quote:

---

As much as I hate to, because I promised myself I won't, here is a breakdown of [easily understandable, logical topic] so even people not ensconced in this discussion can follow it.

[comprehensive, well-researched, erudite, articulate breakdown of the topic]

I can't explain it any simpler.

---

I don't see how you being a fanboy of boorite is relevant to talking about the potential threats Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.

No matter how much of an illusion of a "comprehensive, well-researched, erudite, articulate breakdown of the topic" you provide, one can still only say you didn't THINK Saddam could harm the U.S. Just like I can only say I THINK Saddam COULD have harmed the U.S.

This is pretty simple, and it was boortie's non stop "comprehensive, well-researched, erudite, articulate breakdown of the topic" which confused the issue for pages and pages on end.

The only point of contention is the WMD issue, which isn't even a point because I said it was a mistake for Bush to make that a big part of his justification.

But even then, it's not his job to gather intelligence, just to make policy on it. And the intelligence is the same intelligence Clinton got. If you cry "Bush conspiracy to get fake WMD intelligence" did it begin BEFORE he was president? And was Tenet, a CLINTON APPOINTEE in on the scam?

Your reference to boorite being so fantastic that you can hardly take a break from jamming his dick in your mouth only tells me you'd prefer not to directly confront any of these points. And with good reason, I don't blame you.

[Insert boorite's fragmented, hypothetical and unrelated, wandering, distracting rambling with the point of driving everything off topic here]

[Insert Spankling saying "me too!"]

[Insert MikeyG either trying to be funny, or licking boorite's face]

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I think MaKK might be a bit angry. And jealous. Definitely jealous.

Maybe we should take it easy on the ol' right-wing 'think tank'. It looks like the pressure of being the sole voice of ignorance is breaking him.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

quote:

---

I don't see how you being a fanboy of boorite is relevant to talking about the potential threats Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.

No matter how much of an illusion of a "comprehensive, well-researched, erudite, articulate breakdown of the topic" you provide, one can still only say you didn't THINK Saddam could harm the U.S. Just like I can only say I THINK Saddam COULD have harmed the U.S.

---

BOILER:

I can tell, the damn thing just doesn't understand.

---
What others say about boorite!

That anecdote might also apply to Saddam being a bomb which we would want to prevent from exploding.

You illustrated my point that you don't tackle my points head on, you skirt them with anecdotes and unrelated information. Thank you.

"Ha ha, the notion of us having any cause to move in to take out Saddam is completely fake, there is nothing to justify it, but we cannot be told otherwise!" Yeah I'm sure that's how everyone was thinking.

Sorry, it's not that simple. 9-11 DID change the international landscape. There WAS enough political will for us take take out Saddam without provocation. There IS enough argument for even the most politically stubborn opponents to at least recognize that Saddam COULD have been a threat. He WAS a threat to the international community in the past. He DID try to make WMDs during the Persian Gulf War.

Invading Iraq isn't akin to detonating a bomb that kills us all. It IS akin to seeing Saddam and a tulmultuous Iraq as a bomb we are defusing.

Running away to a "Dr. Strangelove"-esque fantasy argument is fun and easy, no one can argue with you in your imagination land.

Meanwhile, in non-fiction world, we actually are at war, we actually are making a stand against terrorism, we're doing it despite detractors at home and enemies abroad, and the best I can tell we've had very moral and ethical rules of engagement since the start of the war.

Go rent Dr. Strangelove and escape into your fantasy land were all your opponents are maniacs in wheelchairs wanting to destroy the earth. There's no conflict there, no complex issues, no need to think about multiple points of view, and definitely no need to confront the concept of the inherent xenophobia of mankind. "Hee hee, everyone who disagrees with me is like that nutty Dr. Strangelove!" "You're just like the talking elephant in that political cartoon!" "You resemble an impossible-to-deal-with imaginary bomb! No wonder you can't be reasoned with!"

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Iraqis polled: War did more harm than good but worth it

Wow who wrote these poll questions, Kerry? How can the war be both "worth it" and "more damaging than good". To be "worth it" wouldn't it, in the long run, have to be more for the good than for the bad?

I think saying it's worth it acknowledges the costs are less than the benefits, and CNN just presents the meat of the story with a detracting qualifier.

