the UN

[The Redneck]

chances are they never found anything because he never had any or

Actually, we know he had them for a fact, because he used them on his own citizens. Remember Halabja?

as you would have me believe he made some top secret ultra hidden diding place for all his weapons programs. had no intention of using them. but hid them all stowed away in the middles of the desert as a handy paper weight.

Naw, he had highway signs reading "Baghdad, 250 Km, Secret Chemical Weapons Stash, 275 Km". Again, the intelligence network of every nation that had an intelligence network was certain he had them--what kind of necromantic powers do you suggest Eeeeeevil Bush used to convince them?

you're link about iran actually proves me correct. having a nuclear program is not a crime.

Nor did we say they're committing a crime--the problem is that they're paving the way to make nuclear weapons, unless you want to set up the same deal Clinton made with North Korea.

you don't feed africa.

Not only our government but thousands of private organizations send food to Africa. Your claim is blatantly false.

your bank charge huge interest rates to starve the people to death.

You mean when we hand out money we actually expect it back? Oh, the SHAME!

{quote]you stand back in sudan, in burma, in zimbabwe, in korea, in ethiopia. you just called yourself the defender of humanity so explain to me why these countries have not warranted your attention.[/quote]
In Sudan we're trying to work through the UN you're defending. In North Korea we're running the peace talks (although I agree we should just go in there and get rid of that little gargoyle). We're helping Zimbabwe in several ways--likewise Burma and likewise in Ethiopia. Next?

the jihad against america is not based on religion. hence why they've never bothered bombing france, sweden, norway, italy.

Actually, the jihadists have made it very clear that it is based on religion. Hence why they've never bothered bombing nations that aren't very Christian (although synagogues in those countries suffer from these strange architectural deformities that causes them to spontaneously combust....).

what needs to happen now is for american to come back into the arms of the un so we can get started back on creating a better world for everyone not just for the richest and most powerful in this world.

Ahh, the best course of actioin is for the US to embracean anti-American organization and give in to the claims of class warfare propogated by yourself and others who hate America....

Iraq is a bad palce to start.first of all it was all about the oil.

I always wondered why we don't actually have their oil, if all these claims that we invaded them for oil had a shred of truth to them... Hell, if we wanted oil, we could have done it with one phone call--lift the sanctions.

Second of all the president lied to the people yet the people so so dang stupid to re-elect him.

Again, false. The president--and every other nation--used the best intelligence they had. Certainly, if the protestors had any reason to believe Sodom didn't have chemical weapons, they would have brought it up before the war.

I mean why do people let families dynasties get set up in the political world.

I always love how the people who claim Bush is a "dynasty" because his father was also president can watch Ted Kennedy climb out of Boston Harbor with a bottle of Chivas Regal in one pocket and a pair of panties in the other and hail him as the party's moral savior....

[lordblazer]

I'm sorry t break it to you redneck but he lied to us striaght up.He said we were going into iraq because they have the ability to make nuclear arms.He told that to congress and convenced them.Iraq could barely fend off there neighbors let along make nuclear weapons.To tell me he used the best intelegence is bull he smurfing lied and theres noting else to it dude.Open your eyes and wake up from the fantasy world that Fox News and bush has put oyu in dude and come back to reality.Once we found out Iraq didnt have any materials that could make nukes he made a bull answer "We freed them from the tyrant Saddam." Then a whole bunch of BS happened and people believed it! OMG what the heck are you adults thinking.I'm a freaking teenager who is suppose to be dumber than a pile of rocks yet i knew bush was BSing around with Iraq.I mean now you have american oil companies in Iraq.It was for oil .Theres nothing wrong with it except for the fact that he lied.Young soldiers are dead because of those bastards in the whitehouse.A lot had no choice but to join the military or it meant to starve and face mind blowing poverty.And all they ask for us is to not send them into danger unless it really is needed.And in Iraq's case it wasn't.And if some secret way it was thats still no excuse to lie in public to an entire country. Redneck get out of fairy tale conservative land and wake up and look at the world around you.Your older than me.You know how violent the world isYou understand that the 20th century was the most violent century in the history of mankind.You understand that there are corrupt leaders who lead corrupt wars.The Iraqi war wasn't needed.Iraq barely and mos tlikely doesnt even have a navy.How could thye attack the USA?WE sat there and ignored North Korea.And now we wait and its too late N.Korea has nukes and now we are in peace talks with them.Sucking his balls and begging him not to use or test them.Nukes are different than they were back in WW2 remember that.Redneck once your ready to wake up from fairy tale land and look around you and notice the BS thats going on in this country then you can debate and be absolutely sure that your 100% right.And the soldiers that are out in Iraq fighting are dying in vain and the ones who died during the Iraq war had died in vain.There blood spills in vain because of a greedy bastard.

