Somehow I have a feeling that you and I don't have all the facts giddyupp Unshaken faith in Bush and the GOP. The facts about the Iraq War haven't supported this faith, but it remains nevertheless. Always assuming that Bush must have secret info that hasn't come out yet that will justify his actions and therefore the faith entrusted to him was justified. It seems to be a common attribute of the Bush faithful.
9/11, yes. I have heard of that, and that is why I made a distinction between those serving in Afghanistan and those serving in Iraq. The service of the troops are equally honorable and to be commended. The mission however is vastly different. One of the two missions(Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with defending the U.S. We weren't in danger from Iraq.
Do you two seriously think that you know everything about everything going on on the other side of the world that the Bush White House knows? What are your resources? The internet?
Wait a minute. So because they (FB) can't possibly know everything the Bush White House knows, all their data is moot? And we should consequently just believe everything the Bush Adminstration says? I sense naivety and patriotism-induced ignorance.
If we knew everything the Bush White House knows we would run the whole government out of office and start over.
It's not just the Bush White House... it's any White House. The empowerment brought by the internet has gone to some of your heads. It is just laughable that some of you think that your level of intel is more than a thimble-full of what any White House has at their disposal and that they tell us everthing they know. Let's get real.
Yes lets. We live under a democracy where the first enumerated right is freedom of speech. While we will never know everything about the government, for instance if there are aliens in Area 51, that doesn't mean we shouldn't blindly trust the government. A healthy dose of informed skepticism is critical for a functioning democracy otherwise we might as well passively accept tyranny and continue voting in the governing party since no Admin. will willingly and openly present information that puts their policies in a bad light.
Right. What's real is the lack of WMD in Iraq and the lies that got us there. What's real is Osama Bin Laden still running around free while we waste time, money and lives in Iraq. What's real is the systematic use of propaganda by this administration to justify actions (e.g., Saddam is linked to 9/11) What's real is the disturbing trend of this adminstration to ignore critics and the civil rights that are the basis of what it means to be American. What's real is the depressing use of patriotism to quell any undefensible critique of policy and/or action. What's real is a staggering national debt and a wave of worldwide anti-American sentiment.
It isn't just any whitehouse. It is most definitely this one in particular. I'm talking about reports from people like David Kaye who was appointed by the Bush Whitehouse. I'm talking about reports from Weapons Inspectors who were on the ground unlike anybody in the Bush Whitehouse. I'm talking about lies told by the Bush whitehouse. I know you don't like the terms lies, but there is evidence to show that they lied. Cheney, Rice, and others were caught in those lies. Even if one wants to believe that others like Rumsfeld who said that he knew that there were WMD's and exactly where they were, just happened to be mistaken and not actually lying then why aren't they being held accountable for those mistakes? Giddy, let's pretend we are both coming into this fresh. Neither of us knows whether whitehouse lied or not. We know that a report here or a report their said Saddam was a threat. We know that other reports that claimed that were debunked prior to the invasion. We know that other reports said Saddam wasnt' a threat. Now, in our pretend world, we will give the administration the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they just believed the wrong set of intel. Then I ask you these questions... Why were the people who correct about the lack of WMD's prior to the war(Scott Ritter) the people who believed that with more time they can determine with more certainty the current status of Iraq's WMD's(weapons inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq.) People who believed that looting and instability would occur without more troops, that we might not be welcomed by everyone with flowers and open arms, that we should keep a close eye and accountability on the money we spent, and that Iraq wouldn't be able to finance its own reconstruction all replaced and/or in some cases trashed publically in the media by the whitehouse?(One Marine General, The head of the joint chiefs of staff, several other military officials, Richard lugar, Chuck Haegel, Russ Feingold etc.) With all those mistakes made, why wouldn't an leader with honest intentions who made an honest mistake want to reward those, and listen to those people? Why would a war supporter and Republican Lawrence Eagleburger say on television that he knew at least five and maybe six people in the whitehouse who didn't want diplomacy to work, and actually wanted to go to war over diplomacy? Why would minutes from a meeting with the U.S.' one ally who was willing to provide major troop support show that the policy had already been decided and the intel was being fixed around the policy? Why were those that were wrong but still provided the case for going to war rewarded or at least never held accountable for,, not just any mistake but one that started a war, disrupted families, lives, and cost the lives of soldiers and civlilians? (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, etc.) Are these the actions of somebody who is well intentioned but just made mistakes and relied on mistaken intel? I may not know everything that the Bush Whitehouse knows. But I do know their actions, and reports generated by that whitehouse, and the case doesn't back up a guy who really is protecting the U.S. by the action in Iraq but just wasn't to tell us how we were in danger, or someone who thought we were in danger and has since realized that we weren't.
The vast majority of all the terrorists captured (~47%) have been Saudis followed by, I believe, Syrians (~9%). Very few have been Iraqis. The Bush White House mistake was not to lead sufficiently. I think they got busted trying to justify this with WMD threats when they just should have gone ahead and said we are going to settle this for once and for all. We are going after this tinpot tyrant, Saddam, before Al Quada topples him and takes over Iraq. Then we'll see who's next... but this crap is gonna stop.
So you think that the Bush administration should have gone to war on the off chance tha Al-Qaeda might have taken over Iraq? This is dispite the fact that nobody has shown any credible evidence that would suggest Al-Qaeda was capable of taking over Iraq. Is an imagined scenario by somebody on the other side of the world really the only threshold that you believe needs to be met before starting a war?
thats friggin hilarious...just tells me what you know.....AlQueda was not going to take over iraq...this is a new one....hilarious at that.....iraq is not a religous state.. most the bombers were Saudi..aas you said.....though do you know why???...if you know the answer to this one then you know your sh*t.....then you'll seee the whole 9/11 is a political agenda...never is or never was a religous "jihad".....
