Saudi Arabia are harboring some of those terrorist as well as the Syrians (who were reponsbile for the bombing that Libya got blamed for), let's nto forget Egypt or Yemen.

I answered you. I said I'm totally against ALL OF THE OCCUPATION. There was NO JUSTIFICATION other than SPECULATION. But to clear it up for you, we can't leave now. My point is that we should've never been there in the first place. Trust me, if people got that tired of a type of rule it'd got changed. THEN and ONLY THEN would I be for American involvment. But you can't incite a revolution against a government and that is basically what we're NOW (now that there are no WMD) are doing.

Personally, I couldn't argue much with it (although i don't agree) if that was OUR MAIN REASON FOR BEING THERE. But it wasn't. WMDs were our reason. those soldiers died believing that they were getting rid of a guy who possess WMD and were going to use them. Not to free the Iraqis and not because we believe he'll HAVE them.

Nobody said Iraqis are used to having a dictator. But what works for the United States doesn't work for Great Britain or Saudi Arabia. What works for Scotland, WON'T work for the United States. Can't run a Run and SHoot offense if you only have one guy who can catch a football.

As far as gassing Irainians, it's funny Americans are so against but have no answer to the fact that the American government was actually shaking hands with Saddam while he was doing it. But I guess it help eliminate that pesky Iranian problem huh? Saddam is just as much threat to the United States as Howard's University football team is to the New England Patroits

Once again, just admit Bush was wrong. :rolleyes:

The bottom line to me is that the reasons the American people were given for starting this war were bogus.

It has nothing to do with whether the Iraqi people are better off. It has nothing to do with whether the world is safer without Saddam. It has nothing to do with 9/11. Those weren't the reasons given then and are begging the question now.

Is hindsight 20/20? Sure it is -- and several reports by various commissions have helped us understand how wrong the reasons given us were. Even back then the UN Wepons Inspectors had found nothing except the very most circumstantial evidence that there was even a chance of a WMD program.

There was no substantial evidence of WMD's then and none has been found since. The speech that Colin Powell gave to the UN to try to garner support for the war was a joke -- tiny bottles of whatever and pictures of empty trucks.

If the real reason for conflict was to get rid of Saddam -- that was the argument that should have been at the forefront of the debate back then. Of course it might not have flown, so trumped up charges of scary WMD's were used instead.

This belief isn't something new on my part -- I believed it and was saying it before we invaded. Go back and check the posts.

Maybe a good argument could have been made for action against Iraq -- but the way the war was "sold" to us was absolutely wrong -- and I think cynical. Does anyone think that this could be the reason for the lack of real combat and financial support we got from almost anyone?

Now that we're in this mess, we need to stay in it until there is some kind of (hopefully) favorable resolution. It's not going to be a pretty effort, though. I can't help but wish we had finished the job the first time when we had a strong coalition -- and a strong and just reason for fighting.

Put politics aside -- if that's even possible these days -- and search your hearts. Be honest with yourselves. Look at the evidence both then and now. You are intelligent people. Somebody wasn't telling the real story. Whatever it is.

So you're upset with Kerry, Edwards, Bush, and the rest of the American legislators that chose to go to war?

-Rudey

Absolutely.

And do you blame only the legislators or also the intelligence community that failed in determining where these WMD are/were?

There are questions left open by this report.

Where are the remains of the WMD if they were destroyed?

There is a question of what would have happened in the future with WMD given the use in the country.

Were WMD moved to other countries like Syria or hidden?

And unlike you I truly see WMD as but one of many reasons we went in there. I don't see war for the sake of war. I truly wish we could reconstruct and rebuild the country along with Afghanistan. I see rogue countries like Iran and Syria moving towards eliminating their weapons programs.

There is one thing I don't like about this war and have never liked. I feel as if Iran has been strengthened. But I don't see that as only a result of this war. The problem is a global one, whereby the Europeans do not care what happens.

-Rudey

I have no idea (due to your grammar) what the hell you are trying to say in that last sentence. Because you capitalized a word, I guess you think it's important. Please proof your replies before posting.

So you're totally against the occupation, but you're against withdrawal as well? Dude, you're beginning to sound like Senator Kerry.

Choose a side, A or B. You're either for or against. If a certain candidate could get that through his skull, he'd have a 10-point lead right now.



No, the panel gave pretty concrete proof that he did plan on manufacturing these things. Again, which is better, having to deal with this man when he actually had his WMD's or nipping the problem in the bud beforehand? Again, A or B.



