I did not serve in the military. I did a year of ROTC but a knee injury forced me to bow out (could never run well enough after that - maxed out the push ups and sit ups but couldn't hit the 8 minute mile with my injury at the time.) It is my great regret that I did not have an opportunity to serve and I have only the greatest admiration for those who have. My point being is that there seems to be an attitude held by many that only those have served are qualified to make military decisions. It is a perfectly legitimiate point of view (even though I don't agree with it.) I just would ask that those who hold it would apply it equally to both parties. Bush did serve in the military, whether his service was adequate or admirable is another debate. 

As to your troubles with the VA all I can say is that it is shameful and that we definitely need to revamp and adequately fund the system. Sect. Nicholson is a former Green Beret with combat experience in Vietnam and I think he is frustrated with the lack of focus that the VA is getting. Despite what you may think I am not an apologist for the administration, I think they have made some serious errors and in some matters have been out and out incompetent but I am convinced that the alternatives were worse. Please note that I supported McCain in 2000 and will do so again in 2008.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Karl, I don't think anyone really thinks that military experience is necessary to make these sorts of decisions - civilian control of the military is a basic principle of western democracies.

However, the cause of the criticism of the neo-cons is, I believe, their gleeful rush into an unnecessary war. 9/11 was the perfect pretext for attacking Iraq which, it was obvious at the time, was no threat to any other nation. Breaching UN resolutions? You'll be doing a lot of invading if that is now a cause for war. Starting with Israel.

Of course Clinton sent troops into dangerous situations but he never seemed to contemplate the grand folly that is Iraq and he never did it under blatently false pretences. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of them wanted their war - oh god, they wanted it _so_ badly - and they got it - what they didn't expect was an ongoing insurgency, US deaths in the thousands, chaos in Iraq and a bill for the American taxpayer in the hundreds of billions.

And here is my pet peeve on this topic - those who claim the "the good news isn't being reported". Imagine if a car bomb killed 50 people in Washington DC - would you expect the news to lead with a story about a soccer field being built in some suburb? Hardly. And the Iraqi elctions received enormous coverage in the western media.

------------------


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

"And here is my pet peeve on this topic - those who claim the "the good news isn't being reported". Imagine if a car bomb killed 50 people in Washington DC - would you expect the news to lead with a story about a soccer field being built in some suburb? Hardly. And the Iraqi elctions received enormous coverage in the western media."

Brilliant. I've been thinking the same thing. I'm sure that some good has been done there--and should be expected, considering the Shock and Awe with which the U.S. descended. But to expect the daily car bomb(s) NOT to raise some eyebrows under the circumstances is ludicrous. 




********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

_1. Why is it that people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (whatever happened to that clown?) who never served a day in the military came make such decisions like going to war._

According to the Constitution, the President is Commander in Chief. The Constitution says nothing about the President needing to have served in the military. The Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says members of Congress need to have served in the military, either. That's just the way our government was set up. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt never served in the military.

You don't know what you're talking about if you think Donald Rumsfeld never served a day in the military. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service until 1975. President Bush served in the Air National Guard (remember Dan Rather? Mary Mapes? the forged memos?). The Air National Guard is a component of the U.S. Air Force.

_3. Does anyone find it strange that Bush let Bin Laden's family escape via private jet during 9/11 attack on WTC?_

Get your facts straight. The flight with the members of the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave the country on Sept. 20, not during the 9/11 attack. Been watching Fahrenheit 9/11? 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Laden flight were interviewed by the FBI before departure.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> _1. Why is it that people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (whatever happened to that clown?) who never served a day in the military came make such decisions like going to war._
> 
> ...


Say what you will, Bush and his buddies let the family leave for many reasons, the top one was not to protect them but to protect his interests with this powerful family and maybe to cover his trail (just speculation here).

