What if the Democrats came out and said this ?

[Spider]

We have done our job over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom. Iraq held successful presidential elections earlier this year, and the nation is now run by a democratic-elected government.

We have accomplished what we set out to do -- bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam's terror.

But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives. The future belongs to a free democratic Iraq, but it is a future they must fight for themselves.

[Crushaholic]

Democracy is STILL being threatened in Iraq and leaving now would create a power void that would threaten the security of the Middle East. There is a time to get out of the country, but we're not quite there, yet.

[Spider]

Democracy is STILL being threatened in Iraq and leaving now would create a power void that would threaten the security of the Middle East. There is a time to get out of the country, but we're not quite there, yet.
I see , so we should just hand over Freedom to the Iraqis , dont let them fight for it ...... the real power void is Iran.........

[Spider]

So on one side , we have a group that says , Look the Iraqi People have to fight for themselfs ........
The other side says , no we need to babysit the iraqis every step of the way , continue on paying for everything , making sure they are safe .........
Interesting line of debate .......

[Hotrod]

So on one side , we have a group that says , Look the Iraqi People have to fight for themselfs ........
The other side says , no we need to babysit the iraqis every step of the way , continue on paying for everything , making sure they are safe .........
Interesting line of debate .......


I would love to hand over the whole thing to them and let them fight for it like they should the only problem is they would get smashed and bingo a new terrorist training state.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Democracy is STILL being threatened in Iraq and leaving now would create a power void that would threaten the security of the Middle East.

Democracy, as we understand it, has never existed in Iraq and never will.

We would have all been a lot better off if the PNAC lunatics who crafted the Iraq policy had taken the time to study the history of the region.

[Spider]

Democracy, as we understand it, has never existed in Iraq and never will.

We would have all been a lot better off if the PNAC lunatics who crafted the Iraq policy had taken the time to study the history of the region.
well , what those that want us to say dont understand is , as long as we are there , the Sunnis and the Shiates , dont have to come together and build a goverment ....... in the end it iwill be up to the Iraqis to maintain their Freedoms . their goverment , their economy , we cant do it , nor should we ........

[Hotrod]

well , what those that want us to say dont understand is , as long as we are there , the Sunnis and the Shiates , dont have to come together and build a goverment ....... in the end it iwill be up to the Iraqis to maintain their Freedoms . their goverment , their economy , we cant do it , nor should we ........

So your for walking out right now??? Thats the worst thing we could possibly do.

[Spider]

So your for walking out right now??? Thats the worst thing we could possibly do.
I wasnt aware I said Now ...... But no pulling out right now would be 1 of many mistakes made in this little vendetta of Bushs .... But I sure in the hell dont want us there in 5 years from now either .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

well , what those that want us to say dont understand is , as long as we are there , the Sunnis and the Shiates , dont have to come together and build a goverment ....... in the end it iwill be up to the Iraqis to maintain their Freedoms . their goverment , their economy , we cant do it , nor should we ........

Yep. Those ethnic groups (along with the Kurds) were at each other's throats long before we came down the pike. If the pinhead thinks he's going to have them sitting down together and singing 'Kumbaya" anytime in the foreseeable future, then he's truly delusional (but we already knew that.)

Memo to the chimp: Picking up where Saddam left off at places like Abu Grhaib and killing >100,000 Iraqi civilians probably isn't the way to get it done.

[Hotrod]

I wasnt aware I said Now ...... But no pulling out right now would be 1 of many mistakes made in this little vendetta of Bushs .... But I sure in the hell dont want us there in 5 years from now either .........

Fair enough....Im not very happy with many things going on right now including the war in Iraq heres the problem thou all I hear the dems do is b**** about it. If they have a better idea or solution they should come out and say it. Instead they are a party with no ideas they are just like their talking head Dean and just b**** about s*** without a single solution offered.

[Spider]

Fair enough....Im not very happy with many things going on right now including the war in Iraq heres the problem thou all I hear the dems do is b**** about it. If they have a better idea or solution they should come out and say it. Instead they are a party with no ideas they are just like their talking head Dean and just b**** about s*** without a single solution offered.
you have heard me say plenty of times , we never should have went in , We should have stayed in Afghanastan ,But we had to go in and get this Boogey man ....... So yeah We had a better idea , But then Bush fixed the Intell to fit his cause , passed it out to congress , and the Dems bit . so we can blame the Dems for not having a Plan , but in the End it was Bush that decided to go in , he will have to accept responsibilty some day for it

[Hotrod]

you have heard me say plenty of times , we never should have went in , We should have stayed in Afghanastan ,But we had to go in and get this Boogey man ....... So yeah We had a better idea , But then Bush fixed the Intell to fit his cause , passed it out to congress , and the Dems bit . so we can blame the Dems for not having a Plan , but in the End it was Bush that decided to go in , he will have to accept responsibilty some day for it

Great be pissed about that Im not happy were there either but again I hear nothing but b****ing from the dems. I think everyone would like to not be there right now but obviously unless we come up with a time machine thats not an option. Maybe it would help if the dems and Dean would start talking solutions instead of bashing people would give them an ear. IMO the reason they dont is because they are a party without ideas.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fair enough....Im not very happy with many things going on right now including the war in Iraq heres the problem thou all I hear the dems do is b**** about it. If they have a better idea or solution they should come out and say it. Instead they are a party with no ideas they are just like their talking head Dean and just b**** about s*** without a single solution offered.

rofl

It wasn't our idea to invade Iraq in the first place, and now you're complaining because we aren't providing a solution to the problem Bush created?

I though republicans stood for personal responsibility and all that shyte.

[Hotrod]

rofl

It wasn't our idea to invade Iraq in the first place, and now you're complaining because we aren't providing a solution to the problem Bush created?

I though republicans stood for personal responsibility and all that shyte.

Not at all just pointing out the fact that the dems are simply b**** about s***. That all they are doing. Its funny really. So far the only solutions Ive heard is pull out and close Gitmo. Wow what an insightful group.

[Spider]

Great be pissed about that Im not happy were there either but again I hear nothing but b****ing from the dems. I think everyone would like to not be there right now but obviously unless we come up with a time machine thats not an option. Maybe it would help if the dems and Dean would start talking solutions instead of bashing people would give them an ear. IMO the reason they dont is because they are a party without ideas.
who has the Majority ?
Who thrashed anyone as a Terrorist sympathizer , Saddam Lover , if they spoke up ?
Cheney just got done saying Dems didnt want to capture terrorist , we wanted to give them Therapy ........... How can we work with People like that ?
you talk about Dean , yet you ignore Sanitorium ...........
Every time Kerry came up with a Plan he was blasted , now the Reps realize they are in over their head , they want Dems to step up and bail them out .......
Biden has came up with Several Plans , and guess what ? .. nothing .... Media wont even cover it , Bill Oreilly did , but He chooped the Video and took Credit for the Idea , you remember Al Franken bust Bill O'Reilly thread ?
so you tell me what the Dems are supposed to do ?

[Hotrod]

who has the Majority ?
Who thrashed anyone as a Terrorist sympathizer , Saddam Lover , if they spoke up ?
Cheney just got done saying Dems didnt want to capture terrorist , we wanted to give them Therapy ........... How can we work with People like that ?
you talk about Dean , yet you ignore Sanitorium ...........
Every time Kerry came up with a Plan he was blasted , now the Reps realize they are in over their head , they want Dems to step up and bail them out .......
Biden has came up with Several Plans , and guess what ? .. nothing .... Media wont even cover it , Bill Oreilly did , but He chooped the Video and took Credit for the Idea , you remember Al Franken bust Bill O'Reilly thread ?
so you tell me what the Dems are supposed to do ?

Either speak up or shut up is what they should do. Seriously Im not very happy with the repubs right now but the dems crying like children does not exactly give voters anywhere else to go.

Im starting my own party. Hotrods men without a party party ;D

[Spider]

Saxby Chalbliss Realy did a # on Max Clelland remeber that ? yeah even had Clelland buddied up with Ossama .......Cheney telling Lehey go **** yourself .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not at all just pointing out the fact that the dems are simply b**** about s***. That all they are doing. Its funny really. So far the only solutions Ive heard is pull out and close Gitmo. Wow what an insightful group.

tsk tsk

First your party works tirelessly (and in a no-holds-barred fashion) to control all three branches of government and to marginalize the influence/input of Democrats.

Then you create this whopping mess in Iraq.

And now you're trying to duck responsibility by shifting blame to the Dems.

Unreal!

Don't you people ever take responsibility for anything you do?

[Hotrod]

Saxby Chalbliss Realy did a # on Max Clelland remeber that ? yeah even had Clelland buddied up with Ossama .......Cheney telling Lehey go **** yourself .......

I may be to redneck for politics but I like having a VP who freely tells someone to "go **** yourself. Shows backbone ;D

[Spider]

Either speak up or shut up is what they should do. Seriously Im not very happy with the repubs right now but the dems crying like children does not exactly give voters anywhere else to go.
Thats my point they did speak up , they are speaking up now ..... Remember Bush saying we got to stay the course ?

Im starting my own party. Hotrods men without a party party ;D
;D

[W*GS]

Democracy, as we understand it, has never existed in Iraq and never will.

Why "never will"?

[Spider]

I may be to redneck for politics but I like having a VP who freely tells someone to "go **** yourself. Shows backbone ;D
;D it is nice , but not on the senate floor

[Hotrod]

tsk tsk

First your party works tirelessly (and in a no-holds-barred fashion) to control all three branches of government and to marginalize the influence/input of Democrats.

Then you create this whopping mess in Iraq.

And now you're trying to duck responsibility by shifting blame to the Dems.

Unreal!

Don't you people ever take responsibility for anything you do?

Exactly where do you see me blaming the dems for the war ??? Try to focus here ok ^5

The point of what Im saying is not that the dems hold any responsibilty its that all they do is cry and moan. Now we hear oh the media would not cover our ideas BS. What do they think as a party if people get mad at Bush they will convert to our party and cry with us???

Lets not forget the Dems voted for the war thats a fact. Well before they voted against it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exactly where do you see me blaming the dems for the war ??? Try to focus here ok ^5

The point of what Im saying is not that the dems hold any responsibilty its that all they do is cry and moan. Now we hear oh the media would not cover our ideas BS. What do they think as a party if people get mad at Bush they will convert to our party and cry with us???

Memo to hotrod:

Your party (the GOP) controls all three branches of government.

The Dems have been reduced to a token opposition party.

Why are you suddenly concerned about their input?

You wanted all the marbles, and you got them.

This is your president's war, and it's on him to clean up his own mess.

Lets not forget the Dems voted for the war thats a fact. Well before they voted against it.

:bs:

They voted to give bush the authorization to use force in prosecuting a war on terrorism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. They didn't vote for bush's subsequent plan to invade and occupy Iraq. In other words, they trusted bush to do the right thing on terrorism, and, just like the rest of us, they got burned.

[Hotrod]

Memo to hotrod:

Your party (the GOP) controls all three branches of government.

The Dems have been reduced to a token opposition party.

Why are you suddenly concerned about their input?

You wanted all the marbles, and you got them.

This is your president's war, and it's on him to clean up his own mess.



:bs:

They voted to give bush the authorization to use force in prosecuting a war on terrorism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. They didn't vote for bush's subsequent plan to invade and occupy Iraq. In other words, they trusted bush to do the right thing on terrorism, and, just like the rest of us, they got burned.

First Im not a registared Republican.

Again you beat around the bush all you have are things to b**** about.

There is a reason the dems have been reduced to a token party. They have very few original ideas and of those most go against main stream America.

As far as my concern for "their" input. Its not so much that but it does get old watching them cry like small children. Instead of dems they should be called whiny b****s

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First Im not a registared Republican.

You just play one on the Internet, eh? :D

There is a reason the dems have been reduced to a token party. They have very few original ideas and of those most go against main stream America.

rofl

Is that why the polls show that a majority would vote for Hillary?

BTW, it's the rethugs whose ideas are being increasingly rejected by mainstream America - not the Dems. (See the monkey's and the GOP congress' horrible approval numbers.)

As far as my concern for "their" input. Its not so much that but it does get old watching them cry like small children. Instead of dems they should be called whiny b****s

No - they should be called an "opposition party" (which is their job.)

Your reasoning is circular inasmach as, for right-wingers like you, anyone who tries to hold the current crop of GOP thugs accountable for their actions and/or to apply checks and balances is, by definition, "whining."

[Hotrod]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN]You just play one on the Internet, eh? :D


QUOTE]

Ive said over and over I do lean right on most of my thoughts. Yet Ive never voted a straight party ticket in my life.

