filtherton

I enjoy the whole, "What are the bush hating liberals gonna say to downplay this?" aspect that completely disappears once the intial story is downplayed. I long for the day where certain conservatives realize that liberals don't have a monopoly on irrational dogma. Maybe then we can all laugh at the irony.

How is it even rationally possible to use this story to bolster the idea that saddam had massive caches of wmd's poised to attack america with a mere 45 minutes notice?

Dragonlich

Are you saying that these warheads did *not* contain Sarin? No, you don't; you're saying that they were rendered useless because of the limited life span. Now... what does this mean? It means that a) Saddam did have WMDs around at a time that he should not have had them. b) These WMDs are now no longer a threat.

But the point you seem to be making is that this article is lying about the WMDs, even though there were in fact (at one time) WMDs in those warheads. Therefore, there is no lie, period.

This pretty much goes to the heart of the argument, doesn't it? My interpretation of the positions:

- On the one hand we had a perfectly clear UN resolution, with a pro-war position that Saddam shouldn't have *any* WMDs, no matter how small the amount, no matter how deteriorated the material, no matter what. Any trace of WMD is therefore proof that they are right. Basically, it's not a matter of how much WMDs are found, it's a matter that they are found at all.

- On the other hand we have the anti-war position that there weren't any useful weapons left, which is proven with every find. A small amount of working material can then justifiably be dismissed as useless/old/irrelevant, or in the more extreme cases as part of a US conspiracy (bush=evil, after all). Here, it's not a matter of that they are found, it's a matter of them being found in a large enough cache to justify the war to *them*.

In short, I'd say that there's no real need to argue, as both sides are promoting (and arguing for) another logical position.

Zeld2.0

Politics at work.. you can see the same thing but in a different tint.

Mehoni

I don't understand this.

The US did nothing to stop Saddam when he used them. AFAIK, the US did not say he was not supposed to have these materials at the time.

It's foolish to think that you can control every little thing in the country. Let's say it's illegal to have drugs. I have drugs at home. Should the president take the blame for that?

Unless they find stuff like hidden factories or storages that are the governments property that contains WMD's...

The above does not equal "Saddam had WMD's in his possesion, ready to use them".

__________________
There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

apeman

i don't want to piss anyone off but isn't this a bit of a pointless argument?

my opinion, we went in for questionable reasons, now let's make the best of it

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

cthulu23

It's not a pointless argument in an election year.

Sun Tzu

Before commenting I wanted to ask if anyone saw what I saw:

On the third day of Iraqi Freedom I like so many others was glued to the TV watching all the entrenched reporting going on ( it still blows me away the way it wasa minute by minute live like that ); on FOX of all channels a journalist was present when some soldiers came across a huge cache of chemical drums. WIthin five minutes that broadcast was cut and there was no mention of it afterward. (Not the same incident where empty barrels were found) if you saw this you know what Im talking about.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

OFKU0

I saw it on CNN and Wolf Blitzer was almost pissing himself. Last thing I heard was that CNN was waiting for confirmation as to the contents, which at that time was, just as the war started. Still waiting.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

shakran

I find it amazing that people can still have enough of a vacuous lack of any understanding of current events that they think finding a couple of ancient, useless weapons out in the middle of a desert substantiates Bush's claims that the country was chock-full of weapons of mass destruction that could be used against us.

If finding two old, dead weapons that couldn't be used for anything but an interesting door stop proves that Saddam had WMD, then I guess finding a bottle of motor oil in someone's garage proves that they're a car thief.

Dragonlich

Shakran, I take it you're the proof of my interpretation of the anti-war position.

How are these "two old, dead weapons" *not* prove that Saddam had WMDs? It's not a gray scale thing we're talking about, it's an Either-Or situation: either he had them, or he had none. IF these weapons are shown to belong to the Saddam-era Iraqi army, it proves that he did have WMDs.

Now, does this prove that he had a *substantial amount* of WMDs before the last war? No, it does not. That cannot be proven with isolated discoveries of long-lost weapons.

cthulu23

Actually, it proves that Iraq had delivery systems for WMDs, as the shells tested negative for chemicals.

No one is arguing that Saddam has had WMDs in the past...his use of them is well known. What is disputed is if the White House inflated the estimates of his present day stockpiles to sculpt public opinion towards war.

Mantus

But Lich,

We didn’t go to war because at some point in time and space Iraq had WMDs. We all know they had them and used them mainly because we helped fund their development.

We went to war because we were told that Iraq had usable and deployable WMDs up to and including the date of March 20, 2003.

Dragonlich

Actually, as I recall, you went to war because Saddam didn't comply with the relevant UN resolutions, which banned *any and all* WMDs. The US government tried to get public support by claiming that he had tons of dangerous WMDs; this does not mean that that was the *reason*, I'd say it was merely the method of gaining support.

