Does anyone care we won the war in IRAQ?

[JRK]

Saddam we know lied
we invaded to find out the rest of the story, if anything all of this spamming has proven is it was the right thing to do
Saddam had WMDS
He lied about what he did with them
Blix got caught 10 miles over his head
he said one thing before the invasion and another after

 

[JRK]

Did anyone support Blix's account?

Not saying he is a liar, but given a choice to decide that Bush and Blair simply wanted to see men and women die and also ruin their legacies OR someone else lying to protect his reputation.....well.....I would go with someone else lying to protect his reputation.

Just saying'

Are you suggesting that we take the word of a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade over word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's?

Why would you think that's a logical and correct assumption?

well..the way you phrased it makes it sound like it is an illogical assumption.

But, you see, the way you phrased it includes an assumption on your part..."a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade"...

now lets rephrase it without any biases or assumptions....

Are you suggesting that we take the word of two leaders of the free world who would have the lives of any fallen soldiers on their heads or the word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's.

Well...to be honest, I would take the word of two leaders of the free world.

SO I again ask.....did anyone back up Blix's claim?

Jarhead actually Blix was not suppose to find anything
his job was to confirm the confirmation, that's all
The left started that lie along time ago, sorry
BBC NEWS | Americas | Key points of resolution on Iraq

 

[Nic_Driver]

Did anyone support Blix's account?

Not saying he is a liar, but given a choice to decide that Bush and Blair simply wanted to see men and women die and also ruin their legacies OR someone else lying to protect his reputation.....well.....I would go with someone else lying to protect his reputation.

Just saying'

Are you suggesting that we take the word of a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade over word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's?

Why would you think that's a logical and correct assumption?

well..the way you phrased it makes it sound like it is an illogical assumption.

But, you see, the way you phrased it includes an assumption on your part..."a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade"...

now lets rephrase it without any biases or assumptions....

Are you suggesting that we take the word of two leaders of the free world who would have the lives of any fallen soldiers on their heads or the word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's.

Well...to be honest, I would take the word of two leaders of the free world.

SO I again ask.....did anyone back up Blix's claim?

No one from his team countered his account, confirmation by omission. In fact, no one has doubted him on this.

Why would you doubt his word anyway? It turns out that he and his inspectors were right all along, why would he have to lie?

 

[Synthaholic]

41 on avg murdered in the US last night

How many in a terrorist act? Suicide mission? Innocents, women and children?

 

[JWBooth]

 

[Jarhead]

Are you suggesting that we take the word of a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade over word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's?

Why would you think that's a logical and correct assumption?

well..the way you phrased it makes it sound like it is an illogical assumption.

But, you see, the way you phrased it includes an assumption on your part..."a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade"...

now lets rephrase it without any biases or assumptions....

Are you suggesting that we take the word of two leaders of the free world who would have the lives of any fallen soldiers on their heads or the word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's.

Well...to be honest, I would take the word of two leaders of the free world.

SO I again ask.....did anyone back up Blix's claim?

No one from his team countered his account, confirmation by omission. In fact, no one has doubted him on this.

Why would you doubt his word anyway? It turns out that he and his inspectors were right all along, why would he have to lie?

I can not say for certain why he would lie....but I can come up with many possibilities.
Maybe he is a democrat.
Maybe he did not appreciate his treatment by Bush.
Maybe he wanted his 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe he wanted to write a book.
Maybe he had something to gain.
Maybe he hated the war and wanted to do all he can to demean Bush.

Or

Maybe he didnt lie at all.

The question was "who should I believe"

And seeing as two of the top leaders of the free world agree with a different scenario....I tend to want to believe two leaders of the free world....over one head of an inspections committee who has no one backing him up with the best he has is no one saying he is wrong.

People keeping "mum" is not a sign of agreement. It is a sign of not wanting to get involved.....and usually a sign of disagreement if anything.

 

[8537]

Well, then the complaint should be with our military leaders as they diod not prepare for what they should have expected.

