Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-14-2012, 05:38 PM   #61
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
I'm wrong and your right

See I can say your right, a fine example of straight forward communication.

It's your inability to follow directions that is documented now which I mistook for your inability to make a decision, oh wait it's both come to think of it.
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 06:32 PM   #62
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
Who said what again? Is this a credible source or not? Ok so it's not the lack of WMD's, now it's the type and amount didn't match what we were told...They had 6 months to hide/dispose them before we invaded.
Defense.gov News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Did you read it?

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 06:40 PM   #63
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
Were there WMD or not? .
There were scattered chemical weapons made in the 1980's, prior to our 1990 invasion, which according to the article you posted "The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

That was not why we went to war. That is not what we were told they had. It was a current and imminent threat, including a false report of an attempt to buy nuclear materials that was presented to congress and via state of the union. Prior to the speeches by Bush and Powell, the report was deemed not credible, but went forward against the advice of the person who originated the report.

This is such old news it is ridiculous. Why the heck do followers of conservative talk radio keep spewing the childish cry of left wing liberal media bs. It is such horse manor. This isn't China, you can get your news from any source you like and it all concludes that there was no weapons program.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 08:43 PM   #64
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
There were scattered chemical weapons made in the 1980's, prior to our 1990 invasion, which according to the article you posted "The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

That was not why we went to war. That is not what we were told they had. It was a current and imminent threat, including a false report of an attempt to buy nuclear materials that was presented to congress and via state of the union. Prior to the speeches by Bush and Powell, the report was deemed not credible, but went forward against the advice of the person who originated the report.

This is such old news it is ridiculous. Why the heck do followers of conservative talk radio keep spewing the childish cry of left wing liberal media bs. It is such horse manor. This isn't China, you can get your news from any source you like and it all concludes that there was no weapons program.
Nice reply see we are finding common ground there were indeed WMD's.
The rest of the reply shall we say leaves me baffled because you state this as facts without providing links which could reinforce your argument. For example who deemed it false and what proof did they have?
When it comes to weapon programs how on earth can anyone prove there were or were not any programs going on without being part of Saddam's regimen? This is a very long report:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association

Remember the inspectors were not allowed into the mosque and were not given total access to any where they wanted to go:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association


You say it is ridiculous and old news but consider the fact that I am no longer an avid talk radio fan, which when I was I listened to both sides all day long so I would be better prepared to discuss the issues knowing what both sides had to say. I don't watch foxnews or for that matter much news at all primarily because no matter how much I learned and presented to others they refused to listen and voted this guy into office. Lets just say I gave up on trying to sway anyones opinion after he was voted in. I sincerely hoped he would be a great president not only because I want what is best for this country but also because he was non-Caucasian and I hoped this would once and for all end the racial tensions. I have since realized the tensions will never go away and once again have almost given up hope.
I hope we are getting closer toward respecting each others opinion and look forward to your reply, if you chose to reply again.
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 09:30 PM   #65
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
Nice reply see we are finding common ground there were indeed WMD's.
The rest of the reply shall we say leaves me baffled because you state this as facts without providing links which could reinforce your argument. For example who deemed it false and what proof did they have?
When it comes to weapon programs how on earth can anyone prove there were or were not any programs going on without being part of Saddam's regimen? This is a very long report:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association

Remember the inspectors were not allowed into the mosque and were not given total access to any where they wanted to go:
Iraq: A Chronology of UN Inspections | Arms Control Association