As far as the first point, I find it very interesting that men who did their best to stay out or war (I was one as well), would so willingly send young men into war today. Quite distrubing.

guit


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I do not, for a second, think that a change in rules should be made to make it obligatory for a leader to serve in the military. I do, however, think that it is an embaressment for the US that it is so difficult to find leaders who served in the military. first of all, it shows a lack of commitment to serving the country in the candidates. why should I believe that a 50 year old man wants to serve the country, if at 18 he didn't want to? and, of course, part of the job is leading the military, and having a military background is very helpful.

on the other hand, Natanyahu, in Israel, has about the best background one could want, on paper - he is from an excellent unit in the army, he has an MBA from a good school, he was in business as well as the army and politics. but he is still a shmuck. 

so it is hard to say what your background says about your leadership skills.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Great Stuff Everyone.....

I guess what is really getting to me and perhaps I really didn't express it that well in my tirade above (after receving a disturbing email from a friend in Iraq), is that it angers me at what appears to be a bunch of wealthy guys where some grew up with a Diamond Spoons in their mouths (regardless of Demo or Repub)can send what equates to poor Americans to fight and die without really looking at the big picture or having experienced REAL COMBAT before making decisions. 
I wonder if any of them know what its like to be shot at, taken prisoner, watch your friends die, incoming RPG and Mortars, AKA Assault Rifle fire and the list goes on. Just think, all that and inadequate to no armour....

Even though McCain, Kerry and others who actually expereinced REAL COMBAT voted for resolution to go to war, I wonder if they were President, would they have done this? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure they would not have rushed to war at least without a plan to win the peace. My gut instincts tell me that based on McCains personality, he probably would have taken the "so called" intelligence and told the CIA to get that sh*t off my desk. 

It is indeed disgusting & shameful what has happened to Kav.

Cheers
TheSaint


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by TheSaint_
> 
> Great Stuff Everyone.....
> 
> ...


 No one who voted for (or supported) that resolution should ever be permitted to become the American President. If they didn't have the wisdom and or the 'guts' to oppose it, then their judgement and character do not meet the minimum standards for the most powerful office in the world.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I tend to try and stay out of these debates, because I know my views are slanted and biased. I enjoy living in this country and I am proud to be an American. With that, though I may or may not agree with a particular military action, as an American I will generally support it. I am far from being a war monger, a gun nut or even an NRA member. As a matter of fact, Iâ€™d like to see a large majority if not all guns made illegal to posses in this country (but thatâ€™s another soapbox).

Yes, maybe the war in the Middle East is for nothing more than oil, but I honestly donâ€™t believe that is the only reason. The U.S. is the big dog on the block and with that comes some unenvied responsibilities. Those responsibilities include coming to the aid of countries in need of assistance. Generally I would hope that the U.S. would only get involved in those fights which have potential ramifications to the safety of the U.S. and its citizens. The U.S. would cease to thrive if we put up our walls and stayed within those walls, disregarding what was going on around the world. Eventually, weâ€™d end up with a much bigger fight on our hands.

We are spoiled living where we live and many people and governments around the world despise us for what we have. None of us, and hopefully none of us ever will, have experienced being invaded by foreign military. Except for the Civil War, there has never been a major military battle fought on American soil. That said there isnâ€™t anyone on this board who didnâ€™t feel some sense of insecurity watching the Twin Towers fall. You may not publicly agree with it, but all of us wanted and still want some retribution. We cannot allow the government of another country to sanction an attack against American citizens, then stand by and do nothing about it.

Nobody wants war. During war innocent people die. Unfortunately though, we wouldnâ€™t be where we are today if our grandfathers, fathers, and brothers (now sisters) had not gone to foreign lands at the direction of the U.S. government to fight a war that may or may not have been popular. Do I want my son to die on some piece of dirt in the middle of nowhere, fighting a war that to you and me makes no sense? NO! Do I want my son to die on some piece of dirt in the middle of nowhere, fighting a war that to you and me makes no sense, but ultimately maintains the freedoms and sense of safety for our grandchildren? YES!

If you are not willing to have your child die for the rights, freedoms and safety afforded to you living in this country, then in my opinion you shouldnâ€™t live in this country. This may offend some of you and that is not my intent. On the other hand â€œPeaceâ€ comes from violence and the perception of greater violence. If other countries in this world think that they can attack us, because there will be little or no retaliation then we have lost our sense of security and more importantly our perception of power.

