October Thread #2: Decision 2004

[yaronsh]

To bring some photography into this thread.... The first two pictures are from the Boston area, the third from Montreal.
- Yaron

[adina]

After watching the election, we have decided that we would like someone who can speak past 3rd grade abilities.

"Hunt 'em down and kill um"? "Missura" ?

Please, does no one know how to enuciate their words?

Ever see Mystery Science Theater 2000? With the three guys in the theater making fun of the whole movie? That was us watching the debate.

[walterick]

YES, I loved that show! My mom, my cousin and I woud roll on the floor watching them ham it up to the worst movies EVER!! LOL props to you , Adina!

Did you catch Bush's use of the term "internets?" Or my personal favorite of the night: "If you read the Constitution it says... - pause - look of consternation on Bush's face -"Well, it doesn't say..."

I don't even remember his point I was chuckeling so heartily!

[Trevor Ash]

I'm surprised no one has complained yet. Consider me the first.

[Todd Patten]

I'm surprised no one has complained yet. Consider me the first.

Complain about, um, what?

[Trevor Ash]

Complain about, um, what?

I was hoping it was obvious. Politics have no place in this forum or any of the current forums on this web-site.

Fortunately, the visitors here are very respectful of each other. More often than not things find a way of escalating themselves.

[another view]

I was hoping it was obvious. Politics have no place in this forum or any of the current forums on this web-site.

Fortunately, the visitors here are very respectful of each other. More often than not things find a way of escalating themselves.

That's why I usually stay out of these kinds of threads --- but...

I think it's interesting that a lot of people are voting Kerry but I have yet to meet someone who actually supports him. I see a lot of yard signs, bumper stickers and posts here - but nobody can tell me why they want to vote for Kerry. "Can't be any worse than what we've got now" is kind of a common theme, but I'm not so sure - and I don't think that's a good attitude to take.

I'm not too excited about either one of them but right now I'm siding with the current administration. Frankly that scares the crap out of me.

[Lava Lamp]

That's why I usually stay out of these kinds of threads --- but...

I think it's interesting that a lot of people are voting Kerry but I have yet to meet someone who actually supports him. I see a lot of yard signs, bumper stickers and posts here - but nobody can tell me why they want to vote for Kerry. "Can't be any worse than what we've got now" is kind of a common theme, but I'm not so sure - and I don't think that's a good attitude to take.

I'm not too excited about either one of them but right now I'm siding with the current administration. Frankly that scares the crap out of me.

I tried to stay away, but...

I agree with Trevor that this posting doesn't belong here.

That said, my personal take is like some of the others -- Bush is flawed, but I truly believe that in the wake of 9/11, Clinton (for whom I voted twice), Gore, or Kerry (were he president when it happened) would have done NOTHING. Maybe some sanctions, maybe some UN resolutions, but in the end nothing.

Bush took action. In retrospect, Iraq was a bad (horrible) idea, but what about Afghanistan? Would a democrat (take your pick) have acted? Wasn't action called for? When we went to Iraq, didn't you think they had WMDs? (I did.) And if they did, shouldn't we have gone in? I guess the critical question is whether you think Bush thought they did or if he was just furthering an agenda. I think he truly believed he was doing the right thing, but he was wrong. I think in acting, he sent a clear message that America would defend itself and that is significant.

I knew people in the trade centers (blessedly that got out alive) and I saw the wreckage and the memorials to the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers. Something had to be done and GW did it. Probably a lot of what he did was wrong, but he's right that America is safer today than before he took office.

[Todd Patten]

That said, my personal take is like some of the others -- Bush is flawed, but I truly believe that in the wake of 9/11, Clinton (for whom I voted twice), Gore, or Kerry (were he president when it happened) would have done NOTHING. Maybe some sanctions, maybe some UN resolutions, but in the end nothing.

Are you serious?!? You think that after the worst attack on American soil in the HISTORY of the country, Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have done NOTHING?!? Do you really believe this? Come on. You think that any administration would have let that slaughter pass by as a tragic crime? You truly believe this? I can't even grasp this line of thinking. I don't care what party our leader had been from, there would have been hell to pay one way or another. It transcended politics. It was irrelevent to politics. The country would have been behind attacking the enemy with every element of force we could bring forth -- and was behind it.

You post this as the man who really attacked our country still roams free to attack once again. You post it as if Bush did a great job in retaliating against those who slaughtered American fathers, mothers, baby's and friends. Honestly, what has his retaliation to the attacks of September 11, 2001 accomplished? Not Iraq -- specifically Afghanistan. Are we safer? Has the enemy been defeated? Is the mastermind eliminated? Lets face it, Bush might as well have done NOTHING in retaliation. His results equal the bizarre theory you propose about Clinton, Gore and Kerry's approach.

