Ok. Sharpen the knives.....

Here is what troubles me about the state of politics in America (and to a slightly lesser degree Canada). Partisan politics vs. reality. Blind support of either political party.

Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or not, it would take a pretty naive person to not recognize that (at the very least) there was an exaggeration of the facts leading up to the invasion.

I believe in the democratic system and I think it is great that we don't all agree on each political (and moral) issue. Pro-choice, pro-life. Death penalty, no death penalty. Small gov't, big gov't. Tax and spend, spend and spend.

I am a conservative. I liked George Sr. (but I also liked Clinton). If I was American I certainly would have voted GWB the first go round (thought Gore was a bore). I have no axe to grind with GWB.

That being said, I cannot understand why the American public is so mellow about being deceived about the WMD thing. Forget about political parties, is there no longer a want or need to have your duly elected officials being truthful (especially on such an important decision as going to war)? It seems to me that both Repubs and Dems are so dedicated to their party position that it often trumps common sense and objectivity. Maybe there is a bigger question, are we capable of being truly objective or do we always default to our belief system (or whatever you call it)?

Maybe we aren't all worked up over the failure to find HUGE STOCKPILES of WsMD because many of us still believe that they are there somewhere. Some small stocks of WsMD were found but not big enough to kill the world and certainly not enough to make liberals admit that they were there. I firmly believe that there is a bunch of these terrible weapons hidden in Iraq and Syria. If you don't then that's your opinion. Do you think that the intelligence agencies share everything that they know with the common Joe Blow? Me neither.

I think the American public (at least half) actually believed that there were WMD's in Iraq before the invasion. We saw the results they had when used on the Kurds after the first Gulf war. Speaking for myself I believe we have not heard the full story on what happened to the WMD's everyone knew he once had. Were they shipped out of the country, buried somewhere in the desert? Someday I think we will hear about them again.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p09s02-cojh.html

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rolo tomasee,

Pangea & Rolo Tomasee,

I agree with both of you one this. I also think the Russians have their hand in the hidden weapons pot. The Russians were aiding in Iraq's Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons program. Many of their top scientist that were working on the USSR's NBC weapons programs were all of a sudden out of a job when the the Soviet Union fell appart and we dont know where the are now. There are Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons that can not be accounted for in Russia. The Russian government is basicly bankrupt and with the money Iraq was making off its oil production even after the Gulf War I have no dout that there was co-operation between these two countries. Russia would have been able to avoid detection by our satellites. I have no dout that many of these weapons made it back to Russia before we got there. Our government may even know this and due to international politics and to keep our relations with Russia from getting worse are keeping this classified.

You want us to be the world police and when we do; you question how we do our job. Simply put, it was the right thing to do; whether WMD were there or not. Sr. & Clinton….lol this speaks volumes.

I don't blindly support any party I don't vote for a letter (R or D) I vote for policy and who I think is best suited for the job. That being said it wasn't like Bush just made up some story about wmd's in Iraq. The administration and Congress along with several of our allied countries compiled intel on Iraq and Saddam to make the decision to invade. Whether or not the intel was right or that if they knew it was different still remains to be seen. So no offense to anyone but completely blaming Bush and saying it is all his fault and he lied to the American people all his own is a blind view of the situation.

This is sort of what I mean.

Guys, they found nothing. I suppose we can find a significant number of excuses for that. Do you not think the onus should be the invading country to get it right and be able to prove the legitimacy of their action? Can you not consider the possibility that the administration (again, at the very least, stretched the truth to fit their own agenda)?

BTW, every time somebody on this board responds to a reasonable question defensively, automatically, dogmatically or by insult it further makes the point that people (neither Liberal or Conservative but any and all) are incapable of getting beyond their immediate political bias to objectively review "facts".

BTW, Monk, pretty sure I never personally asked for the US to act as world police and, respectfully, if you think the free world outside of the immediate influence of CNN supported the invasion of Iraq, you are sheltered and delusional. Do not confuse world support and sympathy following 9/11 for a mandate to invade a sovereign state (regardless of the regime). They are two wildly different things.