I am not foolish enough to think there will ever be peace in the Middle East. Though, for those who hate that this war is for nothing more than oil, please stop driving your car. Ride a bike or walk to work to show your disapproval with this war.

Iâ€™ll get off my soapbox now.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Trenditional, I don't think many would disagree with the spirit if what you wrote.

However, Iraq did not attack the US nor did it sanction an attack on the US. That was the taliban and Afghanistan and they were swiftly removed by a US-led coalition following 9/11.

The thrust of the argument against the Iraq adventure is that Iraq did not attack the US and was unlikely to ever be in a position to do so. 

Your sons and daughters are dying for a lie.

------------------


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

When do we invade Sudan and, well, what the hell, Belarus? Liberia, anyone? No shortage of bleak spots on the map that do indeed require attention. 

I'd love nothing more than to see the world live up to U.S. ideals (including the U.S.), but this bloodsport gets rather tricky, especially when leavened with half-truths, lies and botched strategies by those who muddled through Yale.

I still contend that, in most instances, all-out war is not required to ameliorate the sociopolitical situation. War may be expedient for some and their purposes, but when the chickens come home to roost, it gets messy. 



********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Gmac,

Fortunately, my son is not old enough to serve in the military. Additionally, I hope he never has to die defending this country.

Aren't Saddam Husseinâ€™s atrocities be equal to Slobodan Milosevicâ€™s and to an extent, Hitlerâ€™s? We have stepped in many times to stop a ruthless dictator. The problem is removing the entire governing body. Though we remove someone like Hussein, there is another waiting to take his place.

The perception is our efforts are not worthwhile. Only history will tell us if what we are doing is right or wrong and then right or wrong is based on perception. I know someone is protecting their oil money, if that wasn't the case there would be more vehicles operating on alternate fuel sorces. Unfortunately, our government didn't start making "alterior motive" decisions 3 years ago.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Just in the interest of accuracy re: military experience:

Donald Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.

https://www.defenselink.mil/bios/secdef_bio.html


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> Aren't Saddam Husseinâ€™s atrocities be equal to Slobodan Milosevicâ€™s and to an extent, Hitlerâ€™s? We have stepped in many times to stop a ruthless dictator. The problem is removing the entire governing body. Though we remove someone like Hussein, there is another waiting to take his place.


The Hitler analogy is false - Germany declared war on the US in 1941. It is a question for the historians as to whether the US would have declared war on the Nazis who had attacked Poland, Norway, Greece, the Low Countries, France and Russia without US intervention.

Milosevic was brought down with minimal NATO intervention, at least in terms of lives lost and treasure expended.

But it isn't really relevant anyway. The Iraq war was sold to the public on the basis that Iraq was threat to the US and by constantly making veiled links between Saddam and 9/11.

US overseas interventions have tended to come in order to protect American interests, not to free the oppressed peoples of whatever nation it is.

------------------


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Gmac,

We must first agree to disagree. I also hope you take none of my comments as any type of direct insult to you.

Yes, Saddam and Iraq did not officially declare war agains the U.S. You'd have to assume this was by design, considering who their allies would or would not potentially be in that venture. Yes, Hitler's declaration of war against the U.S. definitely made it easier for the U.S. to declare war against Germany, but.... If I remember correctly (and I can be wrong) I believe the U.S. enacted the draft before 1941. I believe this was in direct relation to Germany's attack on the U.K. and our perceived involvement as an ally of Great Britain.

Additionally, I believe war today is different than 60 years ago. I don't believe smaller countries like Iraq have the ability to get involved in a full scale war with the U.S., but they have the ability to make smaller calculated attacks. To their advantage, I think they hide behind the world's perception the attacks were carried out by Musliim exremists, which makes it easier to deny involvement.

Who truly knows which country and or leaders had direct involvement in the planning, financing and execution of the 9/11 attacks. We might never know.

Paul

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Paul, no offence taken but I appreciate the clarification anyway.