Bush has done nothing to earn being re-hired for his position. Unfortuantely, I believe he will be.

BTW -- Trevor, you have the option not to read, reply or even comprehend this post.

[Trevor Ash]

BTW -- Trevor, you have the option not to read, reply or even comprehend this post.

Hi Todd,

The moderators on this site work together as a team in cases where some are away or busy. As a moderator, I take responsibility for keeping an "eye" on things even when it's not the forum I usually moderate. I expect nothing less of the other moderators.

There's been nothing about this thread so far that makes it "bad". Politics are often discussed directly or indirectly but I don't recall having such an involved thread dedicated solely to politics like this one is. This "dedicated" thread is the concern that I have.

Sometimes people are resistent to post their rejections for various reasons. By raising a complaint (with no specifics), I hoped others that may have wanted to say something would have felt more open to do so.

I hope you better understand my position. This isn't an attack on you or this thread, it's just me attempting to moderate. While I do have a choice, it would be unwise for me to ignore threads like this.

I'll let the "comprehend" flame slip this time ;)

Keep the peace

Regards,
Trevor

[Lava Lamp]

Are you serious?!? You think that after the worst attack on American soil in the HISTORY of the country, Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have done NOTHING?!? Do you really believe this? Come on. You think that any administration would have let that slaughter pass by as a tragic crime? You truly believe this? I can't even grasp this line of thinking. I don't care what party our leader had been from, there would have been hell to pay one way or another. It transcended politics. It was irrelevent to politics. The country would have been behind attacking the enemy with every element of force we could bring forth -- and was behind it.

You post this as the man who really attacked our country still roams free to attack once again. You post it as if Bush did a great job in retaliating against those who slaughtered American fathers, mothers, baby's and friends. Honestly, what has his retaliation to the attacks of September 11, 2001 accomplished? Not Iraq -- specifically Afghanistan. Are we safer? Has the enemy been defeated? Is the mastermind eliminated? Lets face it, Bush might as well have done NOTHING in retaliation. His results equal the bizarre theory you propose about Clinton, Gore and Kerry's approach.

Bush has done nothing to earn being re-hired for his position. Unfortuantely, I believe he will be.

BTW -- Trevor, you have the option not to read, reply or even comprehend this post.

Again, I ask you why you feel the need to post this on a photography site. Isn't there a board somewhere you can go to?

But since it's here, let's examine some of your twisted logic.

1) Bush cutting federal taxes causes your local taxes to go up. Huh? That is patently ridiculous. Are you also suggesting that if Kerry raises your federal taxes, your local taxes will go down?
2) First you say your are an isolationist and that the cold war was won without a shot fired, then you say that of course any pesident would have invaded Afghanistan in full force and would have produced better results. Do you find that as inconsistent as I do?
3) What would satisfy you in Afghanistan? You're saying that Bush can't claim credit for having stopped attacks from occuring after 9/11. Isn't that reverse logic, too? Certainly if there was an attack, wouldn't you say it was Bush's fault? Other than Osama Bin Laden, what else could have been done in Afghanistan?

To answer your question, yes, I believe Kerry et al would have done nothing. He would have wrung his hands and gone to the UN, but in the end he would have done nothing. Bush has gone after the terrorists and sent the message that wherever you are, we will come. Don't you think that will make some of them think twice?

[ACArmstrong]

1) Bush cutting federal taxes causes your local taxes to go up. Huh? That is patently ridiculous. Are you also suggesting that if Kerry raises your federal taxes, your local taxes will go down?

Patently ridiculous? Not really. Here's how.

When Bush lowered federal taxes less federal money came to the states. Each state had to find a way to meet their budgetary needs without that money - AND, if you recall - the country was steeped in recession, which already meant less tax dollars were entering state coffers and many states like mine (Tennessee) were seriously in the red. So, you had less fed $$$ and less state tax $$$.

To meet the needs of the population of the state, TN had to take the necessary steps to get $$$ in their budgets. State Parks were closed. Roads projects were scrapped. Genuine services like Women's Shelters were cut - and here, when as much cutting was done as possible, the state was still in the red. TN upped the sales tax twice during the Bush admininstration just to cover budgetary needs. My property taxes went up by 15% - gas taxes increased by 11% - and so on and so forth. The state did everything it had to do to raise money to fund the state, with less help from the federal government.

In essence, W saved me about $200 in taxes a year, and I spent WAY more than that on state and local taxes, probably to the tune of about $700 more than I would normally spend.

Patently ridiculous? Nope - just cold hard facts.