[DocFrance]

Paragraph indentations are your friends. They keep your eyes from bleeding.

[The Captain]

As the 9/11 Commission, as well as many subsequent commissions to follow found and reported, the information used to get into Iraq was flawed beyond belief. The Bush Administration has essentially agreed to this by no longer refering to this information, by discrediting it themselves and by giving new reasons for the Iraqi invasion as opposed to the ones that were initially given during the State Of The Union address 3 years ago.

Take care all.

[The Redneck]

sorry t break it to you redneck but he lied to us striaght up.He said we were going into iraq because they have the ability to make nuclear arms.

He said that there is evidence that Iraq was trying to gain nuclear weapons-for example, the British report that he was trying to obtain "yellowcake" uranium in Nigeria--despite the claims of his detractors, British did (and, as a matter of fact, still do) believe that Sodom was trying to get weapons-grade nuclear bomb materials--and last but not least, that he's been firing on our planes. How the hell do you claim an invasion was unauthorized when the SOB's been shooting at us for years?! Hate to break it to you (well, not really, but it's nice to say...), but your accusation is false.

He also said that Sodom was refusing to cooperate with the UN (also true) that he was violating several other weapons regulations (also true), that he was abusing the Oil-for-Food program (also true), and that he was torturing and mass-murdering his people (also true).

OMG what the heck are you adults thinking.

That looking at what's right in front of our eyes is better than repeating whatever rant is on the homepage of moveon.org?

It was for oil

This claim is patent nonsense. It was always nonsense, and it will always be nonsense. If we were going to war for oil, then a) we wouldn't have needed to go to war, all we would have needed to do was lift the sanctions, and b) we would actually have the oil! If you're going to war for oil, yet not taking the oil, something strange is going on.

WE sat there and ignored North Korea.And now we wait and its too late N.Korea has nukes and now we are in peace talks with them.

Actually, that "we" would be the Clinton administration--look up the 1994 treaty agreement.

And yes, it's too late. While we may still have to invade North Korea, we can't do so without the possibility of nuclear attack. Do you figure we should have waited that long with Iraq too, so the guy would at least have a sporting chance?

Redneck get out of fairy tale conservative land and wake up and look at the world around you.

I will respond to this in what experience has show is the only manner in which I am allowed to respond to insults:

THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!

As the 9/11 Commission, as well as many subsequent commissions to follow found and reported, the information used to get into Iraq was flawed beyond belief.

Actually, I looked over the 9-11 Commission report. It may indeed still be there--the sucker's pretty big--but I didn't see it.
Among the things they found was that Sodom and bin Laden did indeed have agreements, and indications are they they helped each other (Section 2.4, Attacks Known and Suspected,footnotes 53, 54, and 55. Also section 2.5, AL QAEDA'S RENEWAL IN AFGHANISTAN (1996-1998), footnotes 73, 74, and 75,).
(also note, at footnote #23 in section 2.3, THE RISE OF BIN LADIN AND AL QAEDA (1988-1992), that while US and Saudi Arabian money flowed to other anti-Communist groups, Bin Laden and his groups had (and were) their own support and training.)

The Bush Administration has essentially agreed to this by no longer refering to this information, by discrediting it themselves and by giving new reasons for the Iraqi invasion as opposed to the ones that were initially given during the State Of The Union address 3 years ago.

While it's common knowledge now that our intelligence was flawed, it wasn't known to us then--nor to the other nations, or the UN, that believed the same.

However, it is simply not the case that WMD was the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq and that he had to "change his story" later on. Among the reasons named in his 2003 State of the Union Address were Houssein's flaunting of the UN agreements he made, his intention to gain WMD (including the UN estimates of what he had and the mobile weapons labs we found), more than 30,000 other munitions he's not allowed to have (such as thelong-range missiles we found), his work in hiding documents and materials from (and the monitering of) inspection officals and his order that scientists who cooperate with the inspectors and their families will be murdered, his use of torture to gain forced-confessions, and his general brutality, reckless aggression, and ties to terrorism.