Yes, the US had indeed introduced the draft and was tacitly supporting Great Britain and her allies. Lend lease was in place, US warships were escorting Atlantic convoys and thousands of young Americans had joined the British and Canadian forces to fight Hitler.

However, there remained a large "America First" contingent, led nby Charles Lindbergh, who bitterly opposed the US taking sides in the war and even more the thought of the US joining it.

If Hitler hadn't declared war it remains to be seen if the US would have chosen to fight Germany or if they would have turned their full attention to Japan, who had of course actually attacked them.

I agree that no small nation can hope to match the US on the battlefield - perhaps no large nation either. But the point is that Iraq was not a threat to the US, or anyone else, in 2003. Bush wanted war, whatever he might be saying today, and he got it - just not the war they thought they were getting. It now seems obvious that one of the reasons for the amazingly swift victory in the initial stages of the invasion was that most of the Iraqis had simply chosen not to be destroyed in the open but to fight in the insurgency.

------------------


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

Amazingly, there is still one man who naively believes he really had the right to declare war just for the sheer self-status of it - does he honestly think anyone is impressed by his actions?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

VM,

Impressive analysis! You nailed it. Bush declared war (Btw in the American system only Congress can declare war) just for the status of it, and especially to impress Europe. You don't have to support US action in Iraq but don't be so daft.

Karl


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Any of you use this?

https://www.mysoldier.com/


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

Much that you say, particularly about Iraq, is wrong. But I will address your contention that there is uncertainty regarding the US focus on Germany at the start of WWII. Nothing FDR or other senior US leaders (military or civilian) ever said or wrote, perhaps with the exception of MacArthur, could lead anyone to believe that there was any question that Germany would be first.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Paul, no offence taken but I appreciate the clarification anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I was going to write a long reply about the America First movement and all that stuff but.......... 

........I can't be arsed.

Instead I am going to take my last meeting of the day then a have a late and leisurely lunch, pick up a bottle of wine for tonight. Later I am going to pack my ski gear for an early start to Big White tomorrow. Then an early night before a weekend on the mountain.

Cheers to all!

------------------


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by guitone_
> 
> Mistake for sure, but the administrations cannot admit to mistakes. Look how long it took us to get out of Vietnam. And now Bush is looking at Iran....we need to get this guy out of office, but we need him to take his Dick with him.
> 
> guit


Saw a recent quote in the news, where the U.S. is looking at being in Iraq until at least 2009.

We could be there until 2029, the day we left it would be back to the way it was. You can't make democracy work over night in these areas of the world. The poeple here have been fighting since before the U.S. was colonized. What the Middle East and Ireland prove is the only true differences between men is their religion.

We like to babble on about racism in this country, but we have no clue what it is to truly live without peace and the constant fear of attack.

I honestly don't believe there will be peace in the Middle East. Religion is a powerful tool and devoted followers will always be hard pressed to allow and accept other religions to coexist.

We might as well leave today, since I don't think we can make valuable changes. Our soldiers continue to prove, those with the most guns are the ones in charge. When we leave power will transfer back to who ever has the biggest gun.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:I honestly don't believe there will be peace in the Middle East. Religion is a powerful tool and devoted followers will always be hard pressed to allow and accept other religions to coexist.


If there was peace in the Middle East everybody would have to get jobs.


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

This has been an amusing topic to read. Many interesting posts. For the sake of honesty I must confess that I am a conservative, however I am not a reactionary backer of the President, as I find many of his policies to be far from conservative. 

I do not claim to know whether or not invading Iraq was the right decision. I know that it has not been handled very well over the last couple of years. While I do not consider myself a supporter of the war, there have been several statemetns on here that really bother me.

First is the idea that the Bush administration made up phony intelligence just so they could go to war. Obviously the intelligence has turned out to be incorrect, but to ignore the fact that everyone, Republicans, Democrats, French Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, etc. all agreed that Iraq had WMD is simply ignorant. I know it is convenient to claim that Bush lied and people died, but this is not supported by the facts. Did Bush somehow convince Clinton and Chirac to play along with his lie because he really wanted to go to war so he could get some more oil?