[Hotrod]

Your reasoning is circular inasmach as, for right-wingers like you, anyone who tries to hold the current crop of GOP thugs accountable for their actions and/or to apply checks and balances is, by definition, "whining."

I would go with b****ing but ya for the most part thats all Im hearing from the dems these days. Well you could add trash talking and crying ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...for the most part thats all Im hearing from the dems these days.

Sounds like a case of schizophrenia:

"Let's marginalize the input and influence of the Dems and then complain about their lack of input."

Reminds me of adolescents - they want to keep the grownups out, but the first thing they do when they get in a jam is come crying back to mommy and daddy for help.

[Traveler]

Fair enough....Im not very happy with many things going on right now including the war in Iraq heres the problem thou all I hear the dems do is b**** about it. If they have a better idea or solution they should come out and say it. Instead they are a party with no ideas they are just like their talking head Dean and just b**** about s*** without a single solution offered.

HR

I agree with you on the bitching by Dems. But why now should the Dems lay out what they would do in Iraq? This is a problem created by Bush and company. Secondly, if they did lay out a plan, wouldn't that be doing exactly what Bush says is the wrong thing to do? Can't have it both ways.

Are far as what's happening in the U.S., Democrats need to do a much better job of explaining our plans are, what we can do better, and how best we can possibly get there. So on this we agree.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

HR

I agree with you on the b****ing by Dems. But why now should the Dems lay out what they would do in Iraq? This is a problem created by Bush and company. Secondly, if they did lay out a plan, wouldn't that be doing exactly what Bush says is the wrong thing to do? Can't have it both ways.


Bingo!

:thumbsup:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to papi728 again.

[clarker]

Memo to the chimp: Picking up where Saddam left off at places like Abu Grhaib and killing >100,000 Iraqi civilians probably isn't the way to get it done.--L.A.

When you say things like this it makes me think your retarded. Abu Grhaib was not a good deal, but it was hardly picking up where Saddam left off. Were any of those people in those photos hung by meat hooks? Where there wifes and daughters raped?

What thoses soldiers did at Abu Grahib was bad enough, but to say they are as bad as Saddam and his Son's is stupid and showes you have no clue what the f.ck your talking about. And no I'm not defending them, but you can't really say that what they did can compare to the mass murdering, rapping thugs of Saddam and his butt f.cking son's who are now roasting in hell, where they belong?

[Hotrod]

HR

I agree with you on the b****ing by Dems. But why now should the Dems lay out what they would do in Iraq? This is a problem created by Bush and company. Secondly, if they did lay out a plan, wouldn't that be doing exactly what Bush says is the wrong thing to do? Can't have it both ways.

Are far as what's happening in the U.S., Democrats need to do a much better job of explaining our plans are, what we can do better, and how best we can possibly get there. So on this we agree.

I agree I guess Im just sick of hearing the repubs do this the dems do that. While in the mean time our kids are dying in Iraq. I dont care whos fault it is lets just fix it ^5

[Spider]

I agree I guess Im just sick of hearing the repubs do this the dems do that. While in the mean time our kids are dying in Iraq. I dont care whos fault it is lets just fix it ^5
So then you support a time table ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When you say things like this it makes me think your retarded. Abu Grhaib was not a good deal, but it was hardly picking up where Saddam left off. Were any of those people in those photos hung by meat hooks? Where there wifes and daughters raped?

What thoses soldiers did at Abu Grahib was bad enough, but to say they are as bad as Saddam and his Son's is stupid and showes you have no clue what the f.ck your talking about. And no I'm not defending them, but you can't really say that what they did can compare to the mass murdering, rapping thugs of Saddam and his butt f.cking son's who are now roasting in hell, where they belong?

If you can't see that it's what the Iraqi people think about Abu Grhaib and not what you or I think that's important, then you are the retard.

And your efforts to minimize the gravity and the immorality of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib by comparing it to Saddam's actions is morally reprehensible.

Yours is the typical right-wing moral argument: "What we're doing is not so bad because we can point to someone else who has done worse."

[Spider]

Yours is the typical right-wing moral argument: "What we're doing is not so bad because we can point to someone else who has done worse."
I never did get that argument myself . Thats like a guy getting arrested for domestic abuse and then saying , I should be let go cause I didnt hit her with a baseball bat like others have done .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I agree I guess Im just sick of hearing the repubs do this the dems do that.

The truth hurts.


While in the mean time our kids are dying in Iraq. I dont care whos fault it is lets just fix it ^5

I agree. Who currently has the power to make changes?

Your party.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I never did get that argument myself . Thats like a guy getting arrested for domestic abuse and then saying , I should be let go cause I didnt hit her with a baseball bat like others have done .........

LOL

Good analogy.

BTW, keep in mind that the second (and more horrible) round of photos from Abu Ghraib were never released to the American press. Even GOP congressmen said the photos contained evidence of murder, rape, sexual abuse, and various forms of torture too horrible for public consumption.

[clarker]

If you can't see that it's what the Iraqi people think about Abu Grhaib and not what you or I think that's important, then you are the retard.-L.A.

I saw some people on the news who were upset, but many other wondered why our news didn't put as many stories about what Saddam was doing to the Iraq people as they did about this story. But yes it did hurt the opinion of some Iraq's of us, as it should.

But I stand by remark, if you really think that Abu Grahib or Gitmo is on par with what Saddam was doing. Or Zarquai(sp?) chopping people's heads off and putting it on the internet, then you are retarded.

[Traveler]

I agree I guess Im just sick of hearing the repubs do this the dems do that. While in the mean time our kids are dying in Iraq. I dont care whos fault it is lets just fix it ^5


PREACH! :thumbsup:

[clarker]

Even GOP congressmen said the photos contained evidence of murder, rape, sexual abuse, and various forms of torture too horrible for public consumption.--L.A.

Name one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But I stand by remark, if you really think that Abu Grahib or Gitmo is on par with what Saddam was doing. Or Zarquai(sp?) chopping people's heads off and putting it on the internet, then you are retarded.

And I stand by my remark:

If you really think you can minimize the gravity and/or the immorality of BushCo's actions at Abu Ghraib and/or Gitmo by comparing them to Saddam Hussein's actions, then you are the retard.

[Spider]

But I stand by remark, if you really think that Abu Grahib or Gitmo is on par with what Saddam was doing. Or Zarquai(sp?) chopping people's heads off and putting it on the internet, then you are retarded.
My point still stands , I dont care what Saddam and his Kids did , or what Zarqawi does , we are supposed to be better then that ......
We have standards , we have laws , we just dont by pass them when they dont fit our needs , nor do Say sadomizing a Prisoner with a Chemical light isnt as bad as what Saddam did , so it is ok ........ It is never ok to do these things , despite what Saddam did or didnt do

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Even GOP congressmen said the photos contained evidence of murder, rape, sexual abuse, and various forms of torture too horrible for public consumption.--L.A.

Name one.

The second round of Abu Ghraib photos

Why you can't see what your tax dollars are paying for

The images, Rumsfeld told Congress, depict "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." After Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) viewed some of them in a classified briefing, he testified that his "stomach gave out." NBC News reported that they show "American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys." Everyone who saw the photographs and videos seemed to shudder openly when contemplating what the reaction would be when they eventually were made public.

Officials have given two legal reasons for suppressing images of prisoner abuse: "unwarranted invasion of privacy" and the potential impact on law enforcement..

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040105Z.shtml

Thanks for playing, retard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My point still stands , I dont care what Saddam and his Kids did , or what Zarqawi does , we are supposed to be better then that ......
We have standards , we have laws , we just dont by pass them when they dont fit our needs , nor do Say sadomizing a Prisoner with a Chemical light isnt as bad as what Saddam did , so it is ok ........ It is never ok to do these things , despite what Saddam did or didnt do

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to §Pide® again.

^5

Exactly.

How does BushCo expect to win hearts and minds and to sell "democracy" when its moron supporters are giving the misadministration a pass for Abu Ghraib?

[clarker]

The second round of Abu Ghraib photos

Why you can't see what your tax dollars are paying for

The images, Rumsfeld told Congress, depict "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." After Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) viewed some of them in a classified briefing, he testified that his "stomach gave out." NBC News reported that they show "American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys." Everyone who saw the photographs and videos seemed to shudder openly when contemplating what the reaction would be when they eventually were made public.

Officials have given two legal reasons for suppressing images of prisoner abuse: "unwarranted invasion of privacy" and the potential impact on law enforcement..

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040105Z.shtml

Thanks for playing, retard.I stand corrected and humbled.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I stand corrected and humbled.

Your willingness to look at facts and evidence shows that you have more class and integrity than most bush backers on this forum.

[clarker]

Your willingness to look at facts and evidence shows that you have more class and integrity than most bush backers on this forum.Normally, I wonder about those kinds of sites, are they nut cases or not, but they sited NBC News as a source so it sounds like it is on the up and up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quote of the Day

"Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right...

- George Bush, as he signed orders to fly suspects to Egypt and Jordan to be tortured because it'll illegal here.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1400972.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"People are skeptical of what they're hearing out of the Pentagon. I think Rumsfeld's credibility has been damaged by serious misjudgments."

- Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.), to Keith Olbermann, 6/23/05

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/27/during-vietnam-rumsfeld-criticized-administration-for-credibility-gap

[clarker]

"People are skeptical of what they're hearing out of the Pentagon. I think Rumsfeld's credibility has been damaged by serious misjudgments."

- Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.), to Keith Olbermann, 6/23/05

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/27/during-vietnam-rumsfeld-criticized-administration-for-credibility-gapThe same General was just on MSNBC saying the same thing, but he also said that they are making serious progress in training Iraq police and soldiers to do their own fighting. He was just over there and that is what he observed.

But he did say as you said that Rumsfeld credibility is all but shot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The same General was just on MSNBC saying the same thing, but he also said that they are making serious progress in training Iraq police and soldiers to do their own fighting. He was just over there and that is what he observed.

But he did say as you said that Rumsfeld credibility is all but shot.

There are certainly plenty of accounts from the field that contradict his statement about the Iraqi police, but I guess you have to give him credit for calling a spade a spade in reference to Rummy.

[clarker]

There are certainly plenty of accounts from the field that contradict his statement about the Iraqi police, but I guess you have to give him credit for calling a spade a spade in reference to Rummy.But I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand about the Iraqi police either, because I think as you say he has called a spade a spade. I think he has called it like he sees it. Giving credit when he thinks it is owed but not afraid to say where Bush and Rummy have screwed up.

I believe in what they are doing in Iraq, but I would have like to seen Rumhead leave in a second term.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand about the Iraqi police either, because I think as you say he has called a spade a spade. I think he has called it like he sees it. Giving credit when he thinks it is owed but not afraid to say where Bush and Rummy have screwed up.

Maybe he is calling it as he sees it.

I don't know about you, but I've read a lot of accounts of Iraqi police deserting and in some cases joining the insurgency. Many of them have made no bones about the fact that they are only joining up for the money. When the shyte hits the fan, they bail.

Sounds too much like "Vietnamization" to me.

[clarker]

Maybe he is calling it as he sees it.

I don't know about you, but I've read a lot of accounts of Iraqi police deserting and in some cases joining the insurgency. Many of them have made no bones about the fact that they are only joining up for the money. When the shyte hits the fan, they bail.

Sounds too much like "Vietnamization" to me.I don't know how wide spread that is, but I wouldn't doubt that there is some of that going on. These are very poor people, so I could see some people just joining up for money. But your right when your fighting just for money, the odds of you staying with the "good fight" as they say are slim.

But I hope it is not as wide spread as you think. Perhaps I'm just being too optimistic. But Gen. McCaffrey(sp?) seems like a pretty stand up guy and if he didn't think they were making progress on with the Iraqi Police, I don't think he would say they were. He is not a shill for either political party.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gen. McCaffrey(sp?) seems like a pretty stand up guy

Stand up guy?

Um, I hate to disillusion anybody, but McCaffrey is the same guy who gunned down all those Iraqis (some of them innocent civilians) after Iraq had already surrendered and a cease fire had been declared in Gulf War I.

Google the "Barry McCaffrey turkey shoot" for further reading.

[clarker]

Stand up guy?

Um, I hate to disillusion anybody, but McCaffrey is the same guy who gunned down all those Iraqis (some of them innocent civilians) after Iraq had already surrendered and a cease fire had been declared in Gulf War I.

