Outrage??

[Doc]

I see it a bit differently. I think the Bush administration had an agenda to look for any reason to go into Iraq.
I also think we have better intel and do not have to rely on British or other countries for the best info. I feel the current administration took advantage of the situation knowing the intel might be questionable but charged full steam ahead into Iraq. They gambled and took a chance that they'd find WMD.

They lost that bet but being the spin doctors that they are then blamed the mistake on bad intel from multiple sources.

 

[jdwilson44]

In the end I don't think it matters whether Iraq had WMD or not when the war started. We know they had them at one time because they used them on the Iranians. The real issue with us going to war with Iraq is that we started a war on CONJECTURE. We thought they had WMD's? So what. So does Russia, China, Britain, France,North Korea, Iran, South Africa , and plenty of other countries. Have we invaded these other countries? No (not yet anyway). Had Iraq used any of it's WMD's on us. NO. So we went to war based on the premise that we were pretty sure they had WMD's and we were pretty sure they might potentially use them on us. If you broke into your neighbors house and shot him based on the premise that you thought he had a gun because you had seen him with one a couple of years ago and everybody in the neighborhood said he had one , and you were pretty sure he intended on coming into your house and shooting you - you would in all likelihood go directly to jail in pretty much any jury trial. We call that being a vigilante.

None of this takes into account the type of person that Saddam Hussein was - he may be a lot of other things but he is also a survivor thru any methods possible. He knew we whooped his butt in Desert Storm and could in all likelihood do it again. Why would he risk all that actually happened by attacking us with WMD's? Read a little history and you will see that dictators - like bullies - do what they do because they think they can get away with it. After Desert Storm I don't think that Saddam deluded himself into thinking he would get away with much against the US militarily. The connection between the Baathe party and Muslim fundamentalists was also tenous at best - the Iraqi regime was a secular regime for most of it's time and only started paying lip service to Islam to sway people over to his side.

I was against starting the war - I am against spending the untold billions of dollars we have spent and will continue to spend - and I think we need to get out as soon as we can. Unfortunately it is very hard to define " as soon as we can" because we stepped into a big mess and made it worse, and now we bear at least some responsibilty for trying to clean it up. I do not think that being against the war is in any way the same thing as being "for" or "against" the military. From everything I have read the current soldiers we have over there have by and large conducted themselves with the best professionalism and bravery that could be expected of them. Too bad we can't say the same for the civilian politicians that sent them there. Here is something to think about - how many ex military men are there now in the high offices of the Bush administration? I don't believe any of the architects of this war had any appreciable military service. Colin Powell was in office when we initially invaded but if I remember correctly he was against the war - which is why he is no longer in office. That alone should tell you something.

 

[BoneheadNW]

There are those who are against the war and Bush and that is their belief no matter what and believe any bad thing they hear that they think could remotely support their position, factual or not.

Cityboy, substitute the word "for" for the word "against" and substitute the words "against Clinton" for the name "Bush" and that would describe you. Isn't it strange how one can recognize the sweeping generalizations of someone else and not see that they are making similar generalizations, albeit from the right instead of the left.
Bonehead

 

[OkeeDon]

...So if the 2 ladies sat quietly and did nothing to call attention to themselves, then they were in compliance with the rules/laws of the chamber.

We know that the congressman's wife, by all accounts did nothing to call attention to herself, so we know that she was not in violation.

I've heard at least 3 different accounts of Cindy Sheehan's arrest and the reason for it, does anyone know if she did anything to call attention to herself so people would see her shirt?

Not having been there, I don't have any first-hand, absolutely certain knowledge. But, unless you're willing to call the woman a liar, I have the next best thing: Cindy Sheehan was a live guest on one of the CNN shows last night, and said she was arrested the moment she removed her coat. The interviewer (I forget which one, maybe Charlie Matthews) made the point that they were probably watching her like a hawk. She stated that she had been to another rally earlier, where she wore the tee-shirt, and she still had it on when she arrived (as the invited guest of a Congressman) for the speech. She stated flatly that she had no intention of disrupting anything, and intended to sit quietly. When the interviewer suggested that she probably hoped that cameras would focus on her and her shirt, she had the class to not deny it, but she swore she would not have disrupted anything.

Thus, it comes down to your personal bias. Some on this forum will call her a liar just because they are dirty, rotten, mean, despicable, hateful people who cannot allow themselves to trust any opinion other than their own, apparently because they have so little confidence in themselves that they have to belittle everyone else. Obviously not you, Bob, but I bet they'll recognize themselves and start squealing like the babies they are. I won't see it, because I guarantee I already have them on my ignore list.

 

[Cityboy]

Cityboy, substitute the word "for" for the word "against" and substitute the words "against Clinton" for the name "Bush" and that would describe you. Isn't it strange how one can recognize the sweeping generalizations of someone else and not see that they are making similar generalizations, albeit from the right instead of the left.
Bonehead

So, Bonehead, knowing me as well as you purport to, explain to everyone here my exact position on the Iraq war. Do you really know what my position is? Can you point out my sweeping generalizations in support of Bush that your superior insight allows you to see?

 

[Cityboy]

I see it a bit differently. I think the Bush administration had an agenda to look for any reason to go into Iraq.
I also think we have better intel and do not have to rely on British or other countries for the best info. I feel the current administration took advantage of the situation knowing the intel might be questionable but charged full steam ahead into Iraq. They gambled and took a chance that they'd find WMD.

They lost that bet but being the spin doctors that they are then blamed the mistake on bad intel from multiple sources.