Well there was obviously pressure from Rumsfeld and the administration to keep the force small - that's why we didn't go in with a massive front, we went in with 100K or so. And you're right, the people who made that decisions should be held accountable. But so should the people who decided we should invade in the first place, regardless of force size.




Well, it's only a necessity if you plan to use it as justification for invading.


Except the record has demonstrated that the economy WAS much worse than we - Republicans, democrats, Keynesians, Austrians, Monetarists across the board - thought. with the assistance of final data we can now see the depth of that time better.

Come on 8537...you know political rhetoric when you see it. Both sides use it to defend themselves when the opposition trys to capitalize on a negative result of a policy.

Certainly! It's just a slightly different standard when you're taking a nation to war. But I fully understand that there are optics to consider (on both sides)

ahh...but the point is....this administration did not say "we think we know the severity of the economic situation and we think this stimulus would work."

To the contrary this adminstration said "we have analyzed this economy and I am following the advice of 100 of the worlds top economists who have assured me that this is the action we should take."

So you see, even you, 8537, sort of fell for the aftermath rhetoric...and it was designed to cloud the issue...and prompt you to accept the excuse.

But the data for that period WAS revised dramatically downward and that changed our understanding of the depth of the recession. They HAD analyzed the economy, the BEA had analyzed it, as had economists of every stripe - and all of those analyses (Bar a few) were simply wrong.

And that is exactly wahT Bush did with the "liberators" thing....afterall, he never said we were going in as liberators...he said we were going in for WMD's.

His administration said we'd be greeted as liberators. If they had said we'd be treated as invaders folks wouldn't have been so inclined to support it.

I will always see through democratic spin and rhetoric and you will always see through republican spin and rhetoric...but more often than not, you will beleive the democratic spin and rhetoric and I will believe the republicans.

Although I will admit...when they startted to use the "liberators" thing, I got angry. That was never part of the plan.

True that I think we're both smart enough to see through both sides spin and rhetoric - but for both of us, one side of that rhetoric is more in line with our own beliefs.

 

[Jarhead]

Are you suggesting that we take the word of a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade over word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's?

Why would you think that's a logical and correct assumption?

well..the way you phrased it makes it sound like it is an illogical assumption.

But, you see, the way you phrased it includes an assumption on your part..."a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade"...

now lets rephrase it without any biases or assumptions....

Are you suggesting that we take the word of two leaders of the free world who would have the lives of any fallen soldiers on their heads or the word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's.

Well...to be honest, I would take the word of two leaders of the free world.

SO I again ask.....did anyone back up Blix's claim?

No one from his team countered his account, confirmation by omission. In fact, no one has doubted him on this.

Why would you doubt his word anyway? It turns out that he and his inspectors were right all along, why would he have to lie?

Let me ask you this...why do you assume Bush and Blair had lied?

I know your answer...but it has two assumptions in it...

You assume they lied and you assume they lied becuase the were looking for reasons to invade

Mine has only one assumption in it....I assume Blix lied.

So lets take OUT your assumption that Bush and Blair were both looking for reason to invade...... and lets compare notes.

You assumed Bush and Blair lied.

I assume Blix lied.

Now why would my assumption be any more irrational than your assumption?

So you see....we can agree to disagree without having to say that one is being irrational.

Try it...you will find you will have some very enjoyable debates.

 

[Jarhead]

Well there was obviously pressure from Rumsfeld and the administration to keep the force small - that's why we didn't go in with a massive front, we went in with 100K or so. And you're right, the people who made that decisions should be held accountable. But so should the people who decided we should invade in the first place, regardless of force size.




Well, it's only a necessity if you plan to use it as justification for invading.


Except the record has demonstrated that the economy WAS much worse than we - Republicans, democrats, Keynesians, Austrians, Monetarists across the board - thought. with the assistance of final data we can now see the depth of that time better.



Certainly! It's just a slightly different standard when you're taking a nation to war. But I fully understand that there are optics to consider (on both sides)

ahh...but the point is....this administration did not say "we think we know the severity of the economic situation and we think this stimulus would work."

To the contrary this adminstration said "we have analyzed this economy and I am following the advice of 100 of the worlds top economists who have assured me that this is the action we should take."