Bush was reported to have said that he was tired of "swatting at flies" with regard to the terrorist problem. He wanted a more complete solution to the problem. This is just my scenario... I think the US went after Saddam because he was a relatively easy, justifiable target based on the unresolved issues from Gulf War I. There was no reason for AQ not to want to topple Saddam. They considered him a lesser infidel, I'm sure. The very fact that Iraq is not a religious state is the very opening that they need to go after Iraq. Were there not already terrorist camps in the Kurdish sections of Iraq which were not under Saddam's control? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see AQ getting rid of Saddam to control the nation and grow their jihadist effort against the west.
Giddy, if that is your scenario that is fine. There isn't much of a point in arguing it. But it doesn't give GW Bush a plausible explanation for their actions if you want to accept them as honest or at least honest intentioned. Bush did want a more complete solution to the problem. But again Iraq didn't pose a threat to the United States. Other nations posed more of a threat even from terrorists and would be a much more direct strike at the heart of terrorism if he didn't want to swat at flies. I do agree that perhaps Saddam was an easy target and wasn't seen as beeing too hard of a task to take out. Those reasons also don't justify starting a war by any standards in the modern world that I am aware of. And to get back to the original point, none of it leads one to believe that we are fighting in Iraq to protect our nation and its freedoms.
As has been pointed out before, when the US decided it was time to go after Hitler in 1941 the first place we "targeted" was North Africa. Why not Berlin?
There is a huge difference. Hitler was actually active and involved in N. Africa. The case is not so for Iraq, having terrorists cells that were a threat to the U.S. The analogy doesn't work.
The Bush White House mistake was not to lead sufficiently. I think they got busted trying to justify this with WMD threats when they just should have gone ahead and said we are going to settle this for once and for all. We are going after this tinpot tyrant, Saddam, before Al Quada topples him and takes over Iraq. Then we'll see who's next... but this crap is gonna stop. ... Bush was reported to have said that he was tired of "swatting at flies" with regard to the terrorist problem. He wanted a more complete solution to the problem. This is just my scenario... I see at least two problems with this line of thought. First, there's no evidence that Al Queda wanted or needed Iraq. The nature of a terrorist organization is to be elusive - you don't want a big ol' centralized headquarters in a country that everyone can see. Afghanistan was good because it is not urban and wasn't really "run" by anyone. You can't de-urbanize Iraq. And if you did want a nation under your command, you'd take over a country that already has instability problems. You certainly don't try to go after the one that has the most notorious leader in the region, ruled with an iron fist for 30 years (not to mention a pretty large army). Second, if that was our thinking, it would have been the dumbest thing to do. Why not LET Al Queda take over Iraq? Let them do the dirty work of ridding us of Saddam? Then, go in and obliterate them. Now, you've killed two birds with one stone. By invading Iraq first, you scatter Al Queda, so now you got Saddam but still have Al Queda running around. Al Queda taking over Iraq (or trying to, at least) would have been the best thing that could have happened to the U.S.
People say that we haven't had any other attacks on our soil and that we are winning the War on Terror. Militarily, that statement is obviously true. Not a single person on this Earth thought or thinks that Al-Qaeda would defeat us in a conventional war. OBL's one attack, however grave and tragic, was all he was going to do. I don't think his henchman were planning to get us twice on American soil. However, that being said, the terrorists and Bin Laden have won the psychological war. In my opinion, the psychological war is the only one Bin Laden was looking to win. Look at our lives today as Americans. We are a paranoid country. We are involved in a paranoid war because we want to supposedly eliminate the threat before it becomes a threat. We have colored alerts on a daily basis. Any time we see someone or something remotely suspicious, we sh*t our pants. We are supposedly involved in shady practices in Gitmo. The country that was once the beacon of humanity and the epitome of civility is now turning into the world's largest hypocricy. Never will our lives as Americans be the same. Never will we enjoy America like we did pre- 9/11. Never will we be the same country that we were pre- 9/11. In my book, that's a victory in the psychological war by our enemies. In my book, the largest defeat for us is our population's indifference to what is happening. We have given our leaders a blank check to do as they please. For those old enough to remember, we gave the same blank check to LBJ during Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out. The only difference is that the population held our government accountable. LBJ screwed up in Vietnam and America let him know it. That is why he didn't run for reelection in 1968. The Democrats would not have nominated him although he was the sitting President. We are headed for Vietnam part II and it is a shame. Why do I say all of this? Because I as an American feel guilt towards these children that the article mentions. Every one of those kids will face hardship and difficulty because of our government. Every one of those little girls who lost a father will be walked down the aisle by someone else. Every one of those boys would lost a dad will be taught how to throw a curveball by someone other than their father. There is a thread on the BBS Hangout about the greatest challenge one has faced. Each one of those kids would have something to contribute to that thread, and that hurts me. It hurts me as a man and it hurts me as an American. I would not know what to say to those kids if I ever had to face one of them. I could feed them the line that their parent died protecting our homeland, but the statement would be disingeneous. Our government robbed these kids of what is most precious and most important to them. That is a travesty. It's a real shame.
However, that being said, the terrorists and Bin Laden have won the psychological war This is largely true because of GWB. GWB also wanted to scare the hell out of the American people. He decided for electoral politics reasons and to accomplish his agenda of invading Iraq to blow the whole 9/11 thing up, to try to scare the people of the US to do his bidding. Other countries have had terrorist attacks without permanently traumatizing the whole country, starting a never ending war on terror, trashing a long and glorious history of the rule of law.