This claim of imminent danger seemed reasonable at the time. There were many questions remaining about hundreds or even thousands of tons of WMD material, and little or no cooperation from Saddam to answer those questions.

Hwed

That was never the concern. Saddam knew he couldn't attack the US directly.

The concern was that one WMD would be given by Saddam to a terrorist group, and that that terrorist group would use it against us.

Concern no more. Thanks, Dubya!

Hwed

The funny thing is thinking about how loud the libs would be screaming right now if we'd never gone to Iraq....

I can hear it now...

"GEORGE BUSH ISN'T DOING ANYTHING TO PREVENT TERRORISM OMG WHY DOESN'T HE GO TO IRAQ! BUSH AND SADDAM ARE FRIENDS OMG OMG OMG!!!"

wonderwench

The Monday after Saddam was captured, I attended a small reception for Senator Feinstein. She made some quite interesting comments about the Iraq War. Sitting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, she has a unique visibility into the intelligence and the analysis of the threat.

The major concern that led Congress to approve the war was the risk that Saddam could easily distribute batches of chemical and biological weapons to terrorist cells who could then use them within the U.S.

One of the mistakes made by the Anti-War League is to assert that the justification for war must be made beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is not one of criminal law in which an individual's constitutional rights are in play; rather, it is one of national security. The standard is one of assessing if there is a reasonable risk.

So far, the record of Saddam's brutality, intent to manufacture or acquire weapons and hatred of the U.S. have not been refuted. He was a reasonable risk.

roachboy

that possibility permanently exists, from any number of places---in part because the international weapons trade is so indiscriminate in where it sells to---you combine that with the looseness of usage of the word terrorist and you have a logic that would legitimate bushwar on everybody who has wmd-type systems at any point, and says nothing about anyone in particular at any particular time.

there was an interesting poll taken just after the start of bushwar--something like 70% (i dont remember the exact number--sorry) of respondants thought that iraqis had been on the planes that flew into the trade center etc.... the results were puzzling. the pollsters--i dont remember who they were, but only that the organization was not gallop etc.--concluded that people would rather lie to themselves than admit they have been lied to.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

Do you think it is a good thing that Saddam is no longer President of Iraq?

irseg

This thing with liberals and GWB is like a cult, except instead of irrationally worshipping and agreeing with the leader, they irrationally hate and oppose ANYTHING he says or does.

Gas prices are a good example.. If they go up, it's "Why isn't Bush doing anything about oil prices? He doesn't care about the people, he only cares about lining the pockets of his rich corporate fat-cat Big Oil cronies!"

If they go down.. "Bush is letting oil prices go down as a re-election ploy so soccer moms can keep driving their huge fuel-sucking SUVs! He's raping the environment and we'll NEVER have alternative fuels at this rate!"

Anyway, back to the thread.. The UN stated that Saddam was not to have any chemical weapons. Saddam has chemical weapons. "Saddam cannot have chemical weapons" means "Saddam cannot have chemical weapons". Not "Well he can have some chemical weapons, as long as he doesn't have too many, or they're too new, or anything along those lines." This is not some weird far-out subjective thing that's open to interpretation. It's a clearly stated resolution, not an abstract painting.

Argue about whether or not you think we should have went to war with Iraq over WMDs if you want, but whether or not he violated the resolution by having them is no longer debatable.

roachboy

actually, irseg, the counter argument is as it has always been: the un inspections regime had done its job--the wmd systems had been destroyed---the process worked--and that if there were more systems, the inspectors would have found them---therefore bushwar was unnecessary and illegitimate---and.that is the main reason so many countries did not support this ridiculous colonial war.

and it is funny to hear the word cult being attributed to people who opposed the war--there were lots of reasons to oppose it--nothing unifies the position--why exactly do you support bush?

and wonder--given the appalling american support for dictator and dictator worse that hussein ever was over the past 60 years, i dont think the question is relevant. if the americans acted for moral reasons, they would never have installed pinochet, for example, and looked the other way during the murder of many many thousands of people in chile. if the american position was based on morality, you would think that they would not have looked the other way at the time when the gas was used against the kurds--it was only later, when it was politically expedient, that there were objections. this is simply fact--there is no way to argue around it.

do i think hussein was a shithead--yes.
do i think that justifies bushwar--no.

it turns out that the reasons for war have all turned out to have been lies.

now you are reduced to this position.
why hold on to support of the war if the rationale is now this flimsy on the one hand, and this far from the actual positions outlined in the run-up to it on the other?

i can understand maybe if you have people in iraq---that is seperate...in which case the argument would be totally different, and has nothing to do with politics.

but in principle. i simply do not see how you can argue your position seriously.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

You are incorrect that the reasons for war were false.

