DD...most nations in the world, lead by us, have or want to have nukes. Like when the Hittites took over the 'world' because they had iron weaponry, nations got into the iron weapon trade to defend themselves. That's the way weapons work...Wanting nukes is not the point...the war was justified from our perspective on the 'fact' that Iraq, in contravention to the UN sanctions, had an ongoing program of WMD development. The UN disagreed with the evidence for that position. You site a 12 year old 'intent' to build WMD as that proof!?!? We know he had an active program at one point...this is evidence of that. But should we go and examine Auschwitz and invade Germany? What does this prove about our argument for the war?
Macbeth, Talk about a leap in your argument. We took down Germany, that government no longer exists. We took out Iraq that government no longer exists. Both are good for the world. World = Better off Good. DD
Ummm..that's exactly the same argument used to 'prove' that the E-Coli etc. beakers the scientists were oredered to clean up was evidence that they had to be up to no good...turns out they just knew, acuratley, as it happens, that we were so desperate to find something that anything assosciated with labs, chemistry, etc. would be hailed as evidence of WMD...
Clearly you didn't get my point...We know that at one point Hussein was engaged in trying to develop nukes...that is all that this proves, and we already knew that. And, assuming you agree that he shouldn't have been 'allowed' to develop nukes, that particular issue was already addressed...The Germany point was, if you now went to Auschevitz, would you go " A-ha!" and argue for the invasion of Germany, or would you see it merely as evidence of what we already knew about, and was dealt with?
No, You missed my point. No reason to invade Germany as the government was not the same. The Iraqi government was the same that signed the cease fire agreement in '91. Hey, Saddam agreed to the rules, and he knew the consequences. Too bad for him. DD
What is odd about Saddam agreeing to the rules and knowing the consequences is that the rules, as you call them, and the consequences, were established with the United Nations being the determining body for both...you remember the Untied Nations? The same body who said we were wrong to go in...
it's the story of heath's posting career. I have to give him credit for going where no other republicans are going. heath, I don't have time for idiots or characters, whichever you are. But your line of argument is absurd. The charge is that the administration cherry picked their case, or either the intelligence completely sucks. The people that voted for the resolution weren't gathering the intelligence. We don't have spooks running around in congress. Congress was briefed as to what the case was by the administration. That's why we're having hearings. We're not investigating what the House of Representatives did in approving the resolution for war. We're not investigating what the Senate did in approving the resolution for war. The case is either that (roughly) a) Tenet should resign b) we should get really really lucky soon (ie my idea: those thud-trucks that do stratigraphy) or c) the White House cherry picked their evidence. Your charge that everybody that voted for the resolution is a "liar" is absurd (you also have no memory, apparently, of the arguments last fall). People trust the President. People (well, when its their party making the claim) trust the government. If I were a Senator, and the President of the United States (ie Clinton or Bush) told me that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US would I believe them? Maybe, maybe not. But if the administration briefed me w/ all of the evidence that only argued that particular point... I'd certainly be more amenable to it. Again, that's why Graham wanted all of the information declassified. He couldn't very well tell the Times what he knew, but he could ask Tenet to show the people the information that questioned their other data. Either way, it's a moot point. The Carter Doctrine has been executed by Bush... and good for him. I had to clean out my engine last week b/c I was using the cheap gas, and 91 octane is 1.82 here. ps, I don't label myself a liberal, well too often... ps2, is that your evidence that Iraq has ties to al Qaeda? LOL ps3, what is w/ your nonsense about my "opinions" re: the war? Reread my posts from last fall, twizzle toes.
Achebe...to further your point...It is reasonable, i suppose, to assume that, to a certain extent, the members of the Houses did and should give the president some credit if he says he has info detailing an imminent threat...but other ntaions have no such obligation, and when we demanded that they take our word based on our info, and they mostly said " Uh...no." and asked for proof, we were outraged..we called Germany traitors...we ridiculed France's war record, and renamed our fast food...we acted, in short, like everyone who questioned our ability to decide what is best for the world based on our superior intelligence, system, power etc. were just a bunch of pansy-assed jealous ostriches... ..and it turns out they were right.
Achebe, you have yet to respond to my original point FOR THE FOURTH TIME, as evidenced by your statement Your charge that everybody that voted for the resolution is a "liar" is absurd You clearly did not even read or try to comprehend my posts, as I never made that charge. I can't believe I wasted my time exchanging ideas with you. It won't happen again.
kid, you're all over the place.... but that was my mistake. I meant to write "your counter that everyone then is a liar". Not 'charge', my apologies. Anyway, since you're an extreme outlier... and you fit in the weird statistic that is now being reported as evidence of a misinformed US (ie, how many people actually believe that there is evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq), then it's best if we don't waste time with one another booger lips.