[eestlinc]

I mean now you have american oil companies in Iraq.It was for oil.

I doubt oil was the motivating force behind the war. It's more likely that if an American President wants to go to war in the Middle East he would be wise to get the oil companies on his side.

Redneck once your ready to wake up from fairy tale land and look around you and notice the BS thats going on in this country.

Just because someone sees the world in a vastly different light doesn't mean they live in fairy tale land. I mean, maybe if he starts posting about giant panda bears handing out candy. Besides, I'm sure The Redneck would agree that a lot of BS is going on in this country, but his criteria for BS might be a bit different from yours. Anyway, let's try to avoid what might be construed as insults.

[The Captain]

The Redneck, read over sections 10 and 11 of the Commission, where it goes into detail all that occurred right after 9/11. What they found was that there was no actual link between Bin Laden and Saddam, as well as no credible intelligence about WMD's, which the Bush Administration KNEW, but chose to ignore and use the information anyway.

"However, it is simply not the case that WMD was the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq and that he had to "change his story" later on. Among the reasons named in his 2003 State of the Union Address were Houssein's flaunting of the UN agreements he made, his intention to gain WMD (including the UN estimates of what he had and the mobile weapons labs we found), more than 30,000 other munitions he's not allowed to have (such as thelong-range missiles we found), his work in hiding documents and materials from (and the monitering of) inspection officals and his order that scientists who cooperate with the inspectors and their families will be murdered, his use of torture to gain forced-confessions, and his general brutality, reckless aggression, and ties to terrorism."

If you recall, there was NO mention of "liberating" or "spreading freedom and democracy" in Iraq until late 2003 when it became evident that finding WMD's was not going to happen. Those buzz words only appeared after the initial reasons for entering Iraq fell apart and while they are noble minded intentions if followed through on, the fact of the matter is, they weren't why we initially went in there because if they were, an exit and rebuilding strategy would have been in place along with an invasion strategy campaign and that's simply not the case.

Take care all.

[The Redneck]

hat they found was that there was no actual link between Bin Laden and Saddam

I've noted the evidence the commission found regarding links between Bin Laden and Sodom--what the commission found was that Sodom had no part in 9/11. However, that isn't and wasn't the administration's position (except for Wolfowitz, who so far as I remember didn't publically go against Bush's statements on the matter). The claim that Sodom had links to Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is supported by the Commission in sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the report.

What they found was that there was no actual link between Bin Laden and Saddam, as well as no credible intelligence about WMD's, which the Bush Administration KNEW, but chose to ignore and use the information anyway.

After reading through both sections, I'm afraid I didn't find any mention of WMD, or the intelligence regarding it, or any knowledge Bush had of the intelligence (although if Bush knew it was flawed, he apparently managed to carry his charade into the intelligence networks of literally dozens of other nations). Like I said before, it may still be there--it's dry reading, and I've got a headache, and may have missed it--but I'm afraid I didn't see it.

Likewise, I don't remember any of the war's protestors mentioning the possibility that Sodom did not have these weapons before the war--are you saying that somehow Bush knew they weren't there but no one else did?

If you recall, there was NO mention of "liberating" or "spreading freedom and democracy" in Iraq until late 2003 when it became evident that finding WMD's was not going to happen.

Actually, he said in that same 2003 State of the Union Address (it seems the link I posted last post didn't work--here's one that should), that "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation." Also "And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom." And "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." In his statement regarding war with Iraq (what I call the "you got 48 hours before we get there, and we're bringin' an ###-kickin' with us" statement), he said "Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

These comments aren't very frequently reported, but Bush has never made WMD's the only reason for war in Iraq.

[Strider]

The UN, huh? Too many cooks in the kitchen, perhaps. It's bound to happen with 200 different points of view.

It might be easier to just look out for number one, sure, but withdrawing the United States from the UN might not be the best idea because of... well, our relations with everyone else.

[The Captain]

"Sodom had links to Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is supported by the Commission in sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the report."

