Obama has the lowest approval ever

[Thumb]

Mitch[/color]]

the whole WMD thing - even if it was true, and it WAS NOT - is no reason to invade another country.

Hell yeah it is. And Hussein was a monster. Regardless why he went I'm glad they did. So easy to argue after the fact.

Well as long as you're glad they went for whatever reason, I'm sure a bunch of Mothers and Wives feel much better now.

 

[Thumb]

I looked up Lybia but couldn't find it on a map.

ah...hiding behind the spelling police

Pot/Kettle

 

[redandguilty]

[quote="Mitch":nrzi2a4g]More than half the country wanted us to go to war. And now, those same people are bashing that decision. And the Intel I assume, was Iraq had WMD. Bush was just in a bad spot being President for a few months when 9-11 happened. He was going to get reamed regardless the decision he made. It was a lose-lose for him.

It wasn't just WMD's though that had the country supporting him, it was his insistence that he had evidence that Iraq and Saddam were in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

And despite all the Bush supporters claims there is no evidence that there was a single insurgent or Al-Qaeda operative in Iraq before the Invasion.[/quote:nrzi2a4g]

Here's what was actually said:

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."

If that sounds like a strong link to you, if that convinces you to go to war, then I don't know what to tell you. That is about as weak a link as you could possibly expect between Iraq and a large terrorist network.

 

[grandy]

[quote="Mitch":zfleszam]

Hell yeah it is. And Hussein was a monster. Regardless why he went I'm glad they did. So easy to argue after the fact.

Well as long as you're glad they went for whatever reason, I'm sure a bunch of Mothers and Wives feel much better now.[/quote:zfleszam]

America isn't even safe yet....Newt told us Iran could nuke us at any moment.

 

[Mitchrapp]

[quote="Mitch":gun5e7o8]More than half the country wanted us to go to war. And now, those same people are bashing that decision. And the Intel I assume, was Iraq had WMD. Bush was just in a bad spot being President for a few months when 9-11 happened. He was going to get reamed regardless the decision he made. It was a lose-lose for him.

It wasn't just WMD's though that had the country supporting him, it was his insistence that he had evidence that Iraq and Saddam were in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.

And despite all the Bush supporters claims there is no evidence that there was a single insurgent or Al-Qaeda operative in Iraq before the Invasion.[/quote:gun5e7o8]

I think its more than Bush supporters. Hell, Clinton had him. 9-11 might not have happened, maybe he should get the blame but I don't see it.

One thing I know about politics, if you're a conservative you'll go to the mats for a Repub. President. Same thing for a Dem. President. There are going to be liberals who keep on supporting Obama regardless what he does. He could burn down the white house and some won't blame him. Just the way it goes.

 

[martmay]

ah...hiding behind the spelling police

Pot/Kettle

u mit waant to go baack a feeew paaaages....and saw whostaarted thiiis

 

[Thumb]

I'm sure they only made a single statement on it and that was it Red.

Bush went on TV and said Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda, did a little you can probably find it on YouTube.

 

[martmay]

I'm sure they only made a single statement on it and that was it Red.

Bush went on TV and said Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda, did a little you can probably find it on YouTube.

did a little you

 

[Thumb]

Pot/Kettle

u mit waant to go baack a feeew paaaages....and saw whostaarted thiiis

You did, and it's only one page back to see where I quoted you being the Internet Police.

 

[cheeno]

Well in the future if you are trying to make a point at least make an attempt to appear like you are coming from an informed place. It really does aid me in formulating my response. Honestly, I might have though you were asking if I approve of president Clinton in Labia.

More to your point. Comparing Iraq to Libya is like comparing Vietnam to France's aid during the Revolutionary War.

I see, did Libya's internal affairs have a reason for the USA to be concerned of its national security?

Iraq did not and never will pose a threat to national security.

I don't really understand what your are getting at here, other than to try to point out inconsistencies with what you ASSUME is my support for Libya (limited military aid) with my opposition to Iraq (an invasion), but they are not even comparable.

In truth I don't support either action in principal...BUT I can support the decision made with realpolitik and the consequences weighed (see DRs point above for clarification) in reality. That is the problem with Iraq and other wars can we accept the decision if not the action.

 

[Mitchrapp]

[quote="Mitch":kqtovmo1]

Hell yeah it is. And Hussein was a monster. Regardless why he went I'm glad they did. So easy to argue after the fact.

Well as long as you're glad they went for whatever reason, I'm sure a bunch of Mothers and Wives feel much better now.[/quote:kqtovmo1]

Its a war, its unfortunately. The same wives and mothers would feel the same if they died elsewhere. Plus, I've seen plenty of Parents talk the past 10 years about losing a son or daughter over there and they don't blame anyone. Not sure I see your point.

 

[deathroh]

Pretty easy, more people would support an airstrike over a land invasion. The ethics of whether or not we should interfere with another country are one thing, and there are some that would disapprove of any action based on that alone, but there's also the potential risk of US troops and capital vs the risk of inaction that had to be weighed. What the President told us skewed that.

Not why an airstrike vs a land invasion. Why did we want to topple that regime? There are lots of regimes doing terrible things. What I'm asking is if people think Bush made up the case to topple the regime with lies, then why did 68% want to topple it before he got there?

The problem wasn't Bush making the case to topple, but Bush making the case to invade. The fact that it would have been impossible to topple with just an aistrike only makes that poll question misleading.