[Todd Patten]

1) Bush cutting federal taxes causes your local taxes to go up. Huh? That is patently ridiculous. Are you also suggesting that if Kerry raises your federal taxes, your local taxes will go down?

Do you pay property taxes? If you did, you would understand this effect.

The unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind forced requirements on schools, but di not provide any funding to acheive those goals. So, in order for these schools to meet federal standards (which are bogus to begin with -- what happened to state run schools) states and local municipalities must increase taxes.

Is this that hard to grasp. The numbers are in black and white at your local town meeting.

2) First you say your are an isolationist and that the cold war was won without a shot fired, then you say that of course any pesident would have invaded Afghanistan in full force and would have produced better results. Do you find that as inconsistent as I do?

What is inconsistent? Isolationism does not indicate that one will not attack no matter what. It means that a country goes after those who attack it. No more, no less. We were attacked. The location of the enemy that attacked us was identified. We went after that enemy half-heartedly when we should have sent 250,000 troops to crush the enemy.

Iraq was being and could have easily been isolated, and the lack of WMD's and associated programs are evidence that the isolation was working quite well as a matter of fact.

3) What would satisfy you in Afghanistan? You're saying that Bush can't claim credit for having stopped attacks from occuring after 9/11. Isn't that reverse logic, too? Certainly if there was an attack, wouldn't you say it was Bush's fault? Other than Osama Bin Laden, what else could have been done in Afghanistan?

At this point, given what we have learned and his decision not to shut down the borders and not to crush the Taliban and Al-Queda, yes he would bear responsibility. If I thought that every effort was made in Afghanistan it'd be a different story. However, he put all his energy towards a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-Queda. That's a failure to go after those who took it to us.

To answer your question, yes, I believe Kerry et al would have done nothing. He would have wrung his hands and gone to the UN, but in the end he would have done nothing. Bush has gone after the terrorists and sent the message that wherever you are, we will come. Don't you think that will make some of them think twice?

I respect your opinion that they would have done nothing. We can agree to dissagree. However, if you think that Bush's actions against Iraq will make some think twice you are fooling yourself. Israel uses force against terrorism as effectively as any country out there. Has it made their enemies think twice?!? Has it subdued the attacks against Israel? Not at all. You don't scare away an enemy that does not fear death using death as a weapon.

[Lava Lamp]

Do you pay property taxes? If you did, you would understand this effect.

The unfunded mandate of No Child Left Behind forced requirements on schools, but di not provide any funding to acheive those goals. So, in order for these schools to meet federal standards (which are bogus to begin with -- what happened to state run schools) states and local municipalities must increase taxes.

Is this that hard to grasp. The numbers are in black and white at your local town meeting.



What is inconsistent? Isolationism does not indicate that one will not attack no matter what. It means that a country goes after those who attack it. No more, no less. We were attacked. The location of the enemy that attacked us was identified. We went after that enemy half-heartedly when we should have sent 250,000 troops to crush the enemy.

Iraq was being and could have easily been isolated, and the lack of WMD's and associated programs are evidence that the isolation was working quite well as a matter of fact.



At this point, given what we have learned and his decision not to shut down the borders and not to crush the Taliban and Al-Queda, yes he would bear responsibility. If I thought that every effort was made in Afghanistan it'd be a different story. However, he put all his energy towards a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-Queda. That's a failure to go after those who took it to us.



I respect your opinion that they would have done nothing. We can agree to dissagree. However, if you think that Bush's actions against Iraq will make some think twice you are fooling yourself. Israel uses force against terrorism as effectively as any country out there. Has it made their enemies think twice?!? Has it subdued the attacks against Israel? Not at all. You don't scare away an enemy that does not fear death using death as a weapon.

Well, yeah, I pay property taxes. As a matter of fact, I pay A LOT in property taxes, but no more than I did pre-Bush. But I get your point and feel your pain, to quote another president. But don't you think the onus is on your state and local governments to get their fiscal house in order, instead of a big government bail-out? I'm guessing that we would agree that the money is out there being spent on any number of pork barrel projects.

Here's the thing on terrorists. Pschycopaths don't play by the same rules as we do. When you can't defend yourself, as clearly we can't in all instances in all places, the only deterrent is severe retaliation. If you think on the local level, it's like your police force. By and large, police can't be there to stop a crime, they only come in to play afterwards. Criminals aren't afraid of being caught in the act and shot, they are afraid of getting caught later and going to prison.

Don't you think that the next Osama wannabe, will think twice about the serious consequences potential of his acts. I'm not talking about the zealots who blow themselves up, they clearly don't fear consequences. But don't you think that the rich, powerful, men like Osama who had a zillion wives and much to lose, wouldn't think twice? We've seen it happen with Libya.