Just to point out, what the Commission found is that Bin Laden had sent messages to Saddam, which were not responded to, which does not really show any links, unless by using that logic, that Winston Churchill was a Communist because he read messages sent by Stalin during WWII but never responded. If you read page 15 of the sections you mentioned, the Commission point out that Saddam made no replies to any of these messages. Don't misunderstand, I'm in no way supporting Saddam as he was a brutal dictator, but he was a dictator, not an Islamic Extremeist such as Bin Laden. The last thing Saddam wanted was for anyone to usurp power from him, which is why he stayed away from people like Bin Laden who were seeking domination of the world.


The Redneck, it is most important to note context with regard to that State of the Union address: Bush brought up liberation along with his claim of WMD's, not beforehand but in addition. Had he not mentioned that Saddam had these WMD's, there would have been little to no backing to go into Iraq in the first place. As nice as it is that Saddam is out of power, the ends can't justify the means in this case, unless we plan on looking like hypocrites in this world, whereas we can stand up against one evil regime but let others continue on and on, such as Saudi Arabia. Presidents have done this before, FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, as in they needed to find a justification, no matter how flimsy, to back their war or lose the support of the people, but that doesn't make it okay.

Bush never mentioned "liberation" as the linchpin reason for Iraq until the WMD's had not been found and we were already in there, thus removing the need to have another reason in the first place. (Most of this came from the book by Richard Clarke, who was a working member of the Defense Department with the Bush Administration at the time).


To be honest, I've never been a fan of State of the Union addresses anyway as a source for real information since all Presidents use it as a platform to sound idealistic when little to none of what is said really does go into effect. The State of the Union is chiefly used as a place to make America think big and have big dreams, such as traveling to Mars for instance, but little of it can really be used in reality or in the ways that it is presented. Though saying the liberation and setting up of democracy in Iraq is indeed our goal right now, this begs the real question: How so? We have no exit or rebuilding strategy as far as I've seen aside from rushing an election through and trying to place Iraq into the people's hands when it is obvious that the country is still in a grave state of flux.

In my opinion, this Administration has shown little with regard to actually rebuilding or securing the entire country, from the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier, to the latest news that several members of the newly elected body don't want their posts because they don't think they will have any true power in the end. Couple that with the increasingly disenchanted recruiting numbers for the army, and the odds of actually making everything work look less and less likely. As great as giving democracy may be, what is most important is to make democracy last.

Take care all.

[DarkLadyNyara]

And what, pray tell, did the United States do in regards to Rwanda?[

Debated endlessly abouut wheather or not the slaughter counted as genocide. If we want the world to respect us, we need to respect them.

[The Redneck]

ust to point out, what the Commission found is that Bin Laden had sent messages to Saddam, which were not responded to, which does not really show any links, unless by using that logic, that Winston Churchill was a Communist because he read messages sent by Stalin during WWII but never responded.

That's part of the connections between the two, but I'm afraid there's more than that. Section 2.4, just before footnote 55, notes that there are indications Sodom aided Ansar al Islam, formed by Bin Laden, because the two had a common enemy in the Kurds. Moreover, the commission notes just after footnote 74 that the condition you noted (bin Laden sending messages, Sodom not responding) reversed in 1998.

The Redneck, it is most important to note context with regard to that State of the Union address: Bush brought up liberation along with his claim of WMD's, not beforehand but in addition.

There's no dispute there--WMD's were the first reason and the main reason. what I'm saying, however, is they were never the only reason, nor did these other reasons just appear out of thin air when the WMD info fell apart.

To be honest, I've never been a fan of State of the Union addresses anyway as a source for real information since all Presidents use it as a platform to sound idealistic when little to none of what is said really does go into effect.

True 'nuff. But when we're debating over what the president said, his most prominent speech of the year is a pretty good source.

In my opinion, this Administration has shown little with regard to actually rebuilding or securing the entire country, from the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier, to the latest news that several members of the newly elected body don't want their posts because they don't think they will have any true power in the end. Couple that with the increasingly disenchanted recruiting numbers for the army, and the odds of actually making everything work look less and less likely. As great as giving democracy may be, what is most important is to make democracy last.

Nobody said that building a nation would be easy--hell, we had to put down the Whiskey Rebellion here in America just after we won our own independence. Likewise there are bound to be people who expected more power than they got--especially in a limited government. But the truth is that Iraq is going far better than the picture we get at home, and the conditions are set for it to improve.