So what you're saying is that the Iraqi people aren't capable of having a democracy because they're too dumb, they like being tortured, they lack the skills, etc.? Running a government is in no way similar to playing football. For one thing, Iraq doesn't have the 85 scholarship limitation thing, a salary cap or any of that stuff.

On the other hand, they do have one of the most highly educated electorates in the region. That is one thing that Saddam knew he needed -- smart people that knew stuff. Now, those smart people are the ones leading the rebuilding of their country. They plan on having real democratic elections shortly. Specifically, why do you not think they are capable of living under a representative government? Your football analogy just ain't analogous enough.

So you're going back to our foriegn policy 30 years saying that we were friends with him and therefore, now he's not a threat. No, he just had people caught a few years ago trying to assasinate or President, no biggie.

I'll tell you another person we were wrong to shake hands with 30 years ago who I guess by your logic is also not a threat -- Osama Bin Ladin.

Based on the evidence presented to him (and Kerry), they both made the decision to go to war. It was made on faulty information. So, Bush, Kerry and Edwards were all equally wrong.

Maybe Kerry less equally because he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.

Rudey, I'm just as upset about the legislature who voted on it too (KERRY INCLUDED) because everybody risked American Lives so they can "win votes" for future offices. Nobody actually sat down and looked at what really threatned us. But I hope everybody can help rebuild Iraq because what done is done. Now it's time to help out.

But I thought you were against the occupation?

The intelligence community as well, along with the various administrations -- Democrats and Republicans -- who have weakened our ability to gather human intelligence and who have weakened our military to the point that this war has put such a strain on it.

But I also blame those who run agencies like the CIA who have allowed it and themselves to become politicized to the point that they tell the President and Congress what it wants to hear as much as what is really going on. That's also not limited to one President or one party.

Do you blame yourself for voting for these men and for representing your interests as well?

-Rudey

WOW, the grammar nazis are here. But I'll work with you.


I was against the initial war, still am. But, I agree with you, that we can't pull out. I'm just saying we shouldn't be occupying Iraq in the first place. But we can't leave now until the mess is cleaned up.

The football analogy wasnt' for you to compare piece by piece. Of course it's not exactly the same. But I take it that you've never coached a team nor held position in government. I've done both (Head Football coach at several MS and I was a elected Junior official in the town I went to HS) and you must realize that what you do in DC can't be done in Lexington, NC. What you do in the USA might not work in other countries.

As far as WMD, you can't go to WAR based on SPECULATION. Concrete proof is basically calling this report a lie. Snake, you got republicans who are not buying this. I told you my view, you're going agree with it or not. I can deal with that. My thing is basically that we can't pull out. My conscience wouldn't allow me to fully agree with leaving those Iraqis to more chaos then what they have now.


P.S. it was 20 years ago and not 30.

reread my post

Still Twisting and twirling around.

I'm not demanding perfect or even good grammar. I do, however, ask (politely) that you please make sense when you post. I think you'd agree that it hurts the flow of the discussion. I could care less where you put your commas and semi-colons though. Totally up to you :D



Excellent. I agree. We certainly went in there based on flawed intelligence which anyone will concede. Now that we're there, it's a disservice to the 1000+ men and women that have made the ultimate sacrifice. Hopefully, in the end, good will come of this. There is certainly a huge potential for good to come out of this if the planets are properly aligned.



Your expereince as a football coach qualifies you to be an expert on the formation of democratic regimes following despotic ones? I don't believe they are going to have a USA-style democracy there at all. That was never the goal and still isn't. However, this go-round, the Iraqi people are going to be able to choose their own leaders on a regular basis. My understanding at this point is that the new government will ultimately be influenced a great deal by Islam but still consist of elected officials. Will it be a good thing for the United States? Who knows. It will certainly be of benefit to the Iraqi people though.

As far as the election goes, this is really a non-issue since all the candidates basically voted the same way when it came to going to war. We felt our proof was fairly concrete, but in the end, it turned out to be a huge case of groupthink.

As far as when it was, does it really make a difference? Our government was dealing with Osama and Bin Ladin. Your logic was still horrible. 20 years ago is just as irrelevant today in that area as 30.

So to synthesize what's going on here:

1. We disagree over whether or not we should have gone in in the first place.

2. We agree that we should stay

3. We disagree over whether Iraq is capable of maintaining a representative government without constant US involvement.

#1 can't be resolved. #2 is resolved. #3 -- only time will tell.

This is well-put and fair, even though i don't agree with the path or premise (which we're just going to have to see that we have differing views on world politics and the US role therein, it is what it is).

That said - will you agree that stabilizing the middle east is the only way to actually 'fight' terrorism?