Again, Bush is flawed. You mentioned McCain. He might be the better choice. But Kerry? Kerry with a purple heart from a rice wound? Do you think there is any doubt that kerry will raise your taxes significantly?

C'mon.

[yaronsh]

OK, some of you folks have managed to suck me into this. (JFTR, I did try to nudge this thread towards photography - see my post of a few days ago.)

Q: Which US President first used the term, "War on terrorism"?
A: Clinton, in 1996. Richard Clarke was put in charge of coordinating this effort. The battle truly heated up after the African embassy bombings and the consequent US bombings of Al Qaeda sites in Afghanistan. Both Clinton and Bin Laden predicted escalation beyond that point.

Incidentally, you may remember Clinton's bombings of alleged Iraqi WMD program sites in the late 90's, after Saddam Hussein defied inspectors. And our involvement in the Balkans was partly motivated by an Al Qaeda plan to try to set up an Islamist state in Bosnia.

By 2000, the Clinton administration had a set of plans for dealing with world terrorism. However, Clinton did not want to hand the next president a war, so he decided to hand the next president the plans. Well, Bush got the plans, and even kept Richard Clarke - and proceeded to systematically ignore the plans, Clarke's continuous warnings, and increasingly urgent intelligence reports. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

That is, until Sept. 12, 2001. Suddenly, Team Bush took to implementing the Clinton plans, haphazardly and with a vengeance. They jumped headfirst into Afghanistan, without knowing what they're getting into. The result: Al Qaeda is still alive and active, albeit dispersed; Bin Laden is still at large; and Afghanistan is in a state of chaos and warlordism, elections or no elections. On the home front, Clarke's idea of a White House office of homeland security was bastardized into a beaurocratic Depart of Homeland Security. New futile security measures were instituted at our ports to augment the old futile security measures. The Patriot Act was pushed hastily through Congress, then used to trample wildly on everyone's civil rights, from library users to legal immigrants. States and municipalities were mandated to pony up security resources, but did not receive corresponding funding, adding to the pressures of the No Money Left Behind Act and the various funding cuts resulting from the tax cuts.

And then there's Iraq.
When Bush put those ultimatums to Saddam Hussein, they were a self-fulfilling prophecy: We all knew Saddam Hussein would challenge them, and we all knew we'd have to go in when that happens. In fact, we all knew it was a done deal ever since Team Bush first began mumbling about Iraq. So don't talk to me about WMDs or UN inspections. Those were excuses. Now Team Bush has changed its excuse to the harboring of terrorists and a 9-11 connection, both of which are known to be bull (but yet some people choose to believe it).

Personally, I did not think Saddam Hussein had WMD's, but believed he was planning to produce them (even that's questionable now). And I am not naive, I knew we'd have to go in eventually - the sanctions, inspections, and no-fly zones were merely stop-gap measures (that's another topic). But there was no imminent threat by a long shot, and it was just about the worst time to get into an expensive war. We needed the money and resources here at home. Despite official numbers showing only a brief, shallow recession, Average Joe's personal economic portfolio was in a state of deep crisis. And we needed to keep our military focused on the prize.

On top of this, once again, Team Bush went in without knowing what they're getting into. The results are similar to Afghanistan, but worse: Chaos, warlordism, and mounting US casualties. And - talk about pork - the amount of pork in the Iraq budget is greater than the GNP of many countries.

And then there's the world opinion factor. Not that a country should make security policy based on world opinion, but when world opinion of us has turned 180 degrees over the course of two years, something is deeply wrong with our foreign policy. Getting from the level of support we had after 9-11 to the level of despise we face now takes skill.

- Yaron

[Clicker]

However, he put all his energy towards a regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no ties to Al-Queda.

From Information I've been reading, I was under the impression that Saddam **DID** have ties to Osama, and was just really good at hiding it, Made me wonder why he would hide it.. If not because he was going to help him, but wanted it to be unknown. I read about His son printing a list of 600 names... see below

"The paper's November 14, 2002, edition gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this passage:
"Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan."

That name, Hayes wrote, matches that of Iraq's then-ambassador to Islamabad. " It was "theorized that the "impulsive and somewhat unbalanced" Uday may have showcased these dedicated Baathists to "make them more loyal and supportive of the regime" as war loomed." It angered Saddam and he stopped the paper for Ten Days.

This info is pulled from

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts

and it goes on to say many things, such as
"If one has the time or professional duty to connect these dots, a portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as sugar daddy to global terrorists, including al Qaeda and perhaps the 9/11 conspirators."

and is not the only place I have read it.

[adina]

It's hard to say whether or not anything would have been done were someone else in office. I think it's one of those things that you absolutely cannot know until you are actually in the situation.