You say it is ridiculous and old news but consider the fact that I am no longer an avid talk radio fan, which when I was I listened to both sides all day long so I would be better prepared to discuss the issues knowing what both sides had to say. I don't watch foxnews or for that matter much news at all primarily because no matter how much I learned and presented to others they refused to listen and voted this guy into office. Lets just say I gave up on trying to sway anyones opinion after he was voted in. I sincerely hoped he would be a great president not only because I want what is best for this country but also because he was non-Caucasian and I hoped this would once and for all end the racial tensions. I have since realized the tensions will never go away and once again have almost given up hope.
I hope we are getting closer toward respecting each others opinion and look forward to your reply, if you chose to reply again.
I am happy to reply, but if my friend died because of spent 500 scattered non-functioning shells of mustard gas from the 1980's then f' that lying sob george bush and cheney. Hardly wmds if they can't even be used. They scared Americans with threats of imminent attack of actual usable wmds and nuclear materials, tied Saddam to 911 and Al Qaeda. They said there were functioning weapons manufactuirng facilities. They wanted the oil and to enact the plan of PNAC. A lot of American's paid with their lives and limbs. Nobody ever denied that Saddam used weapons on the Kurd's at the end of the war with Iran. We supported Iraq in that war, remember? We knew they had them. In fact, it is now declassified that the function of the Liberty ship my dad served on in the 1960's in the Pacific was to test those chemicals. He and the other sailors got to go up and clean the deck after the primates got gassed. He gets to go to the VA regularly for monitoring. Those non-functioning old weapons were not what was presented as reason for war and certainly do not fit the definition of functioning wmd's whether you want to spin it that way or not. I actually didn't know there was anyone out there still trying to spin that bs.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 09:59 PM   #66
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
I am happy to reply, but if my friend died because of spent 500 scattered non-functioning shells of mustard gas from the 1980's then f' that lying sob george bush and cheney. Hardly wmds if they can't even be used. They scared Americans with threats of imminent attack of actual usable wmds and nuclear materials, tied Saddam to 911 and Al Qaeda. They said there were functioning weapons manufactuirng facilities. They wanted the oil and to enact the plan of PNAC. A lot of American's paid with their lives and limbs. Nobody ever denied that Saddam used weapons on the Kurd's at the end of the war with Iran. We supported Iraq in that war, remember? We knew they had them. In fact, it is now declassified that the function of the Liberty ship my dad served on in the 1960's in the Pacific was to test those chemicals. He and the other sailors got to go up and clean the deck after the primates got gassed. He gets to go to the VA regularly for monitoring. Those non-functioning old weapons were not what was presented as reason for war and certainly do not fit the definition of functioning wmd's whether you want to spin it that way or not. I actually didn't know there was anyone out there still trying to spin that bs.
I can understand where your hostility comes from but if you take the time to read the links I provided perhaps you will clearly see through the bs. Once again when and if you calm down enough and open your mind you may see through the propaganda that has kept you stoked up or perhaps provide me some proof to back up what your saying, I have no problem seeing actual proof that the republicans also suck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 10:49 PM   #67
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
I can understand where your hostility comes from but if you take the time to read the links I provided perhaps you will clearly see through the bs. Once again when and if you calm down enough and open your mind you may see through the propaganda that has kept you stoked up or perhaps provide me some proof to back up what your saying, I have no problem seeing actual proof that the republicans also suck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You have not given one ounce of real information that supports the reasons for the war were founded. My mind is open, I am just not someone who believes war should be taken lightly. It is a republican, democrat issue. It is an issue of morality. We can't agree on this. It really goes not much farther than that you feel we should behave as our enemies do, so we really aren't going to come to any sort of middle ground. Bush was going to Iraq whether there was a legit reason or not. His own people said it. If you don't believe that... oh well.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 11:05 PM   #68
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Just for fun... from your links

1991: Outstanding issues from UNSCOM "Iraq claimed it lost 550 shells filled with mustard gas, but no evidence was found of these weapons"

So they told us about these circa 1991 when we destroyed or oversaw the destruction of over 100,000 special munitions. Those 550 that we found in unusable ancient condition a decade later after we invaded again count as wmd's Bush spoke about?

"In a February 1999 report after leaving Iraq in December 1998, the IAEA declared that no evidence suggested Iraq had succeeded in producing nuclear weapons.
The same report concluded that IAEA activities 'have revealed no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.'

On top of that, at the time they used it, Bush new the yellowcake story was unfounded. Great way to go to war.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-14-2012, 11:41 PM   #69
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Just for fun... from your links

1991: Outstanding issues from UNSCOM "Iraq claimed it lost 550 shells filled with mustard gas, but no evidence was found of these weapons"

So they told us about these circa 1991 when we destroyed or oversaw the destruction of over 100,000 special munitions. Those 550 that we found in unusable ancient condition a decade later after we invaded again count as wmd's Bush spoke about?

"In a February 1999 report after leaving Iraq in December 1998, the IAEA declared that no evidence suggested Iraq had succeeded in producing nuclear weapons.
The same report concluded that IAEA activities 'have revealed no indication that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons or any meaningful amounts of weapon-usable nuclear material, or that Iraq has retained any practical capability (facilities or hardware) for the production of such material.'

