T1B

I don't know. I seem to recall a shitload of bombs being dropped that first week.

I guess my point was that we destroyed a shitload of buildings that we then rebuilt later on. Getting the iranians fighting themselves is a much better option.

Besides that, are you saying that we've done enough talking and that we should invade iran now without any international support?

With what money and what armed forces? Give me a little more credit than that.

mvscal wrote:We don't need world wide support. Just American support.

Bush doesn't even have that, right now.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:We don't need world wide support. Just American support.

Bush doesn't even have that, right now.

Well, considering that the average American knows nothing more about Iraq than that is a complete disaster (at east in the opinion of the MSM), that's not really a surprise it?

I've seen some sick things in my life but this is horrific:

Bushice:

So you advocate an invasion and war as opposed to diplomacy?

You know you have an obligation to know what you are talking about, right?

That obligation would demand that you should know that the US had been engaging the Iranians through diplomatic channels for years now. You are aware that that diplomacy failed to achieve a desireable resolution (Iran restarted its programs), right? And that the United States then went to the UN Security Council to get sanctions approved, right? And that it was the Euro's that stopped that in its tracks, right?

Come on, Bushice, if you're going to discuss this stuff you have an obligation to know wtf you're talking about.

BTW - if you prefer diplomacy, please explain why diplomacy would work in Iran after spectacularly failing in Iraq and North Korea (two recent times diplomacy failed to achieved the desired result).

They're having elections over there soon, and one of the leading candidates is a reformist, aimed at bringing iran closer to heal international problems, not increasing them. If he wins it could change the picture there drastically.

Are you serious??

I bet you're the type of guy who also promoted the Iraqi election where Hussein won 100% of the vote, right?

Sweet Jesus. You sould like that idiot at the State Department (Boucher, I think) that called Iran a democracy a few years ago... :roll:

You are aware that the mullahs determine who the candidates are, right??

You are also aware that this "reform" candidate, Rafsanjani (spelling might be off) is a former President, right? If you had, you'd do well to look him up and check out his former stint...get back to us on that would you??

Yet if he does not - you would have us invade and destroy iran based on a perceived threat before any other channels have been pursued?

Before any other channels have been pursued? Where the hell have you been the last four years? The US has been engaging the Iranians diplomatically for years now. How do you think IAEA inspectors got in there in the first place? Who do you think took the issue to the Security Council last year??

Seriously, get a clue.

Well, considering that the average American knows nothing more about Iraq than that is a complete disaster (at east in the opinion of the MSM), that's not really a surprise it?

It sucks, but it's not surprising at the same time. Bush and the War on Terror have only enjoyed a relatively brief period of popular support, because of the public's ire after 9/11. Once that anger wore off and people moved on in their minds, they wanted to move on from the war too. But war isn't quick and easy, especially in the middle east, and people who aren't knowlegdable about the war or the middle east are quite unlikely to get that, which is what I think we've been going through for a while.

I don't think that Bush will be able to get enough support stateside for a war in Iran, Syria or NK, unless we were to sustain some sort of attack.

It's such a shame, too, where this country is going. The liberals have successfully indoctrinated our society to believe that we probably really deserve to be hated and attacked and that we can solve our problems by throwing more money at them and talking them to death...

You have to wonder what's going to happen if we start trading shots with someone really important, like China for instance.

It's actually hilarious that the terrorists recognize the weakness of the liberals and have gone so far as to train their terrorists on how to take advantage of us when captured.

The terrorists know that our liberals and MSM will be more horrified by mere allegations of desecrating that Koran than by the fact that these terrorists were killing our servicemen.

The ironic thing is

"The liberals have successfully indoctrinated our society to believe that we probably really deserve to be hated "

The liberals need to recognize their part in the U.S. earning the name "The Great Satan".

Tom In VA wrote:The ironic thing is

"The liberals have successfully indoctrinated our society to believe that we probably really deserve to be hated "

The liberals need to recognize their part in the U.S. earning the name "The Great Satan".