It's like the woman who beat the carjacker with her Club, and then was sued for assault. Now, to me, beating someone with your anti-theft device seems a little extreme. But if it were my child strapped into their carseat in back, you can sure as hell bet I wouldn't just give them my keys.

The president is charged with protecting the nation. When something like 9/11 becomes a reality, I think your logic changes. Things that you normally wouldn't consider become possiblities. Although I think we were right to go to Afganastan, I don't agree with the whole Iraq thing. I think that things should have been resolved in Afganastan before we commited troops elsewhere. Based of the articles I've read, I think our military is stretched too thin.

And Paul, I hear October 27th is the magic day for Osama to be "captured".

[megan]

That's why I usually stay out of these kinds of threads --- but...

I think it's interesting that a lot of people are voting Kerry but I have yet to meet someone who actually supports him.

Pleased to meet ya!
[See my post above.]

I'm actually voting FOR Kerry, not against Bush.

I listed the reasons above.

I've seen people with Kerry Edwards buttons, and signs in people's windows [not so many yards here in NYC.]

BUT I live in a hugely liberal dem city. Yes, In spite of the fact that our mayer is Republican. [Dem party in this city is pretty creepy. I'll vote for Bloomberg to be re-elected.]

Megan

[schrackman]

I will have to agree with Paul somewhat in that this election is not really about choosing the best guy for the job, just the better of the two. That's why I feel compelled to vote George Bush. I have lots of problems with Mr. Bush and the Republican party, but more so when comes to John Kerry and the Democratic party.

While I am not what you would call a war advocate, I think the U.S. did the right thing to go into Iraq. And, I don't believe all the mantra that Bush lied to do it either. Get real, people. If people want to blame someone, blame Saddam. The ball was in his court, and he could have prevented this war if he wanted to. But he didn't. And so we invaded. Simple as that. Besides, I think our troops on the ground know which man they'd prefer to have as a commander-in-chief, and Bush will be their obvious pick.

As far as the economy is concerned, it ain't too shabby considering what it has gone through. The Bush administration inherited a recession from the previous administration, and then had 911 to contend with. Those were two major obstacles to getting the ecomony going again, but it is going despite all the pessimists.

On the other hand, I'm not happy in the least with this administration in certain areas of the domestic side. And here is where the Libertarian in me comes out. I don't want my federal government in the prescription drug benefits business. No, let's go further than that, because some of the issues I'm concerned about transcend this administration...I don't want my federal government involved in things in which it has no business constitutionally...social security, welfare, health care, education, et al. If the government wasn't so bogged down with these issues, and rather left them to the states, then perhaps it would have been able to focus on its constitutional powers such as the safety and welfare of American citizens and thus possibly avoiding what happened on 911.

In addition to this, while the administration talks about the tax cut it got through I seriously doubt our government (under any administration) is as generous as it would like to seem. Most people forget that there was a time when Americans paid no federal income tax. Then, there was a temporary income tax. Then, it became permanent and required the establishment of the IRS. Now, Americans shoulder a huge tax burden every year to fund programs that don't work, redistribute money to people who won't work, and pay ridiculous salaries to politicians who don't show up for work (can anybody say "Edwards"?). Our federal government needs to be put on a strict diet, but I can't foresee that happening anytime in the future�at least not with the kind of politicians found in both the Republican and Democratic parties.

As for Kerry, well, let's just say I find a brick wall more interesting to listen to and to look at.

Ray

[ACArmstrong]

Get real, people. If people want to blame someone, blame Saddam. The ball was in his court, and he could have prevented this war if he wanted to. But he didn't. And so we invaded. Simple as that. Besides, I think our troops on the ground know which man they'd prefer to have as a commander-in-chief, and Bush will be their obvious pick.

I have a lot of friends and family in the US military. In past elections, I think your statement might be true, but in this one - I think it's not. Every person I know connected to the military in some way or another says that the buzz is and has been for a while that Bush and his cronies are going to get them "killed for nothing." Most of them think he's a little bit nuts, and most of them are life-long Republicans who will be either vote against Bush or just not vote at all.

And, I'll go back to it again (just for the record). Saddam had no WMD or WMD programs - or haven't you seen the report? He got rid of them as long ago as 1991. So, sanctions did work and were working. Now, I'm not defending Saddam, but he really had no choice but to lie. His arch enemy that the US helped him defeat in the eighties (Iran) has been chomping at the bit to get a piece of Iraq since Gulf War I. He had to pretend that he had WMD in order to stay in power. If he tells the truth - he loses. Why would he do that?

