DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 367, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/31/2005 09:50:09 PM · #101
its great that none were found. just think how dangerous it could have been if there were WMD.
01/31/2005 10:01:12 PM · #102
Originally posted by gusto:

its great that none were found. just think how dangerous it could have been if there were WMD.


But that's the grab, isn't it Gusto? There weren't! The UN inspectors told Bush & Co. that there weren't any WMDs, but he dismissed their intelligence because it did not fit the Bush & Co. agenda. Again, Bush himself recognized that the info presented to him was not sufficient to invade Iraq (refer to earlier post re: "Bush at War," book), yet Bush & Co. trumped up the evidence, and duped many people into believing that Iraq presented an unequivocal and immediate danger. Again, Bush knew better... the UN knew better... millions of people around the world knew better, many religous leaders around the world knew better, and, yet, Bush proceeded to make the case for war... and now, the Bush apologists are jumping through many hoops to justify and excuse Bush's war of choice.
02/01/2005 12:08:06 AM · #103
Hahah speaking of liars in the Whitehouse; Cheney's Pants on fire.

Isnít it a trip that often the most real news comes from Comedy Central.
02/01/2005 12:17:29 AM · #104
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Hahah speaking of liars in the Whitehouse; Cheney's Pants on fire.

Isnít it a trip that often the most real news comes from Comedy Central.


That's pretty much how I remember my recent history... Bush & Co. say one thing, then they try to change history right before our eyes.

In the video posted above we see Cheney denying that he ever said that there existed an Iraqi/Al Queda connection... cut to video of Cheney on Meet the Press where we see Cheney saying, It's pretty much confirmed that there's a connection between Iraq and Al Queda.

Of course, to the Bush apologists this means nothing... Ooops, they say, just a little lie.
02/01/2005 10:29:35 AM · #105
Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Hahah speaking of liars in the Whitehouse; Cheney's Pants on fire.

Isnít it a trip that often the most real news comes from Comedy Central.


That's pretty much how I remember my recent history... Bush & Co. say one thing, then they try to change history right before our eyes.

In the video posted above we see Cheney denying that he ever said that there existed an Iraqi/Al Queda connection... cut to video of Cheney on Meet the Press where we see Cheney saying, It's pretty much confirmed that there's a connection between Iraq and Al Queda.

Of course, to the Bush apologists this means nothing... Ooops, they say, just a little lie.

For the sake of argument, let's accept that Cheney lied about what he said. If so, then we must immediately state that YOU have just lied by saying
Originally posted by bdobe:

In the video posted above we see Cheney denying that he ever said that there existed an Iraqi/Al Queda connection

and
Originally posted by bdobe:

...where we see Cheney saying, It's pretty much confirmed that there's a connection between Iraq and Al Queda

Both lies.

First, his denial had nothing to do with any connection - it was a denial that he SAID what he was quoted as having said. He did not deny any connection in the conversation with the female reporter, only that he was being accurately quoted.
Secondly, the second video clip does NOT have Cheney saying it's pretty much confirmed that there's a connection. It only shows him saying that the REPORT has been pretty much confirmed and that the report details a meeting between a member of Al Queda and an Iraqi agent. To make it out that he implied a CONNECTION is a stretch. In fact, in the same interview quoted, Cheney's very next statement is

Originally posted by Cheney:

Now, what the purpose of that ( the meeting ) was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.


In other words, if your leftist video had continued for just 15 more seconds, we would have seen Cheney actually questioning that any connection existed - just that the potential was there, but had to be investigated before any conclusions could be reached.

To me, this is just one more example of how the left selectively cuts and pastes video clips to create their own propaganda films - copying the style of Michael Moore - their hero and propaganda tutor.
02/01/2005 12:06:17 PM · #106
ron,
you continue to amaze me.
If George Bush said that Dick Cheney was Santa Clause, you would probably believe it!

And you would probably try to prove to everyone else that it is true.

Like I said earlier,

good luck in life!

(edit: changed "would" to "probably would" since i can't "prove it")

hahaha

Message edited by author 2005-02-01 12:09:13.
02/01/2005 12:27:48 PM · #107
Originally posted by ericlimon:

ron,
you continue to amaze me.

good luck in life!


Just doing my job, Eric. Thanks for the positive feedback that I'm doing it with a modicum of success.

Good luck to you too.
02/01/2005 12:37:34 PM · #108
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

ron,
you continue to amaze me.

good luck in life!