Google the "Barry McCaffrey turkey shoot" for further reading.So he is a bastard that murdered innocent civilians if he is saying that were making real progress in training Iraqi police, but if he is bashing Rummy he is just calling a spade a spade as you said. I mean your the one who brought up his comments on the war in the first place. It just seems like your willing to over look this crime,if it took place(not saying it didn't but I'm too damn tired to do the Google you talked about tonight and this will be my last post tonight.), if McCaffrey is bashing a memember of the Bush team. But if he is saying that something is going right, then you have to bring up this "turkey shoot".

If he did this then you shouldn't put any weight into what he says, even if it helps your argument.

I'm not trying to be a prick, but it seems like you believe that he commited a war crime, but as long as he is bashing Rummy you won't bring it up, but if he makes a point you don't agree with then you bring it up. That is weird to me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So he is a bastard that murdered innocent civilians if he is saying that were making real progress in training Iraqi police, but if he is bashing Rummy he is just calling a spade a spade as you said. I mean your the one who brought up his comments on the war in the first place. It just seems like your willing to over look this crime,if it took place(not saying it didn't but I'm too damn tired to do the Google you talked about tonight and this will be my last post tonight.), if McCaffrey is bashing a memember of the Bush team. But if he is saying that something is going right, then you have to bring up this "turkey shoot".

If he did this then you shouldn't put any weight into what he says, even if it helps your argument.

I'm not trying to be a prick, but it seems like you believe that he commited a war crime, but as long as he is bashing Rummy you won't bring it up, but if he makes a point you don't agree with then you bring it up. That is weird to me.

I don't think you're getting my reason for quoting him.

The point is that, if you're Donald Rumsfeld, you know you're in trouble when even a fellow war criminal who has as much Iraq baggage as you do (like McCaffrey) breaks ranks with you.

[clarker]

I don't think you're getting my reason for quoting him.

The point is that, if you're Donald Rumsfeld, you know you're in trouble when even a fellow war criminal who has as much Iraq baggage as you do (like McCaffrey) breaks ranks with you.Nice try, but you didn't say sh*t about McCaffrey being a war criminal until I said I just heard him say some thing positive about the war. Again I'm not saying what you claim didn't happen, but you didn't bring it up until he said something you didn't agree with. If was really your point you should have made it in your first post.

BTW, so much for me going to bed, huh? I'm still tired to google McCaffrey, but I will tomorrow.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nice try, but you didn't say sh*t about McCaffrey being a war criminal until I said I just heard him say some thing positive about the war. Again I'm not saying what you claim didn't happen, but you didn't bring it up until he said something you didn't agree with. If was really your point you should have made it in your first post.

BTW, so much for me going to bed, huh? I'm still tired to google McCaffrey, but I will tomorrow.

I didn't bring up the McCaffrey turkey shoot because of what he said about the war - I brought it up in response to your comment that McCaffrey was a "stand up guy."

And I never suggested that his war crimes had any bearing on the truth or falsehood of his claims in the context of this discussion.

"2+2=4" is a true statement no matter whether Adolph Hitler or Mother Theresa utters it.

[clarker]

I didn't bring up the McCaffrey turkey shoot because of what he said about the war - I brought it up in response to your comment that McCaffrey was a "stand up guy."

And I never suggested that his war crimes had any bearing on the truth or falsehood of his claims in the context of this discussion.

"2+2=4" is a true statement no matter whether Adolph Hitler or Mother Theresa utters it.Ok, it is your story, stick with it if you want. :thumbsup:

Anyways I really should get some sleep, later L.A.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok, it is your story, stick with it if you want. :thumbsup:

Anyways I really should get some sleep, later L.A.

L8

[W*GS]

Your willingness to look at facts and evidence shows that you have more class and integrity than most bush backers on this forum.

He certainly has more class and integrity than you.

[errand]

Democracy, as we understand it, has never existed in Iraq and never will.



...and Democracy , as we understand it, had never existed in Germany...until 1945 that is.

...and Democracy, as we understand it, had never existed in Japan...until 1945 that is.

BTW, we still have troops in both of those nations that had never experienced democracy....as we understand it.

[Hotrod]

...and Democracy , as we understand it, had never existed in Germany...until 1945 that is.

...and Democracy, as we understand it, had never existed in Japan...until 1945 that is.

BTW, we still have troops in both of those nations that had never experienced democracy....as we understand it.

Now that is a rep worthy post my friend ^5

[DBruleU]

...and Democracy , as we understand it, had never existed in Germany...until 1945 that is.

...and Democracy, as we understand it, had never existed in Japan...until 1945 that is.

BTW, we still have troops in both of those nations that had never experienced democracy....as we understand it.

Very well said, very well said....I'm still trying to figure out why LABF would make such a statement. ???

[errand]

I wasnt aware I said Now ...... But no pulling out right now would be 1 of many mistakes made in this little vendetta of Bushs .... But I sure in the hell dont want us there in 5 years from now either .........

...even if 5 years from now the region was stable and the threat of terrorism was reduced to, how did John Kerry say it? ....oh, yeah, a nuisance?

We entered WWII in December of '41...and it took almost 4 years to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan.....would you have demanded a definite pull-out date after a a year or two? You need to remember the US took heavy casualties and lost some battles in the early stages of the war.....you know things you liberals silently rejoice for.

Something tells me you would have demanded that our troops pull out of Normandy when they were "bogged down in a quagmire" on Omaha.

[Hotrod]

Very well said, very well said....I'm still trying to figure out why LABF would make such a statement. ???


I can help you here. Its prolly more simple then you think.

1. He hates Bush period
2. He hates all Repubs period
3. He cant see past the leftist propaganda machine.

Ok fire away LABF ;D

[Montaq]

...and Democracy , as we understand it, had never existed in Germany...until 1945 that is.


Technically, Germany was a democracy (or Republic) from 1919-1932 when they elected in the Nazi party. Mostly because of the Depression and the Treaty of Versailles.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Very well said, very well said....I'm still trying to figure out why LABF would make such a statement. ???

1) The history of Iraq and the fate of all other historical invaders/occupyers.

2) The cultural/religious differences between Iraqis/Muslims and Germans (or Japanese.)

[Hotrod]

...even if 5 years from now the region was stable and the threat of terrorism was reduced to, how did John Kerry say it? ....oh, yeah, a nuisance?

We entered WWII in December of '41...and it took almost 4 years to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan.....would you have demanded a definite pull-out date after a a year or two? You need to remember the US took heavy casualties and lost some battles in the early stages of the war.....you know things you liberals silently rejoice for.

Something tells me you would have demanded that our troops pull out of Normandy when they were "bogged down in a quagmire" on Omaha.

Dudes on fire today!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Technically, Germany was a democracy (or Republic) from 1919-1932 when they elected in the Nazi party. Mostly because of the Depression and the Treaty of Versailles.

You are correct, sir.

^5

[Spider]

LOL ....Germany had a Republic before the 3 rd Riech Errand ... and Japan had a Sun Goddess worship thing going .......
But you are wrong on Germany .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dudes on fire today!

rofl

If "on fire" = "attempting ridiculous comparisons of Bush's Gulf War II to WWII."

[Hotrod]

rofl

If "on fire" = "attempting ridiculous comparisons of Bush's Gulf War II to WWII."

LOL spin and deflect very nice

[Spider]

...even if 5 years from now the region was stable and the threat of terrorism was reduced to, how did John Kerry say it? ....oh, yeah, a nuisance?
whats your point ?

We entered WWII in December of '41...and it took almost 4 years to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan.....would you have demanded a definite pull-out date after a a year or two? You need to remember the US took heavy casualties and lost some battles in the early stages of the war.....you know things you liberals silently rejoice for.
you tellin me about History when you wasnt aware Germany had a Republic Before the 3 rd Riech in 1932 ?
Hilarious!

Something tells me you would have demanded that our troops pull out of Normandy when they were "bogged down in a quagmire" on Omaha.
you keep listening to that somthing , you havent been right yet , but dont let that stop you ....... Germany never had a Democracy Hilarious!

[DBruleU]

LOL spin and deflect very nice

Hey, he goes to bed everynight with Dan Rather, so he's learning something about spinning and deflecting perfection.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And, unlike BushCo's Iraq war, in WWII there was an "evil dictator" who was really a threat to us and the rest of the world.

And when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, FDR didn't attack Taiwan.

[Spider]

Hilarious! Errand has an excuse , Inbreeding , but the rest of you dont ....... History Boys and Girls ......

[Hotrod]

Hilarious! Errand has an excuse , Inbreeding , but the rest of you dont ....... History Boys and Girls ......

Would you have considered WWII germany a democracy???

Is your and LABF's point that democracy cant spread?

[DBruleU]

Hilarious! Errand has an excuse , Inbreeding , but the rest of you dont ....... History Boys and Girls ......

Sadly, History is not being taught well enough in schools anymore. Public Schools are going to be the decline of youth in this country.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hilarious! Errand has an excuse , Inbreeding , but the rest of you dont ....... History Boys and Girls ......

LOL

^5

[errand]

Memo to the chimp: Picking up where Saddam left off at places like Abu Grhaib and killing >100,000 Iraqi civilians probably isn't the way to get it done.--L.A.

When you say things like this it makes me think your retarded. Abu Grhaib was not a good deal, but it was hardly picking up where Saddam left off. Were any of those people in those photos hung by meat hooks? Where there wifes and daughters raped?

What thoses soldiers did at Abu Grahib was bad enough, but to say they are as bad as Saddam and his Son's is stupid and showes you have no clue what the f.ck your talking about. And no I'm not defending them, but you can't really say that what they did can compare to the mass murdering, rapping thugs of Saddam and his butt f.cking son's who are now roasting in hell, where they belong?

In a word, yes.

Yes, this sad little leftist clown known to us as LABF truly thinks that what happened at Abu GrabbAss was the same thing as what Saddam put the people of Iraq thru. He truly believes that Getmo is a concentration camp on par with the Nazi's....and on a good day is a gulag on par with the Stalinist Soviets.

Our military is Satan's tool in this clown's mind....and he rejoices gleefully at every failure and black eye it endures, be they real or media created. He hates this country.....no if's, and's or but's about it.

[Spider]

Sadly, History is not being taught well enough in schools anymore. Public Schools are going to be the decline of youth in this country.
you are telling me . you quoted Errand and told him good Job , and he was wrong ...... you didnt catch it either ..........and you know what is worse ? . I have a 9 th grade Education , and Yet I run circles around plenty here

[Hotrod]

LOL

^5

Yep see I thought there was a discussion going on here. I was wrong just another Right/Bush bad Left good blah blah blah thread.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is your and LABF's point that democracy cant spread?

Go back and read my original comment if you want to know what my point is.

I said that Iraq has never had democracy as we know it.

While you're at it, brush up on the history of other attempts to invade and occupy Iraq.

[Hotrod]

you are telling me . you quoted Errand and told him good Job , and he was wrong ...... you didnt catch it either ..........and you know what is worse ? . I have a 9 th grade Education , and Yet I run circles around plenty here

Ya you go in circles alright ;)

[Spider]

Would you have considered WWII germany a democracy???

Is your and LABF's point that democracy cant spread?
go back and Read Errands Post . Germany Never had a Democracy , then go look up Germany in 1932 ..... or try the Rise of Hitler , you will see Germany had then close to what they have now ....... Not my fault Errand got it Wrong ..... No I am not saying democracy wont spread , what I am saying is the People have to want it , and be willing ot fight for it ........

[Hotrod]

Go back and read my original comment if you want to know what my point is.

I said that Iraq has never had democracy as we know it.

While you're at it, brush up on the history of other attempts to invade and occupy Iraq.

No you were clearly saying that a democracy in Iraq was not going to happen.

While your at brush up on the current history of a free vote that just happened in Iraq.

[Spider]

Ya you go in circles alright ;)
I knew Germany had a democracy up to 1932 , then Hitler came to power with his 3 rd riech ;D

[Crushaholic]

While you're at it, brush up on the history of other attempts to invade and occupy Iraq.

Ah...but the difference is that we are the United States of America. Our military is the greatest in the world and we WILL get the job done... :strong:

[Hotrod]

go back and Read Errands Post . Germany Never had a Democracy , then go look up Germany in 1932 ..... or try the Rise of Hitler , you will see Germany had then close to what they have now ....... Not my fault Errand got it Wrong ..... No I am not saying democracy wont spread , what I am saying is the People have to want it , and be willing ot fight for it ........

Nobodys arguing if pre WWII Germany had a democracy or not. They sure were not a free people at the time. The point is LABF is trying to push the idea that democracy cant spread in the Middle East. Yes Errand made a mistake yet the point is the same. Democracy can be born into countrys regardless of their past.