Doc,

I completely respect the honesty of your post. You are stating what you believe, but not purporting that you know something those "blind" people on the other side do not have the intellegence to see. The fact is that none of us know for certain all of the facts, intelligence and motivations that led to the invasion and occupation os Iraq. Every one of us, right, left and in between are speculating. History will ultimately decide the story. But I do believe the one thing that most of us can agree upon is that radical Islam is the enemy that threatens our very life and liberty and we cannot afford to sit back and wait for them to make their move first. They have made their position clear, and we ignore it at our own peril. Should we have invaded Iraq? I do not know for certain, it was clearly an unknown risk. But if we are successful at establishing a representative democracy right in the center of the middleast, that could be the catylist for cultural change and the beginning of the end of radical Islam. We shall see, but in the meantime, what sense does it make to give aid and comfort to our enemies as our Democrat politicians continue to do?

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

Thus, it comes down to your personal bias. Some on this forum will call her a liar just because they are dirty, rotten, mean, despicable, hateful people who cannot allow themselves to trust any opinion other than their own, apparently because they have so little confidence in themselves that they have to belittle everyone else.

I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone is guilty of retorting to insults as a debating tool it is you Don. You have such a diplomatic demeanor when it comes to people who oppose your beliefs.

My personal bias is just that "mine". I also trust my opinions more than others, I may consider other opinions but in general mine are much more trustworthy.

 

[Cityboy]

If you broke into your neighbors house and shot him based on the premise that you thought he had a gun because you had seen him with one a couple of years ago and everybody in the neighborhood said he had one , and you were pretty sure he intended on coming into your house and shooting you - you would in all likelihood go directly to jail in pretty much any jury trial. We call that being a vigilante.

Your post is quite logical except for this snip, which leaves the realm of the logical and enters the land bordering the nation of asinine. It is one thing if you have reason to believe another nation or radical group with military weapons plans to launch an attack against your citizens and preemptive action is planned and executed, and an entirely different matter if your neighbor is a gun owner, or a complete asshole for that matter. There is no comparison here and it is ludicrous to attempt to make one. Let's get real here.

 

[beds]

Doc,

I completely respect the honesty of your post. You are stating what you believe, but not purporting that you know something those "blind" people on the other side do not have the intellegence to see. The fact is that none of us know for certain all of the facts, intelligence and motivations that led to the invasion and occupation os Iraq. Every one of us, right, left and in between are speculating. History will ultimately decide the story. But I do believe the one thing that most of us can agree upon is that radical Islam is the enemy that threatens our very life and liberty and we cannot afford to sit back and wait for them to make their move first. They have made their position clear, and we ignore it at our own peril. Should we have invaded Iraq? I do not know for certain, it was clearly an unknown risk. But if we are successful at establishing a representative democracy right in the center of the middleast, that could be the catylist for cultural change and the beginning of the end of radical Islam. We shall see, but in the meantime, what sense does it make to give aid and comfort to our enemies as our Democrat politicians continue to do?

That is a good post, Cityboy. I am not optimistic that we will create a democracy in the middle east, but agree that a successful democratic state in the region would be a cornerstone. Nothing like leading by example.

btw, I say "we" because the Canadian military is losing lives in Afghanistan.

 

[HarryG]

Not having been there, I don't have any first-hand, absolutely certain knowledge. But, unless you're willing to call the woman a liar, I have the next best thing: Cindy Sheehan was a live guest on one of the CNN shows last night, and said she was arrested the moment she removed her coat. The interviewer (I forget which one, maybe Charlie Matthews) made the point that they were probably watching her like a hawk. She stated that she had been to another rally earlier, where she wore the tee-shirt, and she still had it on when she arrived (as the invited guest of a Congressman) for the speech. She stated flatly that she had no intention of disrupting anything, and intended to sit quietly. When the interviewer suggested that she probably hoped that cameras would focus on her and her shirt, she had the class to not deny it, but she swore she would not have disrupted anything.

Thus, it comes down to your personal bias. Some on this forum will call her a liar just because they are dirty, rotten, mean, despicable, hateful people who cannot allow themselves to trust any opinion other than their own, apparently because they have so little confidence in themselves that they have to belittle everyone else. Obviously not you, Bob, but I bet they'll recognize themselves and start squealing like the babies they are. I won't see it, because I guarantee I already have them on my ignore list.

Very biased statement. Sounds like some should practice what they preach. Otherwise get ready to be called hypocrit.
I hope I'm on the ignored list. If not this might do it.
HarryG
Read quote below. From thread http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=1501



"I HATE this man for putting us in that position. I will NEVER forgive him, or give him ANY credit, even if something halfway decent comes out of this terrible situation. I resent that he has placed me in a position where I have to support his policy because it's the lesser of two evils".

 

[OkeeDon]

Very biased statement.

I am happy to admit a bias against dirty, rotten, mean, despicable, hateful people. I stand behind my statement about Mr. Bush sending us to Iraq. I am not normally hateful, and I deny being dirty, rotten, mean or despicable. I'd have to change parties...

 

[HarryG]

I am happy to admit a bias against dirty, rotten, mean, despicable, hateful people. I stand behind my statement about Mr. Bush sending us to Iraq. I am not normally hateful, and I deny being dirty, rotten, mean or despicable. I'd have to change parties...

I do hope all your hatred and bitterness keeps you warm at night. It doesn't surprize me your defination of the Conservative party. Hate is hate, simple as that. I changed my avatar just for you.
HarryG

 

[Himself]

I'm just a simple boy. Some times it helps to step back and avoid the knee jerk reactions.
With the emotion removed from the subject one would immediately realize both women's constitutional rights were violated, bugger the rules. Even though their clothing reflects opposing opinions they were mistreated equally.

Now specifically concerning the mother who lost her son to agression in Iraq:
those who have suffered the same tragedy should feel free to bash her beliefs all they want to. The rest of us who have not should shut up at least out of respect.

That's my opinion, it's not humble, it is what it is.

Carry on boys.
Martin