I thought he was jello wrestling with Walter Mondale at the carnival...narlus said:
Here's something that Libs love to ignore...
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
Nah man, I am reading it, but I don't have anything I can offer to the discussion as I don't have enough info in my head. About all I can say is that even I realize/know that we (bush) had no justificatin for going to war. People can sugar coat and justify all they want. The fact remains that Bush had no justification for going to war/invading Iraq and that it is now a quagmire.kidwoo said:
Wow. I can't believe that people are still trying to argue the case for WMDs... Talk about head in the sand.
or trying to pull the "but Clinton and even France said that there were WMDs" crap as well. Apparantly those two didn't feel that there was compelling enough evidence, and didn't want to drag their country into a long and costly war based on crude drawings of what Saddam *might* have.fluff said:
IF this admin knew there were no WMDs, then it is indeed bullsh!t... however, based on all the info supplied by the United Nations regarding their investigations and data voluntarily supplied by Iraq, they did have WMDs.fluff said:
Iraq "admitted" to having bio and chem weapons in mass quantities, tho none was obviously found. Some believe that Saddam's people didn't have it and were simply lying to their leader to protect their butts.
As for hard evidence, inspectors complained that after they personally saw to the dismantling of missles with ranges that far exceed the UN allowance, they'd return to find them re-assembled. The inspectors were vocally frustrated by this, so Iraq did have SOME/few weapons that were in violation.
Woah dude... At the time Bush was trying to drum up support for an invasion the UN inspectors were saying that there was no evidence of WMD still existing and Iraq had given complete and full access to all sites. Hence all the mud thrown at Hans Blix.LordOpie said:
We've had this argument before. As for the missiles there was a dispute about categorisation but they were disabled and we knew about them.
It was bull**** and plenty of people could see it at the time.
At that time, Iraq was still claiming -- based on their last official report -- to actually have bio and chem weapons. None of the inspectors could find 'em, but if you're going to lie about having 'em, don't be surprised when people believe you and come kick your ass.
Iraq was a WMD state and the only two options were invading or perpetual UN inspections... which is totally cool and would've continued to work. The ONLY reason they had so very few WMDs (primarily the missles*) is cuz the inspections worked. End UN sanctions and they'd re-arm themselves.
* This is the first I've heard that there was a dispute about categorising 'em. I read the UNMOVIC reports before the invasion and clearly remember inspectors finding two missles that were absolutely illegal. Is that a significant amount? No, of course not, but Iraq was continuing to violate UN mandate.
Yes, using WMDs was a bullsh!t excuse and everyone knew it was a BS excuse. It was a way to justify it easily.
I supported the invasion for reasons other than WMDs, but had I ANY CLUE that they had no exit strategy... well, fvck this administration.
Iraq was a WMD state and the only two options were invading or perpetual UN inspections... which is totally cool and would've continued to work. The ONLY reason they had so very few WMDs (primarily the missles*) is cuz the inspections worked. End UN sanctions and they'd re-arm themselves.
* This is the first I've heard that there was a dispute about categorising 'em. I read the UNMOVIC reports before the invasion and clearly remember inspectors finding two missles that were absolutely illegal. Is that a significant amount? No, of course not, but Iraq was continuing to violate UN mandate.
Yes, using WMDs was a bullsh!t excuse and everyone knew it was a BS excuse. It was a way to justify it easily.
I supported the invasion for reasons other than WMDs, but had I ANY CLUE that they had no exit strategy... well, fvck this administration.
And that's the first I've heard that they were officially claiming to have them (to the UN anyway). Previous arguments have revolved around them failing to adequately account for disposal.LordOpie said:
The missile dispute was the distance that they could be fired, the Iraqis claimed it was within limits, the UN inspectors insisted it was over limits, the Iraqis capitulated.
As you say the inspections were working and would have continued to work. War was unnecessary on that basis.
It's easy for me to say this now but even then I could see how the invasion of Iraq was going to turn to ****. You need much more than an exit strategy when dealing with the Middle East, nobody ever got out of there without leaving a mess (or pretty much anywhere else for that matter). There is always a power-vacuum. It has actually turned out worse than I feared and much worse than I hoped it could once the decision was taken to go in.
That the old regime was tyrannical was in no doubt but at least it was stable. It'll be a while before it's that stable again and the result may be no more benign than Saddam.
1998? That's so last millenium.N8 said:
WOW! Bill Clinton was so successful that when Bush ordered the War all the weapons had already been destroyed!
So Bush isn't disingenuous idiotic, redneck, completely lacking of empathy(no offense to rednecks intended), He's a woefully uninformed, careless, disingenuous, idiotic, redneck, completely lacking of empathy.
Thanks for clearing that up!
So Bush isn't disingenuous idiotic, redneck, completely lacking of empathy(no offense to rednecks intended), He's a woefully uninformed, careless, disingenuous, idiotic, redneck, completely lacking of empathy.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Well, seeing that Bush's approval rating is at an embarrassing 37% that should tell you something. Bush is so bad he's turning the country into a bunch of liberals. I know it's hard for Republicans to admit this, but Bush is a complete disaster...N8 said:
Calling incompetence by it's name does not define you as a liberal, democrat, republican or anything else political. Disapproving of a job poorly done does not convert you to a "side". There are plenty of honest to god conservatives out there who aren't happy with the bush adminstration, but that hardly qualifies them as liberals.blt2ride said:
Agreed, it was more of joke to get N8 worked up.kidwoo said:
It always bothers me when party members won't admit the person they voted for is making mistakes.