On top of that, at the time they used it, Bush new the yellowcake story was unfounded. Great way to go to war.
Now we are getting solmewhere but please bear with me.
You say Bush knew and yet provide no proof to back it up and get angry that I won't take your words as proof. Show me; the burden of proof is on you to back up your statements is all I'm saying. It is not up to me to search for your information in order to debate your supposed facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-15-2012, 07:01 PM   #70
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
Now we are getting solmewhere but please bear with me.
You say Bush knew and yet provide no proof to back it up and get angry that I won't take your words as proof. Show me; the burden of proof is on you to back up your statements is all I'm saying. It is not up to me to search for your information in order to debate your supposed facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, I think the burden of proof was on our government. I am not angry that you don't take my words as proof. If you read up on PNAC, you should be able to see the connections yourself. I am not here to prove anything to you, sorry.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-15-2012, 08:24 PM   #71
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
I would think if it could be proven that Bush lied then he would have faced impeachment, thus I consider both the no WMD's and Bush lied as nothing more than propaganda from the left.

Over the years I feel the left has been more concerned with their power smearing the republicans than they are concerned for the overall welfare of the country. One of the reasons I would like to see elimination of party affiliation so that we elect people to get together and focus on the country and minimize pandering.

It is my opinion more people vote for the letter following the name and they don't care or know what the name preceding the letter has to offer.

For those who may not know the Democrats are left and the Republicans are right.
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-16-2012, 08:00 AM   #72
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I hold ourselves to a higher standard than I hold our enemies.
Even those Marines ARE acting on a higher standard than our enemies, and here's why. If our enemies laid down their weapons, so would those Marines. If those Marines laid down their weapons, our enemies would kidnap and decapitate the Marines.

I commanded young Marines, and I was in no-sh*t combat once. I'm not saying I personally condone what they did, but I sure wouldn't bring charges against them either.

When you're in war, particularly against an enemy is barbaric as these Islamic extremists are, you simply cannot win without doing some things that you would never otherwise consider doing. And unfortunately, the reality is we need people who are willing to be super-aggressive when the situation calls for it.

I lost 2 kids under my command, and I've stood over the bodies of those who helped kill those kids. I can't say it occurred to me to urinate on them, but I sure know where that rage comes from.

But to me earlier point...there is zero moral equivalence between the acts of our enemies, and the act of urinating on the body of someone who was just trying to kill you.

I don't condone urinating on the bodies. But don't tell me that urinating on the body of a murderer makes you no better than the murderer. That's stupid.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-16-2012, 01:27 PM   #73
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Even those Marines ARE acting on a higher standard than our enemies, and here's why. If our enemies laid down their weapons, so would those Marines. If those Marines laid down their weapons, our enemies would kidnap and decapitate the Marines.

I commanded young Marines, and I was in no-sh*t combat once. I'm not saying I personally condone what they did, but I sure wouldn't bring charges against them either.

When you're in war, particularly against an enemy is barbaric as these Islamic extremists are, you simply cannot win without doing some things that you would never otherwise consider doing. And unfortunately, the reality is we need people who are willing to be super-aggressive when the situation calls for it.

I lost 2 kids under my command, and I've stood over the bodies of those who helped kill those kids. I can't say it occurred to me to urinate on them, but I sure know where that rage comes from.

But to me earlier point...there is zero moral equivalence between the acts of our enemies, and the act of urinating on the body of someone who was just trying to kill you.

I don't condone urinating on the bodies. But don't tell me that urinating on the body of a murderer makes you no better than the murderer. That's stupid.
Good post...

...although I'm not sure there are many, outside of the Taliban, who would argue moral parity in this specific instance. Seems to more be a case of "outrage about the outrage" as Lewis Black likes to say.

Perhaps the strongest condemnation I've heard interestingly enough has actually come from members of Congress that are veterans.

Generally though I think most people are pretty rational on subjects like this...

Except for this guy, I'd give him the douche of the century award.

Ethan Casey: Marines Urinating on Dead Taliban: How Low Will We Go?

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-16-2012, 07:48 PM   #74
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
I would think if it could be proven that Bush lied then he would have faced impeachment, thus I consider both the no WMD's and Bush lied as nothing more than propaganda from the left.
Impeachment is a difficult process, especially with the balance of congress. Are you aware of how many presidents have been impeached? So because he wasn't impeached, you disregard every piece of information that indicates he misrepresented the reality of the situation as propaganda? You haven't looked at the whole picture, or you are more biased than you are willing to admit. Again, have you read the information on PNAC?