Also, any "facts" that come from a Michael Moore movie should not be posted on this board in my opinion. The rebuttal information that was offered about the Bin Ladin family is absolutely correct, as is the fact that none of them have had contact with Osama in many years as they are ardently opposed of his views. And what exactly was meant by the comment that Bush was just "covering his tracks?" I would love to see an explanation of this statement. I certainly hope that it is not what I think it is.

I am of the opinion that the men on this board are both intellectuals and gentlemen. I hope that we all can step back and act that way on this thread.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> First is the idea that the Bush administration made up phony intelligence just so they could go to war. Obviously the intelligence has turned out to be incorrect, but to ignore the fact that everyone, Republicans, Democrats, French Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, etc. all agreed that Iraq had WMD is simply ignorant. I know it is convenient to claim that Bush lied and people died, but this is not supported by the facts. Did Bush somehow convince Clinton and Chirac to play along with his lie because he really wanted to go to war so he could get some more oil?


Don't try to tell me what the "facts" are if you're going to say that "everyone" agreed Iraq had WMD.


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

In fairness, I did leave out part of the sentence there. I meant to say "everyone at the time believed that Iraq had or was pursuing WMD." That statement is a fact. The international disagreement came over how the issue should be handled. I apologize for the misleading statement originally. Do you disagree with what I have just said though?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> In fairness, I did leave out part of the sentence there. I meant to say "everyone at the time believed that Iraq had or was pursuing WMD." That statement is a fact. The international disagreement came over how the issue should be handled. I apologize for the misleading statement originally. Do you disagree with what I have just said though?


Yes. "Everyone" is an absolute. I, for one, didn't believe Iraq had or were pursuing WMD and people I know who know far more about the subject also didn't believe that Iraq was pursuing WMD.

Do you believe that the people of the United States would have supported a war based on the idea that Saddam was "pursuing" WMD? I do not. People in the United States were told over and over that Saddam "has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons", that we were in danger of seeing a "mushroom cloud" in the United States, that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda", that Saddam had resumed working towards a nuclear weapon and "we believe that the United States may well become the target of those activities". If Iraq had WMD, that pretty much subsumes the idea that they were pursuing them now doesn't it? Saddam may well have wished for nuclear weapon, but his wish is like my three year old's wish that she have a dog. She knows she wants the dog but she (a) can't get a dog on her own and (b) there are adults around to make sure she doesn't. President Bush has said "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." Should we remove him from office for harboring this desire? It is about as realistic as Hussein's desire for a nuclear weapon.

We also know that these claims of WMD ownership were fanciful and largely created by the Bush administration or unreliable sources from within Iraq. I don't see how a rational person can argue that the Bush administration didn't target Iraq days after 9/11. Once that target was selected, the process inexorably moved towards war. Do you believe there was any point between 9/11 and March 2003 that war could have been avoided, short of Saddam Hussein stepping down? At some point all of the hearsay evidence transformed into fact, and these "facts" became the rationale for war.

Too many people gave the administration the benefit of the doubt--how could they be mistaken about something so serious? After all, the preponderance of evidence presented to the American people clearly showed the United States was in danger. But we can now see the process by which the claims of WMD were made and evaluated and they don't pass even the minimum standards for evidence, much less come to the level of declaring war on Iraq. There was also plenty of contrary evidence, starting with the fact that Iraq itself said that it had no WMD, and no capacity to create WMD. Oh how everyone laughed at poor Iraq and its thousands of pages claiming it didn't have WMD. You know what? They were telling the truth. We should not forget that. Who was more honest in--Iraq saying that it didn't have WMD, which the invasion proved, or the United States insisting that Iraq did have WMD. Even after the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Does this make Donald Rumsfeld a liar? He claims he mispoke. Don't you think that if you're making a claim like this you had damn well better be clear about exactly what you're talking about?

I'm not going to get sucked into a debate over this because no one is going to change their minds but this after the fact rationalization is a cheap trick: how can you oppose us now if you agreed with us before? By saying "everyone" agreed to something, you can effectively neutralize dissent. I see the game you're playing, and it's the intellectual equivalent of a three card monte dealer on the sidewalk in Manhattan.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> I meant to say "everyone at the time believed that Iraq had or was pursuing WMD." *That statement is a fact.*


 Not outside the confines of your imagination it isn't.