So you see, even you, 8537, sort of fell for the aftermath rhetoric...and it was designed to cloud the issue...and prompt you to accept the excuse.

But the data for that period WAS revised dramatically downward and that changed our understanding of the depth of the recession. They HAD analyzed the economy, the BEA had analyzed it, as had economists of every stripe - and all of those analyses (Bar a few) were simply wrong.

And that is exactly wahT Bush did with the "liberators" thing....afterall, he never said we were going in as liberators...he said we were going in for WMD's.

His administration said we'd be greeted as liberators. If they had said we'd be treated as invaders folks wouldn't have been so inclined to support it.

I will always see through democratic spin and rhetoric and you will always see through republican spin and rhetoric...but more often than not, you will beleive the democratic spin and rhetoric and I will believe the republicans.

Although I will admit...when they startted to use the "liberators" thing, I got angry. That was never part of the plan.

True that I think we're both smart enough to see through both sides spin and rhetoric - but for both of us, one side of that rhetoric is more in line with our own beliefs.

lol...gotta point this ut to ya...not to be an ass......just to make a point.....(although it is fun to be an ass)....

Yes, If Bush had said we will be greeted as invaders he would have had less support for the war. But this does not mean he truly did not believe we would be greeted as liberators.

However....

If Obama had said "we may be wrong with our calculations and the economy may be different than we think and this stimulus may not have as much of an impact as we hope".....he would have had less support for the stimulus. But this does not mean he truly did not believe it would work.

dont you see?

Both sides had their political spin ready in case of failure.

 

[8537]

ahh...but the point is....this administration did not say "we think we know the severity of the economic situation and we think this stimulus would work."

To the contrary this adminstration said "we have analyzed this economy and I am following the advice of 100 of the worlds top economists who have assured me that this is the action we should take."

So you see, even you, 8537, sort of fell for the aftermath rhetoric...and it was designed to cloud the issue...and prompt you to accept the excuse.

But the data for that period WAS revised dramatically downward and that changed our understanding of the depth of the recession. They HAD analyzed the economy, the BEA had analyzed it, as had economists of every stripe - and all of those analyses (Bar a few) were simply wrong.



His administration said we'd be greeted as liberators. If they had said we'd be treated as invaders folks wouldn't have been so inclined to support it.

I will always see through democratic spin and rhetoric and you will always see through republican spin and rhetoric...but more often than not, you will beleive the democratic spin and rhetoric and I will believe the republicans.

Although I will admit...when they startted to use the "liberators" thing, I got angry. That was never part of the plan.

True that I think we're both smart enough to see through both sides spin and rhetoric - but for both of us, one side of that rhetoric is more in line with our own beliefs.

lol...gotta point this ut to ya...not to be an ass......just to make a point.....(although it is fun to be an ass)....

Yes, If Bush had said we will be greeted as invaders he would have had less support for the war. But this does not mean he truly did not believe we would be greeted as liberators.

Bush is too smart to have believed that. No one in that administration that had any experience in the ME would have known that we would not be greeted as liberators.

However....

If Obama had said "we may be wrong with our calculations and the economy may be different than we think and this stimulus may not have as much of an impact as we hope".....he would have had less support for the stimulus. But this does not mean he truly did not believe it would work.

dont you see?

Of course. There's a fundamental difference between a spending plan and taking a nation to war - and there's a difference between admitting you're not certain of the scope of the economic problem and making a patently false claim about being greeted as liberators in a war that instead costs thousands of lives.

But I think Obama knew damn well that the stimulus wouldn't "work" if you define that as quickly returning us to full employment and capacity utilization. It was a mix of stimulative economic policy, a way to fund states and other programs of interest and a way to cut taxes in one big package. While it was nominally economic policy, it was clearly also political policy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Saddam we know lied
we invaded to find out the rest of the story, if anything all of this spamming has proven is it was the right thing to do
Saddam had WMDSHe lied about what he did with them
Blix got caught 10 miles over his head
he said one thing before the invasion and another after

Odd that JRK voices his support for Bush by calling Bush a liar, Bush himself said there were no WMD's.