I've been saying this to folks for almost a year now - because it just seemed logical to me. Why would SH come clean? Why would SH admit to having weapons and lose control of his dictatorship to his own people or a foreign power? He wouldn't and didn't. Secondly, if you follow this line of logic and SH DID have WMD, why on earth would he give even ONE of them up to the likes of Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden? If you have WMD, you're in control of whoever could be on the receiving end of that WMD. Once you give over control of any WMD, YOU could be on the receiving end of that WMD, and therefore, you have lost the power of that WMD. While SH was a sociopath - I don't think he was stupid.

Of course, that's what W's administration expected from the country - just to stupidly follow along and never question his war. Thank God half the country didn't.

[paulnj]

SLIGHTLY off topic

HOW COME we still can't find OSAMA ..... IN THE TUNNELS/CAVES and TRENCHES we helped THEM BUILD??? OH NO I DIDN'T SAY THAT...DID I?

GW is one of the "evil doers" his father was speaking of

His great reply I briefly caught "WANNA BUY SOME WEYD?" , NO GWB.....I want to shoot FEDERALLY PROTECTED ENDANGERED SPECIES at your ranch with you ;)

[schrackman]

I have a lot of friends and family in the US military. In past elections, I think your statement might be true, but in this one - I think it's not. Every person I know connected to the military in some way or another says that the buzz is and has been for a while that Bush and his cronies are going to get them "killed for nothing." Most of them think he's a little bit nuts, and most of them are life-long Republicans who will be either vote against Bush or just not vote at all.

Oh, I have no doubts there are people in the military who are opposed to Bush, but for the most part the troops do not believe they are in a vietnam kind of scenario and will support Bush and keep on pushing as long as they need to in order to finish the job.

And, I'll go back to it again (just for the record). Saddam had no WMD or WMD programs - or haven't you seen the report? He got rid of them as long ago as 1991. So, sanctions did work and were working. Now, I'm not defending Saddam, but he really had no choice but to lie. His arch enemy that the US helped him defeat in the eighties (Iran) has been chomping at the bit to get a piece of Iraq since Gulf War I. He had to pretend that he had WMD in order to stay in power. If he tells the truth - he loses. Why would he do that?

Sorry, but I can't buy this. The guy defied UN resolution after resolution. How many more must he defy before something had to be done? Would you prefer he had another 12 years to do this? We certainly wouldn't have tolerated something of this nature this after Japan surrendered, and so why should we now? Saddam was hindering weapons inspections, firing at our planes, and obviously had plans to develop WMDs. Whether or not he had WMDs is really secondary to his defiance of the resolutions, which is the real justification for taking him out. Ånd, I might add, the search ain't over yet.

I've been saying this to folks for almost a year now - because it just seemed logical to me. Why would SH come clean? Why would SH admit to having weapons and lose control of his dictatorship to his own people or a foreign power? He wouldn't and didn't. Secondly, if you follow this line of logic and SH DID have WMD, why on earth would he give even ONE of them up to the likes of Al Queda or Osama Bin Laden? If you have WMD, you're in control of whoever could be on the receiving end of that WMD. Once you give over control of any WMD, YOU could be on the receiving end of that WMD, and therefore, you have lost the power of that WMD. While SH was a sociopath - I don't think he was stupid.

The burden of proof was upon Saddam, not us. And there was a reason why we had the final resolution drafted against him. He had the chance to come clean, and if he would have come clean, then he could have saved his country from war. But this is a man who first of all was inflated with his own ego, and therefore wasn't about to confess anything to us. Second, he didn't give a rat's behind for his own people, so why would he care to even spare them war? Third, I think you underestimate the mindset of people like Saddam. Why wouldn't he give a WMD to terrorists? He knew he was on his way out, so given the fact that he had nothing else to lose what would it matter to him to give WMDs to terrorists who could strike a blow upon their two mutual enemies: the U.S. and Israel?

Of course, that's what W's administration expected from the country - just to stupidly follow along and never question his war. Thank God half the country didn't.

I think that's a bit condescending to people like me. I study the issues, I don't just "stupidly" follow along. The same is true with the other half of the country, my friend. Simply because they don't agree with you doesn't imply the administration has pulled a fast one over us. Please try to give us a little credit.

Ray

[Todd Patten]

Sorry, but I can't buy this. The guy defied UN resolution after resolution. How many more must he defy before something had to be done?...Saddam was hindering weapons inspections, firing at our planes, and obviously had plans to develop WMDs. Whether or not he had WMDs is really secondary to his defiance of the resolutions, which is the real justification for taking him out. And, I might add, the search ain't over yet.

First, the citizens of this country NEVER would have supported this war based on defiance of resolutions alone. They were luke warm (just over 50%) believing that there was a freakin' mushroom cloud looming. If the justification for war was purely the U.N. resolutions, it would never have occured.

