We're only as good as our rationale for war

[mr.Curmudgeon]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html


Official: U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq
The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and may have hidden weapons stockpiles.


All those who supported the war are now officially wrong. Having had a fervent anti-war stance since the run-up, I take no pleasure in being right in this instance. Rather, I am deeply saddened by the destruction this country has wrought in Iraq, I am furiously angry at this administration for misleading the country on this disastrous conquest, I am disheartened by the lack of intellectual honesty and moral fortitude of those who refuse to admit the folly of this war, and I'm sorrowful over the loss of so many thousands of our sons, daughters, mothers, brothers, husbands, wives, friends and family who bravely fought, we're injured and/or killed in Bush's unjust war.

I have no idea how to correct the quagmire, as I believe it'd be a mistake to cut and run at this point. I do know, however, that we cannot win given the current direction this endeavor is heading. The elections will more than likely be a sham, and any official who wins will most likely be killed soon after. We needed the world at our side, we needed a strong post-war plan, and most of all, we needed the cause to be just and the war to be justified. None of this happened and we are now stuck w/ Bush staring, dumbfounded, into Pandora's box.

When going to war, we, as a country, are only as good as our excuse for doing so. We now have none...and I regret to say, I believe we'll pay for this mistake for years and years to come, in so many mirade ways.

[SeaMonkey]

Saddam Hussein paid the families of suicide bombers to kill Israelies.

I supported the war, and guess what. I am not officially wrong.

Killing jews has always been a sore spot with me.

[JackTucky]

Now the soldiers who were searching can get on to other things, like killing the insurgents who attack the good people in Iraq.  Good news.

Art

[Dartful Dodger]

Don't worry mr.Curmudgeon in two years you'll forget all about the war.

[Dexter]

Oh, I thought it was cause of the WMDs, the 45 minute strike capabilty and the links to bin laden. What? That was all BS?? Weli then it was to free the peple of eye-raq from a tyrant, even though sanctions which the US refused to allow be lifted killed more people than Saddam ever did, plus the fact that he used to be an ally until he bit the hand that fed him. Lets not forget the 100,000+ innocents killed by the 'good guys'. But lets forget the opression and torture by the saudis, and the 'friendly' dictator in pakistan. American double standards, best in the world 

[SeaMonkey]

Oh, I thought it was cause of the WMDs, the 45 minute strike capabilty and the links to bin laden.

Was that all you heard before the war? Honestly?
I mean, it is one thing to not be educated enough to follow debates on
the Iraqi destabalization effect on the middle-east, but it is another thing to to just CLAIM you never heard it.

He was funding attacks against a nuclear power. You didn't hear anything about that?

There was a measurable effect in the region. Libya rolled over at once.

Weli then it was to free the peple of eye-raq from a tyrant, even though sanctions which the US refused to allow be lifted killed more people than Saddam ever did, plus the fact that he used to be an ally until he bit the hand that fed him.

Actually, the sanctions made a French President (and other U.N. diplomats) richer by stealing food we paid for out of the mouthes of the children of Iraq.
Also, yes he was our lap dog ...that's how we know there are WMD's that are unaccounted for. ... We sold them to him.

[locash]

When we went to war in Iraq the majority of those who supported the war did so because of the reasons Dexter cited, not because of "the Iraqi destabalization effect".  Do you really think the majority of Americans care about that?  Only if it effects the price of gas.  Even if they did, how was Iraq destabilizing anything?  They were penned in by no-fly zones and constant supervision.

Funding attacks against nuclear power...don't care, unless that power is the U.S.  I'll presume you are talking about Israel.  Why is being an alleged nuclear power at all significant?  If he were funding attacks against a conventional power you wouldn't care?

Your mention of the Mujahideen does more to support Dexter's argument than your own.

[SeaMonkey]

When we went to war in Iraq the majority of those who supported the war did so because of the reasons Dexter cited, not because of "the Iraqi destabalization effect".

[locash]

My point was not that other reasons to go to war didn't exist, but rather that going to war had popular support only for the reasons cited by Dexter.  Which by the way was not solely WMD.  Without popular support I don't believe this war happens.

I don't care that Iraq was bombing Israel.  Well, I care, I just don't see it as a reason for the U.S. to go to war.  Unless you are suggesting that Israel can't be trusted to handle their own affairs responsibly and I think you are (if terms like "nuclear power = unstable" and "fallout" are any indication).  Frankly, I have a little more faith in Israel than that.