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-16-2012, 08:05 PM   #75
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-16-2012, 09:42 PM   #76
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
Isn't everyone biased? I suppose I am because I don't feel the need to invest my time searching for information to support your perspective, especially when I was considerate enough to save you the time searching for where I got my information, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised the left wants you to do the work for them.
I can only think of Nixon (R) off hand without looking into it, and I haven't looked up impeachment procedures either it just seemed to me if what you say was true it would be an impeachable offense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-16-2012, 10:46 PM   #77
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
It isn't about supporting my perspective. It is about the facts that came out after we invaded and the proposals by pnac before Bush was even elected. The scattered weapons found, by every account, were pre-Gulf war. Rumsfeld even admitted there was no wmd program. You may feel that you saved me the time by "searching... where I got my information." I spoke specifically to the points you made based on freely available information . It is not a question of you doing the work for me. The whole left/liberal spin you put on things is a bit comical. If you are curious, you can look into it. I suggest you start with Project for the New America and Cheney's role.

As an aside, two presidents were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Clinton. It is hard to do. You might remember what the circus was like with Clinton and that was a case of perjury about sex acts. A bit harder to prove Bush intentionally misrepresented the truth. More likely he was just simple minded enough to be bullied to do whatever Cheney suggested.
It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 12:06 AM   #78
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecduzitgood View Post
It's not just me reading these post. I would think others who may be trying to follow the derailment into the no weapons of mass destruction found and Bush lied perspective that you proposed would also not be willing to look further. Even Spence who intimidates the hell out of me with his knowledge has probably left them wanting more substantiated points to show how incorrect I am but he chose to play games and lost my interest.

I thought Nixon was impeached but I guess I was wrong. I honestly don't like political discussions anymore and it is rare for me to stick my nose in here; primarily because of the round and round, chase your tail, I won't admit I may be wrong type of augments that I find from both sides, it's too frustrating. Nothing gets accomplished and I don't want to waste my time anymore. I would also have to start listening to both sides on the radio and the tv in order to be better prepared for the discussions, which never accomplish anything so it is just wasting more of my time.
I am nobody that can make any difference in anyones life and people who think of me otherwise are mistaken. I don't matter, and my opinion when you come right down to it shouldn't matter either. If anything my stupidity for getting involved in these discussions probably cause me more harm than good. I do hope people will find it entertaining at least reading my post and perhaps even post themselves, after all it's good for the site to have the traffic.
I may look into the impeachment issue because you have peaked my interest and I thank you for that. I believe this horse is dead now, yes?
Don't underestimate yourself. Most Americans don't have even a small portion of interest in our political system that you're showing here. That you have the courage to express yourself, knowing there are other supposedly "wiser" people ready to rebut your opinions is the essence of the first ammendment, and if we don't use that freedom of speech to actually speak, we fall prey to the demagogues who think they know it all.

Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.

What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved. And here we are, still arguing about whether Bush lied or not. Some might say that eventually Sadaam would have been removed as have other dictators in the area, but others might say that Iraqi freedom may well have been a motivating force or, at least, a catalyst behind the "Arab Spring." Who knows? It certainly is farther advanced down the road to democracy, and maybe with a better chance to be free of Islamist Fundamentalist rule. Who knows?

Don't be intimidated. Keep on expressing your opinion.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-17-2012 at 12:11 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 07:12 AM   #79
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Thanks detbuch, I just look at myself in the mirror and know if a book was written about me it wouldn't cost more than 44 cents to send in the mail.
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 08:43 AM   #80
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Ya Ecduzitgood, no one is ever going to change anybody's mind here and
it does seem like we just go round and round. But it's fun, I learn stuff from
both sides, and it can be a great frustration reliever.
There are a lot of guys who let their fingers do the walking through Google,
that's ok, but what's betta is some of the good common sense
you leave here.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:40 AM   #81
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Your intuition is not wrong here. Nobody has "proved" that Bush lied in order to invade Iraq. There are no "facts" to support a "lie,"--just "evidence" that could mean whatever you wish it to mean. Only Bush knows if he lied. And you're right, there were a number of "reasons" to invade Iraq, not just WMD. And if he knew there weren't WMds, he would indeed have been incredibly stupid to declare there were then order his troops to search for them, KNOWING none would be found. PNAC certainly supported regime change, as did Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. But PNAC, I don't think, ever stated that there were no WMDs. All the so-called "facts" could imply the possibility of a lie, if one chose to conjure up that possibility, especially for political purposes. The fact that there was a great desire to remove Sadaam, by ALL SIDES, doesn't come close to even hinting that Bush lied. Without actual proof it's just politics--that high quality dirt that Spence likes.
In the hundreds of pages of debates on this site over the years I've never asserted that Bush lied.