Just doing my job, Eric. Thanks for the positive feedback that I'm doing it with a modicum of success.

Good luck to you too.


Well, I, for once, disagree with Eric, and think that RonB is actually doing a terrible job of dancing around the issues, and merely attempting to overwhelm with the volume of his posts. I actually find them tedious, poorly reasoned, dull, and often reading as if they were written by the Bush & Co. White House itself.

As Eric has said before, and I agree with him on this -- I think RonB is merely fooling himself with his often convoluted and hair-splitting arguments.
02/01/2005 12:48:27 PM · #109
It seems that all bdobe wants is acknowledgment of mistakes.

Did you demand the same of the Clinton administration when they killed the Branch Davidians in Waco? Or how about the family at Ruby Ridge?

He just lied about sex. I'm sure if you were Paula Jones father or husband you would feel differently about whether it was just about sex.

How about the fact that Clinton did not accept offers to have Bin Laden handed to him? So far only 1,435 have died (not to cheapen their sacrifice) for Bush's 'Mistake'. Over 3000 died for Clinton's.

Better to do something about WMD and be wrong then do nothing and be right.
02/01/2005 12:52:38 PM · #110
Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by ericlimon:

ron,
you continue to amaze me.

good luck in life!


Just doing my job, Eric. Thanks for the positive feedback that I'm doing it with a modicum of success.

Good luck to you too.


Well, I, for once, disagree with Eric, and think that RonB is actually doing a terrible job of dancing around the issues, and merely attempting to overwhelm with the volume of his posts. I actually find them tedious, poorly reasoned, dull, and often reading as if they were written by the Bush & Co. White House itself.

As Eric has said before, and I agree with him on this -- I think RonB is merely fooling himself with his often convoluted and hair-splitting arguments.


Perhaps, instead of constantly casting aspersions, false ( or at least unsubstantiated ) accusations, and innuendo, you might actually engender debate on an ISSUE rather than a person, or group of people ( e.g. "the administration" ). In fact, It would please me immensely if one of you could actually state something you had an opinion about without resorting to exaggerated, derogatory, personal attacks on Bush, Cheney, and/or the administration, under the guise of legitimate debate.
And while we're at it, how about, instead of offering up the 20-20 hindsight that you seem so fond of doing, you actually offer up some opinions about how to deal with today's reality - something other, that is, than mere platitudes like "pull our troops out of Iraq" or "reduce our dependence on foreign oil"; how about some viable steps that we can/should to take to actually accomplish it. You know, suggestions that we can actually debate the merits of?
02/01/2005 01:54:03 PM · #111
Originally posted by RonB:


And while we're at it, how about, instead of offering up the 20-20 hindsight that you seem so fond of doing, you actually offer up some opinions about how to deal with today's reality - something other, that is, than mere platitudes like "pull our troops out of Iraq" or "reduce our dependence on foreign oil"; how about some viable steps that we can/should to take to actually accomplish it. You know, suggestions that we can actually debate the merits of?


I have listed opinions on how to deal with parts of our current reality crisis in this thread and others, but for a very in depth analysis and solutions, I highly recomend The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight
02/01/2005 02:25:52 PM · #112
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by RonB:


And while we're at it, how about, instead of offering up the 20-20 hindsight that you seem so fond of doing, you actually offer up some opinions about how to deal with today's reality - something other, that is, than mere platitudes like "pull our troops out of Iraq" or "reduce our dependence on foreign oil"; how about some viable steps that we can/should to take to actually accomplish it. You know, suggestions that we can actually debate the merits of?


I have listed opinions on how to deal with parts of our current reality crisis in this thread and others, but for a very in depth analysis and solutions, I highly recomend The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight


Oh yeah. Your opinion on how to deal with parts of our current reality crises are the very type of platitudes I spoke of: namely ( emphasis mine )

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Fire those responsible for the massive failures

But first, you would have to obtain agreement on whether there were failures, and if there were, whether they were massive, and if they were, whether they rose to the level that warrant firing. As of now, I don't see that kind of agreement except by liberals.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Re-examine the US foreign policy that is causing these problems and head the international community opinion. We are all on this earth together.