[Montaq]

Just to make this arguement a little more fair.

Germany didn't have a democracy until after they were defeated in WWI.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, this sad little leftist clown known to us as LABF truly thinks that what happened at Abu GrabbAss was the same thing as what Saddam put the people of Iraq thru. He truly believes that Getmo is a concentration camp on par with the Nazi's....and on a good day is a gulag on par with the Stalinist Soviets.

What this deluded right-wing moron known to us as errant left out was the fact that no one in the Smirk & Sneer misadministration denies that some of the methods of torture employed at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were also used by the Nazis and by the Stalinist Soviets. (But then, fact checking isn't errant's strong suit.)

Our military is Satan's tool in this clown's mind....and he rejoices gleefully at every failure and black eye it endures, be they real or media created. He hates this country.....no if's, and's or but's about it.

There he goes with the "if you don't supported the pinhead and his illegal war, then you hate America and don't support the troops" idiocy again.

This idiot makes Rush Limbaugh seem rational and well-informed.

[Hotrod]

I knew Germany had a democracy up to 1932 , then Hitler came to power with his 3 rd riech ;D

So someone made a error we should throw out the whole thread. Instead of discussing the issue we should do what the dem party does sling mud.

[Montaq]

Nobodys arguing if pre WWII Germany had a democracy or not. They sure were not a free people at the time. The point is LABF is trying to push the idea that democracy cant spread in the Middle East. Yes Errand made a mistake yet the point is the same. Democracy can be born into countrys regardless of their past.

IMO - the biggest obstacle to forming a lasting democracy in the Middle East will be the involvement of religion in the government. Which is an entirely different hornet's nest.

[Spider]

They sure were not a free people at the time. The point is LABF is trying to push the idea that democracy cant spread in the Middle East. Yes Errand made a mistake yet the point is the same. Democracy can be born into countrys regardless of their past.
I dont know , I dont think anyone else does either , you have to keep in mind , in WW@ our enemies were hell bent on world conquest , Now our Enemies are fighting for a Religious Doctorine ...... Much Different , we are dealing with a different group of People ........

[Hotrod]

IMO - the biggest obstacle to forming a lasting democracy in the Middle East will be the involvement of religion in the government. Which is an entirely different hornet's nest.

Thats a solid point. Prolly makes it even worse in Iraq having so many levels of fanatics.

[Montaq]

Thats a solid point. Prolly makes it even worse in Iraq having so many levels of fanatics.

And different sects of Islam that can't stand each other.

[Spider]

So someone made a error we should throw out the whole thread. Instead of discussing the issue we should do what the dem party does sling mud.
you realize you are talking about Errand and accusing us of Slinging Mud ....
you know me , you bring Facts or a legit point of View I will debate you all day long on a issue , without calling names ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ah...but the difference is that we are the United States of America. Our military is the greatest in the world and we WILL get the job done... :strong:

Your own government, i.e.,the Pentagon, doesn't even back you up on this sort of wishful thinking...

US admits the war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is now lost

Pentagon report reveals catalogue of failure

By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

“Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic,” the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is “no more than an extension of American domestic politics”. The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that “whatever Americans do and say only serves … the enemy”.

The report says that the US is now engaged in a “global and generational struggle of ideas” which it is rapidly losing. In order to reverse the trend, the US must make “strategic communication” – which includes the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations – an integral part of national security. The document says that “Presidential leadership” is needed in this “ideas war” and warns against “arrogance, opportunism and double standards”.

“We face a war on terrorism,” the report says, “intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America’s tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America’s power to persuade is in a state of crisis.” More than 90% of the populations of some Muslims countries, such as Saudi Arabia, are opposed to US policies.

“The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe,” the report adds, “weakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined US credibility worldwide.” This, in turn, poses an increased threat to US national security.

America’s “image problem”, the report authors suggest, is “linked to perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self-indulgent”. The White House “has paid little attention” to the problems.

The report calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies “will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences in ways that are credible”.

American rhetoric which equates the war on terror as a cold-war-style battle against “totalitarian evil” is also slapped down by the report. Muslims see what is happening as a “history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration … a renewal of the Muslim world …(which) has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents – of which radical fighters are only a small part”.

Rather than supporting tyranny, most Muslim want to overthrow tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia. “The US finds itself in the strategically awkward – and potentially dangerous – situation of being the long-standing prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the US, these regimes could not survive,” the report says.

“Thus the US has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle … US policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself … Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.

“There is no yearning-to- be-liberated-by-the-US groundswell among Muslim societies … The perception of intimate US support of tyr-annies in the Muslim world is perhaps the critical vulnerability in American strategy. It strongly undercuts our message, while strongly promoting that of the enemy.”

The report says that, in terms of the “information war”, “at this moment it is the enemy that has the advantage”. The US propaganda drive has to focus on “separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical- militant Islamist-Jihadist”.

According to the report, “the official take on the target audience [the Muslim world] has been gloriously simple” and divided the Middle East into “good” and “bad Muslims”.

“Americans are convinced that the US is a benevolent ‘superpower’ that elevates values emphasising freedom … deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam – by overwhelming majorities at this time – sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening.

“In two years the jihadi message – that strongly attacks American values – is being accepted by more moderate and non-violent Muslims. This in turn implies that negative opinion of the US has not yet bottomed out

Equally important, the report says, is “to renew European attitudes towards America” which have also been severely damaged since September 11, 2001. As “al-Qaeda constantly outflanks the US in the war of information”, American has to adopt more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in the Muslim world – including writers, artists and singers – and getting US private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating messages to Muslims with a pro-US “brand”.

The Pentagon report also calls for the establishment of a national security adviser for strategic communications, and a massive boost in funding for the “information war” to boost US government TV and radio stations broadcasting in the Middle East.

The importance of the need to quickly establish a propaganda advantage is underscored by a document attached to the Pentagon report from Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, dated May.

It says: “Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism.”

http://www.sundayherald.com/46389

[Hotrod]

you realize you are talking about Errand and accusing us of Slinging Mud ....
you know me , you bring Facts or a legit point of View I will debate you all day long on a issue , without calling names ........

Im not defending him. I dont even know him very well as Ive had very limited converstations with him. BUT his point is valid that LABF's insistance that democracy cant be spread is debatable.

[Spider]

Im not defending him. I dont even know him very well as Ive had very limited converstations with him. BUT his point is valid that LABF's insistance that democracy cant be spread is debatable.
Sure it is debatible , to a point ....... Tell me though we are dealing with some religious zealots , how do you get someone to accept Democracy ?
you would have a better chance of Getting a Pro life woman to get an abortion ... it can happen but ............

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

BUT his point is valid that LABF's insistance that democracy cant be spread is debatable.

Sure, it's debatable.

That's why I'm asking for evidence that Iraq can be successfully colonized by an invading/occupying power and/or transformed into a democratic state.

BTW, if errant wants to make historical comparisons, then he should compare Iraq with Viet Nam - not WWII.

He'll find many more similarities.

[errand]

Spider brings up a socialist republic that had a prime minister and a no power president and calls it democracy as we know it. It's not democracy as we know it...but it's probably a democracy you long for.

Tell us Spider, what happened when this fledgling democracy was left to fend for itself by the super powers that eliminated the regime prior?

Do you think had France, Great Britain and the US stayed in Germany for a while after the Versailles Treaty was signed that Hitler would have risen to power?

[Hotrod]

Sure, it's debatable.

That's why I'm asking for evidence that Iraq can be successfully colonized by an invading/occupying power and/or transformed into a democratic state.

BTW, if errant wants to make historical comparisons, then he should compare Iraq with Viet Nam - not WWII.

He'll find many more similarities.

The evidence you seek wont be availble until after were thru doing it ;D

Look Im not sold on the idea that its going to ever work myself. I think a large portion of Iraq loves the idea of being free but its up to them to stand up and fight for it. Thats where building up their government/forces comes into play. I head K Salazar this morning on TV like what he had to say. He said a time table per se was not a good idea but we need to hold the curent Iraq government to strict timetables.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good thing Bush wasn't president when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

He probably would have responded by invading Taiwan.

:laugh:

[Hotrod]

Good thing Bush wasn't president when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

He probably would have responded by invading Taiwan.

:laugh:

No he would have first ousted the government in Japan then if Taiwan was harboring their leaders he would have invaded them. ;D

[Montaq]

Spider brings up a socialist republic that had a prime minister and a no power president and calls it democracy as we know it. It's not democracy as we know it...but it's probably a democracy you long for.

Tell us Spider, what happened when this fledgling democracy was left to fend for itself by the super powers that eliminated the regime prior?

Do you think had France, Great Britain and the US stayed in Germany for a while after the Versailles Treaty was signed that Hitler would have risen to power?

If the Treaty itself hadn't been so constricting, it may have lasted.

They elected socialist parties, it was the depression, but it was a similar democracy.

[Spider]

Spider brings up a socialist republic that had a prime minister and a no power president and calls it democracy as we know it. It's not democracy as we know it...but it's probably a democracy you long for. Do you even know what you are talkig about ? Germany had elections , Granted they had a Chancellor and no President , Much like a Prime Minister role ........

Tell us Spider, what happened when this fledgling democracy was left to fend for itself by the super powers that eliminated the regime prior?
1932 Hilter and the 3 rd riech . dont you read ?

Do you think had France, Great Britain and the US stayed in Germany for a while after the Versailles Treaty was signed that Hitler would have risen to power?
Hard to say .......

[Spider]

Oh wait I am dealing with Errand .........
Do you think had France, Great Britain and the US stayed in Germany for a while after the Versailles Treaty was signed that Hitler would have risen to power?
Hard to say as in Hitler had a big following , He could have staged a take over a cival war type of thing ....... would it have worked ? dont know

[W*GS]

1) The history of Iraq and the fate of all other historical invaders/occupyers.

What other nations have had similar histories to that of Iraq and are now democratic? Any?

2) The cultural/religious differences between Iraqis/Muslims and Germans (or Japanese.)

Is there something intrinsic to Iraqis and/or Muslims that make democracy impossible, or nearly so? Can you supply a list of these qualities, that separates them from all the other kinds of people (Brits, Jews, Christians, whites, Hindus, etc.,etc.) in regards to creating and maintaining a democratic system?

I would be interested to see such a list.

[Spider]

What other nations have had similar histories to that of Iraq and are now democratic? Any?
the only thing I can think of that comes close is Israel from the Crusades up untill the Mid 1940's ...... but then I dont know if that qualifies or not

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The evidence you seek wont be availble until after were thru doing it ;D

Exactly what the Viet Nam cheerleaders said about that war.

The evidence gathered from our experience in Iraq hitherto carries more weight than mere wishful thinking about a hypothetical future, IMO.

Bush hasn't offered any new ideas re: how to make this wishful thinking a reality (aside from more repetition of the usual "stay the course" platitudes.)

Look Im not sold on the idea that its going to ever work myself.

Well, unlike most bush loyalists, at least you allow yourself to experience honest doubt. That's good.

I think a large portion of Iraq loves the idea of being free but its up to them to stand up and fight for it.

So far there isn't much evidence that the Iraqis want our way of life (or even want us in their country.) Were this not the case, the "large portion" who "love the idea" would be fighting to drive the insurgents out, and we wouldn't have to pay them to join the Iraqi police or the coalition effort.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Jeez, all Smirk has to do is go on TV and repeat the usual "stay the course" platitudes with plenty of flags and some men in uniform behind him, and sheeple like errand fall right in lockstep, huh?

Anyway, seeing as how errand is on a quest to find parallels between BushCo policy and WWII...

What was the Reichstag Fire?

http://www.prop1.org/park/reichsta.htm
Encyclopedia Britannica
Micropedia, Vol 9 (1987) 15th Ed

Reichstag fire, burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of Feb. 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers. Hitler had secured the chancellorship after the elections of November 1932, but his Nazi Party had not won an overall majority. He therefore obtained Cabinet consent to fix new elections for March 5, 1933. Meanwhile, his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, is supposed to have devised the scheme whereby 10 agents led by Karl Ernst were to gain access to the Reichstag through a tunnel leading from the official residence of Hermann Goring, Reichstag president and Hitler's chief minister, who was then to conduct an official investigation, which would fix responsibility for the fire on the Communists. The supposed arsonist was a Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, whom some have claimed was brought to the scene of the crime by Nazi agents. Others have contended that there was no proof of Nazi complicity in the crime, but that Hitler merely capitalized on van der Lubbe's independent act. The fire is the subject of continued debate and research.

