In this thread, we discuss Political Implications of the Capture of Saddam

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by enlightenment06
I love me some sugar and spice

thanks for making my greekchat experience more enjoyable!

Yay! Speaking of which, I have an addition to make to the GC Crush thread . . .

Originally posted by russellwarshay
"It's not lying if you believe it."
- George Costanza

I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes that "I thought it was justified" is not nearly enough justification for a country to make a decision that will kill thousands of people, cost billions of dollars, and alienate our allies.

Not to mention that, as I said, the case was vastly overstated. The Bush admin didn't say "We think they have weapons of mass destruction." It was a little more explicit than that.

Cheney probably couldn't have dreamt up a more receptive and appropriate audience for the speech he was about to deliver at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel, where he would declare unequivocally, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...wmd/index.html

Asked if there existed any current evidence behind these claims [that Iraq possessed WMD] or if the claims were based on Iraq's possession of some of these weapons in the past, Rumsfeld said he didn't "think that if it were the latter the president would be saying what he's saying or the director of Central Intelligence would be saying what he's saying." -- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...wmd/index.html

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld perhaps was the most expansive: "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons. There's no debate in the world as to whether they're continuing to develop and acquire them. There's no debate in the world as to whether or not he's used them. There's no debate in the world as to whether or not he's consistently threatening his neighbors with them. We all know that. A trained ape knows that." -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061703A.shtml

In the second week of the war, Rumsfeld is asked on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" if he was surprised that no WMD had yet been found, being that coalition forces already controlled so much of the country.

"Not at all," Rumsfeld said. Coalition forces controlled substantial portions of the country, but those "happen not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed." Don't worry, Rumsfeld conveyed. "We know where they are," he said. -- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...wmd/index.html

(Okay, so I lied. It wasn't Bush himself who said that he knew where they were. Close enough.)

At its most innocent, Bush and his team decided that Saddam had WMD and decided to ignore all reports that suggested anything to the contrary (of which there were a number). At its worst, the government purposefully decieved the American people and, like I said before, took advantage of their insecurities in order to build support for a war which, before 9/11, would not have been supported.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
KS 361 throwaway comments like this we can expect from the Dems

Close, but no cigar. I'm not a registered Democrat.

Feel better now?

(361 times a conservative has pegged me wrong, just because I'm a Bush-hater)

[Sistermadly]

I was scouting around different news sites this afternoon and came across a quote from someone who said that Saddam shouldn't or wouldn't be tried for crimes against humanity because he hadn't committed any.

Were the stories about him "gassing his own people" just that - stories? If it was in fact true, why wouldn't this qualify as a crime against humanity?

Originally posted by Sistermadly
Close, but no cigar. I'm not a registered Democrat.

Feel better now?

(361 times a conservative has pegged me wrong, just because I'm a Bush-hater)

<sigh>

So, you're a Bush-hater, not a Dem. That's fine. In my thread did i say,

Sistermadly, you are a Democrat.

did i? lets check.

Nope.

Not really.

Not in the same ballpark, not even the same damn sport.

Vietnam started as advisors and escalated into a full-blown guerilla conflict.

Iraq is currently a nation-building mission. Major conflict is over. Guerrilla hit and run tactics are ocurring, but with NOWHERE near the loss of life in Vietnam.

It will take a while to build the nation that is Iraq, Bush wants to turn the government over to the Iraqis next summer, but we will still have troops there. BUT, i highly doubt that 5 years from now we will have 1/100th of the troop presence that we did 5 years into the Vietnam conflict.

Kitso
KS 361 throwaway comments like this we can expect from the Dems

hmm, nope, that quote doesn't appear to be anywhere in there.

I did point out your erroneous hyperbole. But you didn't care to respond to that. And, forgive me for guessing that we can expect that comment from Dems, whether you yourself are one or not. I mean, i couldn't very well have said

KS 361 throwaway comments like this we can expect from the Republicans

because while you may be a republican who would make such a throwaway comment, i think we may come up 360 GOPers short.(using the number for a joke, i'm sure there are other disgruntled GOPers out there, not too many that i've met personally though)

in closing, the only thing directed towards YOU in that post was a refutation of your claim that this is a Vietnam for the 21st century.

Kitso
KS 361 times reading comprehension is cool!

[Sistermadly]

Edited because I find tit-for-tat arguments as tedious as the rest of you do.

Happy Holidays, Kitso.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
Yay! Speaking of which, I have an addition to make to the GC Crush thread . . .



I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes that "I thought it was justified" is not nearly enough justification for a country to make a decision that will kill thousands of people, cost billions of dollars, and alienate our allies.

Not to mention that, as I said, the case was vastly overstated. The Bush admin didn't say "We think they have weapons of mass destruction." It was a little more explicit than that.

Cheney probably couldn't have dreamt up a more receptive and appropriate audience for the speech he was about to deliver at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel, where he would declare unequivocally, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...wmd/index.html

Asked if there existed any current evidence behind these claims [that Iraq possessed WMD] or if the claims were based on Iraq's possession of some of these weapons in the past, Rumsfeld said he didn't "think that if it were the latter the president would be saying what he's saying or the director of Central Intelligence would be saying what he's saying." -- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...wmd/index.html

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld perhaps was the most expansive: "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons. There's no debate in the world as to whether they're continuing to develop and acquire them. There's no debate in the world as to whether or not he's used them. There's no debate in the world as to whether or not he's consistently threatening his neighbors with them. We all know that. A trained ape knows that." -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061703A.shtml

In the second week of the war, Rumsfeld is asked on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" if he was surprised that no WMD had yet been found, being that coalition forces already controlled so much of the country.

"Not at all," Rumsfeld said. Coalition forces controlled substantial portions of the country, but those "happen not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed." Don't worry, Rumsfeld conveyed. "We know where they are," he said. -- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...wmd/index.html

(Okay, so I lied. It wasn't Bush himself who said that he knew where they were. Close enough.)

At its most innocent, Bush and his team decided that Saddam had WMD and decided to ignore all reports that suggested anything to the contrary (of which there were a number). At its worst, the government purposefully decieved the American people and, like I said before, took advantage of their insecurities in order to build support for a war which, before 9/11, would not have been supported.

There remains a huge hole for anyone who alleges that President Bush was part of a conspiracy to initiate a war against Iraq: The 2001 anthrax attacks.

Quite simply, only several weeks after the 9-11 attacks, the American people would have accepted that the Anthrax was from Iraq. Indeed, the Bush administration was given a perfect excuse on a silver platter. Instead, the government acted responsibly and ethically. This was a better excuse to declare war (actual, or de facto) against Iraq than WMD.

All we have, from critics of the Bush administration are conspiracy theories with no real evidence. We do have correlation, but correlation does not equal causation.

Please try again.