I'm sure that the current administration constantly re-examines the US foreign policy. Again, you'd have to get some kind of agreement the our foreign policy is causing "problems" ( by the way, you never actually articulated what "problems" the US foreign policy is causing. If you did, we could debate whether we agree that they are, indeed, problems, and, if we did agree, whether US foreign policy was a causitive factor, and, if it was, whether we thought that a change to reduce the "problem" would somehow compromise US sovereignty or negatively impact our national security. Personally, I could care less about "heeding international opinion" if it means compromising our sovereignty or national security.
Oh, and the platitude that "We are all on this earth together" is very nice, but meaningless. That's like saying that the prison warden and his guards should pay attention to the prisoners' opinions because they're all in the prison together.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Stop reliance on unstable countries for most of our energy. Not only would it stop the US being a slave to unstable Middle East but those country's would stop having a steady flow of billions and would need to expand their economic footprint so that they would have a more diverse economy, giving the people of the country more of a chance to succeed. This would also break the tyrannical rule of those oilocracies that rule the Middle East with an iron fist.

So, like I said - What viable steps can/should we take? Just saying STOP is not a viable plan.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Stop letting economics rule and everything else come in second. Some things are just more important than if they are economically viable.

Same thing. Platitudes without Plans. What viable steps can/should we take to stop letting economics rule?

I'm happy to consider your opinions as such - opinions. But if you intend to have them considered as "suggestions", then I suggest that you offer solutions to "real" problems not solutions to "opinions".
02/01/2005 02:39:55 PM · #113
DRILL IN ANWR!!!! The U.S. has enough oil to become self-dependant if only the enviros would shut up and let us drill. I know, I know, oil spills, blah, blah, blah, solar, blah, blah, conserve energy, etc. How about you start by unplugging your PC?
02/01/2005 02:43:30 PM · #114
RonB,

Sure, we can play on that turf. But first we must agree on what it is that we're talking about, so let's start at the beginning: The manner in which Bush decided to use our military to invade Iraq. If we can't agree on this, am afraid that we'll not be able to move on to the second stage, "What do we do now that our forces are in Iraq?"

Over the course of last year -- and you know this RonB -- I (and many others) posted extensively in these forums on the overwhelming evidence prior to the invasion of Iraq that the threat of WMDs was hyped, and that the horrible memory of 9/11 was manipulated to make the case for war. Again, prior to the invasion, the UN inspectors (which included US members) told the world that Hussein had been contained, and that his arsenal had been nullified after the 1991 Gulf War. (Read the full account in Hans Blix book.) It is not with the benefit of hindsight that I can now say that it was wrong to invade Iraq; again, remember, that before Bush committed our forces, millions of people around the world -- myself included -- did find the administration's argument persuasive, nor conclusive enough to warrant the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, even Bush himself is quoted in "Bush at War" as not thinking that the WMD evidence presented to him was sufficient to go to the UN with; yet the administration pressed on, and sent their most credible member to make the case for them.

Furthermore, there is strong evidence that this administration sought the invasion of Iraq long before the attacks of 9/11, and long before the American people were lead to believe that WMDs presented an immediate threat to our country. For example, in this thread I wrote an extensive post on the connection between the Project for the New American Century, which sought the invasion of Iraq as early as 1998, and the current Bush administration (just look at the list of signatories to its Statement of Principles, and look at the thread mentioned earlier for further connections between this organization and the Bush administration. Note that I'll paste the post mentioned above in this thread shortly for convenience sake).

It's not merely with the benefit of hindsight that I can now criticize this administration's war of choice; instead, its with the benefit of information acquired prior to the invasion of Iraq, and with a wider understanding of the players involved in this administration, that I can now resolutely say, This administration mislead us into war by hyping the threat of WMDs and by manipulating the memory of 9/11. Moreover, my conscious is calm and still, firm in the knowledge that I've not compromised my moral values and integrity by attempting to rationalize Bush's invasion of Iraq.

If we can't agree on the circumstances that lead us into the situation that we now find ourselves in, then we cannot continue to discuss the steps that can be implemented now that we're there.
02/01/2005 03:04:39 PM · #115
So when Clinton bombed Iraq during his administration was that OK? He did bomb Iraq, look it up. Congress - not the administration - OK'd going to war. Not because of Bush - but because of the intelligence from agencies all over the world not just ours. And from intelligence from defecting Iragis. Now I trust an Iraqi that worked on the specific systems more than I trust any one selling a book who was not there.

//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Its Fox New so you probably won't believe it.