"Iraqis think the war was worth it (but say the war itself caused more damage so far than direct benefit)".

To that editorial rider I'd have to add a "well DUH, no kidding more damage has been done then damage un-done so far, wars don't make infrastructure sprout from the ground."

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I want to jam makk's dick in my mouth.

I'd ask for a hit of what Makk is smoking but it appears to cause permanent brain damage.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

I feel like I am on drugs when I even have to explain how on earth Saddam Hussein could pose a threat to the United States, or could be perceived as being able to threaten the United States. When someone claiming to be "reasonable and well read" asks why we couldn't just bomb Britain under the same pretense.

Or that it's needed to point our the war in Iraq is different than the war in Vietnam, because, oh I don't know, something called the draft, which took people involuntarily into the armed services, versus present day, when our military is voluntary. This means in signing up the people know if we go to war they have to go fight, regardless of the political intricacies involved.

And the whole Congress stamp of approval on the war.

And the fact that we are following rules of engagement which are to the best of our abilities fair and reasonable given the circumstances.

"Each death is an impeachment against Bush"?

"We now know Saddam posed no threat to the United States"?

"We have to stay, but we were wrong to go in"?

Explain to me the intricacies THERE if you please, I'd really like some elaboration on that last thought.

Don't complain to me about political hyperbole when you dole out garbage like that.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Fine, I'll take the easy one.

"We have to stay, but we were wrong to go in."

Iraq was stable, if not the greatest place to live, before we attacked. Certainly, it was "wrong to go in" when there was no threat to us. The evidence shows that Saddam was not planning to attack us, did not have weapons to attack us, nor was he supplying support to terrorist organizations.

Was he a bad, evil, awful man? Certainly. So is Kim Jong-il. What was it he said? "If the United States evades its responsibility and challenges us, we'll turn the citadel of imperialists into a sea of fire." And he has a nuclear weapons program underway. He's provided nuclear technology to anyone willing to pay. Funny, instead of attacking, we've gone to the negotiating table with this guy. But then again, North Korea isn't sitting on a shitload of oil. Funny that.

Last I heard, we didn't have a policy of attacking other countries just because their leaders are opressive. Maybe we should. But interms of our national security, there was no urgency, and we would have done well to work with the U.N. to continue inspections and ultimately enforce the resolutions. But I submit to you that that we did more harm to ourselves than good by attacking unilaterally. We've pissed away any post-9/11 good will anyone felt for us,made ourselves more of a target, and taken the eye off the Al Qaeda ball.

So yes, we were wrong to go in, because it does nothing to make us safer and does nothing to stop terrorism. I'd like to have seen how much progress we would have mad at this point shutting down terrorist organizations if we'd put $100+ billion into it.

"We have to stay" because now that we have removed the stable, if evil, government, without security forces in place it is a civil war waiting to happen. That could easily expand into a regional war that will do nothing for our safety and security (not to mention our oil supply). So yes, we made our bed and now we have to lie in it. We're stuck there, in some form or another, until Iraq is stable enough to stand on it's own.

"We have to stay, but we were wrong to go in."

Makes perfect sense to me.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

From the American Conservative.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

I wouldn't say Iraq had a stable government. For a country with such a wealth of natural resources, they were remarkably poor and ravaged.

As a matter of fact, there are several articles in this thread alone that give an idea of just how UNSAFE we are now that we've effectively dispersed terrorists from Iraq. WERE there terrorists in Iraq? I'm sure there were. I'm sure they had little to do with Saddam Hussein, but they were there. As there are terrorists in the United States right now.

All ivading Iraq did to combat terrorism was to galvanize their resolve and give psychotic, repressed Muslim fanatics another reason to hate the shit out of the good old U.S.A. That's one thing you simply can't argue, MaKK. How is going into Iraq NOT giving terrorists more of a reason to want the U.S. in flames?

I wouldn't even like to speculate. So many great social, medical, and educational programs in this country are without useful surplus because of the billions spent on this war.

I'd like to see how sending a lone assassin to take out Saddam Hussein works versus what we've already done.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

This is what happens in war.

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040428%2F1905468802.htm&sc=1110&photoid=20040328BAG117&floc=NW_1-T

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

This is in response to fuzzyman.

