Betrayal, Pressure & Dissension: Things Get Harder For Bush

[Guns N RockMusic]

I'm just honored SLC put me in his signature.? I guess I do kind of support war crimes, I mean I am the one who is advocating that we withdrawl all chance and hope Iraq can be a secure and free state.? I'm the one that wants to let a fascist regime return back to power so that they can cleanse their country and purge the weak and disagreeable.? I guess that kind of makes me a murderer too because I condone and even support the people/organizations that carry out this genocide.? Finally, I am a liar because I repeatedly change topics and attack people when they shoot my argument to shit and pigeon hole it to death.? Oh wait a second, I'm not SLC Punk.....


Again SLC, I was against the war from day one.? However, my reason for opposition was the belief that even if Sadam did have WMDs, he has a right to possess them as a soverign nation.? Furthermore, I was damned if I was gonna sacrifice one American for the life of an Iraqi or any other person of a culture that performs and supports the systematic extermination and discrimination against its own people.? Taking nude pictures of POWs is nothing compared to the horror Sadam put his people through and the horror all those captured by the terrorist have had to endure.? If it were personally up to me, i would seize all the oil fields and put them under military control and guard.? I don't care what happens to Iraq, let them and every other country in that region destroy itself.? The US and other Western nations have offered support and they choose to remain ignorant and in the stone age.? How any of you can defend a culture that discriminates against women and numerous other abysmal human rights is mind boggling.? My comments aren't racist as the color of a person's skin has nothing to do with this.? It's the belief system of their society, that is what I'm attacking.? Bush had intel that suggested there were WMDs in Iraq.? The American people and international community wanted to remove the weapons, but our "old European" allies lacked the cojones to back the UN resolution (ecspecially with their hands in Sadam's pockets).? I haveb;t heard this argument in a while, but the delay and time the US gave weapons inspectors to get their shit together was more than enough time to move the WMDs and there's been two years afterwards for the old guard to move or destroy what remained of them.? Afterall, we have found every component of a WMD. just not an assembeled piece.? You can call Bush a liar, and you can call me or anyone else a supporter of murder.? But regardless of how many times you say it, it isn't going to come true.? In the real world, forums covered under infowars.com and conspiracytheory.com aren't valid.? This entire attack and claims of lies is nothing more than a political attempt to recover from the ass whooping liberals in America have received for the past 5 years.

[pilferk]

As for the support for the war....polls are meaningless.? The problem with polls is that it takes into account the opinions of both the intelligent and the stupid.? Far too many times the polls are biased because the amount of stupid people participating outweighs the number of intelligent participants.? I mean just look at the baseball all star votes.? i think cal ripkin still gets voted in as a starter.? ?:0

I'd like to see some proof of that assertion on sampling.  That somehow there is some basis for an assertion the poll has "more stupid people" in it's makeup.

 Seriously.  That's the point of random polls.  And you do realize that DIFFERENT people are polled each week, right?  But the numbers still hover around the same points?

I agree: Polls aren't the end all, be all.  But they're compelling information, all the same.  Especially when continued (every week) polling, using completely different sample sets, shows the same sorts of numbers and trending.

And remember something else:  Your assertion that there are more "stupid people" than intelligent people works both ways.  The guy in the white house was elected, remember, by at least a good portion of the people you're now calling "stupid".  Saying that the reason the poll numbers are innacurate is because the respondants are "stupid" might not actually do much for your point.

[pilferk]

Bush had intel that suggested there were WMDs in Iraq.? The American people and international community wanted to remove the weapons, but our "old European" allies lacked the cojones to back the UN resolution (ecspecially with their hands in Sadam's pockets).? I haveb;t heard this argument in a while, but the delay and time the US gave weapons inspectors to get their shit together was more than enough time to move the WMDs and there's been two years afterwards for the old guard to move or destroy what remained of them.? Afterall, we have found every component of a WMD. just not an assembeled piece.?

Bush also had intel that suggested otherwise.

Most of the UN, and much of the Security Council, wanted to continue to use diplomatic measures, especially after the UN weapons inspectors reported findings, and Iraq submitted the required "list".  Citing the "oil for food" scandal, or saying that anyone was in Saddam's "pocket" on the issue is blantant, rampant, and unfounded speculation.  In addition, as I said elsewhere, it's a convenient excuse to use when, in hindsight, those countries were right.

There were no WMD's. Period.? You can argue your conspiracy theory that they were moved, but, the fact it, it has been proven untrue.? We have the Iraqi's OWN INFORMATION on the subject, post-invasion.? There were no WMD's.