As for radical Islam being on the verge of nukes, I don't know what we can do about it.  After all we were the ones who opened that Pandora's box.  The best we can hope is to delay this inevitability.

But we'd better spend some of the time we've bought trying to understand why they are so opposed to the U.S. in the first place.  Perhaps it has something to do with us shoring up oppressive dictatorships and monarchies throughout the region?

[SeaMonkey]

My point was not that other reasons to go to war didn't exist, but rather that going to war had popular support only for the reasons cited by Dexter.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I wish I could capture the simplistic world view of "black" and "white"...

...

The region is reeping stability as we speak. Libya ends their WMD programs and comes clean on Pan Am Flight 103, among other things.

Looks like your wish has come true. The amount of attacks in Iraq have steadily increased since Bush's declaration of "Mission Accomplished". Libya was already in the process of ending thier WMD program long before Bush's War in Iraq. One had *nothing* to do with the other. The Israeli/Palestinian issue is in a state of flux, who knows where Abbas/Sharon will take it. Bush has done nothing to further peace talks between the two entities. He has mentioned support again, for a Palestinian state, but has made no effort whatsoever to bring about an end to the most hostile conflict in the middle east, outside of Iraq.

So is the right answer regime change for 3 countries, or regime change for the country in breech of U.N. sanctions for 10 years, to buy us time to negotiate with the two other powers?  What is the lesser "evil" here? These are not my ideas by the way. These ideas were discussed in Congress, and broadcast on CSpan.

Iraq was the most secular country in the Muslim world, yet now we've opened it up to numerous outside forces who will more than likely exert influence over any governing authority installed after the coming "elections". For example, Bush's #1 go-to guy at the beginning of the war, Ahmed Chalabi, ended up being an Iranian spy. The U.S. forces can't even secure the Green Zone against insurgent attacks. How can we even begin to imagine negotiations with other regional players?

This war was an important first step toward securing the life of this planet beyond this generation. I didn't make this mess, but I support cleaning it up.

If the American media focused on "Saddam bad, he have big guns" to get the message in between bites of McDonald's, then so be it.
 

If that would have been the initial reasoning for the war, it would *never* have happened. Why is that? Why is it valid now?

But this never happened:

George Bush:"Well, I just want to go in there because of all them there WMD's"
Congress:"Let's get this straight, there are WMD's there?!? Okay GO!"

"Each passing day could be one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally," Bush said.

...

Bush, however, urged speed: "The danger to our country is grave." He said Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and is building the facilities necessary to increase those stockpiles.

- George W. Bush, in direct response to democratic debate in Congress on passing a resolution to go to war w/ Iraq. (9/26/2002)

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But this never happened:

George Bush:"Well, I just want to go in there because of all them there WMD's"
Congress:"Let's get this straight, there are WMD's there?!? Okay GO!"

More for your reading enjoyment:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
-Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
-George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
-Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
-Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
-George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
-Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
-George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
-Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
-Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
-Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
-Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
-Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
-Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
-Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
-Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
-Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
-Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
-George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
-Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
-Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
-George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
-Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
-George W. Bush May 6, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
-Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
-Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

[locash]

By the way Locash,
Bravo for debating instead of name-calling.
I may not agree with what you are saying, but I revel in your saying it!

Thanks, I am enjoying this debate as well.  Too many times these thread degrade into an exchange of insults which only discourages people from participating and makes the participants less likely to try to understand the others point of view.

I think what you are saying is you are for this war because of the stability it gives to the region and slow the development of nuclear arms in the region and not for the reasons popularized by the press.

I on the other hand oppose this war, not just because I never believed the popular reasons, but because I believe that the stability gained will be short lived and counterproductive in the long term.  I don't believe that stability can be installed it must be built by the people of the region.  I believe there will be long term resentment toward the U.S. for the attempt.

I think it would be unfair to blame the press for popularizing the "Saddam bad, he have big guns" message for going to war.  If you read the 2003 State of the Union Address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html, you will find it to be nearly 5500 words long nearly 1/4 of it is "Saddam bad, he have big guns".  There are no other reasons given to support the call to arms.  Now I realize that there were other reasons given at other venues, but on the eve of war this was the largest audience the president was going to speak to and this was the message he wanted delivered.

[SeaMonkey]

But this never happened:

George Bush:"Well, I just want to go in there because of all them there WMD's"
Congress:"Let's get this straight, there are WMD's there?!? Okay GO!"