The U.S. does not need to apologize for anything. All Saddam had to do was abide by treaty he signed in the Gulf War. He kicked the inspectors out. He turned monitoring cameras towards walls. He staged car accidents to delay inspectors from reaching facilities.

So if we are going to get to the root cause, lets start at the root. It was Saddam who brought this on the Iraqi people.

The U.N. should be apologizing to ever single Iraqi for the Oil-for-Food scandal. How many Iraqi's died on Kofi's watch while his son lined his pockets?
02/01/2005 03:05:10 PM · #116
Here's the post from another thread that I mention above:

---------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Riggs:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by Riggs:

But when you go off and say they want war because of some plot to take over the world, and make themselves rich....well thats just silly.


PNAC vid The site //www.newamericancentury.org

Its less silly than you think.


What does that have to do with current leadership?


-------------------------------------------------

I'm always amazed to learn that some people are still not aware of the players inside the Bush administration. Now, I'll try to address only part of this conversation, and rephrase Riggs' question thus, What does The Project for the New American Century have to do with the Bush administration? I presume that this is what Riggs wants answered.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is composed of a group of men (I frankly don't know whether there are any women in it) that had long advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein for various reasons, including oil, the necessity to project American power in the Middle East, the need to protect an ally (Israel), and to prevent Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction. On January of 1998 the group sent a letter to president Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein:

"In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor." [letter]

Moreover, the same group sent another letter to the then majority leader in the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, urging that Congress exert pressure on the White House to persue the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Please note that this is five years before Mr. Bush warned us of the "grave and gathering danger in Iraq" if we did not do something soon. Now, if you scroll down, you'll see the list of signatories on the letter addressed to president Clinton. If you've followed the events and players surrounding the Bush White House over the past couple of years, there ought to be a couple of names that immediately jump out at you, for example: Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz -- just to name some of major players.

Furthermore, if you were to do a search on the signatories to the letter, you'd find that many of them ended up working in the Bush administration, in various governmental positions*:

Elliott Abrams
//uscirf.gov/cirfPages/bio_Abrams.php3?scale=1152s
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Elliott_Abrams

Richard L. Armitage
//www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2991.htm
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_L._Armitage

William J. Bennett
//www.mediatransparency.org/people/wbennett.htm

Jeffrey Bergner
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Jeffrey_Bergner&redirect=no

John Bolton
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010221-6.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_Bolton

Paula Dobriansky
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010312-9.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Paula_Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama
//www.bioethics.gov/about/fukuyama.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Francis_Fukuyama

Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010523-7.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad

William Kristol
//www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

Richard Perle
//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/04/text/20010406-7.html
//www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Perle

Peter W. Rodman
//www.dod.mil/policy/isa/bios/peter_w_rodman.html

Donald Rumsfeld
//www.defenselink.mil/bios/secdef_bio.html

William Schneider, Jr.

Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz
//www.defenselink.mil/bios/depsecdef_bio.html

R. James Woolsey

Robert B. Zoellick
//us-mission.ch/BIOS/Zoellick.htm

(*Note that for those individuals without links I could not find any relevant information.)

Moreover, some -- here and elsewhere -- contend (me among them) that the Bush administration exploited 9/11 and exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed in order to pursue an elective war against Iraq. Many point to the Bush administration's appointment of many of the above individuals to key posts, as a sign that there existed in the administration a predisposition to see Iraq as an enemy -- even when it did not pose a threat to the US. Futhermore, many point to a document published by PNAC, which hints at a "larger plan" involving Iraq, the Middle East and the US military. That document includes this graft:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event Ė like a new Pearl Harbor." [Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, p. 51. PDF]

The above statement is offered in the context of "transforming" the US military into a more "mobile" and "nimble" fighting force; however, when placed in the context on 9/11 and its Pearl Harbor like psychological affect on the nation, one can understand how the authors of the document -- that is, the members of PNAC -- saw 9/11 as the opportunity to enact their plans for the Middle East, Iraq and the US military. For example, one of PNAC's goals was to transform the military, and to do so they needed to illustrate how a more "mobile" and "nimble" force could be effectively used in combat. Now, if you recall, before going into Iraq the administration (namely, Rumsfeld) argued that we would need less troops than what the Pentagon was asking for. Now, the Pentagon lost that argument, so we went into Iraq with a lot less troops than was required to secure the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Of course, we're now paying for this blunder. However, Mr. Rumsfeld, as a member of and signatory to the PNAC letter, for ideological reasons, chose to go into Iraq with less troops than what the Pentagon had originally requested.