You mean not being Muslim?

No, that the liberal orthodoxy was to maintain stability with their moral relativism....better to prop up a dictator and maintain stability than to offend their delicate sensibilities by calling them for their boorish, muderous behavior.

DrDetroit wrote:No, that the liberal orthodoxy was to maintain stability with their moral relativism....better to prop up a dictator and maintain stability than to offend their delicate sensibilities by calling them for their boorish, muderous behavior.

You mean like Marcos, Pinochet, Samoza et al?

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:No, that the liberal orthodoxy was to maintain stability with their moral relativism....better to prop up a dictator and maintain stability than to offend their delicate sensibilities by calling them for their boorish, muderous behavior.

You mean like Marcos, Pinochet, Samoza et al?

Your point is what?

While conservatives recognize that the guys we put in to punk the commies turned out to be bad choices, you people still have your liberal orthodoxy of stability and you're still trying to sell it as an effective foreign policy.

DrDetroit wrote:It's such a shame, too, where this country is going. The liberals have successfully indoctrinated our society to believe that we probably really deserve to be hated and attacked and that we can solve our problems by throwing more money at them and talking them to death...

the poor put upon, powerless Conservative America. Funny how your liberal society has managed to create a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and has the Presidency. Hand-wringing and wolf-crying much?

DrDetroit wrote:Your point is what?

That once again you're mistaking fallacy for reason.

Detard Two posts ago wrote:liberal orthodoxy was to maintain stability with their moral relativism....better to prop up a dictator and maintain stability than to offend their delicate sensibilities by calling them for their boorish, muderous behavior.

I then pointed out a smattering of the many, MANY dictators backed by Conservatives in their anti-communist hysteria. Of course you then responded by saying...

While conservatives recognize that the guys we put in to punk the commies turned out to be bad choices, you people still have your liberal orthodoxy of stability and you're still trying to sell it as an effective foreign policy.

What you forget is that your champions in the White House are STILL backing dictators. I don't pretend that things would be a whole lot different with a Democrat in the White House. We would still be sucking Saudi and Kuwati dick for oil.

But, make no mistake. This argument is not about which side supports dictators. It is about the treatment of human beings, the validity of pre-emptive war and how we can ever trust the Bush Administration after their first 10 reasons for war with Iraq were shown to be nothing more than frauds.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:It's such a shame, too, where this country is going. The liberals have successfully indoctrinated our society to believe that we probably really deserve to be hated and attacked and that we can solve our problems by throwing more money at them and talking them to death...

the poor put upon, powerless Conservative America. Funny how your liberal society has managed to create a Republican majority in both houses of Congress and has the Presidency. Hand-wringing and wolf-crying much?

It's all about scapegoats. Insert the word "jew" for "liberal" and see how it reads.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:The ironic thing is

"The liberals have successfully indoctrinated our society to believe that we probably really deserve to be hated "

The liberals need to recognize their part in the U.S. earning the name "The Great Satan".

You mean not being Muslim?

Among other things.


As for all this scapegoating and such. We're sitting around pointing fingers of blame and fighting amongst ourselves. Left blames the right, right blames the left. Meanwhile, across the globe, people are tokin on a big ole cigar and saying .... "I love it when a plan comes together".

This argument is not about which side supports dictators.

You're right. It's about the role of liberals in Middle East anti-Americanism.

It is about the treatment of human beings,

No it is not. And even if it was then you'd have to admit that the US, despite the humiliation and abuse of some detainees, are certainly more fair, accomodating, and just when handling detainees.

If you cannot admit that you are no better than the Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia who are intent on slaughtering Americans.

the validity of pre-emptive war

Wrong again.

Do you disagree with Bush's, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long"??

There is a reaosnable argument to be made for pre-emptive action no matter what your hysteria is based upon.

and how we can ever trust the Bush Administration after their first 10 reasons for war with Iraq were shown to be nothing more than frauds.