More for your reading enjoyment:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
-Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
-George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
-Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
-Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
-George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
-Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
-George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
-Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
-Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
-Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
-Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
-Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
-Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
-Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
-Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
-Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
-Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
-George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
-Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
-Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
-George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
-Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
-George W. Bush May 6, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
-Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
-Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

And I repeat, if that is all you heard before the war, you were uneducated on the full scope of the discussion. And that's okay. It would seem most people were.

War over only WMD never happened. Fiction.

The truth remains however, that we have records of WMD's that we sold them, that they don't have records of destroying. 

You can keep saying, "Yeah...but...but....there were no WMD's" and if that is the only thing you can say...and you say it over and over, then I think you are the one with the simplistic view of the world, with tight blinders on. Cling to that "No WMD in Iraq" teddy bear when Syria and Iran have nukes...it will make you feel much safer at night.

Also the region IS more stable today. You take my use of region then interpret that to mean a single state "Iraq" then talk about foreign insurgents.
This is less than misdirection. 

Now that is not to say I wouldn't have done this different were it up to me.

1) Regime change for Afghanistan
2) Regime change for Korea.
3) Regime change for Iraq


In all instances I would have hired the old army/police to be the new army/police with proper screening of course.

Would your answer be, to just leave them alone, to do as they will and build what they will, and deploy where they will, for ever and ever amen?

[SeaMonkey]

By the way Locash,
Bravo for debating instead of name-calling.
I may not agree with what you are saying, but I revel in your saying it!

Thanks, I am enjoying this debate as well.

[TOK]

Almost immediately after the end of the first Gulf War, Hussein starting breaking the terms of the first surrender agreement. We let the human rights violations slide, but one of those terms was to UN weapons inspections.

If he didn't have weapons, PRETENDING to have them was a pretty foolish mistake, wasn't it? Hussein had a grudge against the US, reported terrorist ties, and was refusing terms he agreed to.

Hind sight may be 20/20, and Iraq is certainly a quagmire, but we still haven't seen the promised attacks on US soil. We did the right thing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And I repeat, if that is all you heard before the war, you were uneducated on the full scope of the discussion. And that's okay. It would seem most people were.

War over only WMD never happened. Fiction.

Uh. You're are completely missing the point. I am simply providing you the answer for *why* most people believed that WMD was the reasoning for war. Because that is WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. You're arguing with the benefit of having re-written history. It doesn't matter why *you* think we went to war, nor how "educated" you are. The general public was sold a misrepresented bill of goods. Are you arguing that misleading the public in order to further this administrations perceived altruistic goals is OK?

Cling to that "No WMD in Iraq" teddy bear when Syria and Iran have nukes...

Funny you should mention that. You forgot North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. Your whole argument is predicated on the stabilization/democratization of Iraq. So far, your argument isn't looking so good.

Also the region IS more stable today.

Stability in the middle east is relative. The region is certainly more unified in it's hatred of the U.S., so if having them stop the infighting by providing them more reason to loath an already hated single enemy, then yes....it's more stable.

Now that is not to say I wouldn't have done this different were it up to me.

1) Regime change for Afghanistan
2) Regime change for Korea.
3) Regime change for Iraq

We couldn't defeat NK without nukes, and if we used nukes, China would start a global-thermal nuclear war. Nice plan.

In all instances I would have hired the old army/police to be the new army/police with proper screening of course.

It's all so easy...why couldn't I see it before.

Would your answer be, to just leave them alone, to do as they will and build what they will, and deploy where they will, for ever and ever amen?

No. I'm an atheist so I don't live on prayer. There *are* other ways to influence global developments solely than at the barrel of a gun. You think the rest of the world would just sit idly by as we stomp through regions quashing "evildoers"?

[Mameotron]

MrC, you just refuse to see the real reason for the instability in the reigon.

[namzep]

That is, if you believe in the whole notion of the promised land or the accuracy of predictions in a ~2000 year old book.  The whole problem is not solely relgious.  Alot of it has to do more with the fundamental problem of too many people, too small a space of land.  Those people crammed into there have many differences that are not religious in nature.   Looking back on it, it was foolish for the UN to place Israel in the middle of an already crowded area, surrounded by cultures so very different from their's. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC, you just refuse to see the real reason for the instability in the reigon.  RELIGION.

Actually, I fully understand that religion is the root of the problem in the middle east. That is exactly why I refuse to accept that it is somehow OK for Bush to have gotten the U.S. fully entrenched in a 2000 year old war.