Finally, the signatories to PNAC's Statement of Principles include the following: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others.

To say that the Bush administration did not have plans for Iraq long before 9/11 is simply not borne out by the record. Now, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event Ė like a new Pearl Harbor" who knows when the Bush administration would've invaded Iraq; however, it's clear that 9/11 presented the Bush administration the perfect rationale to go into Iraq and then enact the plans laid out by PNAC to remove Hussein, transform the military and project US power in the Middle East.
02/01/2005 03:07:53 PM · #117
Originally posted by bdobe:

RonB,

Sure, we can play on that turf. But first we must agree on what it is that we're talking about, so let's start at the beginning: The manner in which Bush decided to use our military to invade Iraq. If we can't agree on this, am afraid that we'll not be able to move on to the second stage, "What do we do now that our forces are in Iraq?"

Over the course of last year -- and you know this RonB -- I (and many others) posted extensively in these forums on the overwhelming evidence prior to the invasion of Iraq that the threat of WMDs was hyped, and that the horrible memory of 9/11 was manipulated to make the case for war. Again, prior to the invasion, the UN inspectors (which included US members) told the world that Hussein had been contained, and that his arsenal had been nullified after the 1991 Gulf War. (Read the full account in Hans Blix book.) It is not with the benefit of hindsight that I can now say that it was wrong to invade Iraq; again, remember, that before Bush committed our forces, millions of people around the world -- myself included -- did find the administration's argument persuasive, nor conclusive enough to warrant the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, even Bush himself is quoted in "Bush at War" as not thinking that the WMD evidence presented to him was sufficient to go to the UN with; yet the administration pressed on, and sent their most credible member to make the case for them.

Furthermore, there is strong evidence that this administration sought the invasion of Iraq long before the attacks of 9/11, and long before the American people were lead to believe that WMDs presented an immediate threat to our country. For example, in this thread I wrote an extensive post on the connection between the Project for the New American Century, which sought the invasion of Iraq as early as 1998, and the current Bush administration (just look at the list of signatories to its Statement of Principles, and look at the thread mentioned earlier for further connections between this organization and the Bush administration. Note that I'll paste the post mentioned above in this thread shortly for convenience sake).

It's not merely with the benefit of hindsight that I can now criticize this administration's war of choice; instead, its with the benefit of information acquired prior to the invasion of Iraq, and with a wider understanding of the players involved in this administration, that I can now resolutely say, This administration mislead us into war by hyping the threat of WMDs and by manipulating the memory of 9/11. Moreover, my conscious is calm and still, firm in the knowledge that I've not compromised my moral values and integrity by attempting to rationalize Bush's invasion of Iraq.

If we can't agree on the circumstances that lead us into the situation that we now find ourselves in, then we cannot continue to discuss the steps that can be implemented now that we're there.


First, to your very last point - you are quite right - but only on YOUR part. Tiger Woods NEVER spends one moment trying to figure out what mistake he made that lead to his ball being where it is, before he decides on his next shot. There is time after the 18th hole to review all of his shots and see whether he needs to work on a particular part of his game - but never during the game itself.
Just WHY is it so important to you dwell on the circumstances of how we got into the "situation" we now find ourselves in?

But, for the sake of debate, let me concede that the US entered the war in Iraq for reasons that were, in hindsight, shown to be less than sufficient. However, I won't concede as fact the accusations that you make concerning Bush's motives or his thinking. No one knows that except him - coming from ANYONE else, it is mere conjecture. You can point to any number of websites, but no matter how many of them postulate his motives, they are all just opinion, unless they quote Bush directly, and from the most relevant period to the issue at hand.

That being said - other than delegating blame, what are the issues you wish to discuss? Or do believe that the ONLY issue is the Bush administration itself? Because it seems that that is the only thing you seem to want to discuss.

02/01/2005 03:11:31 PM · #118
I find the "Support Our Troops" tag of yours sad. You cannot support our troops and not support their mission. The two are inseperable.

The 'support' you've given in this thread is about as supportive as Kennedy's remarks this weekend.
02/01/2005 03:53:29 PM · #119
Originally posted by RonB:

But, for the sake of debate, let me concede that the US entered the war in Iraq for reasons that were, in hindsight, shown to be less than sufficient. However, I won't concede as fact the accusations that you make concerning Bush's motives or his thinking.