On Feb. 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler's dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights. Though the ensuing elections still did not give the Nazis an outright majority, they were able to persuade the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act (March 23) whereby all its legislative powers were transferred to the Reich Cabinet by a vote of 444 to 94, so sanctioning the dictatorship. A feature of the ensuing arson trial, at which van der Lubbe was convicted, was the acquittal of the Bulgarian Communist Georgi Dimitrov after a strong defense.

Starting to recognize the script yet?

[clarker]

Exactly what the Viet Nam cheerleaders said about that war.

The evidence gathered from our experience in Iraq hitherto carries more weight than mere wishful thinking about a hypothetical future, IMO.

Bush hasn't offered any new ideas re: how to make this wishful thinking a reality (aside from more repetition of the usual "stay the course" platitudes.)



Well, unlike most bush loyalists, at least you allow yourself to experience honest doubt. That's good.



So far there isn't much evidence that the Iraqis want our way of life (or even want us in their country.) Were this not the case, the "large portion" who "love the idea" would be fighting to drive the insurgents out, and we wouldn't have to pay them to join the Iraqi police or the coalition effort.A large portion of them turned out to vote, about 8 million of them in fact. They had a better turn out % wise than we did and no one threaten to kill us.

They don't want our customs, per say, but I think it is clear that they want to vote for their own leaders, laws ect.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They had a better turn out % wise than we did and no one threaten to kill us.

That's what the Bush propagandists said, but they weren't able to support this claim with facts.

They don't want our customs, per say, but I think it is clear that they want to vote for their own leaders, laws ect.

Perhaps.

But it's also clear that Bush doesn't want "democracy" in Iraq - he wants a puppet government that will do his (and his fellow corporatist kleptocrats') bidding.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Answer me this, clarker:

Do you really believe that the only reason Bush has committed America to a long, costly, and bloody occupation of Iraq is because he's some sort of saint whose only ambition is to bring "democracy and freedom" to Iraq (of all possible nations?)

[clarker]

That's what the Bush propagandists said, but they weren't able to support this claim with facts.--L.A.

Better tell that to Bill Clinton because he just what I said on David Letterman the other night.

[TheDave]

Sadly, History is not being taught well enough in schools anymore. Public Schools are going to be the decline of youth in this country.

here we go again...sigh

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/final-throes-ward.jpg

[clarker]

Answer me this, clarker:

Do you really believe that the only reason Bush has committed America to a long, costly, and bloody occupation of Iraq is because he's some sort of saint whose only ambition is to bring "democracy and freedom" to Iraq (of all possible nations?)I don't think he is a saint, but I don't think he is the anti-christ either.

And yes I do think the reason we went to Iraq is help bring democracy to the Middle East.

But I know there is no way I will ever convince you of that, so I'm not going to waste my time trying. So don't waste your time putting up Move on.org type links to try to make me change my mind. To me those people are as crazy as the right wing loons that believe that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed and raped Hilliary.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How did the Monkey do?

From CNN's unscientific opinion poll on their webpage:

Which word best describes President Bush's speech?

Reassuring 16% 7040 votes
Uplifting 7% 3039 votes
Worrying 77% 33908 votes

[clarker]

here we go again...sighThat doesn't have to be a right wing vs left wing comment. Just watch Jay Leno some time when they ask random people on the street simple history questions. After watching the 10 minutes of that you will know that our schools suck.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And yes I do think the reason we went to Iraq is help bring democracy to the Middle East.

But "bringing democracy to the Middle East" isn't the reason Bush gave when he first informed the American people of his intention to invade Iraq.

In fact, the misadministration has gone through rationalizations for the invasion like changes of underwear.

How do you reconcile this fact with the position you are now taking?

[TheDave]

That doesn't have to be a right wing vs left wing comment. Just watch Jay Leno some time when they ask random people on the street simple history questions. After watching the 10 minutes of that you will know that our schools suck.

I didn't take it as a right or left wing comment... Simply as a public school teacher that disagrees. If some of you want to believe that our schools suck and they are the eventual downfall of our youth then have at it. Sorry, but i just don't have the energy to start a 10 page pissing contest trying to defend myself or my colleagues.

[clarker]

But "bringing democracy to the Middle east" isn't the reason Bush gave when he first informed the American people of his intention to invade Iraq.

In fact, the misadministration has gone through rationalizations for the invasion like changes of underwear.

How do you reconcile this fact with the position you are now taking?
They put WMD's out front, now doubt. But they said from day one that not only would Saddam be a danger because of WMD's, but having a free Iraq was good for the long term peace in the Middle East.

I reconcile this by listening to the speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rice and others with out your blinding hate and just listening to what they say.

But yes they did put the WMD's as the number one reason, but if you listened to the speeches and just lose your mind with hatered you would have heard it. I know some of my Rebublican friends do the same thing with Bill Clinton. Guys like you who are so far to the left(or right) that you will only hear what you want to hear. I'm not trying to put you down or start a fight, but it is weird to me that people like you seem to think that one party is always right and the other party is totally evil and nothing they say is of worth.

[Spider]

That doesn't have to be a right wing vs left wing comment. Just watch Jay Leno some time when they ask random people on the street simple history questions. After watching the 10 minutes of that you will know that our schools suck.
that isnt the Schools fault ... teaching doesnt end when school is let out ...... Parents have to get involved .......... Just as a few examples
My 10 Year old can tell you about the Tucker Torpedo , who Gen. Cornwallis is , and he knows who Casper Collins is,Barbary wars , and he is getting a firm grasp on the Constitution , and our Goverment , WW2 ........ Parents have to step up here ......

[clarker]

that isnt the Schools fault ... teaching doesnt end when school is let out ...... Parents have to get involved .......... Just as a few examples
My 10 Year old can tell you about the Tucker Torpedo , who Gen. Cornwallis is , and he knows who Casper Collins is,Barbary wars , and he is getting a firm grasp on the Constitution , and our Goverment , WW2 ........ Parents have to step up here ......I agree but when grown adults can't name the first President of the U.S. then their parents and their former teachers all need to be beat.

[Spider]

I agree but when grown adults can't name the first President of the U.S. then their parents and their former teachers all need to be beat.
;D I agree , then there is a point when someone is just an Idiot ......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I reconcile this by listening to the speeches by Bush, Cheney, Rice and others with out your blinding hate and just listening to what they say.


Now you're employing a familiar right-wing tactic:

When you can't defend or refute some criticism of BushCo's policies, just label the criticism "blind hate" and pretend you've won the debate.

I asked you how you reconciled your belief that BushCo's only reason for invading Iraq was to "spread democracy and freedom" with the misadministration's ever-shifting rationalizations for the invasion, and all you can do is accuse me of "blind hatred?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bottom line:

Bush lied.

We know now that Bush "fixed the facts around the policy" in a calculated effort to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq.

All of your attempts to justify Bush's invasion are moot, thanks to the Downing St. memos.

[clarker]

Now you're employing a familiar right-wing tactic:

When you can't defend or refute some criticism of BushCo's policies, just label the criticism "blind hate" and pretend you've won the debate.

I asked you how you reconciled your belief that BushCo's only reason for invading Iraq was to "spread democracy and freedom" with the misadministration's ever-shifting rationalizations for the invasion, and all you can do is accuse me of "blind hatred?"No, I said that I listened to the speeches Bush gave leading up to the war. I said that Bush said the number 1 reason for doing it was WMD's but he also talked about have a working democracy in the Middle East.

You have never said a repbublican was right about anything unless you find a sound bite of them saying what Bush did was bad. That is it. You think all republicans are evil, just like that nut job Howard Dean. They only time you call me reasonable is when I say I agree with you, but I'm a liar or brainwashed if I hold my ground and don't agree with you.

You seem like a ok guy, but it seems to me that you think that your party is always in the right and all rebublicans are always wrong. There is no way that is possible. I know people who are Republicans who do the same thing and it drives me nuts.

[clarker]

Bottom line:

Bush lied.

We know now that Bush "fixed the facts around the policy" in a calculated effort to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq.

All of your attempts to justify Bush's invasion are moot, thanks to the Downing St. memos.The Downing St. Memos are what some British Intelligence agents think. There is no proof of anything.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You seem like a ok guy, but it seems to me that you think that your party is always in the right and all rebublicans are always wrong.

Then you aren't very familiar with my posts.

I just said a few days ago that I think most of the Dems in DC are a bunch of spineless weenies. But they're still the lesser of evils when compared to today's rethugs - the facts bear that out.

The Downing St. Memos are what some British Intelligence agents think. There is no proof of anything.

Wrong.

The memos contain direct statements from the official minutes of meetings on Iraq with the U.K. government.

Once again, you are willing to ignore facts to cover for the liar in the WH.

Why?

[Spider]

The Downing St. Memos are what some British Intelligence agents think. There is no proof of anything.
More to it then that . and Whats worse is no one has denied it in either goverment ...... http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

[clarker]

Then you aren't very familiar with my posts.

I just said a few days ago that I think most of the Dems in DC are a bunch of spineless weenies. But they're still the lesser of evils when compared to today's rethugs - the facts bear that out.



Wrong.

The memos contain direct statements from the official minutes of meetings on Iraq with the U.K. government.

Once again, you are willing to ignore facts to cover for the liar in the WH.

Why?Yes, they are official minutes off British Intelligence Agents on what they THOUGHT the U.S. was doing and if the war would be leagle under British law. Once your using what a British Intelligence agents thoughts as proof. Where is the hard evidence. They have none, only their best estimated guess.

[Spider]

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/realitycheck.html

[clarker]

The July 23, 2002 minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations;--from Spider's link\

Saying that they did not believe is different than our government has hard evidence of....

Do you see what I mean, they believed that Bush was fixing the intelligence, but it doesn't say they had proof. So it doesn't matter if Bush or Blair didn't deny that these memoes existed, where is the proof.

[Spider]

Do you see what I mean, they believed that Bush was fixing the intelligence, but it doesn't say they had proof. So it doesn't matter if Bush or Blair didn't deny that these memoes existed, where is the proof.
The DSM is just one aide’s impressions of what was said in a meeting, so we don’t know what the players actually said or thought.

This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. Wrong–these are minutes, and they were circulated after the meeting to all who took part. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, they are official minutes off British Intelligence Agents on what they THOUGHT the U.S. was doing and if the war would be leagle under British law. Once your using what a British Intelligence agents thoughts as proof. Where is the hard evidence. They have none, only their best estimated guess.

They didn't simply say they "thought" this intelligence fixing was going on without providing any justifications for their claim.

They stated that such fixing WAS taking place - and they based their claims on the recorded words and deeds of the misadministration.

And, as Spider pointed out, no one in either the US or the UK has denied the substance of the claims.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wrong–these are minutes, and they were circulated after the meeting to all who took part. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

^5

Up top!

[clarker]

The DSM is just one aide’s impressions of what was said in a meeting, so we don’t know what the players actually said or thought.

This argument seeks to discredit the document’s accuracy by suggesting that it represents one person’s—presumably erroneous—impression of the meeting. Wrong–these are minutes, and they were circulated after the meeting to all who took part. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

Interestingly, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has moved from refusing to comment on the memo at all, to calling the memo “flat out wrong” to, most recently, avoiding any direct commentary on its veracity.It doesn't matter if it was one agent or 1000, it is still just what they thought was going on, where is the evidence?

[Spider]

It doesn't matter if it was one agent or 1000, it is still just what they thought was going on, where is the evidence?
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their supporters frequently point to the timing of the DSM and other leaked documents and say, "but we went to the UN--that proves we wanted a peaceful solution."

First, we should note that for Blair, going to the UN was an imperative. As a party to the International Criminal Court, the UK needed a legal justification for invasion, and regime change was not adequate, as is indicated by several of the leaked UK documents. However, both Blair and Bush needed the imprimatur of a UN resolution to build public support.

As Peter Ricketts' memo to Jack Straw on March 22, 2002 states, the UN strategy was twofold: "either Saddam against all the odds allows Inspectors to operate freely, in which case we can further hobble his WMD programmes, or he blocks/hinders, and we are on stronger ground for switching to other methods." But the plan backfired--Saddam did let the inspectors back in, but after visiting over 100 sites multiple times they found no WMD. They did find some conventional missiles that exceeded set restrictions on range--still no threat to the US or UK--and they were promptly destroyed.

With the basis for war evaporating with each passing day, Bush went back to the UN to try for a second resolution that would rubber stamp his invasion plan. When it became clear he didn't have the votes, Bush pulled the inspectors out and invaded anyway. The exercise at the UN was a sham. The DSM clearly indicates the policy of invasion was set long before the US went to the UN (and before Bush sought approval from Congress for the use of force against Iraq). The other leaked UK memos show a British Cabinet scrambling to find a legal basis for a war their Prime Minister had already committed them to. When the UN ceased to offer any further benefit to the war agenda, the US and UK moved on--to Baghdad.