 

[Nic_Driver]

well..the way you phrased it makes it sound like it is an illogical assumption.

But, you see, the way you phrased it includes an assumption on your part..."a political leader who was looking for a reason to invade"...

now lets rephrase it without any biases or assumptions....

Are you suggesting that we take the word of two leaders of the free world who would have the lives of any fallen soldiers on their heads or the word of the head of a team of inspectors whose job it was to find the supposed WMD's.

Well...to be honest, I would take the word of two leaders of the free world.

SO I again ask.....did anyone back up Blix's claim?

No one from his team countered his account, confirmation by omission. In fact, no one has doubted him on this.

Why would you doubt his word anyway? It turns out that he and his inspectors were right all along, why would he have to lie?

I can not say for certain why he would lie....but I can come up with many possibilities.
Maybe he is a democrat.
Maybe he did not appreciate his treatment by Bush.
Maybe he wanted his 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe he wanted to write a book.
Maybe he had something to gain.
Maybe he hated the war and wanted to do all he can to demean Bush.

Or

Maybe he didnt lie at all.

The question was "who should I believe"

And seeing as two of the top leaders of the free world agree with a different scenario....I tend to want to believe two leaders of the free world....over one head of an inspections committee who has no one backing him up with the best he has is no one saying he is wrong.

People keeping "mum" is not a sign of agreement. It is a sign of not wanting to get involved.....and usually a sign of disagreement if anything.

I guess you can believe whatever you want Jarhead but I'm not going to be drawn down into a speculative debate that sidesteps the issue.

Blix said Saddam was cooperating and he's the guy who would know, no one else.

Bush's invasion lacked either Congressional or UN support, yet he invaded anyway.

 

[JRK]

here we go again
So many for reason are. So far off subjec

It was not blixes,place in life to lie
It was Saddams
Arguing about who lied allows the real truth to be ignored
SADDAM LIED

He supplied the info that made claim there was. 6500 munitions un accounted 4
Anthrax
Nerve gas
Its why we invaded

 

[Jarhead]

No one from his team countered his account, confirmation by omission. In fact, no one has doubted him on this.

Why would you doubt his word anyway? It turns out that he and his inspectors were right all along, why would he have to lie?

I can not say for certain why he would lie....but I can come up with many possibilities.
Maybe he is a democrat.
Maybe he did not appreciate his treatment by Bush.
Maybe he wanted his 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe he wanted to write a book.
Maybe he had something to gain.
Maybe he hated the war and wanted to do all he can to demean Bush.

Or

Maybe he didnt lie at all.

The question was "who should I believe"

And seeing as two of the top leaders of the free world agree with a different scenario....I tend to want to believe two leaders of the free world....over one head of an inspections committee who has no one backing him up with the best he has is no one saying he is wrong.

People keeping "mum" is not a sign of agreement. It is a sign of not wanting to get involved.....and usually a sign of disagreement if anything.

I guess you can believe whatever you want Jarhead but I'm not going to be drawn down into a speculative debate that sidesteps the issue.

Blix said Saddam was cooperating and he's the guy who would know, no one else.

Bush's invasion lacked either Congressional or UN support, yet he invaded anyway.

huh?

Did not have congressional support?

Excuse me....it REQUIRED congressional support.....by law.

Never mind. I did not realize how naive you are. I no longer care to debate with you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Jarhead is correct, the Iraq blunder is the fault of both parties.

As is the Iraq embargo, both parties at fault.

All in all something like 300,000 innocent Iraqis dead in 15 years or so because of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, approved of by both parties.

 

[JRK]

41 on avg murdered in the US last night

How many in a terrorist act? Suicide mission? Innocents, women and children?[/QUOTE
Is it your claim that shooting a.fellow human with a gun in the head until. She-He is dead is not an act of terror

My god is that strange

 

[Nic_Driver]

I can not say for certain why he would lie....but I can come up with many possibilities.
Maybe he is a democrat.
Maybe he did not appreciate his treatment by Bush.
Maybe he wanted his 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe he wanted to write a book.
Maybe he had something to gain.
Maybe he hated the war and wanted to do all he can to demean Bush.

