On War

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The killing was stopped by an invasion by North Vietnam in 1979.

Let's not rewrite history.

[Amelia]

Ok, got'cha

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

He was an enemy of Al Queda, but the US Senate's own intelligence report.

Oh the spin. Please tell how many airplanes were crashed into buildings in Iraq? Al Queda had training camps in Iraq that Saddam turned a blind eye to for goodness sake.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Tennant showed Bush the evidence...

Those are the liberal Democrat talking points that the idealogues repeat but they are not correct. In fact, the talking points are now outdated. Just recently it has been discovered that Tennant withheld information from the President that would have proven no al queda-Saddam connection.

I keep repeating it over and over. We have to get our news from various sources.

[bevin]

Quote:

Quote:

The killing was stopped by an invasion by North Vietnam in 1979.

Let's not rewrite history.

I am 48 years old. In 1979 I was 22 years old. I have provided a very credible cite for my info, and I remember these events clearly. I did not have to look up what happened, I simply had to find a cite other than my memory.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Oh the spin. Please tell how many airplanes were crashed into buildings in Iraq? Al Queda had training camps in Iraq that Saddam turned a blind eye to for goodness sake.

Shane - I am quoting from the US Senate's own commissioned intelligence report, from a Republican controlled White House / Senate / Congress.

Now you believe that everyone is lying except those who feed your cherished beliefs.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Tenet

[bevin]

Quote:

Just recently it has been discovered that Tennant withheld information from the President that would have proven no al queda-Saddam connection.

Tennant never showed Bush info that proved one, either.

Yet Bush and Chenney used 9/11 as an excuse to carry out their preconceived attack on Iraq, and to sell it to the country.

Don't blame Tenant.

/Bevin

[Nicodema]

Shane - I am quoting from the US Senate's own commissioned intelligence report, from a Republican controlled White House / Senate / Congress.

Now you believe that everyone is lying except those who feed your cherished beliefs.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Now you believe that everyone is lying except those who feed your cherished beliefs.

Not at all. However those that were watching various sources of news saw the Prime Minister of Iraq jump up and down when the Senate released their report that there was no connection between Saddam and al queda. He claims he knows first-hand that there was. Personally, from all I have read and watched, the connection was loose and not formal. They certainly were not enemies.

Those that want to rewrite history are often the ones that lived through it. Many still want to claim that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a reason to invade Iraq - even though we all lived through that and know better. 9/11 just gave us the will to do what President Clinton wanted to do in 1998.

I find it interesting that anti-war liberals now put great faith in the Senate Intelligence Committee's recent findings when this same committee believed Saddam had WMDs before the war. I am not so selective nor decided on what I believe. I look at all the reports and contemplate the options of what is really right.

[lazarus]

I've come to realise with this whole Iraq war "thing" is that the death, destruction and the ensuing instability in the middle east will eventually prove how disaterous Bush's adventure was. There are subtle things happening that foreshadow the problems to come.

It almost seems futile to argue with those who ignore the evidence before them and are desparate to believe that the Iraq war is about freedom and the war on terror and is a sucess. It plainly is not.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It almost seems futile to argue with those who ignore the evidence before them

Well we agree on that much. While Iraq may not be successful, I have no doubt at all that had Gore won the election in 2000 we would have still invaded Iraq. Since Gore would have had the same military generals, much would have been the same. The biggest difference is that Gore wouldn't have had Rumsfield in the Pentegon. While I think Rumsfield has made a lot of mistakes, we will never know if a Gore-appointed Secretary of Defense would have done better or worse.

I look at the evidence and see the case that Clinton made for war with Iraq in 1998 and that Gore sold to Congress. The reason they didn't go to war was because they knew the American people didn't have the stomach for it. After 9/11 we did. I tend to think Gore wouldn't have fooled around with the UN as long as Bush did.