Now that you've conceded that it was wrong to go into Iraq, and that the circumstances were "less than sufficient," how can you defend a prolonged presence in that country and the wisdom of this administration? Furthermore, let me say it again, it's not merely with the benefit of hindsight that one can reasonably conclude that it was wrong to invade Iraq. I'm no pacifist, and -- at the time -- I found the evidence that Bush presented as lacking, and his determination to invade as myopic. And it wasn't just lonely me that thought so, millions of people, including religious leaders and others, around the world were not convinced by Bush; so the question that must be asked by those in your camp is, Why was it that you found such flimsy evidence convincing enough to warrant the cost in lives, money, etc.? As for conceding the other point, Bush's motives, I don't care whether you concede something or not, it's sufficient for me -- after a strong familiarity with the players involved -- to understand that, indeed, there were "other motives" behind the invasion of Iraq. There is plenty of evidence for anybody to be convinced, or at least to reasonably contemplate it, as long as one is willing to look into the information. And I don't get my info from Joe's Blog, I get my information from the horses mouth, as it were: American Enterprise Institute, CATO, Project for the New American Century, etc.

So, what do we do now...

After Bush and his apologist got us into an unjust war, we have tremendous responsibilities and, unfortunately, cannot simply walk out... so, yes, now that we have the bull by the tail we can't simply let go. But I believe that Bush and those in his camp owe us a clear strategy delineating where we go from here. Bush has called for a "generational commitment" to Iraq... does that mean that our troops will remain in Iraq for decades? We know that there are multiple permanent bases being built in Iraq, so I guess it does mean that we'll be there for a long while. Well, if that's the case, it'll come at a tremendous strategic cost; because here's what we know, in spite of the black and white picture that's presented to us about terrorism, the presence of permanent US forces in the region is a grievance often cited by the fundamentalist in that part of the world. This does not mean that the US removes its influence completely, it merely means that we should seek to exercise it by other means -- what is sometimes called soft-diplomacy. Again, it wasn't about WMDs, because if it were about WMDs Bush & Co. would implement their policy consistently; yet we know that North Korea has been largely permitted to continue its program, and Pakistan has not been sanction (in spite of their proliferation of nuclear weapons).

At the same time, we need to rid ourselves of our dependence from oil -- something that is eminently possible. Auto manufacturers are starting to get on board (just look at the rise of hybrid vehicles), just imagine if Bush & Co. actually called for a national program to fastrack such efforts. We can do it, but this administration is not interested in such solutions.

RonB, you would have me, and those in my camp, be put in the position of solving the mess that Bush & Co. created; well, the fact is that it is up to those in your camp that should hold this administration accountable by demanding a clear plan, rather than mere platitudes. It is the responsibility of those in your camp to seek a remedy for, as you put it, a war that's been waged on "less than sufficient" grounds.

02/01/2005 03:58:23 PM · #120
Well said bdobe and quite right.

And

Originally posted by bbower1956:

I find the "Support Our Troops" tag of yours sad. You cannot support our troops and not support their mission. The two are inseperable


That is absolutely untrue and illogical.
If a leader sent his troops into a suicide mission; youíre saying you would support that mission and by so youíre supporting the troops? Supporting their deaths? No.
02/01/2005 04:29:39 PM · #121
You simply don't support the troops. It is empty rhetoric. You do not want them there or anywhere. You will say its because you want them alive. Well a majority of Americans believe in their mission and would much rather have them fighting the terrorists there than here. We do not look at terrorism as our fault and we do not blame America first.

The left hates the military and all it stands for. How do you "Support the Troops"? By subscribing to crappy websites that demean what they are doing? By commenting in threads about how their leader sucks? Show someone in the sevice this website and explain to then how it 'supports' them.

I hope the left continues on this "Bush lied, people died" path. Its what lost them the election and its what will lose them the elections in 2006 and hopefully 2008. I talked to many dems who voted for W simply because of terrorism and the fact that the left just does not get it.

If your guy had won, either Iraqis would not have voted (because Kerry would have postponed the election) or you'd be hailing him on how he did such a great job in such a short time.
02/01/2005 04:44:50 PM · #122
Originally posted by bbower1956:

You simply don't support the troops. It is empty rhetoric. You do not want them there or anywhere. You will say its because you want them alive. Well a majority of Americans believe in their mission and would much rather have them fighting the terrorists there than here. We do not look at terrorism as our fault and we do not blame America first.