Or

Maybe he didnt lie at all.

The question was "who should I believe"

And seeing as two of the top leaders of the free world agree with a different scenario....I tend to want to believe two leaders of the free world....over one head of an inspections committee who has no one backing him up with the best he has is no one saying he is wrong.

People keeping "mum" is not a sign of agreement. It is a sign of not wanting to get involved.....and usually a sign of disagreement if anything.

I guess you can believe whatever you want Jarhead but I'm not going to be drawn down into a speculative debate that sidesteps the issue.

Blix said Saddam was cooperating and he's the guy who would know, no one else.

Bush's invasion lacked either Congressional or UN support, yet he invaded anyway.

huh?

Did not have congressional support?

Excuse me....it REQUIRED congressional support.....by law.

Never mind. I did not realize how naive you are. I no longer care to debate with you.

How many qualifiers were in the Authorization?

How many were true?

Who was responsible to determine they were true prior to invasion?

Congress didn't hand him a blank check to invade.

I no longer care to debate with you.

Of course not, why would you when I won't play along?

 

[Jarhead]

I guess you can believe whatever you want Jarhead but I'm not going to be drawn down into a speculative debate that sidesteps the issue.

Blix said Saddam was cooperating and he's the guy who would know, no one else.

Bush's invasion lacked either Congressional or UN support, yet he invaded anyway.

huh?

Did not have congressional support?

Excuse me....it REQUIRED congressional support.....by law.

Never mind. I did not realize how naive you are. I no longer care to debate with you.

How many qualifiers were in the Authorization?

How many were true?

Who was responsible to determine they were true prior to invasion?

Congress didn't hand him a blank check to invade.

I no longer care to debate with you.

Of course not, why would you when I won't play along?

play along?

I personally saw us as having a fair debate where we disagreed. I have not spun anything and I have explained why I felt what i felt. I did not just make blanket statements...I backed them up with why I believed what I beleived.

However, you then said that Bush did not have congressional approval. Now that is either an outright lie which is useless for a fair debate...or you are naive and not qualified to engage in this type of debate.

As for the facts presented to congress...it is up to congress to determine if the facts are true for they are the ones burdened with making the decision.

Sure, when things started to go bad, some jumped ship and started to say they were lied to. But if you recall, that was a pattern. They were lied to by the Presidnet regarding intel...but had nothing to back it up. Then they were lied to by the CIA regarding waterboarding..and again had nothing to back it up.

So you see.....you have allowed your political leaning to believe those who claim they allowed the wrong thing to be done becuase they were working with lies...and I am allowing my political leaning allow me to believe the ones who say otherwise.

But now here is the difference.....

The ones who claim they were lied to are paid great salaries and benefits to make sure they have accurate information before they make a decision. The President, on the other hand is not allowed to make any decision unless he has approval from congress (except for executive orders).

So they can say whatever they wasnt as their reason for making the wrong decision...but the bottom line is they did not do their due diligence....

And your political leaning has allowed you to give them a free pass...even though they dropped the ball.

Although...I dont see that they dropped the ball. I believe the action was warranted...and they were political ship jumpers becuase they didnt know how to explain why they were first for the war and then against the war.

I consider them cowards...my opinion.

 

[Nic_Driver]

huh?

Did not have congressional support?

Excuse me....it REQUIRED congressional support.....by law.

Never mind. I did not realize how naive you are. I no longer care to debate with you.

How many qualifiers were in the Authorization?

How many were true?

Who was responsible to determine they were true prior to invasion?

Congress didn't hand him a blank check to invade.

I no longer care to debate with you.

Of course not, why would you when I won't play along?

play along?

I personally saw us as having a fair debate where we disagreed. I have not spun anything and I have explained why I felt what i felt. I did not just make blanket statements...I backed them up with why I believed what I beleived.

However, you then said that Bush did not have congressional approval. Now that is either an outright lie which is useless for a fair debate...or you are naive and not qualified to engage in this type of debate.