There were four main reasons:

- Saddam's failure to fully comply with the plethora of UN resolutions involving the settlement of the 1991 Gulf War.

- His demonstrated brutality towards other nations and the risk of future attacks on his neighbors.

- His demonstrated brutality towards his own people and violation of their human rights.

- Saddam's links to terrorists groups. (This is not an allegation that he supported AQ - there is plenty of evidence that he financially sponsored suicide bombers in Israel.)

From the 2003 State of the Union Address:

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

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.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom.

BigGov

How would the UN Inspectors find the WMD's when they have stories of Iraqi's stepping up, driving them out into the desert, and showing them where WMD's were buried?

It's a hell of a lot easier to hide them then find them.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

roachboy

wonder----i have heard this litany several times before---i already made my main arguments:

1. as for the un--you have a selective amnesia--remember what was happening in the period just before bushwar--remember for example blix's report directly contradicting the american position.
nothing in what you say militates against it.

1a. more generally, if the americans are so worried in principle about wmd systems, they should stop private firms from selling them. remember that a significant percentrage of what he was accused of having (not all---a significant percentrage) came from american sources with the full support of the reagan administration.

on the second point---i assume you refer to kuwait---well that rationale--which is dubious--applied equally at any point and does nothing to support any particular timing of american actions.

3. i just talked about this third point of yours in the previous post--please read it. i get tired of repeating the same thing over and over. if you have something to say about the argument, then say it--it serves no purpose if you just pretend it was never mentioned.

4. the link that sold the war was to al qeada. without that, the argument about imanent threat to the us was not possible.
it was the threat to the us---NOT KUWAIT--that sold the war to those who supported it. what other country are you talking about? iran? the americans supported and armed iraq during that war--what are you talking about?

so the bush argument was false. period.

the matter of whether hussein did or did not supply financial support to palestinian resistance movements is irrelevant. i would be more surprised if he did not than i am that he did--but either way, it is irrelevant.

and what on earth would prompt you to post bush's state of the union speech as if it proves anything?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

I posted it because he mentions the four reasons for going to war, which you are so diligently working to ignore.

Locobot

Um I do, try again.

roachboy

what about the arguments other than the last comment?
i dont think you can get around them.

it is sad, really, to find over and over that people who support this lunacy cannot or will not articulate their positions, cannot or will not open their assumptions up for debate, cannot or will not even look critically at their own views, that they rely too often on prepackaged responses from a variety of sourses and cannot or will not go outside that packaging to think for themselves.

or maybe better to give evidence that someone from the outside can recognize that, behind the repetition, they are doing so.

because it is hard to tell when the dominant ideology is being repeated what is going on behind the scenes.

it is usually frustration that prompts me to push at the borders, so see if there is an actual autonomous thinking person behind the repition--it rarely works---usually it just makes the thread snippy for a while, then i or others lose interest.

believe it or not, i am open to being persuaded on matters that i talk about---for example, my position on gun control has drifted considerably under pressure from discussions with others. but i am also more than willing to bring others under pressure--because i think that real discussion can be useful---however going round in tiresome circles is not, and as i have lots of other things going on around me, i do not have time to waste on it.

i think you are wrong.

i think bush lied.

i think the war was illegitimate and that it was and is a debacle.

i think hussein was a shithead, but i also know that the americans have supported lots and lots of bigger shitheads who were conveninent politically---so human rights arguments in a case like this hold no water a priori.
i can on the other hand imagine a military intervention on human rights grounds being legitimate--but not a unilateral action, not proactive---in consort with the community of nations, maybe--under the aegis of the un, maybe. under the tutelage of the mayberry machiavellians? not a chance.
all bushwar serves to do is increase cynicism about the idea of human rights being other than a cheap fig leaf placed over a war carried out on other grounds, for other reasons. and i do not think cheapening the language of human rights is a good thing.

if you or anyone else wants to actually discuss this difference of views, i'll come back into the thread actively. otherwise, i am done with it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

I see roachboy.

All you left out was "It Was All About The Oil."

Zeld2.0

Gee more generalizing. So what about those who aren't liberals and are conservatives and disagree?

Or maybe they can't?

Don't go about spouting off on a group when you might not even know who is who.

Locobot

Oil is still the only motive that makes sense. Follow the money, it doesn't lie. The current American regime is packed with people who personally profit and thrive on the chaos and disorder of war. Refute that!

wonderwench

You mistake correlation for causality.

The rich and powerful generally profit, whether we are at war or at peace. It does not necessarily follow that we go to war just so they can profit.