The left hates the military and all it stands for. How do you "Support the Troops"? By subscribing to crappy websites that demean what they are doing? By commenting in threads about how their leader sucks? Show someone in the service this website and explain to then how it 'supports' them.

I hope the left continues on this "Bush lied, people died" path. Its what lost them the election and its what will lose them the elections in 2006 and hopefully 2008. I talked to many dems who voted for W simply because of terrorism and the fact that the left just does not get it.

If your guy had won, either Iraqis would not have voted (because Kerry would have postponed the election) or you'd be hailing him on how he did such a great job in such a short time.


It's sad to read how much you despise those that served our country, and the ideals that our great nation stands for: democracy, respect for minority opinion, our right to speak truth to power and our right to hold our government accountable. Please read our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you might find them illustrative.

For your information, Operation Truth was founded and is operated by Iraq War Veterans, and their aim is to provide a support network to returning veterans, and to help them navigate through the bureaucracy to obtain medical aid if they need it.

As a former Marine, I know what it was that I pledged to protect and respect: our Constitution and the ideals enshrined therein.

Again, am disappointed to read that you hold our troops, those that served and that support them is such contempt.
02/01/2005 05:46:10 PM · #123
Originally posted by bdobe:

..our great nation stands for: democracy, respect for minority opinion, our right to speak truth to power and our right to hold our government accountable. Please read our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you might find them illustrative.


Copies of those documents and others from our countries founding can be found here: US History
02/01/2005 06:08:37 PM · #124
Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:

But, for the sake of debate, let me concede that the US entered the war in Iraq for reasons that were, in hindsight, shown to be less than sufficient. However, I won't concede as fact the accusations that you make concerning Bush's motives or his thinking.


Now that you've conceded that it was wrong to go into Iraq


STOP RIGHT THERE. That kind of twisting others words is exactly what I've been complaining about all along. I did NOT concede that it was wrong to go into Iraq - NOWHERE in my statements did I concede that. What I conceded was that the reasons, in HINDSIGHT, were less than sufficient. However, based on the best intelligence that we had, AT THE TIME, I believe that it WAS the right thing to do - AT THE TIME. It is only in RETROSPECT that we can see that the rationale was based on erroneous intelligence. For that, unlike you, I do not blame Bush, Cheney, et.al. I blame the CIA, the NSA, and the intelligence gathering organizations of our allies.

Originally posted by bdobe:

...how can you defend a prolonged presence in that country

Very easily. The same way that I defended the prolonged military presence in Bosnia ( 9 years ) - to wit: if we withdraw our military immediately, the Sadaam loyalists, ( Baath loyalists, anti democracy factions, you pick ) will reclaim power by force and terror and subject the citizens to treatment as bad as, if not worse, than that which they experienced under Saddam.

Originally posted by bdobe:

so the question that must be asked by those in your camp is, Why was it that you found such flimsy evidence convincing enough to warrant the cost in lives, money, etc.?

My answer is: For the same reasons that a majority of the Senate ( 77 of 100 ) and the House of Representatives ( 296 of 429 ) voted to authorize the President to use military force against Iraq to enforce the UN Sanctions.
I can't speak for YOU, but I certainly was not privy to the same level of information that members of Congress were privy to. I honestly believed that if THEY were convinced, that I should give credence to the intelligence they based their decision on.

Originally posted by bdobe:

...we have tremendous responsibilities and, unfortunately, cannot simply walk out... so, yes, now that we have the bull by the tail we can't simply let go.

Glad to see you actually acknowledge that.

Originally posted by bdobe:

But I believe that Bush and those in his camp owe us a clear strategy delineating where we go from here. Bush has called for a "generational commitment" to Iraq... does that mean that our troops will remain in Iraq for decades?

Well, I guess that depends on how well the National Assembly that was just elected does its job, and how long it takes to finalize and ratify a Constitution, and how long it takes after that to install a stable government. If we had troops in Bosnia for over nine years, why do you want to RUSH out of Iraq? Or do you think that we should have pulled out of Bosnia faster, too?

Originally posted by bdobe:

We know that there are multiple permanent bases being built in Iraq, so I guess it does mean that we'll be there for a long while.

Maybe YOU do, but I don't. I figure that the bases could be used by the Iraqi's after we leave. Some might be converted to civilian use ( regional airports, for instance ). But why should I worry about it?