You can call Bush a liar, and you can call me or anyone else a supporter of murder.? But regardless of how many times you say it, it isn't going to come true.? In the real world, forums covered under infowars.com and conspiracytheory.com aren't valid.? This entire attack and claims of lies is nothing more than a political attempt to recover from the ass whooping liberals in America have received for the past 5 years.

Sorta like what the Repubs did back in the mid-90's in order to oust the Dem majority?

The fact is that the continued polls were showing the population was almost as unhappy with the Dems as they were with the Repubs and this administration.? The reason they cited was because the Dems were not putting up enough of a fight to oppose the Repubs and the administration.? So I would agree, somewhat, with your point (which is overly dramatic), that this is a political response, at least in part.? But why it should surprise or shock you or get your undies in a bunch is beyond me.?

[Surfrider]

Regardless of what the intentions were or whether someone lied, we are there.? I often hear people on here claim that American lives are more important than other people's lives.? These statements are often countered with swift attack by those from other countries that denounce such statements.? Which leads me to the following questions: Why should we leave Iraq if it is likely that the many that supported the current government will get slaughtered?? Why should we leave if a civil war will occur and thousands, if not millions, will die?? Why should we leave and let Iraq turn into exactly what Bush claimed it was before the war (which the left now seeks to disprove), a haven for terrorism?? If those were legit arguments for Afghanistan, and if they were true, would also have been legit arguments for going into Iraq, then why leave once it is inevitable that such a haven will materialize?? Whether or not Iraq was a haven for terrorism before the war, it is now.? So should we leave because it wasn't before we entered, but all of the sudden is now?? That doesn't sound very logical to me.? Finally, the oil issue.? Many claim that we went there for oil.? I see SLC posting articles that oil is running out.? Should we leave Iraq and let the second largest oil supply in the world be taken over by terrorists??

I understand troops are dying there, and I sympathize with them as much as anyone.? However, looking at it based on the numbers of lives, Iraqi or American, we will lose if we stay there versus the number of lives we will lose if we leave, I am just not sure how we can advocate leaving there right now.? Certainly, people that argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified because of the number of civilian deaths, even though we saved American solider lives, can not make the argument that we should leave Iraq because of the number of American lives we will save with out accounting for the Iraqis that will die.

Finally, leaving Iraq will cause more instability in the middle east than we currently have.? Arguing that this is America's fault does not get us anywhere.? Regardless of whether Iraq was equal to Afghanistan when we entered the war or whether it was a haven for terrorism that could possibly lead to attacks on the US, Israel, or Western Europe, it most certainly will be should we leave there now.? I think the true discussion we should be having is whether we should have went into Afghanistan in the first place, not Iraq, because if we leave Iraq will turn into what Afghanistan was.? If that was a justifed military venture to protect against terrorism, why should we leave Iraq now?

[Charity Case]

Regardless of what the intentions were or whether someone lied, we are there.? I often hear people on here claim that American lives are more important than other people's lives.? These statements are often countered with swift attack by those from other countries that denounce such statements.? Which leads me to the following questions: Why should we leave Iraq if it is likely that the many that supported the current government will get slaughtered?? Why should we leave if a civil war will occur and thousands, if not millions, will die?? Why should we leave and let Iraq turn into exactly what Bush claimed it was before the war (which the left now seeks to disprove), a haven for terrorism?? If those were legit arguments for Afghanistan, and if they were true, would also have been legit arguments for going into Iraq, then why leave once it is inevitable that such a haven will materialize?? Whether or not Iraq was a haven for terrorism before the war, it is now.? So should we leave because it wasn't before we entered, but all of the sudden is now?? That doesn't sound very logical to me.? Finally, the oil issue.? Many claim that we went there for oil.? I see SLC posting articles that oil is running out.? Should we leave Iraq and let the second largest oil supply in the world be taken over by terrorists??

I understand troops are dying there, and I sympathize with them as much as anyone.? However, looking at it based on the numbers of lives, Iraqi or American, we will lose if we stay there versus the number of lives we will lose if we leave, I am just not sure how we can advocate leaving there right now.? Certainly, people that argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified because of sure number of civilian deaths even though we saved American solider lives can not make the argument that we should leave Iraq because of the number of American lives we will save with out accounting for the Iraqis that will die.