What?Congress had access to the same intel as Bush and they approved the invasion

On October 10, 2002, Congress voted to approve the use of force against Iraq. The President has indicated on several occasions that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence his administration had, and made their choice on the basis of this information. What is less known is the fact that what Congress was given bore little resemblance to the detailed reports the Bush administration was reading.

Senator Bob Graham, in his book, recounts a Sept 5, 2002 meeting he and Senators Durbin and Levin had with then CIA director George Tenet and his staff. Though the administration had long before decided on invasion, to the senators' amazement no National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq had yet been produced. Graham, Durbin and Levin demanded to see one, and three weeks later Tenet produced a 90-page document rife with caveats and qualifications (though these were buried in footnotes) about what we knew--or didn't know--about WMD in Iraq.

That report was classified, and as such was available only to those on the House and Senate intelligence committees. Graham pressed for it to be declassified, and got what he asked for on Oct 4--less than a week before Congress was to vote on the use of force. However, this declassified version was more like a marketing brochure: 20 pages in length, slickly produced with splashy grahics and maps, and with none of the caveats contained in the original. Graham described it later as "a vivid and terrifying case for war."

This 20-page, unqualified summary was the only information on WMD our senators and representatives had on which to base their decision on the use of force. And they had one week to make up their mind. The intelligence material Congress had was what the administration was willing to give them, namely a promotional piece whose lies of omission outweighed what was included by a factor of four.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It doesn't matter if it was one agent or 1000, it is still just what they thought was going on, where is the evidence?

???

Maybe repitition is the key to comprehension...


Wrong–these are minutes, and they were circulated after the meeting to all who took part. However, given numerous opportunities to refute or clarify any of the memo’s contents, none of the players has done so. Not the British government, the Prime Minister, or any members of his cabinet. In fact, at a joint appearance, neither British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw nor US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice refuted any aspect of the memo’s legitimacy or accuracy.

[clarker]

Maybe repitition is the key to comprehension...L.A.

Maybe condescension is the key to the ingnore list. I have tried talking to you in a reasonable mannor(most of the time) and even admited when I'm wrong. But I'm through with you. I can read something a come to a different conclusion than you, it doen't mean I can't comprehend something you know it all jerk.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

With the basis for war evaporating with each passing day, Bush went back to the UN to try for a second resolution that would rubber stamp his invasion plan. When it became clear he didn't have the votes, Bush pulled the inspectors out and invaded anyway. The exercise at the UN was a sham. The DSM clearly indicates the policy of invasion was set long before the US went to the UN (and before Bush sought approval from Congress for the use of force against Iraq). The other leaked UK memos show a British Cabinet scrambling to find a legal basis for a war their Prime Minister had already committed them to. When the UN ceased to offer any further benefit to the war agenda, the US and UK moved on--to Baghdad.

Game, set, match.

[Spider]

As you can see Clarker , there are alot of smoking guns , that back up the DSM ......
then you add Richard Clarke , Richard Perle ... Saying the same things long before DSM ... Just too many loose ends

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I can read something a come to a different conclusion than you, it doen't mean I can't comprehend something you know it all jerk.

Yes - you have the right to read "2+2" and come to the conclusion "=5."

That's what makes America great.

:D

[clarker]

President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their supporters frequently point to the timing of the DSM and other leaked documents and say, "but we went to the UN--that proves we wanted a peaceful solution."

First, we should note that for Blair, going to the UN was an imperative. As a party to the International Criminal Court, the UK needed a legal justification for invasion, and regime change was not adequate, as is indicated by several of the leaked UK documents. However, both Blair and Bush needed the imprimatur of a UN resolution to build public support.

As Peter Ricketts' memo to Jack Straw on March 22, 2002 states, the UN strategy was twofold: "either Saddam against all the odds allows Inspectors to operate freely, in which case we can further hobble his WMD programmes, or he blocks/hinders, and we are on stronger ground for switching to other methods." But the plan backfired--Saddam did let the inspectors back in, but after visiting over 100 sites multiple times they found no WMD. They did find some conventional missiles that exceeded set restrictions on range--still no threat to the US or UK--and they were promptly destroyed.

With the basis for war evaporating with each passing day, Bush went back to the UN to try for a second resolution that would rubber stamp his invasion plan. When it became clear he didn't have the votes, Bush pulled the inspectors out and invaded anyway. The exercise at the UN was a sham. The DSM clearly indicates the policy of invasion was set long before the US went to the UN (and before Bush sought approval from Congress for the use of force against Iraq). The other leaked UK memos show a British Cabinet scrambling to find a legal basis for a war their Prime Minister had already committed them to. When the UN ceased to offer any further benefit to the war agenda, the US and UK moved on--to Baghdad.

What?Congress had access to the same intel as Bush and they approved the invasion

On October 10, 2002, Congress voted to approve the use of force against Iraq. The President has indicated on several occasions that members of Congress had access to the same intelligence his administration had, and made their choice on the basis of this information. What is less known is the fact that what Congress was given bore little resemblance to the detailed reports the Bush administration was reading.

Senator Bob Graham, in his book, recounts a Sept 5, 2002 meeting he and Senators Durbin and Levin had with then CIA director George Tenet and his staff. Though the administration had long before decided on invasion, to the senators' amazement no National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq had yet been produced. Graham, Durbin and Levin demanded to see one, and three weeks later Tenet produced a 90-page document rife with caveats and qualifications (though these were buried in footnotes) about what we knew--or didn't know--about WMD in Iraq.

That report was classified, and as such was available only to those on the House and Senate intelligence committees. Graham pressed for it to be declassified, and got what he asked for on Oct 4--less than a week before Congress was to vote on the use of force. However, this declassified version was more like a marketing brochure: 20 pages in length, slickly produced with splashy grahics and maps, and with none of the caveats contained in the original. Graham described it later as "a vivid and terrifying case for war."

This 20-page, unqualified summary was the only information on WMD our senators and representatives had on which to base their decision on the use of force. And they had one week to make up their mind. The intelligence material Congress had was what the administration was willing to give them, namely a promotional piece whose lies of omission outweighed what was included by a factor of four.I read that Spider and I still don't see the evidence. Plus none of this info is new to me, it is pretty much all in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" It is a good book and Woodward is not some right wing loonie like Ann Coulter.

To me the worst that happen is that the CIA went to Bush and said here is what we think, but the evidence isn't so strong, so I wouldn't use it. And Bush used it anyways. I don't think there was some grand lie. I think the CIA believed they had WMD's but were not 100% sure.

In the lead up to the war Bill Clinton thought they had WMD's but wasn't 100% sure because according to him their were WMD's unaccounted for in 1998, but wasn't sure if they still had them, because he didn't know if he got them all when he bombed them in 98. He bombed them in 98 because Saddam wouldn't allow U.N. inspectors in.

My guess is that because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they were not there. The could be buried, they could have been took across to the border or they could have never existed. But Bush was far from the only person who claimed they had them or would try to get them. Clinton being another. Now you could argue that Clinton would have handled it in a different way, but you can't argue that he didn't think Iraq was a danger.

[TheDave]

I read that Spider and I still don't see the evidence. Plus none of this info is new to me, it is pretty much all in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" It is a good book and Woodward is not some right wing loonie like Ann Coulter.

To me the worst that happen is that the CIA went to Bush and said here is what we think, but the evidence isn't so strong, so I wouldn't use it. And Bush used it anyways. I don't think there was some grand lie. I think the CIA believed they had WMD's but were not 100% sure.

In the lead up to the war Bill Clinton thought they had WMD's but wasn't 100% sure because according to him their were WMD's unaccounted for in 1998, but wasn't sure if they still had them, because he didn't know if he got them all when he bombed them in 98. He bombed them in 98 because Saddam wouldn't allow U.N. inspectors in.

My guess is that because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they were not there. The could be buried, they could have been took across to the border or they could have never existed. But Bush was far from the only person who claimed they had them or would try to get them. Clinton being another. Now you could argue that Clinton would have handled it in a different way, but you can't argue that he didn't think Iraq was a danger.

But doesn't the buck have to stop somewhere? The guy in charge made a call, sold us a bill of goods based on that decision... and was wrong. If this happens in any other walk of life, wether it's a doctor, teacher, or CEO they are held accountable for their mistake. Shouldn't the same be true here?

[Spider]

I read that Spider and I still don't see the evidence. Plus none of this info is new to me, it is pretty much all in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" It is a good book and Woodward is not some right wing loonie like Ann Coulter.
granted Woodward isnt , but that still doesnt let Bush off the hook .......

To me the worst that happen is that the CIA went to Bush and said here is what we think,but the evidence isn't so strong, so I wouldn't use it. And Bush used it anyways. I don't think there was some grand lie. I think the CIA believed they had WMD's but were not 100% sure.
that right there is the Lie , bush didnt come out and say maybe , or there is a Chance of WMD , Bush and the rest came right out and said WMD , Mushroom cloud , get him before he gets us .......

In the lead up to the war Bill Clinton thought they had WMD's but wasn't 100% sure because according to him their were WMD's unaccounted for in 1998, but wasn't sure if they still had them, because he didn't know if he got them all when he bombed them in 98. He bombed them in 98 because Saddam wouldn't allow U.N. inspectors in.
thats 100% correct . the difference is Clinton wanted Inspectors . not a full scale invasion

My guess is that because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they were not there. The could be buried, they could have been took across to the border or they could have never existed.
oh they exsisted before 1991 , no one can argue they didnt .... But very little question after 1998 .......


But Bush was far from the only person who claimed they had them or would try to get them. Clinton being another. Now you could argue that Clinton would have handled it in a different way, but you can't argue that he didn't think Iraq was a danger.
thats the jist right there , you are makin my case for me ....... Clinton didnt want a full scale invasion , niether did we the people , Bush had to cook the Intell .......

[clarker]

But doesn't the buck have to stop somewhere? The guy in charge made a call, sold us a bill of goods based on that decision... and was wrong. If this happens in any other walk of life, wether it's a doctor, teacher, or CEO they are held accountable for their mistake. Shouldn't the same be true here?Well, that is true. Which is why I gave serious thought to voting for Kerry. But no matter why we went to war, the fact is we are there. Now how are we going to win it. I'm not going to claim that Bush has done everything right but what was Kerry's idea of solving the problem. Well, according to him the French and Germans would listen to him, they hate Bush so they won't help him, but John Kerry the love and would pitch in. Even though both the French and German governments both said they didn't care who won the election they were not going to send troops.

Then when he was asked on that beach if he knew now, about there being no WMD's found, would he not vote to give Bush the power to go to war. He said no.

If Lieberman would have got the nod from the Dems, he would have got my vote.

I guess to me the American people had a chance for the buck to stop at Bush during the election. They went against replacing him.

[Spider]

Well, that is true. Which is why I gave serious thought to voting for Kerry. But no matter why we went to war, the fact is we are there. Now how are we going to win it. I'm not going to claim that Bush has done everything right but what was Kerry's idea of solving the problem. Well, according to him the French and Germans would listen to him, they hate Bush so they won't help him, but John Kerry the love and would pitch in. Even though both the French and German governments both said they didn't care who won the election they were not going to send troops.
thats only a half truth , the Plan was Let the other countries help train Iraqi Troops , and Gen . Clark said the other countries wanted to help train , the sticker is , these countries want to train these troops in their respective countries , nit Iraq .......

Then when he was asked on that beach if he knew now, about there being no WMD's found, would he not vote to give Bush the power to go to war. He said no.

If Lieberman would have got the nod from the Dems, he would have got my vote.

I guess to me the American people had a chance for the buck to stop at Bush during the election. They went against replacing him.
Again it is a Proven Fact Congress didnt get the same intell Bush was exposed too , so the fact that Congress voted for the war is moot , since the Intell is false

[clarker]

Here are a few of links on Clinton's thoughts that make my case for me.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040109015020.8ivyabdw.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9191

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893/

[Montaq]

If Lieberman would have got the nod from the Dems, he would have got my vote.

You might as well asked us to nominate a Republican.

[Spider]

Here are a few of links on Clinton's thoughts that make my case for me.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040109015020.8ivyabdw.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9191

No case to be made , Clinton didnt go into Invasion mode ....... After hans Blix report was done , it was clear there was No WMD ........

[clarker]

I passed a television at the gym yesterday, and it was showing a familiar scene: A crowd of Arabs dancing, chanting, and waving flags for the camera.