Originally posted by bdobe:

Well, if that's the case, it'll come at a tremendous strategic cost; because here's what we know, in spite of the black and white picture that's presented to us about terrorism, the presence of permanent US forces in the region is a grievance often cited by the fundamentalist in that part of the world.

I don't think that that is reason enough to completely abandon the Iraqi's one day earlier than that upon which they can effectively govern themselves and maintain order using their own resources. A staged withdrawel as they assume more and more responsibility, yes. But a presence until they have assumed complete autonomy. Of course, if the freely elected GOVERNMENT of Iraq requests that we leave, then we should certainly accommodate their request to the best of our ability ( to the extent that our own national security is not compromised )

Originally posted by bdobe:

This does not mean that the US removes its influence completely, it merely means that we should seek to exercise it by other means -- what is sometimes called soft-diplomacy.

There are many policies and methods that can and should be employed.

Originally posted by bdobe:

Again, it wasn't about WMDs, because if it were about WMDs Bush & Co. would implement their policy consistently; yet we know that North Korea has been largely permitted to continue its program, and Pakistan has not been sanction (in spite of their proliferation of nuclear weapons).


Would you have us invade North Korea while still engaged in Iraq, JUST to show CONSISTENCY. Wouldn't you rather we wait ( UNLESS there is an IMMINENT THREAT ) until we have sufficient military resources to divert to another engagement. Obviously, if there WERE an imminant threat, we would take whatever action was necessary ( although that might mean a return to conscription - but hey, conscription is better than watching L.A. disappear under a mushroom cloud, don't you think? ).

Originally posted by bdobe:

At the same time, we need to rid ourselves of our dependence from oil -- something that is eminently possible. Auto manufacturers are starting to get on board (just look at the rise of hybrid vehicles), just imagine if Bush & Co. actually called for a national program to fastrack such efforts. We can do it, but this administration is not interested in such solutions.

How can you say that Bush is not interested? In his State of the Union Speech LAST YEAR, Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to develope the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells.

Originally posted by bdobe:

RonB, you would have me, and those in my camp, be put in the position of solving the mess that Bush & Co. created; well, the fact is that it is up to those in your camp that should hold this administration accountable by demanding a clear plan, rather than mere platitudes. It is the responsibility of those in your camp to seek a remedy for, as you put it, a war that's been waged on "less than sufficient" grounds.

Once again, I say, the war was waged on grounds that WERE sufficient, AT THE TIME. Saddam knew how to EASILY stay our hand, yet refused. WHY?

Its revealing to see that you never did have any real solutions to offer. Well, those in my camp ARE seeking the remedy for the problems that exist - both at home and abroad. So just sit back, do nothing, and complain about the ride. I can take it - after all, I've reared three teenagers who were just like that - until they became more mature.

Message edited by author 2005-02-01 18:12:39.
02/01/2005 06:24:04 PM · #125
Originally posted by RonB:

STOP RIGHT THERE. That kind of twisting others words is exactly what I've been complaining about all along.


That's funny ron, you twist other peoples words yourself. Maybe you should watch what you "complain" about?

Here's an example of RonB twisting other peoples words:

Originally posted by RonB:
From Ericlimon's profile:
"I'm a total...dork.
I've...been taken...so I...post...photos."


Now, does everyone see the "flip-flop"? I'm curious, how do you expect anyone to take what you post seriously?

Here's what my profile actually says: (bold are the words RonB twisted)
"I'm a photographer. I have 3 children, I'm happily married, and I'm a total photo/camera dork. I worked in a photo lab for 4+ years, and for a newspaper for 3+ years. Now I shoot weddings to feed the family and pay the bills. Wedding photography is not my true passion, but hey, gotta work right? I've just joined and most of my photos in the past have been taken with transparency/neg film so It might be awhile till I post more portfolio photos.

I thought after showing you an example ron, you might get the drift? Here's my example:
Originally posted by RonB:
Sorry, he LIED; he DID lie, it can be PROVEN, Bush really did think that he said he wasn't worried about OBL. I can believe that he did lie because I, too, have. I represent the majority in that respect.
- from rons post (this is a twisting of RonBs words, he said these things, just not in this exact order)

Now, maybe you shouldn't complain about other people twisting words around when you seem to think it's OK for you to do it? Or, maybe you just think what's good for the right is not good for the left?

Message edited by author 2005-02-01 18:27:15.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 09/22/2021 11:05:30 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/22/2021 11:05:30 PM EDT.