As for firing at our planes, do some research, the no-fly zone WAS NOT U.N. sanctioned. It was a NATO impossition alone. I'm sorry, but given your U.N. argument, he had every right fire at our planes. It was not in the original agreement.

WMD's is far from secondary. WMD's was the case for war. Spin it any other direction you want, but speech after speech leading up to the invasion of a country that never threatened us was about WMD's. Everything else was secondary.

The search is over. 250,000 troops combing the countryside of Iraq? It's over. There are no WMD's. Keep holding on to the propaganda. At what point do you accept the fact that there are no weapons? Ever? Or do you prefer speculation over the expert opinion of multiple sources?

This is the United States. We don't attack other nations. We don't invade unless it is a matter of self defense.

The burden of proof was upon Saddam, not us. And there was a reason why we had the final resolution drafted against him. He had the chance to come clean, and if he would have come clean, then he could have saved his country from war. But this is a man who first of all was inflated with his own ego, and therefore wasn't about to confess anything to us. Second, he didn't give a rat's behind for his own people, so why would he care to even spare them war? Third, I think you underestimate the mindset of people like Saddam. Why wouldn't he give a WMD to terrorists? He knew he was on his way out, so given the fact that he had nothing else to lose what would it matter to him to give WMDs to terrorists who could strike a blow upon their two mutual enemies: the U.S. and Israel?

Honestly, I could give a crap about Israel. Seriously. I care about the United States of America. Most importantly, how does one prove a negative?

"You have weapons"

"No I don't"

"Yes you do, I can't see them, so you must have them"

Please, define how he was fooling the inspectors. They had access. They looked around and found nothing. Shoot, this means the U.N. inspectors failed?!? We've had exponetial the number of people available to search Iraq, to no avail, and the U.N. inspectors are failures?!?

[adina]

First, the citizens of this country NEVER would have supported this war based on defiance of resolutions alone. They were luke warm (just over 50%) believing that there was a freakin' mushroom cloud looming. If the justification for war was purely the U.N. resolutions, it would never have occured.

As for firing at our planes, do some research, the no-fly zone WAS NOT U.N. sanctioned. It was a NATO impossition alone. I'm sorry, but given your U.N. argument, he had every right fire at our planes. It was not in the original agreement.

WMD's is far from secondary. WMD's was the case for war. Spin it any other direction you want, but speech after speech leading up to the invasion of a country that never threatened us was about WMD's. Everything else was secondary.

The search is over. 250,000 troops combing the countryside of Iraq? It's over. There are no WMD's. Keep holding on to the propaganda. At what point do you accept the fact that there are no weapons? Ever? Or do you prefer speculation over the expert opinion of multiple sources?

This is the United States. We don't attack other nations. We don't invade unless it is a matter of self defense.



Honestly, I could give a crap about Israel. Seriously. I care about the United States of America. Most importantly, how does one prove a negative?

"You have weapons"

"No I don't"

"Yes you do, I can't see them, so you must have them"

Please, define how he was fooling the inspectors. They had access. They looked around and found nothing. Shoot, this means the U.N. inspectors failed?!? We've had exponetial the number of people available to search Iraq, to no avail, and the U.N. inspectors are failures?!?

"Honestly, I could give a crap about Israel. Seriously. I care about the United States of America. Most importantly, how does one prove a negative? "


That's like saying "I don't care if my neighbor's house burns down, as long as mine doesn't"

[schrackman]

Hi Todd,

I'm getting a bit more long-winded than I wanted to, but thought that you should deserve a response from me. I'll post this and let you have the last word since I don't want to take up too much space on this thread:

First, the citizens of this country NEVER would have supported this war based on defiance of resolutions alone. They were luke warm (just over 50%) believing that there was a freakin' mushroom cloud looming. If the justification for war was purely the U.N. resolutions, it would never have occured.

*
I didn't say the administration based the war solely on the defiance of resolutions. I said that the primary justification for war is the defiance of the resolutions. The intelligence for Iraq's WMD's, which*preceded the Bush administration by the way,*was the secondary reason, and because this adminstration had no way of knowing just where Saddam was at on these (thanks to Hussein himself), it chose to invade. Better safe than sorry, bud. Or, perhaps you'd prefer there be a mushroom cloud first, and then have us act?
*

As for firing at our planes, do some research, the no-fly zone WAS NOT U.N. sanctioned. It was a NATO impossition alone. I'm sorry, but given your U.N. argument, he had every right fire at our planes. It was not in the original agreement.

