To everyone against the Iraq War

Dan, the reason was WMD - remember? But it turns out that wasn't the reason haven't we? The president lied, and only used the terms freedom and democracy because anyone that would oppose him were just labeled anti-us, anti-freedom and various other non-sensical silliness.

Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone other than his own people, the same people that were left to fry after the US told them to raise up and you'd stand with them. So they rose up and you stood by and watched them get slaughtered because they beleived the US.

The things you say passer by are true. With the possible exception that Bush lied I think the bulk of the evidence shows that the intelligence Bush was given was incorrect as most of the worlds intelligence agencies including the French and Germans believed saddam had these weapons and btw saddam still possessed material he shouldn't have had materials and equipment that had the sanctions been lifted would have been put right back into operation.

Keep towing the party line!

The thing that really disturbs me is that before the war the reason was WMD, now the reason is freedom (and they say it was freedom all along).

The gentlemen a few pages back said something to the effect of "whatever the reason, the neo-cons felt it was VERY important."

This statement is pertinent, I think. Why were they so eager to go in? They are not stupid, and they wouldn't risk their empire unless it was something of absolutely vital importance.

Is it as simple as oil?

BTW- Democracy doesn't need "spreading". It is not a disease like Christianity or Islam that requires propagation. In my experience only bad things need to be spread.

Originally posted by danwild6
The things you say passer by are true. With the possible exception that Bush lied

- There is a saying in Boxing when refering to bad decisions from Judges - "You are either corrupt, or incompetent, and we can't have you either way".

Originally posted by danwild6
I think the bulk of the evidence shows that the intelligence Bush was given was incorrect as most of the worlds intelligence agencies including the French and Germans believed saddam had these weapons and btw saddam still possessed material he shouldn't have had materials and equipment that had the sanctions been lifted would have been put right back into operation.

- But the rest of the world understood that evidense could be misleading. Surely so did the president, if not why not? His advisors certainly would. No, I'm afraid that doesn't hold any water either. Bush rushed head long into a war with Iraq without solid proof, without reasonable cause, and lied to the American people and to Congress(Treason) which cost over 1700 people's lives for what?

You know it and I know it. Accepting that your government may be acting in a manner less than what you are expected to is hard to deal with, but learning that your government is likely responsible for stuff we always assumed would be done by the enemy must be incredible hard. Unfortunatly it is only the AMerican people that can change this - until someone else decides to take a swap at the US.

May I inquire to what the party line is when in fact I am a democrat and very liberal on alot of social issus btw. I believe you are right in regards to the neo-cons. I also don't share your twisted view on religion but that's not the issue. The neo-con agenda has always been the expansion of american power ever since the first gulf war(wolfowitz for example advised to take Baghdad in 91) but again I think it's to simplistic to say it is all about oil we are now tied to the mid east in many more ways than just oil like for the first 200 years of our republic we were tied to europe and europe's problems (i.e war of 1812, WWI, WWII) we are now as the lone superpower tied to the region on which the prosperity and peace of the world will depend in the 21st century. Don't get me wrong oil plays a part how big a part depends on how you view it. And to that point I would remind you the middleast has been important since antiquity the eyes of great conquers such as Alexander, Pompei, and Napolean have all fallen on the mideast well before the discovery of oil.

Off topic but how was the war of 1812 a european mess? That was your doing. Manefest destiny and all that other crap.

BTW how's the white house.. hee hee

Passer By it is true that evidence can be misleading however, that does not however mean it should be discounted now does it you can view the evidence and say could be couldn't be. But can you say that you before the war you believed that Saddam had voluntarily gotten rid of his stockpiles 5yrs after he had thrown out the UN inspectors and had dismantle completely(which he did not)his weapons research programs. Given saddam's past behaivor do you really believe that had the UN and Saddam gotten their way that he wouldn't have reactivated his dormant programs and like I said before what would the world look like in twenty years with a mideast armed to the teeth with nukes and having the UN to thank for it.