Stereotypically, of course, those kinds of Arab crowds are celebrating something awful: A terrorist attack, the downing of a plane, whatever.

But this time, they were celebrating democracy.

And it occurred to me that the "root cause" crowd ought to be celebrating along with them. After all, we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.

That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. That Act called for "regime change," and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that's what we're about to get! Nor was Clinton alone.

As Al Gore observed:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq.

Gore said we need to stand up for democracy. And we have. Only Al Gore isn't saying much now.

What's hard to understand is why so many Democrats -- including big-name Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry -- have taken such a different stance today. Kennedy declared the war lost and the elections a failure just last week. Kerry was churlish and negative on Meet the Press yesterday. Mickey Kaus blames the Internet for this attitude, and there may be something to that. Jim Geraghty thinks it's the 2008 primaries already. But I don't think either of these explanations hits the mark.

I think it's jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can't stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it's good for the country, and if it's something that was their idea originally.

The question is whether the Democratic Party -- which ought-- which ought to be cheering events that vindicate Clinton's policies -- will do itself fatal damage by giving in to envy. Such small-mindedness doesn't suggest a party that's ready to govern.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893/

[clarker]

Sorry about all the edits. I'm not the greatest of putting alot of links together and posting on them on message. Sorry about the hassel.

[Spider]

LOL . there was a Iraq -Al qadea connection alright

[Spider]

I passed a television at the gym yesterday, and it was showing a familiar scene: A crowd of Arabs dancing, chanting, and waving flags for the camera.

Stereotypically, of course, those kinds of Arab crowds are celebrating something awful: A terrorist attack, the downing of a plane, whatever.

But this time, they were celebrating democracy.

And it occurred to me that the "root cause" crowd ought to be celebrating along with them. After all, we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.

That man was Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998. That Act called for "regime change," and the replacement of Saddam with a democratically elected government. And that's what we're about to get! Nor was Clinton alone.

As Al Gore observed:

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq.

Gore said we need to stand up for democracy. And we have. Only Al Gore isn't saying much now.

What's hard to understand is why so many Democrats -- including big-name Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry -- have taken such a different stance today. Kennedy declared the war lost and the elections a failure just last week. Kerry was churlish and negative on Meet the Press yesterday. Mickey Kaus blames the Internet for this attitude, and there may be something to that. Jim Geraghty thinks it's the 2008 primaries already. But I don't think either of these explanations hits the mark.

I think it's jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can't stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it's good for the country, and if it's something that was their idea originally.

The question is whether the Democratic Party -- which ought-- which ought to be cheering events that vindicate Clinton's policies -- will do itself fatal damage by giving in to envy. Such small-mindedness doesn't suggest a party that's ready to govern.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6859893/

Sorry dude , but that is a load of Crap taken out of Context ....... you can choose to believe all of this , thats on you , but the mere fact we didnt invade Iraq stands to the point ...... Was Saddam an asshole ? Yep .... Are we Glad he is gone ? yep .Was it worth 1700+ troops and a Billion $ a day ? Hell no ......

[TheDave]

Well, that is true. Which is why I gave serious thought to voting for Kerry. But no matter why we went to war, the fact is we are there. Now how are we going to win it. I'm not going to claim that Bush has done everything right but what was Kerry's idea of solving the problem. Well, according to him the French and Germans would listen to him, they hate Bush so they won't help him, but John Kerry the love and would pitch in. Even though both the French and German governments both said they didn't care who won the election they were not going to send troops.

I wholeheartedly agree that Kerry was a flawed candidate at best. But i agreed with his ideas on this war. Terrorism is a global problem, we needed then, and still do need to get everyone possible involved in this solution. Stealing from one of your earlier posts... maybe that was just what i wanted to hear, but that was my hope for a solution. I honestly fear this mess will eventually bankrupt this country(financially and spiritually). We are dealing with a group of people that we simply don't understand... America is a country that went to war for independence over a tax on our tea (i know that's an over simplification). These people have allowed themselves to be rulled by dictators and/or tyrants for generations. Honestly can anyone imagine a scenario where Americans stand by while their children are being raped and tortured...

My greatest fear... whether we left today or 2 decades from now i honestly believe that another "Dictator" would be controlling these people before the last marines boot leaves the sand...

I guess to me the American people had a chance for the buck to stop at Bush during the election. They went against replacing him.

Gays, Guns, and God... that trio worked on alot of people

[clarker]

These people have allowed themselves to be rulled by dictators and/or tyrants for generations. Honestly can anyone imagine a senario where americans stand by while their children are being raped and tortured... --TheDave

Oh, man I dont agree with this(the rest of you post has some good points) but this I don't know. I don't think anyone let themselves be tortured and raped. That is what happens when the govrnment has all the guns. How are these people going to defend themselves. If they did or didn't have WMD's right before the war, they did have to gas the Kurds with when they wanted to rebel.

When the soccor team lost, Uba(sp?) hung them on meat hooks and beat them. I mean it easy for us to say we wouldn't take that, when we have the freedom to say what ever we want about Bush or Clinton or any of our leaders.

[clarker]

My greatest fear... whether we left today or 2 decades from now i honestly believe that another "Dictator" would be controlling these people before the last marines boot leaves the sand...The Dave

I honestly believe that all people want the ability to choose their leaders for themselves and at the end of this we train them to protect themselves, they will never go back to another Dictator.

Is it a sure thing, a 100% done deal, no. But it is possible, if we as a people are willing to stick it out.

[clarker]

Sorry dude , but that is a load of Crap taken out of Context ....... you can choose to believe all of this , thats on you , but the mere fact we didnt invade Iraq stands to the point ...... Was Saddam an a-hole ? Yep .... Are we Glad he is gone ? yep .Was it worth 1700+ troops and a Billion $ a day ? Hell no ......If you think it is take out of context it is on you. I mean that is what all the athletes say isn't when they say something then want to deny it. "It was taken out of context"

[TheDave]

These people have allowed themselves to be rulled by dictators and/or tyrants for generations. Honestly can anyone imagine a senario where americans stand by while their children are being raped and tortured... --TheDave

Oh, man I dont agree with this(the rest of you post has some good points) but this I don't know. I don't think anyone let themselves be tortured and raped. That is what happens when the govrnment has all the guns. How are these people going to defend themselves. If they did or didn't have WMD's right before the war, they did have to gas the Kurds with when they wanted to rebel.

When the soccor team lost, Uba(sp?) hung them on meat hooks and beat them. I mean it easy for us to say we wouldn't take that, when we have the freedom to say what ever we want about Bush or Clinton or any of our leaders.

They sure seem to have plenty of guns now...

I agree that it is easy to say, but this is one area that we as americans don't give ourselves enough credit for. We don't put up with crap, we never have. I'll bet everything that if something like that happened here there would be 100's of Ford trucks on the white house lawn (mostly broken down) with 1000's of cowboys doing their damndest to set things straight

[clarker]

LOL . there was a Iraq -Al qadea connection alrightYou could use the same cartoon and replace Clinton with Bush.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

[Spider]

If you think it is take out of context it is on you. I mean that is what all the athletes say isn't when they say something then want to deny it. "It was taken out of context"
ok Case in point . sure Clinton wanted Regime Change , but he wanted a group of Iraqis do it , Basicaly Clinton would support any form of Goverment over Saddam ..... Like I said , everything you posted in that post was scewed , twisted , and flat out taken out of Context ....... Like I said , it is on you ..... when you dont take time to check stuff out all you do is hurt yourself .......

[clarker]

They sure seem to have plenty of guns now...

I agree that it is easy to say, but this is one area that we as americans don't give ourselves enough credit for. We don't put up with crap, we never have. I'll bet everything that if something like that happened here there would be 100's of Ford trucks on the white house lawn (mostly broken down) with 1000's of cowboys doing their damndest to set things straight

Yes, but we have always had the right to bare arms. Remember it was part of the Gays, GUNS and God thing you were talking about, when giving the reason for Bush's relection. 8')

[Spider]

You could use the same cartoon and replace Clinton with Bush.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
suspecting a coutry is one thing . invading it is somthing else .......
See one thing your links dont tell is about Hans Blix . Thats whats missing , rofl

[Spider]

They sure seem to have plenty of guns now...

I agree that it is easy to say, but this is one area that we as americans don't give ourselves enough credit for. We don't put up with crap, we never have. I'll bet everything that if something like that happened here there would be 100's of Ford trucks on the white house lawn (mostly broken down) with 1000's of cowboys doing their damndest to set things straight
i think that there was a slam ....... if'n so grab your keyboard we be at War like the hatfields and mccoys ;D

[clarker]

ok Case in point . sure Clinton wanted Regime Change , but he wanted a group of Iraqis do it , Basicaly Clinton would support any form of Goverment over Saddam ..... Like I said , everything you posted in that post was scewed , twisted , and flat out taken out of Context ....... Like I said , it is on you ..... when you dont take time to check stuff out all you do is hurt yourself .......He didn't let the Iraqis take action here did he.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

[Spider]

He didn't let the Iraqis take action here did he.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
I know you just didnt compare Air Strikes to a invasion ......... and once the inspectors were back in ? ..... thought so

[clarker]

suspecting a coutry is one thing . invading it is somthing else .......
See one thing your links dont tell is about Hans Blix . Thats whats missing , roflDidn't Hans Blix get ate by a shark? LOL

[Spider]

Didn't Hans Blix get ate by a shark? LOL
thats better then Caught between Iraq and a hard place ;D

[clarker]

I know you just didnt compare Air Strikes to a invasion ......... and once the inspectors were back in ? ..... thought soHe took action, He bombed them. I would be civilians were killed(though not on purpose). He used force to get what he wanted, did he not?

Bush wanted Saddam out of there once and for all for the same reasons that Clinton did. Bush just took matters into his own hands.

[clarker]

thats better then Caught between Iraq and a hard place ;DDamn that was good. Rep for Spider if it will let me. Iraq and a hard place. Classic.

[clarker]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to §Pide® again.


Damn, well I thought the pun was a classic. The timing was perfect.

[TheDave]

i think that there was a slam ....... if'n so grab your keyboard we be at War like the hatfields and mccoys ;D

Sorry Bro it was too easy :)

[TheDave]

Yes, but we have always had the right to bare arms. Remember it was part of the Gays, GUNS and God thing you were talking about, when giving the reason for Bush's relection. 8')

Yeah 'cause Spider's 12 guage is gonna do alot against an apache...

[clarker]

Yeah 'cause Spider's 12 guage is gonna do alot against an apache...
Well, you the one who said we would be on the White House lawn, remember.

[TheDave]

Well, you the one who said we would be on the White House lawn, remember.

Exactly it's not about the guns, it's about our atitude... an attitude that our friends in Iraq seem to lack.

[clarker]

Exactly it's not about the guns, it's about our atitude... an attitude that our friends in Iraq seem to lack.Again I think that is an easy thing for us to say when we are hanging out chating on our computers saying what we want about Bush, Clinton, the government and not having to worry about if it gets out, because if it does our we and our families won't be killed. If some one threats me or beats on me, it is easy to say I would spit in their eye. But I don't know if I could be as brave if they said they were going to kill my family or rape my wife or what ever horrible thing I can think of.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

that right there is the Lie , bush didnt come out and say maybe , or there is a Chance of WMD , Bush and the rest came right out and said WMD , Mushroom cloud , get him before he gets us .......


Bingo! ^5

And let us not forget: Bush's team not only said they had proof that Iraq had WMD - they said they knew where the weapons were.

Damn, if §Pide® were to get paid for every right-wing lie he debunks, he'd be eligible for a Bush tax cut in no time! ;)

[RaiderH8r]

That doesn't have to be a right wing vs left wing comment. Just watch Jay Leno some time when they ask random people on the street simple history questions. After watching the 10 minutes of that you will know that our schools suck.
No, I watch it and it reaffirms my belief that Californians are morons. :~ohyah!:

[TheDave]

Again I think that is an easy thing for us to say when we are hanging out chating on our computers saying what we want about Bush, Clinton, the government and not having to worry about if it gets out, because if it does our we and our families won't be killed. If some one threats me or beats on me, it is easy to say I would spit in their eye. But I don't know if I could be as brave if they said they were going to kill my family or rape my wife or what ever horrible thing I can think of.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree. The america i know wouldn't put up with it.

[Spider]

Yeah 'cause Spider's 12 guage is gonna do alot against an apache...
hey ..a 12 gauge could scratch the Paint .... yeah cost of Repainting . it could ;D

[Hotrod]

They sure seem to have plenty of guns now...