 

[martmay]

I see, did Libya's internal affairs have a reason for the USA to be concerned of its national security?

Iraq did not and never will pose a threat to national security.

I don't really understand what your are getting at here, other than to try to point out inconsistencies with what you ASSUME is my support for Libya (limited military aid) with my opposition to Iraq (an invasion), but they are not even comparable.

In truth I don't support either action in principal...BUT I can support the decision made with realpolitik and the consequences weighed (see DRs point above for clarification) in reality. That is the problem with Iraq and other wars can we accept the decision if not the action.

Just curious what conditions you need to support military actions....

 

[martmay]

u mit waant to go baack a feeew paaaages....and saw whostaarted thiiis

You did, and it's only one page back to see where I quoted you being the Internet Police.

siphon ring a bell

 

[byco42]

[quote="Mitch"4a78ujz]

Hell yeah it is. And Hussein was a monster. Regardless why he went I'm glad they did. So easy to argue after the fact.

Well as long as you're glad they went for whatever reason, I'm sure a bunch of Mothers and Wives feel much better now.[/quote4a78ujz]

I can say with assurance that my first-born Marine son, who served two Iraqi tours, who was twice-wounded and still battling with PTSD, but is making a life for himself anyway, who witnessed the ultimate sacrifice of too many of his friends, has absolutely no regrets about his service ... and he would take a highly personal interest in your presumption of even attempting to speculate the feelings of those solders' mothers and wives (not to mention children and fathers) on this matter.

More succinctly, he would advise you to not make such an attempt, because you can not possibly have the slightest inkling of how they feel.

 

[redandguilty]

Not why an airstrike vs a land invasion. Why did we want to topple that regime? There are lots of regimes doing terrible things. What I'm asking is if people think Bush made up the case to topple the regime with lies, then why did 68% want to topple it before he got there?

The problem wasn't Bush making the case to topple, but Bush making the case to invade. The fact that it would have been impossible to topple with just an aistrike only makes that poll question misleading.

What I'm arguing is that the WMD claims that people describe as Bush lies to justify their change in position on the war...those WMD claims were believed before Bush took office.

That one administration used those claims to discuss airstrikes and the other used them to justify an invasion says something about those administrations, but that's besides the point that I'm making.

 

[cheeno]

Iraq did not and never will pose a threat to national security.

I don't really understand what your are getting at here, other than to try to point out inconsistencies with what you ASSUME is my support for Libya (limited military aid) with my opposition to Iraq (an invasion), but they are not even comparable.

In truth I don't support either action in principal...BUT I can support the decision made with realpolitik and the consequences weighed (see DRs point above for clarification) in reality. That is the problem with Iraq and other wars can we accept the decision if not the action.

Just curious what conditions you need to support military actions....

This is a good start, from DR:

The potential risk of US troops and capital vs the risk of inaction.

There is more of course but knowing that you are in favor of Nuking Libya (a country whose name you couldn't spell up until 2 minutes ago) I'll assume you have a few less conditions and that should provide a sufficient foundation for debate.

 

[martmay]

Just curious what conditions you need to support military actions....

This is a good start, from DR:

The potential risk of US troops and capital vs the risk of inaction.

There is more of course but knowing that you are in favor of Nuking Libya (a country whose name you couldn't spell up until 2 minutes ago) I'll assume you have a few less conditions and that should provide a sufficient foundation for debate.

nuking isn't capitalized

 

[cheeno]

This is a good start, from DR:

The potential risk of US troops and capital vs the risk of inaction.

There is more of course but knowing that you are in favor of Nuking Libya (a country whose name you couldn't spell up until 2 minutes ago) I'll assume you have a few less conditions and that should provide a sufficient foundation for debate.

nuking isn't capitalized

For emphasis.

 

[Michchamp]

The problem wasn't Bush making the case to topple, but Bush making the case to invade. The fact that it would have been impossible to topple with just an aistrike only makes that poll question misleading.

What I'm arguing is that the WMD claims that people describe as Bush lies to justify their change in position on the war...those WMD claims were believed before Bush took office.

That one administration used those claims to discuss airstrikes and the other used them to justify an invasion says something about those administrations, but that's besides the point that I'm making.

are you saying the people who initially favored the invasion, based on their trust of the president, claims from other officials, especially the vice president, should not have any credibility when they later saw that the initial claims used to "sell" the war were false? Whether or not the WMD claims were "believed" before he was there, is a red herring. They weren't an issue. They were hugely trumped up and made an issue by the Bush Administration.

Personally, I don't blame people for being victims of effective state propaganda. I blame them for not waking up after the glaring inconsistencies in the propaganda are revealed for all to see.

back in March 2003, I was like "Well, whatever. Hussein is a bad guy, and even if the whole 'pre-emptive' strike thing is false, I'm sure they have their reasons." I didn't believe the WMD's thing, especially since WE were the people who gave him biological and chemical weapons in the 80's. How fucked up is that? However, I figured they had some strategy beyond simply "War for Profit" that could justify the massive cost of the invasion, not to mention the serious trampling all over the myth that America was somehow different than every other empire that came before it, and was a shining beacon of democracy and all that BS.

Then as of a year later, it was like... "wow. this is SERIOUSLY messed up. We just invaded another country, killed lots of their people, and continue to do so, for no discernible reason, besides the obvious parties that profited from this."

the whole thing stinks.