There were four reasons. WMD's is still suspect. The other three were and continue to be right.

You're not going to argue that Hussein didn't violate twelve years' of UN resolution in addition to sponsoring/supporting terrorists in addition to murdering tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of his own people, are you?

DrDetroit wrote:WMD's is still suspect.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:WMD's is still suspect.

LOL at what??

We know he had them. He had the programs running. He had the security infrastructure for the programs running. He admitted having them to the UN.

Unlike you idiots who are only intent on furthering this notion of Blame America First and slandering our President, I am worried about what actually happened to them.

It's hilarious that all you idiots were concerned with was whether Bush lied and not what actually happened to the damned things.

Tom In VA wrote:Among other things.

As for all this scapegoating and such. We're sitting around pointing fingers of blame and fighting amongst ourselves. Left blames the right, right blames the left. Meanwhile, across the globe, people are tokin on a big ole cigar and saying .... "I love it when a plan comes together".

Tom,

I'm not one of those people who thinks that radical Islam is anything other than a pretense to exert power and control. You might remember, I was posting on these boards BEFORE 9/11 about the insanity of the Taliban. In fact, I took some heat from more than a few folk who either thought I was being too harsh in my views towards the Taliban or didn't see the Taliban as being an issue worthy of discussion.

I guess that's changed.

BTW: I don't think you have to worry much about American disunity. It is way overblown.

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Among other things.

As for all this scapegoating and such. We're sitting around pointing fingers of blame and fighting amongst ourselves. Left blames the right, right blames the left. Meanwhile, across the globe, people are tokin on a big ole cigar and saying .... "I love it when a plan comes together".

Tom,

I'm not one of those people who thinks that radical Islam is anything other than a pretense to exert power and control. You might remember, I was posting on these boards BEFORE 9/11 about the insanity of the Taliban. In fact, I took some heat from more than a few folk who either thought I was being too harsh in my views towards the Taliban or didn't see the Taliban as being an issue worthy of discussion.

I guess that's changed.

BTW: I don't think you have to worry much about American disunity. It is way overblown.

RACK A+

About the disunity. Sure, it might be a "rope a dope" move, but you never know. I'll take your word for it.

DrDetroit wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:WMD's is still suspect.

LOL at what??

We know he had them. He had the programs running. He had the security infrastructure for the programs running. He admitted having them to the UN.

Unlike you idiots who are only intent on furthering this notion of Blame America First and slandering our President, I am worried about what actually happened to them.

It's hilarious that all you idiots were concerned with was whether Bush lied and not what actually happened to the damned things.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html

http://www.wmd.gov/report/transmittal_letter.html

We conclude that the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#overview

On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over.

In October 2002, at the request of members of Congress, the National Intelligence Council produced a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) --the most authoritative intelligence assessment produced by the Intelligence Community-- which concluded that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and was actively pursuing a nuclear device. According to the exhaustive study of the Iraq Survey Group, this assessment was almost completely wrong. The NIE said that Iraq's biological weapons capability was larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War and that Iraq possessed mobile biological weapons production facilities. This was wrong. The NIE further stated that Iraq had renewed production of chemical weapons, including mustard, sarin, GF, and VX, and that it had accumulated chemical stockpiles of between 100 and 500 metric tons. All of this was also wrong. Finally, the NIE concluded that Iraq had unmanned aerial vehicles that were probably intended for the delivery of biological weapons, and ballistic missiles that had ranges greater than the United Nations' permitted 150 kilometer range. In truth, the aerial vehicles were not for biological weapons; some of Iraq's missiles were, however, capable of traveling more than 150 kilometers. The Intelligence Community's Iraq assessments were, in short, riddled with errors.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1

Hmmm, the 12,000 page report to the UN Security Council doesn't exist?

The Kay reports don't exist.

The Duelfer reports don't exist.

And what you've posted appears to demonstrate that Bush didn't lie and didn't fabricate intelligence...much to the contrary of the Democrats slandering assertions of such.