It's nice to think that they all unite in their hatred of the US, but the truth is that they only hate us because they honestly believe we are united with Isreal.  They are united in their hatred of Isreal.

Yes. Same result.

If you are so inclined, you could read what the book of Revelation has to say about this.  It all points to the end times.

Read religious texts to solve bloody religous conflicts? No thanks. End times are a self-fulling prophecy, ya' know.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There isn't really any solution to the dilemma. 

Maybe the solution is to do away with religion altogether. Yeah, I know...never happen.

Sorry if this offends, I didn't really want to turn this into a debate about religion as that has a tendency to end up in bus bombs and suicide pacts, but....

This sorta mentality reminds me of what I dislike most about religion. It requires an absolute fatalistic view of the world. Their is a frickin' solution to the problem, it'll just take work and perseverance to figure it out. Babies are dying fer' cryin' out loud. Baby jesus hates that.

To carry it a little further (and I'm being a bit facetious here), how can any religious person be angry about the deaths that occured on 9-11. Obviously God wanted those people dead, his will be done, right?. Weren't the terrorists actually carrying out God's will? I don't get the logic. Don't say it was the devils work either, 'cuz no proper bible-thumpin' Christian believes that darn Devil is more powerful than God. If God wants you dead, you're dead. The Devil's gotta go through him first, eh?

Another thing, why would a God give freewill to humankind, yet ask them to sit on their hands and DO NOTHING UNTIL THE END TIMES?!?!?!? Does he like to watch the chaos? I mean, doesn't he get cable up there?
 
I digress...as usual.

[Dexter]

Fortunately, rewriting history won't affect the people who REMEMBER the reasons given for the pre-emptive strike on Iraq, REMEMBER them turning out to be deliberate lies, REMEMBER the shift in excuses for going to war. Want to talk about a country ignoring UN directives, Israel have been doing it for 40 years. Want to talk about WMDs in the middle east, Israel have an estimated 300 warheads. Once again, american double standards. You can't claim to be the custodians of liberty and play favourites at the same time.

There were over 130 countries with active al-quaida cells before the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not one of them.

No matter which way you try to sugar coat it, the invasion of Iraq was waged on fabricated evidence, lies, and it's association with the war on terror desecrates the memories of the victims of 9/11. The real reasons for the biggest balls up in foreign policy in history was common knowledge to the rest of the world prior to the invasion. Anyone who stands on their soapbox now claiming 'we did the right thing' looks like a bad joke.

[DrewKaree]

There were over 130 countries with active al-quaida cells before the Iraq invasion, Iraq was not one of them.

The things you choose to believe.  You have no problem believing the possibility of Iraq not being one of them, but wonder why we think you're nuts for believing the conspiracy theories of everything but the direction the water spins when you flush point to Bush rigging or stealing an election.

Anyone who stands on their soapbox now claiming 'we did the right thing' looks like a bad joke.

I've got no problems "looking like a bad joke" to you and your ilk.  If I concerned myself with what your opinion was, I'd soon be wracked with a misguided notion of what my country stands for and what steps we should take to defend it.  Instead, I'm comfortable with knowing that history has and will bear out the rightness of our actions, regardless of how you wish it would be written.


We did the right thing.

[Dexter]

Your own politicians have confirmed that there was no link between saddam and OBL, they have confirmed no WMDs. It is a known fact there were no cells in Iraq pre invasion. Iraqs invasion had nothing to do with Americas defence. These are all facts.

Nobody expects you to let the facts interfer with your notion that bombing a third world country into smaller bits of rubble makes america safer, or that claiming you did the right thing might in some miraculous way make it so. Your president doesn't so nobody will expect you to.

The rest of the world knows the facts and have seen the real story. While we're tossing the 'ilk' word around, wrapping genocide in a flag and calling it patriotism/freedom may fool your 'ilk', but civilised society is watching the parallels between 21 century america and 1930s germany unfold. Whos got the real freedom??

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The things you choose to believe.  You have no problem believing the possibility of Iraq not being one of them...

Again, based on the facts on the ground...Iraq was *not* one of them. There has been *no* substantiated evidence, 2-3yrs down the line. There *is*, however, evidence that Al Qaeda has ties w/ Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc... The Iraq+Al Qaeda link was a fabrication. It has nothing to do with choosing to believe anything, it has much more to do with what you choose to ignore.

I've got no problems "looking like a bad joke" to you and your ilk.