Finally, leaving Iraq will cause more instability in the middle east than we currently have.? Arguing that this is America's fault does not get us anywhere.? Regardless of whether Iraq was equal to Afghanistan when we entered the war or whether it was a haven for terrorism that could possibly lead to attacks on the US, Israel, or Western Europe, it most certainly will be should we leave there now.? I think the true discussion we should be having is whether we should have went into Afghanistan in the first place, not Iraq, because if we leave Iraq will turn into what Afghanistan was.? If that was a justifed military venture to protect against terrorism, why should we leave Iraq now?

Good post.  Pointing fingers is good for nothing.  You can argue all day long about whether or not we should have gone.  But its a dead issue.  We are there now.  What we need to do is look forward and decide what is the best course of action now.  It looks like the course we have chosen is to train Iraq police/military to a point (and to the number) capable of handling security in their own country while a constitution is put into place and a free government, elected by their people, is established.  Once we are satisfied that this all has been accomplished, we will start to withdraw troops.  Make sense, right?

I fail to see where this course of action is flawed (or better yet what a better course of action might be).  Certainly leaving at this moment is preposterous and only a close minded individual with an agenda would suggest such a thing.

[Markus Asraelius]

You republicans are too funny. You constantly just brush things aside as if they're all lies. A 37% approval rating? The worst rating ever since they had been taking these polls. You're going to question that 

And, I'm sure if it was a 67 % approval rating, you republicans would be the first to post it.

And by the way, to the Cal Ripken Jr. Thing, Cal Ripken is not voted in. The use of the internet allows people to look the statistics for all the listed all-stars and so All-Star Games are much more accurate now because of that.

[pilferk]

Regardless of what the intentions were or whether someone lied, we are there.? I often hear people on here claim that American lives are more important than other people's lives.? These statements are often countered with swift attack by those from other countries that denounce such statements.? Which leads me to the following questions: Why should we leave Iraq if it is likely that the many that supported the current government will get slaughtered?? Why should we leave if a civil war will occur and thousands, if not millions, will die?? Why should we leave and let Iraq turn into exactly what Bush claimed it was before the war (which the left now seeks to disprove), a haven for terrorism?? If those were legit arguments for Afghanistan, and if they were true, would also have been legit arguments for going into Iraq, then why leave once it is inevitable that such a haven will materialize?? Whether or not Iraq was a haven for terrorism before the war, it is now.? So should we leave because it wasn't before we entered, but all of the sudden is now?? That doesn't sound very logical to me.? Finally, the oil issue.? Many claim that we went there for oil.? I see SLC posting articles that oil is running out.? Should we leave Iraq and let the second largest oil supply in the world be taken over by terrorists??

I understand troops are dying there, and I sympathize with them as much as anyone.? However, looking at it based on the numbers of lives, Iraqi or American, we will lose if we stay there versus the number of lives we will lose if we leave, I am just not sure how we can advocate leaving there right now.? Certainly, people that argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified because of the number of civilian deaths, even though we saved American solider lives, can not make the argument that we should leave Iraq because of the number of American lives we will save with out accounting for the Iraqis that will die.

Finally, leaving Iraq will cause more instability in the middle east than we currently have.? Arguing that this is America's fault does not get us anywhere.? Regardless of whether Iraq was equal to Afghanistan when we entered the war or whether it was a haven for terrorism that could possibly lead to attacks on the US, Israel, or Western Europe, it most certainly will be should we leave there now.? I think the true discussion we should be having is whether we should have went into Afghanistan in the first place, not Iraq, because if we leave Iraq will turn into what Afghanistan was.? If that was a justifed military venture to protect against terrorism, why should we leave Iraq now?

In other words...lets change the subject.   

I'll bite:

Not if we leave the right way.

And I've outlined, previously, what I think could be a "right way".

What would help is if this administration could actually outline our current exit plan.? Of course, former members of this administration have said there really isn't one....

[pilferk]

Good post.? Pointing fingers is good for nothing.? You can argue all day long about whether or not we should have gone.? But its a dead issue.? We are there now.? What we need to do is look forward and decide what is the best course of action now.? It looks like the course we have chosen is to train Iraq police/military to a point (and to the number) capable of handling security in their own country while a constitution is put into place and a free government, elected by their people, is established.? Once we are satisfied that this all has been accomplished, we will start to withdraw troops.? Make sense, right?

I fail to see where this course of action is flawed (or better yet what a better course of action might be).? Certainly leaving at this moment is preposterous and only a close minded individual with an agenda would suggest such a thing.

Considering, to date, we've been utter failures at training the Iraqis to handle their own security...