Again, I don't know how you can say there was no threat to leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Is this Monday morning quarterbacking? Did you have information before the war no one else did? Did we miss a good faith gesture from Saddam Hussein that I wasn't aware of before the war?

Can you show mt the "evidence" that he was definitely not planning to attack us? Or the "evidence" that he was not supplying support to terrorist organizations?

I think in fact he was supporting terror organizations. In addition his regime itself was a terror organization.

Even if the "evidence" is there (which it's not) we would only have it after an invasion anyway.

It's true that now, after Saddam is uninstalled, yes he is no longer a threat. Is that what you mean?

You might say it's silly to say we could only prove he's not a threat after invasion. I say it's pretty damn silly that a leader of a nation is allowed to be openly hostile to the world UNTIL he manifests that hostility as a threat.

He also has enough conventional ordinance on the border of South Korea to turn the country into a burnt crisp, along with maybe parts of Japan, at the drop of a hat. Funny THAT.

And we have troops on his border. Funny THAT.

And we already FOUGHT a war against North Korea, where there is no oil. Funny THAT.

Your article says North Korea is in "our blind spot". Negotiations with Asian leaders are usually in private because of matters of "face". Stepping up rhetoric against North Korea wouldn't be helpful, and we're already in a standoff. What else do you want?

If anything North Korea shows nipping a situation like that in the bud is important, before they can take neighboring countries hostage.

So you sit around and wait for "urgency"? How is "urgency" defined? Would Saddam notify us when he is becoming an "urgent" threat?

How have we "taken our eyes of the Al-Qaeda ball". Can you back that up with anything except for their maybe not being as many news stories about it?

The most we can do is pressure countries to police themselves against terror organizations. When they don't want to comply, because, well, they want to see the U.S. destroyed, like the Taliban, and like the Saddam regime, military options become very relevant.

I do not agree with your statement that it does not make us safer. What are you basing that on?

Our "eyes are off the prize" now? You just feel it in your gut that we are worse off?

And put the money into what? An advertising campaign asking all the terrorists to come out of the foreign countries they are in so we can arrest them?

But wait. How will it hurt our safety and security if we pull out? I thought Iraq couldn't attack us, and didn't have weapons. How could they now hurt us where they couldn't before? This is the point I would like you to clarify please.

And you mention oil supplies. Didn't Saddam threaten much of the world's oil supplies? I seem to remember him setting whole oil field on fire. And the whole invasion of Kuwait thing.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I thought the argument was that there were no terrorist in Iraq.

So we can't attack the terrorists, because they might disperse. Ok, I see.

In any event I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about. Most everything I have read indicates terrorists and foreign nationals are coming TO Iraq to target troops.

Even if we dispersed some organizations, eliminating a hiding place is a benefit, not a disadvantage to us.

You think he would care about policing them if they were plotting against our interests?

Terrorists didn't want us in flames before?

I just posted an article in which Iraqis polled say they will be better off after this is over. Better conditions will lead to hatred for the U.S.? Optimism the evidence of hatred for the U.S.?

Suddenly after we caught Saddam, the leader of Lybia turned over his WMD program.

How is taking out Saddam Hussein (a secular leader whom Al Qaeda did not fancy, on top of being a brutal dictator) to free Iraq, staying despite insurgents attacking us, with the only mission being to secure Iraq so that a peaceful government can form, and engaging in rules of combat so strict we cannot fire upon Mosques even if it means our troops are compromised, how is all of THAT supposed to inflame Muslim hatred?

The idea of turning Iraq, which is somewhat secularized, into a citadel of Western ideas, could absolutely transform the Middle East. Showing that we are staying in Iraq as a sign of good faith and duty to our responsibility is important, and frankly I think people who knee-jerk hate the U.S. are a good deal racist, or have a similar mindset (I hate the U.S. because I hate the U.S.) I don't know how you can expect us to adjust our courses of action around an impossible mindset like that.

The people who hate us will hate us if we left now, they'd hate us if we stay. We have a chance of changing their minds if we stay, and if we don't, frankly, they'll have to deal with us.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

International acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report released Thursday.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Whiny Bush apologist.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Do you even know what "apologist" means? I don't think we've done anything wrong in Iraq, so there is nothing for me to consider apologizing for. I'm not upset that Bush is in power, so I'm not whining.