First off, anyone who uses the work "ilk" shouldn't be allowed to debate anything. It's disrespectful and ignorant. It's a lame attempt at debasing a persons argument by refusing to acknowledge their valid point of view. It also unfairly paints a broad brush stroke that moves discussion away from thoughtful commentary and perpetuates an unheathly "Us" vs. "Them" simple-minded metality. Drew, you're smarter than that. Just so you know, one of my New Years resolutions work to avoid doing this myself. I hope you can do the same.

If I concerned myself with what your opinion was, I'd soon be wracked with a misguided notion of what my country stands for and what steps we should take to defend it.  Instead, I'm comfortable with knowing that history has and will bear out the rightness of our actions, regardless of how you wish it would be written.

Once again, another member of the right demonstrates their remarkable ability to reach across the aisle and support unity. I find it funny that you, Drew, have always been the first one to bag on me for being divisive in the past...Do me a favor, please re-read your above statement. Just admit you're a hypocrite sometimes and I'll do the same.

We did the right thing.

If it were about mass graves, you would have been for Bosnia, Rwanda, and we would be in Sudan as we speak. America does not premptively strike unless there is an imminent threat. That is the very basis for the Bush Doctrine. There was no such threat.

We did the wrong thing.

[locash]

I don't see that anyone was tying together the unjustness/justness of this war with conspiracies of W stealing the election.

Assuming that there was a link between Iraq and Al queda, and I am willing to concede the possibility, there are still

[Dexter]

Why then was Iraq first on the list and who's next?

Becaus it was top of the list before 9/11, as the world now knows top officials were told by the Bush cabinet to 'find' a link between saddam and 9/11. Regieme change in Iraq was on the table from the time Bush snook in the back door of the Whitehouse.

History is not written by the righteous it is written by the victorious.

[Gunstar Hero]

I suppose our "opressing terrorism" excuse isn't quite as good as their "religion" excuses or their "we hate America" excuses, but it's all we have! 

[DrewKaree]

First off, anyone who uses the work "ilk" shouldn't be allowed to debate anything. It's disrespectful and ignorant. It's a lame attempt at debasing someones argument by refusing to acknowledge anothers valid point of view. Drew, you're smarter than that.

"Valid point of view"?  Is this somehow supposed to be the easy to swallow version of "my opinion is right". 

We sit here speaking of "fact" and "it's a given" - all these things are notions based on what either side presupposes to be true and how it will suit their argument.  Several of Dex's points have been argued to be strictly fiction, yet he states them as "facts - don't let them get in the way".  Somehow I am supposed to acknowledge his/your "valid point of view", and accept the "fact" when they are continually said to be truthful.  Simply saying it over and over and over and over and over and over....you get the point.....doesn't make it true, as you've often warned ME about MY views. 

The view that Bush continually lied to the American public is something you clearly would label "a valid point of view".  You continue to ignore the intelligence WORLD wide that pointed to the exact same thing Bush believed to be true, and what he PARTLY based his decision to go to war on.  I say partly, because ignoring the reasons given doesn't make the rest of them go away, it only serves you to focus on one of the reasons given that hasn't come to fruition as a reason to damn the entire operation.  Somehow, the fact that Bush gave many reasons and that WMD's were but one of many ISN'T a "valid point of view" to you.

There will never be a winning option for either of you, as you don't agree with the war, period.  If there is a way to back your "valid point of view", you use it.  Same as I do to back MY "valid points of view".  Somehow, my point of view is never considered "valid", yet I'm supposed to swallow your claptrap, hook, line, and sinker. 

Are you two SERIOUS in your indignation at the use of the word "ilk"?  Perhaps you both should invest in an actual session of research.  The word not only fits for you, it fits for me and my "ilk"....you would prefer I used instead "all your buddies I think are nutjobs"?  Do your homework before you complain about that which is correct. 

locash, it's not tying the two events together, it is pointing out the willingness to believe something requiring several reaches above and beyond reason (according to MY "valid point of view") when it suits his argument while demonstrating vehement opposition to making those same contortions when it DOESN'T suit his argument. 

As for my "remarkable ability to reach across the aisle"....please     Again, locash, not trying to tie the two together, just pointing out the ABSOLUTE hypocrisy MrC is displaying.  MrC, you can go back and read my actual words pointing out problems with BOTH sides of the party.  I happen to agree more often with the conservative stance, but I've at least got something to point to about wanting to stop the problems BOTH sides are causing to the American public.  Your continued work to showcase one side of the issue and your belief in the absolute truth you see there is anything BUT "working to bring the parties together".