I do think he surrounded himself with people who were heavily biased towards war with Saddam. I also think he surrendered too much diligence to others without showing much curiosity to their processes.

The result was pretty disturbing. While the threat of WMD were used to justify the invasion to the general public, the real motivation was liberalization of the Middle East. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy...There's enough good investigation and first hand accounts to have a very clear picture of what really happened.

Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.

Quote:
What is amazing is that all the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed have, with that Irag war, been achieved.
Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 11:27 AM   #82
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yes, Clinton and a host of other prominent Democrats were bullish on regime change in the 1990's, but stopped short of using the US Military to demand it, nor did Clinton's scope ever go beyond Saddam.


Big difference, the Iraq Liberation Act forbid the direct use of force to achieve regime change. The Act provided a few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups.

By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence
Without force there would not have been regime change. Not in Iraq. Not in any other Arab country. A few million dollars in funding to aid resistance groups is a nice token to make it look like your serious about the regime change that you say is necessary, but it was only an uneffective token. The threat of Islamic terrorism had risen to demonstrably real events, and there was no real "plan" to strike at its roots. No, or "moderate," action was just encouragement for more terrorism. Massive retaliation or counter attack would, supposedly, just incite more terrorism. The roots of terrorism were planted in a religious view that the West with its democratic secular views was the Devil. Removing that root and planting a new one of, as you put it, liberization of the East needed to begin. If invading Iraq was the wrong way, history may or may not tell. The writers of history also have differing roots. As far as the cost in blood and treasure goes, there is no telling what the cost might be now and in the future if this liberalization did not begin or if we are not "lucky" enough to have it succeed.

Arguments, as ecduzitgood says, go back and forth. You are absolutely sure your argument is right. I am not sure one way or the other. So I'll defer to your view simply to defer also to ecdu's q "I believe this horse is dead now, yes?"
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 05:59 PM   #83
Joe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 3,650
I think it had to be done. I don't agree with the method. Shock and Awe was just the blowing up of unoccupied government buildings. Going door-to-door clearing neighborhoods was very costly.
I think it comes down to what we can do, and what we shouldn't do. We could have bombed to a much greater extent. We elected not to, and instead engaged the enemy in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties, and then engaged in a protracted occupation which left a teetering democracy in its wake.
We could have gotten away with inflicting significantly more collateral civilian casualties and preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many.
Iraq is little more than lines on a map drawn by colonial powers of the last century. The Iraqi people do not posses a national identity like the USA does. People are more aligned along tribal and religious lines. We should have let the Kurds have self-determination and their own country. If the Shia and the Sunnis can't live in peace together, then they should not live together. We should not have been so insistent on imposing a national unity that never existed of its own volition, but only under the iron rule of a dictatorship.
There had to have been a better way. Let's hope we can find it before the next occupation becomes necessary.

Joe is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 06:12 PM   #84
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Torture leaving no permanent damage as in fear of dogs snarling at them, placement of panties on their heads, loud music, sleep deprivation, making them stand for long periods of time, and water boarding. All acceptable to me to me if it keeps civilians in this country safe and they don't find themselves trapped in a building getting burned from fires caused by jet fuel or having to jump to their deaths, or get crushed when the building collapses.

Wouldn't you think the victims of 9/11 would prefer water boarding compared to what they went through? Keep in mind we are talking about civilians and first responders here, they did not deserve what happen to them, thats what I consider torture not what you make reference to were we are talking about enemy combatants not civilians. To me it makes a difference when people who are not involved in the war suffer and those that are involved are supposed to be treated well, yeah that will teach them...time out.
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 07:31 PM   #85
Joe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 3,650
It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?
Secure the perimeter and burn the hotspots to to the ground. Which in turn would make the next neighborhood less willing to harbor insurgents and more likely to inform if they were present - lest they burn next. Having U.S. servicemen going door to door and getting their as_ses shot off makes little sense. Ask the families who lost soldiers - there were twice as many of them than there was on 9/11.
When civilians equate the tolerance of insurgents with certain death from us, rather than possible death from them,then the the insurgency loses traction.