The war was about protecting the US from the WMDs the world believed Saddam had. That's it. Our intelligence was bad. Since nations share intelligence, the bad intelligence of one can contaiminate that of others which is what happened here. That is why so many nations all believed Saddam had WMDs. So in my mind, the war was a mistake, based on bad intelligence. I do believe the world is safer without Saddam in power? Yes, but at what cost? I don't think it was worth the cost although I do believe we acted responsibly with the information we had.

[lazarus]

If we accept the notion that everybody had the same intelligence the fact remains that a number of countries did not think the threat sufficiently proven to go to war. In fact there were still inspectors in the country which suggests the international community was not certain Saddam had WMD.

Bush pulled the trigger and got it wrong in so many ways. Clearly he still hasn't learned from his mistakes. So many people have died and have been maimed because of the half truths, incompetence and the bankrupt neo-con agenda

[Dr. Shane]

The original coalition was made up of over 33 countries. Now it is true that most of these countries didn't contribute much but, they at least agreed that Saddam had WMDs and he was a threat. That means it was a lot more than just a President, that can't pronouce his words right, pulling "the trigger".

The UN inspectors were not being allowed to do their job. Why? Perhaps because Saddam didn't want them to find the pre-1991 WMDs that he still had. That would only be a guess.

[lazarus]

33 sounds impressive but lets take a look!

Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

Japan, Portugal, Singapore and the Ukraine.

The State Department reported that Fiji was contributing troops though UNAMI and that Hungary, Iceland, Slovenia, and Turkey were assisting with the NATO training mission. However, it is unclear whether Hungary actually maintained any forces in Iraq as part of NATO or UNAMI since its government announced the complete withdrawal of troops in December 2004.

The UK sent 8,000 troops. The next highest contributor was South K, 3000. There were no major world powers that contributed significant forces.

Globalsecurity.org

The list speaks for itself........! Moldova! Slovenia! Estonia! Bosnia-H, FIJI!!!!!!! come on!!!!

anyone from those countries please don't take offence but I don't think they felt threatened by Saddam!

[Dr. Shane]

I guess my point fell on deaf ears which is kind of what I was talking about. Some people refuse to see the evidence when it is presented in from of them. My point was... let me quote myself, "it is true that most of these countries didn't contribute much but, they at least agreed that Saddam had WMDs and he was a threat."

Now some accuse these countries as being bought and being the coalition of the bribed. Odd that we found out later that those that supported Saddam were the real coalition of the bribed. If it was all about money, Canada and Mexico should have been the biggest supporters since they are the US' biggest trading partners but... wait a minute... Canada and Mexico were against the war weren't they? Huh... didn't they know that if they didn't support the US they would pay the consequences? Oh wait a minute. President Bush actually has been trying to get legal status for millions of illegal Mexicans. Why is that? Payback for Mexico opposing the war?

Sorry for being so smart... I am just having a little fun. It is just so silly to claim "Bush" pulled the trigger. Nevermind that he got Congressional approval and had a hoast of allies agreeing with him.

[Amelia]

[Bravus]

Or alternatively (and this is not aimed at you at all, Amelia, or even really at the cartoon)... that God always loses.

[Naomi]

Or alternatively (and this is not aimed at you at all, Amelia, or even really at the cartoon)... that God always loses.

Does he?

[Bravus]

Of course not. God always wins. My point was that if both sides in a war claim that God is on their side, then God appears to lose with the losing side. The underlying point is that claiming God is on your side doesn't make it true...

[Naomi]

Only teasing ... your point was well taken.

[Bravus]

[Nan]

...not if God is on my side

but whether I am on His....

[Naomi]

Good point Nan.

Naomi

[Neil D]

Of course not. God always wins. My point was that if both sides in a war claim that God is on their side, then God appears to lose with the losing side. The underlying point is that claiming God is on your side doesn't make it true...

Hmmmmm ....."God always wins." Hmmmmmmmm....

I think I know too many bible stories where God has lost....

I think that IN THE END, God will win, and all things will be set right...but 'God always win." [sucking air between teeth sound] I don't think so....