Actually, the very reason why no-fly zones were established is because Iraq did not comply with resolution 688, which didn�t ask but demanded of Iraq to cease the oppression of its own people. Saddam didn�t comply, and so the no-fly zones were established and permitted, to some extent, the coalition to �contain� Saddam from wreaking more havoc upon his own people. In regard to this I present a quote from Geoff Hoon, Minister of State for Defence, Foreign Commonwealth Office, House of Commons, England, February 26th, 2001, that offers justification for the no-fly zone:

A further aim of our policy has been to limit Saddam's ability to kill and terrorise his own people. That is why we have conducted patrols of the no-fly zones since the early 1990s in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which demanded an end to his brutal repression. The zones have served a vital humanitarian purpose over the past decade in constraining Saddam's ability to carry out such repression, particularly in relation to the Shias and the Kurds.

The patrols are justified in international law as a legitimate response to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis. Without them, Saddam would be free, as he was prior to their establishment, to use aircraft and helicopter gunships against innocent civilians. The humanitarian consequences would be as unconscionable as they were in 1991. Many tens of thousands would be displaced from their homes, thousands would lose their lives, perhaps - as happened in 1988 at Halabja - following the use of chemical weapons.

Since January 1999, Saddam's air defence units have made sustained and concerted efforts to shoot down United Kingdom and United States aircraft. During that period, there have been more than 1,200 attempts to target them, using surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. Coalition aircraft are legally authorised to respond to those attacks in self-defence. They do so entirely in accordance with international law, attacking only those military facilities that contribute, as part of the Iraqi integrated air defence system, to the threat to coalition aircraft.

Now, what good is a resolution, Todd, if you can�t enforce it? And just out of curiosity, what would you have done? Would you have just sat back and let Saddam continue what he was doing? More sanctions? The ones in place obviously weren�t doing the job, and the food for oil scandal did nothing but to encourage Saddam. Just what would you have done?

WMD's is far from secondary. WMD's was the case for war. Spin it any other direction you want, but speech after speech leading up to the invasion of a country that never threatened us was about WMD's. Everything else was secondary.

Not if you follow the UN resolutions. Many of the resolution were practically either a reiteration or a affirmation of a previous resolution to get Saddam to comply, especially in regards to weapons inspections. It was Saddam�s consistent habit of ignoring the resolutions that got him into trouble, because the weapons inspectors could not get their job done properly. So as I stated before, because we couldn�t adequately determine what Saddam did or did not have, due to his flagrant defiance of UN resolutions and despite being given one last chance, we had to go in. Again I ask, how many more resolutions needed to have been defied by Saddam before something had to be done?
*

The search is over. 250,000 troops combing the countryside of Iraq? It's over. There are no WMD's. Keep holding on to the propaganda. At what point do you accept the fact that there are no weapons? Ever? Or do you prefer speculation over the expert opinion of multiple sources?

First of all, we alll know Saddam both developed and used chemical/biological weapons. How much he developed is uncertain, since he wouldn�t cooperate with the inspections. So that left a big question mark, which eventually resulted in the final resolution being drafted. Second, it is altogether possible that some WMDs were smuggled out of the country, or buried in some secret location. Have some patience and give them more time, and I�m sure more answers will come about. By the way, Saddam did have a 500 ton stockpile of uranium that could have potentially been turned into weapons grade bomb-making material, and we know now that this was something he was attempting or at least planning to further develop. Here's your future mushroom cloud.
*

This is the United States. We don't attack other nations. We don't invade unless it is a matter of self defense.

It is a matter of self-defense, and international security. Or would you prefer to wait for another 911 to occur?
*

Honestly, I could give a crap about Israel. Seriously. I care about the United States of America. Most importantly, how does one prove a negative?

Well I, for one, do care about Israel. And I care for any other country, including our own, that is having to deal with maniacs who think that terrorism is some form of promotion to seventy virgins in heaven. Hussein clearly had contacts with terrorists, though the administration never directly linked him to what happened on 911.

"You have weapons" "No I don't" "Yes you do, I can't see them, so you must have them"
*
Please, define how he was fooling the inspectors. They had access. They looked around and found nothing. Shoot, this means the U.N. inspectors failed?!? We've had exponetial the number of people available to search Iraq, to no avail, and the U.N. inspectors are failures?!?

The inspectors did not have unfettered access then, remember? That was the main problem previous to the final resolution being drafted. But now we do have that unfettered access, and yes, as to date they have not found what they are looking for. There could be reasons for this as I mentioned above. But let�s just say absolutely that there are no WMDs in Iraq. Would our discovery of that fact really translate into blame on America? Is this war really our fault? Or shouldn�t we really put blame where blame belongs? On Saddam Hussein? He�s the fella in violation of all those UN resolutions, remember? He could have prevented this, but he didn�t. His bad, not ours.

Ray