Oh, I forgot. The US sold them quite a bit in the 1980s.

_(Donald Rumsfeld warmly greeting Saddam Hussein, 20 Dec 1983)_

Though it was twenty years later before the US began exporting to them a different sort of WMDs...Weapons of Mass Democracy:


----------



## daltx (Jan 19, 2006)

Very clever bothist...because you and your friends didnt believe Iraq had or was pursuing weapons, then by definition everyone did not think that. How could I have forgotten about the incredibly accurate intelligence that was amassed by you and your friends' secret agents who were in and aroudn Iraq. I of course was referring to everyone in the intelligence community, such as the CIA, French intell, and British intell. The intelligence was wrong, on that you are correct and I am sure that you pat yourself on the back for it every day.

Should Chirac and Putin also resign because they lied to people when they talked about the Iraq WMD proframs?

I have one more question for you and this is truly a sincere one, because I have not heard a logical answer to it from anyone yet. Let's just assume for the moment that Bush and his friends all lied. They knew they were lying and they did it anyway. Why would they? What do they possibly gain from going to war if they are lying about the pretenses? In order for Bush to lie about this, that would mean that he is totally unaffected by the idea of thousands of Americans dying for what he knows to be a lie. I have a hard time believing there are many, if any, Americans who would so casually sacrifice the lives of others, just for the heck of it.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> I have a hard time believing there are many, if any, Americans who would so casually sacrifice the lives of others, just for the heck of it.


 This is the first, critical step which permits one to begin the complex study of human motivations.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by daltx_
> 
> Very clever bothist...because you and your friends didnt believe Iraq had or was pursuing weapons, then by definition everyone did not think that. How could I have forgotten about the incredibly accurate intelligence that was amassed by you and your friends' secret agents who were in and aroudn Iraq. I of course was referring to everyone in the intelligence community, such as the CIA, French intell, and British intell. The intelligence was wrong, on that you are correct and I am sure that you pat yourself on the back for it every day.


Clever? Not particularly. I sat in a living room in Sceaux outside of Paris in late 2002 talking with someone who has spent thirty years working as a representative of the French government on nuclear non-proliferation issues and he told me that he had seen no evidence of Iraq's effort to acquire or create nuclear weapons. So go ahead and be snide. U.N. weapons inspectors came to the same conclusion and they were in Iraq, on the ground. Are you including them in "everyone"? I know what I know, I know what my friends in intelligence told me prior to the war, and I know that you are intellectually dishonest when you say "everyone".


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |

None of this proves the weapons were really there, just that the belief in them wasn't solely a creation by the Bush administration.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

So stop supporting the evil of two lessers. If you want your parties back, vote Green or Libertarian, Natural law or even the guy running to legalise dope ( the herb.) The republicrats don't get it anymore. Even my cat gets it. We need to remind these morons the nation is not de facto red and blue.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |
> ...


 You mean the donkeys lie too? [:0]


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

The Greens and Libertarians are never going to win significant elections. Voting Green just splits the Democratic vote and puts a Republican in office. Or if you're a Republican and vote Libertarian, you split the Republican vote and put a Democrat in office.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> The Greens and Libertarians are never going to win significant elections. Voting Green just splits the Democratic vote and puts a Republican in office. Or if you're a Republican and vote Libertarian, you split the Republican vote and put a Democrat in office.


Suits me! I despise the Democrats and the current (neocon-brand) GOP with almost equal intensity these days!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You don't understand third parties. Historically they have raised issues our two party system would otherwise ignore.Winning isn't just about putting a bobblehead in office, though on the local level the Greens have gained several offices. The party platform is in fact based on building from local elections up. I deeply resent the very idea of 'splitting' votes. My vote is not de facto property given by default. My registration says GREEN, not DEMOCRAT. The DNC's dirty tricks campaign against Nader would make Nixon blush in admiration.I have yet to receive a reply from Dickie Gephardt after he vowed revenge on the Green Party. I told him I'd meet him anywhere, anytime mano a mano to resolve his angst. Likewise Arianna creme Puffington actually proposed legislation that would effectively eliminate any third party participation and Howard Dean became the party pitbull vs our efforts. The fact is Ross Perot scared the air out of their collective convention center party balloons. If either party wants my vote they can get it the old fashioned way- They can EARN it!