As for the facts presented to congress...it is up to congress to determine if the facts are true for they are the ones burdened with making the decision.

Sure, when things started to go bad, some jumped ship and started to say they were lied to. But if you recall, that was a pattern. They were lied to by the Presidnet regarding intel...but had nothing to back it up. Then they were lied to by the CIA regarding waterboarding..and again had nothing to back it up.

So you see.....you have allowed your political leaning to believe those who claim they allowed the wrong thing to be done becuase they were working with lies...and I am allowing my political leaning allow me to believe the ones who say otherwise.

But now here is the difference.....

The ones who claim they were lied to are paid great salaries and benefits to make sure they have accurate information before they make a decision. The President, on the other hand is not allowed to make any decision unless he has approval from congress (except for executive orders).

So they can say whatever they wasnt as their reason for making the wrong decision...but the bottom line is they did not do their due diligence....

And your political leaning has allowed you to give them a free pass...even though they dropped the ball.

Although...I dont see that they dropped the ball. I believe the action was warranted...and they were political ship jumpers becuase they didnt know how to explain why they were first for the war and then against the war.

I consider them cowards...my opinion.

I guess what bothers me the most is Bush gave the order to invade, no one else did or could have. He bears the responsibility for the deaths of American service men and women and should have followed established protocol by adhering to the UN Resolutions regarding this matter.

It wasn't the fault of any Democrat or Independent or Republican, just Bush and he now has blood on his hands and is a wanted war criminal in parts of the world.

 

[Jarhead]

How many qualifiers were in the Authorization?

How many were true?

Who was responsible to determine they were true prior to invasion?

Congress didn't hand him a blank check to invade.



Of course not, why would you when I won't play along?

play along?

I personally saw us as having a fair debate where we disagreed. I have not spun anything and I have explained why I felt what i felt. I did not just make blanket statements...I backed them up with why I believed what I beleived.

However, you then said that Bush did not have congressional approval. Now that is either an outright lie which is useless for a fair debate...or you are naive and not qualified to engage in this type of debate.

As for the facts presented to congress...it is up to congress to determine if the facts are true for they are the ones burdened with making the decision.

Sure, when things started to go bad, some jumped ship and started to say they were lied to. But if you recall, that was a pattern. They were lied to by the Presidnet regarding intel...but had nothing to back it up. Then they were lied to by the CIA regarding waterboarding..and again had nothing to back it up.

So you see.....you have allowed your political leaning to believe those who claim they allowed the wrong thing to be done becuase they were working with lies...and I am allowing my political leaning allow me to believe the ones who say otherwise.

But now here is the difference.....

The ones who claim they were lied to are paid great salaries and benefits to make sure they have accurate information before they make a decision. The President, on the other hand is not allowed to make any decision unless he has approval from congress (except for executive orders).

So they can say whatever they wasnt as their reason for making the wrong decision...but the bottom line is they did not do their due diligence....

And your political leaning has allowed you to give them a free pass...even though they dropped the ball.

Although...I dont see that they dropped the ball. I believe the action was warranted...and they were political ship jumpers becuase they didnt know how to explain why they were first for the war and then against the war.

I consider them cowards...my opinion.

I guess what bothers me the most is Bush gave the order to invade, no one else did or could have. He bears the responsibility for the deaths of American service men and women and should have followed established protocol by following the UN Resolutions regarding this matter.

It wasn't the fault of any Democrat or Independent or Republican, just Bush and he now has blood on his hands and is a wanted war criminal in parts of the world.

I respect your sentiment. If I bleived what you believe, I would be dammed angry as well. Not saying what you believe is wrong......but it is not what I believe.

But that is where we are different.

I do not blame Obama for the lack of success with the stimulus. I blame congress. He just signed the dam bill. It was congress that should have done their due diliogence and ensure the jobs were shovel ready...and ensure the economy was where they thought it was......they are the ones with the "staffers" and "budgets" and "committees".

To me the President is a figurehead. Yes, he is the CiC...but he has his JCoS to oversee all military activities.