Joe is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 07:56 PM   #86
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
No civilian deserves to die over the action of their state. But if you've got a four block area chock-a-block full of insurgents, is there a more casualty conducive method than going methodically, door-to-door? While leaving ample time and opportunity for escape?
Secure the perimeter and burn the hotspots to to the ground. Which in turn would make the next neighborhood less willing to harbor insurgents and more likely to inform if they were present - lest they burn next. Having U.S. servicemen going door to door and getting their as_ses shot off makes little sense. Ask the families who lost soldiers - there were twice as many of them than there was on 9/11.
When civilians equate the tolerance of insurgents with certain death from us, rather than possible death from them,then the the insurgency loses traction.
I will have to think that over only because I really would rather not burn or kill civilians. This does have some merit if it's done correctly, but it is beyond me figuring out how it should be done. I don't like the door to door method and agree that's not the way to do it, fear is necessary terror isn't.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-17-2012, 08:18 PM   #87
Joe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 3,650
I'm not in favor of killing anyone unnecessarily. But what's the point of the defense budget if we put so little value on American lives that we result to something as primitive as using our soldiers as bait? Is an Iraqi life worth more than an American soldier? I don't think so.
Instructions can be given. Fifteen minutes to clear out before it becomes a free-fire zone. Cash payments for any info that leads to results. Detain anyone suspicious if they try and get through.

Joe is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 03:27 PM   #88
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
It's solid reasoning, if it were Iraqis hijacking the airlines. The perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
Just to clarify, this ties with reason I did not think Hamburg translated well to Iraq. In hamburg, pretty much all the deaths were civilians. Something like 60 or 70% were women and children, many of whom burned alive as they sank in molten blacktop as they tried to escape. It would have been much harder to defend such a campaign based on the circumstances of the invasion of Iraq. In wwii the Germans were murdering millions and actively pursuing world domination, aided by Japan. The situation was so dire that most people support the use of nuclear weapons to end the war. Iraq was a different situation, and whether or not Bush and Cheney intentionally misled, it was not anywhere near the dire situation of wwii. That said, Joe may very well be correct that a similar type of attack could have shortened the war.

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 01-18-2012, 07:05 PM   #89
likwid
lobster = striper bait
iTrader: (0)
 
likwid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Popes Island Performing Arts Center
Posts: 5,871
Send a message via AIM to likwid
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
By contrast we've spent nearly a trillion dollars on Operation Iraqi Freedom and lost around 4500 personnel to create this fledgeling democratic institution...not very "amazing" in this context. If Iraq does maintain a peaceful democracy we may well be lucky...they've got a ways to go.

-spence
You forgot the 100,000 civilian deaths.

Ski Quicks Hole
likwid is offline  
Old 01-19-2012, 11:36 AM   #90
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
I think it had to be done. I don't agree with the method. Shock and Awe was just the blowing up of unoccupied government buildings. Going door-to-door clearing neighborhoods was very costly.
I think it comes down to what we can do, and what we shouldn't do. We could have bombed to a much greater extent. We elected not to, and instead engaged the enemy in such a way as to reduce civilian casualties, and then engaged in a protracted occupation which left a teetering democracy in its wake.
We could have gotten away with inflicting significantly more collateral civilian casualties and preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many.
Iraq is little more than lines on a map drawn by colonial powers of the last century. The Iraqi people do not posses a national identity like the USA does. People are more aligned along tribal and religious lines. We should have let the Kurds have self-determination and their own country. If the Shia and the Sunnis can't live in peace together, then they should not live together. We should not have been so insistent on imposing a national unity that never existed of its own volition, but only under the iron rule of a dictatorship.
There had to have been a better way. Let's hope we can find it before the next occupation becomes necessary.
"preserved our honor, rather than rely on torture. Torture inflicted upon a few is less honorable than collateral death imposed on many."

First of all, I was in Iraq, and I assume you were not.

Second, in what way did we "rely on torture"? Do you mean the whopping 3 terrorists who were waterboarded? Are are you referring to Abu Ghraib? If you are referring to Abu Ghraib, we were not "relying" on what went on there, those were the actions of a miniscule minority of our troops. Unfortunately, liberals with an anti-Bush agenda made it seem like that was commonplace, and some simple-minded anti-Bush fanatics boughth into it.

Third, you say torture of a few is less honorable than collateral death of many? Oh, that's precious. So if Bush carpet-bombed the whole country, the liberals would have celebrated that, by saying "well, massive carpet bombing is better than forcing prisoners to have dogs bark at them".

Some people who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, will blindly accept any liberal criticism of George Bush. Those people are deranged with hatred for Bush, and have no grasp of reality or common sense.
Jim in CT is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com