Iraq WAR..

Simply put, there are reasons only Bush & Crew know about this ongoing situation. Reasons that are not mentioned to media.

The only possibility, I feel serious possibility for Bush to be back in power next Election will be First Lady: Laura Bush running for President.

Seems to me She's not just simple, Brilliant and Meek, & Straight Forward, but a class Lady whom Internaional Gov of States respect.

Dallas

The War of 1812 was fought by the US and Great Britain over the violation of trade by the British during the napoleonic wars(france was our largest trading partner) look up in your search engine Orders of Council you will see how the brits attempted to claim that every american born before 1783 was still a British subject.

Oh and you may have burned our Capitol but we got you back when Andy Jackson wiped out a Brit army 3 times his size. Look up battle of new orleans for a real kick

I don't think Laura is interested in running for the Presidency.

Originally posted by danwild6
Passer By it is true that evidence can be misleading however, that does not however mean it should be discounted now does it you can view the evidence and say could be couldn't be.

- I could say that Saddam at his best was a medium fish in a small pond. That his ability to do harm to his own population was greater than his ability to harm anyone else. That without anyone looking over him he was pretty well tied down, any moves anywhere would be virtually impossible but certainly improbable. Add to that the no fly zones and the UN inspections that were going underway and all reports came back negitive(ofcourse the US had solid satailye proof - remember Powell at that hearing with pictures and such... ). Saddam simply wasn't a threat to anyone other than his own people.

As for what happens in the future. One thing is for sure. If we act as oppressors, and dictators today, we as a species will surely act as opressors and dictators tomorrow. Stop it while it is under your conrtol, and save yourself from tomorrows....

MAybe in New Orleans but here in Canada, you got jack buddy. LOL!!!

As for the story of three times larger, how about a handfull of natives and loyalists taking out the entire section of American soldiers without ever firing a shot!! Scardy cats ran away ....

Anyway, all in good fun, back to Iraq.......

You imply that it was in the UN interests to keep Saddam tied down I don't believe there would have been a reason to keep the inspections or the no-fly zones and certainly not the sanctions would have been maintained there wouldn't have been the will to prolong the suffering under the sanction and remember the northern no-fly zone was dependent on turkey's permission to overfly it's territory which was wavering and we all know that even with the sanctions in place it was not difficult for saddam to get his hands on stuff he shouldn't have. Like I said before if Saddam was cut loose he would have had no reason to stay weak and there would have been even less will to go in and finally remove him afterwards.

Not at all. The UN was to make sure he had no weapons, and that he was abiding by the agreement after the Gulf war. He was. The UN said he was, the UN had the say in it - case closed. The only thing that was able to open that up was...

Iraq has WMD. When the UN said he didn't, then the smear campaigns started and haven't stopped. AI has been a victim of them, in fact just about anyone how has disagreed with the Bush charge has had a run in with the smear campaign.

Face it the reason that the US went in wasn't the reason Bush gave, and there is ever indication that Bush knew there were no WMD there, or at the very least didn't care.

What exactly will it take before you acknowledge this war is a shame? 1700 lives gone because of lies. 1700 families ripped apart because of lies. Global instability because of lies. America's skyrocketing debt, that is owed by your children and grandchildren because of lies.

The sad thing is if/when there is another attack from where ever, it will not be those that lied to you that will get hit. It will be the comman person, the same that were lied too, the same that bares the life cost for the war and their children and grandchildren who will owe money for this war.