Lets see, (legitimacy of their action). Ok say there were no WMD's in the equation. Saddam Hussein has had more people murdered, maimed raped, you name it, more than anyone else beside Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Since the end of the first Gulf war he did not abide by the sanctions that the U.N. imposed on him. Oil for food money was spent on his palaces and own personal well being and not for the good of his own people.

WMD's were one part of the reason and they were not the only reason but the most publisized and definately the one to jump on because none were found as of yet.

If you look at many alternative sources of news from Iraq there are some major improvements going on to benefit the whole of the country not just Saddams allies. The building of electrical and water works for everyone in Iraq, new schools going up for a real education not one just approved by Saddam.

There are many problems in Iraq still, but it is a far brighter future ahead for Iraqis than what they had with a brutal dictator.

Bush is far from perfect but to me it seems that much of the world thinks they would be better off with Saddam than they would with Bush is just baffling. If the rest of the world would stop bitching and moaning about everything we do and give us some support and see that we are trying to improve the lives of countless millions of people our job would be finished a hell of alot sooner.

Smokingsteve, I guess the whole United Nations was also duped.
Remember UN Resolution #1441?

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as
a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international
peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and
complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its
programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a
range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such
weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all
other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not
related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, designated by the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons
2
S/RES/1441 (2002)
inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all
cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998.


Saddam wasn't hiding anything.................
...........or was he?

SSteve -

Part of the blind partisan support is that although there was separate agreement and input from other countries supporting the existance of the WMDs, libs continue to dispell their role in formulating the threat assessment. The USA didn't lie, and we weren't inept suckers either. We assessed and then planned the response to that assessment.

I do believe that there were WMDs, that there were 7 months during which they could have been spirited away to Syria or elsewhere while the weak and corrupt UN dragged their heels, and that Saddam and his sons promoted the idea that they were militarily formidable, alluding to weapons that we could not dream of. UN inspectors, including Hans Blix during the critical time, admitted that they could not rule out WMDs conclusively. Of course, now Blix contraducts himself and claims to have absolutely ruled everything out.

Recent translations confirming existance of WMDs and an Iraqi misinformation and deception campaign have been released, with almost no coverage by the media.

Our sin - actually getting off our duffs to contain the threat and remove Saddam from power. I am sure that any doubts regarding the WMDs were compared against liberation and a shot at establishing a mid-east democracy. Emphasizing and selling the idea to the American people is only necessary because they forget that there are so many people who forget that these Muslim countries actively hate and plot against the USA. Instead, they worry about pet medications, mass consumption and screwing their neighbor.

Yes Steve the international community is such and important body. How is that Darfur thing going? I’m sure you guys got this covered right.

I'm sorry this is so silly I just have to repost it.
"BTW, Monk, pretty sure I never personally asked for the US to act as world police (Oh yes you have by supporting your own gov’t which in turn understands the stability to the world that the US brings not only in terms of safety but economically as well) and, respectfully (you are not respectful of anything or anybody you like to think that you and your little country live in a world where you can make your own choices when in fact you are just as much a b*tch to the big machine as every other country. This is one world and it is real.), if you think the free world outside of the immediate influence of CNN supported the invasion of Iraq, you are sheltered and delusional (read above other posters have covered this). Do not confuse world support and sympathy following 9/11 for a mandate (the USA has a mandate by force to invade any country we so desire. Like it or not we have the ability to destroy any country we so desire. Good for you we choose not to.) to invade a sovereign state (regardless of the regime). They are two wildly different things."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: THEMONK,

Sorry Monk, if I offended you, it wasn't intentional. I made a huge assumption that you could participate in an intellectual debate without you (or others) taking it personally. See the theme of this thread. Thanks for helping me to make my point.

Just a couple of thoughts; you really believe that the US has the mandate to invade any country you desire? Nice. So, at least you throw away the pretense of needing to create an excuse. Makes it easier to be the "world cop" I suppose. Seriously, then how do you differentiate yourselves from an aggresive war mongering nation? I'm not trying to be insulting but based on your logic you need no moral or legal basis for creating war? Neither did Hitler.