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

And how are they going to earn it, Kav? It has been my realization for a number of years that the Democrats want to run the country for the benefit of a hypothetical black Lesbian in a wheelchair. The Republicans want to run it for the benefit of a religious fanatic whose God has blessed him with possession of an oil field. Not much for me with either of them! I suspect you are in the same boat, Kav!


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> You don't understand third parties. Historically they have raised issues our two party system would otherwise ignore.


You know, my American history textbook from high school must have said the same thing as yours. I still have it: Bailey's _American Pageant_, 5th ed., p. 521: "American third parties have traditionally perished because their more desirable reforms have been stolen by the regular parties."

So they raise issues, fine. But what do you actually accomplish by voting for one?


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Sorry to interrupt: interesting article today in the Daily Telegraph (UK).


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> So they raise issues, fine. But what do you actually accomplish by voting for one?


I would think that if there were no threat of either of the major parties losing votes to a third party they would not choose to adopt those issues. Voting for third parties brings credibility to the threat that keeps them behaving (somewhat) well.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But that's just it. There is no threat. And if people are talking about an issue in a third party, they're talking about it elsewhere too, simply because it _is_ an issue.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.k. in 2000 Big Al and his ghost written book were a no brainer for environmentalists. Problem was the Gore family has a long association with Occidental Oil. AL personally holds 2 Million with a M associations. Occidental Oil at the time was in Columbia pushing a drilling program on the land of the Uwa people. The Uwa's protested and threatened mass suicide if it took place. Through my activism I met a young man named Terrance Freitas who was making repeated, dangerous trips to support their cause ( the uwa's, not Occidentals.) On his final trip Terry along with a minnesota Indian and native Hawiian activist were gunned down near the Venezuelan border. I emailed Gore about this. All I received was a glossy ( on virgin, bleached paper) a campaign ad with Al looking into the sunrise over an unspoiled forest.I also got a phone call from the California Democratic Party with a high pressure attack on Ralph Nader. They refused to divulge how my phone number came into their possession. They even had the chutzpa to ask my religous affiliation. I replied ( tongue in cheek) I practised Deep Ecology as envisioned by scandinavian writer Aarnne Naess. The caller who identified himself as" a fellow concerned ecologist" didn't know who I was talking about.When I voted I held a magazine photo of Terry lest I succumb to the 'evil of two lessers' arguement. There can be two parties, third parties, and morally just parties. My conscious doesn't have any hanging chads.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> Sorry to interrupt: interesting article today in the Daily Telegraph (UK).


 Thanks, Rich, for the article. This reminds me: Have you seen the following two websites?:

https://sorryeverybody.com

A site where some of the 49% of people who voted against Bush 'apologise' to the rest of the world for letting him be re-elected. Hundreds (if not thousands) of photos like:

A site where those from other parts of the world can 'accept' the apologies made by the 49% in the US who voted against Bush...with hundreds of photos such as:


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

ROFL, a pathetic lot.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

ALL Politicans are egomaniacs. They're all puppets to the "group" putting the most money in their pockets.

That said, I'll be more politically uncorrect now.......

We carry the big stick, we have the big guns and we like to fight. There are times when we need to show our position of power with force (i.e. Saddam, Khadafi, Noriega).

You may or may not agree with invading Iraq, you may or may not believe Saddam was piling up WMD's, you may or may not agree with the actions of the U.S. Complain all you'd like, there is nothing you or I can do to change it. In 20 years we'll be talking about having soldiers in another part of the world apparently for unnecessary reasons.

Additionally, Mr. Il over in Korea might want to look at Iraq as an example if he wants to keep playing with Nukes.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------