Nice to know your frame of mind, though.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Actually, it was pretty obvious to me at the time. The impetus to attack Iraq seeminlgy came out of nowhere in the summer of 2002. What was the urgency? Saddam had been contained for 12 years. The lack of evidence to justify an attack was downright creepy. If they'd said, "Saddam is supporting terrorists and HERE are the documents to prove it and HERE are the pictures of the Al Qaeda training camps, I'd have been much less skeptical. But the LACK of evidence turned out like a sore thumb. The lack of WMDs merely confirms what was obvious to me at the time.

But you know somthing? It was the summer of 2002, the economy was in the tank, and midterm elections were coming up. There's the ugency. It turned the congressional elections into a referrendum on whether candidates supported the war.

By that logic, Iran might aw well launch a pre-emptive strike against us. Because we might attack them someday, you know, so they might as well get their shots in while they can.

quote:

---

So you sit around and wait for "urgency"? How is "urgency" defined? Would Saddam notify us when he is becoming an "urgent" threat?

---

What about after September 11 a realization that America was avery vulnerable to a coordinated terror attack? There's the urgency.

The reason Iran is on the "bad" list of nations is that they sponsor terrorism. Their "preemptive strike" would be a terror attack on non-combatants, if I get your gist correctly. If we had a pre-emptive strike against them (which I doubt would happen under current circumstances) we would anttempt to only target combatants.

That moral distinction means something to me, I don't know about you though.

If there is evidence at it's urgent, then there you go.

So urgency is defined by something being urgent. Thanks a lot. Lay of the gin for about an hour and try again later.

So we haven't secured our ports, re-funded our intelligences agencies, we haven't offered rewards for Al-Qaeda members, and we haven't tracked down any terror cells? And no money has gone to any of this.

No. We aren't even allowed to make incursions into Paksitan as far as I know. Things might have changed a little, but we're still relying on Pakistan to police that region.

More troops won't melt the snow on the mountains either.

Because in the midst of an Iraqi civil war, it would become a new safe haven for terrorists, just like Afghanistan.

But how on earth could they hurt us since we "proved" Saddam's Iraq wasn't a threat? Whatever could this new terror haven do?

My point is a "terror haven" and Saddam's Iraq both would have the same mindset against the U.S. Now why is one a threat to us, but the other not be a threat?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

The reason Iran is on the "bad" list of nations is that they sponsor terrorism. Their "preemptive strike" would be a terror attack on non-combatants, if I get your gist correctly. If we had a pre-emptive strike against them (which I doubt would happen under current circumstances) we would anttempt to only target combatants.

So as long as they only targetted soldiers, a pre-emptive strike by Iran on the US would be justified?

I would call that an act of war and not an act of terror. The military playing field could describe how it would be seen after that (I'm going to guess it'd be a complete and totally military defeat of Iran).

To apply to this argument, the U.S. would have to be amassing troops and equipment within striking distance of Iran. Them hitting us then would definitely be in the context of "war" and not "terror". If Saddam hit us as we amassed on his border, I'd call that an act of war and not terror. A good parellel would be the 7 days war with Israel.

If Iran snuck in chemical weapons to a military base, when we had nothing poised to strike them, and killed a bunch of troops, no, I wouldn't just call that an act of war against combatants, it would also be terrorism, and it would also be unjustified as a preemptive strike in the scenario I described.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

quote:

---

If there is evidence at it's urgent, then there you go.

---

So urgency is defined by something being urgent. Thanks a lot. Lay of the gin for about an hour and try again later.

---

What would the evidence of urgency be? How do you qualify urgency?

I didn't ask what it would take to go in (your repsonse to that is: "an urgent threat). We established that. I've asked again and again what would constitute an "urgent" threat. Saying "evidence of urgency!" as the answer is just silly.

"Urgency" couldn't be anything but circumstantial evidence, even if we saw Iraq making a nuclear bomb with binoculars, how do you prove the threat they are posing is "urgent" with physical evidence? Do you need a written plan, 100% proved to be written by Saddam, detailing the plans of the attack?

I didn't know a direct link from Al Qaeda to Saddam was part of the reason for going in, and I've never argued that it was.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008