BTW, you really believe that the US is a stablizing force in the world?

Rolo,

I agree with you that Saddam is an evil dictator. Glad to see him gone. Not saying I don't support the removal of evil dictators.

Here is my point; over the next few years it will become more and more apparent that there was never any "real" intelligence supporting the Iraq has WMD" argument. At that point people will start to justify the invasion with the "Saddam was evil argument" (which is true). It is already happening. Problem is that was not the justification for going to war, WMDs were. Die hard conservatives will accept that they were lied to (or ignore that fact) because of "blind partisonship". That is the point of my thread. This is truly scary.

Again, glad Saddam is gone. Evil bastard. Straight to hell.

Truth was stretched. Nobody seems to care. To hell with democracy as well.

Steve I don't believe or think for a second that you did not intend to be offensive. You see that is what you do. You say you do not want to offend and then you make statements that you know are offensive and insulting. You post things like "Nobody seems to care. To hell with democracy as well." but yet you say you want an intellectual debate. Please!

There is not pretense what so ever it is what it is. It is not easy to be the world cop your world community is proof of this in Darfur.

How do we differentiate ourselves from a war mongering nation by the choices that we make including spreading liberty and freedom to people. You live under the very liberties and freedoms that we aford you. Yet you do not see this which in the end is expected...sad but expected.

Is the US the most stablizing force in the world? You bet your a** we are. We have been for quite some time. You talk about Hitler yet he never attacked us. The USSR never attack us yet because of our actions Western Europe is what it is today. With out the good old USA there would be no EU. Which leads us to China and how it has turned as of late. With China we have final created the only force on the planet that can challenge us and will most likely surpass us. I hope they are as kind to you in the future.

Here you go steve.
You say that there never was any WMD. I say prove that there never was any WMD. Since you can not disprove a negative your whole argument is a loss. Without proof you can not say it is blind partisan support.

If you turn this around and say prove that there ever was; we in turn will say we simply can not at this point but who knows what the future will bring. At the time the action took place we did the best that we could. Again no blind partisan support.

Now if you say people are outraged at the lies...that is partisanship.

Has anyone else noticed the irony of Steve wondering about blind partisan support for positions when he is obviously extremely partisan and intolerant of disagreement with his position?

This is one of my favorite kind of people

quote:

Originally posted by Briantime:
Has anyone else noticed the irony of Steve wondering about blind partisan support for positions when he is obviously extremely partisan and intolerant of disagreement with his position?

This is one of my favorite kind of people

That was my point of saying; "Now if you say people are outraged at the lies...that is partisanship.

Brian. Good point. I have an opinion. My opinion is that it appears that there may have been (at the very least) a stretch of the truth in order to justify the invasion.

Here is the difference, if they came up with concrete proof to show that Saddam was creating WMD I would say "ok, I was wrong", glad we got him.

When there is no proof after invading the argument transitions from "he has WMD, we must go in" to "well, they might have been moved, hell he was a bad egg anyways".

Not one person arguing with me has even considered the possibility that they may have been mis-lead.

Its weird, it seems to me that those Americans that actually have the cajones to question the feds take with foreign affairs (terrorism, Iraq etc) are branded as "liberal" or "weak". That it is unpatriotic to question the motives of your President.

Hell, you've got people on here that are resorting to a "might makes right" argument to justify Iraq. What kind of society does that make us?

Monk, you need to mellow. I have meant no offense. If my comments bother you, then you are quite easily offended. I would suggest you stick to mainland USA because my views on American foreign policy are fairly accepting compared to many in the world.

By the way, before anyone threatens to invade, consider this:

1) We are already the biggest state in the Union (geographically, not population). It just hasn't been made official yet!

2) If you invade, we will no longer be able to import Cubans. We will be one nasty lot to occupy without our cigars!

LMAO @ Steve
Okay, we were lied to by Bush. There never was any WMDs in Iraq. I will never vote for this Bush guy again.

Next...lol

We love Canada lots of good people.