Bush stated four reasons for war which hold up to scrutiny. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make him a liar.

Locobot

You make the mistake of simply seeing the Bush admin. as "the rich and powerful." Not only are they rich and powerful, but they're also the people who have the most to gain SPECIFICALLY from invading Iraq. How many no-bid war contracts does Halliburton or the Carlyle group need to get before you start to see an association?

You make the mistake of correlating Iraq's past (largely U.S. supported) aggression with the causes for the U.S. invasion! Bush's stated reasoning for invading Iraq crumble under the slightest amount of scrutiny.

He lied, our soldiers died, and now it's time for him to vacate the presidency.

Mehoni

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

__________________
There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

apeman

i just think that the degree of polarisation is such that no-one is going to change their minds ... plus most people have probably got report fatigue... if this argument was a war it would be 1914-1918 with both sides firmly entrenched and lots of mud and sniping

PS: not election year in UK, we're stuck with our bastards for another year or two

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

Dilbert1234567

I really don’t understand why this is still not a done deal, sadamn did not have massive stockpiles as the administration said he did. Sure there are some extra shells with trace amounts, but if I was to tell you to get rid of all the rat poison in your town, you would surely miss some. We still find large quantities of DDT in the US even though its use was banned a long time ago.

If Sadam had them he would have used them against our forces, it is silly for our administration to say he was willing to use them against our homeland but not against our troops in Iraq. It’s just Stupid.

We need to figure out now if it is our information gathering services that suck or is it something more sinister that we were purposely misled.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

wonderwench

Funny enough, Halliburton has announced big losses. I guess these Evil Rich & Powerful folks are also incompetent and stupid.

wonderwench

What does a quote from a 1990 article prior to the 1991 ground war have to do with this?

matteo101

Heh Heh, what really makes me laugh, is that out of the thousands of american troups in Iraq, we STILL had to rely on the POLISH troups to make any damn progress.

kutulu

The discovery of some old-assed shells is way different than discovering an actual cache of WMD's. We all know that he had them at one point (the Republicans gave them to him), the "facts" posed to us was that he had enough to be a threat AT THE TIME OF INVASION.

This is more like finding traces of cocaine on someone's money than actually finding cocaine.

That's such a pointless question and is more suited to talk radio. It greatly oversimplifies the issue. Questions like this obviously go with the general BS like "liberals love Saddam and hate America" We've listed several reasons why we shouldn't have gone to war. If you don't understand them by now you haven't even tried.

matteo101

It is quite obvious to me that after september 11, Bush thought to himself..hmm what can I do to benefit from all these people that lost their lives, how can this travecty help me out. With america in shambles, he had everyone at his fingertips. He told the people that terrorists were plotting against us, and to always be cautious. He raised terror alerts to orange, and red, back to orange, down to yellow, and back up again. He was basically scaring this shit out of us. He knew that the people would trust almost anything he did, IF they thought it would help them, help them to be a safer country, help them to get rid of the fear, the fear that was given to them by the government themselfs.
So Bush announced they were going to invade iraq. They were going to invade them to find "weapons of mass destruction, to find chemical and biological weapons"...oh and to umm "help the people, from there opressed government..yeah thats right".
The people of course heard the word weapons of mass destruction and immidiatly thought, yah, we need to get allllll the weapons of mass destruction, hell send all our troops there, weapons of mass destruction can only lead to us getting nuked in the near future...please go in there, spare anything...just help us
So they did, he sent in thousands of troops, and so the war was started: They bombed palaces..missed a couple times..killed thousands of civilians yada yada yada...864 american troups were killed...yada yada yada...and oh umm no weapons of mass destruction, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons..but look what they did do, we got rid of sadaam and saved the people from the opressed government. Yes, they did do that...they now figured since we did do that, half america will think it is still justifyable, I mean we did help that nations people....we have to think though, there are so many countries with that same situations...even there good friends the saudis..but god forbid they would ever invade them...heh, them with there 17 percent of all money in the United States, no we would never invade them...but iraq, they are justifable, they do have the second largest oil reserves...and none of it is even ours...but if we can "invade" them, take away there government, put in our own "government" I think it might be a little easier to get this oil...yes, they can get lots of oil. Hell it costed us hundreds of troups, hundreds of civilians, many many lies to the american people..but in the end the oil is all ours.

Sorry for the book, but I just had to get afew things off my chest...

Edit: This is my own personal opinions..

Dragonlich

matteo101, I suggest you try posting such nonsense in the Tilted Paranoia forum. In Tilted Politics, you're supposed to provide at least a reasonable point of view, open to discussion, and if possible, backed by proof of some sort.

IMHO your story says more about the type of person *you* are, than it does about President Bush.