In case you mis-read my statement you pointed me back to, my words were directed towards a non-American who disagrees with my position based on his "valid point of view" (formerly referred to as "opinion").  I'm quite sure we agree on MANY MANY MANY MANY points of what we think our country stands for.  Where we differ are the steps we believe we need to take.  Dexter (interpreting many of his comments referring to our country) believes our country to stand for something completely different.  That is what I referred to.  Perhaps you should take notice of who I was speaking to.  To state the exact same thing about YOU would lead to cries of "you're calling me unpatriotic", and I prefer to believe that, indeed, we DO share many ideas about our country.  Please go back and re-read the comments.  You've read far too much into the words aimed for Dexter.

To sum it up, I'm conservative in my views, MrC, you are not, and agree with Dexter's views.  It doesn't make you anti-American to believe as he does on policy.  It simply means you are NOT conservative in your views.  That DOES mean that you are part of his "ilk".

We won't be changing each others' minds anytime soon, but it IS fun to try to decipher what planet the other comes from.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I thought this was appropriate, and it helps keep things in perspective about the myth of the "Liberal Media":

[Dexter]

I suppose our "opressing terrorism" excuse isn't quite as good as their "religion" excuses or their "we hate America" excuses, but it's all we have!

[DrewKaree]

You could replace the "Iraq" placard with "Won it again" and it'd be funny

Or you could change the lie of "retired" on Mr Blather to "reassigned to a different division" and it'd be truthful on that side of the comic.

I also noticed that they haven't included Michael Moore or F911 on there.....not enough room on the page, I guess.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I also noticed that they haven't included Michael Moore or F911 on there.....not enough room on the page, I guess.

F/911 had more truths in it than Bush's pre-war intel. *snap*

[DrewKaree]

Like I said, who has the real freedom?

Somewhere you seem to have gotten the idea that because I believe a certain way, I'm somehow lacking in freedom. 

MrC, do you believe that in America you do not have freedom?  I'm asking, because I believe we both believe we are free in America, but I don't know if you do or don't.

[DrewKaree]

F/911 had more truths in it than Bush's pre-war intel. *snap*

I agree, FarenHype 911 did have more truths. 

[locash]

The 'freedom' that you seem to enjoy is very different than that conceived by our forefathers.  You are not free simply because you have chosen to do without certain freedoms.

...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
  --  Thomas Jefferson

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

-- Goethe

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I agree, FarenHype 911 did have more truths. 

FarenHype is just sloppy seconds. Moore's film has more truth than anything this administration has put out since 2000.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Somewhere you seem to have gotten the idea that because I believe a certain way, I'm somehow lacking in freedom. 

MrC, do you believe that in America you do not have freedom?  I'm asking, because I believe we both believe we are free in America, but I don't know if you do or don't.

I'm not sure if you think the above quote is from me, but I'll address your point anyhow.

I believe that, in America, we have a lot more freedoms than most other countries. I also believe that those freedoms are being taken for granted when we allow political obfuscation and fear-mongering to exist as a viable form of government. With these freedoms, comes an enormous responsibility for our citizenry. They are ours, not our governments. Our freedoms mean nothing if we continually live in fear and cannot trust our leaders.

For as how much freedom you are lacking...I'd say you're free to hold your leaders accountable whenever you'd like, it just seems you don't want to when they are *clearly wrong* and are from your side.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We did the right thing.

If that means sending Iraq into potential civil war, then yeah...we're right on track.

(This week in Iraq)

"Two aides to Iraq's top Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani have been killed in separate attacks apparently aimed at inflaming sectarian conflict among Iraqis already divided on whether Jan. 30 polls should go ahead.

A Sistani representative said on Thursday that gunmen killed cleric Mahmoud al-Madaen along with his son and four bodyguards. Madaen, Sistani's representative in the ancient town of Salman Pak south of Baghdad, was killed on Wednesday.

Another aide, Halim al-Mohaqeq, a cleric working in Sistani's office in Najaf, was also found dead on Wednesday.

"Sheikh Halim was found drowned in his own blood. Investigations are under way," leading Sistani representative Hamed al-Khafaf said."

Mission Accomplished.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Our freedoms mean nothing if we continually live in fear and cannot trust our leaders.

The sheep of the world think we can live in a place where there is nothing to fear, and you can blindly trust your leaders.