And we've been unable to negotiate a reasonable constitution for both sides....

And we've been unable to facilitate the installation of that government....

And our nation building has bascially sucked....

I'd think there might be better options that take advantage of ALL the resources at the disposal of the world.

You guys keep portraying the options as "stay or go".  It's not that simple, nor are the options that narrow.  Of course, opening it up to ALL of the different options destroys your ability to defend the current one as being "the best one"...  And who's being close minded?

And what would make sense is a clearly defined, objective based exit strategy made public to the American People (who are, after all, footing the bill for all this), with clearly detailed events/counter events.  But, as has been made painfully obvious, this administration doesn't have one of those...by the admission of thier own former members.

[Surfrider]

In other words...lets change the subject.? ?

I actually meant to post this in the other thread.  My mistake.  Nevertheless, my viewpoint on this whole thing is pretty close to yours.  I believe Bush heard what he wanted to hear.  I believe there was evidence to the contrary, but because of the prevailing thoughts about Suddam and his WMD program they weren't really acknowledged.  I definately don't think Bush lied.  I believe 100% that he thought WMDs existed and that he went in for the right reasons.  However, I think they misjudged the war and thought it would much easier than it has been.  Thus, in hindsight it was obviously a mistake.  Because it was a pretty obvious mistake I don't think arguing over whether we should have went in goes very far.  We shouldn't have.  OK, but what now?  Leave because we shouldn't have been there in the first place?  Not too logical in my opinion without considering what might happen.

I'll bite:

Not if we leave the right way.

And I've outlined, previously, what I think could be a "right way".

I apologize that I missed your post.  I am curious to what you think is the right way.  You seem like a pretty logical guy.

What would help is if this administration could actually outline our current exit plan.? Of course, former members of this administration have said there really isn't one....

I have stated before, I think Bush is a no win situation.  I think they honestly believe, and they have a strong argument, that outlining a specific plan would be a mistake.  However, in not oulining a specific timeframe they open themselves up to attack.  They could say that they are pulling out a year from now iif they want to gain short-term political points.  In doing so, however, I think in their minds they would be sacrificing Iraq for short-term political gain.  If that is the case then they deserve some respect for not going for the quick political points.  I do believe that the pressure will eventually hit, and you will see troops being pulled out before the 06 elections.  Hopefully this won't kill all of our efforts over there.

[pilferk]

In other words...lets change the subject.? ?

I actually meant to post this in the other thread.? My mistake.? Nevertheless, my viewpoint on this whole thing is pretty close to yours.? I believe Bush heard what he wanted to hear.? I believe there was evidence to the contrary, but because of the prevailing thoughts about Suddam and his WMD program they weren't really acknowledged.? I definately don't think Bush lied.? I believe 100% that he thought WMDs existed and that he went in for the right reasons.? However, I think they misjudged the war and thought it would much easier than it has been.? Thus, in hindsight it was obviously a mistake.? Because it was a pretty obvious mistake I don't think arguing over whether we should have went in goes very far.? We shouldn't have.? OK, but what now?? Leave because we shouldn't have been there in the first place?? Not too logical in my opinion without considering what might happen.

I'll bite:

Not if we leave the right way.

And I've outlined, previously, what I think could be a "right way".

I apologize that I missed your post.? I am curious to what you think is the right way.? You seem like a pretty logical guy.

What would help is if this administration could actually outline our current exit plan.? Of course, former members of this administration have said there really isn't one....

I have stated before, I think Bush is a no win situation.? I think they honestly believe, and they have a strong argument, that outlining a specific plan would be a mistake.? However, in not oulining a specific timeframe they open themselves up to attack.? They could say that they are pulling out a year from now iif they want to gain short-term political points.? In doing so, however, I think in their minds they would be sacrificing Iraq for short-term political gain.? If that is the case then they deserve some respect for not going for the quick political points.? I do believe that the pressure will eventually hit, and you will see troops being pulled out before the 06 elections.? Hopefully this won't kill all of our efforts over there.

They don't have to give a time table.  Goal based objectives would be fine (ie: after we get 20000 Iraqi troops trained, 20000 of our troops come home....after the constitution is ratified, 50000 of our troops come home...and those are off the cuff examples, not hard numbers).

I'll hunt down my post on "the right way" when I get a chance.  It was relatively long so I don't really wanna retype it, but the gist was that we needed to get other resources (the UN in the nation building and possible assistance in security and training, and the world's business community in the rebuilding process) involved AND put together a solid exit strategy.