I agree that it is easy to say, but this is one area that we as americans don't give ourselves enough credit for. We don't put up with crap, we never have. I'll bet everything that if something like that happened here there would be 100's of Ford trucks on the white house lawn (mostly broken down) with 1000's of cowboys doing their damndest to set things straight

And one cowboy with his Chevy ;D Its always the cowboys to the rescue ;D

[Spider]

Bingo! ^5

And let us not forget: Bush's team not only said they had proof that Iraq had WMD - they said they knew where the weapons were.

Damn, if §Pide® were to get paid for every right-wing lie he debunks, he'd be eligible for a Bush tax cut in no time! ;)
;D

[Spider]

Again I think that is an easy thing for us to say when we are hanging out chating on our computers saying what we want about Bush, Clinton, the government and not having to worry about if it gets out, because if it does our we and our families won't be killed. If some one threats me or beats on me, it is easy to say I would spit in their eye. But I don't know if I could be as brave if they said they were going to kill my family or rape my wife or what ever horrible thing I can think of.
I know I could be . without a Doubt you touch my wife or Kids , you will have 240 pounds of Ugly all over your ass , without my Wife and Kids , my life would be meaningless... a void . I could handle a divorce , but harming my family .... I would kill the devil himself ....My Brothers are just as big as I am , I would still fight for them , and my Parents are my Parents, I would fight for them also

[Hotrod]

I know I could be . without a Doubt you touch my wife or Kids , you will have 240 pounds of Ugly all over your ass , without my Wife and Kids , my life would be meaningless... a void . I could handle a divorce , but harming my family .... I would kill the devil himself ....My Brothers are just as big as I am , I would still fight for them , and my Parents are my Parents, I would fight for them also

I agree with all of that but what makes America even better is if someone like the government was running around killing and raping citizens as a whole the citizens would not stand by and watch their neighbors being treated that way. The revolt would be on.

[TheDave]

And one cowboy with his Chevy ;D Its always the cowboys to the rescue ;D

Trust me their would be plenty of Chevy's and Dodges there.... If for no other reason than to tow away the busted Fords... ;)

[Hotrod]

Trust me their would be plenty of Chevy's and Dodges there.... If for no other reason than to tow away the busted Fords... ;)


^5 See Spider we Americans stick togather we wont make you walk back to WY ;D

[Spider]

assholes .. Hilarious!

[errand]

Yes, they are official minutes off British Intelligence Agents on what they THOUGHT the U.S. was doing and if the war would be leagle under British law. Once your using what a British Intelligence agents thoughts as proof. Where is the hard evidence. They have none, only their best estimated guess.

British intel said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction....it was poo-pooed loudly by the left.

British intel claimed that Saddam sought out uranium from Africa...and it to was dismissed as bogus.

Now here comes a memo from British intel...and because it gives an opinion that Bush lied....it's now the most credible evidence in the world. Why? Because it fits the typical leftist template....

[errand]

The DSM is just one aide’s impressions of what was said in a meeting, so we don’t know what the players actually said or thought.
.

Read this again....

The DSM is....just one aide's impressions...of what was said in a meeting,.....so we don't know.....what the players actually said or thought.

One person's impression....and you still don't know what was actually said...or thought

Yeah, real convincing to me.....and you leftist clowns wonder why people think your nothing but a bunch of conspiracy kooks. You guys fall for everything that leads you to your predetermined judgement of what happened.

Just like Dan Rather, who wanted so badly for those forged TANG documents to be true, to vindicate him...he never had them checked for authenticity before running with the story. you guys want this story to be true...so in your mind, it is. Despite the words you yourself posted that they do not know what was actually said or thought.

[errand]

My guess is that because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they were not there. The could be buried, they could have been took across to the border or they could have never existed.

Aruba is about what? 100 square miles if that? And they still haven't found that girl that's missing. going over the island with a fine tooth comb...and still, nothing.

I guess using Spider and LABF's logic, she never existed...because we haven't found her, she was never there.

Despite the fact we know she was there prior to her disappearance, and despite the fact that eyewitnesses claim to have seen her there.

Because they haven't found her since then, she was never there.

That should clear things up...............

[errand]

But doesn't the buck have to stop somewhere? The guy in charge made a call, sold us a bill of goods based on that decision... and was wrong. If this happens in any other walk of life, wether it's a doctor, teacher, or CEO they are held accountable for their mistake. Shouldn't the same be true here?

He was held accountable Dave...it was called the election of '04. He won re-election, which means the majority of people in this nation think he did not lie, and that he was doing what he thought best when we went to war given the information he received.

The elections of '08 will be the next time he and his compadres will be held accountable again...if America believes your side, they will not win the White House.

[errand]

You might as well asked us to nominate a Republican.

...now you know what conservatives think when the Republicans toss McCain's name around.

[errand]

Sorry dude , but that is a load of Crap taken out of Context ....... you can choose to believe all of this , thats on you , but the mere fact we didnt invade Iraq stands to the point ...... Was Saddam an a-hole ? Yep .... Are we Glad he is gone ? yep .Was it worth 1700+ troops and a Billion $ a day ? Hell no ......

Was Adolph Hitler an A-hole? Yep

Are we glad he is gone? Yep

Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of dollars a day spent?

Well Spider...was it?

[errand]

I honestly believe that all people want the ability to choose their leaders for themselves and at the end of this we train them to protect themselves, they will never go back to another Dictator.



Exactly...one analogy would be the first time you left your parents home. Nobody to tell you what to eat, what time you had to come home, if you could or couldn't have overnight guests...you were now in charge, not your parents.

And no matter how bad things got, you still refused to go back to the dictatorial ways (for lack of a better word..I'm not saying that parents are tyrants, but rather they rule the roost) of your parents. You sat in an apartment without lights eating bologna rather than go back to your parents cozy confines, eating mom's cooking, and curfews...why? Because you longed to be free.

Every man and woman yearns to be free...they covet it. Look at the changes going on in the middle east since Afghanistan voted for their president. Then Iraq. The day will come when the middle east will have more democratically elected leaders than dictators and ruling families. But you have to be realistic in knowing it isn't going to happen overnight.....and it isn't going to be cheaply achieved.

[Spider]

Was Adolph Hitler an A-hole? Yep

Are we glad he is gone? Yep

Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of dollars a day spent?

Well Spider...was it?
Just when I didnt think you could be any more of an Idiot , you go and post this ....
Just to show you how inept your thinking is .....
Hitler Invaded Poland , Then went and took Scandinavia, ,France, Holland, and Belgium , Russia , Great Great Britain ....... Baiscaly the Axis powers had most of europe , Saddam Had Baghdad and most of Iraq .......
Saddam couldnt Take Iran ... Took Kuwait , but taking Kuwait is hardly a feat worth bragging about ......
See in your world errand , you cant determine a real threat , so in your little mind , you find it is easier to lump things together , Saddam threat like Hitler was and so on ........
and in Reality Saddam couldnt even hold his entire country under rule , see Northern Iraq before we invaded .........
Like I say Errand it probably isnt your fault , you just cant comprehend ......

[errand]

They sure seem to have plenty of guns now...

I agree that it is easy to say, but this is one area that we as americans don't give ourselves enough credit for. We don't put up with crap, we never have.

Yes, we do...we put up with crap for the longest time.

....we did nothing when hostages were held for over a year in Iran.

...we did nothing when terrorists blew up a Marine barracks in Beirut.

....we did nothing when the Achille Laurel was hijacked, Khobar Towers were blown up, the embassies in Africa, the first time the WTC was bombed, the USS Cole.

Face it...when it came to terrorism, the 4 previous administartions were a bunch of pansies....constantly scared to do anything about it.

We took it and took it...without being kissed, with out any lubrication. Now we finally have president that drove his pick-up truck on their lawn...and all we get from you on the left is doom and gloom.

[Spider]

errand I know you are slow of wit , but I think you can figure this out .....
Hilter Invaded these coutries .......
Austria (Anschluss) Czechoslovakia Poland Denmark Norway Holland Belgium Luxemburg France Bulgaria Hungary : entry in the country whitout authorisation, although it was its allied, in order to invade Yougoslavia Yougoslavia Greece Libya USSR Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia Egypt France (Zone Libre) Tunisia Italia.....
Saddam invaded these ...
Iran , Kuwait .........
so you tell me Errand , what Leader Hitler or Saddam was more of a threat ? ......
you can use the net to help you answer this if need be .......
Edit Typo

[errand]

Just when I didnt think you could be any more of an Idiot , you go and post this ....
Just to show you how inept your thinking is .....
Hitler Invaded Poland , Then went and took Scandinavia, ,France, Holland, and Belgium , Russia , Great Great Britain ....... Baiscaly the Axis powers had most of europe , Saddam Had Baghdad and most of Iraq .......
Saddam couldnt Take Iran ... Took Kuwait , but taking Kuwait is hardly a feat worth bragging about ......
See in your world errand , you cant determine a real threat , so in your little mind , you find it is easier to lump things together , Saddam threat like Hitler was and so on ........
and in Reality Saddam couldnt even hold his entire country under rule , see Northern Iraq before we invaded .........
Like I say Errand it probably isnt your fault , you just cant comprehend ......

Since your such a stickler for accuracy...Hitler never took Russia or Great Britian (although the Germans did occupy two small British islands of the coast of France)

So just because he couldn't defeat Iran means he wouldn't have been a threat to invade other nations? Especially if he achieve in his quest for a nuke? So Kuwait isn't something to brag about...I suppose Denmark and Luxembourg were something to hang your hat on?

A threat means it might more than likely happen Spider. you can threaten to kick someone's ass...whether or not you actually can remains to be seen, but it doesn't mean the threat is any less of a threat if your wife makes it...or some big guy in a bar.

Given Saddam's history of aggression in his region would elad most people to believe he was a threat to American interests, and the balance of power in the middle east. Add in his history of using chemical and biological weapons too, the threat would be even greater.

[errand]

the world according to Spider and the left.

[] Saddam invades Iran and Kuwait...he's no threat.

[] Bush and the US invades Iraq...and he's like Hitler.

OK...got it.

[errand]

BTW...Spider they both were threats. Dangerous men who needed to be removed. Unfortunately, Hitler wasn't removed before he became the most murderous bastard known...Saddam was. That alone should be a case for pre-emptive strikes.

[Spider]

Since your such a stickler for accuracy...Hitler never took Russia or Great Britian (although the Germans did occupy two small British islands of the coast of France)
Well since that is the guideline , we can take Iran off saddams list ......

So just because he couldn't defeat Iran means he wouldn't have been a threat to invade other nations? Especially if he achieve in his quest for a nuke? So Kuwait isn't something to brag about...I suppose Denmark and Luxembourg were something to hang your hat on?
LOL ..... you know you lost when you selected Denmark and Luxenbourg , that is what 2 countries out of how many ? and another thing you seem to over look is Hilter held those countries .. oh wait , lets dont get to far ahead of ourselfs here ....... as for the Nuke , thats what the UN inspectors were for , and guess what they worked , there was no Nuke in Iraq ...... you may want to find another line of reasoning , you are not even treading water here

A threat means it might more than likely happen Spider. you can threaten to kick someone's ass...whether or not you actually can remains to be seen, but it doesn't mean the threat is any less of a threat if your wife makes it...or some big guy in a bar.
Hilarious! you realy Believe Saddam was the same threat Hilter was ...... Sorry if you are being serious .. but I will take it for now you are Joking . Hilter was a far more serious threat of taking us then Saddam .......

Given Saddam's history of aggression in his region would elad most people to believe he was a threat to American interests, and the balance of power in the middle east. Add in his history of using chemical and biological weapons too, the threat would be even greater.
LOL . you are too much , you know your argument holds no water , even with WMD that we supplied , Saddam couldnt take out Iran , he was an Idiot .......

[Spider]

the world according to Spider and the left.

[] Saddam invades Iran and Kuwait...he's no threat.

[] Bush and the US invades Iraq...and he's like Hitler.

OK...got it.
Now you are learning , I will clue you in on 1 more aspect ..... We have the resources and the weaponary to hold territory ....... Oh forget it , no need to confuse you already more then you are ......

[Spider]

BTW...Spider they both were threats. Dangerous men who needed to be removed. Unfortunately, Hitler wasn't removed before he became the most murderous bastard known...Saddam was. That alone should be a case for pre-emptive strikes.
Hilarious! ..... Dangerous men hey . that I will agree with , but it was on the Iraqis to remove Saddam , Saddam invades another coutry give us a call Like in 91 , we wil ldeal with it ...........