It is clearly your opinion that Bush lied I can see how you came up with your opinion I watch television from all over the world BBC ITV Deutchwelle but having seen those networks I recall that Tony Blair was accused of sexing up the reasons for war weapons deployable 15min or something like that and I believe he was cleared wasn't he. I believe what a more trustworthy former member of the administration said recently on the daily show that they had made there judgement on what prove to be largely errornous info from an agent code-named curveball(that should have given them a heads up right there). Now maybe Colin Powell was cut out of the loop personally I don't think so and he said he doesn't think so. I guess I probably won't be able to change your mind but I've enjoyed our little debate here

So of I my friend, and there is nothing I would prefer than to think that I am wrong on this. I just happen to be of the like that when something looks like a duck, and walks like a duck there is good cause to suspect a duck. In this case with the amount of, admittedly, circumstantial evidence it is more a case of walking like a duck, talking like a duck, with duck feathers and a gaint neon sign saying "Hi, I'm a duck."....

Yet, all that said no one of us truly knows, and while some here like Wyldone(sp?), Howard ROark and many others all have oodles of evidense and back reading to support their claims(on both sides) I have nothing more than my opinion, which ultimately is no more valid than anyone else's..

May I ask you one last thing. Hypothetically, is there some type of evidense that could be brought forth that would cause you personally to rethink this?

Cheers.

It's not impossible to change my mind and believe me I've had more than my fair share of disagreements with the Bush administration. Maybe I could be fooling myself but it would be difficult for me and the country to accept this that thousands of americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's have died because of a lie told to make halliburton even more wealthy than it is now. Another Vietnam would be so tragic at least in the 60's we could say we were fighting the commies but that's why I hope all of this works out and we can all sit back and not have to worry about world war III. What could change my mind you ask something that would prove the situation in Iraq hopeless which I believe we both hope it's not.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by danwild6]

[edit on 19-6-2005 by danwild6]

Originally posted by danwild6
I recall that Tony Blair was accused of sexing up the reasons for war weapons deployable 15min or something like that and I believe he was cleared wasn't he.

Re-elected is not "cleared".

The tendency to apportion blame to faulty intelligence and to lay the blame at the feet of intelligence service officials will continue on both sides of the Atlantic. But seeking to blame intelligence is all lies. The agenda to invade Iraq for purposes other than national security was pre-determined, and the Bush administration misled Congress and the people of the US and engaged allies in the same deception. They knowingly gathered and used highly suspect intelligence with little regard for the consequences. Those consequences are now just fought in a propaganda war as we see represented in the kind of Bush apologist rubbish that suggests the war was necessary and that "mistakes of intelligence" ought to be forgiven.

The invasion of Iraq will not be remembered as a just or necessary thing. History will show that it was based on a lie, and ill-prepared and ill-managed. This assessment may well be true of many actions of the incumbent criminal group in the Whitehouse, but few if any other things will be so costly in terms of human lives or national economic position or prior reputation for integrity.

War profiteering pays short term dividends for a few corporations and their shareholders only. It has never been in US interests.

I'm definetely not unwilling to be proved wrong in my thoughts that our own Government caused 9/11, must less should not be in Iraq. But first I would need this question answered, why did NORAD stand down on 9/11/01 for the first time in it's 50 year existence?

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
Your ideas have been very lame on the subject of how to defeat Islamic Terrorism. So far, here is what you've presented. I am going to go through each one, and with logic defeat it.

Perhaps you can use your logic to explain this to me...

Your title thread is "To everyone against the Iraq War". (Emphasis mine.)

Your introductory phrase is "Your ideas have been very lame on the subject of how to defeat Islamic Terrorism." (Emphasis mine.)

Now, Iraq was the only non-Islamic arabic regime in the whole middle-east. Saddam was the sworn enemy of Islamic fundamentalism.

Logically, then, if fighting Islamic terror was our motive, Iraq was the last arabic nation we should have invaded.

Keep ranting about Bush & Cheney and liberal 9/11 conspiracies, but unless you can explain to me how overthrowing a secular ruler in a region full of Islamic fundamentalists, thus opening up Iraq to Islamic terrorists where previously there were none, somehow aids the fight against Islamic terror, I shall find your analysis sadly wanting.

-koji K.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by koji_K]